POGLAVJA IZ KOGNITIVNE
PSIHOLOGIJE IN
PSIHOLOGIJE OSEBNOSTI
POMEN OSEBNOSTNIH DIMENZIJ
Razvoj osebnostnih dimenzij
Pregled vsebine
 Veljavnost osebnostnih dimenzij
 Prediktivna vrednost osebnostnih dimenzij
 Splošna ocena
 Na posameznih pomembnih področjih




Pomembni vidiki obnašanja
Doživljanje sveta in sebe, počutje, psihično
blagostanje in zdravje
Zadovoljstvo z delom
Motiviranost
Raziskovalni rezultati
 Paunonen, S. V. (2003). Big Five Factors of Personality and





Replicated Predictions of Behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 2, 411-424.
Paunonen, S. V. & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five Factors and
Facets and the Prediction of Behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 3, 524-539.
DeNeve, K. M.,& Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A
meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D. & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor Model
of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, 530-541.
Judge, T. A. & Ilie, R. (2002). Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87, No. 4, 797-807.
Paunonen, 2003
 Problem
 Kako dobri prediktorji so veliki
faktorji osebnosti
 Kako se obnesejo kot
napovedovalci pomembnih,
kompleksnih in socialno
relevantnih načinov obnašanja
 Metode
 Instrumenti

3 mere B5



NEO-FFI; Costa &
McCrae, 1992
NEO-PI-R; Costa &
McCrae, 1992
FF-NPQ; Paunonen,
Ashton, & Jackson, 2001
 Neverbalni test
(Paunonen & Ashton,
2002; Paunonen et al.,
2001

OSEBNOSTNE
DIMENZIJE
VEDENJSKI
KRITERIJI
vedenjsko poročilo
(Behavior Report Form);
Paunonen & Ashton, 2001a
FF-NPQ


“The FF-NPQ is a 60-item five-factor measure
based on the Nonverbal Personality Questionnaire
(NPQ), which is a longer 136-item measure of 16
Murray needs (see Paunonen & Ashton, 1998;
Paunonen, Jackson, & Keinonen, 1990; Paunonen,
Jackson, Trzebinski, & Forsterling, 1992; Paunonen
et al., 1996; Paunonen, Zeidner, Engvik,
Oosterveld, & Maliphant, 2000). Most items in the
FF-NPQ were selected from the NPQ (a few new
items were created) using item analysis and
factoring procedures to identify the best Big Five
exemplars in the nonverbal item pool (see
Paunonen & Ashton, 2002).
Each NPQ and FF-NPQ item represents a line
drawing of a central character performing a trait- or
factor-relevant behavior in a specific situation.
Respondents are asked to consider each item in a
questionnaire and to decide, using a 7-point rating
scale, the likelihood that they would engage in the
type of behavior depicted in the illustration. An
example FF-NPQ item (representing thrill-seeking
behavior) is shown on the Instructions and Rating
Form page reproduced inFigure 1. Other examples
of the nonverbal items can be found in the articles
by Paunonen and Ashton (2002), Paunonen et al.
(1990, 1996, 2001), and Paunonen and Jackson
(1979).”
FF-NPQ (nadaljevanje)



