®

www.recruiter.com

The “Big 5”
Personality Tests,
Measures and Models:
An Advanced Beginner’s Q&A

Michael Moffa
The 'Big 5' Personality Tests, Measures and Models: an Advanced Beginner's Q&A

Look at the five fingers on one hand. The gold-standard “Big 5” fistful of personality
“dimensions”, widely used over decades in personnel testing, assessment and counseling, is
like that hand and its fingers.

Widely utilized in workplaces, including, among many, in applicant screening, job performance,
job satisfaction and clinical psychiatric assessment, like the fingers of a hand, it represents a
manageable number—5—to deal with; is regarded by researchers as among our very useful
labor-saving (and vetting) tools; is, again, like a hand's five fingers, applied by most people with
a generally incomplete understanding of the complexities, structures, functions, science,
limitations and details involved; and yet seems easy enough to grasp (with).

But unlike those five fingers, the Big 5, which has a long history going back to the 1940s, has its
(very vocal) critics as well as its champions and apologists, with new “models” periodically
arriving on the scene like Chevrolets and Chryslers after Henry Ford got the ball and the Model-
T rolling.

Because of the complexity, scope and persistence of the Big 5 debates, its concept and
research innovation and history, this report is offered as “orientation”—a navigational guide, so
to speak, and does not undertake to take sides (except where there's a clear winner), otherwise
resolve or settle the feuds, tackle the formidable mathematical complexities, or even present the
details of the plethora of versions of the Big 5 or claim complete familiarity with all the literature
(of which the long bibliography herein is but “small” sample—with “core” references in boldface).

Instead, what this report will undertake is a logical examination and assessment of the Big 5's
value to beginners (who are unlikely to have a background in psychometrics and advanced
statistics, including what is called “factor analysis”). However, “ beginners”—whether
“advanced” (having some familiarity with or technical skills related to Big 5 classifications or
research) or “raw”—and other interested readers for whom the Big 5 and allied tools, such as
the IPIP (International Personality Inventory (and, it is hoped, this report) can have value
include:

“...high school students with science-fair projects, high school teachers creating demonstration
for their courses, graduate students conducting dissertation research, college and university
faculty desiring to employ IPIP scales in their teaching or research, computer programmers
interested in setting up an assessment Web site, and human-resource professionals looking for
scales to use in personnel selection.” [Source: “The International Personality Item Pool and the
Future of Public-Domain Personality Measures”.]

A cursory glance at the extensive “For Further Reading” bibliography at the end of this report
will suffice to reveal how foolhardy, if not ludicrous, it would be to attempt to review and evaluate
—in anything less than a full-sized book (or two)—all of the numerous Five-Factor, Big-5
“models”, their derivatives and rivals, the sets of associated concepts, definitions, the underlying
mathematical statistics, scale design and implementation, controversies and other related
methodologies “out there” (in at least one sense).
What can be accomplished, however, is to provide an overview and logical examination of
essential formulations, issues and critiques, to rule out fringe versions (especially given ad hoc
variants that have sprung up online or in other popular media), to narrow Big 5 version choices
and resources to one's better-informed organizational or personal needs and to help the
“advanced beginner” assign the tests, theories, classification, etc., an appropriate, carefully
considered tentative or initial weight greater than zero, but less than 100%.

Hence, the objectives and tone of what follows will be “Socratic”: a series of penetrating,
catalytic, “logical” and crucial “orientation” questions, akin to Socrates' “What is knowledge?”,
that can guide and enlighten Big 5 (or any other psychometric personality classification) novice
(and some users), while, in some instances, anticipate, warn of or sketch critiques of and
problems with that concept, its grounds, its elements and its implementation.

However, before reviewing and evaluating what the nay-sayers have to say, it's both logical and
necessary to explain what the “Big 5” is and isn't, while touching upon the closely related or
derivative, equally widely known “Five-Factor” model of personality, the “Five-Factor Theory”,
various personality tests and classifications based on it, the proprietary (for-fee) “NEO-PI-R”
inventory and manual, the (free) self-rating 44-item “BFI” (Basic Five Inventory) and the public
domain (free) “IPIP” (International Personality Item Pool), which offers 2,000 questionnaire
items that can be used and modified freely, e.g., “am afraid of big dogs”, “am a small-sized
person”, “am afraid of many things” (three which seem oddly overly-specific, not a personality
trait, and vague/probably true of everyone, respectively).

It is equally important to ask why anyone thinks the Big 5 is important (especially in
organizational, employment and clinical domains), how it is used, how the core idea is related to
variations on it, what its roots and limitations are and how it has evolved and been or can be
misunderstood.

Overview

In its most ambitious characterizations, the “Big 5” represents one attempt to fulfill a long-
standing dream and ambition of psychologists: to formulate the most compact list of human
traits necessary and sufficient to at least accurately and precisely describe (if not also explain,
control and/or predict) all of the elements of personality (like the periodic table of elements in
chemistry—calcium,, oxygen, thorium, sodium, etc., from which all compounds are formed and
in terms of which all chemical interactions can be analyzed, explained and predicted).

As it turns out, in the case of the Big 5, its purported validity is not universal in every sense of
the term, e.g., it is primarily applied in connection with adult personality, although research into
and with children's versions has been carried out). There are plenty of researchers who will
deny that, in any extant form, the Big 5 or any analogue can be universal and complete in the
way that the periodic table of elements is (for now) or, in its present forms, necessary and
sufficient to “account” for all personality traits.

One expert caution should suffice: “It is also worth noting that there are many aspects of
personality that are not subsumed within the Big Five. The term 'personality trait' has a special
meaning in personality psychology that is narrower than the everyday usage of the term.
Motivations, emotions, attitudes, abilities, self-concepts, social roles, autobiographical
memories, and life stories are just a few of the other 'units' that personality psychologists study.

Some of these other units may have theoretical or empirical relationships with the Big Five
traits, but they are conceptually distinct. For this reason, even a very comprehensive profile of
somebody's personality traits can only be considered a partial description of their
personality.” [Source: Srivastava, S. (2015).”Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors”.]

Nonetheless, its claimed scope and power are believed to make it very useful, to the extent that
it is useful for description, classification, assessment, prediction, control and/or explanation and
to know to what degree any individual possesses the “traits” or “facets” that correspond to,
confirm or are implied by the respective dimensions among the five.

If, beyond description and classification, the Big 5 can also be used to predict, model, explain,
control or guide behavior, e.g., in connection with (prospective) employee on-the-job
performance, so much the better (as a step toward a “Grand Unified Theory of Personality”).

Note: As a readily accessible companion overview, Wikipedia's “The Big Five Personality Traits”
is a comprehensive survey of the history (which, to avoid making this report longer than it
already is, is not covered in this report) and controversies surrounding the Big 5, and touches
upon details and issues that nicely supplement what is covered in this report.

The Basic Dimensions

The five traits, in their most familiar listing, (to be unpacked later in this report), modified over
the decades, in concept, in the details and in various morphings and applications of the core
ideas, comprise the following five, listed in no particular order or ranking, except for the purpose
of mnemonic-based ease of memorization. Chief among the lists is this well-established
“OCEAN” (a.k.a. “CANOE”) acronym.

■ “O” for “Openness”

■ “C” for “Conscientiousness”
■ “E” for “Extraversion”
■ “A” for “Agreeability”
■ “N” for “Neuroticism”.
These (and the many variations on them) have served as the core basis for many Five-Factor
classifications and Big 5-based personality questionnaires, inventories and “tests”, e.g., the
“Short Form IPIP-NEO” which is the International Personality Item Pool Representation of the
NEO-PI-R™; the “BFI” (Big Five Inventory); and myriad online spinoff inventories,
questionnaires and tests, variously designed, defined, analyzed and interpreted as general
tools or for specific and very diverse niches, e.g., clinical psychiatry, personnel assessment and
even as online, pop-culture entertainment (with the rigor, precision, accuracy, scope, validity and
reliability of the test correlating with its “seriousness” and author credentials).

Although the very popular Myers-Briggs Type Inventory corresponds to and correlates with
some versions of the Big 5 in some respects (shown in these tables), e.g., incorporates and
strongly correlates with a Big 5 extraversion-introversion dimension, it is a theory-based and
type-focused (16-type Jungian) model, in contrast to the correlation-based and trait-focused Big
5. One study by two pioneers in Big 5 research investigated the correlations:

“In 1989, Costa and McCrae published a study in which 468 subjects of all ages took both a
published form of the Big Five (NEO-PI) and the MBTI. To make the forms comparable they
used continuous scores for the MBTI rather than the sort of either/or, extravert or introvert,
sensor or intuitive, etc. that is used to decide on preference choice in the MBTI. This stripped
away Jung’s added interpretations and measured simply Isabel Myers basic preference items
and scores. Doing this they found very high correlations between the Extravert scores on both
instruments, a high correlation between Big Five Openness and MBTI Intuition, and lessor but
substantial correlations between Conscientiousness and Judging, and Agreeableness and
Feeling. Unlike the Big Five, the MBTI has no Neuroticism scale.” [Source: , “The MBTI and
the Big 5: Different Roads to Rome?”, September 2011, www.temperamentmatters.com.]

This differences and similarities between the Big 5 and the MBTI are of crucial importance when
asking (and answering, below) whether the Big 5 dimensions represent a theory or not and
whether they are about discrete types of personalities or about personality traits and/or states
that vary along a continuum.

Complicating any presentation and analysis of the Big 5 (and the Five-Factor model) are the
perennial disagreements among researchers as to which five traits are the “big” ones, how to
define and confirm them, what they imply and what their limitations are. Among the earliest and
main attempts to identify these—and there have been and will be many!—is that of Warren
Norman, who formulated them rather differently:

i. Surgency (instead of “Openness, but actually similar to “Extraversion”)

ii. Agreeability
iii. Conscientiousness
iv. Emotional Stability (instead of one of its “opposites”, “Neuroticism”)
v. Culture (a novel replacement dimension, itself replaced by “Intellect” in yet another
model [Lewis Goldberg's]).

(Here's a large sample of the main Big 5 classifications which doesn't include the hundreds of
other variants.)

This “SACEC” sequence, unlike the OCEAN classification, is in fact ordered—by frequency, in
decreasing order, of adjectives that, in a standard English dictionary, correlate with each of the
five factors, whereas the OCEAN traits were teased out from questionnaire responses (as one
manifestation of the historical rivalry and collaboration between these two “schools of thought”).

With either approach, Big 5 questionnaire self-ratings (as opposed and in addition to observer
ratings, e.g., by job supervisors) can play an important role in refinement, testing and
assessment of any of the Big 5 classifications—in particular, as the second standard way of
refining and validating the five categories, the aforementioned dictionary-based so-called
“lexical” approach, discussed below, being the other.
On yet another among various interpretations of “OCEAN”, “E” has designated energy or
enthusiasm. Additional variations include “O” for originality; “A” for affiliation or affection, and “C”
for constraint or control, depending on the researcher. These are but examples of very wide
variation in the definition and interpretation of Big 5 dimensions, even among those who agree
on their basic labels.

As mentioned above, what is perhaps the most well-known counterpart of the Big 5 actually
prunes, rather than grafts, the five dimensions: The widely used Myers-Briggs Type Inventory
retains various versions or correlates of the original concepts of OCEAN, but conspicuously
without the “N” (“Neuroticism”) dimension. (More on this, below.)

Among the important questions to be raised about any Big 5 classification,or others, such as the
MBTI, is to what degree there is any overlap in meaning and reference of dimensions, types or
traits, e.g., between “O” and “A”, and, if so, of what practical or theoretical significance it is.

On the one hand, logicians do not like such overlap, whereas, on the other, in factor analysis it
is a fact(or) of life.

Critical “Socratic” Questions

Before or without even getting into the nitty-gritty of the definitional, analytical, statistical, logical,
measurement, historical and utilitarian details of the Big 5, including what these terms actually
mean, don't mean and to whom (including Big 5 researchers, HR experts, recruiters, employers,
psychometrists, test takers, clinical psychologists and sociologists), a number of very important
preliminary “Socratic” questions mentioned above (to be addressed in greater detail later in this
report) and cautions arise.

These direct and probing questions about the Big 5 that follow should be kept in mind when
reviewing or contemplating applying any version of the Big 5 classification or spinoff (or, indeed
any personality theory or classification portrayed as “universal”, “comprehensive”,
“fundamental”, etc.—replacing “Big 5” with some “X”).

Outlines of answers and rationales for asking these questions immediately follow this orientation
list:

i. Of what value is the Big 5 classification to me, my job (prospects) or my organization?

ii. What is it?
iii. How many Big 5 (Five-Factor) classifications, often called “models”, are there?
iv. Are these five dimensions more “fundamental” than any others?
v. Can every other possible personality dimension or trait in theory or in fact be analyzed,
reduced to, described, explained or otherwise somehow correlated with just these five
dimensions (or with those of some variant Big 5 classification)?
vi. How are these “dimensions” related to personality “traits”, as opposed to “states”—to
one of these two more than the other?
vii. Are the Big 5 dimensions “deep” and precise enough, or too unsophisticated
(scientifically speaking) for optimal classification, insight, prediction, control and/or
explanation?
 viii. Are the traits “reported”, “stipulated” or “explicated”?
ix. Can an individual's dimension test “scores” change or vary (either over time, mood or
contexts) or are they purely genetically determined?
x. Does the Big 5 “model” also cover, in addition to personality traits character traits or core
and habitual needs, cognitive styles and capacities, and emotions (such as disgust, joy,
pride, fear) as well as (in both senses of “as well as”) personality traits? What about
private thoughts as well as overt behaviors?
xi. Are the Big 5 dimensions precisely, accurately, reliably, validly, consistently, coherently
and parsimoniously defined and understood?
xii. How “universal” are the dimensions?
xiii. Are the (most reliable) dimension and trait ratings (on the spectrum corresponding to
each dimension or correlated traits) self-ratings or observer ratings?
xiv. Are all other seemingly excluded, yet recognized or conceivable personality dimensions
(and irreducible traits), e.g., “integrity”, “resilience” or those that have no (concise)
equivalent in some other language or your own—and will therefore not be found in all
dictionaries—somehow less important?
xv. Which Big 5 version's dimensions, “facets” (the broadest traits subsumed under a given
dimension), definitions and criteria are the most authoritative and sound? Which are
more accurate with respect to prediction?

In addition, this report provides links to and information about forms of Big 5, Five-Factor
Model, the Five-Factor Theory, the IPIP, BFI, etc., that are readily accessible (in many
instances, for free).

Answers and Rationales for the Questions (in the original order)

The following comprise preliminary answers to the 15 “Q”s of this Big 5 Q&A. These include
rationales (italicized) for the questions as well as orientation to deeper exploration of answers:

1. Of what value is the Big 5 classification to me, my job (prospects) or my organization?

Unless you have limitless curiosity, a predisposition to contemplativeness and time to indulge
these, you will almost certainly and primarily want to know of what practical use the Big 5 can be
to you, especially given its “sacred cow” status in HR testing, placement and other assessments
and in the broader domain of psychometrics.

This is the question whose summarized and distilled answer will appear last, after getting
answers to all the others that follow. The immediately following is the preliminary answer.

ANSWER: The answers to this top-line question will depend on the answers to the questions
that immediately follow it, bearing in mind that the expected value of the Big 5, like that of
anything else, depends on the size of the payoff it promises and on the probability it will be
delivered, and therefore on which version of it is utilized. (As for the organizational, business
and scientific bottom line, this is the question that will be answered last, as the conclusion of this
critical review and analysis.)
In any event and without agreeing or disagreeing with Big 5 proponents, reviewing what they
claim about it is a good place to start to answer this first, really big question above.

Generically speaking, at one extreme of “endorsement” is the view that some (perfect) version
of the Big 5 dimensions is useful and important because it represents a comprehensive and
universal insightful and powerful distillation of the fundamentals of human personality, in the
form of an inventory of “factors” (which sound like “traits”, but are called “dimensions”—on
analogy with the three dimensions of space).

Like dimensions such as length, width and depth, these factors, when measured, can vary in
magnitude and independently of each other (in the absence of a function or correlation mapping
them to some degree into each other). What factor analysis strives to achieve is to find the most
compact set of dimensions that most synchronously vary as do the set of traits with which they
correlate vary.

