An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications

Transcription

1 An Intrdutin t the Five-Fatr Mdel and Its Appliatins Rbert R. MCrae Natinal Institute n Aging, NIH Oliver P. Jhn University f Califrnia at Berkeley ABSTRACT The five-fatr mdel f persnality is a hierarhial rganizatin f persnality traits in terms f five basi dimensins: Extraversin, Agreeableness, Cnsientiusness, Neurtiism, and Openness t Experiene. Researh using bth natural language adjetives and theretially based persnality questinnaires supprts the mprehensiveness f the mdel and its appliability arss bservers and ultures. This artile summarizes the histry f the mdel and its supprting evidene; disusses neptins f the nature f the fatrs; and utlines an agenda fr therizing abut the rigins and peratin f the fatrs. We argue that the mdel shuld prve useful bth fr individual assessment and fr the eluidatin f a number f tpis f interest t persnality psyhlgists. What are the basi dimensins f persnality, the mst imprtant ways in whih individuals differ in their enduring emtinal, interpersnal, experiential, attitudinal, and mtivatinal styles? Persnality therists have ffered hundreds f andidates, and fr deades fatr analysts attempted t bring rder t the resulting nfusin by fatring persnality sales. Instead f reslving the issue, hwever, these studies nly ntributed anther layer f ntrversy, mst familiar in the mpet- We are grateful t Mihael Bnd, Peter Brkenau, David Buss, Paul Csta, Dnald Fiske, Lew Gldberg, Rbert Hgan, and Warren Nrman fr mments n this manusript, and t Stephen G. West and the assiate editrs f this jurnal fr their advie and assistane n this speial issue. Crrespndene may be addressed t Rbert R. MCrae, Persnality, Stress, and Cping Setin. Gerntlgy Researh Center, 4940 Eastern Avenue, Baltimre, MD This artile lies in the publi dmain beause it was written fr and funded by the federal gvernment.

2 176 MCrae and Jhn ing systems f Guilfrd, Cattell, and H. J. Eysenk. S when Tupes and Christal (1961; reprinted in this issue) fund five reurrent fatrs in analyses f persnality ratings in eight different samples, they were understandably surprised: In many ways it seems remarkable that suh stability shuld be fund in an area whih t date has granted anything but nsistent results. Undubtedly the nsisteny has always been there, but it has been hidden by innsisteny f fatrial tehniques and philsphies, the lak f repliatin using idential variables, and disagreement amng analysts as t fatr titles, (p. 12) Despite their wrk and the mre widely read repliatin f Nrman (1963) the imprtane f these five fatrs remained hidden frm mst persnality psyhlgists thrughut the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, hwever, researhers frm many different traditins were led t nlude that these fatrs were fundamental dimensins f persnality, fund in self-reprts and ratings, in natural languages and theretially based questinnaires, in hildren, llege students, and lder adults, in men and wmen, and in English, Duth, German, and Japanese samples (Jhn, 1990a). All five fatrs were shwn t have nvergent and disriminant validity arss instruments and bservers, and t endure arss deades in adults (MCrae & Csta, 1990). As a brief intrdutin t their nature. Table 1 lists definers f the psitive ple f eah f these fatrs. This new nsensus has grwn rapidly. Tw r three years ag, a speial issue n the tpi wuld dubtless have been filled with artiles ffering evidene fr r against the mdel itself (e.g., Brkenau & Ostendrf, 1989; Nller, Law, & Cmrey, 1987; Waller & Ben-Prath, 1987; Zukerman, Kuhlman, & Cama, 1988). We will review sme f that evidene here; it is als treated elsewhere (Digman, 1990; Gldberg, 1990; Jhn, 1990a; Wiggins & Trapnell, in press). Tday we believe it is mre fruitful t adpt the wrking hypthesis that the five-fatr mdel (FFM) f persnality is essentially rret in its representatin f the struture f traits' and t preed t its impliatins fr persnality thery and its appliatins thrughut psyhlgy. This has been ur guiding priniple behind this speial issue. 1. In this artile we use phrases like "struture f traits'" and "dimensins f persnality" t refer t the patterns f variatin f traits arss individuals, nt t the rganizatin f attributes within the individual (f. Jhn. 1990a. p. 96).

3 Intrdutin 177 If this hypthesis is rret if we have truly disvered the basi dimensins f persnality it marks a turning pint fr persnality psyhlgy. Instead fthe interminable disputes amng mpeting systems that s lng paralyzed the field, we uld see perative researh and umulative findings. Instead f the redundany that results frm measuring the same nstrut under a dzen different names, we uld see an effiient integratin f the literature arss many instruments. And instead fthe lst insights that a haphazard seletin f persnality variables is likely t prdue, we uld see a mplete and systemati pursuit f persnality rrelates. The FFM uld prvide a mmn language fr psyhlgists frm different traditins, a basi phenmenn fr persnality therists t explain, a natural framewrk fr rganizing researh, and a guide t the mprehensive assessment f individuals that shuld be f value t eduatinal, industrial/rganizatinal, and linial psyhlgists. Even its mst ardent defenders d nt laim that the FFM is the last wrd in the desriptin f persnality. There are disputes amng fivefatrists abut the best interpretatin f the fatrs; there are ertainly imprtant distintins t be made at the level f the mre mleular traits that define the fatrs; and it is pssible that there are ther basi dimensins f persnality. But sme versin f these five dimensins is at least neessary fr an adequate desriptin f individual differenes, and if all persnality researhers mpare their preferred system t this framewrk, it shuld sn beme lear whether and in what ways the mdel is defiient. Naming and Identifying the Fatrs The nsensus that five-fatrists see amng themselves may be puzzling t utsiders beause the "disagreement amng analysts as t fatr titles" that Tupes and Christal nted still plagues the field (Jhn, 1990b). Fatr names reflet histrial aidents, neptual psitins, and the entrenhment that mes frm a published bdy f literature and frm published instruments. There are tw prminent systems fr naming the fatrs, ne derived frm the lexial traditin and ne frm the questinnaire traditin. Many writers take Nrman's (1963) annuniatin f an "adequate taxnmy f persnality attributes" derived frm Cattell's redutin f natural language trait terms as the frmal beginning f the FFM, and the fatr numbers and names Nrman hse I: Extraversin r Sur-

4 00 g) CJ C/5 OJ 03,0 OJ s.1 i (U E ^ I, I OJ E O -S C li /: 2 ^.s 5 ^ Q CJ PH E li a 3 x: 00 E OJ X li a> S. ; -C^ OJ 'C.- li. O -=..- "2 "5 =-, a, 'u l.^ ^ 11/ ^". '^ HJ OS UH aa a Z n :^< ^ aa OJ «OJ ^."2.9 -^ 00 Cl. Illll es at.2 "j S «g >..2 i2 -a 2 S" ^? - J U ^ ^ -^ X^ Cj U C^ < Z a I.a I OJ!/l 00 3 UJ UJ 00 OJ O F2 > 2 <" u. O ^ a li C N _ JJ IEII H UJ O ex r2 x: yi 00 C 3 2 as li X) U UH li Z UJ OJ 60 < OJ u

5 .li H m 00 3 'I* O OH <U li.2 S ^ e :5 I < Iali OJ. S -s '^ 'i E u s -a «- a, I 1 I 1 I 1 II u d xi -^i. "S C/5 QQ U tl< > ra.2 C li > CJ 3 5 B II 3 II >. a. ^ O 2 O 1 i C/5 5-1 d -i 03 O E > T C li ^ a E E S OJ C S^ E B d z E CJ TO ^ a UJ 3 li OJ ex XI O a OJ CN.12 ON