“As already stated, the items of the FF-NPQ were selected empirically from the longer NPQ to measure the
Big Five factors of personality. The particular conceptualization of personality structure chosen for this task
was the same five-factor model underlying the construction of the NEO-FFI and the NEO-PI-R. In fact, the
domain scales on the NEO-FFI were used as one basis for selecting FF-NPQ items from the nonverbal
item pool—NPQ items that correlated well with the particular NEO-FFI scales were assigned to measure
those factors in the FF-NPQ (see Paunonen et al., 2001). An implication of this test construction procedure
is that one of the FF-NPQ scales measures Openness to Experience, instead of a dimension that others
have labeled as Culture or Intellect (see Digman, 1990).
In preliminary studies with the FF-NPQ (Paunonen et al., 2001), the five nonverbal factor scales showed
good levels of internal consistency reliability and convergent validity. For example, in a sample of
304 Canadian students, the mean internal consistency of the scales was. 80, and the mean
convergence with corresponding NEO-FFI scales was.52. Self-ratings and peer ratings of university
residence roommates collected on the FF-NPQ scales also correlated positively, with a mean value of.41.
Moreover, both the FF-NPQ and the NEO-FFI were found to show a strikingly similar pattern of relations in
predicting different criterion variables. For example, in a set of 14 behavior criteria, both Big Five
questionnaires best predicted the same criterion (self-reported alcohol consumption of students), and both
had the same mean multiple correlation of scales with criteria (both R =.25, each averaged across the 14
criterion variables).
The FF-NPQ, being a nonverbal personality inventory, is of obvious interest to cross-cultural
researchers. Because no translation of the items is required (the instructions shown inFigure 1 do, of
course, require translation), the questionnaire can be easily administered to people in many different
language groups as well as to people who have difficulty reading or understanding any language. Further
evaluations of the FF-NPQ items (Paunonen et al., 2001) have shown those Big Five scales to have good
levels of internal consistency reliability and reasonable degrees of convergence with verbal indicators of the
Big Five in several cross-cultural samples (see also Paunonen & Ashton, 2002).”
Vedenjsko poročilo
 21 vprašanj
 Nanašajo se na:
 Samoopis osebnostnih
značilnosti,
pomembnih v socialnih
situacijah (privlačen,
inteligenten,
popularen, maskulin,
veren, pošten)
 Uspešnost, razvade,
interesi, zdravje,
zaslužek...
Pregledne statistike
 Solidna notranja
konsistentnost (največja
pri NEO-PI-R, največ
postavk)
Korelacije med merami B5


Znotraj (glej desno: “monomethod-multitrait”)
Med




“The differences in scale correlations
described above suggest that the nonverbal
items and the verbal items may be measuring
somewhat different aspects of the same Big
Five factors.
However, despite these differences in
heterotrait correlations, the FF-NPQ
correlated.55 on average with the
corresponding NEO-FFI factor scales in the
first sample's data (Neuroticism =.57,
Extraversion =.51, Openness =.64,
Agreeableness =.48, Conscientiousness =.56;
in contrast, the mean absolute value of the
heteromethod-heterotrait correlations was
appropriately low at only.11).
Coincidentally, the FF-NPQ also correlated.55
with the NEO-PI-R scales in the second
sample's data (Neuroticism =.51, Extraversion
=.57, Openness =.63, Agreeableness =.58,
Conscientiousness =.46, with a mean absolute
heteromethod-heterotrait correlation of
only.17).
These convergent validity values between the
verbal and nonverbal scales are not much
lower than the.59 mean correlation reported
between NEO-FFI factor scales and adjectivebased Big Five marker variables (Costa &
McCrae, 1992, p. 54).”
Parcialne korelacije B5 s kriteriji
Nereplicirane B5 s kriteriji
Zaključki
 Uporabljene mere B5 so dovolj veljavne in zanesljive
 To velja za nekatere mere vedenjskega poročila, ne pa za vse
(npr. subjektivne samoopise)
 B5 pomembno napovedujejo vedenjske kriterije
 Korelacije pa niso visoke (najvišje so okrog znanega
osebnostnega koeficienta, 0,30)
 Zakaj?





Prisotna napaka merjenja zmanjšuje korelacije
Kriteriji so morda premalo dobro operacionalizirani
Pomembni so tudi drugi vzročni dejavniki (dednost, vplivi
okolja, situacij, prejšnjega obnašanja...)
Posamezne komponente (faceti) B5 so v nekaterih primerih
morda boljši prediktorji kot cela dimenzija (vestnost – alkohol:
samodisciplina kot komponenta vestnosti vpliva, druge pa
morda sploh ne; njihova vključitev zmanjšuje prediktorsko
vrednost)
Med drugimi prediktorji so lahko tudi osebnostne poteze, ki niso
zajete v B5
Paunonen, Ashton, 2001
 Problem
 Kako dobri prediktorji so
veliki faktorji osebnosti in
njihovi faceti
 Prediktorska moč B5 in
prediktorska moč skupaj s
faceti
 Kako se obnesejo kot
napovedovalci pomembnih,
kompleksnih in socialno
relevantnih načinov
obnašanja
OSEBNOSTNE
DIMENZIJE
VEDENJSKI
KRITERIJI
 Metode
 Instrumenti







