Upload
marcelo-roehe
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 1/16
PERSONALITY
RESEARCH
METHODS AND THEORY
Festschrift Honoring Donald W. Fiske
cditcd
by
Patrick E. Shrout
New York University
Susan T. Fiske
University of Massaeh usetts t nlherst
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM
ASSOCIATES
PUBLISHERS
1995 Hillsdale New Jersey Hove UK
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 2/16
C H A P T E \
3
WHAT
THE HELL
TOOK
So LONG?
DONALD
W FISKE
AND THE l3IG-FIVE
F
AGOR STRUGURE
Lewis rt
Goldberg
Universiry
of Oregon ond Oregon
\eseorch Insrirure
f a 11l0dern-day Rip
van
Winkle
had been
asleep during
the
40-year interval
between 1949
and
1989, he
would
have been slartled
upon
a\vakening
by the
alnount of scientific progress
that had
occurred in genclics
and
nledicinc, space
science, nlaterials technology, conlpute." science, and
even
in lhe cognitive,
behavioral,
and
neurosciences.
On lhe
olher hanu. if
he had becn pat1icularly
inlerested
in the n10st
basic
and
fundamental problenl
in
personality psychology
lhe
slruclure of hunlan pcrsonality lraits-,he would \vonder why it had laken 40
years to begin to develop a scientific consensus about
an
appropriate taxononlic
nlodel.
In this chapter, I briefly describe sonle of
the
events leading to loday's
en1erging
consensus
on
a structuraJ represenlation
for
phenolypic personality
truits.
highlighting
lhe
historieal significance of Donald Fiske's (1949) senlinal analyses.
hcn
point out sonle of the obstncles to scicntific agreenlent
that
occurrcd betwccn
lhe publication of Fiske's report
and the
.present-day enlerging consensus. nlC
overall ainl of
this
chaptcr
is
to
p r o v o k ~ l c o n j c c t u r e s
about those praeticcs and
procedures that could help ensure that fulure research on lhe cutting edge'· in
pcrsonaJity psychology will
nol
always take so torturously
long lO be
acecpted.
THE
DIG-FIVE
FAcrOR STRUcrURE
Thc seareh for a taxononly of individual differcnces
is
an aneient one: Humans
have continuously sought to nlake sense of
the
nlyriad characteristics t ley observe
in others around thenl. However, until the present eentury efforts to
c<;lnstruct
9
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 3/16
30
GOLDDERG
taxononlic rcpresentations for human differences have relied on individual
intuitions, such as those of Aristot)e, who developed
an
early c1assification of
human character traits. To develop a truly scientific nlodcl of individual
differences, two fundamental problems had
to
be s o l v ~ d
('l)
how
to
obtain a
representative, if not comprehensive, set
of
such attributes; and b) how to c1assify
or categorizc those attributcs into a structural nux]el. The first problenl was solved
by Sir Francis GaIton, who
may
have been the first scientist lo recognize explicitly
the
fundanlental Iexical hypothesis (viz., that the most important individual
differences in hunlan transactions
will
come to be encoded as single tenns in
sonle or all of the world's languages). Moreover, Galton
(1884)
was certainly
one of
the
first scientists
to
consult a dictionary
as
a means of estimating
the
nunlber of pcrsonality-descriptivc terms in
the
lexicon,
and
to appreciate
the
extent to which trait tertns share aspects
of
their nleanings. Galton's eslinlate of
lhe nunlber of personality-related tcrms in English
was
later sharpcned
elnpirically, firsl by AlIport
and
Odbcrt (1936), who culled such temlS
froln
the
second edition of Webster s Ullabridged Dictionary, and later by Norman (1967),
who supplemented
the
earlier list with tenns fronl
lhe
lhird edition. Galton's
insight conceming the relations anlong personality temlS has been nlirrored in
efforts by later investigators to discover the nature of those rclations,
so
as to
construct a structural representation of personal
ity
descriptors.
What Galton Iacked were the procedures for constructing such a taxonolnic
nlodel. That problem was solved with the development of the broad
c1ass
of
statistical techniques refelTed to generically as factor analysis. Moreover,
the
father of factor analysis, L. L. Thurstone, becanle the first scientist to use lexical
nlaterials to test his new technique; he administered
6
conlnlon trait adjectives
to 1,300 subjects
who used
thenl to describe sonleone they knew well. Ana)yses
o the cOlTelalions anlong the 6 terms across lhe
1,300
subjects revealed five
broad factors, which led Thurstone
(1934) to
assert that u the scienlific
description
of
pcrsonalily nlay not
be
so hopelessly conlplcx as it is sonletimes
thought 10 be (p. 14).
Curiously, 111urslone never followed up on his
¡nitial
analysis of personality
trail temls. Inslead, the first scientist lo devote systenlatic attention to
lhe
problenl
was Raynlond B. Cattell, who began his personality explorations with a pcrusal
of the
approximately 4,500 trait-dcscriptive temlS inc1uded in
lhe
Allporl and
Odbcrt compendium. Callell (1943) used this trail list as a starting point,
eventually devcloping a set of
35
highly conlplex bipolar variables, each poJe of
which includcd a composite set
of
adjectives
and
phrases. These variables were
lhen elnployed in various sludies, in each of which lhe correlations an10ng the
variables were factored using oblique rotational procedurcs (e.g., Cattell,
1947).
Cattell has repealcdJy c1ainled to have identified at lcast a dozen oblique
factors. However, when Cattell's variables were later analyzed by others, only
five factors proved lo be repJicable (e.g., Dignlan Takenlolo-Chock, 1981;
Fiske,
1949;
Nomlan,
1963;
Smith,
1967;
Tupes Christal,
1961).
Similar
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 4/16
3 FISKE ANO THE BIG-FIVE FACfOR'STRUCfURE
31
five-factor structures bascd on
othcrscts
of variables have been reported by a
number of
other
investigators (e.g., Borgatta; 1964; Digman Inouye, 1986;
Goldberg, 1990, 1992; McCrae Costa, 1985a, 1987), and these studics havc
now becn revicwed extensivcly (c.g., Digman, 1990; John, 1990; McCrac &
John, 1992; i g g ~ n s
&
Pincus, 1992; Wiggins
&
Trapnell, in prcss).
TIlese
Big-Fivc
factors have traditio'nally becn numbcrcd and labcled: 1)
Surgency (or Extraversion) , (II) Agreeableness, (In) Conscientiousness, (IV)
Emotional Stability (vs. Neuroticism), and (V) Culture} More rccently, Factor V
has bccn rcinterprctcd as
InteUect
(e.g., Digman
&
Takemoto*Chock. 1981;
Peabody Goldbcrg, 1989) and
Openness
lo
Experience
(c.g
•
McCrae Costa,
1987).