These primary “dimensions” contrast with the far more numerous derivative “traits” (such as
“argumentative” or “enjoys concerts”) correlated with and analyzed in terms of these basic
dimensions, which describe, predict, explain, correlate with and ideally (will, at some unspecified
time in the future) interrelate all (other) personality traits.

This, they claim, has been or in the future will be accomplished in a way analogous to the
discovery that the handful of fundamental primary colors account for all other colors (as blends
of the primary ones) or the formulation of Newton's handful of laws that serve as the basis for all
of the complexities of mechanics and dynamics in physics.

Just as Newton's laws of physics have been presumed to hold everywhere in the universe and
for all objects at least approximately marble-sized and not moving near the speed of light, it is
claimed by its most ardent proponents that the Big 5 dimensions not only capture a universal
commonality of personality in all cultures, but also do so better than any other combination of
dimensions, and are at least necessary, if not also or just sufficient, for understanding
personality in all cultures. (A claim already challenged above.)

A perhaps closer analogy is with the incalculably useful system of Cartesian coordinates in
mathematical graphing: The “Big 3” dimensions—x, y, z (width, height and depth)—and
combinations of them suffice to “code for” or “represent” any point in space, with no exceptions
(except for higher-dimensional abstract or physical spaces, e.g., in quantum mechanics and
string theory, with four or even 20+ dimensions). The analogy with 3-dimensional space
becomes even closer when the precursor to the Big 5 is noted, namely, pioneer researcher
Hans Eysenck's “Big 3” of “extraversion-introversion”, “emotionality-stability” and “psychoticism”
(this third dimension having been added to the first two, as “PEN” (psychoticism/extroversion/
neuroticism) which he regarded as “supertraits”, with a biological basis).

“Eysenck felt that, due to overlaps in the five factors and their correlates, in fact a three-factor
model was more appropriate and accurate. His theory is called the PEN model (which stand for
psychoticism, extroversion, neuroticism) (Eysenck, 1991), or sometimes is even shortened to
the two factor E-IN model (extroversion-introversion, neuroticism) (Eysenck, 1991)” [Source:
“The Five-Factor Model: Emergence of a Taxonomic Model for Personality Psychology”, Nathan
C. Popkins, Northwestern University.]

In the arcane terminology of the kind of complicated factor analysis used to identify the OCEAN
or other five-factor dimensions, it is claimed that the five factors best explain the statistical
“variance” and “covariance” (which are too technical to get into here) of all or most other
personality traits and do so in the most economical way, namely, by reducing the number of
fundamental factors to five (as a brute, unexplained empirically-observed fact, like why there are
exactly five kinds of great apes, rather than, for example, in terms of a mathematically
necessary number such as the five vertices of a pentagon or an occult-prescribed magical five
vertices of a 5-pointed star).

At the opposite extreme are the skeptical critics who say the Big 5 is, at best, just a kind of
grocery list. like any limited shopping list, say for five grocery items, such as fruit, meat,
vegetables, grains and eggs, serving as the five “dimensions” or “factors” of the list.

A grocery list is not a theory or at least isn't even obviously based on any specific theory
(although it could be, e.g., veganism or the evolutionary theory underlying the paleolithic diet
pyramid, to name two of many possibilities). In Big 5 research, the search continues for such a
theoretical basis, e.g., in the form of some framework within evolutionary theory, neurobiology
and psychiatry.

The grocery list can't be used to predict much, e.g., whether any or all of those food categories
(“factors”) or items corresponding to them will be found in the store. Yes, the list can be used to
predict that if bananas are found, fruit will have been found, or that if fruit is found there is a
certain probability bananas will too and with greater likelihood than pomegranates and that,
given the list, there is a certain probability that if the shopper is looking for citrus fruit, she will
buy bananas as well as lemons or limes. But that's a conditional prediction, which, in addition, is
only probabilistic, not categorical and certain.

From the skeptics' perspective, OCEAN is like that or worse, because, given how many versions
of it there are, not all, if any, will be as logically perfect as a “partition” of 5 non-overlapping
empirically or logically comprehensive (i.e., “complete”) factors.

A muddled grocery list (such as the most recently-introduced USDA “My Plate” chart, discussed
below) can illustrate this point: Imagine you are given a grocery or dietary list comprising meat,
steak, protein, milk and vegetables. The problem with this is that milk, steak, meat and protein
are not sharply distinguishable from each other, since steak is a form of meat, and all four other
items contain protein of some sort.

So conceptually, this is a mess, with confusing and unhelpful overlap between two or more
categories and outright containment of one category by another (namely the category of “meat”
containing “steak”). To the extent that on any given Five-Factor interpretation—such as
interpretation and definition of the dimensions of “OCEAN” (a.k.a.“CANOE”)—overlap or get
conflated, the unfavorable comparison to a muddled grocery list will be prima facie warranted or
at least deserving further investigation.
Even such initial considerations recommend that when administering, taking or interpreting any
Big 5-based personality test, always closely examine the specification and definitions of
dimensions and the underlying, inventoried traits used, even if only to determine whether or how
much any observed dimensional and/or trait overlap is acceptable.

If the definitions, interpretations and the core dimensions (as labels or factors) do not align with
your understanding of personality, have too much overlap, or do not match your own concepts,
your pre-existing understanding or expectation of the concepts, or if, for any other reason, you
feel they are somehow “off”, the value of the test to you will correspondingly dwindle.

It is also important that you not rely on entertainment or ad hoc Big 5ish tests to make any
important decisions, especially using online non-expert sanctioned versions. They may or may
not be based on the best-researched versions or interpreted in conformity with them.

2. What is it?

If you are going to use it, you really should know what it is and isn't, especially keeping in mind
any difference between various versions of it and what its proponents claim or promise and
what it actually can deliver. It is also important to know what kind of a tool it is (no matter which
version or alternative is being considered).

Before determining whether the Big 5 (or its popular spin-off, the “Five-Factor” personality
classification) represents a theory, a model, some other explanatory framework, a diagnostic, a
test, a measurement tool, a “taxonomy” (a descriptive classification), a “paradigm” and/or a
logical or empirical “partition”, we have to ask whether and why it matters which, if any of these,
it is.

ANSWER: If it somehow is all of these, the Big 5 is indeed a very powerful tool, assuming it is
well supported by evidence, represents valid and reliable concepts, is as comprehensive and
universal as is generally claimed, and is both precise and accurate. That would make it almost
as important as Newton's laws of physics.

However, if it is only a taxonomy—a classification (as even many of its defenders and
champions insist), with no embedding in some powerful theory, then it would be akin to a food
chart of types of food whose chief merit would be completeness, if that were achieved (as it is
not by the “My Plate” platter, analyzed below).

Because some purely descriptive taxonomies are more powerful than others, it is important to
determine how powerful the Big 5 version or variant you are utilizing is, the least useful being
any with dimensions that individually or as a set seem arbitrary, incomplete, empirically
unproven, logically or empirically inconsistent, vague, ambiguous, excessively overlapping, or
otherwise confusing (deficiencies that serious Big 5 researchers take great pains to avoid or
eliminate).

Allowing that the Big 5 may be more than one of the following, is it a

■ I. Theory?
A well-confirmed (and not yet disconfirmed) theory is a powerful tool: It explains, predicts and
allows (in many instances) control of the entities it is about, e.g., electrons, conditioned
responses or genes. Those who believe that the Big 5 is a theory and not just the subject of a
theory, will expect much more from it than the minimalists who see it as just one of many
possible personality-trait classification schemes (although, in the opinion of many, the best of
them all).

ANSWER: As suggested in the foregoing, regarding any of the senses in which proposed or
confirmed theories in physics are theories, the answer, here too, is “no” and “not yet”. The Big 5
is primarily a classification, not a theory, since it comprises only descriptors in the form of
“factors” and associated traits, not explanatory principles, natural laws, theoretical entities (apart
from “traits”, which being listed in ordinary language dictionaries, are more observational and
commonsensical or cultural, than “theoretical'), postulates, scientific or metaphysical paradigms.

“The Big Five are, collectively, a taxonomy of personality traits: a coordinate system that maps
which traits go together in people's descriptions or ratings of one another. The Big Five are an
empirically based phenomenon, not a theory of personality.” (Srivastava, S. (2015), Ibid.)

"...the five-factor model (although it provides an excellent basis for the description of much of
what, in psychology, falls into the realm of personality study) falls short of attaining or ever
having a chance to attain the title of the unified psychological theory.” [Source: “The Five-Factor
Model: Emergence of a Taxonomic Model for Personality Psychology”, Nathan C. Popkins,
Northwestern University.]

Despite theories about why the five dimensions account for the variance and covariance of
thousands of traits, the Big 5 itself neither depends upon nor confirms any theory regarding the
(source of the) power of its dimensions.

The “Five-Factor Theory”, propounded by Robert McCrae, who also proposed a Five-Factor
model, attempts to provide a theoretical explanation and justification for the Big 5 dimensions,
along the lines of evolutionary biology. But note that a theory about the origins and roles of the
dimensions does not automatically make the Big 5 dimensions a theory about or explanation of
correlations with and correlates of the dimensions or a theoretical paradigm for the latter tasks.
(This observation holds generally for any classification scheme: Explaining the origins of the key
concepts is not equivalent to explaining the origins of what those concepts describe or explain.)

Analogously, a theory about the origins or roles of the x, y and z dimensions of Cartesian space
does not automatically constitute a theory about the origin (viz., mathematical functions that are
the generators) of points (comparable to traits) in that space. It merely explains why x, y and z
were chosen. With this in mind read the following very carefully and ask whether it consistently
suggests that what is presented is a theory of personality and common traits or a theory about
the origin of or reasons for the selection of dimensions:

“Five-Factor Theory, formulated by Robert (Jeff) McCrae and Paul Costa (see, for example, their
2008 Handbook of Personality chapter), is an explanatory account of the role of the Big Five
factors in personality. Five-Factor Theory includes a number of propositions about the nature,
origins, and developmental course of personality traits, and about the relation of traits to many
of the other personality variables mentioned earlier. Five-Factor Theory presents a biological
account of personality traits, in which learning and experience play little if any part in influencing
the Big Five.” [Source: Srivastava, S. (2015), ”Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors”.]

Against such attempts to frame a Big 5 theory, minimizers argue that the Big 5 is more like a
useful grocery list—but one that allegedly would just happen to correlate with what, how often,
how much, etc., people in all or most cultures, adult age groups, occupations, genders, etc.,
shop for (with varying probabilities).

However, to the extent that scores on trait dimensions correlate with job performance,
satisfaction, etc., the claim that correlations between dimensions and traits (or even between
traits) are strong or weak may itself be regarded as a testable hypothesis, which although
potentially embeddable in some scientific theory, is not, by itself, a theory (except in the informal
sense of the sort intended by “My theory is that the real reason Kim Kardashian is so famous is
that....”).

The Big 5 may also be thought of as being, in some ways, approximately like the “Big 9”
Linnaean biological taxonomy of all living things, e.g., Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Sub-Phylum,
Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species (with the Big 5 corresponding to “Kingdom”).

Neither scheme prima facie explains why the categories it identifies are those nature suggests
or has presented. Both can be defended on the grounds of their cogency, clarity, simplicity and
usefulness in systematizing our knowledge and providing excellent correlations among traits.

However, neither is a model of the dynamics, hidden structures or functions underlying the
categories and correlations. (Note: Unlike the Linnaean classification, the Big 5 dimensions are,
like the x, y and z of spatial dimensions, not hierarchically ordered, e.g., from most general to
most specific, or most abstract to most concrete. When the Big 5 are described as having a
hierarchical structure, the reference is to the relationship between the dimensions and specific
traits, not any ordering of the dimensions among themselves. Likewise, the Big 5 dimensions
are empirically, not purely logically and definitionally, correlated with the traits “below” them, and
are mapped into these by covariation, not by definition.

■ II. Model?

A model, whether embedded in a theory or not, can be as useful as its similarities with what it
models are strong and numerous. Some models are rough but very useful analogies, e.g., the
solar system model of the atom that posited the existence of atomic orbits, Others are precise
matches, with rich and verifiable implications, e.g., the Copernican Sun-centric model of our
planetary system, which far more elegantly allows explanation, prediction and calculation of the
motion of the planets than did its predecessor, the Earth-centered Ptolemaic model. So, is the
Big 5 a model in this or any other sense?

ANSWER: If by “model” what is meant is something like the way that the solar system was a
model of the atom, within atomic theory, the answer is “no”. Even if the Big 5 were a “theory”, it
wouldn't have to have a visual “model” (unless a set of conceptual or abstract mappings or
equations count as a model). Such visual models encapsulate, help teach or stimulate what we
know at a given time theoretically, but as tools of, rather than the essence of a theory.

However, “model” is a very versatile concept, e.g., we talk about “modeling” a system by means
of equations or a “model” (excellent) student or study.

“Some researchers use the label 'Five-Factor Model' instead of 'Big Five'. In scientific usage, the
word 'model' can refer either to a descriptive framework of what has been observed, or to a
theoretical explanation of causes and consequences. The Five-Factor Model (i.e., Big Five) is a
model in the descriptive sense only.” [Source: Srivastava, S. (2015), Ibid.]

This distinction is important, because not respecting it can lead to disappointed expectations of
the Big 5, e.g., expecting it to explain, be explained by, predict and describe personality
theoretically, rather than merely classify it empirically. Moreover, if the Big 5 were a model in the
classical, visual sense, it would raise expectations of fruitful analogical inferences from its
properties to the properties of personality traits, much as that the solar-system model of the
atom suggested the fruitfulness of looking for an atomic or elementary particle analogue of
planetary “spin”.

■ III. “Palette”? (of elements that are mixed to create all other trait “colors”)

To a beginner, the Big 5 dimensions may seem similar to a 5-color box of crayons or palette of
paints. After all, aren't personality traits a “blend”, “mix” or “combination” of the Big 5? If really
similar to a palette of colors that blend, the Big 5 should be investigated for the dynamics and
mechanisms that explain and predict the variety and outcomes of such “mixing”.

ANSWER: This one is tricky. Even though primary colors, such as red and blue are
“complementary” or “opposite” colors and in some sense “mutually exclusive” (i.e., no color can
be both pure red and pure blue), superimposing or blending them (e.g., as paints) generates
more colors. Likewise, the infinitesimally varying “degrees” of red or blue generate a virtual
infinity of other colors, whether paints or not.

The result is that we are tempted to say that varying shades of blue and red are the “causes”,
“factors”, “dimensions”, “elements” or “correlates” of countless other, familiar colors (and some
we may individually have never personally experienced or seen a listing for in a dictionary, on
analogy with traits that we have even yet to imagine).

But the five “primary” dimensions that the Big 5 classifications represent don't literally blend or
“cause” the correlated thousands of traits. Nor is it clear that specific, itemized traits are (at) all
“combinations” of the Big 5 dimensions (although some “facets” of a given Big 5 dimension may
be found in some other dimension(s), e.g., imaginably, “talkativeness” as a trait correlated with
both “extraversion” and “openness” as two of the five core dimensions.

What the Big 5 dimensions do is provide categories into which the traits fall or with which they
vary and correlate to some degree (even if not entirely uniquely), much as “steak” correlates
with “protein”, but strictly falls under the category of “meat” (with a correlation coefficient of 1.0,
i.e., 100%, certainty, in contrast to the smaller statistical correlation coefficients, which generally
have to be above 0.30 to grab attention in a factor analysis).

Analogously, differences between beef steak and frogs' legs would be accounted for by some
combination of scores along a set of factor/dimension scales, such as “amphibian-ness” and
“tendency to have mooed when alive”, both of which admit of measurable or at least discernible
degrees.

■ IV. Normative “agenda”? (for or as a disguised idealization or ideologizing of behavior,

as dimensions used to define or control the ideal employee or cult member)

Cynics may claim that personality-trait scales and dimensions, far from being universal schema
for understanding human nature are instead something much narrower. If that is true, trust in
them may be misplaced.

ANSWER: In addition to the reasonable function of measuring specific traits of interest,

idealized or required in a given context, e.g., recruiting and employee placement, such “models”
or classifications may, the cynics suggest, have a subtler additional purpose: to portray the
narrow requirements of an organization as optimal points on innate, “natural” and dominant
alleged dimensions of all human (civilized) behavior.