Jackson's (1984) Personality
Research Form-E (PRF) (20
potez)
Jackson Personality Inventory
(JPI; Jackson, 1976) (15
potez)
NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae,
1992 (B5 + 30 facetov)
vedenjsko poročilo (Behavior
Report Form); Paunonen &
Ashton, 2001a
Kognitivne sposobnosti:
Multidimensional Aptitude
Battery (MAB; Jackson,
1990).
Ocene opazovalcev
Ocene študijske uspešnosti
idr.
Poteze PRF-JPI in faceti B5
Rezultati
 Prediktivna vrednost petih
faktorjev PRF-JRI, ki visoko
korelirajo z B5

“The factor scores for our
participants correlated quite highly,
in general, with their corresponding
NEO-PI-R domain scores:
Conscientiousness = .79,
Extraversion = .71, Agreeableness =
.68, Openness to Experience = .60,
and Neuroticism = .40. The lower
correlation for Neuroticism probably
reflects the greater role of social
dependency in the PRF–JPI variant
of that factor (i.e., reflecting
conformity, succorance, social
recognition, and low autonomy). In
any case, the fact that the
corresponding factor measures are
by no means perfectly correlated
means that there is ample
opportunity in this study for the
PRF–JPI and NEO-PI-R measures
to act independently in the prediction
of our criterion variables.”
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Prediktivna
vrednost petih
komponent (potez)
PRF-JRI, ki so jih
eksperti ocenili kot
najbolj prediktivne v
odnosu do
posameznega
kriterija
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Prediktivna
vrednost B5
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Prediktivna
vrednost facetov
B5, ki so jih eksperti
ocenili kot najbolj
prediktivne v
odnosu do
posameznega
kriterija
Prediktivni porast
 Inkrementalna
veljavnost:


NEO-PI-R
domene
+ poteze PRFJPI
 Pri najbolj
prediciranih kriterijih
je porast
pomemben
Prediktivni porast
 Inkrementalna
veljavnost:


PRF-JPI faktorji
+ B5 faceti
 Pri najbolj
prediciranih kriterijih
je porast
pomemben
Zaključki
 Pet faktorjev v pomembni meri predicira številne
socialno in življenjsko relevantne vidike obnašanja
 Komponente velikih dimenzij lahko pomembno
izboljšajo predikcijo
 Ostaja še velik del nepojasnjene variance kriterijev, ki
je delno posledica delovanja drugih osebnostnih
faktorjev (zunaj območja B5 in njihovih facetov), v
večji meri pa je rezultat napake merjenja, genetskih
ter miljejskih (situacijskih) vplivov in osebnih
dejavnikov zunaj temperamenta (sposobnosti,
motivi...)
 Če je tako, potem temeljne dimenzije osebnosti
sodijo med pomembnejše prediktorje obnašanja
DeNeve & Cooper, 1998
 Problem
 Kakšna je prediktivna
vrednost petih velikih
faktorjev osebnosti v odnosu
do psihičnega blagostanja
(zadovoljstva z življenjem)
 Metode
 Metaanaliza: 142 raziskav, 148
neodvisnih vzorcev, 1538
korelacij
 Instrumenti


OSEBNOSTNE
DIMENZIJE
Mere B5
Mere psihičnega blagostanja
- SB (zadovoljstvo z
življenjem, sreča, pozitivni,
negativni afekt)
PSIHIČNI
(SUBJEKTIVNI)
BLAGOR
Rezultati
 Korelacija med B5 in SB
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Korelacija
med B5 in
posameznimi
vidiki SB
Zaključki
 Osebnostne dimenzije so pomemben prediktor psihičnega
blagostanja
 Nedvomno pomembno predicirajo N, C, E in A; O najmanj
 Pomembni so tudi drugi prediktorji (zdravje, SES, izpolnjevanje
ciljev in vrednot, vernost...)
 Kako si lahko predstavljamo vpliv osebnosti?
 Neposredno: dimenzije vplivajo kot dispozicije, ki
naravnavajo posameznika na pozitivno ali negativno
emocionalno odzivanje (E, N); prim. Grayev BAS in BIS
sistem
 Posredno: dimenzije nas motivirajo za situacije, ki vplivajo
na dobro počutje (C, A)
 Največji je vpliv lastnosti, ki omogočajo zdrave atribucije in
uspešnost pri izpolnjevanju ciljev
Literatura
 Glej v:

DeNeve, K. M.,& Cooper, H. (1998). The
happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.
Kaj kažejo naše raziskave?
 Avsec, Musek (še neobj.)
 367 subjektov
 B5 (BFQ)
 Psihično blagostanje (Dienerjeva lestvica
SWS; PANAS)
 Linearna regresijska analiza:


