An Investigation of Big Five And

omputers in
C
Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 283–293

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Human Behavior

An investigation of Big Five andnarrow personality traits in relation to

Internet usage

Richard N. Landers, John W. Lounsbury *

Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 0900, USA

Available online 3 September 2004

Abstract

The relationship between Internet usage and the Big Five as well as three narrow person-

ality traits was examined using 117 undergraduates as study participants. Results indicated

that total Internet usage was negatively related to three of the Big Five traits – Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness, and Extraversion as well as two narrow traits – Optimism and Work

Drive, and positively related to Tough-Mindedness. The results of a hierarchical regression

analysis indicated that Work Drive added significantly to Extraversion and Conscientious

in the prediction of total Internet usage, producing a multiple correlation of 0.349

(p < 0.01). Results were discussed individually by trait, in terms of broad versus narrow per-

sonality traits, and regarding suggestions for future research.

� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Big five; Broad and narrow traits; Internet usage; Work drive; Optimism; Tough-mindedness

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has emerged a limited, but growing, research literature on

personality traits in relation to Internet usage (e.g., Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2000;

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.06.001

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-865-577-6089; fax: +1-865-974-3330.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.W. Lounsbury).

mailto:[email protected]

284 R.N. Landers, J.W. Lounsbury / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 283–293

Leung, 2002; Scealy, Phillips, & Stevenson, 2002). There are several important rea-

sons why this area of research merits attention. Personality traits represent relatively

enduring characteristics of individuals that show consistencies over their lifespans

and across a wide range of situations (Pervin & John, 1997; Shaffer, 2000). Moreover,

personality traits have been found to be related to a broad spectrum of human activ-ities and types of behavior, including school attendance (McShane, Walter, & Rey,

2001), gambling behavior (Blaszczynski, Walker, Sagris, & Dickerson, 1999), parent–

infant bed sharing (Kelmanson, 1999), confessing to crimes in police interroga-

tions (Watanabe & Yokota, 1999), blood donations (Paunonen & Nicol, 2001),

housing behavior (Sweaney, Pittman, & Montgomery, 1984), music listening prefer-

ences (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003), leadership behavior (Judge & Bono, 2000),

behavioral aggression (Wu & Clark, 2003), television-viewing (Persegani et al.,

2002), drug use (Sussman, McCuller, & Dent, 2003), sexual behavior (Kalichman,Chain, Zweben, & Swain, 2003), job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and par-

ticipation in sports (Freixanet, 1999; O�Sullivan, Zuckerman, & Kraft, 1998). As

usage of the Internet is regularly engaged in by many individuals in all walks of life,

(NTIA Release, 2000), it is a logical area to investigate from a personality perspec-

tive, particularly since level of usage is often discretionary rather than mandated,

and thus more likely to reflect personal motives, needs, values, preferences and other

personality attributes.

In addition, from the perspective of individual development, personality pre-cedes many of the other variables that can and have been studied in relation to

the Internet, including attitudes toward the Internet (Lavin, Marvin, McLarney,

Nola, & Scott, 1999), computer expertise (Blair, O�Neil, & Price, 1999), computer

training (Rozell & Gardner, 1999), time management (Brenner, 1997), social sup-

port (Shaw & Gant, 2002), lifestyle characteristics (Ho & Lee, 2001), advertising

beliefs (Korgaonkar, Silverblatt, & O�Leary, 2001), tutoring systems (Wheeler &

Regian, 1999), information support (Scull, 1999), collaborative knowledge (Chung,

O�Neil, & Herl, 1999), innovation adoption factors (Shelley, 1998), and computeranxiety (Chua, Chen, & Wong, 1999) and other computer-related affective states

(Coffin & MacIntyre, 1999). From the standpoint of creating a meaningful knowl-

edge base in this area, it is important to establish first whether personality traits

account for variation in Internet usage, and which traits are relatively more

important. It will then be important to assess which variables explain additional

variance in Internet usage above and beyond that accounted for by personality

traits.