Although therc is sorne disagreement about the precise nature
of
these fivc
dornains, there is widcspread agreelTIcnt that
some
aspccts of the language
of
pcrsonality description can be organized hierarchically (e.g., Cantor & Mischcl,
1979; Hampson
t
John, & Goldberg, 1986). In such a representation, the Big-Five
domains are Iocated at the highest
levelthat is stin
descriptive
of
bchavior, with
only
general
evaluation locatcd
at
a higher and more abstract level (John,
Hanlpson, Goldberg, 1991). When lhus viewed hicrarchically, it shouJd be
clear that proponcnts of lhe f i v e ~ f a c l o r nlodel have never intended to reduce lhe
rich tapestry
of
personality
to
a nlere five traits. Rather, they scek lo providc a
scientific,llly compelling framcwork in which to organizc the nlyriad individual
differences
tha1
characterize humankind.
Indeed, these broad donlains incorporate hundreds, jf not thousands, of traits:
Factor 1
(SlIrgency
or EXlraversion) contrasts traits such as
Talkativeness,
Assertiveness, and Activity Level with traits such as Silellce, Passiv;ty, and
Reserve; Factor
n
(Agreeableness or Pleasalltlless) contrasts traits such as
Kindness, Trust, and
Warmth
wilh traits such as Hostility, Selflslmess, and
Dislrust; Factor III (CoIIscientiousness or Depenclability) contrasts traits such as
Organizarioll, Thorouglmess.
and
Re lia
bi/ity
with
traits such as
Carelessness,
Negligence, and Unrelia/iUity, Factor IV (Emotio1lal Stabi ity vs. Neuroticisl1 )
contrast traits such as
Imperturbability
and
Calmness
wilh traits such as
Nervousness, Moodiness, and TemperanJcllrality; and Factor V (lntellect or
Opelllless lO Experience) contrasts traits such as Imaginatioll, Curiosit) , ano
Creativity with traits such as Shallowness and buperceptiveness
lAs
pointcd
out
by
Peabody
and
Goldberg (1989),
the
interpretalion of Factor V
as
Cullure
arose
from
a historieal acddent:
Although
Callell
had
initially constructed a subset of variables reJaling to
¡me/lcí:I,
in
lhe seminal sludies of
Canell
(1947) he omittcd all .hose
variables in
favor of an
intelligence test.
In tumo
this
test was
omiucd from
his
~ t c r studies. leaving no direct rcpresentation
of most
¡mcllccl
variables. In lheir abscnce. Factor Vwas cancd
Culturc
by Tupes and Chrislal
( 1 1)
and
some laler investigators. However. when variables related 10 ¡II/ellcel were reintroouced
e.g .• Goldbcrg. 19(0). l beca me clear lhat
¡lIlcllcel
was lhe more appropriale
label
for lhe
fiflh
broad factor.
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 5/16
02
GOLDDERG
THE
REMARKAOLE CONTRIOUTION
OF
DONALD
W
FISK
Whereas Thurstone
(1934)
found
the
correct number
of
broad
pcrsonality factors,
his
collection of
60
trait adjectives
was
too idiosyncratically assembled lo have
produced today's Big-Five structure. Instead, lhe honor of first discovery must
be accorded to Fiske
(1949),
who analyzcd a set of 22 variables devclopcd
by
Caue1J, and found
five
factors that replicated across sanlp)es of self-ratings,
observer ratings,
and
peer ratings. Fiske's labcls for his factors, like those
proposed by subscquent invcstigators, can
be
viewed
as
never perfectly successful
attenlpts to capture the prototypical content of these
broad
domains Confidellt
SelfExpression (Big-Five Factor 1), Social Adaptability (Factor I1), COllformity
(Factor
UI), Emotional Control
(Factor
IV),
and
Inqlliring ¡ntellect
(Factor
V).
Of these five labcls, four could still be used loday; only ConJormily seenlS too
narrow and undesirable lo capture lhe nlany aspccts of responsibiJity and
dependability inherent in Big-Five Factor III Conscientiousness).
In Fiske 's article, entitled Consislency of
the
Factorial Structures of
Personality Ratings from Different Sources,
he
acknowledged
the
earlier
contributions
of
Cattell (1947), and noted that no one had yet compared lhe factor
slructures obtaincd
fronl
different typcs of raters. He asked, Do
he
factors
in
self-ratings bear any resemblanceto
the
factors
in
ratings by pcers? Are
lhe
factors fronl either of these sources conlparable to those found in lhe ratings of
trained el inicians? (p. 329). To answer lhese questions, he analyzed the ratings
of
128
en \vho were about to enter graduate schools in cJinical psychology and
who
haú
attended one of lhe week-Iong asscssnlcnt sessions held at
lhe
University
of Michigan in the sumnler
of
1947; the details
of
this Veterans Adnlinistration
Selection Research Projectare reported in the c1assic vo)ume
by
Kelly and Fiske
195). The subjects described thenlselves and were described by three peers
and three rnembcrs of the assessment staff with
42
variables, of which had
been
adapted
from
lhe
set developed
by CaUell
)
947);
4
ratings
were made
on
8-step sca)es. The self-ratings, median peer ratings, and the pooled staff ratings
for
lhe
22
Cattell variables were factored separatcly and then conlpared.
That sounds easy. Today it would
be.
However,
45
years ago, before lhe
conlputcr revolution, all analyses had to be carricd out by
hand
calculator. With
lhe help of his wife, Barbara,
the
Fiskes hand-calculated the correlations anlong
lhe
22
variables, hand-extracted
five
centroid faclors, hand-rotated those factors
by Thurstone's nlethod of extended vcctors, and then hand-calcuJaled lhe
transfomlation tnatrices between the unrotated and rotated factors,
as \vell as
lhe
correlations anl0ng
the
rotated factors. Moreover,
they did all
this three
tinles--once for each of lhe three data sources. Final1y, to compare the three
solutions, they hand-correlated the rotated factor loadings
from
each data source
with lhe loadings fronl the other two sources.