6 180 MCrae and Jhn geny; II: Agreeableness; III: Cnsientiusness; IV: Emtinal Stability; and V: Culture are ften used. Peabdy and Gldberg (1989) have nted that the rder in whih these fatrs emerged rughly parallels their representatin amng English language trait terms in the ditinary: Many mre wrds an be fund t desribe aspets f Fatrs I thrugh III than f Fatrs IV and V. The fatr numbers, I t V, are thus meaningful designatins. Rman numerals als have the advantage f being theretially neutral; they seem t stand abve the fray f disputed fatr interpretatins. The send traditin that led t the mdern FFM mes frm the analysis f questinnaires, and partiularly frm the wrk f H. J. Eysenk, wh identified Extraversin (E) and Neurtiism (N) as majr mpnents f psyhlgial tests. (It was Wiggins, 1968, wh dubbed these the "Big Tw," setting the stage fr Gldberg's 1981 designatin f the FFM as the "Big Five.") Csta and MCrae (1980) added a dimensin they alled Openness t Experiene (O), and later (1985, 1989) reated sales t measure Agreeableness (A) and Cnsientiusness (C). A number f publiatins (e.g., Brkenau & Ostendrf, 1990; Funder & Clvin, 1988; Tellegen & Waller, in press; Wiggins & Pinus, 1989; Zukerman, Bernieri, Kestner, & Rsenthal, 1989) have adpted this nmenlature. Nte that N rrespnds t lw Emtinal Stability, IV, and O is a variant f Nrman's Fatr V. If the advantage fthe Nrman numbers is their theretial neutrality, the disadvantage is their lw mnemni value. Initials, riginally ppularized by H. J. Eysenk, are easier t interpret, and they may be less theretially laden than full names. T thse fr whm Neurtiism nntes psyhiatri disrder, negative affetivity (Watsn & Clark, 1984) r simply nervusness may seem mre apt; all an be haraterized by N. Likewise, E an als stand fr energy r enthusiasm (f. Watsn & Clark, in press); O fr riginality; A fr affiliatin (Leary, 1957) r affetin (Brand, 1984), and C fr nstraint (Tellegen, 1982) r ntrl (Krug & Jhns, 1986). The laim f five-fatr therists is that these fatrs, singly r in mbinatin, an be fund in virtually all persnality instruments, and a number f authrs have mpiled tables shwing the putative assignment f standard persnality sales r fatrs t the five (e.g.. Brand & Egan, 1989; Digman, 1990; Hgan, 1983; Jhn, 1990a; see als Table 2). These tables an be extremely useful nt nly as a demnstratin f the nature and pervasiveness f the five fatrs, but als as a guide t researhers and meta-analysts wh need t identify alterna-

7 Intrdutin tive measures fthe same fundamental nstrut. Similarly, researhers smetimes interpret their wn fatr analyses in terms f these five (e.g., Lehlin, 1987; Lrr, 1978; Nller et al., 1987). Here, t, the mmuniative pwer f the mdel is explited. The danger is that suh identifiatins may be wrng. Hgan (1983) lassified Csta and MCrae's Openness sale as a measure f Cnsientiusness; Nller et al. (1987) interpreted a fatr mbining liberal thinking, assertiveness, rebelliusness, and imaginatin as (lw) A; Csta and MCrae (1976) interpreted a similar fatr as O. The integrative value f the mdel is learly mprmised by suh disrepanies. Tw apprahes have been used t reslve suh prblems f lassifiatin. Jhn (1990a) frmalized a ratinal strategy: A grup f 10 judges familiar with the lassi literature n the FFM assigned the 300 items f Gugh and Heilbmn's (1983) Adjetive Chek List (ACL) t ne f the fatrs. Ceffiient alpha reliabilities f the mean judgments exeeded.90 fr all five dimensins. This study demnstrated that substantial interrater agreement n the ntent f the fatrs is pssible, and prdued lists f items that rrespnd t mmn neptins f the five fatrs. MCrae, Piedmnt, and Csta (1990) had raters judge the extent t whih items f the Califrnia Psyhlgial Inventry (CPI; Gugh, 1987) were indiative r ntraindiative f eah f the five fatrs and analyzed CPI sales in terms f this item ntent. Itemby-item analysis by multiple raters inreases the bjetivity f ratinal sale interpretatin. A mplementary apprah is empirial: Sales r new fatrs an be rrelated with standard measures f the five fatrs (e.g., Yang & Bnd, 1990). Table 2 shws sme results f this apprah. Briggs (this issue) desribes and evaluates available measures fthe fatrs. Ideally, researhers wuld inlude at least tw standard markers f eah fatr t examine the repliability f results.- The lexial apprah The Tw Histrial Paths t the Five-Fatr Mdel It is well-knwn that the FFM riginated in studies f natural language trait terms (Jhn, Angleitner, & Ostendrf, 1988). In brief, AUprt and 2. Rutine inlusin f a measure f general intelligene wuld als be useful, partiularly in reslving questins abut the nature f Fatr V (MCrae & Csta, in press).

8 OJ CJ C & -s u C^ N x:.'- li CJ U Cl. C/5 tn O s d) u 0 M u. z ;/^ li 32 li nsi U li E < 3 OJ lden &. OJ a = 00 6 CJ CA S3. ntr U ^ 2 U II D u M 0. B M 1 ra - J U. U a. l CJ li T in r5 r= U x> 2 O n CJ O /3 CJ O C/5 T3 s u 1 S " ^ 3 ra 00 x: y O ra ^ X U S ra 12 ra.2 K li 11 x: U ra O I ra CJ

9 li ra CJ li 3 4..) 00 dj CJ li XI O s; ^' i I ON 00 :Crae, id Wai _ ti 0 ely ^> ; nega % u ( ^1 E CJ x; '- '^ i- D x; CJ ^ - " I) -.0 a.s.ti Cd *.^ ts T3 U O C nj u =«^ 'ra 00.E 00 I li CJ 00 2 I I ^ I ^ gj.s I J i OJ d j^ S X S a <3v p C/5 ra J3 a. ra sl ali OJ is &^ li > OJ CJ ra T3 Cli a < S >< 11 I?.1 g "^ I II II I ra CJ 5 i C CJ 3 ra JJ "ra li > li 5' a: ra S2 ^ li & 2 2. S.OJ Q. 5 CJ 00 d ON O O^ B > 3 - " F C C Cd S a u g. S CJ a C S.2 O 2 t«* - g w '*" 5

10 184 MCrae and Jhn Odbert (1936) abstrated terms frm a ditinary; Cattell (1946) frmed them int synnym lusters and then reated rating sales ntrasting grups f adjetives; Tupes and Christal (1961) btained bserver ratings n these 35 sales and fatred them. (Fiske, 1949, had als used a versin f Cattell's rating sales in the earliest revery f the five fatrs.) Nrman used the best 20 rating sales frm the Tupes and Christal study in his repliatins, and that set was subsequently used in many later studies. Any emerging nsensus n the five fatrs in the 1960s was quikly derailed by the ntrversy ver impliit persnality thery (reviewed by Brkenau in this issue); that ntrversy ntributed t the demralizatin f persnality psyhlgy in the 1970s, and the FFM went int exile: The mst imprtant new studies were the rss-ultural repliatins by Bnd (1979; Bnd, Nakazat, & Shiraishi, 1975). Reanalyses f earlier data sets by Digman and Takemt-Chk (1981) and the metiulus analyses f Gldberg (1981, 1982) revived interest in the lexial apprah and reintrdued the FFM t the mainstream f persnality psyhlgy. There are several gd reasns fr beginning the searh fr persnality dimensins in the natural language. Fr the laypersn, persnality is defined by suh terms as friendly, high-strung, and puntual. These terms are the basi ways in whih individuals understand themselves and thers, akin t the flk nepts f Gugh (1987). A mplete thery f persnality must ultimately explain the phenmena t whih these terms refer and the ways in whih they are used in everyday life. And beause psyhlgists must ften rely n self-reprts and peer ratings t gather their data, they must speak the language f their infrmants. But there is ne mre mpelling reasn fr studying trait language. AUprt and Odbert nted sme 4,500 trait terms in English; surely suh a wealth f vabulary testifies t the sial imprtane f persnality traits. Cnversely, if traits are s imprtant, it seems likely that they will all be represented in the language. The lexial hypthesis hlds that all imprtant individual differenes will have been nted by speakers f a natural language at sme pint in the evlutin f the language and ended in trait terms; by deding these terms, we an disver the basi dimensins f persnality. T the extent that the lexial hypthesis is rret, analyses f language will prvide a mprehensive taxnmy f persnality traits. If we assume that persnality struture is universal, we shuld be able