This may be achieved by labeling dimensions in employer, governmentally, ideologically or

organizationally other approved ways, at the expense of all others passed over in silence as
ignored, “dangerous” alternate dimensions (to which no attention should be drawn) or buried as
undesirable subordinate lower-level traits or as the negative pole of a dimension, e.g., “anti-
establishment”, “status-indifferent”, “non-materialistic”, “self-sufficient”, “idiosyncratic”,
“iconoclastic” or “free spirited”.

In this connection, the following criticism may be especially germane or at least suggestive:

“Moreover, as indicated above, in a critique of the empirical factor-analytic work leading to

delineation of the FFM, Boyle et al. (1995) pointed to some questionable methodological
decisions, including Costa and McCrae's (1992) use of procrustean factor-analytic techniques to
ensure that factors supporting their Big Five model would be extracted (Block, 1995; Boyle,
1997).” [Source: “Critique of the Five Factor Model of Personality”, Gregory Boyle, Department
of Psychology, University of Queensland.]

As an extreme example, imagine a tailored version of a Big 5 administered in an absolutist

theocracy that exerts total control: The five dimensions that might be advanced as most
“natural” and justified would be something like 1. faith; 2. obedience; 3. zeal; 4. charity; 5.
penitence, while in fact being the only traits allowed to be investigated, measured, advanced as
“universal” and “objective” dimensions.

This strongly suggests that the cultural, ideological, etc., constraints on what is allowed or
accepted as a personality trait in assessment and in the culture in which it is embedded must
not be underestimated.
Also, although personality typologies can properly be tailored to specific tasks, e.g., psychiatric
assessment vs. occupational fit, in the bigger picture is it not fair to ask whether the dimensions
can, must or should be specified only independently of cultural, ideological, political, etc.,
agendas, purposes of or influences on the classification and formulation of the dimensions?

The business-oriented Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (which, as stressed earlier is a personality

typology taxonomy, not a personality trait taxonomy) for example, omits “Neuroticism”. Too
negative for the office and not a trait to even be discussed, lest it create interest in it, e.g., as a
quasi-medical excuse for sub par performance, e.g., “I can't help it. It's my neuroticism”?

“MBTI aims to have no 'bad poles' and is based on a Jungian theory. The Big 5 aims to describe
personality in a parsimonious way and has been empirically developed through large-scale
factor analytic work. Thus, MBTI types are more acceptable to people, whereas the Big 5 has a
degree of social loading on several factors; in particular this can be seen in
neuroticism.” [Source: “What is the consequence of the MBTI in not having a neuroticism
factor”, Cognitive Science Stack Exchange.]

Compare the remaining four Big 5 dimensions with “Neuroticism”: “Openness” (sounds nice),
“Conscientiousness” (also nice), “Extraversion” (great for customer relations),
“Agreeability” (who could disagree with that?) Notice that the other four dimensions could have
been, but were not, negatively framed, namely, as their opposites on the continua on which they
lie, e.g., “Closedness” and “Disagreeability”. That would, perhaps unwisely, “accentuate the
negative”.

Of course, these positive-sounding dimensions are worth measuring when gauging

(prospective) employees. But factoring these and only these in means, relatively speaking,
factoring out awareness of other less “amenable” human traits that may be just as common and
just as important as any of the Big 5, e.g., “self-sufficiency”, “status-consciousness” and
“iconoclasm”.

But to identify and label a dimension as “iconoclasm” is to tacitly, subliminally or otherwise

unwisely endorse it or otherwise create awareness of and elevate it as somehow important. To
that extent, the cynics will argue, the favored dimensions become prescriptive as well as
descriptive, consistent with an agenda to encourage (or discourage) traits as well as to identify
and correlate them.

Even though the core versions of the Big 5 have a “negative” factor, viz., neuroticism, the
possibility that it serves as a foil or objective-sounding counterpoise for the other four positively
labeled dimensions cannot be excluded.

On the other hand, because the Big 5 has a broader focus (or agenda) than the MBTI, e.g., the
Big 5 scope and applications include clinical psychiatry and education, inclusion of a negative
dimension seems more reasonable and less risky, in terms of political correctness. Had the
factor of “neuroticism” been recast as the positive pole of the continuum on which it is an
extreme pole, the entire set of Big 5 dimensions would have more closely resembled the
negativity-free MBTI.
 ■ V. Diagnostic test? (In the form of a psychiatric, educational, employment, etc.,
“personality test”)

If the Big 5 is a test, can you fail it or otherwise “look bad” (as one can after an IQ or Luscher
Color Test)? Calling something an “inventory”, but using it as a judgmental test combines the
worst of both: assurances that the results don't matter and decisions/outcomes based on the
“inventory” that do.

Also, if it is “normed”, i.e., scored, for example, as a percentile rating with respect to some
sample population on some measured dimension such as “extraversion” or “agreeability”, there
is the risk that the percentiles will be interpreted as “grades”, as they are (by schools and
students alike) in connection with GRE and LSAT tests.

(This is one reason why the IPIP and other researchers do not offer norms and instead suggest
that any norms be limited to the finite population being tested, e.g., percentiles relative to a
course or a workplace.)

ANSWER: Some applications of the Big 5 are called “Big 5 personality tests”—at least by many
of those who administer or fill in the associated questionnaires. Others are called something
else, like “inventory”, as in the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory. The folks administering the Myers-
Briggs insist it is only an “inventory”. But tell that to the manager and the applicant whose hiring
outcomes have been influenced by the MBTI results.

A Google search under “Big Five personality test” (in quotes) yields approximately 60,000
returns, so it is quite clear that many are under the impression that the Big 5 (and, by extension,
adaptations of it that apply its dimensions) is (at least) a “test”.

Likewise, using the Big 5 to determine “goodness of fit” for a job candidate or employee sounds
less like a test, since, after all, when X doesn't fit Y, X doesn't fail; instead, the “match” is not
optimal. However, since the greater likelihood is that X won't be hired, not that the job Y will be
redesigned, “bad fit” = de facto “fail” (unless X agrees it's a bad match or if X desperately needs
the job, no matter how strongly (s)he agrees it's a bad fit).

■ VI. Set of “factors” or “causes”?

It is important not to assume that “factors” are automatically “causes”. Factors quite commonly,
but not always, are indeed causes, e.g., “season” and “population density” as causes or
correlates of “flu outbreaks” (although the first two may not be entirely independent, since
people tend to spend more time crowded together indoors in the winter).

ANSWER: Great care must be taken in defining a set of dimensions to determine and specify
whether they are, as “factors”, mutually independent causes or correlated with what they
subsume—including possibly being only “logical correlates”, in the way in which “mammal” as
an analytical factor correlates with “primate” (with a specifiable probability, given that the animal
is known to be a mammal), without in any sense causing that animal to be a primate.
However, because the Big 5 correlates degrees of its dimensions with degrees of traits
(especially extreme degrees), “mammal”, not normally admitting of degrees of being one, would
not be a logical choice for a factor, unless recast as “mammal-ish”, which allows rating degrees
of that as a trait.

But, just as often, if not more often (in virtue of the logical truth that every cause is a correlate,
but not vice versa), factors are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, only correlates,
mapped into a bigger set of traits through “one-to-many”, “many-to-one” or “many-to-many”
mappings, each with a specified probability or correlation measure).

From such a cautious perspective, and in accord with the facts and intent of the Big 5 design
and implementation, “correlate” is the more apt characterization of the factors. A specified
degree of “neuroticism”, for example, does not “cause” a specified degree (intensity, frequency,
duration) of negative emotions. It merely correlates with it, just as “gets more than 7 hours of
sleep” correlates with “gets sick”, without claiming causality in either direction, viz., sleeping too
long because one is ill, rather than being ill because one is sleeping too long.

However, neuroticism may underlie, at least as a descriptor, a certain proportion of

manifestations of anxiety. It doesn't cause anxiety—neither as a causally necessary nor
causally sufficient trigger for any chronic negative emotion, state or persistent behavior, such as
extreme irritability or anxiety, since being irritated by a lack of central heating at home, work and
restaurants or anxious about your ability to support your large family when you are unskilled and
irregularly employed are hardly manifestations of “neuroticism”. It is far likelier or plausible that
anxiety is a correlated symptom of neuroticism than an effect of it.

At most, neuroticism, as a Big 5 dimension, is a correlated descriptor for many, but not all
negative personality traits (that tend to be symptomatic of “neurotic” behavior, attitudes, feelings,
etc.). Its importance lies in the degree of variation between it, as a dimension, and a multiplicity
of traits or covariant interactions between or among traits.

The same cautious perspective regarding causality and correlation is warranted for the other
four dimensions. For example, “This problem with the five-factor model is that, although often
very categorical and taxonomic, it does not delve deeply into the causation of certain correlates.
In fact, some relationships are even somewhat counter-intuitive, making extrapolation by
common sense difficult. For example, one recent study found that type A behavior, which is
characterized by general optimism and ambitiousness (Ewen, 1998), had a low correlation to
conscientiousness (Morrison, 1997).” [Source: “The Five-Factor Model: Emergence of a
Taxonomic Model for Personality Psychology”, Nathan C. Popkins, Northwestern University.]

■ VII. Logical or empirical “partition”? (Into “jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive”
categories, the way that the possible outcomes of a single coin toss, namely “heads” or
“tails” are?)

ANSWER: Mathematicians, logicians, many scientists and office designers love “partitions”,
which are like chocolate boxes with one and only one chocolate (or employee), different from all
the others, in each and every box, and with every chocolate under consideration assigned a
box. The set of chocolates (employees) in the box doesn't have to represent every chocolate in
the world, but there should be no empty compartments, no chocolate (employee) in more than
one box, no shared compartments and no employees in the “set” without a box.

The main reason they like them is the comprehensiveness (completeness) and neat
compartmentalization of variables that characterize partitions.

The outcomes of tossing a coin or rolling one die, when listed, represent a kind of chocolate-
box partition: With a coin, it's {H,T} (which is the same thing as {T, H}, because partitions are not
“ordered”)—like a 2-compartment chocolate box. For the die, it's {1,2,3,4,5,6}. All of these roll
outcomes are “mutually exclusive”: A single roll of a die cannot yield both a “3” and a “5”, for
example; any given outcome excludes any other (and vice versa—hence, “mutually” exclusive).
The set is also “exhaustive”, since a “7” on a single role is impossible with a standard die. The
six outcomes “exhaust” all the possibilities for the die. If this is not clear, just think of the office
with cubicles.

The “x,y,z” axes in a graph are also a partition—of space, into three mutually exclusive and
exhaustive dimensions. Note however—and this is important for the Big 5—that although these
x,y,z “dimensions” (the same term used to describe the five factors of the Big 5) are, as the
basis for 3-dimensional space mutually exclusive, e.g., the x-coordinate of a point cannot also
lie on the y-axis or the z-axis, they nonetheless have values that “combine” and manifest
themselves as points, such as (4,-2,8)—which represents (x,y,z) values, in that order (hence the
round parentheses rather than “{“ and “}” which designate “no order”).

On some interpretations, the Big 5 are or should be like that: They are “orthogonal” (at “right
angles”) to each other, like x, y and z axes and are therefore “mutually exclusive” from and
independent of each other.

That means “Openness” and “Agreeability”, for example do not overlap in any way, if they are
orthogonal. However, there is the ever-present danger that, on some adaptations and
interpretations of them, they do overlap in a muddled, empirically observed or otherwise
complex way.

However, on some of the same interpretations, the “points” into which they map, namely, “traits”,
such as “lazy”, “cooperative” or “shy” are identified as “combinations” of the 5 dimensions—or
more precisely, of scores for the five dimensions and correlations with them, with said scores
being determined either by lexical frequency and semantic analysis or by self-ratings or
observer-ratings on some 5-point scale, say, from “absolutely does not describe me/him” to
“perfectly describes me/him”. (The five points of the customarily used Likert scale only
coincidentally match the number of Big 5 dimensions. Many scales have five points to ensure
precision and a neutral midpoint choice.)

In the natural sciences, partitions are very common, even if only as observed (as opposed to
logical) partitions. For example, the “periodic table of elements” in chemistry is a partition
because no two elements “overlap”, e.g., have the same atomic weight or number (“mutually
exclusive”) and because the elements in the table, e.g., hydrogen, carbon, platinum, are all that
are known to exist, i.e., no known ones are omitted.
These too, although mutually exclusive elements, “combine” to selectively form compounds in
many instances (except for those that are inert). A very intriguing investigation to undertake
would be to determine how many, if any, of the Big 5 dimensions are analogously “inert”—that
is, do not combine with any of the others to somehow influence or define personality traits or
“facets”. (Given the wealth of research into the Big 5, it would come as no surprise to learn that
this has already been done.)

In any event, the Big 5 does not represent a “logical” partition, since its five dimensions do not
exhaust the set of possible personality dimensions, having been chosen instead because of
their power to consolidate information about personality traits. As for being mutually exclusive,
i.e., “orthogonal” , as the x and y axes are, that very much depends on how and by whom they
are defined and explained.

A search of the Big 5 literature reveals that “empirical evidence shows that the Big Five
dimensions are not always orthogonal in marker sets.” [Source: “Critique of the Five Factor
Model of Personality”, Gregory Boyle, Department of Psychology, University of Queensland.]

Ideally, there would be no overlap; at worst, there would be too much—of the sort newspaper
horoscopes serve up when they say of both Aries and Virgo, “Today will be exciting!”, when the
12 signs are otherwise logically a partition. When the overlap appears to be or measured as
being “excessive”, the odds are, or, rather, logic suggests, that the particular adaptation of the
Big 5 version guilty of that will be of limited value.

■ VIII. Constraints? (that limit other traits or behaviors)

Commonsensically understood, factors (and dimensions) don't have to be causes or

unexplained correlates: Instead, they can often better be described as “constraints”. For
example, a factor in making a hiring decision is how much time is available for screening the
pool of candidates. That time, as a factor, doesn't cause or even correlate with the decision to
hire or reject any specific individual, but it does constrain it.

Constraints, so understood, are at the heart of defining and solving linear programming
problems, e.g., as an upper limit on the availability of a resource or a lower limit on the
acceptable tensility of manufactured steel wire. So, it is fair to ask whether any of the Big 5
factors (dimensions) may actually be constraints.

ANSWER:The answer is “yes” and “no”. If the Big 5 dimensions are used to “weed out” or
qualify candidates, then, in some sense they are constraints on hiring, to the extent that certain
minimum scores or ratings on extraversion, agreeability, etc., are treated as prerequisites or
biasing factors with respect to being offered a job (whether or not that use of the Big 5 is
approved or recommended by the providers of the assessment “inventory” and other package
elements). On the other hand, for other purposes, such as pure classification or explanation,
they would not function as constraints.

Counseling applications may fall into a grey area, if the purpose of the counseling is to
“optimize” something, e.g., employee satisfaction or job suitability. In that case, a low
extraversion or agreeability score would represent a constraint on the goal of optimizing
satisfaction or suitability regarding a customer service position. From this perspective the
constraint imposed by a high or low dimension rating or score might be interpreted as the
dimension itself being a constraint.

■ IX. Measurement tool? (used, for example, to measure the degree, duration, frequency
or pervasiveness of extraversion or its quantitative correlations with specific personality
traits, such as “enjoys crowds or big parties”)

ANSWER: When the scale, e.g., the ratings set of of a questionnaire responses, is designed as
a menu of discrete degree-categories, such as “completely disagree”, “disagree somewhat”,
“neither agree nor disagree”, “agree somewhat” and “completely agree”, the result is a
“measure” of attitudes or traits, but obviously not a quantitative measure (until ranked or coded
numerically for some purposes, e.g. as -2, -1, 0, 1, 2). Prior to such quantification, the data are
more of a measure in the sense of an ordinal, qualitative “gauge”, rather than a true quantitative
measurement.

Such scales can also be quantitatively simplified by factoring in only extreme end-point
responses, e.g., -2 and +2 (perhaps for greater validity and reliability). The main point that
immediately emerges from this brief exposition is that when using any such rating and
classification instrument, whether a Big 5 “test” or a high school English teacher's marking
scheme, one should not automatically assume that a numerical rating is actually the result of a
well-defined quantitative calculation or that the scales are linear i.e., that equal intervals have
equal weight (as opposed to logarithmic). (Generally, they will, unless adapted by less careful or
less honest minds.)