Fiske
caBed
lhe
five
factors
he
discovered
recurrent
factors
to
enlphasize their
similarity across lhe three data sources. He lhen conlpared his own five recurrenl
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 6/16
3
FISKE ANO
TIt
BtO-AVE FACfOR STRUCfURE
factors with the much larger number rcportcd
by
CattelI, and expressed his
feelings about the correspondence bctwcen llié
lw
solutions: A thorough study
of
these two sets
of
factors, one from Catten and one fron10ur ratings by
teamnlates, leaves one with feelings
of
both optinlism and discouragement. Even
in
the face
of
no cpmplcte congruence, the similarities support a belief
in
the
possibility
of
eventual agreement upon the basic variables in personality" (p.
341). Note the similarity between that last sentence and the one quoted earHer
fron1 1l1urstone (1934). who also obtained five personality factors.
PUITING
IT ALL TOGETHER: THE DECADE OF THE 1960s
Before 1950, then, at least two separate five-factor models
of
phcnotypic
personality traits had appeared
in
the scientific
lilcrature-both
with roots
in
he
lcxicographie tradition, but each using a differcnt set of trait-descriptivc variables.
Fiske (1949) did nol cite Thurstone (1934). although he did cite Thurstone's
textbook on multiple-factor analysis. Cattell (1947), who also did not cite
Thurstone
t
reported the findings fronl
ana1yses of
his 35 variables. soon followcd
by
additional analyses
oC
the same
or
sinlilar variables
in
otber sanlples.
In
each
of
his analyses, CaUell extractcd and rotatedat least
12
factors. Noting that many
of
Cattell's factors wcre identified on the basis
of
quite low loadings, Fiske
comnlentcd that he u does not share this confidence in the significance of )OW
10adings
U
(p. 342). History has proved the wisdom
of
Fiske's observation:
Cattell' s factors have proved notoriously difficult to replicatc.
Among the nlany who tricd and failed were Tupes and Christal (1958, 1961),
who analyzcd a variety of datasets, including those collected
by
Fiske. CatteU,
and themselves.
AH
of the datasets included sets
of
variables from Cauell, and
werc based on either peer or observer ratings. Using across-sample replicability
as
a criterion for deciding on the nunlber
of
factors. Tupes and Christal (1961)
discovered five robust factors, which they labeled
Sllrgel cy
(Factor 1 ,
greeableness
(Factor
11 , Dependability
(Factor 111 ,
EnJotional Stability
(Factor
IV), and
Culture
(Factor V). Their c1assic
1961
Air Force technical repart has
now been reprinted (Tupes Christal, 1992). along with an apprcciatory editorial
by McCrae (1992) and a historieal introduction by Christal (1992).
Norman (1963), Borgatta (1964), and Snlith(1967, 1969) an reactcd
to
the
work
of
Tupes and Christal (1958, 1961) with their own independent studies,
and found much the same five-factor structure.
Of
these reports, Norman's article
has been historically the most important, both bccause
of
his carefulness
in
analysis and reporting and because it was published in a highly visible and pres
tigious journal. Norman selected the four variables frotll the Tupes and Christal
(1961) analyses that loaded most highly on each of the five factors, and then
collected peer' ratings with those 20 variables
in
four new samples.He found
such substantial factor replicability across the samplcs thathis five-factor solution
has often been incorrcctly cited as the "Nonnan Five '
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 7/16
04
GOLDBERG
Dorgatta used other variables
in
separatc analyses of maJe and
female
samples
and found five replicated factors, which he Jabcled
Asserriveness
1),
Likability
(II),
Responsibility (IlI), Enlotionality
(IV), and
Inrelligellce
V). Using composite
scores
on
each
of the five
factors,
he
compared seIf-ratings, self-rankings, and
pccr rankings (the
laUer
two in samples conlposed of cIose fricnds,
as wcll
as
in
samplcs of acquaintanccs)
in
a multitrait-multimethod
MTMM)
dcsign
(Campbcll Fiskc, 1959). Using the variables of CatteIl (1947), Smilh 1967)
conlpared lhe structures derivcd from three large samples N = 583 t 521, and
324) and found five robust factors, which he labeled EXlraversioll
(I),
Agreeableness
(Il),
Srrengrh ofCharacter
In),
Enlotionality
(IV),
and Refinemellt
V). Moreover, Smith
found
that scores derived fronl the
Character
ni) factor
corrclatcd
.43
with
coUegc
grades.
In
a latcr pccr-nomination study Snlith 1969)
rccovercd
the
four factors other than
Refinen,ellt
in nlale
and female
sanlples at
bOth the junior high school and high school levels. Moreover, he found high
correlations with snl0king status, smoking being negatively rclated to Factors
n
Agreeableness)
and III
Strenglh
o
Character)
,
and
positively related to Factor
I
Exlraversion).
TIME OUT THE
1970s
DY 1970, then, one might have assumed that the five-factor
nlodel
had anlassed
more than enough evidence to ensure its viability as
Ihe
taxononlic
framework
for
phenotypic personality
t r a i L ~ Dut
it was nol lo
be.
Other forces dominatcd
this
decade, unlcashcd by a Zcilgeist
that
eschewed
the
very conceptofpersonality
traits, if nol of pcrsonality itself (c.g., Mischel,
1968).
The 1970s witnessed
the
virtual abandonment of major segments of personality research, including the
investigation of personality-trait structure.
THE
RENAISSANCE
THE
1980s
In the spring of 1978, John
Digman was to teach
a
COUI Se
in factor analysis, for
which he obtained a number of corre)ation nlatrices
frorn
classic studies of
abilities
and
personality traits, including those previously analyzcd by Tupes and
Christal (1961) and Nonnan (1963). Before providing them to
his
students for
reanalysis, however,
he
chccked them careful1y
and found
clerical errors in
the
matrices
of
two
of
Cattell's studies. More importantly,
he
discovered
that when
six or more factors werc rotated from lhe various matrices, the factors did not
corrcspond; whereas
when
five factors werc rotated, there
was
striking interstudy
correspondencc (Digman Takemoto-Chock,
1981).
Later rcsearch by Digman
and Inouye (1986) again obtained the Big-Five factors in teachcrs' ratings of
the
children in their classrooms. This same period saw the publication of
two
of nly
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 8/16
3. FISKE AND TI IE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE
35
ehapters (Goldberg, 1981 t 1982), both stimulated
by
the lexical hypothesis.
TI1C
first provided
sorne
eonjectures about the possible universality
o
the Big-Fivc
factor strueture,
and the
sccond described a program of research focusing
on
English trait-deseriptive adjeetives and nouns.