11 Intrdutin 185 t extrat the same basi fatrs frm analyses f any natural language, and there is sme evidene t supprt this psitin. When Nrman's rating sales are translated int German (Brkenau & Ostendrf, 1990), Japanese (Bnd et al., 1975), r Chinese (Yang & Bnd, 1990), similar fatr strutures are fund. This repliatin is nt quite the same as a redisvery (f. Briggs, 1989), hwever, beause different fatrs might emerge if researhers began the press at the level f the ditinary: Different languages might ende a sixth fatr nt represented in the Nrman sales. Five persnality fatrs are fund in Chinese, but they d nt shw a ne-t-ne rrespndene t thse fund in English (Yang & Bnd, 1990); by ntrast, an exhaustive study f German adjetives prvides a near-perfet repliatin f English-language studies (Ostendrf, 1990). Similarly, analyses f persnality nuns r verbs might reveal fatrs nt fund in trait adjetives. These are amng the questins that nern the urrent generatin f lexial researhers (Hfstee & Van Hek, 1990). Persnality questinnaires In the histry f persnality researh, the lexial traditin has played a very small rle. Mst persnality assessment has been based n questinnaires with sales designed fr speifi pratial appliatins r t measure nstruts derived frm persnality thery (Gldberg, 1971). Psyhiatri nslgy and the theries f Jung (1923/1971), Murray (1938), and Sullivan (1953), amng thers, have spawned a variety f instruments. Individual researhers have als reated sales by the hundreds t measure mre disrete nstruts they deemed imprtant (e.g., Tellegen & Waller, in press). Theries f persnality have been remarkably diverse, and it might have been antiipated that the questinnaire sales designed t peratinalize them wuld shw little resemblane t eah ther. In fat, hwever, there is nsiderable redundany in what they measure. In partiular, many sales measure the hrni negative emtins that are f suh great nern t psyhiatrists and linial psyhlgists, and many thers deal with the interpersnal ativity s imprtant fr sial psyhlgists. H. J. Eysenk institutinalized these tw dimensins as N and E, and prvided useful measures (H. J. Eysenk & S. B. G. Eysenk, 1964, 1975); years f researh nvined many psyhlgists that these tw fatrs were indeed entral dimensins f persnality, t be fund in a wide variety f instruments.

12 186 MCrae and Jhn But it als beame lear that these tw dimensins did nt exhaust the full range f persnality harateristis. In 1974, Tellegen and Atkinsn prpsed that there was a third brad dmain f traits, all related t eah ther and all independent f N and E; they alled this "Openness t Absrbing and Self-Altering Experiene," r Absrptin. Independently, Csta and MCrae (1976) prpsed a similar dimensin f Openness t Experiene. Bth sets f researhers admired H. J. Eysenk's strategy f lking fr brad themes by whih t rganize grups f traits, and sught t extend it t new dimensins. By explaining as muh as pssible in terms f established fatrs, and then lking fr mmnalities in what remained unexplained, researhers uld preed t a systemati mapping f persnality traits. It was at this pint that the lexial and questinnaire traditins merged, leading t the ntemprary FFM (Digman, 1979; Hgan, 1983; MCrae & Csta, 1985). Wuld the mdel have been disvered eventually withut the guidane f the lexial traditin? Perhaps. As early as 1980, Csta and MCrae suggested that a dimensin f selfntrl might be needed, and Tellegen (1982) prpsed a similar dimensin f nstraint. These are nw regnizable as frms f Cnsientiusness. The remaining fatr Agreeableness might have been disvered in analyses fthe Interpersnal Cirumplex (Leary, 1957), whih mbines the dimensins f E and A, r f the Myers-Briggs Type Indiatr (MBTI; Myers & MCauUey, 1985), whih measures E, A, C, and O (see Table 2). In retrspet, at least, it is easy t imagine alternate lines f researh that wuld have led t the FFM. But until reently, nly a small minrity f questinnaire researhers were nerned with the issue f nsensus mst preferred t generate new sales rather than rganize thse already available. One reasn fr this may have been the theretial differenes that divided persnality researhers; anther may have been the apparent hpelessness f any empirial attempt t identify basi dimensins. There were, after all, hundreds f persnality inventries and sales, all requiring nsiderable time t mplete. A grand fatr analysis f all these wuld require thusands f subjets willing t dnate days f their time, and even then there was n mpelling reasn t believe that the results wuld tell us any mre than what kinds f traits trait psyhlgists were mst interested in measuring. By ntrast, lexial researhers uld identify a few hundred adjetives with sme nfidene that they represented the full range f trait terms needed in rdinary sial interatin, and subjets uld rate themselves r thers n these adjetives in a

13 Intrdutin 187 matter f minutes (Gldberg, 1989). Lexial studies were thus ideally suited fr the explratin f persnality struture; the mdel they led t uld then be nfirmed, enlarged, r qualified by studies f questinnaires. Perhaps the mst imprtant ntributin f the questinnaire traditin t the develpment f the FFM was theretial. The lexial apprah was limited t an analysis f persnality traits represented in rdinary language; it might have verlked harateristis f theretial interest t persnality psyhlgists. The nly way t reslve this questin was by mparing instruments speifially designed t measure the psyhlgial nstruts f persnality theries with measures fthe five lexial fatrs. If questinnaire measures f Murray's needs, Jung's funtins, and Gugh's flk nepts had nt already existed, it wuld have been neessary t invent them. Evidene f mprehensiveness The Empirial Status l the Mdel Until reently there were few empirial demnstratins f rrespndene between lexial fatrs and the traits measured by persnality questinnaires. Cattell's wn instrument, the Sixteen Persnality Fatr Questinnaire (16PF; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuka, 1970), was designed t parallel fatrs fund in lexial rating studies, but it was based n a 12-fatr slutin that was never adequately repliated, t whih Cattell added fur fatrs he had fund nly in questinnaire items (Jhn, 1990a; Jhn et al., 1988). Nrman (1969) prvided early evidene that self-reprt questinnaires uld measure the five fatrs, but did nt subsequently pursue this apprah. In the 1980s, hwever, studies began t appear that used bth questinnaires and trait adjetives, bth self-reprts and bserver ratings. Amelang and Brkenau (1982) lleted bth self-reprts and peer ratings n a set f German adjetive trait rating sales, and self-reprts n a diverse set f persnality inventries. Five fatrs were fund in eah data set whih shwed sme similarities t the standard five. MCrae and Csta (1985, 1987) shwed nvergene fr allfivefatrs arss bth bservers and instruments when they examined adjetive sales and questinnaire measures in an adult sample n whm peer ratings n parallel instruments were available. Similar findings have been reprted by Gldberg (1989), Ostendrf (1990), and Trapnell and Wiggins (1990). These studies

14 188 MCrae and Jhn demnstrate that the rrespndenes between similarly named fatrs in the tw traditins are empirially justified. Muh subsequent researh has relied primarily n questinnaire measures f the five fatrs (see Briggs, this issue, fr a disussin f assessment issues). The Hgan Persnality Inventry (HPI; Hgan, 1986) is based in part n the FFM, and the NEO Persnality Inventry (NEO- PI; Csta & MCrae, 1985, 1989; Csta, MCrae, & Dye, 1991) expliitly attempts t measure all five fatrs, as well as sme f the speifi traits that define the fatrs (see Table 1). A series f studies using the NEO-PI (Csta & MCrae, 1988; MCrae, 1989; MCrae & Csta, 1985a, 1989a, 1989) examined the mprehensiveness fthe mdel by jint analyses with alternative persnality systems, inluding the H. J. Eysenk and S. B. G. Eysenk (1975) sales, the Guilfrd-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (J. S. Guilfrd, Zimmerman, & J. P. Guilfrd, 1976), the MBTI, Gugh's (1987) revised CPI, Jaksn's (1984) Persnality Researh Frm (PRF), and Wiggins's (1979) measure f the Interpersnal Cirumplex. Wiggins and Pinus (1989) explained persnality disrder sales in terms f the five fatrs, and Nller et al. (1987; see als Byle, 1989) fund similar fatrs in a jint analysis f instruments develped by Eysenk, Cattell, and Cmrey. Mst f the sales in these instruments appeared t refiet ne r mre f the five fatrs. Of partiular interest was a study f the Califrnia Q-Set (CQS; J. Blk, 1961). The CQS nsists f 100 statements develped by J. Blk and refined ver a perid f years by a large panel f dynamially riented psyhlgists and psyhiatrists t prvide a fully mprehensive desriptin f persnality. In a sense, it may be seen as a deliberate and sientifially guided alternative t the atalg f traits spntaneusly evlved in natural language. When five fatrs were extrated frm 403 self Q-srts, they shwed a striking resemblane t the lexial fatrs (MCrae, Csta, & Bush, 1986; see Table 1), and nvergent rrelatins between these fatrs and NEO-PI fatrs ranged frm.46 t.71 (MCrae & Csta, 1989b). Jhn (1989a) has reprted similar findings using Q-srts aggregated arss five expert bservers. In additin t the empirial evidene fr the mdel, there is smething intuitively appealing abut the fatrs: They make a great deal f sense. In part, this may be beause they make expliit the impliit persnality thery that is ended in the persnality language we all use; in part, the mdel prbably squares well with ur experiene f self and thers. In any ase, it raises the questin f why it tk persnality