For example, what would numerical item coding mean or prove if the following skewed scale
were used with a personality trait test/inventory: “absolutely disagree”, “neither agree nor
disagree”, “agree somewhat”, “mostly agree”, “absolutely agree”?

■ X. Ranking? (of the hierarchical and relative importance, frequency, etc., of personality
traits or of an individual's “normed scores”)

ANSWER:This has been partially covered in section “V”, above, in connection with the
discussion of “norms”. Note the disclaimers associated with proprietary “inventories”, such as
the MBTI and the public domain IPIP, which, although characterized as not tests or normed by
its creators and compilers, are still widely seen to be, adapted and used as a ranking tool, if not
an outright pass-fail test by some users.

■ XI. Taxonomy? (a descriptive, classification framework)

As a purely descriptive or definitional, rather than an explanatory or control framework, being a

taxonomy would make the Big 5 a classification scheme, like botanical classification of plant by
structure and physiology, a Big 5 food chart or, more specifically, a classification of personality
traits as characteristics, rather than of laws governing their interaction within or between
individuals.
ANSWER: As a mere taxonomy, a Big 5 model would be “predictive” only in the way that
predicting (or suggesting by definition) that an animal that looks like a kangaroo is also likely to
carry its young in a pouch or that someone who is open to new ideas is also likely to be open to
new experiences.

As for the Five Factor model's empirically investigated predictive power, the report card is quite
mixed, depending on which version, dimension, dimension definitions, domain of application,
etc., is utilized.

For example, with respect to “occupational performance”, “conscientiousness”, one review

reported that although it “exhibited the highest validity of the FFM dimensions in relation to
predicting job performance”, “the actual predictive variance accounted for was only around 4%,
raising doubt as to the utility of the FFM measures in making valid predictions of occupational
performance.” [Source: “Critique of the Five Factor Model of Personality”, Gregory Boyle,
Department of Psychology, University of Queensland.]

■ XII. Typology?

If the Big 5 dimensions represent personality types, rather than merely five traits among
thousands, all of humanity could be reduced to just five types.

ANSWER: Because the Big 5 dimensions describe aspects of personality, it may be asked
whether these represent five types of personalities, of dispositions or types of something else,
much as the 16 MBTI personality categories, such as “ESTJ” (Extraverted/Sensing/Thinking/
Judging), designate allegedly self-contained and complete types, rather than merely traits that
may be associated with a type or types.

The short answer is “no”. The Big 5 dimensions represent “super-traits”, i.e., broad traits that
correlate with or are defined by component “facet” or lower-level traits. For example,
Neuroticism as the super-trait, and Anxiety, Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness,
Impulsiveness and Vulnerability as the facets (within one version of the Big 5). Therefore, it
would make no sense to describe anyone as a “neuroticism type”.

Importantly, “neurosis” and “neuroticism” have been expunged from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) V, thereby stripping the concept and labeling of
whatever clinical, professional or social relevance to abnormal psychology a Big 5 neuroticism
dimension might otherwise or anachronistically suggest to a user, e.g., a recruiter, manager or a
candidate.

As for “the neurotic type”, when an individual is about to be labeled as “a neurotic” or suffering
from “a neurosis”, extreme caution is to be advised in inferring this from a high “neuroticism”
score on a Big 5 test or rating, especially since strict, clinical criteria of neurosis (if the disorder
is recognized by a psychiatric practitioner) would have to be compared with the neuroticism
facets as defined by the given Big 5 version, especially in light of the elimination of such
categories from the DSM V.
For example, would we really want to declare that an Auschwitz survivor who, for all the years of
captivity, was anxious, hostile, depressed, self-conscious (because of extreme emaciation and
lice), impulsive (e.g., scrambling for a scrap of food at the risk of being shot), and vulnerable
was therefore at that time, and on the basis of the neuroticism facets listed above, “the neurotic
type” or “neurotic” or suffering from a “neurosis”, rather than merely responding very naturally
and inevitably to very unnatural, barbaric and traumatic circumstances?

If that example seems too extreme, how about a middle manager who has been fired without
cause, can't find a job or make his mortgage payments: Would or should his anxiety, hostility,
depression, self-consciousness (e.g., shame), impulsive behavior (e.g., rejecting a minimum
wage job offer from pride), and vulnerability be evidence of “neuroticism” in any familiar sense of
the term?

This is one of the peculiarities of and issues with the Big 5 neuroticism dimension: It may invite
confusion of normal reactions to persistent, abnormal situations with abnormal personality traits.
As a variant of this idea, psychoanalyst Viktor E. Frankl, who specifically described and
analyzed the ordeals of Nazi concentration camp captives, among whom he was one, in his
account of their experiences, Man's Search for Meaning (German title:...trotzdem Ja zum Leben
Sagen: Ein Psychologe erlebt das Konzentrationslager —...Still Say '”Yes” to Life: a
Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camp”) said, “An abnormal reaction to an
abnormal situation is normal behavior.”

Compare the Big 5 criteria of neuroticism with those of psychoanalysts, such as Frankl, who
described the predictable and endless emergence of a fresh survival need after another had
been satisfied among the inmates of concentration camps. Is that neurotic and if so, under
which facets of the Big 5 definition of “neuroticism”, given that the most logical, viz., self-
defeating “neurotic craving” or “neurotic persistence” (“perseveration”), does not appear among
them?

Moreover, the Big 5 concept of neuroticism completely ignores classic concepts of neuroticism
as involving conflicts, either unconscious or cultural, e.g., in the highly influential and insightful
theories of Sigmund Freud and Karen Horney, respectively, not to mention its omission of the
feature of self-defeating behavior, e.g., a neurotic need for approval that elicits uniform
disapproval.

As a minimum, any employer, candidate, recruiter or manager whose understanding of

“neuroticism” is closer to such classic concepts may misunderstand the results and implications
of any high neuroticism score and imagine that the trait represents a modern “condition” or
abnormal personality “type”.

■ XIII. “Normal science” activity within only one specific scientific paradigm?

“Normal science”, as used by Harvard science historian Thomas Kuhn, designates scientific
research, experimentation, conceptualization, etc., approved by, falling within, consistent with
and supportive of a dominant over-arching, orthodox, theoretical, moral, methodological or
ideological framework he calls a “paradigm”. If there is no such broadly accepted theoretical (as
opposed to methodological) paradigm, Big 5 research has not attained the status of paradigm-
rooted normal science (apart from whatever paradigmatic methodologies, such as “factor
analysis” it employs) and therefore must be considered “a work in progress” rather than
uncontested fact or doctrine.

ANSWER: Paradigm-anchored “normal science”? Not yet. The Big 5 are not like the planets,
their orbits or the laws governing them investigated within a dominant single “paradigm”, i.e., the
scientific, metaphysical, social, religious and cultural framework of Copernican Sun-centered
planetary system or Brownian motion within statistical mechanics.

Although strides have been made to perfectly embed a Big 5 or Five-Factor classification within
a single natural or social science “paradigm” (as Thomas Kuhn defined it in his now classic The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions) or theoretical framework, such as neuro-physiology, clinical
psychiatry or evolutionary psychology, the efforts represent “work in progress”. Instead, the Big
5 classifications are analogous to an examination and classification of dreams or mental
illnesses and their content within the broad and competing paradigms of Freudian, Jungian
psychoanalysis or DSM V.)

The most cautious sentiment is that while the search for and investigations into a universally
acceptable and acceptable paradigm continues, the five dimensions are, for now, simply
empirically confirmed brute facts and descriptors ascertained through lexical studies and/or
through rating questionnaires, much as the enumeration of and observed limitation to five as the
number of kinds of great apes is.

3. How many Big 5 (Five-Factor) and comparable classifications are there?

This is important to know when selecting the version to use or not. A given version may have
greater suitability, validity, reliability, precision, accuracy (and therefore clarity) than another or
may reflect a specific, favored paradigm differing from others, e.g., evolutionary psychology vs.
clinical psychiatry.

ANSWER: The Big 5” is at best a misleading designation and at worst a misnomer, since, as we
shall see, there are many classifications, tests and models that have been created under its
banner, either as Five-Factor models, as derivatives or as rivals. For example, the IPIP website,
administered by some of the top researchers in the field, including founding member Lewis
Goldberg, says this:

“At the present time, approximately 300 scales constructed from IPIP items are available. IPIP
proxies have been developed to measure the constructs in the following broad-bandwidth
inventories: The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16PF: Conn & Rieke, 1994), California Psychological Inventory (CPI: Gough & Bradley, 1996),
Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI: Hogan & Hogan, 1992), Temperament and Character
Inventory (TCI: Cloninger, 1994), Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ: Tellegen, in
press), Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI-R: Jackson, 1994), Six-Factor Personality
Questionnaire (6FPQ: Jackson, Paunonen, & Tremblay, 2000), and HEXACO Personality
Inventory (Lee & Ashton, 2004). Other multiple-construct measures with IPIP proxies include the
lexical Big-Five factor structure (Goldberg, 1992), the lexical Alternative 7 (Saucier, 1997), the
45 facets in the Abridged Big Five-dimensional Circumplex model (AB5C: Hofstee, de Raad, &
Goldberg, 1992), components of Emotional Intelligence (Barchard, 2001), and the BIS/BAS
Inhibition/Activation System (Carver & White,1994).”

In addition to these, the site notes that there are the core “constructs” of which there are “175
such constructs (e.g., Activity Level, Borderline Personality Disorder, Complexity, Empathy,
Impulse Control, Impression-Management, Irrational Beliefs, Locus of Control, Self-Monitoring),
many of which are measured by two or more IPIP scales.”

Get the picture?

4. Are these five dimensions more “fundamental” than any others?

Intelligently asking and answering this requires having some clear idea(s) about what
“fundamental” means. For example, does it mean “irreducible”, “unanalyzable”, “identified as
prime or ultimate cause(s)”, “maximally explains variance and covariance of data items”, “most
universal”, “core paradigm concept(s)”, “logical partition” (into mutually exclusive and logically
exhaustive elements”, “axiomatic”, or what?

Presumably, however, the more “fundamental”, the better.

ANSWER: What sense of “fundamental” has guided the formulation of the various dimensions
—e.g., fundamental for psychotherapy and clinical diagnosis, personnel and organizational
management, education, sports training, military service, brain physiology, cross-cultural
understanding or for political control, to name but a few possibilities?

This is like asking whether there is, from a health and nutrition standpoint, something “more
fundamental”, e.g., more predictive, more explanatory, more useful, better evidenced, more
“important”, more coherent or otherwise more intuitively sensible and “logical” than a nutritional
Big 8 of grains, legumes, vegetables, dairy, fruit, nuts, meat, eggs and fish.

For example, what about a Big 4 of “carbohydrates, fats, oils, protein” or the current, very
counter-intuitive, logically muddled USDA's “My Plate” that recommends a diet of “fruits,
vegetables, grains, protein and dairy”?

As a “factor analysis”, the “My Plate” classification is a “Big 5” mess that incorrectly and
unwisely suggests that dairy, vegetables and grains contain no protein and that nuts, fish, eggs,
legumes (such as beans), oils and fats have no place on my plate on a par with meat and dairy
(except partially, implicitly and vaguely, because of, for example, the broad category of
“protein”). A (most) “fundamental” or a logical partition in any coherent sense?—Hardly.

What this and the other “orientation” questions suggest is that no matter what Big 5, Big 3 or Big
X dimensions of personality (or of anything else) are proposed, they must be closely scrutinized
to determine in which sense, to what degree, with what evidence/precision/accuracy/utility, and
for what or whose purposes or agenda they are presented as fundamental.
5. Can every other personality dimension and trait in theory or in fact be analyzed,
reduced to, described, explained or otherwise somehow correlated with just these five
dimensions?

If the answer is “yes”, that provides absolute reassurance that the Big 5 omits and overlooks no
dimensions or traits and also that it deals with them usefully. If the offered or discovered answer
is “no”, its usefulness will be more limited and require clarification.

ANSWER: Examples of credible alternative dimensions or at least familiar traits that should be
encompassed include critically important “resilience”, “convergent (vs. divergent) thinker”, “self-
esteem”, “selflessness” (in two senses), “excitability”, “mood reversibility”, “tenacity”,
“autonomy”, “self-control”, “frustration tolerance”, “enviousness”, ” “humility”, “spitefulness”,
“knowledgeability”, “arrogance”, “compulsiveness”, “dominance”, “willfulness”, “greediness”,
“honesty and “lustfulness” (to name but very few among thousands). Compare these with the
IPIP “Alphabetical Index of 230 Labels for 302 IPIP Scales” and note those that are
(surprisingly) absent from it, e.g., “resilience”, which, as a form of coping, arguably is not
synonymous with “adaptability”, since adapting to change is not the same thing as strong
recovery from it (with positive emotional tone), inasmuch as one can adapt by giving up in
morose resignation, which seems quite unlike positive resilience). Other omissions are evident
and include convergent/divergent thinking (cognitive personality traits) and
“spitefulness” (emotional-motivational).

Experts who go beyond this suggestion and argue that the Five Factor Model fails to be
comprehensive are not hard to find:

“Furthermore, in analyses of adjectival data, Paunonan and Jackson (2000) provided hard
evidence that many personality traits lie beyond the putative Big Five dimensions (such as
Conservativeness, Honesty, Deceptiveness, Conceit, Masculinity-Femininity, Thriftiness,
Humorousness, Sensuality, and Religiosity).” [Source: “Critique of the Five Factor Model of
Personality”, Gregory Boyle, Department of Psychology, University of Queensland.]

“As McCrae and Costa (1997) concluded, 'It is simply not the case that all personality traits are
encoded as adjectives . . . lexical studies confound differences in personality structure with
differences in personality language.” [Source: “How Universal Is the Big Five? Testing the Five-
Factor Model of Personality Variation Among Forager–Farmers in the Bolivian Amazon”, M.
Gurven, Christopher von Rueden,M. Massenkoff, H. Kaplan, Marino Lero Vie, 2012.]

Or are these five to be regarded as necessary, but not sufficient, to account for or derive all
other personality traits? And if only necessary, why select just these five from those that are
necessary?

6. How are these “dimensions” related to personality “traits”, as opposed to “states”—to

one of these two more than the other?

If the dimensions refer to unpredictable behaviors that randomly or systematically vary with
“states”, i.e. , very specific, even “time-stamped” situations and contexts, e.g., always or
sometimes displaying fawning agreeability with superiors, but not ever with helpless
subordinates, a given personality “trait”, such as “frequently express(es) intense anger”, may be
too context-dependent to be regarded as a broad, permanent trait, and be a reflection of only a
“state”, unless defined micro-contextually and with complex ultra-precision.

ANSWER: For example, are the dimensions used to describe highly variable mood, context or
situation-based behavior (states), or more or less permanent or dominant dispositions and
behaviors and attitudes (traits) displayed equally in multiple, if not almost all contexts, such as
work, at home, while shopping, in groups and in private intimate moments?

Complicating the conceptualization, differentiation and investigation of traits and states is that
they may lie on a continuum, rather than represent a sharp dichotomy. For example, how are we
to distinguish and label a once-in-a-lifetime or otherwise exceedingly rare personality or
emotional state, e.g., the overwhelming joy of winning a mega-millions lottery, from a state that
invariably occurs in contexts that, although highly specific, e.g., shyness in the context of
chairing a project team meeting, is nonetheless displayed frequently enough to be considered a
quasi-trait?

A second challenge is that the greater the warrant for labeling a disposition or response a trait,
the likelier it is to be more vaguely described (which can adversely affect its predictive value).
For example, compare the broad trait of “openness” with the highly specific state of “readily
confessed serious criminal wrongdoing”. Both correlate with being “open” in some sense, but
any prediction that somebody who is broadly open will also blurt out a confession while in police
custody will be extremely risky.

As a minimum, such issues suggest great caution in applying the Big 5 dimensions predictively,
unless what is predicted is the manifestation of traits correspondingly as general as the
dimensions themselves.

7. Are the Big 5 dimensions “deep” and precise enough, or too unsophisticated
(scientifically speaking) for optimal classification, insight, prediction, control and
explanation?