TIle 1980s
w i t ~ e s s e d
the
emergenee of
the
two dominant variants of lhe
five-factor nlodel ,one developed by McCrae and Costa (1985a, 1987)
ano
operationalizco in
the
Neuroticism-Extraversion Opcnness Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI; Costa MeCrae, 1985), and the other associated
with
studies baseo
on the
lexieal hYPolhesis and operationaHzcd in the sets o factor nlarkers provided
by Norman (1963), Pcabody and Goldberg (1989), Goldbcrg (1990, 1992), John
(1989), Trapnel1 and Wiggins (1990), and Digman and
his
assoeiatcs (e.g.,
Dignlan,
1989;
Dignlan Inouye,
1986). Much
is
the sanle
in
both variants:
(a)
lhe
nunlber of dinlensions is identical,
namely five; (b)
the eontenl of Factor IV
is
essentially
lhe
sanle, although it
is
orientcd in the opposite direclion
in
the
two
Jnodels,
and
is
thus
so labcled (Emorional Srability vs. Neuroticisln); and
(e) therc is considerable sinli1arity, although
not
identity in
the
eontent of Factor
III
(Collsciclltiousllcss). On· the
olher hand, al leasl
two
of the differences bctween
lhe
véuianls
are
quite striking: (a)
lhe
localions of Faelors 1 and
11
are
systenlatically rotateo, such thal Warmlll is a faeel 01 Exlraversioll in
lhe
NEO-PI,
whereas it
is
a facet of
Agrecableness
in lhe lexical nlodcJ;2 and (b) Factor V is
eoneeived as
Openncss lo
E ~ } e r i e n e e in the NEO-PI
and
as
Inlel/cet,
or
Imaginario
in lhe
lexical nlodeI.
These differenees stenl fronl the history
o
the
NEO
PI, which starled out as
a questionnaire nleasurc
o
a thrce-faetor nlodel. including only Ncurolicisl1J.
EXlraversioll, and Openness 1 Expericncc. Whcreas olher three-faetor lheorists
sueh as Eysenek (1991) have stood firm as proponents o their original
representations
t
Costa
and
MeCrae reacted
to the
events of the early
19805 \Vilh
sueh relllarkable Openness lo
E ~ } e r i e l l c e
that,by the cnd o the deeade, lhese
investigalors
had
beeome
the
world's nlost prolific
and
influential proponents of
lhe
five-faelor nlodel.
TI1C
prodigious oulpouring
o
rcports
by
McCrae
and
Costa
probably did
Jnore
lo form the modem eonsensus aboul pcrsonalily structure lhan
anything eIse
that
oeeurred during
the
1980s. Specifieally, they used the
NEO-PI
seales
as
a franlework for integrating a
wide
varietyof other questionnaire scales,
incIuding those developcd by Eysenek (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), Jackson (Costa
McCrae, 1988a), Spielbcrger (Costa MeCrac, 1987), and Wiggins (McCrac
Costa, 1989b),
as
wcll as the scales included in lhe Minnesota
M u l t i p h a ~ i c
Personal ity Inventory (MMPI; Costa, Buseh, Zondcnnan, MeCrae, 1986)
ano
the
Myers-Briggs Typc Indicator (MeCrae
&
Costa, I989a).
2Actually.
(he
trait descriptor
Warm
has been classified in racel 11+/1+ in sorne AB5C (Hofslee.
de Raad. Goldberg.
1992)
analyses in (he lexical model. whereas
Warmlh
is considered a
1+/11+
facel in
lhe McCrnc
and
Cosaa
model. suggesting more agreemenl when both primary and secondary
loadings are considercd
(han
when one cOllsiders lhe primary loadings alonc.
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 9/16
6
THE
MINORITY REPORTS: PRESENT DAy OPPONENTS
AND
CRITICS
GOLDBERG
An enlergi'ng consensus is not the same as universal agreenlent 1l1ere are those
who
do
not accept the Big-Five factor structure. Indeed, the two most famous
holdouts, Cattell
and
Eysenck, share
Hule but
their opposition
to
the five-factor
model. Catte11 renlains convinced that there are far nlore faclors than five, whcreas
Eysenck
is
certain that five
is
too many. Specifically, Eysenck
(1991, 1992)
has
argued that Faclors n
Agreeableness)
and 111
Conscientiousness)
in the Big-Five
represcntation
are
nlere)y facets of
the
highcr
level
construct of
Psychoticism in
his Psychoticism-Extraversion-Neuroticisnl (P-E-N) nlodcl.
SO WHY DIO IT TAKE
SO
LONG?
Despite lhe crities, any alert reader of the primary literature in personality
psychology
would
be struck by the extent
to which
the Big-Five factor structure
has
gained recognilion
and
grudging acceptance
as the
major representation of
phenotypic personality traits. Moreover, this franlework has begun to win converts
in
industrial/organizational contexts. Indeed,
bOlh
qualitative (e.g., Schnlidt
Ones,
1992)
and quantitative (e.g., Barriek Mount,
1991)
reviews of lhe
literature have concluded that personality nleasures, when classified within lhe
B ig-Five donlains, are systenlatically related to a variety of criteria of job
pcrfornlance. If
it is
fair
to
say that
lhe
five-factor nlodel
is now
gencrnlly seen
as lhe mosl useful organizalion
of
personality lraits (e.g., Dignlan,
1990),
lhen
it
is rcasonable
to
ask, what took
it
so
long
to be accepted? What force s kept
the
field fractionated for
al1
lhose ycars?
In the
remainder of lhis chapter,
1
brieny
outline sonle of
the
pressures against consensus that characterized lhe history of
personalily psychology
in
the years since Fiske
(1949).
My
hope
is
that,
by
understanding these pressures,
we
can
mitigate deJays in the acceptance of rulure
nlodcls and procedures, thus allowing
the
field to proceed on its scientific course
Inorc expeditiously.
Ooing Ir II y Hand
Certainly one of
the
forces that worked against ear)y rcplications of
lhe
five-factor
nl0del
was the
sheer
c.lifficulty
of
the
calcuJations prior to
the
widespread
availabiJity of reasonably efficient conlputers
and
standardizcd COtllputcr
progranls. From Thurstone
(1934)
through Fiske
(1949)
to Tupes and Christal
(1961),
factor analyses were carried out by hand, which virtuaIly guaranteed the
possibility of sorne clerical errors, as Digman and Takemoto-Chock
(1981)
discovered when
they
reanalyzed sonle of the datasets provided by Cattell. Tupes
anc l
Christal included lhe findings fronl one computer analysis
in
their report,
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 10/16
3 FISKE ANO THE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCfURE 07
and
were able
to
show its conlparabiJity with tlleir painstaking hand
.
ca1culations.