The present study addresses the relationship between personality traits and Inter-net usage. It is important to consider first the issue of what personality traits to

investigate in relation to Internet usage, since there are so many different traits

to choose from in the broader psychological literature. Fortunately, there is a gen-

eral consensus regarding the Big Five model as a unified, parsimonious conceptual

framework for personality (Digman, 1990, 1997; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). Empir-

ical studies have verified the overall factor structure and integrity of the Big Five

constructs of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neur-

oticism in many different settings and areas of inquiry (Costa & McCrae, 1994;

R.N. Landers, J.W. Lounsbury / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 283–293 285

De Raad, 2000). We therefore chose to examine the Big Five traits in relation to

Internet usage.

There is, however, a growing debate about whether validity relationships can be en-

hanced by considering narrow personality traits in addition to the broad, Big Five

constructs (e.g. Ashton, 1998; Ones & Viswesvaran, 2001; Paunonen, Rothstein, &Jackson, 1999; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). For the present study, we used

two criteria to select narrow traits likely to add variance beyond the Big Five: (1) trait

definition and meaning not readily subsumed by accepted Big Five taxonomies (e.g.

De Raad, 2000; Digman, 1990); and, since our study involves college students, (2)

established, empirical relationships with academic performance. Based on prior re-

search by the second author (Lounsbury et al., 2003; Lounsbury, Loveland, &Gibson,

2002), we selected three narrow traits for inclusion in the present study – Optimism,

Tough-Mindedness, andWork Drive. These traits can briefly be summarized as:Opti-

mism – a generalized predisposition toward positive expectations, Tough-Mindedness

– appraising information and making decisions based on logic and facts rather than

feelings and intuition, and Work Drive – disposition to work long hours and expend

extra time and effort to meet achievement-related goals (for more detailed definitions,

see Lounsbury & Gibson, 2002; Lounsbury et al., 2002).

Before turning to the specific objectives of the present study, we consider the ex-

tant research on personality traits and Internet usage. Scealy et al. (2002) found that

shyness was related to specific types of Internet usage. Leung (2002) found that lone-liness was not significantly correlated with usage of the online instant messaging pro-

gram, ICQ (‘‘I seek you,’’), but was related to amount of self-disclosure. Armstrong,

Phillips, and Saling (2000) found that low self-esteem was related to heavy Internet

usage. Hamburger and Ben-Artzi (2000) found that extraversion and neuroticism

were related to different types of Internet usage.

Research Questions

We addressed three research questions:

(1) Are the Big Five personality traits related to Internet usage (including overall

usage and usage by category)?

(2) Are the narrow personality traits of Optimism, Tough-Mindedness, and Work

Drive related to overall Internet usage?

(3) Do the narrow traits add incremental validity beyond the Big Five traits in

accounting for overall Internet usage?

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The research setting for this study was a large state university in Tennessee, with

117 undergraduates in a lower-division psychology course serving as participants,

with 41% male, 59% female; 24% aged 18 years, 44% 19 years, 15% 20 years, 8%


21 years, and 9% 22 years or more; 82% Caucasian, 9% African–American, 1% His-

panic, 4% Asian–American, and 4% ‘‘Other.’’

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Personality

The measure of personality, the Adolescent Personal Style Inventory or APSI

(Lounsbury et al., 2003) is applicable for adolescents through college age and incor-

porates measures of the Big Five traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraver-

sion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability as well as the narrow traits of

Optimism, Tough-Mindedness, and Work Drive (for further details, see Lounsbury

et al., 2003).

Variables for the personality traits consisted of summed scores based on individ-

ual items set on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree) with a midpoint of 3 (neutral/undecided).

2.2.2. Internet usage

In view of the ease of usage and validity of self-reported Internet usage (Deane,

Podd, & Henderson, 1998), we measured usage of the Internet as a self-report item

on a eight-point scale with response choices as follows: (1) less than 1 h per week, (2)

less than 5 h per week, (3) less than 1 h per day, (4) at least 1 h per day, (5) between 1

and 3 h per day, (6) between 3 and 5 h per day, (7) between 5 and 10 h per day, and

(8) more than 10 h per day.Following previous research which broadly categorizes types of Internet usage

(Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2000; O�Dell, Korgen, Schumacher, & Delucchi, 2000),

we asked respondents to indicate the percent of time they typically spent each week

on the Internet that was devoted to: Communication (including E-mail and Chat),

Leisure (including music, role-playing, shopping), and Academic (research, course

participation on-line).