Prediktorji: B5 – E, A, C, N, O
Kriteriji: SWS, PA, NA
Rezultati
 B5 in subjektivni blagor
 R = 0,427, prediktorji E, C, N, A
Model Summary
Change Statis tics
Model
1
R
R Square
,427 a
,182
Adjus ted
R Square
,171
Std. Error of
the Es timate
4,88688
R Square
Change
,182
F Change
16,059
df1
5
df2
361
Sig. F Change
,000
a. Predictors : (Cons tant), Odprtost, Ves tnos t, Cust. s tabilnos t, Sprejemljivos t, Energija
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Uns tandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Cons tant)
2,079
2,762
Energija
,417
,114
Cus t. stabilnos t
,379
,117
Ves tnos t
,349
,109
Sprejemljivost
,325
,155
Odprtos t
6,452E-02
,120
a. Dependent Variable: Blagos tanje
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,200
,165
,167
,109
,028
t
,753
3,645
3,246
3,202
2,105
,540
Sig.
,452
,000
,001
,001
,036
,590
Correlations
Zero-order
Partial
,307
,281
,270
,230
,147
,188
,168
,166
,110
,028
Part
,174
,155
,152
,100
,026
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Metoda po
korakih:
kriterij
SWS
Model Summary
Change Statis tics
Model
1
2
3
4
R
R Square
,307 a
,094
,381 b
,145
,414 c
,171
,426 d
,181
Adjus ted
R Square
,092
,141
,164
,172
Std. Error of
the Es timate
5,11356
4,97396
4,90534
4,88209
R Square
Change
,094
,051
,026
,010
F Change
38,038
21,776
11,255
4,465
a. Predictors : (Cons tant), Energija
b. Predictors : (Cons tant), Energija, Ves tnos t
c. Predictors : (Cons tant), Energija, Ves tnos t, Cust. s tabilnost
d. Predictors : (Cons tant), Energija, Ves tnos t, Cust. s tabilnost, Sprejemljivost
Coefficientsa
Model
1
2
3
4
(Cons tant)
Energija
(Cons tant)
Energija
Ves tnos t
(Cons tant)
Energija
Ves tnos t
Cus t. stabilnos t
(Cons tant)
Energija
Ves tnos t
Cus t. stabilnos t
Sprejemljivost
Uns tandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
14,732
1,438
,641
,104
8,503
1,934
,569
,102
,478
,103
5,731
2,078
,460
,106
,430
,102
,393
,117
2,685
2,521
,440
,106
,348
,109
,380
,117
,326
,154
a. Dependent Variable: Blagos tanje
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,307
,273
,229
,220
,205
,171
,211
,166
,166
,109
t
10,242
6,167
4,397
5,567
4,666
2,757
4,337
4,208
3,355
1,065
4,154
3,197
3,256
2,113
Sig.
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,006
,000
,000
,001
,288
,000
,002
,001
,035
Zero-order
Correlations
Partial
Part
,307
,307
,307
,307
,270
,280
,238
,270
,226
,307
,270
,281
,222
,216
,173
,207
,201
,160
,307
,270
,281
,230
,213
,166
,169
,110
,198
,152
,155
,100
df1
1
1
1
1
df2
365
364
363
362
Sig. F Change
,000
,000
,001
,035
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Metoda
po
korakih:
kriterij PA
Model Summary
Change Statis tics
Model
1
2
3
R
R Square
,504 a
,254
,597 b
,356
,618 c
,382
Adjus ted
R Square
,252
,352
,377
Std. Error of
the Es timate
3,76731
3,50459
3,43862
R Square
Change
,254
,102
,026
F Change
124,072
57,775
15,101
df1
1
1
1
df2
365
364
363
Sig. F Change
,000
,000
,000
a. Predictors : (Cons tant), Odprtost
b. Predictors : (Cons tant), Odprtost, Energija
c. Predictors : (Cons tant), Odprtost, Energija, Vestnost
Coefficientsa
Model
1
2
3
(Cons tant)
Odprtos t
(Cons tant)
Odprtos t
Energija
(Cons tant)
Odprtos t
Energija
Ves tnos t
Uns tandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
21,295
1,232
,941
,084
17,007
1,278
,681
,086
,591
,078
13,386
1,562
,685
,084
,548
,077
,275
,071
a. Dependent Variable: Poz. efekt
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,504
,365
,349
,367
,323
,162
t
17,279
11,139
13,310
7,949
7,601
8,569
8,145
7,114
3,886
Sig.
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
Zero-order
Correlations
Partial
Part
,504
,504
,504
,504
,494
,385
,370
,334
,320
,504
,494
,229
,393
,350
,200
,336
,294
,160
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Metoda po korakih: kriterij NA
 Pomemben prediktor samo N
Model Summary
Change Statis tics
Model
1
R
R Square
a
,610
,372
Adjus ted
R Square
,371
Std. Error of
the Es timate
5,14871
R Square
Change
,372
F Change
216,630
df1
1
df2
365
Sig. F Change
,000
a. Predictors : (Cons tant), Cust. s tabilnos t
Coefficientsa
Model
1
(Cons tant)
Cus t. stabilnos t
Uns tandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
49,100
1,487
-1,691
,115
a. Dependent Variable: Neg. efekt
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-,610
t
33,030
-14,718
Sig.
,000
,000
Correlations
Zero-order
Partial
-,610
-,610
Part
-,610
Zaključki
 Osebnostne dimenzije napovedujejo psihično
blagostanje
 Najbolj predicirajo E, N in C, najmanj O
 Najbolj PA (0,622) in NA (0,618) in
zadovoljstvo z življenjem (0,427)
 Napovedne vrednosti v naši študiji so
nekoliko višje (bolj izenačeni pogoji in metode
kot v primeru metaanaliz; “ena dobra študija
je boljša kot povprečje metaanalize”)
Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002
 Problem
 Kakšna je prediktivna
vrednost petih velikih
faktorjev osebnosti v odnosu
do zadovoljstva z delom
 Metode
 Metaanaliza: 163 neodvisnih
vzorcev, 334 korelacij
 Instrumenti