If the Big 5 lack any theoretical explanation, sufficient precision and/or “depth” of
characterization, e.g., in terms of something other than dictionary-entry level insight, such as
that achieved by neurophysiology or evolutionary psychology, the factor/dimensions may not be
as insightful as hoped.

ANSWER: Some researchers believe that the factors and traits itemized in the Big 5, when
merely extracted from dictionaries—as is the case with the so-called “lexical” approach to factor
analysis of the five dimensions and the traits they cover—represent only the average insight of
average people over the course of linguistic and human history and evolution of the language,
encapsulated in the “reported” dictionary entries for the traits, rather than a “deeper”
characterization of the traits.

What counts as “deeper”?: virtually every sociological, psychoanalytic, behaviorist,

sociobiological, neuroanatomical, philosophical, economic, anthropological, ethological, game
theoretic, etc., theory or model of human behavior and personality that transcends “common
sense” and the dictionary.

Consider this question: Which is deeper—characterizing an employee as “lazy” or as “stuck in

an avoidance-avoidance, approach-approach or approach-avoidance conflict”, “perceives a
conflict between task performance and his values”, “derives no primary or secondary
reinforcement from undertaking or completing a task”, “has a poor skills-challenge match”,
“interprets his job as a zero-sum game”, “lacks B-complex vitamins as co-factors in the Krebs
ADP-ATP molecular energy-creation cycle”, “deficient in forebrain executive functioning”, “fails
to identify with corporate and group interests”. How about “non-conformist” (which, on its own,
sounds vaguely negative) vs. “has a strong 'internal locus of control'” (which does not)?

Notice how the deeper the concept, the sharper the analysis and awareness of alternative
causes and appropriate interventions where needed.

8. Are the dimensions and traits “reported”, “stipulated” or “explicated”?

Some critics press for something more sophisticated as formulations and definitions of
dimensions and their correlated traits, in the form of “explications”—i.e., characterizations or
definitions that enrich the descriptors with refinements drawn from some specialist discipline, in
the way that Einstein enriched the ordinary-language concept of “relativity” to include time as
well as motion, Freud transformed and made scientific traits of the “unconscious
mind” (originally viewed as a self-contradictory concept), or tort legal nomenclature tightens up
and rigorously formalizes the informal concept of “contract” and its requirements.

An example would be a reduction of cardinal personality traits, e.g., “excitability”, to and in terms
of their neurophysiological, biochemical bases, if these can be identified.

ANSWER: One thing can be said for certain: Neither the dimensions (e.g., “openness”,
“neuroticism” or “conscientiousness”) nor the data-point traits and facets (e.g., “honest(y)”,
“shy(ness)” or “meticulous(ness)”) are pure “stipulations”—i.e., entirely “made-up” definitions. All
seem to definitionally capture some “core” intuitions regarding each dimension and trait. The
problem is that they include and exclude others that other researchers or the common (wo)man
would not. These partially overlapping definitions display what Ludwig Wittgenstein, famed
Austrian philosopher called “family resemblances”, e.g., one child has her father's ears and
smile, but not his nose, while another has his nose and smile, but not his ears.

Take “neuroticism” for example—and but one definitional version (since the definitions seem to
be nearly as numerous as those advancing them). One dictionary definition (Merriam Webster's)
defines “neuroticism” this way: “having a neurotic character, condition or trait”. Without even
proceeding to get the dictionary definition of “neurotic”, it is immediately obvious that this
clashes with one of key assumptions of the Big 5 scheme and with the most common definitions
of “neuroticism” used in connection with the Big 5: “

For example, Merriam Webster “reports” that “neurosis” means “often or always fearful or
worried about something: tending to worry in a way that is not healthy or reasonable” Worry is
the only form of neurosis? What about self-defeating, self-sabotaging behavior, or this definition
that appears as the primary definition in a Google search for “neuroticism”:
“Neuroticism is a fundamental personality trait in the study of psychology characterized by
anxiety, fear, moodiness, worry, envy, frustration, jealousy, and loneliness.” (Compare this with
the neuroticism facets listed above and note the stark dissimilarities.)

Oh, so there's more to neuroticism than just worry? And is worry not a form of anxiety or fear?
So, no agreement and no partition. But then, what about neurotic disgust, tidiness, hatred, self-
denial, estrangement (which is not loneliness), abnormal desire for approval or revenge, etc.,
etc.?

These definitions seem not to be “exhaustive” either. Instead, there seem to be partially
overlapping concepts and their associated definitions akin to family resemblances that preclude
identifying or specifying the “essence” of “neuroticism”, much as family resemblances prevent
identifying and specifying the essence of being “a child of Mr. Jones” on the basis of physical
appearance.

An investigation into all of the definitions of the dimensions used by the countless proponents of
some Big 5 framework or another is likely to reveal not only family resemblances rather than
consensus, but also instances in which some conceptualizations are at best distant cousins.
This is especially likely to be the case in regard to traits identified not on the basis of lexical
(dictionary) frequency and content, but on self-, peer- or management-ratings, or on simply
“explicative” definitions (a combination of reported and stipulated content, framed to make
ordinary-language concepts more theoretically, ideologically, etc., focused and precise) in which
there is more “creative” control over the semantics of the dimensions and correlated traits.

9. Can an individual's dimension test “scores” change or vary (either over time, mood or
contexts) or are they purely genetically determined?

Organizations and employers, in particular, will be interested to know whether, when a given
employee trait is a “good” one, it will be a dependable, stable characteristic and when a “bad”
one, it can be modified. If the trait is largely “genetic” or “instinctive”, it will, to that degree, be,
like a dog's scratching at its fleas, represent behavior that is fixed and not easily modified.

ANSWER: This is the “nature vs. nurture” (genetic heritability vs. environmental influence)
issue, addressed later in this report, that raises the question “Can people, e.g., employees,
change?” Most Big 5 research confirms some degree of heritability of dimensions and traits, but,
in accord with common sense, confirms that “personality” is not only a blend of nature and
nurture, but also that it evolves and changes over time, in a life-stage, environmentally and
culturally influenced ways:

“The genetic and environmental etiology of the five-factor model of personality as measured by
the revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) was assessed using 123 pairs of identical
twins and 127 pairs of fraternal twins. Broad genetic influence on the five dimensions of
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness was estimated at
41%, 53%, 61%, 41%, and 44%, respectively. The facet scales also showed substantial
heritability, although for several facets the genetic influence was largely non-additive. The
influence of the environment was consistent across all dimensions and facets. Shared
environmental influences accounted for a negligible proportion of the variance in most scales,
whereas non-shared environmental influences accounted for the majority of the environmental
variance in all scales.” [Source: “Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their
facets: a twin study”, Journal of Personality; Jang, Livesly and Vernon, 1996 Sep; 64(3):577-91.]

“Contemporary research on the heritability of traits has focused on the Big Five/FFM
dimensions. Behavioral genetic studies have found substantial heritability ranging from 41
percent to 61 percent for the broad dimensions, with little evidence of shared environmental
effects (Jang, Livesley, and Vernon 1996). Heritability of the narrowband traits of the FFM is
more modest, ranging from 30 percent to 50 percent. It is widely believed that traits are
influenced by multiple genes; molecular genetic studies, however, have not replicated results
linking specific genes to personality traits.” [Source: “Trait Theory”, International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences.]

But genetic “codes” for traits aside, what about environmental, circumstantial, genetic and other
influences on development, evolution and stage-dependent changes, disappearance or
emergence of traits? Here too, the evidence suggests that over years (as well as across
situations) traits are dynamic and evolving, not static:

For example,

“The biological view of the Five-factor theory proposes the plaster hypothesis: All personality
traits stop changing by age 30. In contrast, contextualist perspectives propose that changes
should be more varied and should persist throughout adulthood. This study compared these
perspectives in a large (N = 132,515) sample of adults aged 21-60 who completed a Big Five
personality measure on the Internet. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness increased
throughout early and middle adulthood at varying rates; Neuroticism declined among women but
did not change among men. The variety in patterns of change suggests that the Big Five traits
are complex phenomena subject to a variety of developmental influences.” [Source:
“Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent
change?”, Srivastava S, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 2003 May; 84(5):1041-53.]

Finally, allowing a prominent influence for genetics, what is the impact of birth order on the
dimensions and can it exercise an “epigenetic” effect, i.e., modify the expression of the genes
“governing” or influencing personality traits. Answers, rather than the answer, to this question
will certainly be dauntingly complex and narrowly focused, as the following abstract illustrates in
addressing the influence of birth order on only one trait among thousands:

“Sulloway (1996) proposed that personality traits developed in childhood mediate the
association of birth order with scientific radicalism. Birth-order effects on traits within the five-
factor model of personality were examined in three studies. Self-reports on brief measures of
Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness in a national sample (N= 9664) were unrelated to
birth order. Self-reports on the 30 facet scales of the Revised NEO- Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R) in an adult sample (N= 612) showed only small effects for Altruism and Tender-
Mindedness. Peer ratings (N= 166) supported the hypotheses that later-born children would be
higher in facets of Openness and Agreeableness, but spouse ratings (N= 88) did not replicate
those findings. Birth order may have subtle effects on perceived personality, but it is unlikely that
this effect mediates associations with scientific radicalism.” [Source: “Associations between
Birth Order and Personality Traits: Evidence from Self-Reports and Observer Ratings”, Tyrone
Jefferson Jr.Jeffrey H. Herbst, Robert R. McCrae, doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233]

10. Does the Big 5 “model” cover character traits or core and habitual needs, cognitive
styles and capacities, and emotions (such as disgust, joy, pride, fear) as well as (in both
senses of “as well as”) personality traits?

If the Big 5 is offered as comprehensive enough to account for not only “social” personality
traits, but also intellectual, emotional, volitional, moral (character) sensory (e.g., “hedonistic”)
traits (and even “needs”), it would have to be much more powerful and more extensively tested
than if restricted to purely social factors and traits, such as “agreeable”.

Equally importantly, do such Five-Factor dimensions encompass private thoughts and attitudes
as well as publicly observable behaviors? This is of critical importance in distinguishing feigned
on-the job “agreeability” , “extraversion”, etc., (which may be manifested because of fear or
cunning) from the real deal).

ANSWER: This is important to ask, given that “character” and “personality” are not the same,
since a person's character is generally understood to comprise moral characteristics, such as
“honesty”, whereas “personality” designates social characteristics, such as “effusiveness”,
“charm”, “sense of humor”. To become a pop star, you need “personality”; to become that pop
star's trusted accountant, you need “character”. As for emotions, are not one's dominant,
habitual emotions facets of personality, if not also the Big 5 dimensions themselves?

Then there is the issue of whether“cognitive traits” should be included among personality traits,
e.g., intellectual “styles” such as auditory vs. visual learning or “convergent thinking” (preferring
unambiguous highly structured, single-answer problems and learning, e.g., accounting) vs.
“divergent thinking” (preferring less structured, more creative, less “algorithmic” thinking, e.g,
philosophical or artistic problems).

It should be noted in advance that some popularizations of the Big 5 define the dimensions as
needs, rather than as the more commonly cited traits (which, in any given instance, may or may
not be the product or manifestation of “needs” or even of wants at all, let alone always. As
another alternative to a needs-based interpretation of core dimensions, innate temperament-
determined traits, such as “energetic” or “phlegmatic” come to mind.

11. Are the five dimensions precisely, accurately, reliably, validly, consistently, coherently
and parsimoniously defined and understood?

ANSWER: Methodology 101 teaches us that “accuracy” and “precision” are not the same thing.
A watch can be accurate, but not precise, or precise, but not accurate. For example, a wind-up
watch with only hour markers will be accurate if not running fast or slow, but it won't be precise;
on the other hand, a broken digital watch with “4:23:53 PM” displayed will be precise, but
accurate only once every 24 hours.
This means that although a classification and its dimensions may be both “valid” (e.g., have
construct validity, which means that its concepts and methods measure what they are supposed
to measure) and “reliable” (e.g., have re-test and cross-sample consistency and repeatability of
results), the question of whether the concepts, measures and findings are both precise and
accurate remains as a separate issue.

As for consistency, the plethora of Big 5 models clearly rules out inter-model consistency, as a
minimum because of the wide and conflicting variation in not only the designations of the five
dimensions, but also in the definitions and characterizations of the agreed-upon dimensions.

That leaves consistency within a given version of the Big 5. Theoretically and logically, such
inconsistency can take many forms: the facets of the dimensions teased from ratings or from
dictionaries may be inconsistent with common or specialist intuitions (e.g., with respect to
“neuroticism”, discussed and examined throughout this report); the claims made with respect to
the universality or comprehensiveness (completeness) may collide with studies challenging
them (as is the case with both the alleged changeless of traits over a lifetime and the cross-
cultural universality of the dimensions, discussed within this report).

Some Big 5 research results have reportedly failed replication tests, which would constitute
inconsistency of outcomes. For example, ““...the FFM cannot be reproduced reliably across
different samples (Block, 1995, p. 200; Waller, 1995)” [Source: “Critique of the Five Factor
Model of Personality”, Gregory Boyle, Department of Psychology, University of Queensland.]

Whether the Big 5 dimensions are the most “parsimonious”, i.e., compact, economical and
crafted in conformity with “Ockham's Razor” (viz., not “multiplying entities” beyond what is
“necessary”) is a matter of endless debate, with those who argue that five is too many or too few
being equally numerous and vociferous.

To get a taste of the debate, just consider the title of 3-factor theorist Hans Eysenck's rebuke to
Big 5 theorists: “Four reasons why five factors are not basic.”

With regard to accuracy, there is the question of whether the dimensions, such as neuroticism,
and traits embedded in questionnaire items, e.g., “am/is afraid of many things” are understood
by the rater in the way the designers intended. For example, if I strongly agree with “am afraid of
many things”, but mean only that I of course believe there are many things that are worthy of
fear, e.g., African cobras and flesh-eating bacteria, and not that I am a fearful person or
chronically/recently in a fearful state, of what value are any associated strong correlations
between the dimensions, facets and underlying traits?

If the researchers intend to exclude “believe many things are worthy of fear” or, oppositely, to
make it a sufficient condition for being “afraid of many things”, the inventories and “tests” may
lack construct validity, i.e., are not measuring what they are supposed to measure, namely, the
trait as understood by the self-rater or observer.

Here's a sample of such potential confusion among items taken from an "official" BFI:
 ■ “Can be tense”: If I strongly agree, am I declaring there is a virtual certainly that I, like
virtually everyone else, am capable of being tense; that I am often tense; that I can be
intensely--or just slightly—tense? On the first interpretation, virtually everyone should
strongly agree. If I strongly disagree, is it because, contrary to all human experience, I
believe I am incapable of being tense, e.g., when having a root canal? If it doesn't mean
“am incapable of being tense”, how is it supposed to be understood? Such ambiguity
can contaminate and confuse rater responses and put into question the accuracy,
significance and usefulness of responses.

■ “Is ingenious, a deep thinker”: Is this an “and” or an “or” trait? Suppose I or my boss
thinks I am a “deep thinker”, but not ingenious? Then what?

■ “Has few artistic interests”: How would Picasso or any impressionist painter interested in
no other art form, e.g., sculpture, ballet or graphic design have answered or been able to
answer this? And what would a specialist, exclusionary artist's “strongly agree” be
evidence of?

■ “Is depressed, blue”: Again, “and” or “or”? And does it mean always, usually, sometimes,
recently, today? Does “strongly agree” designate frequency, intensity, duration or merely
occurrence of depression, e.g., in the past week? If only the latter, isn't the item about a
state and not a trait?

Given “strongly agree” responses to any of the foregoing, what predictions, with what probability
can be made from them, e.g., from “can be tense”? Anything more informative or reliable than
inferences from “can be quiet”, “can be tired” or “can be confused”?

12. How “universal” are the dimensions with respect to cultures, languages,
occupations, socio-economic status, statistical samples, age groups, gender, etc.?

Is any version of the Big 5 “valid and reliable”, precise and accurate across all cultures,
languages, age groups, genders, occupations, etc.? Note that “universal” and “comprehensive”
are not the same thing: “Comprehensive” means “complete”, with no missing essential or
otherwise important elements (“factors”); “universal” designates an unlimited domain of
applicability of the identified elements.