15 Intrdutin 189 psyhlgists s lng t regnize what in retrspet seems s bvius. There are prbably a large number f reasns: an veremphasis n linial phenmena, with exessive attentin t distintins within the dmain f N and relative inattentin t ther dmains; the tehnial diffiulties f fatr analysis in the early days f mputers; an unprdutive preupatin with respnse sets; a disipline that enuraged innvatin and the prliferatin f sales ver repliatin and the nslidatin f findings; inrret assumptins abut measurement (e.g., assuming that ratings f intelligene were equivalent t intelligene tests); the frequently pr quality f researh what J. Blk (1977) alled the persnality "litter-ature." But part f the prblem lies in the nature f persnality struture itself. Fatr analysis seeks simple struture disrete lusters f variables that define a dimensin. We nw knw that many f the traits f entral imprtane t persnality thery are blends f tw r mre f the five dimensins (Gldberg, 1989; Jhn, 1989b). Measures f shyness, fr example, typially mbine elements f N and lw E (Briggs, 1988). Adjetives suh as hstile and temperamental may refer t attributes f high N r lw A. Even when all five dimensins are represented in a fatr analysis, a different seletin f variables an lead t a different set f dimensins within the same fatr spae. Frm a statistial pint f view, this is merely a prblem f rtatin; all slutins are mathematially equivalent. Fr researhers trying t grasp the shape f persnality struture, hwever, it prved a frmidable bstale. After all, the Cpemian revlutin in astrnmy was "merely" a shift in the basi pint f referene frm the earth t the sun! Objetins and respnses The FFM is nt a mplete thery f persnality sme wuld argue that it is nt a thery f persnality at all and MAdams (this issue) disusses sme f the limitatins f the mdel frm the brader perspetive f persnality psyhlgy. In this setin we wuld like t address sme mre speifi bjetins t the mdel that have been ited by trait psyhlgists. T few fatrs. Many writers have argued that five fatrs are insuffiient t summarize all that we knw abut individual differenes in persnality. Mershn and Grsuh (1988) argued that strnger preditins an be made frm the individual sales fthe 16PF than frm the

16 190 MCrae and Jhn higher rder fatrs they frm, and J. Blk (e.g., 1971) prefers analyses f individual Q-srt items, beause findings at the item level an prvide a mre psyhlgially differentiated understanding than an analyses f Q-srt fatrs. Advates fthe FFM wuld nt dispute these ntentins. The five fatrs d nt exhaust the desriptin f persnality, they merely represent the highest hierarhial level f trait desriptin. As MCrae et al. (1986) nted, measurement f the five fatrs gives a mplete haraterizatin f the persn nly at a glbal level. The fatrs represent grups f traits that vary, but are nt neessarily interhangeable. A mderate sre in Extraversin, fr example, might be btained by an individual wh was energeti but alf, r lethargi but friendly, r average n bth energy level and siability. Fr many purpses, these distintins are essential, (p. 444) In the language f fatr analysis, bth the mmn and the speifi varianes are useful in understanding persnality. Mre serius is the questin f whether there are additinal mmn fatrs nt inluded amng the Big Five. This is, f urse, pssible, thugh it appears inreasingly unlikely, given the wealth f data in supprt fthe mprehensiveness fthe FFM. What wuld a Big Six fatr be? A narrw Culture fatr was asinally nted in Digman and Takemt-Chk's (1981) analyses. A Values fatr (hnest, mral) appears in the struture f the pereived relatins amng traits, but nt in studies f atual peple (Peabdy & Gldberg, 1989). Masulinity/ Femininity has been prpsed as a majr fatr f persnality (Kamp & Gugh, 1986), but this nstrut seems t be a syndrme f several independent harateristis related t different fatrs rather than an internally nsistent dimensin f persnality. Tellegen and Waller (in press) summarized an unpublished study in whih substantive trait adjetives, state adjetives, and evaluative terms were all inluded; they fund a seven-fatr struture, with a Psitive Evaluatin (utstanding vs. rdinary) and a Negative Evaluatin (awful vs. deent) fatr in additin t the familiar five. Are these new fatrs methdlgial artifats (e.g., infrequeny fatrs)? Are they aspets f the self-nept that an be subsumed by the existing fatrs? Lw self-esteem is knwn t be a rrelate f N (Csta et al., 1991), and narissisti self-regard is related t E and lw A. It seems unlikely that these tw fatrs represent substantive aspets f persnality that uld

17 Intrdutin 191 be nsensually validated. T what speifi behavirs uld ne pint that wuld nfirm that an individual was awful r utstanding? As ritis f the FFM have pinted ut, it frequently happens that analyses f speifi persnality instruments shw evidene f mre than five fatrs (Lanning & Gugh, 1991), but this is prbably due t methd artifats, sampling variability, r the partiular seletin f variables and des nt in itself demnstrate the need fr additinal mmn fatrs in persnality desriptin. Fr example, when Piedmnt, MCrae, and Csta (1991) jintly fatred NEO-PI fatrs and the sales f Gugh and Heilbrun's ACL, they fund six eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The first five fatrs represented C, A, E, N, and O, respetively; the sixth fatr was a dublet ntrasting ACL Cmmunality with Welsh's A-1 (high rigene, lw intelletane) sale. The interpretatin f this sixth fatr is unlear, but whatever it measures, it seems t be unique t this analysis, nt a rbust fatr fund in many instruments. S far, n prpsed sixth fatr has std this test. Lexial studies in partiular have shwn that fatrs beynd the fifth are nt repliable (Gldberg, 1990; Ostendrf, 1990). One majr qualifiatin f that generalizatin is needed. When fatred jintly with persnality variables, measures f gnitive ability typially frm a distint sixth fatr (Krug & Jhns, 1986; MCrae & Csta, 1985b, 1985). Sme psyhlgists (e.g.. Brand, 1984) regard intelligene as part f the persnality sphere; if it is t be inluded, it shuld be regnized as a distint fatr, lng familiar as g. Cnfusins between g and O are disussed in a later setin. T many fatrs. Sme researhers d nt feel that all five fatrs are needed. Zukerman et al. (1988) argued that three fatrs, rrespnding t H. J. Eysenk's E, N, and P (r Psyhtiism, a dimensin related t lw A and lw C), aunt fr the bulk f variane. Clninger (1988), Gugh (1987), and Tellegen (1982) als have three-fatr theries. Peabdy (1987) nted that N-related trait terms are relatively rare in English, and thus that the inlusin f a separate emtinal stability fatr is nt justified by analyses f trait adjetives. Digman (1985) suggested that there might be tw higher rder fatrs: Sializatin (mbining A and C with lw N) and Self-Atualizatin (mbining E, O, and lw N); and Hgan (in press) stated that "these five fatrs an be redued t three thrugh higher rder fatr analysis." The prblem with all these prpsals is that they are mutually innsistent. N, whih is ruial t H. J. Eysenk's system, uld be left