OSEBNOSTNE
DIMENZIJE
Mere B5 (neposr., posr.)
Mere zadovoljstva z delom
ZADOVOLJSTVO
Z DELOM
Rezultati
 Rezultati
metaanalize
 Regresijske
vrednosti
 Multiple
korelacije
substancialne
(0,41; 0,43)
 Odprtost ni
pomemben
prediktor
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Moderatorji
odnosa:
 Metoda merjenja
zadovoljstva z
delom
 Neposrednost
merjenja B5
 Dizajn


Prerezni
Longitudinalni
Rezultati (nadaljevanje)
 Primerjava prediktivnosti B5 pri zadovoljstvu z delom (beli stolpci)
s prediktivnostjo B5 pri zadovoljstvu z življenjem (črni stolpci).
Literatura
 Glej v:


Judge, T. A., Heller, D. & Mount, M. K. (2002).
Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job
Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, 530-541.
Judge, T. A. & Ilies, R. (2002). Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 4, 797-807.
Judge, Ilies (2002)
 Problem
 Metode: metaanaliza (65
 Kako dobri prediktorji so
študij, 150 korelacij)
 Instrumenti
 študije, ki merijo odnos
med osebnostnimi
dimenzijami (B5) in
merami motivacije za
opravljanje nalog (v
kontekstu model
samopostavljanja ciljev,
pričakovanja in
samoučinkovitosti)
veliki faktorji osebnosti
 Kako se obnesejo kot
napovedovalci motivacije za
delo(vanje) (performance
motivation)

3 modeli
(Samo)postavljanje ciljev
Pričakovanje (uspeha)

Samoučinkovitost


OSEBNOSTNE
DIMENZIJE
MOTIVACIJA
ZA DELOVANJE
Rezultati
 Multipla korelacija: 0,63; 0,36; 0,49; povprečje 0,49
 B5 nedvomno so pomembni prediktorji
 C in N pri vseh, E in O pri dveh, A pri enem vidiku motivacije za delo
Literatura

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.
Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Helmes, E.,& Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Joint factor analysis of the
Personality Research Form and the Jackson Personality Inventory: Comparisons with the Big Five. Journal
of Research in Personality, 32, 243-250.
Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E.,& Rothstein, M. G. (1995). The criterion
validity of broad factor scales versus specific trait scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 432-442.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K.,& Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with
Machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359368.
Costa, P. T. Jr.,& McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO FiveFactor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. (Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.)
Fishbein, M.,& Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral
criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59-74.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level
facets of several five-factor models. (In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.)
Jackson, D. N. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory manual. (Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists
Press.)
Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual. (Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists
Press.)
Jackson, D. N. (1990). Multidimensional Aptitude Battery manual. (Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment
Systems.)
Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Fraboni, M.,& Goffin, R. G. (1996). A five-factor versus a six-factor model
of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 33-45.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R.,& Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level
traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1556-1565.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J.-P.,& Parker, W. D. (1998). Cross-cultural
assessment of the Five-Factor Model: The revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 171-188.
Literatura (nadaljevanje)