However.
by
the time
of
Norman
(1963),
computers
were
hcre
to
stay,
and today
this problem has all
bUl
disappeared.
lock of Follow
Up
Had
Thurstone
(1934)
more fully enlbraccd lhe lexical hypothesis
and
realized
the
significance of his ¡nitial discovery, lhe history of the Big-Five model might have
been quite different. But Thurstone devoted hinlself
to
other scicntific pursuits,
as
did Fiske, Borgatta, and Smith. Seenlingly. tllesc investigators did not reaBre
lhe
inlportance of their discoveries. Why? Here are sorne spcculative possibiHties.
Doing Our wn
Things
111C ficld of personality psychology has faced continucd difficulties
in
establishing
a curnulative scientific record. Perhaps bccause of lhe academic reward system,
personalily psychologists
lend
lo function nlore Iike a nlotley array
of
superstars
lhan. like a srnooth .functioning lea
m. Each
of us has our own agenda.
and
intcgralion
is not
our long suil. Indeed,
we do nol
even agree about lhe mosl
inlportant scientific questions,
much
less the answers.
We
estcenl our
own
contributions, and we are quick to pick holes
in
the contributions of others. Each
of
us
scems
to
live
by
lhe
moUo, f
I didn t do
U it
wasn t done right.
One result
of
this egocentric bias has
bcen
the proliferation
of
taxononlic
nlodels. Very rarely does lhe developer
of
a hlodel admil that a rival
nlorlel is
superior.
As
a conscquencc,
we
engage
in
wars of attrition: Models disappcar
only when lhcir originators fade away. Thosc who are
not
¡nvolved
in
rescarch
on lhe structurc of individual rlifferences arc justifiably bewildered
by lhe
diversity
of
our conlpeting models
and the
vitriol
of
our arguments
in
favor of
our own conlributions. Whom
are
they
to
be1
ieve?
For
we
are bctter critics than integrators, bcttcr at finding holes
lhan
palching
thenl. One could argue that the gradual acceptance of
lhe Big
Five
modeI
grew
out
of
our continued attenlpts toreplaee
it
with sonlething more altractive.
aH
of
which
faBed.
For example
t
Nonnan, whose 1963 article is the single-nlost
ciled reference
to
the Big-Five structure, spent much of his carly research career
as
a skeptic. ParadoxicaIly,
altl10ugh
his inlportance in the history
of the
five-faetor mode1 is universal1y acknowledgcd, his refusa
to
bccome a truc
believcr has typically becn overlooked. Yet after his seminal studics confirming
the five-faclor nlodel with a se)celcd set
of
Cattell variables (Nomlan,
1963),
he
instituted an cxtensive research program ainlcd at replacing that rnodel with a
nlore eonlprchensivc one. He began
by
cxpanding the corpus of English
personaJity tenns assembled
by
Al1port
and
Odbert (1936), lhen c1assifying lhe
ternlS in
lhe expanded pool into
su
eh categories
as slales traits
and
roles and
finally collccting nonnativc ¡nfonnation about sonlC 2,800 trait-deseriptive temlS
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 11/16
08
GOLDBERG
(Nonnan, 1967). Nonnan was convinced that, because of the inevitable
conlputational and other technicallimitations of research in the 1930s and 1940s,
CattclPs variables
len
much to be desired, and therefore studies utilizing a
rcprcsentative subsct of thc total English pcrsonality-trait lexicon would uncovcr
sonle broad dinlcnsions beyond thc Big-Five struclure. AlLhough Nornlan never
tested this appealing conjecturc, others did (e.ge, GoJdberg, 1990), and it
hRIi
proyed to be wrong.
Failure t
ee
the Forest From rhe Trees
Digrnan espoused a lO-factor modcl of child personality structurc as latc as 1977
and Cattell still espouses an even more complex representation. lloth invcstigators
followed a
bottonl-up
strategy for conslructing a hierarchical rnodel, llsing
oblique rotations lo oblain correlated factors, which in tum could then be analyzed
obliquely al successively higher levcls. In contrast, investigators such as Tupes
and Olrislul 1961),
Nonnan
1963), and Goldberg 1990, 1992) followed a
top-down slralegy, using orlhogonal rotations so as to firsl establish the oyerall
dirnensionality of their variable sets, and only later atternpting to discover lhe
facets wilhin each broad factor dornain Hofstee, de Raad, Goldbcrg, 1992).
By analogy, the fonner strategy builds up the forest on a tree-by-tree
bRc;is,
whereas lhe latter.strategy first locales lhe outlines of the forcst and lhen focuses
on lhe individual trees. Using a geographical analogy, the fOlmer strategy first
finds such distinclive features of lhe landscape as lakes, rivers, and nlountain
rimges, which
in
turn are used to discover lhe continents, where,lS lhe laller
strategy first locales lhe continenlli and later nlaps lheir distinctive features. Which
is lhe best way lo proceed?
If the history of the five-factor rnodel is to be
one's
guide, one should place
one's bets on lhe top-down strategy. As Dignlan 1990) noted, when factors are
rotated obliquely to a simple-structure criterion, they are likely lo be associaled
with relatively hornogeneous clusters of variables, rather than lhe basic
dirnensions of
lhe multivariate space. Whereas
il is
possible lhat the two strategies
could converge
on
a cornrnon representation, this would e nlost unlikely unless
lhe ¡nitial selection of variables had been carried out with extraordinary
prescience.
That
is, to select the initial variables
so
thoughtfully requires
knowledge of the nurnbcr
of
overall factor dornains and lhe naturc
of
lhe facets
located within each dorna¡n. One is not like)y lo know all this in advance.
Failure ro Separare Signal From Noise
As early as 1961, Tupes and OlfistaJ caBed attention lo lhe difficulties invo)vcd
in dcciding when two structural reprcscntations were lhe sanle ano when they
truly oiffcrcd. In discussing their
own
finding that five factors replicated across
the diverse datasets that they analyzcd, they cOO lmented:
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 12/16
3. FISKE ANO
iH
B1G-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE
9
In many ways it sccms rcmarkable
that such
stability shouJd
be
found
in
an area
which to date has granted anything
but
consistent results. Undoubtedly lhe
consistency has always
beCn
thcre, bUl
it
has
becn
hiddcn by inconsistcncy of
factorial lcchniques
and
philosophics, the
lack
of replication
using
identical
variables, amI disagrccment
among
analysts as lo factor titles. None of lhe
factors
idcntificd
in
this s,tudy
are
new. They have becn idcntificd
many
times
in
previous
analyscs, although they
havc nol always
becn callcd by thc sanlC names. (Tupes
Christal,
1961,
p. 12
Littlc
did
those investigators realize that
it
would lake yet another 25 years
for lhe ficld
to
separate lhe Big-Five signal from the noise of alternative factor
representations. Inconsistency
of
factorial techniques
and
philosophies have
renlained, and have increased over tinle.