2.3. Procedure

Approval to conduct this research was secured from the university Institutional

Review Board. Participants were recruited by posting a signup on a bulletin board

in the campus Psychology building. Students were offered extra credit for their par-

ticipation. Students met with an experimenter in various buildings across campus,

where informed consent forms and the questionnaires were distributed. After signing

the informed consent forms, participants took the questionnaire.

3. Results

Table 1 displays the coefficient alphas for the eight personality variables along

with their intercorrelations and correlations with overall Internet usage. Five person-

Table 1

Coefficient alpha�s and intercorrelations of study variables

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Agreeableness (1) (0.70) 0.14 0.24** 0.31** 0.02 0.39** �0.20* 0.23* �0.23*

Conscientiousness (2) (0.84) 0.0.02 0.07 0.18 0.16 �0.13 0.44** �0.21*

Emotional stability (3) (0.84) 0.24** 0.11 0.43** 0.37** �0.10 0.02

Extraversion (4) (0.80) 0.27** 0.29** 0.12 �0.05 �0.21*

Openness (5) (0.77) 0.15 �0.25** 0.26** �0.08

Optimism (6) (0.76) �0.09 0.23* �0.22*

Tough-mindedness (7) (0.79) �0.35** 0.20*

Work drive (8) (0.80) �0.26**

Internet usage (9) –

n = 117. Values in the diagonal represent Cronbach�s coefficient alpha reliability coefficient.* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.


ality traits were significantly negatively related to total Internet usage: Agreeableness

(r = �0.23, p < 0.05), Conscientiousness (r = �0.21, p < 0.05), Extraversion(r = �0.21, p < 0.05), Optimism (r = �0.22, p < 0.05), and Work Drive (r = �0.26,

p < 0.01). Also, Tough-Mindedness was positively correlated with Internet usage

(r = 0.20, p < 0.05).

To examine the question of incremental validity of the narrow personality traits in

relation to the Big Five in predicting Internet usage, we performed a hierarchical

regression analysis in which the Big Five measures were allowed to enter stepwise

in a set, followed by the three narrow traits measures which were allowed to enter

stepwise in the second set. As can be seen in Table 2, the results of this analysis re-vealed that Extraversion and Conscientiousness significantly entered the equation to

predict Internet usage with a multiple correlation of R = 0.285 (p < 0.01). In the sec-

ond step, Work Drive significantly entered the equation producing a multiple corre-

lation of R = 0.349 (p < 0.01). The two Big Five traits of Extraversion and

Conscientiousness together accounted for 8% of the variance in Internet usage, with

Work Drive adding an additional 4% of the variance in Internet usage.

Table 3 displays the correlations between the eight personality variables and the

percent of time spent in the three categories of Internet usage – Social, Leisure, andAcademic. Conscientiousness and Work Drive were both significantly and negatively

Table 2

Results of multiple regression analysis with Big Five and Narrow Traits predicting Internet usage

Dependent Variable: Internet Usage

Step Variable Multiple R R2 R2 change

1 Big Five traits (Extraversion, Conscientiousness) 0.285** 0.081** 0.081**

2 Work Drive 0.349** 0.122** 0.041*

n = 117.* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

Table 3

Intercorrelations of personality variables with percent time spent on the Internet by category of usage

Percent time spent on

Communication Leisure Academic

Agreeableness 0.01 �0.06 �0.02

Conscientiousness 0.01 �0.18* 0.19*

Emotional stability �0.10 0.06 0.02

Extraversion 0.07 �0.12 0.10

Openness �0.02 �0.17 0.10

Optimism 0.02 �0.07 �0.01

Tough-mindedness �0.09 0.12 �0.10

Work drive 0.06 �0.24** 0.10

n = 117.* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.


related to percent of Internet time spent on Leisure (r = �0.18, p < 0.05 and

r = �0.24, p < 0.01, respectively), whereas Conscientiousness was significantly, pos-itively related to percent usage for Academic purposes (r = 0.18, p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

The present results showed that three of the Big Five personality traits – Agree-

ableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion – were inversely related to Internet

usage. In other words, more introverted, less agreeable, and less conscientious stu-dents engaged in higher levels of Internet usage. In view of the conceptual specifica-

tion of the construct of Introversion–Extraversion, there are several possible

explanations for this result: More extraverted students may be spending their discre-

tionary time in more social activities that do not involve computer or Internet usage.