McCrae, R. R.,& John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
Mershon, B.,& Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does
increase in factors increase the predictability of real-life criteria? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 675-680.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. (New York: McGraw-Hill.)
Ones, D. S.,& Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality
measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626.
Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538-556.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic
achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 78-90.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Jackson, D. N. (1996). The Jackson Personality Inventory and the FiveFactor Model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 42-59.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of
Personality, 68, 821-835.
Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., Trzebinski, J.,& Forsterling, F. (1992). Personality
structure across cultures: A multimethod evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 447-456.
Paunonen, S. V., Keinonen, M., Trzebinski, J., Forsterling, F., GrishenkoRose, N., Kouznetsova, L.,& Chan, D. W. (1996). The structure of personality in six
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 339-353.
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G.,& Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the
use of broad personality measures in personnel selection. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 389-405.
Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C.,& King, G. A. (1994). Personality and
cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate business school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 516-530.
Saucier, G.,& Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality,
66, 495-524.
Literatura

Allik, J.,& Realo, A. (1997). Intelligence, academic abilities, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 809-814.
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,
289-303.
Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E.,& Rothstein, M. G. (1995). The criterion validity of broad factor
scales versus specific trait scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 432-442.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K.,& Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, primary
psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359-368.
Barrick, M. R.,& Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta- analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.)
Costa, P. T. Jr.,& McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five- Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) professional manual. (Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.)
De Raad, B.,& Perugini, M. (2002). Big Five assessment. (Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.)
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five- Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197-221.
Goff, M.,& Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality- intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 537-552.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables- construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human
Performance, 5, 139-155.
Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual. (Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.)
Lord, F. M.,& Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.)
McCrae, R. R.,& John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60,
175-215.
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, 675-680.
Paunonen, S. V. (1993, August). Sense, nonsense, and the Big Five factors of personality. (Paper presented at the 101st
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.)
Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 538-556.
Paunonen, S. V. (2000). Construct validity and the search for cross- situational consistencies in personality. (In R. D. Goffin & E.
Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 123–140). Norwell,
MA: Kluwer.)
Literatura (nadaljevanje)

Paunonen, S. V.,& Ashton, M. C. (1998). The structured assessment of personality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 150-170.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Ashton, M. C. (2001a). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Ashton, M. C. (2001b). Big Five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35,
78-90.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Ashton, M. C. (2002). The nonverbal assessment of personality: The NPQ and the FF-NPQ. (In B. De Raad
& M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 171–194). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.)
Paunonen, S. V., Ashton, M. C.,& Jackson, D. N. (2001). Nonverbal assessment of the Big Five personality factors. European
Journal of Personality, 15, 3-18.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Jackson, D. N. (1979). Nonverbal trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 16451659.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Jackson, D. N. (1985). Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and prediction: Some unredeemed
promissory notes. Psychological Review, 92, 486-511.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821-835.
Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N.,& Keinonen, M. (1990). The structured nonverbal assessment of personality. Journal of
Personality, 58, 481-502.
Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., Trzebinski, J.,& Forsterling, F. (1992). Personality structure across cultures: A multimethod
evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 447-456.
Paunonen, S. V., Keinonen, M., Trzebinski, J., Forsterling, F., Grishenko-Roze, N., Kouznetsova, L.,& Chan, D. W. (1996). The
structure of personality in six cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 339-353.
Paunonen, S. V.,& Nicol, A. A. M. (2001). The personality hierarchy and the prediction of work behaviors. (In R. Hogan & B. W.
Roberts (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 161–191). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.)
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G.,& Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality measures in
personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389-405.
Paunonen, S. V., Zeidner, M., Engvik, H., Oosterveld, P.,& Maliphant, R. (2000). The nonverbal assessment of personality in
five cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 220-239.
Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C.,& King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive ability predictors of performance
in graduate business school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 516-530.
Saucier, G.,& Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495-524.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N.,& Rothstein, M. G. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic
review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.