ANSWER: Defining the “universality” of the Big 5 or any such classification can be almost as
challenging as proving it. The first task is to specify for which “universes” of discourse and
research universality is being claimed or tested: Is it for all occupations, genders, races, stages
of economic development, age groups, languages and their speakers, social strata and castes,
income levels, educational levels, etc.?

What about traits that are confirmed, but that either do not persist equally in all populations and
groups or that emerge at different times, under diametrically opposed circumstances (e.g., a
tendency to laugh when happy vs. when angry) or with different intensity (bearing in mind that
the dimensions are continua, not discrete all-or-none traits, which means every one of them can
in exist in varying degrees).
Logically and theoretically, it is quite possible that the Big 5 may be universal with respect to one
such (compound) domain, e.g., for males, females and other gender-identified groups within
North American or European populations, but not valid or reliable for all of the thousands of
language, occupational or socio-economic groups (such as India's castes) worldwide (in terms
of the lexical model).

To meet the challenges inherent in claiming and testing the universality of the Big 5 in the most
comprehensive sense of “universal” would be a daunting, perhaps impossible task, comparable
to proving that no social, historical or cultural conditions anywhere or at any time inhibit, change
or override “universal” human “dimensions” or instincts, e.g., self-preservation among the
Japanese military or samurai classes, or “natural” anatomical structures (such as bone length
and curvature) in cultures with unique dietary or genetic markers.

The quest for and investigation into universality also raises the question of how much variance
in and departure from the trait norms will be allowed to count as evidence of the existence, not
to mention the universality, of a trait, e.g., is “tends to nod” strong or any evidence of
“agreeability” (especially in cultures where nodding is reported to mean “no”?)

There is also the risk that, if the traits in any classification are defined too narrowly, e.g.,
“faithfully follows the advice of a witch doctor” as a form of agreeability, that they will not be
found to exist at either end of the scale (“strongly agrees with advice of witch doctors” and
“strongly resists advice of witch doctors”) in cultures where there are no witch doctors. On the
other hand, if they are too broadly, ambiguously or vaguely defined, the universality and
predictive power of the traits will be seriously diluted, e.g., as would be the case with “I am very
agreeable”, vs. “I am somewhat agreeable” vs. “I am not agreeable at all”. In short, there are
serious issues in creating universal criteria that are neither culture-bound, linguo-centric nor
otherwise too narrow without being so broad as to be predictively worthless.

By the same token, disproof of “universality” should be relativized to the the domain of
investigation, e.g., language or cultural groups (as opposed to age groups, income strata,
occupations, etc.) Here's what a 2012 University of California/University of New Mexico
pioneering study had to say about the universality of the Big 5:

“We provide the first comprehensive test of the FFM in a small-scale, indigenous society—the
Tsimane horticulturalists of Bolivia—and fail to robustly replicate the Big Five...Tsimane
personality variation may instead be organized along fewer and differently composed
dimensions.” [Source: “How Universal Is the Big Five? Testing the Five-Factor Model of
Personality Variation Among Forager–Farmers in the Bolivian Amazon”, M. Gurven, Christopher
von Rueden,M. Massenkoff, H. Kaplan, Marino Lero Vie, 2012.]

Fair enough. But the Big 5 may be universal and useful with respect to a narrower or different
domain, i.e., may be “semi-universal”, e.g., in the “WEIRD” domain that the Tsimane
investigators cite as a possibly limiting, skewing and biased data base for Big 5 investigations:

“The vast majority of samples from cross-cultural studies are often (sic) urban students, glibly
referred to as western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic (WEIRD) populations (Henrich,
Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Despite the wide range of cultures and languages where the FFM
has been tested, WEIRD populations might show a similar personality structure if trait
covariance is an artifact of living in large urban, literate populations...In the past, empirical
patterns observed in WEIRD populations and assumed to be human universals have been
contradicted (or at least qualified) by observations in small-scale societies (Henrich et al.,
2010).”

There are other kinds of cautionary observations about the universality of the dimensions,
although not necessarily because of cultural variations. For example:

■ “...the FFM cannot be reproduced reliably across different samples (Block, 1995, p. 200;
Waller, 1995)” [Source: Boyle]

■ “The empirical evidence shows that Openness and Conscientiousness dimensions

appear to differ from one study to another (e.g., Hofstee et al., 1992; Johnson &
Ostendorf, 1993; Stumpf, 1993)”

What might be called “pseudo-universality” must also be considered: Suppose the set of all Big
5 frameworks, with their daunting and mutually inconsistent variations and overlap, as
exhaustive alternatives to each other somehow collectively were to cover all personality traits in
the way in which quantum field theory and general relativity could approximate a “theory of
everything” if they were not inconsistent with each other. Wouldn't that make the Big 5 defined
as the set of all Big 5 classifications universal in this strange sense?

This would, however, make the Big 5 “universal” only to the degree that the various competing
dimensions among them are embedded in at least one model somewhere among the diverse,
competing or otherwise incommensurable classifications created by psychologists, much as
current quantum field theory and general relativity theory cover most of physical reality while
“competing” with each other). Hence,

“Although divergent researchers often use divergent measures in multivariate prediction studies,
one rarely sees true comparative-validity studies (e.g., Ashton & Goldberg, 1973; Goldberg,
1972; Johnson, 2000) that pit two or more broad-band inventories. Consequently, results from
these insulated research programs become incommensurable, leading to the fragmentation
rather than integration of knowledge (Johnson & Ostendorf, 1993)”. [Source: http://ipip.ori.org/
PublicDomainPersonalityMeasures.htm.]

13. Are the (most reliable) dimension ratings (on the spectrum corresponding to each
trait) self-ratings or observer ratings?

Distinctions between and assessments of the reliability and usefulness of self-ratings vs.
observer ratings—e.g., supervisor, co-worker, family, teacher, therapist—are crucial to
appropriate selection of a Big 5 package and its associated questionnaire. For example, if no
informed observers are available, there will be no alternative to a self-rating (despite any
concerns about faked or tailored responses).

In some instances, in which self-ratings are not even possible, there will be no alternative to
observer ratings: “Observer ratings of personality are essential to study the role of personality in
the decision making of corporate leaders, founders, and charismatic captains of industry (e.g.,
Henry Ford) who are long dead and are not available to complete questionnaires.” [Source:
“The Convergent Validity between Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A meta-analytic
review”, James J. Connolly, Erin J. Kavanagh and Chockalingam Viswesvaran, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 110-117, March 2007.]

ANSWER: Although typical Big 5 questionnaires are designed to detect self-rating deception,
e.g., through inconsistency of responses,the question remains whether or not observer ratings
are equally, more or less reliable than self-ratings, particularly given the debate about to what
degree “faking” or glossing of self-rating responses occurs and can be detected, e.g., “Some
practitioners have continued to express the concern that faking renders the use of personality
measures inappropriate in employment settings. Observer ratings may mitigate the effects of
faking.” [Source: “The Convergent Validity between Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A
meta-analytic review”, James J. Connolly, Erin J. Kavanagh and Chockalingam Viswesvaran,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 110-117, March 2007.]

If your organization's questionnaire is an in-house developed version or some other self-rating

tool when the Big 5 version adopted recommends observer ratings, validity of your results may
be compromised. Familiarity with the broad discussion of self-rating vs. observer-ratings is
recommended. In any case, you will have to make up your mind as to which to favor. Much
research suggests that observer ratings can be as valid and reliable than self-ratings, if not
more so. Example:

“Examined the validity of observer (supervisor, coworker, and customer) ratings and self-ratings
of personality measures. Results based on a sample of 105 sales representatives supported the
2 hypotheses tested. First, supervisor, coworker, and customer ratings of the 2 job-relevant
personality dimensions—conscientiousness and extraversion—were valid predictors of
performance ratings, and the magnitude of the validities was at least as large as for self-
ratings.” [Source: “Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors” by Mount,
Michael K.; Barrick, Murray R.; Strauss, J. Perkins, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 79(2),
Apr 1994, 272-280.]

“Reputation of an individual is probably better captured by observer ratings of personality than

by self-reports. There are studies that report higher predictive validity for observer ratings
(compared with self-ratings) in educational contexts (e.g., Smith, 1967). Similar findings have
been reported (Mount et al., 1994) in work settings.” [Source: “The Convergent Validity between
Self and Observer Ratings of Personality: A meta-analytic review”, James J. Connolly, Erin J.
Kavanagh and Chockalingam Viswesvaran, International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 110-117, March 2007.]

Moreover, comparability of reliability and validity of self- and observer ratings may vary with
cultures: “Research has shown that self–supervisor convergence in performance appraisal is
higher in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Yu & Murphy, 1993).”

This means that self-ratings and supervisor ratings tend to be more similar in societies that are
more community-focused and group-oriented, e.g., China and Japan. That is to say that in such
cultures there are fewer disparities between the two types of ratings to explain.
Cultural differences aside, common sense and research also suggest that if the questionnaire
items used in the ratings focus on “internal”, private feelings, thoughts and attitudes as traits,
rather than on publicly observable behavior, e.g., punctuality, self-ratings are likely to be more
reliable and valid, whereas observer ratings of observable behavior would be more dependable
when the items refer to such publicly displayed traits. That distinction underlies this conclusion
of a meta-analytic study of ratings:

“The literature indicating that some traits are more relevant to a personal identity and that some
traits are more observable, could provide [research] guidelines.”

The variety, content, design and testing of such test and questionnaire items is a complex field
in itself, so for the “advanced beginner” appreciating that the roles, correlations, content, validity,
reliability, etc., of self-ratings and observer ratings vary from model to model, study to study,
culture to culture and with application objectives is a good start, bearing in mind that the
research results represent a mosaic of findings rather than a uniform slab.

Bottom line for the non-specialist: When using a Big 5/Five-Factor instrument, such as a
questionnaire or a test, e.g., as a supervisor, carefully consider whether you are in a position to
accurately and precisely do such a rating. For example, if, as an observer of an employee being
rated, you have to score the trait “often feels unappreciated”, consider how much more difficult
that is to answer than “often expresses concern about a lack of appreciation”.

Likewise, if completing a self-rating, be alert for items like “other people think I am
conscientious”; again, are you really in a position to know what they really think? There is no
assurance that every Big 5-based instrument will be as rigorously and usefully designed and
tested as the best are, especially when free access to IPIP items allows modifying them at will.

14. Are all other seemingly excluded, yet recognized or conceivable personality
dimensions (and irreducible traits), e.g., “integrity”, “resilience” or those that have no
(concise) equivalent in some other language or your own—and will therefore not be
found in all dictionaries—somehow less important?

If some personality trait is important to you or your organization, but isn't “covered” by the Big 5
version you are (thinking of) utilizing, you will want to know that, especially if, for example, an
important trait is found not to exist in every age group, occupation, language or country in which
a given multinational corporation operates and hires.

ANSWER: ' , , ( , , C ( , , , . , ( , , ,
, C EC ( , , ,, .C ( , ( ( ( , (
, ( , , , , ,, ,( . , ( ( , C
.C ( , ( ( ( , ( ), ( ( . (
( , ( , ( ( ( C ,
Nor is it likely to be a commonly recognized complex trait outside of a culture that has a word for
it. (Note: According to a consensus of reports, the Five-Factor classification has been tested
and validated in only a handful of languages—and, therefore, of cultures, despite having been
translated into 80 or more.)

In general, the challenges of translation—especially of concepts that have no counterpart, as

either a single concept or a common descriptive phrase, in other languages warrants skepticism
regarding not only alleged unimportance of a given trait in a source language or of one absent
from it, but also regarding any claims of universality of traits identified in any one language or
group of languages, in which an “unimportant” trait may figure prominently in the language,
culture and personalities of its speakers.

15. Which Big 5 version's versions, dimensions, “facets”, definitions and criteria are the
most authoritative ?

This is important to ask, since the reputation and rigor of a Five-Factor test, classification or
questionnaire is not guaranteed by the label “Big 5” or “Five-Factor”. Again, because the public
domain IPIP item inventory is free for use and adaptation, it is crucial to confirm that the version
being used is one that is widely well-regarded.

ANSWER:Among the best researched, most recent and most heavily promoted are the NEO-
PI-R (Costa and McRae):

■ Neuroticism: Anxiety, Hostility, Depression, Self-consciousness, Impulsiveness,

Vulnerability
■ Extraversion: Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement-Seeking,
Positive Emotions
■ Openness to Experience: Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values
■ Agreeableness: Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Tender-
mindedness
■ Conscientiousness: Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving, Self-
Discipline, Deliberation

and this version of the Five Factor Model (Gerard Saucier and Fritz Ostendorf):

■ Neuroticism: Irritability, Insecurity, Emotionality

■ Extraversion: Sociability, Unrestraint, Assertiveness, Activity-Adventurousness
■ Openness to Experience: Intellect, Imagination-Creativity, Perceptiveness
■ Agreeableness: Warmth-Affection, Gentleness, Generosity, Modesty-Humility
■ Conscientiousness: Orderliness, Decisiveness-Consistency, Reliability, Industriousness

Notice how drastically the facets of a given dimension differ in the two models, despite other
overlap. For example, “Agreeableness” is, with the exception of “modesty”, virtually
incommensurably defined in the two models. This disagreement between the two classifications
(ironically, with respect to “Agreeableness”) is exacerbated by the risk that in application, e.g,,
by HR departments, the facets “officially” associated with any of the dimensions by the
questionnaire or test designers and researchers are not those the in-house administrator or
raters personally associate with a given Big 5 dimension. Hence a high “agreeableness” score
may be misinterpreted by those making hiring or assignment decisions.

In determining which Big 5 scheme to use or whether to use one at all, the average advanced
beginner will not be in a position to wade through all of the highly technical, specialist literature
of the scope and sort provided as much as a warning as resources in the bibliography below. Of
course not.

But what can be accomplished is evaluation of the scales and dimensions on the user end. For
example, do the questionnaire items seem clear and do they appear to congruently correspond
to the given dimensions and facets associated with the version of the Big 5 being utilized or
considered?

Do those dimensions and facets correspond to your own understanding of their terms, criteria
and of personality and character? For example, if you are a psychoanalyst or an HR manager
concerned about or with neuroticism, you will have to make sure that the Big 5 version in hand
is relevant to your paradigm, understanding or forms of neuroticism you recognize and are
focusing on.

In conjunction with this report's previous observations about the “usefulness” of the Big 5, it is
safe to say that in the absence of any independent observer ratings of a candidate or employee
(whether Big 5 or idiosyncratic rating scheme), Big 5 self-ratings may be of particular value if
some extreme scores emerge, e.g., very low conscientiousness or agreeability, which should
serve, however, as a starting point, not a terminus, of personnel and candidate assessment or
self-evaluation.

But even in such instances, to reiterate, great care must be exercised when taking or
administering a Big 5 “test” to make sure that one fully appreciates any divergence between
one's own concepts and understanding of the dimensions (and associated facets and traits) and
those of the Big 5 designers and researchers providing the version employed. In a worst-case
scenario, the Big 5 will be less than useful if the scores are interpreted in terms of a (personal,
ordinary-language or intuitive) scale dissonant with that of the “official” Big 5 version under
consideration or used.

Before utilizing any version, also make an effort to research (even if only cursorily) the research
underlying it and note any controversies, incongruities and critiques pertaining to it.

********************

For Further Reading:

Items in boldface are those suggested as either “classics” and pioneering studies, widely cited
and central studies by prominent researchers, research germane to the topics and issues
developed in this report or literature otherwise “definitive” and readily accessible (if not through
links provided here).
■ Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO- Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-
R) and NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.

■ Matthews, Gerald; Deary, Ian J.; Whiteman, Martha C. (2003). Personality Traits (2nd
ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521831079.

■ Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner (2011). Psychology (2nd ed.). Worth. pp. 474–475.

■ Atkinson, Rita, L.; Richard C. Atkinson; Edward E. Smith; Daryl J. Bem; Susan Nolen-
Hoeksema (2000). Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology (13 ed.). Orlando, Florida:
Harcourt College Publishers. p. 437.

■ Digman, J.M. (1990). "Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model".

Annual Review of Psychology 41: 417–440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.
41.020190.002221.

■ Allport, G. W.; Odbert, H. S. (1936). "Trait names: A psycholexical study".