Conversely, introverted students may have more free time to engage in Internet

usage or they may be more attracted to Internet usage because it is an activity where

they can focus their attention and quietly immerse themselves in what is essentially

solitary behavior. Further explanation of this finding is a topic that could be ad-dressed by future research.

The negative relationship between Agreeableness and Internet usage may reflect

students who do not get along well with other students choosing to spend more time

on the Internet rather than in interpersonal settings, or they may be less frequently

sought out for group activities by other students and, thus, have more time available

for Internet usage compared to students scoring higher onAgreeableness. Also, unlike

face-to-face interpersonal settings, there are relatively few demands for agreeable

behavior on the Internet, even in E-mail exchanges and chat rooms, which wouldmake this environment more fitting for less agreeable students.

The negative relationship between Conscientiousness and Internet usage is inter-

esting and raises several questions. Let us first consider what this finding means:


Based on commonly accepted conceptualizations of the Conscientiousness construct

(e.g., De Raad, 2000), we interpret this result as indicating that students who are

more rule-following, organized, reliable, and structured report lower levels of Inter-

net usage than less conscientious students. Why might this be? One possible explana-

tion is the wide-open, unstructured environment of the Internet with its absence ofrules and policies (Kiesler, Siegal, & McGuire, 1984; King, 1999) may appeal more

to less conscientious students. In this regard, the Internet may be a better fit with

their personality. Or, it may be that more conscientious students are more engaged

in structured activities like participation in clubs and organizations, studying for

classes, writing papers, etc. In support of this idea, we note that Conscientiousness

was positively related to relative Internet usage for Academic purposes, but nega-

tively related to relative usage for Leisure functions. It should be noted that many

student activities reflecting Conscientiousness, such as writing papers and storingclass notes, may involve computer usage but not Internet usage. One topic for future

research would be to examine whether a similar relationship to Conscientiousness

holds for computer usage as distinct from Internet usage. A broader topic of interest

would be to investigate personality-Internet usage in terms of person–environment

fit, where perceptions of the Internet are related to personality attributes.

Consistent with other areas of personality research (e.g., Moberg, 1998; Paunonen

& Ashton, 2001; Paunonen & Nicol, 2001; Schneider et al., 1996), the present results

show that narrow personality traits are also related to Internet usage and, in the caseof Work Drive, add significantly to the prediction of Internet usage above and be-

yond the Big Five traits. More specifically, we can interpret the narrow-trait relation-

ships as indicating that students who are more pessimistic, tender-minded, and

disinclined to work hard academically used the Internet more frequently. Although

many possible explanations for each of these findings might be advanced, we offer

the following: First, more pessimistic students might be attracted to Internet usage

to confirm their negative expectations or to share perceptions and beliefs with

like-minded pessimists. In this vein, at least one observer has noted that Internet sup-porters have a pessimistic disposition (Godrich, 2003). Second, students who are

more tough-minded may be more likely to engage in Internet usage because it is

an arena where feelings and sentiments do not come much into play and one can

base one�s actions on logic, facts, and critical thinking. Third, the negative relation-

ship between Work Drive and Internet usage may simply reflect that students who

spend a lot of time on the Internet do so at the expense of time that could be spent

studying hard and exerting extra effort to make good grades. Indeed, the significant

negative correlation between Work Drive and percent Internet time classified asLeisure supports the notion that Internet usage is motivated by non-work (i.e., lei-

sure) pursuits. Also, frequent Internet usage may not be functional for more hard-

working students. Along these lines, employees who engage in non-essential Internet

usage on the job have been considered as having a lower work ethic (Ritterskamp,

2003).

Overall, the results of the present investigation have demonstrated the relation-

ship of selected Big Five personality traits as well as narrow personality traits to

Internet usage. At present, researchers in this area may well choose to study all


of the Big Five traits, because different results may emerge in different research

contexts and because use of the Big Five affords researchers a common vocabulary

and metric for understanding personality dynamics across a wide range of settings

(c.f. Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988). On the other hand, the present findings also indi-

cate that researchers who want to maximize validity relationships should include

narrow personality traits in addition to the broad Big Five factors. We recommend

that researchers in this area consider using ‘‘multidimensional composites’’ (Pau-nonen & Nicol, 2001), comprised of both broad traits such as the Big Five and

narrow personality measures. Future research on individual dispositions related

to Internet usage can potentially explore a variety of narrow personality traits,

too numerous to catalog here. In addition, the use of personality dimensions con-

textualized to computer as well as Internet usage may prove useful in elaborating

validity relationships in this area of inquiry (see, e.g., Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, &

Powell, 1995).