18 192 MCiae and Jhn ut f Peabdy's. Lw A and lw C are llapsed in H. J. Eysenk's neptin f Psyhtiism, whereas lw A is mbined with N t frm Tellegen's Negative Emtinality. It appears that all five fatrs are neessary, and this bservatin is supprted by empirial analyses. In parallel analyses, MCrae and Csta (1987) extrated fatrs frm 80 adjetive pairs in ne sample f self-reprts and ne f peer ratings. When fewer r mre than five fatrs were extrated, they uld nt be mathed arss the tw samples, but an almst perfet math was fund with five fatrs. Similar analyses, with similar results, have been reprted by Brkenau and Ostendrf (1990), Gldberg (1990), and Digman (1989). Five fatrs, it seems, are "just right." Ratings versus self-reprts. Hgan (in press) has drawn sharp distintins between bserver ratings f persnality, whih are said t represent the publi self r sial reputatin, and self-reprts, whih refiet inner drives and dispsitins, and argued that the FFM is adequate nly as a desriptin f the frmer (R. Hgan, persnal mmuniatin, January 20, 1990; see als MAdams, this issue). This bjetin is smewhat puzzling in view f the repeated revery f the five fatrs in self-reprt data. The very first reprt fthe mdel was Fiske's (1949) demnstratin f similar fatrs in peer ratings, expert ratings, and self-reprts. Questinnaire measures like the NEO-PI als yield mparable fatr strutures fr self-reprts, spuse ratings, and peer ratings (MCrae & Csta, 1989b). Agreement between sures n an individual's standing n the five dimensins is less than perfet (althugh it is substantial; see Funder & Clvin, in press), but the strutures f persnality desriptins seem virtually idential.' Tellegen and Waller (in press) made a smewhat different distintin. They nsidered the Big Five t be flk nepts, useful hiefiy in understanding the ways in whih persnality is pereived and desribed by laypersns. They argued that mre meaningful measures may be derived frm psyhlgial nepts derived frm sientifi thery and researh. Althugh relatins between these tw levels f analysis are expetable (and are in fat reprted by Tellegen and Waller), flk 3. MAdams (this issue) als distinguishes between experiened and bserved persnality, pinting ut that questinnaires and rating sales require the individual t desribe himself r herself frm the perspetive f an bserver. This is apprpriate, he argues, nly fr the mst superfiial understanding f the individual; a fuller piture requires ntextualized and nuaned attributins that are nt fund in trait desriptins. But see Funder (1991) fr a defense f glbal trait nstruts.

19 Intrdutin and psyhlgial nepts are nt ismrphi. In partiular, Tellegen (persnal mmuniatin, February 24, 1990) has suggested that the struture f sales derived frm psyhlgial nepts may be different in self-reprt and rating data. This is a pssibility that merits further researh, but it des nt seem t pse any diret hallenge t the rssbserver invariane f the FFM itself. Nte als that the revery f the five fatrs des nt depend n the use f lay raters: When linial and persnality psyhlgists use adjetives r Q-srts t desribe individuals, the same stmture is fund (Jhn, 1989a, 1990a). Cgnitive artifats versus realisti desriptin. As Brkenau (this issue) desribes, thefive-fatrmdel has been at the enter f the ntrversy abut the veridiality f traits. Peple's impliit persnality theries, as revealed thrugh their ratings f strangers and judgments f similarity in trait terms, appear t be strutured by dimensins that lsely resemble the FFM. This raises the pssibility that the FFM is itself nthing mre than a prjetin f ur gnitive biases nt the targets we rate. A variety f ingenius studies have been devised t test this hypthesis, and althugh it still has sme prpnents, mst persnality psyhlgists have rejeted it. Brkenau reviews several lines f evidene that pint t the veridiality f traits and trait fatrs; tw thers an be briefly nted. First, at least ne versin f the gnitive bias thery hlds that the fivefatr struture is embedded in the language f persnality desriptin: Warm and gregarius may define the same fatr nt beause these tw traits vary in peple, but beause the wrds themselves are quasi-synnyms, referring in part t the same interpersnal behavirs; Brkenau (this issue) all this "referential verlap" between the tw nstruts. In a sense this is true: Peabdy's (1987) studies f the internal (i.e., definitinal) struture f traits reveal smething resembling the five-fatr mdel. The radial interpretatin f this phenmenn is that the struture f traits is an arbitrary artifat f language: With a different set f persnality terms, we wuld find a different set f fatrs. But rss-ultural researh t date has instead fund very similar fatrs in widely different languages. It is surely mre parsimnius t believe that human languages have evlved t reflet human nature than t suppse that the same fitin has been rereated independently in many different ultures. Send, it is diffiult t understand hw gnitive fitins an explain real-life utmes. Yet thefivefatrs have been shwn t predit exter-

20 MCrae and Jhn nal riteria frm divergent thinking abilities (MCrae, 1987) t marital adjustment and divre (Kelly & Cnley, 1987), t rnary disease endpints (Dembrski, MaDugall, Csta, & Grandits, 1989), t jb perfrmane riteria (Barrik & Munt, 1991). These appliatins f the FFM prvide sme f the mst impressive evidene f its validity. A send artifatual hypthesis, raised mst reently by Digman (1990), is that the number f fatrs is the result f gnitive limitatins in infrmatin pressing (Miller, 1956). Given greater gnitive mplexity, we might be able t make finer distintins in ur neptins f persnality, and mre fatrs might emerge frm analyses f trait ratings. Appealing as it is, this argument des nt appear t be plausible n lser inspetin. Fatr analyses are based n the judgments f many bservers, s the gnitive limitatins f individual raters wuld nt affet the fatr struture unless all the individuals shared the same pereptual biases. Shared language might explain this shared bias, but why then wuld ther ultures shw the same struture? Fr that matter, if neptual nveniene is the basis fr the number f fatrs, why nt the magial number f seven fatrs? If we rejet the infrmatin-pressing explanatin f why there are five fatrs, what ratinale remains? We believe it is simply an empirial fat, like the fat that there are seven ntinents n earth r eight Amerian presidents frm Virginia. Bilgists regnize eight lasses f vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fur lasses f fishes, ne extint), and the thery f evlutin helps t explain the develpment f these lasses. It des nt, hwever, explain why eight lasses evlved, rather than fur r eleven, and n ne nsiders this a defet in the thery. There are, f urse, reasns why human beings differ alng eah f the five persnality dimensins reasns t be fund smewhere in evlutin, neurbilgy, sializatin, r the existential human nditin. But it is prbably nt meaningful r prfitable t ask why there happen t be just five suh dimensins. Cneptualizatins f the Fatrs: Desriptin and Explanatin The prblem f what t all the fatrs is nt merely a matter f nventin. The labels refiet neptualizatins, and five-fatr advates differ in the details f their views n the fatrs, and thus in their preferred names. At ne level, abut whih a gd deal has been written, these differenes are desriptive: Preisely whih traits define eah

21 Intrdutin 195 fatr, and whih are entral, whih peripheral? At anther level, the differenes are theretial: Why are there universal dimensins f persnality, and why these dimensins and nt thers? Cnsiderably less has been said abut this tpi, and we hpe in the present artile t utline sme fthe pssible explanatins. Obviusly, the tw levels f neptualizatin are related, beause thety must be tailred t the phenmenn t be explained. Fatr definitins There is prbably the least ntrversy abut the definitin f N. N represents individual differenes in the tendeny t experiene distress, and in the gnitive and behaviral styles that fllw frm this tendeny. High N srers experiene hrni negative affets (Watsn & Clark, 1984) and are prne t the develpment f a variety f psyhiatri disrders (Znderman, Stne, & Csta, 1989). The reurrent nervus tensin, depressin, frustratin, guilt, and self-nsiusness that suh individuals feel is ften assiated with irratinal thinking, lw self-esteem, pr ntrl f impulses and ravings, smati mplaints, and ineffetive ping (MCrae & Csta, 1987). Individuals lw in N are nt neessarily high in psitive mental health, hwever that may be defined they are simply alm, relaxed, even-tempered, unflappable. Despite the lng and mmn use f the term Extraversin, there is less nsensus abut E. Mst f the differenes an be traed t the fat that E and A tgether define the Interpersnal Cirumplex, arund whih interpersnal terms are spaed almst evenly. The traditinal axes f the irumplex are Dminane (r Status) and Affiliatin (r Lve; Wiggins, 1979), and the majr dispute abut E (Nrman's Fatr 1) nerns its alignment with these axes. Gldberg (1990), guided by his analyses f English language trait terms, and Wiggins (in press), guided by the interpersnal traditin, identify this fatr with Dminane. MCrae and Csta (1989) argue that E is best seen as lated midway between Dminane and Warmth (althugh perhaps a bit lser t Dminane). This psitin, whih Peabdy and Gldberg (1989) designate as I', is lse t the latin f suh traditinal questinnaire measures f E as H. J. Eysenk and S. B. G. Eysenk's (1975) E sale and the EI sale f the MBTI. The advantage fthe I' psitin is that it aligns the fatr mre lsely with its nninterpersnal aspets, partiularly psitive emtinality. As