Psychological Monographs 47: 211. doi:10.1037/h0093360.

■ Cattell, R. B.; Marshall, MB; Georgiades, S (1957). "Personality and motivation:

Structure and measurement". Journal of Personality Disorders 19 (1): 53–67. doi:
10.1521/pedi.19.1.53.62180. PMID 15899720.

■ Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait
ratings. USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97, Lackland Airforce Base, TX: U. S. Air
Force.

■ 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 (6): 574–583. doi:10.1037/h0040291. PMID 13938947.

■ Poropat, A. E. (2009). "A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and

academic performance". Psychological Bulletin 135: 322–338. doi:10.1037/a0014996.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1993). "The structure of phenotypic personality traits". American

Psychologist 48 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26. PMID 8427480.

■ O'Connor, Brian (2002). "A Quantitative Review of the Comprehensiveness of the Five-
Factor Model in Relation to Popular Personality Inventories". Assessment 9 (2): 188–
203. doi:10.1177/1073191102092010. PMID 12066834.

■ Goldberg, L.R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of
personality. In C.D. Spielberger & J.N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality
assessment, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
■ Norman, W.T.; Goldberg, L.R. (1966). "Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality
structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (6): 681–691. doi:10.1037/
h0024002.

■ Peabody, D.; Goldberg, L.R. (1989). "Some determinants of factor structures from
personality-trait descriptors". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (3): 552–
567. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552. PMID 2778639.

■ Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L.R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives
on the five-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.

■ Digman, J.M. (1989). "Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility".
Journal of Personality 57 (2): 195–214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x. PMID
2671337.

■ Karson, S. & O’Dell, J.W. (1976). A guide to the clinical use of the 16PF. Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.

■ Krug, S.E.; Johns, E.F. (1986). "A large scale cross-validation of second-order
personality structure defined by the 16PF". Psychological Reports 59 (2): 683–693. doi:
10.2466/pr0.1986.59.2.683.

■ Cattell, H.E.P, and Mead, A.D. (2007). The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16PF). In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, and D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and testing: Vol. 2: Personality measurement and assessment.
London: Sage.

■ Costa, P.T.; Jr, RR; McCrae, R.R. (1976). "Age differences in personality structure: A
cluster analytic approach". Journal of Gerontology 31 (5): 564–570. doi:10.1093/geronj/
31.5.564. PMID 950450.

■ Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO-Personality Inventory manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

■ 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 (1): 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81. PMID 3820081.

■ McCrae, R.R.; John, O.P. (1992). "An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications". Journal of Personality 60 (2): 175–215. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x. PMID 1635039.

■ Carnivez, G.L. & Allen, T.J. (2005). Convergent and factorial validity of the 16PF and the
NEO-PI-R. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, D.C.
■ Conn, S. & Rieke, M. (1994). The 16PF Fifth Edition technical manual. Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality & Ability Testing.

■ Cattell, H.E. (1996). "The original big five: A historical perspective". European
Review of Applied Psychology 46: 5–14.

■ Grucza, R.A.; Goldberg, L.R. (2007). "The comparative validity of 11 modern personality
inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators".
Journal of Personality Assessment 89 (2): 167–187. doi:10.1080/00223890701468568.
PMID 17764394.

■ 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 (4): 675–680. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.675.

■ Paunonen, S.V.; Ashton, M.S. (2001). "Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of
behavior". Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 81 (3): 524–539. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524.

■ DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., and Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domain:
10 aspects of the Big Five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 880–896.

■ Boileau, S.N. (2008). Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Gay Male Intimate
Partner Preference Across Racial Lines. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

■ Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual.

■ Laney, Marti Olsen (2002). The Introvert Advantage. Canada: Thomas Allen & Son
Limited. pp. 28, 35.

■ Rothmann, S; Coetzer, E. P. (24 October 2003). "The big five personality

dimensions and job performance". SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 29. doi:
10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88. Retrieved 27 June 2013.

■ Judge, TA.; Bono, JE (2000). "Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership". Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (5): 751–765. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751. PMID 11055147.

■ Lim, B.; Ployhart, R. E. (2004). "Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor

model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts". Journal of Applied
Psychology 89 (4): 610–621. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610. PMID 15327348.

■ Jeronimus, B.F.; Riese, H.; Sanderman, R.; Ormel, J. (2014). "Mutual Reinforcement
Between Neuroticism and Life Experiences: A Five-Wave, 16-Year Study to Test
Reciprocal Causation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107 (4): 751–64.
■ Norris, C. J.; Larsen, J. T.; Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). "Neuroticism is associated with larger
and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures".
Psychophysiology 44 (5): 823–826. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00551.x. PMID
17596178.

■ Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (2009). Handbook of Social Psychology.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

■ Jeronimus, B.F., Ormel, J., Aleman, A., Penninx, B.W.J.H., Riese, H. (2013). "Negative
and positive life events are associated with small but lasting change in neuroticism".
Psychological Medicine 43 (11): 2403–15. doi:10.1017/s0033291713000159.

■ Dolan,S.L. (2006). Stress, Self-Esteem, Health and Work, pp 76.

■ Strack, S. (2006). Differentiating Normal and Abnormal Personality: Second Edition. New
York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

■ Allport, G.W; Odbert, H. S(1936). "Trait names: A psycholexical study".

Psychological Monographs 47: 211.

■ Epstein, S. & O'Brien, E.J. (1985). "The person-situation debate in historical and current
perspective". Psychological Bulletin 98 (3): 513–537. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.3.513.

■ Kenrick, D.T. & Funder, D.C. (1988). "Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the
person-situation debate". American Psychologist 43 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.
43.1.23.

■ Lucas, Richard E. & Donnellan, M. Brent (2009). "If the person-situation debate is really
over, why does it still generate so much negative affect?". Journal of Research in
Personality 43 (3): 146–149. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.009.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for

universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler (ed.), Review of Personality and social
psychology, vol. 1, 141–165. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1980, May). Some ruminations about the structure of individual

differences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human
personality. Symposium presentation at the meeting of the Western Psychological
Association, Honolulu, HI.

■ Jang, K.; Livesley, W. J.; Vemon, P. A. (1996). "Heritability of the Big Five
Personality Dimensions and Their Facets: A Twin Study". Journal of Personality
64 (3): 577–591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x. PMID 8776880.

■ Bouchard, Thomas J.; McGue, Matt (2003). "Genetic and environmental influences
on human psychological differences". Journal of Neurobiology 54 (1): 4–45. doi:
10.1002/neu.10160. PMID 12486697.
■ McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: The Guildford
Press.

■ Cobb-Clark, D. A.; Schurer, S. (2012). "The stability of big-five personality traits".

Economics Letters 115 (2): 11–15. doi:10.1016/2011.11.015.

■ Srivastava, S.; John, O. P.; Gosling, S. D.; Potter, J. (2003). "Development of

personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (5): 1041–1053. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041. PMID 12757147.

■ Soto, C. J.; Gosling, Potter (Feb 2011). "Age differences in personality traits from
10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample". Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 100 (2): 300–348. doi:10.1037/a0021717.
PMID 21171787.

■ Roberts, B. W.; Mroczek, D. (2008). "Personality Trait Change in Adulthood".

Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (1): 31–35. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-8721.2008.00543.x. PMC 2743415. PMID 19756219.

■ McGhee, R.M., Ehrler, D.J., & Buckhalt, J. (2007). Five Factor Personality Inventory –
Children (FFPI-C). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

■ John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York:
Guilford Press.

■ Fleeson, W. (2001). "Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality:

Traits as density distributions of states". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
80: 1011–1027. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011.

■ Mõttus, René; Johnson, Wendy; Starr, John M.; Dearya, Ian J. (June 2012). "Correlates
of personality trait levels and their changes in very old age: The Lothian Birth Cohort
1921". Journal of Research in Personality 46 (3): 271–8. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.02.004.

■ Cobb-Clark, Deborah A.; Schurer, Stefanie (April 2012). "The stability of big-five
personality traits". Economics Letters 115 (1): 11–5. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.11.015.

■ Cavallera, G.; Passerini, A.; Pepe, A. (2013). "Personality and gender in swimmers in
indoor practice at leisure level.". Social Behaviour and Personality 41 (4): 693–704. doi:
10.2224/2013414693.

■ Costa, P.T. Jr.; Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R.R. (2001). "Gender Differences in
Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings". Journal of
 Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2): 322–331. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322. PMID 11519935.

■ Schmitt, D. P.; Realo, A.; Voracek, M.; Allik, J. (2008). "Why can't a man be more
like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94 (1): 168–182. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168. PMID 18179326.

■ Harris, J. R. (2006). No two alike: Human nature and human individuality. WW Norton &
Company.

■ Jefferson, T.; Herbst, J. H.; McCrae, R. R. (1998). "Associations between birth

order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings".
Journal of Research in Personality 32 (4): 498–509. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2233.

■ Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Persoenlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validitaet des Funf-

Factoren-Modells der Persoenlichkeit. Regensburg, Germany: S. Roderer Verlag.

■ Trull, T. J.; Geary, D. C. (1997). "Comparison of the big-five factor structure across
samples of Chinese and American adults". Journal of Personality Assessment 69
(2): 324–341. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6902_6. PMID 9392894.

■ Lodhi, P. H., Deo, S., & Belhekar, V. M. (2002). The Five-Factor model of personality in
Indian context: measurement and correlates. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-
Factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 227–248). N.Y.: Kluwer Academic
Publisher.

■ McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further Intercultural

comparisons. In R. R. McCrae & J. Alik. (Eds.), The Five-Factor model of personality
across cultures (pp. 105–125). New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

■ Thompson, E.R. (2008). "Development and validation of an international English big-five

mini-markers". Personality and Individual Differences 45 (6): 542–548. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2008.06.013.

■ Cheung, F. M.; Vijver, F. J. R. van de; Leong, F. T. L. (2011). "Toward a new approach to
the study of personality in culture". American Psychologist 66: 593–603. doi:10.1037/
a0022389.

■ McCrae, Robert R.; Terracciano, Antonio; Personality Profiles of Cultures Project

(September 2005). "Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits". Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (3): 407–25. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407.
PMID 16248722.

■ Szirmak, Z.; De Raad, B. (1994). "Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality

traits". European Journal of Personality 8 (2): 95–117. doi:10.1002/per.2410080203.
■ De Fruyt, F.; McCrae, R. R.; Szirmák, Z.; Nagy, J. (2004). "The Five-Factor personality
inventory as a measure of the Five-Factor Model: Belgian, American, and Hungarian
comparisons with the NEO-PI-R". Assessment 11 (3): 207–215. doi:
10.1177/1073191104265800. PMID 15358876.

■ Widiger TA, Costa PT., Jr. Five-Factor model personality disorder research. In: Costa
Paul T, Jr, Widiger Thomas A., editors. Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality. 2nd. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp.
59–87. 2002.

■ Mullins-Sweatt SN, Widiger TA. The five-factor model of personality disorder: A

translation across science and practice. In: Krueger R, Tackett J, editors. Personality and
psychopathology: Building bridges. New York: Guilford; 2006. pp. 39–70.

■ Clark LA. Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an
emerging reconceptualization" Annual Review of Psychology 2007; 58:227–257, 246.

■ Ormel J.; Jeronimus, B.F.; Kotov, M.; Riese, H.; Bos, E.H.; Hankin, B. (2013).
"Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex
relationship". Clinical Psychology Review 33 (5): 686–697. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.
2013.04.003.

■ Komarraju, Meera; Steven J. Karau; Ronald R. Schmeck; Alen Avdic (September 2011).
"The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement". The Big
Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement.

■ Singh, A. K. (2012). "Does trait predict psychological well-being among students of

professional courses?.". Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 38 (2):
234–241.

■ Klimstra, T. (2012). "Personality traits and educational identity formation in late

adolescents: Longitudinal associations and academic progress". Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 41: 341–356.

■ Komarraju, Meera; Steven J. Karau; Ronald R. Schmeck; Alen Avdic (2 June 2011). "The
Big Five Personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement". Personality and
Individual Difference 51: 472–477. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019.

■ Zhang, Li-fang (6 September 2001). "Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring

personality traits?". Personality and Individual Differences 33: 445–458. doi:10.1016/
s0191-8869(01)00166-0.

■ Komarraju, Meera (2 June 2011). "The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and
academic achievement" 51. pp. 472–477.
■ Komarraju, M.; Karau, S. J.; Schmeck, R. R.; Avdic, A. (2011). "The big five personality
traits, learning styles, and academic achievement". Personality and Individual
Differences 51 (4): 472–477. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019.

■ Klimstra, Theo A.; Luyckx, Koen; Germeijs, Veerle; Meeus, Wim H. J.; Goossens, Luc
(March 2012). "Personality Traits and Educational Identity Formation in Late
Adolescents: Longitudinal Associations and Academic Progress". Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 41 (3): 346–61. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9734-7. PMID 22147120.

■ De Feyter, Tim; Ralf Caers; Claudia Vigna; Dries Berings (22 March 2012). "Unraveling
the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance: The moderating
and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation". Learning and Individual
Differences 22: 439–448. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013.

■ Pashler, Harold; McDaniel, Mark; Rohrer, Doug; Bjork, Robert (December 2008).
"Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence". Psychological Science in the Public Interest
9 (3): 105–19. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x.

■ Mount, M. K.; Barrick, M. R. (1998). "Five reasons why the 'big five' article has been
frequently cited". Personnel Psychology 51 (4): 849–857. doi:10.1111/j.
1744-6570.1998.tb00743.x.

■ Mischel, Walter. Personality and Assessment, London, Wiley, 1968.

■ Rosenthal, R. (1990). "How are we doing in soft psychology?". American Psychologist

45: 775–777. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.6.775.

■ Hunter, J. E.; Schmidt, F. L.; Judiesch, M. K. (1990). "Individual differences in output

variability as a function of job complexity". Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 28–42. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.28.

■ Fairweather, J. (2012). "Personality, nations, and innovation: Relationships between

personality traits and national innovation scores". Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal
of Comparative Social Science 46: 3–30.

■ Mehta, Penkak (2012). "Personality as a predictor of burnout among managers of

manufacturing industries". Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 32:
321–328.

■ Judge, T.; Livingston, BA; Hurst, C (2012). "Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last?
The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 102 (2): 390–407. doi:10.1037/a0026021. PMID 22121889.

■ Weiss, A; King, JE; Hopkins, WD (2007). "A Cross-Setting Study of Chimpanzee (Pan
troglodytes) Personality Structure and Development: Zoological Parks and Yerkes
National Primate Research Center". American journal of primatology 69 (11): 1264–77.
doi:10.1002/ajp.20428. PMC 2654334. PMID 17397036.
■ Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). "Personality Dimensions in Nonhuman Animals: A
Cross-Species Review". Current Directions in Psychological Science 8 (3): 69–75. doi:
10.1111/1467-8721.00017.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1992). "The development of markers for the Big-five factor structure".
Psychological Assessment 4 (1): 26–42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26.

■ Donaldson, Stewart I.; Grant-Vallone, Elisa J. (2002). "Understanding self-report bias in

organizational behavior research". Journal of Business and Psychology 17 (2). doi:
10.1023/A:1019637632584. JSTOR 25092818.

■ Hirsh, Jacob B.; Peterson, Jordan B. (October 2008). "Predicting creativity and academic
success with a 'Fake-Proof' measure of the Big Five". Journal of Research in Personality
42 (5): 1323–33. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.006.

■ Gosling, Samuel D; Rentfrow, Peter J; Swann, William B (2003). "A very brief measure of
the Big-Five personality domains". Journal of Research in Personality 37 (6): 504–28.
doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.

■ Harms, P. (2012). "An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the
Big Five personality traits". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102: 874–888.
doi:10.1037/a0027403.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1990). "An alternative 'description of personality'": The big-five factor

structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6): 1216–1229. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. PMID 2283588.

■ Schwartz, H. Andrew; Eichstaedt, Johannes C.; Kern, Margaret L.; Dziurzynski, Lukasz;
Ramones, Stephanie M.; Agrawal, Megha; Shah, Achal; Kosinski, Michal; Stillwell,
David; Seligman, Martin E. P.; Ungar, Lyle H. (2013). "Personality, gender, and age in the
language of social media: the open-vocabulary approach". PloS One 8 (9): e73791. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0073791. PMC 3783449. PMID 24086296.