On the
other
hand,
lhe
widcsprcad
availability of cotnputer progrmns forconducting a standard analysis such as
principal cornponents rotated
by
varimax) has servcd to decrcase lhe use of
idiosyncratic proccdurcs.
In
any case,
wc
now know that nlost reservations about
the fragility of factor solutions are unfounded, provided that the datasets ¡nelude
substantial nunlbcrs of variables
and
sanlples of largc sizc. Por example, Goldbcrg
(1990) dcnlonslratcd lhe virtual idenlity of Big-Five factor loadings across 10
factorial procedurcs,
incJuding bOlh
factor anuconlponent analyses, and
both
orthogonal
and obl
¡que rotational algorithrns.
A sccond problenl identificd by Tupes and Christal 1961) was a )ack of
replications using identical variables. Indecd,
it
hasproved 10 be extrcrnely
difricult lo cunlulatc concJusions
fronl
single-shot studics with uniquc scts of
variables.
In
lhe history of lhe Big-Five factor
SlruClure,
the studies thal have
provcd to be most persuasive to critics of the nlodel were those that conlpared
the factor slructurcs
from
similar sets of variables across divcrse samplcs or
procedurcs (e.g., Costa McCrae, 1988b; Dignlan Takemoto-Chock, 1981;
Fiskc, 1949; Goldbcrg, 1990; McCrae Cosla, 1987; Norman, 1963; Tupes
Christal,
1961).
lllC final problelll identified
by
Tupes and Christal waS that of disagrecnlcnt
anlong analysts as to factor tilles. Everyone scems to have a favorite
·labcJ.
espccially for the Big-Pive factors, which are
c1early
loo broad to be captured
wcll by any single trait-descriptive teml. Critics of lhe rnodel are quick lo nole
the
discord an10ng investigators in lheir factor Jabcls, and to attribute such
diffcrences in labcls to fundamental differences in
the
undcrlying factor structures.
However, n10st of the diffcrences in labcls rcsult from individual styles or tastes
(e.g.,
COllscienliollslless
vs.
Wi
for Pactor
111).
One difference inlabcls docs
renect a sonlewhat different conception of the underlying factor: Factor V
is
labcJcd
as
Openness lo Experience
in
the McCrae and Costa variant of the
five-factor nlodel, and as
Illtellect in
the lexical variant. Actually, as suggestcd
by Saucicr (1992), neither
Openness
nor
Illlellect
captures weJl
the
central cluster
of traits thai define Factor V. Perhaps a more apt
tabe)
is
Imaginarion
for a
dornain
incJuding
such traits as
Crealivily
and
Curiosity
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 13/16
40
GOLDDERG
Malignant Zeitgeist
In 1961,
Tupes and Christal
had no
way
o
knowing that
the 1970s
would witness
a virtual moratorium
on
the investigation
o many
fundamental problems
in
personality psychology, inc1uding the search for a
compclIing
taxononly of
personality traits. However, the 1970s turoed out to be a decade of controversy
about the scientific status of traits in general
and
broad traits in particular,
stimulated by such critics as D' Andrade (1965), Mischel (1968), and Shweder
(1975). Many o the issues ¡nvolved
in this
controversy may have now been
resolved (e.g., Borkenau, 1992; Funder, 1991), with optinlistk implications for the
eventual transformation of personality psychology
into
a nlore cumulative seien
tifk enterprise.
COD
Fiske was nluch ¡nvolved in the controversies o
the 1970s
and he
was
profoundly
infiuenced
by
the behavioristic Zeitgeist
that
was swccping the field at thallinle.
Perhaps as a reaction to
lhe
nattering nabobs of ncgativism who were
punlnleling personality psyehology
he
lost ¡nlerest
in
broad
pcrsonalily traits
(e.g., Fiske, 1973, 1974),
and
began to argue in favor of more bchavioral unils
of anaIysis. so as
to
ensure high levcls of interjudge agreement on lhe bask
elements of pcrsonality. Moreover, he began to feel quite pessimistic about lhe
likelihood
o
ever reaching agreetnent on a taxonomy of personality traits, with
the result that
he did
not further pursue his seminal study of trait factor struetures.
Today Fiske is renowned for his methodological and philosophkal contributions
to the ficld of personality. Wouldn't it
be
¡ronie if historians of lhe future also
judged his 1949 empirical study
as
bcing of such signa1 importance that it served
as
a verification
o
his
earlier belief
in
the
possibility of eventual agreement
upon the basic variables of personal ity (Fiske, 1949
p.
341)1 f so,
he has lhe
right lo ask, What
lhe
hell
look
so long?
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this chapter was supporled
by
Grant MH-49227 from the Nalional
Institute
o
Mental Health. 1
am
indebted
to
A.
Timothy Church, Jacob Cohen,
Paul T. Costa, Jr., Lec J. Cronbach, Robyn
M.
Dawes, Qlarlcs F. Dkken, John
M. Digman, Donald W. Fiske, Susan T. Fiske, Sarah E. Hampson, Willem K. B.
Hofslee, Oliver P. John, Daniel Lcvitin, Maurice Lorr, Clarence McCormkk,
Ivan Mervielde, Warren
T.
Norman, Delroy L. Paulhus, Lawrence
A.
Pervin,
James A. Russell,
Gerard
Saueier, Mkhael F. Scheier, Patrick E. Shrout, and
Auke Tellegen for lheir thoughtful suggestions. Portions of this chaptcr
have
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 14/16
J. FISKE ANO
TI-IE
BlG-FlVE FACfOR STRUCfURE
41
bccn
adaptcd
from
Goldbcrg (1993), which can be consultcd for furthcr dctails
about thc Big-Fivc factor structurc and
its
historical dcvclopn1cnt.
REFERENCES
Allport. G. W • Odbcrt. H. S. (1936). Trail-names: A psycho-Iexical sludy. Ps)'dlOlogical
MonogrofJhs,
47 (1, Wholc No. 211).
Barrick.
M.
R
•
& Mount.
M.
K. (1991). The Big Fivc pcrsonality dimensions
and
job performance:
A meta-analysis.