There are several limitations of the present study. First, the study was limited topsychology undergraduate students at a single university. Also, the sample size was

modest and did not permit disaggregated analyses by other demographic/personal

factors such as sex, year in school, and intellectual ability. Third, we did not measure

the actual amount of time spent in different areas of Internet usage, which could re-

veal different patterns of relationship to personality traits than percent of total time

spent on the Internet. For example, 10% of time spent on the Internet for academic

purposes may reflect very different psychological dynamics for someone who spends

a few minutes a day on the Internet versus someone who spends several hours everyday. Additionally, the participants were students seeking extra credit for completing

the inventory, and we do not know if the findings are generalizable to students not

receiving extra credit or to students who do not volunteer to participate. Finally, we

were unable to ascertain if our measure of Internet usage was range-restricted in our

particular sample, which could have lowered the magnitude of the observed

correlations.

Further research is needed to verify, clarify, and extend the present results. In par-

ticular, it will be important to know if the relationships we observed can be repli-cated in both similar and different settings. Also, future research in this area may

identify other narrow personality traits related to Internet usage, though we would

recommend that such efforts include an examination of incremental validity beyond

the Big Five. Finally, it will be interesting to see if the effects of other constructs and

factors on Internet usage can be assessed after taking into account effects attributa-

ble to personality variables.

References

Armstrong, L., Phillips, J. G., & Saling, L. L. (2000). Potential determinants of heavier Internet usage.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(4), 537–550.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.


Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Blair, D. V., O�Neil, H. F., & Price, D. J. (1999). Effects of expertise on state self-efficacy and state worry

during a computer-based certification test. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3–4), 511–530.

Blaszczynski, A., Walker, M., Sagris, A., & Dickerson, M. (1999). Psychological aspects of gambling

behavior: An Australian Psychological Society position paper. Australian Psychologist, 34(1), 4–16.

Brenner, V. (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLVII. parameters of Internet use, abuse and addiction:

the first 90 days of the Internet Usage Survey. Psychological Reports, 80(3Pt 1), 879–882.

Chua, S. L., Chen, D., & Wong, A. F. L. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis.

Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 609–623.

Chung, G. K. W. K., O�Neil, H. F., & Herl, H. E. (1999). The use of computer-based collaboration

knowledge mapping to measure team processes and team outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior,

15(3–4), 463–493.

Coffin, R. J., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Motivational influences on computer-related affective states.

Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 549–569.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood.

In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament

and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five personality factors (The psycholexical approach to personality). Seattle:

Hogrefe & Huber.

Deane, F. P., Podd, J., & Henderson, R. D. (1998). Relationship between self-report and log data

estimates of information system usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(4), 621–636.

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

Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Digman, J. (1997). Higher order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

1246–1256.

Freixanet, M. G. (1999). Personality profile of subjects engaged in high physical risk sports. Human

Performance in Extreme Environments, 4(2), 11–17.

Godrich, S. (2003). Mr. Pessimism. Retrieved September 15, 2003, from http://www.scfc.co.uk/

mrp04.html.

Hamburger, Y. A., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2000). The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism and the

different uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 441–449.

Ho, S. M., & Lee, T. M. C. (2001). Computer usage and its relationship with adolescent lifestyle in Hong

Kong. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(4), 258–266.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.

Kalichman, S. C., Chain, D., Zweben, A., & Swain, G. (2003). Sensation seeking, alcohol use and sexual

risk behaviors among men receiving services at a clinic for sexually transmitted infections. Quarterly

Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(4), 564–569.

Kelmanson, I. A. (1999). Parent-infant bed sharing and behavioural features in 2–4-month-old infants.

Early Child Development and Care, 149, 1–9.

Kiesler, S., Siegal, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated

communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.

King, S. A. (1999). Internet gambling and pornography: Illustrative examples of the psychological

consequences of communication anarchy. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2(3), 175–193.

Korgaonkar, P., Silverblatt, R., & O�Leary, B. (2001). Web advertising and Hispanics. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 134–152.

Lavin, M., Marvin, K., McLarney, A., Nola, V., & Scott, L. (1999). Sensation seeking and collegiate

vulnerability to Internet dependence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2(5), 425–430.