■ Harvey, Robert J.; Murry, William D.; Markham, Steven E. (May 1995). "A "Big Five"
Scoring System for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator".

■ Paunonen, Sampo V; Jackson, Douglas N (2000). "What Is Beyond the Big Five?
Plenty!". Journal of Personality 68 (October 2000): 821–835. doi:
10.1111/1467-6494.00117.

■ Paunonen, S.V.; Haddock, G.; Forsterling, F.; Keinonen, M. (2003). "Broad versus
Narrow Personality Measures and the Prediction of Behaviour Across Cultures".
European Journal of Personality 17: 413–433. doi:10.1002/per.496.

■ McAdams, D. P. (1995). "What do we know when we know a person?". Journal of

Personality 63 (3): 365–396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x.
■ Musek, Janet (2007). "A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the
five-factor model". Journal of Research in Personality 41: 1213–1233. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.
2007.02.003.

■ Van der Linden, Dimitri; te Nijenhuis, J.; Bakker, A.B. (2010). "The General Factor
of Personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related
validity study". Journal of Research in Personality 44: 315–327. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.
2010.03.003.

■ Hans J. Eysenck (1992). . Personality and Individual Differences 13 (8): 667–673. doi:
10.1016/0191-8869(92)90237-j.

■ Paul T. Costa; Robert R. McRae (1992). "Reply to Eysenck". Personality and

Individual Differences 13 (8): 861–865. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90002-7.

■ Block, Jack (2010). "The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some
ruminations". Psychological Inquiry 21 (1): 2–25. doi:10.1080/10478401003596626.

■ Bradshaw, S. D. (1997). Impression management and the NEO-five factor inventory:

Cause for concern? Psychological Reports, 80, 832-834.

■ Burger, J. M. (1997). Personality (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

■ Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

■ Ewen, R. B. (1998). Personality: A topical approach. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.

■ Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomic

paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790.

■ Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the big five and
circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63, 146-163.

■ Huey, S. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). Ego control, ego resiliency, and the five-factor model
as predictors of behavioral and emotional problems in clinic-referred children and
adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 404-415.

■ Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes.

In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196).
New York: Cambridge University Press.

■ Langston, C. A., & Sykes, W. E. (1997). Beliefs and the big five. Journal of Research in
Personality, 31, 142-165.
■ McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal
of Personality, 60, 329-361.

■ McMartin, J. (1995). Personality psychology: A student centered approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

■ Morrison, K. (1997). Personality correlates of the five-factor model for a sample of

business owners/managers: Associations with scores on self-monitoring, type A
behavior, locus of control, and subjective well being. Psychological Reports, 80,
255-272.

■ Pervin, L. A. (1989). Personality: Theory and research (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.

■ Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295-328.

■ Saucier, G. (1992). Benchmarks: Integrating affective and interpersonal circles with the
big-five personality factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
1025-1035.

■ Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives
on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 21-50). New York: Guilford.

■ Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the "big five" personality
traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,536-545.

■ Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

■ Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: HoltAllport,

G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
Monographs, 47 (1, Whole No. 211).

■ Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1991. June). Temperament and the Big Five factors of
personality. Paper presented at the conference on the Developing Structure of
Temperament and Personality in Childhood, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studie in
the Humanities and Social Sciences. Wassenaar. The Netherlands.

■ Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 44, 1-26.

■ Benjafield, J., & Carson. E. (1985). An historicodevelopmental analysis of the circumplex

model of trait descriptive terms. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science.17, 339-345.

■ Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research.
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
■ Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

■ Block. J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley: Bancroft Books.

■ Block, J. (1977). The Eysencks and psychoticism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86,
653-654.

■ Block, J. H.. & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego control and ego resiliency in the
organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.). Development of cognition, affect,and
social relations: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 13. pp. 39-101).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.

■ Bond, M. H. (1979). Dimensions of personality used in perceiving peers: Crosscultural

comparisons of Hong Kong, Japanese. American, and Filipino university students.
International Journal of Psychology, 14, 47-56.

■ Bond. M. H., & Forgas, J. P. (1984). Linking person perception to behavior intention
across cultures: The role of cultural collectivism. Journal of Cro.'is-Cultural Psychology,
15, 337-352.

■ Bond, M. H., Nakazato, H., & Shiraishi, D. (1975). Universality and distinctiveness in
dimensions of Japanese person perception. Journal ofCross-Culturctl Psychology. 6,
346-357.

■ Borkenau. P.. & Ostendorf. F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis: A study on the Five-Factor model of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences. 11.515-524.

■ Boyle, G. J. (1989). Re-examinationof the major personality-type factors in the Cattell.

Comrey and Eysenck scales: Were the factor solutions by Noller et al. optimal?
Personality and Individual Differences. 10. 1289-1299.

■ Brand, C. R. (1984). Personality dimensions: An overview of modem trait psychology. In

J. Nicholson & H. Beloff (Eds.), Psychology survey (Vol. 5, pp. 175-209). Leicester:
British Psychological Society.

■ Brand, C. R., & Egan, V. (1989). The 'Big Five" dimensions of personahty? Evidence
from ipsative, adjectival self-attributions. Personality and Individual Differences,10,
1165-1171.

■ Briggs. S. R. (1988). Shyness: Introversion or neuroticism? Journal of Research in

Personality. 22, 290-307.

■ Briggs, S. R. (1989). The optimal level of measurement for personality constructs. In D.

M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.). Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging
directions (pp. 246-260). New York: Springer-Verlag.
■ Buss, D.M. A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1378-1388.

■ Buss, D. M. (Ed.). (1990). Biological foundations of personality: Evolution, behavioral

genetics, and psychophysiology [Special issue]. Journal of Personality, 58(1).

■ Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,

42, 459-491.

■ Caspi. A.. Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Lifecourse
patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308-313.

■ 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.

■ 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, 83-120.

■ Coan, R. W. (1974). The optimal personality. New York: Columbia University Press.

■ Costa. P. T., Jr. (1991). Clinical use of the five-factor model: An introduction. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 57, 393-398.

■ Costa. P. T.. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1976). Age differences in personality structure: A
cluster analytic approach. Journal of Gerontology, 31, 564-570.

■ Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae. R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as
a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.),
Life span development and behavior (Vol. 3. pp. 65-102). New York: Academic Press.

■ Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO-Personality Inventory manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

■ Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs
and the five-factor model. Journal cf Personality and Social Psychology. 55.
■ 258-265.

■ Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PIINEO-FFl manual supplement.
Odessa. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
■ Costa. P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R.. & Dye. D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO-Personality Inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences. 12, 887-898.

■ Dembroski, T. M., MacDougall, J. M., Costa, P T., Jr., & Grandits, G. (1989).
Components of hostility as predictors of sudden death and myocardial infarction in
Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Psychosomatic Medicine. 51, 514-522.

■ McCrae and John Depue, R. A., Krauss, S. P., & Spoont. M. R. (1987). A two-
dimensional threshold model of seasonal bipolar affective disorder. In D. Magnussen &
A. Ohman (Eds.), Psychopathology: An interactional perspective (pp. 95-123). Orlando.
FL: Academic Press.

■ Digman, J. M. (1979, November). The five major domains of personality variables:

Analysis of personality questionnaire data in the light of the five robust factors emerging
from studies of rated characteristics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Los Angeles.

■ Digman, J. M. (1985. November). The big five factors of personality: Some effbrts after
meaning. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of Multivariate Experimental
Psychology, Berkeley.

■ Digman, J. M. (1989, November). Factor redux: Re-analyses of studies of child

personality. In O. P. John (Chair), The Big Five: Historical perspective and current
research. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Multivariate
Experimental Psychology. Honolulu.

■ Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review qf Psychology. 41. 417-440.

■ 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. 149-170.

■ Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles

C.Thomas.

■ Eysenck, H. J.. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality

Inventory. London: University Press.

■ Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck. S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality

Questionnaire. San Diego: EdITS.

■ Eysenck, H. h, & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality.

London: Hodder and Stoughton.
■ Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from
different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 44. 329-344.

■ Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A NEO-Allportian approach to personality.

P.sychological Science, 2, 31-39.

■ Funder, D. C , & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship,

agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal qf Personality and Social
Psychology. 55. 149-158.

■ Funder, D. C.. & Colvin. C. R. (in press). Congruence of self and others' judgment of
personality. In S. R. Briggs, R. Hogan, & W. H. Jones (Eds.). Handbook of personality
psychology. New York: Academic Press.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1971). A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. In P.

McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological a.ssessmerit {\o\. 2. pp. 293-336). Palo
Alto. CA: Science and Behavior Books.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universal in
personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Review of personality and social psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills: Sage.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of

personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.). Advances in personality
assessment (Vol. 1. pp. 203-234). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Eribaum. Introduction 211

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1989, June). Standard markers of the Big Five factor structure. Paper
presented at the First International Workshop on Personality Language, Groningen,The
Netherlands.

■ Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor

structure. Journal qf Personality and Social Psychology. 59. 1216-1229.Gough, H. G.
(1987). California Psychological Inventory administrator's guide. Palo Alto. CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

■ Gough, H.G., &Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. {\9S3). Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

■ Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg. N. H. (in press). Agreeableness: A dimension of

personality.

■ In S. R. Briggs. R. Hogan, & W. H. Jones (Eds.). Handbook of personality psychology.

New York: Academic Press.

■ Guilford, J. P. (1977). Will the real factor of extraversion-introversion please stand up? A
reply to Eysenck. Psychological Bulletin. 84. 412-416.
■ Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilford. J. P. (1976). The Guilford-
ZimmermanTemperament Survey Handbook: Twenty-five years of research and
application. San Diego: EdITS.

■ Hofstee. W. K. B., & Van Heck, G. L. (Eds.). (1990). Personality language [Special
issue]. European Journal qf Personality. 4(2).

■ Hogan. R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M.M. Page (Ed.), 1982

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Personality—current theory and research (pp.
55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

■ Hogan. R. (1986). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Minneapolis: National Computer

Systems.

■ Hogan. R. (1987). Personality psychology: Back to basics. In J. Aronoff, A. I. Rabin & R.

A. Zucker (Eds.). The emergence of personality (pp. 79-104). New York: Springer.

■ Hogan, R., “Personality and personality measurement”, In M. D. Dunnette & L. Hough

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial I organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press

■ Hyland. M. E. (1985). “Do person variables exist in different ways?”, American

Psychologist.40, 1003-1010.

■ Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd. ed.). Port Huron, MI:
Research Psychologists Press.

■ John. O. P. (1989a, November). Big Five prototypes for the Adjective Check List using
observer data. In O. P. John (Chair). The Big Five: Historical perspective and current
research. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Multivariate
Experimental Psychology. Honolulu.

■ John, O. P. (1989b). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N.

Cantor (Eds.). Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp.
261-271). New York: Springer-Verlag.

■ John. O. P. (1990a). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality
theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.

■ John. O. P. (1990b). The search for basic dimensions of personality: A review

andcritique. In P. McReynolds. J. C. Rosen. & G. L. Chelune (Eds.), Advances in
psychological assessment (Vol. 7, pp. 1-37). New York: Plenum.

■ John, O. 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 (H. G. Baynes, Trans., revised by R. F. C.
Hull). Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1923).

■ Kamp, J., & Gough, H. G. (1986, August). The Big Five personality factors from an
assessment context. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

■ Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis
of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 27-40.

■ Kenny, D. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal

perception. Psychological Review, 98, 155-163.

■ Kluckhohn, C , & Murray, H. A. (1953). Personality formation: The determinants.in C.

Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray, & D. M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in nature, society, and
culture. New York: Knopf.

■ Krug, S. E., & Johns, E. F. (1986). A large-scale cross-validation of the second-order

personality structure defined by the 16PF. Psychological Reports, 59, 683-693.

■ Lanning, K., & Gough, H. G. (1991). Shared variance in the California Psychological
Inventory and the California Q-Set. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
60,596-606.

■ Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.

■ Little, B. R. (1989). Personal Projects Analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent obsessions

and the search for coherence. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology:
Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15-31). New York: Springer-Verlag.

■ Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Heredity, environment, and the structure of the California

Psychological Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 22, 137-148.

■ Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measurement of ego development. American

Psychologist, 21, 195-206.

■ Lorr, M. (1978). The structure of the California 0-Set. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
13, 387-393.

■ McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience.

Journal of personality and Social Psychology. 52, 1258-1265.

■ McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint analyses of the NEO-
PI and other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), personality psychology:
Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 237-245). New York: Springer- Verlag.
■ McCrae, R. R. (1990). Traits and trait names: How well is Openness represented in
natural languages? European Journal of personality. 4, 119-129.

■ McCrae, R. R. (1991). The five-factor model and its assessment in clinical settings.
Journal of Personality Assessment. 57. 399-414.

■ 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 R. Hogan & W. H.
Jones (Eds.). Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1. pp. 145-172). Greenwich. CT: JAI
Press.

■ McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985c). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy":
Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.

■ 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, 17-40.

■ McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989b). Rotation to maximize the construct validity of
factors in the NEO-Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 107-124.

■ McCrae. R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989c). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's
circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
586-595.

■ McCrae. R. R., & Costa, P. T.. Jr. (1990). Personality' in adulthood. New York: Guilford.

■ McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). The NEO-Personality Inventory: Using the five-
factor model in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 367-372.

■ 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, 430-446.

■ McCrae, R. R., Piedmont, R. L., & Costa, P T.. Jr. (1990, August). The CPI and the five-
factor model: Rational and empirical analyses. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the American Psychological Association. Boston.
■ 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 P.sychotogy, 55, 675-680.

■ Miller, G. E. (1956). The magical number seven, plus-or-minus two: Some limits on our
capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 63, 81-97.

■ Millon. T. (1983). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis:
Interpretive Scoring Systems.

■ Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

■ Muten. E. (1991). Self-reports, spouse ratings, and psychophysiological assessment I a

behavioral medicine program: An application of the five-factor model. Journal of
Personality Assessment. 57, 449-464.

■ Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

■ Noller, P., Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Comrey. and Eysenck personality
factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 775-782.

■ 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. (1969). "To see ourselves as others see us!": Relations among self-
perceptions, peer-perceptions, and expected peer-perceptions of personality attributes.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 4, 417-443.

■ Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Personlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validitdt des Funf-

Faktoren-Modells der Personlichkeit [Language and personality structure: Toward the
validation of the five-factor model of personality]. Regensburg, Germany.

■ S. Roderer Verlag.Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 59-71.

■ Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from
personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Sl, 552- 567.

■ Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T . Jr. (1991). Adjective Check List scales
and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60. 630-637.

■ Plomin, R., & McClearn, G. E. (1990). Human behavioral genetics of aging. In J. E.

Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed.. pp. 67-78).
New York: Academic Press.
■ Read, S. J., Jones, D. K., & Miller, L. C. (1990). Traits as goal-based categories: The
importance of goals in the coherence of dispositional categories. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 1048-1061.

■ 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, 1192-1198.

■ Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

■ Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Differential Personality Questionnaire.

Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota.

■ Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences
("absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
83, 268-277.

■ Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G., Exploring personality through test construction:
Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M.
Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and evaluation (Vol. 1). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.

■ Thomae, H. (1989, July). How European is personality psychology in Europe? Invited

lecture, 1st European Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam.

■ Thorne, A. (1987). The press of personality: Conversations between introverts and

extraverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53, 718-726.

■ Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the
uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Jourmd of Personality.
58. 17-68.

■ Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales
to include the Big Five dimensions of personality (IASR-B5). 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 Tech. Rep. No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.

■ Waller, N.G., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychology to embrace the
five-factor model of personality? American Psychologist, 42, 887-889.

■ Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience
aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
■ Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (in press). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In
Wiggins, J. S. (1968). Personality structure. Annual Review of Psychology. 19, 293- 350.

■ Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The

interpersonal domain. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412.

■ Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and

dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1, 305-316.

■ 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.

■ Zonderman, A. B., Stone. S. V., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989, August). Age and neuroticism
as risk factors for the incidence of diagnoses of psychotic and neurotic disorders. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New
Orleans.

■ Zuckerman, M. (1984). Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 413-471.

■ Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N?
Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107.

■ Zuckerman, M., Bernieri, F., Koestner, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). To predict some of the
people some of the time: In search of moderators. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 279-293.