PersO/Ille PsydlOlogy,
44.
1
26.
Borgatla. E. F. (1964). Thc structure of pcrsonaJity characteristics.
Behavioral Science.
9. 8-17.
Borkenau.
P.
(1992). Implicil personality theory
and
lhe
five-faclor
model.
JourtuJl
of
Personality.
60. 295-327.
Campbell. O.
T
• & Fiske. O.
W.
(1959). Convergent and discriminant validalion by he
multitrait-multimethod matrix.
PsydlOlogic:al Bullel;n,
56. 81-105.
Cantor. N
•
Mischel. W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception.ln L Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad\·ance.f
ill experimelltal sodall'syt:llOlogy (Vol.
12.
pp. 2-52). San Diego. CA: Aeademic Prcss.
Callell. R. B. (1943). The deseription of personality: Baste traits resolved into cluslers.
Jourllal
of
Abllormal ond Sodal PsydlOlo¡:y. 38. 476-506.
Canell,
R U
(1947). Confirmation and clnrificalion of primary personality faclors.
PsydlOmelril.:a.
/2
197-220.
Christal. R.
E.
(1992). Aulhor's note On Recurrent persona
lit
y ractors based
en
traíl ratings. Joumal
of
Personality. 60. 221-224.
Costa. P. T • Jr., Busch,
C.
M., Zonderman.
A.
B., & McCrae. R.
R.
(1986). Correlations of MMPI
faclor scales with measures of
the five
factor model of personality.
JuurtuJl
of
Ptrsonality
Aues.fmelll. 50. 640-650.
Costa,
P T •
Jr., McCrae,
R
(1985).
Tire N O Persollality Im·tlllory malllllll.
Odessa.
FL:
Psychological Assessmenl Resources.
Costa. P. T
•
Jr • & McCrae. R. R. (1987). Personality assessment
in
psychosornatie medicine: Value
of a lraÍl taxonomy. In G. A. Fava T.
N
Wise (Eds.).
Advanc'es ill l'syc:Jwsomalk medicine:
Vol.
/7.
Researd, I,aradi¡:"'s illl,sydlOsomal;c medic;lte
(pp.
71-..82).
Basel, Swilzerland: Karger.
Costa, P. T • Jr • & McCrae. R R. (1988a). From eatalog lO classification: Murray's needs and lhe
five-factor model.
)oufl,al
of
Persolla/ity
and
Social Psyehology.
55.
258-265.
Costa.
P.
T., Jr • McCrac. R. R. (1988b). Personality in adullhood: A six-year longiludinal study
of self-reports and spouse ralings
on lhe
NEO Personalily Inventory.
Journal
of
Persolfalily and
Scx.. ial Psyelroloxy. 54.
853-863.
O' Andrade, R. G. (1965). Trail psychology and eomponential analysís. AmericlllJ AltlhrOI)()lo¡:isl.
67.215-228.
Oigman. J. M. (1989). Five robusl trail dimcnsions: OeveJopmenl, stabilily. and utility. Jourltal uf
/)er.wnalily. 57.
195-214.
Digman. J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of 'he five-faclor model. In M. R. Rosenzweig
&
L.
W. Porter (Eds.). A ual
review
of
psyclw/u¡:y
(Vol. 41. pp. 417 440). Palo Alto. CA:
Annual
I ~ e v i e w s
Oigman. J. M • Inouye. J. (1986). Further spccification of lhe five robust faclors of personality.
Juumal of
Personality
all(1
Scx..·ial PsydlOlo¡:y. 50, 116-123.
Digman. J. M • & Takemolo-Chock,
N
K (1981). Factors in lhe natural languageof personality:
Re-analysis. comparison. and interpretation
of
síx major studies.
Mulli,'ariale Belra";oral
Researe". /6. 149-170.
Eysenck. H.
J.
(1991). Dimensions of personality:
16.
S. or 3?-Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm.
Per.wnalily.alUl lI,di"idllal Dij)erences. 12. 773-790.
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 15/16
42
GOLDBERG
Eysenck. H. J. (1992). rour ways five faclors are 11 1 basic. Personality and d ; ~ ' i d ' l Q l DW'crenc:cs,
IJ.667-673.
Fiskc. D.
W.
(1949). Consislcncy
of
lhe factorial struclures
of
personalily ralings from differcnl
sources. 10urllal of Ab ormal a d Sodal PsycJlOlogy. 44,
329-344.
Fiske. D. W. (1973). Can a personality construct be validated empirically? PsycllOlogic:al Bulle/i ,
80.89-92.
Fiske.
D. W.
(1974). The IimUs for lhe convcnlional scicnce of personaJity.
Joumal
1 Pcr.'iOIlality,
42, 1-11.
Funder. D. C. (1991). GlobaltraÍls: A neo-A portian
apprCh1ch
lo pcrsonality.
Psyc:110108ical SdCIICC,
2.31-39.
Galton.
F.
(1884). Measuremcnt
of
charaeter.
Forllf;8hlly Review, J6.
179-185.
Goldberg.
L.
R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality
Icxicons. In
L.
Wheeler (Ed.), RevietV cifl'ersollalily a d sodal psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165).
Beverly Bilis. CA: Sage.
Goldberg. L.
R.
(1982). From ace lo zombie: Sorne exploralions in lhe language of personality. In
C. D. Spiclbergcr J. N Butcher (Eds.),
Allvalu:c./f
in I'cr.wllalily
aS.U.umCIII
(Vol. 1,
(lp.
203-234). HiIlsdale. NJ: L1wrenee Erlbaum Associates.
Goldhcrg, L. R. (1990). An altemalive uDescription of pcrsonalily : ll1e Dig-Five factor stnacture.
Joumal of I'crsollalily all¿ Social Psychol08Y. 59. 1216-1229.
Goldberg. L. R. (1992).
111e
devcJopmcnt
of
markers for lhe Big-Five fáclor slructure.
l sYc:/10108ic:al
A.uc.umclfI, 4, 2()-42.
Goldhcrg, L. o (1993). ll1e slruclure
of
phcnolYpic pcrsonality tmíls. Amcricm, I'sydw/08i:t1. 4t t.
2()-34.
Ilmnpsoll.
S.
E.
o
John,
O. P
•
Goldbcrg, L.
t
(1986). Calcgory brcadlh and hierarchieal Slnaclure
in personalily: Studies
of
asymmelries in
judgmenls of
lraÍl implications. JOllrl.al
o/
Persollalily
alld SIH.:ial P syellology. 5/ , 37-54.