Leung, L. (2002). Loneliness , self-disclosure, and ICQ (‘‘I seek you’’) use. CyberPsychology & Behavior,

5(3), 241–251.

Lounsbury, J. W., & Gibson, L. W. (2002). Personal Style Inventory: A work-based personality

measurement systems. Knoxville, TN: Resource Associates.

http://www.scfc.co.uk/mrp04.html

http://www.scfc.co.uk/mrp04.html


Lounsbury, J. W., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2002). Job performance validity of

optimism. In Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Toronto, Canada.

Lounsbury, J. W., Loveland, J. M., Sundstrom, E. D., Gibson, L. W., Drost, A. W., & Hamrick, F. L.

(2003). An investigation of personality traits in relation to career satisfaction. Journal of Career

Assessment, 11, 287–307.

McShane, G., Walter, G., & Rey, J. M. (2001). Characteristics of adolescents with school refusal.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(6), 822–826.

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.

Moberg, P. J. (1998). Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity and the five

factor model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 258–285.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Economics and Statistics

Administration. (2000). Executive Summary FFTN�00. Retrieved September 15, 2003, from http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/execsumfttn00.htm.

O�Dell, P. M., Korgen, K. O., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female and

male college students. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(5), 855–862.

O�Sullivan, D. M., Zuckerman, M., & Kraft, M. (1998). Personality characteristics of male and female

participants in team sports. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 119–128.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Personality at work: Criterion-focused occupational personality

scales used in personnel selection. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the

workplace (pp. 63–92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of

Research in Personality, 35(1), 78–90.

Paunonen, S. V., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2001). The personality hierarchy and the prediction of work

behaviors. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 161–191).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow meaning about the use of broad

personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 389–405.

Persegani, C., Russo, P., Carucci, C., Nicolini, M., Papeschi, L. L., & Trimarchi, M. (2002). Television

viewing and personality structure in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(6), 977–990.

Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: Theory and research (7th ed.). Oxford: John Wiley and

Sons.

Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi�s of everyday life: The structure and personality

correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1236–1256.

Ritterskamp, E. (2003). Let�s talk about work ethic. Retrieved September 15, 2003, from http://

www.atpm.com/8.05/candy.html.

Rozell, E. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Computer-related success and failure: A longitudinal field study of

the factors influencing computer-related performance. Computer in Human Behavior, 15(1), 1–10.

Scealy, M., Phillips, J. G., & Stevenson, R. (2002). Shyness and anxiety as predictors of patterns of

Internet usage. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 507–515.

Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on

personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607–620.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: how to sink science

in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.

Scull, C. A. (1999). Computer anxiety at a graduate computer center: Computer factors, support, and

situational pressures. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2), 213–226.

Shaffer, D. R. (2000). Social and personality development (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson

Learning.

Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet

communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. CyberPsychology

& Behavior, 5(2), 157–171.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/execsumfttn00.htm

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/execsumfttn00.htm

http://www.atpm.com/8.05/candy.html

http://www.atpm.com/8.05/candy.html


Shelley, J. O. (1998). Factors that affect the adoption and use of electronic mail by K-12 foreign language

educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 269–285.

Sussman, S., McCuller, W. J., & Dent, C. W. (2003). The associations of social self-control, personality

disorders, and demographics with drug use among high-risk youth. Addictive Behaviors, 28(6),

1159–1166.

Sweaney, A. L., Pittman, J. F., & Montgomery, J. E. (1984). The influence of marital status and age on the

housing behavior of older Southern women. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 2(3), 25–36.

Watanabe, S., & Yokota, K. (1999). Psychological factors that facilitate confession to denying suspects:

Some factors determining the success of the interrogation. Reports of the National Research Institute of

Police Science, 40(1), 37–47.

Wheeler, J. L., & Regian, J. W. (1999). The use of a cognitive tutoring system in the improvement of the

abstract reasoning component of word problem solving. Computer in Human Behavior, 15(2), 243–254.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In R. Hogan, J.

Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 737–765). San Diego, CA:

Academic.

Wu, K. D., & Clark, L. A. (2003). Relations between personality traits and self-reports of daily behavior.

Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 231–256.

An Investigation of Big Five And

Documents

Transcript of An Investigation of Big Five And