22 196 MCrae and Jhn Watsn and Clark desribe in their ntributin t this issue, the tendenies t experiene psitive and negative emtins are nt ppsites, but rthgnal dimensins that define an affetive plane. Peple wh are heerful, enthusiasti, ptimisti, and energeti are nt neessarily lw in anxiety r depressin that depends n their level f N. But heerful peple nsistently tend t be dminant, talkative, siable, and warm, and Watsn and Clark (in press) argue that psitive emtinality shuld be seen as the re f E. This smewhat unrthdx view is prbably a useful rretive t the narrwly interpersnal interpretatin f E as siability. E is distinguished by its breadth f ntent. In their review, Watsn and Clark (in press) identified seven mpnents f E: venturesmeness, affiliatin, psitive affetivity, energy, asendane, and ambitin. As Table 1 shws, Csta and MCrae's view f E is similarly brad, althugh they wuld divide affiliatin int warmth and gregariusness and assign ambitin t C." The fat that suh a wide variety f interpersnal, affetive, and temperamental variables vary prbably aunts fr the fat that this fatr is s well represented in English language adjetives and s ften desribed by persnality therists. The lexial literature suggests that individuals lw in E an be desribed as quiet, reserved, retiring, shy, silent, and withdrawn (Jhn, 1990a), and Q-srt rrelates pint t emtinal blandness and verntrl f impulses as additinal attributes. Nwhere in this desriptin is intrspetiveness seen: Lw E must be distinguished frm Guilfrd's (1977) Thinking Intrversin (whih is mre lsely related t O and C). The nfusin between sial and thinking intrversins is perpetuated in the MBTI, where bth kinds f traits are attributed t individuals lassified as Intrverts. In fat, the MBTI EI sale is a relatively pure measure f lw E (MCrae & Csta, 1989a). The label Agreeableness has been almst universally used fr Nrman's Fatr II, but as Digman (1990) nted, "Agreeableness... seems tepid fr a dimensin that appears t invlve the mre humane aspets f humanity harateristis suh as altruism, nurturane, aring, and emtinal supprt at the ne end f the dimensin, and hs- 4. Tw sets f distintins need t be made here. Warmth, interpreted as heartiness and affetin, is mre lsely related t E than t A; interpreted as mpassin and sympathy, it is mre lsely related t A than E. Similarly, the term ambitius may mean wanting t get ahead, r wanting t get things dne. The frmer is prbably an aspet f E. the latter an aspet f C.

23 Intrdutin 197 tility, indifferene t thers, self-enteredness, spitefulness, and jealusy at the ther" (pp ). Digman and Takemt-Chk (1981) ffered "Friendly Cmpliane versus Hstile Nnmpliane" as an alternative desriptr fr the fatr, and Grazian and Eisenberg (in press) adpted the ntrast "Agreeableness versus Antagnism." Beause A must be rthgnal t E, the latin and thus the interpretatin f A depends t sme extent n ne's view f E. Again, Gldberg and Wiggins see this fatr as Lve r Warmth; Csta et al. (1991) nte a luster f attributes that blend Warmth and Submissin, inluding trust, mdesty, and mpliane. Like A, C is a highly evaluated dimensin; indeed, A and C are the lassi dimensins f harater, desribing "gd" versus "evil" and "strng-willed" versus "weak-willed" individuals. Perhaps it was these mral vertnes that ften led sientifi psyhlgists t ignre these fatrs, but in fat, bth represent bjetively bservable dimensins f individual differenes. Sme peple are thrugh, neat, wellrganized, diligent, and ahievement-riented, whereas thers are nt, and self-reprts f these harateristis an be validated by peer r spuse ratings (MCrae & Csta, 1987). A number f different neptins f C have been ffered. Tellegen's (1982) Cnstraint and Hgan's (1986) Prudene reflet an inhibitive view f C as a dimensin that hlds impulsive behavir in hek. Digman and Takemt-Chk's (1981) Will t Ahieve represents a prative view f C as a dimensin that rganizes and direts behavir. The term Cnsientiusness mbines bth aspets, beause it an mean either gverned by nsiene r diligent and thrugh. Empirially, bth kinds f traits seem t vary. The greatest ntrversy nerns O, and the rt fthe ntrversy is the disparity between natural language and questinnaire studies. Studies f trait adjetives in English (Gldberg, 1990; Jhn, 1990a) and German (Ostendrf, 1990) typially shw a fatr defined by suh items as intelligent, imaginative, and pereptive, and researhers frm Fiske (1949) t Hgan (1986) and Digman (1990) have identified this fatr as sme frm f Intellet. Hwever, many traits related t O are nt represented amng English trait adjetives there is, fr example, n single English wrd that means "sensitive t art and beauty" (MCrae, 1990). Researhers using questinnaires have typially fund a muh brader fatr that inludes, in additin t reativity and intelletual interests, differentiated emtins, aestheti sensitivity, need fr variety, and unnventinal values. This brader nept an be traed

24 198 MCrae and Jhn t Rgers (1961), Rkeah (1960), and Can (1974); MCrae and Csta (in press) have argued that O is seen struturally in the depth, spe, and permeability f nsiusness, and mtivatinally in the need fr variety and experiene. Ideas, f urse, frm an imprtant aspet f nsiusness, but fantasies, feelings, sensatins, and values are als experienes t whih individuals an be mre r less pen. Several disussins f the relative merits f these tw neptins have been ffered (Digman, 1990; Jhn, 1990a; MCrae & Csta, 1985b, in press; Peabdy & Gldberg, 1989). One pint that shuld be emphasized is that neither Openness nr Intellet is equivalent t measured intelligene; O is a dimensin f persnality, nt intelletual ability, and many peple sre high in O withut having a rrespndingly high IQ. A reent study illustrates the empirial basis fr bradening the neptin f this fatr beynd Intellet. Jhn (1989a) examined ACL and CQS data frm expert raters at the Institute f Persnality Assessment and Researh. Based n a review f the literature, a panel f judges seleted 112 prttype items frm the ACL t mark the five dimensins. Many f the terms seleted t represent O were nsistent with either an Intellet r an Openness interpretatin, inluding wide interests, imaginative, riginal, urius, and artisti. But beause the literature emphasized the Intellet interpretatin, judges als inluded suh terms as wise, lgial, and fresighted. When bserver ratings n the 112 items were fatred fr a sample f 280 ratees, the five-fatr mdel was learly revered, but wise, lgial, and fresighted were nt amng the lear definers f the Intellet/Openness fatr (Table 1 lists the six highest-lading adjetives). Empirial analyses shifted the fatr frm a lear Intellet t a mixed Intellet/Openness fatr. When ACL fatr sres were rrelated with CQS ratings by the same experts, the signifiant rrelates ( r >.40) shwed the full range f traits assiated with Openness. Individuals rated lw n the fatr were desribed by "judges in nventinal terms," "favrs nservative values," and "represses anxiety;" thse rated high were desribed by "high degree f intelletual apaity," "enjys aestheti impressins," "has wide interests," and "unusual, unnventinal thught." As seen in this list, O inludes aspets f intellet, but is nsiderably brader in spe.