Ilofslec, W. K. B • de Raad. B., Goldberg. L. R. (1992). Illlegralion of lhe Big-Five and cireumplcx
apprChlches lo mil struelure. Joumal of Pcrsollalily and Sodal Psyd10108Y. 6J. 146-163.
Jolm, O. P. (1989).' Towards a laxonomy of personalily descriptors. In D. M. Buss N. Cantor
(Eds.). /'ersollalily l,sycI10108Y:
Rece,
Irelldf a d cmcr8i 8 dircl'liolls (pp. 261-271). Ncw York:
Springer-Verlag.
Jolm. O. r. (1990).
Thc
UBig Five factor taxonomy: Dimcnsions
of
pcrsonality in lhe naturallanguage
and in questionnaircs.
In L.
A. Pervin (Ed.), /Ialldhook (Jll,crsollalily: r¡'eory
alUl
rescare (pp.
66-100). New York: Guilrord.
John.
0.1
.
Hampson.
S.
E
•
& Goldbcrg, L. R. (1991). ll1e basie levcl
in
personality-trail hierarchies:
Studies of trail use and aceessibility in differenl conlexlS.
JOllmal of Pcrsollalily allll
Sodal
Psydlolo8Y. 60, 348-361.
Kelly. E. L., & Fiske. D. W. (1951). rile predic:lioll o/I'er/ormmu:e in
dillkal
I s) ( /10108Y. Ann
Arbor. MI: University of Michigan I'ress.
McCrac. R. R. (1992). Editor' s introduClion
lo Tupes
and Chrislal. JOllma/ (if Per.wllalilJ'. 60.
217-219.
McCrae. R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985a). Updating Norman s adcquate laxonomy : Intelligcnce
and personality dimensions in natural languagc and in questio.nnaires. Joumal (Jf Pcr.wnalily
and
Sodal
P./fyC:/10108Y,
49, 710-721.
McCrae. R.
R,
&
Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985b). Comparison
or
EPI and psycholicism scalcs wilh measures
of lhe (¡ve-factor model
of
personalily; Persollalily a d Indh'idlllJl
Dij) erenc:cs.
6. 587-597.
M c r a c ~ R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of lhe five-ractor modcl of personality across
instruments and observcrs. Jounwl
1
Persollalily alld Social Psychol08Y, 52.
81-90.
McCrae. R. R
•
Costa. P. T •• Jr. (1989a). Reinterpreling lhe Myers-Origgs Type Indicator from
lhe pcrspectivc
of
lhe five-faclor model
or
personaJity. Jourllal o/ Per. iOIlality, 57, 17-40.
McCrae. R. R •
&
Costa. P. T • Jr. (1989b). The struclure of interpersonallrails: Wiggins' circumplex
too lhe five·faetor model. Joumal o/ PersOIUllity a d Social Psyc¡'oI08Y,
56,
586-595.
7/23/2019 Big Five History, Goldberg
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/big-five-history-goldberg 16/16
3. FISKE AND
TI-IE
BIG-FIVE
FACfOR STRUcruRE
43
McCrae. R. R., Jolm, O. P. (1992). An introduction lo lhe nve-factor model and its applications.
J ourlUll 01
Persollality, 60, 175-215.
Mischel, W.
(1 8).
Pcrsonality and asscssnrenl.
New York: Wiley.
Norman, W.
T.
(1 3). Toward an adcquate laxonomy of personalily atlributes: Replicalcd factor
structure in pec'r nomination pcrsonality ratings.
Journal
01
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66.
574-583.
Norman, W.
T.
(1967). 2800
pcrsollality
Irail
dcscriptors: Normalive
0l)( raling
characlcristics lor
a university IXlIJUlalioll.
Ann Arbor, MI:
Dcpartmcnlof
Psychology, University of Michigan.
Peabody. D., & Goldbcrg. L R. (1989). Sorne delcrminants of factor structures from pcrsonality-lrait
descriptors.
Journal
01
Persotrality alld Social Psyclwlogy, 57.552-567.
Saucicr, G. (1992). Openness versus ¡ntelleca: Much
ado
about nothing?
European Journal
01
PersonalilY, 6, 381-386.
Schmidl, F.
L..
&
Ones, D. S.
(1992).
Personnel selection. In M.
R.
Rosenzweig
L.
W. Portcr
(Eds.), A ual rcview OllJSyclwlogy (Vol. 43, pp. 627-670). Palo Alto. CA: Annual Reviews.
Shweder.
R. A.
(1975). How relevanl
is
nn individual dirrcrcncc theory of personality?
Journal
01
PersolJality. 43. 455-484.
Smilh, G. M. (1967). Usefulncss of pcer ralings of pcrsonality in cducational rcscarch. Educalional
and PsycllOloJ:ic:al Measureme,,',
27, 967-984.
Smilh. G. M.
1
9). Rclations bctwecn personality and smoking bchavior in pre-adult subjects.
Journal tI/CoII.mlli R and Clínical
P.fycllOlogy,
J3
710-715.
Thurstone,
L. L.
(1934). The veclors of mind.
Psych(JloRical Review,
4/ 1-32.
Trapnell.
P.
D
•
Wiggins. J. S. (1990). EXlensionof lhe Inlérpersonal Adjcclive Scales lo ¡ndude
lhe Uig Five dimcnsions
of
pcrsonality. JourfUll 01 I'trsollality and Social
'sycllOloRY.
59.
781-790.
Tupes. E. C • Christal,
R.
E. (1958). Stability of personality traÍl raling factors obtaincd undcr
diverse conditions (USAF WADC Tech. Note No. 58-61). L.ackland Air Force Base. TX: U.S.
Air Force.
Tupes.
E.
C., Chrislal. R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors bascd on trait ratings (USAF
ASD
Tech. Rep. No. 61-97). L.ackland Air Force Base. TX: U.S. Air Force.
Tupes, E. C • Christal.
R.
E. (1992). Recurrent personalily factors based on trail ratings.
Journal
01 Persollalíty. 60.
225-25 l.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A.
L.
(1992). Personality: Slruclure and assessmcnt. In M. R. Rosenzwcig
L W. Porter (Eds.),
Amulal rcview 01 psychology
(Vol. 43. pp.
473-504).
Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Rcviews.
Wiggins, J. • Trapncll, P. D. (in press). Personality structure: The retum o the Big Ave. In R.
Bogan,
J.
A. Johnson, & S.
R.
Briggs (Eds.),
lIalldhook
01
persona/ity psychology.
Orlando. FL:
Acadcmic Prcss.