Big Five History, Goldberg

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



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



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



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.



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



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 '



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



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.



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,



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



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:



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



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



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.



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.



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.

Big Five History, Goldberg

Documents

Transcript of Big Five History, Goldberg