25 Intrdutin 199 Tward a theretial basis f the five fatrs Persnality psyhlgists have a partiularly strng allegiane t thery what ther field f psyhlgy uses a histrial review f theries as the standard undergraduate intrdutin t its subjet matter? and researh nt grunded in regnized thery is ften depreated as "dustbwl empiriism" (f. Little, 1989, Ftnte 6). Althugh the fivefatr mdel is undeniably an empirial generalizatin, we will argue that it is nt mindless empiriism. In ne sense, the mdel is transtheretial; in anther, it prvides ne f the mst imprtant phenmena fr persnality therists t explain. A mplete thery f persnality shuld address universal persnality presses, mmn dimensins f individual differenes, and unique harateristis f the individual (f. Klukhhn & Murray, 1953). The FFM is learly mst relevant t the send f these three issues, but it shuld be pinted ut that it als has impliatins fr the first. Althugh individuals differ n their standing n the five fatrs, the fatrs themselves pint t universal issues. All peple must be respnsive t danger, lss, and threat; interat with thers t sme degree; hse between the risks f explratin and the limitatins f familiarity; weigh self- against sial interest; balane wrk and play. Persnality presses, by definitin, invlve sme hange in the thughts, feelings, and atins f an individual; all these intra-individual hanges seem t be mirrred by interindividual differenes in harateristi ways f thinking, feeling, and ating differenes that are summarized, at the bradest level, by the five fatrs. The FFM is a versin f trait thery, a view f the wrld that sees the essene f human nature in individual differenes. Trait thery has been the dminant paradigm in Eurpean persnality psyhlgy (Thmae, 1989), and has been a majr element f Amerian psyhlgy at least sine Allprt's time (A. H. Buss, 1989). The assumptins f trait thery are impliit in muh f psyhmetris, and in this frm are adpted by many researhers wh wuld nt identify themselves as trait therists. The fat that we typially require internal nsisteny and retest reliability frm sales makes sense nly beause we expet t find nsistent and enduring individual differenes the ardinal features f traits. The lexial traditin is based n a speifi set f theretial assumptins: that traits an be inferred with reasnable auray by laypersns n the basis f daily experiene, that they are f suffiient sial signifi-

26 200 MCrae and Jhn ane t be regnized by every ulture and ended in every language, and that individual traits vary alng a fairly limited set f basi dimensins. Analysis fthe natural language is nt mindless empiriism, it is systemati and theretially guided sientifi bservatin. At first glane, the ase fr mindless empiriism seems better justified with regard t the questinnaire traditin, where many sales were reated with preius little ratinale. But sme imprtant questinnaires were reated t peratinalize speifi theries f persnality. The MBTI is an attempt t measure Jungian funtins and attitudes; the PRF was designed t assess Murray's needs; the Milln Clinial Multiaxial Inventry peratinalizes Milln's (1983) thery f persnality disrders; H. J. Eysenk's EPQ and Clninger's (1988) Tridimensinal Persnality Questinnaire (TPQ) sales are assiated with neurphysilgial theries f persnality. Yet, at abrad level f abstratin, the five fatrs apture the mmnalities amng the sales in all these instruments. It may seem puzzling that similar fatrs are fund whether ne begins frm Clninger's neuradaptive mdel r Murray's mtivatinal analysis r Jung's mdes f enuntering the wrld, but the puzzle is easily explained. All persnality therists are trying t explain sme aspet f human nature; all see the same regularities, and frame theries t explain them. T the extent that the FFM summarizes fundamental regularities in human behavir, redundany amng these measures is inevitable. There is als a smewhat mre subtle reasn fr nvergene: Sales like thse in the MBTI, TPQ, and PRF were develped with the help f psyhmetrially guided item analyses. Therists might speify an array f hetergeneus harateristis unrelated t any f the five fatrs, but item analyses wuld tend t purify the sale in the diretin f ne r mre f the fatrs. Jung's theretial desriptins are ften vague and seemingly ntraditry, but the sales f the MBTI are learly related t fur f the five basi fatrs (MCrae & Csta, 1989a). We wuld nt argue that the FFM bviates theries f persnality. Persnality theries have muh t d beynd explaining individual differenes, as MAdams ntes in this issue. But we d believe that the five fatrs are muh mre than statistial artifats grund ut by mputers. These are basi dimensins f persnality that, in ne guise r anther, have been pinted ut by many f the mst pereptive persnality therists.

27 Intrdutin 201 An agenda fr therizing If the histry f researh n persnality theries teahes anything, it is that many quite different apprahes lead bak t the mmn dimensins desribed by the FFM. It is therefre unlikely that any single thery will be suffiient t aunt fr the mdel; instead, different theries an usefully address different aspets f the mdel at different levels f explanatin. These different theries are likely t be mplementary, rather than mutually exlusive (Hyland, 1985). Our gal here is t artiulate sme f the prblems that an be addressed and mment briefly n the urrent status f different apprahes. Perhaps the mst basi theretial issue is the nature f traits themselves. Reent treatments f the tpi are ffered by Funder (1991), Read, Jnes, and Miller (1990), Tellegen (in press), and Wiggins and Trapnell (in press). One useful way t define traits is extensinal: Traits are the srts f attributes listed in Table 1. Wrking indutively frm ur empirial knwledge f these traits, we uld develp an intensinal definitin. D traits have mtivatinal prperties? Talkative peple want t talk, sympatheti peple want t help; erg, at least sme traits have mtivatinal prperties. Are traits enduring dispsitins? There is lngitudinal evidene f stability fr traits frm all five fatrs (MCrae & Csta, 1990), s traits are indeed enduring dispsitins. A series f exemplars and a bdy f fats abut them is nt a substitute fr lear neptualizatin, but they an grund different attempts at definitin in a shared speifiatin f the phenmenn t be defined. What is t be explained? Different theries may address different issues related t the FFM. The lexial traditin has fused n the difiatin f lay pereptins f persnality, and it wuld be f interest t develp sihistrial theries fthe evlutin f persnality language (Benjafield & Carsn, 1985; Gldberg, 1981). Cgnitive therists uld address the develpment f impliit persnality theries in the hild, and sial psyhlgists uld ffer explanatins fr sial pereptin hw we math up internalized nstruts with atual individuals we meet (Kenny, 1991). Cliniians might be partiularly nerned with presses that lead t distrtins in self-image, and psyhmetriians an address item respnse thery and self-presentatin. In eah ase, the five fatrs speify the universe f ntent whih these theries must address. Althugh Hgan (in press) prefers t view the traits that define the

28 202 MCrae and Jhn five fatrs as matters hiefly f sial pereptin and reputatin, we adpt the view that traits are real entities (f. Funder, 1991), and we will fus here n explanatins fr the fatrs themselves as traits pssessed by individuals. Why are there individual differenes in traits? Why d the traits vary t frm fatrs? Why these fatrs and nt thers? What is their rigin in the speies and in the individual? What is their neurphysilgial basis, their urse f develpment, their funtinal signifiane? In pursuing all these questins, therists wuld d well t nsider the relatin between the fatrs and the traits that define them. Cattell (1946) viewed primary traits as the mre meaningful level f analysis, whereas H.J. Eysenk's (1967) theries addressed the superrdinate dimensins f E and N. Watsn and Clark (in press) have suggested that ne aspet f E, Psitive Emtinality, is the re element, whih mtivates ther elements suh as siability and ativity; the fatr expresses this funtinal unity. Alternatively, it uld be argued that individuals inherit a set f general predispsitins assiated with the five fatrs, and that envirnmental nditins determine the partiular frms the speifi traits in whih the fatrs are expressed. Psyhphysilgial theries. Trait psyhlgists frm AUprt (1937) n have assumed that the experiential and behaviral regularities that we identify as traits have sme physilgial substrate. H.J. Eysenk's prminent status as a persnahty therist an be attributed in large part t his sustained effrts t develp a physilgial thery f E and N (and later Psyhtiism; H. J. Eysenk & S. B. G. Eysenk, 1976). Mre reently, Clninger (1988) has ffered a bisial thery f persnality based n hemially ded neural netwrks, and Zukerman (1984) has used mparative psyhphysilgy t explain sensatin seeking, a trait related t O (MCrae & Csta, in press). The pssibility f psyhpharmalgial interventins makes suh theries f mre than aademi signifiane. At present, hwever, nne f them has been entirely persuasive. Cmpared t the intriaies fthe brain, ur knwledge f neurphysilgy and funtining is still quite primitive, and nne fthe key therists in this field has even ffered an explanatin fr all five fatrs. The mplexities are enrmus. Fr example, Depue, Krauss, and Spnt (1987; ited in Watsn and Clark, in press) drew parallels between biplar md disrders and individual differenes in E: In mani phases, biplar patients shw all the harateristi traits f extraverts, whereas during depressive episdes they

29 Intrdutin 203 are funtinally intrverted. As a trait, hwever, depressin is nt assiated with intrversin, but with N. It is diffiult t understand hw the same brain mehanism an lead t ne biplar dimensin f mania versus depressin within individuals and t tw rthgnal fatrs f E and N arss individuals. Therists have muh wrk t d here. Evlutinary perspetives and behavir genetis. In reent years, evlutinary bilgists have begun t ffer explanatins fr behavir, and persnality psyhlgists have beme interested in evlutinary arguments (D. M. Buss, 1990; Hgan, 1983). Faile assertins that the five fatrs exist beause they ntribute t survival and reprdutin are nt very useful sientifially, and ntemprary therists are keenly aware fthe diffiulties in making supprtable evlutinary arguments. The entral prblem is that lassi evlutinary thery was designed t explain the rigin f speies; it fuses n interspeies differenes, nt individual differenes within a speies. In this respet, evlutinary psyhlgy is better equipped t tell us hw individuals are like all ther peple than hw they are like nly sme ther peple (Klukhhn & Murray, 1953). Sme evlutinary mdels fr individual differenes have been prpsed; fr example, if the adaptive value f harateristis has flutuated ver evlutinary time, heritable differenes may have develped (D. M. Buss, 1991). It is als pssible, hwever, that individual differenes in persnality are, frm the viewpint f evlutin, mere "nise," f n adaptive signifiane a psitin argued gently by Tby and Csmides (1990). The apparent adaptive utility f differentiatin in persnality amng members f ntemprary ultures may be the result f ultural evlutin rather than bilgial evlutin: Beause peple differ in levels f persnality traits, ultures may have develped sial and upatinal nihes that apitalized n them. Althugh differenes in standing n the five fatrs may nt have adaptive signifiane, there are adaptive advantages in being able t detet these individual differenes in thers: It is very useful t knw wh is mpliant and wh is aggressive, wh is diligent and wh is negligent. D. M. Buss (1991) argued that the five fatrs may represent "imprtant dimensins fthe sial terrain that humans were seleted t attend t and at upn" (p. 473). This wuld aunt fr their representatin in many ultures, and wuld explde the view that they are mere gnitive fitins: Natural seletin wuld hardly favr the preservatin f illusry pereptins.

30 204 MCrae and Jhn Evlutinary apprahes are wrthy f serius interest beause there is already substantial evidene n the heritability f many traits. Researh has been nduted fr deades n the heritability f N and E, and reent wrk has suggested that O and C are als substantially heritable (Plmin & MClearn, 1990). Althugh Plmin and MClearn fund n evidene f heritability with their 10-item measure f A, ther studies have reprted a strng geneti mpnent in measures f altruism and aggressin, whih are entral aspets f A (Rushtn, Fulker, Neale, Nias, & H. J. Eysenk, 1986). Future studies shuld surely inlude measures f all five fatrs, and interesting questins abut the relatins f traits t fatrs uld be addressed if mpnent traits fr all fatrs were individually assessed in these studies. Develpmental theries. Althugh persnality and temperament are traditinal tpis in develpmental psyhlgy, they have nt been well integrated with theries f adult persnality. Develpmental psyhlgists tend t be interested in the sial and emtinal reatins f hildren f a partiular age, withut muh regard t the ultimate utme f these harateristis in adulthd. Lngitudinal researh (J. Blk, 1971; Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987) shws sme ntinuities in persnality frm hildhd int adulthd, but many disntinuities as well. If we uld identify at birth future extraverts and future intrverts, future pen and lsed individuals, we uld trae their develpment with a mre infrmed eye; as it is, we must rely n retrspetive-preditive designs that are limited by the kinds f bservatins initially made. Hwever, develpmental psyhlgists shuld at least begin t nsider the impliatins f the FFM fr their theries. J. H. Blk and J. Blk (1980), fr example, disussed the develpment f eg ntrl, a variable that mbines elements f lw E and high C. Are these dimensins indistinguishable in early hildhd, neessitating a thery f their develpmental differentiatin? Or have therists mistakenly nflated tw independent dimensins? A hild wh is high in bth E and C may have the same average level f eg ntrl as ne wh is lw n bth dimensins; wuld bth hildren shw the same sial and emtinal develpment? Frtunately, there are nw signs that this integratin f develpmental and adult mdels f persnality is beginning (e.g., Angleitner & Ostendrf, 1991). Dynami and interpersnal theries. Theries f the rigins f persnality traits tell nly half the stry. The ther half is prvided by

31 Intrdutin 205 theries f the peratin f traits in the real wrld, their funtinal r dysfuntinal signifiane. In the area f psyhpathlgy, the task is reasnably well artiulated. The disrders regnized by psyhiatry nstitute the tpi t be explained, and the questins nern the extent t whih these disrders an be understd in terms f the five persnality dimensins (Widiger & Trull, this issue). Histrially, abnrmal psyhlgy has been the sure f many theries f persnality; it will surely ffer an interesting perspetive n the FFM. Perhaps as a prelude t understanding abnrmal psyhlgy, we need theries that explain the dynami peratin f traits in nrmal life. We knw in general hw individual traits are manifested in behavir: High E individuals talk and smile, high O individuals philsphize and attend museums, lw A individuals brag and bully. We knw muh less abut hw nfiguratins f traits are shwn, r hw the flw f behavir is gverned. Are traits expressed by turns, r thrugh presses like subsidiatin and fusin that Murray (1938) pstulated fr the satisfatin f needs? Little, Lei, and Watkinsn (this issue) disuss the rganizatin f life in terms f persnal prjets, and prvide data linking features f these prjets t the five fatrs. Sme therists (J. Blk, 1965; Levinger, 1966) have suggested that there are features f the eg that rganize behavir; these are nsidered "master traits" that regulate ther traits. But MCrae and Csta (1990) argued that measures f eg resilieny, eg ntrl, and eg develpment level are themselves related t the five fatrs (and intelligene), and that eah f the five fatrs an be regarded bth as a set f traits that must be strutured and rganized, and as a ntributr t the rganizatin and interatin f ther traits. Cnsider O and C: Open peple are inquisitive. If they are als nsientius, their urisity may take the frm f sustained and systemati study f a tpi; if they are lw in C, theirs will be an idle urisity, absrbed by the passing interest f the mment. Theretial elabratin f suh interatins f fatrs an bring a mre dynami flavr t trait psyhlgy. Finally, muh f behavir is interpersnal, and the relatinships individuals evlve are likely t be a mplex funtin f the persnalities f bth partiipants. The wrk f Thrne (1987) n interatins between intrverts and extraverts, f Bnd and Frgas (1984) n the relatins between persn pereptin and behaviral intensins, f Kelly and Cnley (1987) n marital mpatibility, f D. M. Buss (this issue) n tatis f manipulatin, and f Muten (1991) n spusal pereptins f persnality amng behaviral mediine patients all tuh n this issue. A full

32 206 MCrae and Jhn theretial aunt f the ntributins f persnality t interpersnal relatinships is a mnumental task; hw muh mre daunting it wuld be withut the simplifying guidane f the FFM! Appliatins f the Five-Fatr Mdel Hgan (1987) has nted that the five-fatr mdel, perhaps fr the first time, gives persnality psyhlgy a repliable phenmenn t be explained. At the same time, it als prvides a set f tls that an be used by psyhlgists in many different areas. Several new instruments have been published whih prvide peratinalizatins f the mdel (see Briggs, this issue, fr a review), and bth ratinal and empirial methds fr interpreting existing instruments in this framewrk have been prpsed (Jhn, 1989b; MCrae, Piedmnt, & Csta, 1990). The appeal f the mdel is threefld: It integrates a wide array f persnality nstruts, thus failitating mmuniatin amng researhers f many different rientatins; it is mprehensive, giving a basis fr systemati explratin f the relatins between persnality and ther phenmena; and it is effiient, prviding at least a glbal desriptin f persnality with as few as five sres. Of these, mprehensiveness is perhaps the mst ruial. Withut a mprehensive mdel, studies using persnality traits as preditrs are innlusive, beause the mst relevant traits may have been verlked. This is unlikely t happen when measures f all five fatrs are inluded in a study. Indeed, even null results are infrmative in suh a study: If nne f the fatrs is related t the riterin, it may be time t abandn the searh fr persnality preditrs. The five-fatr mdel an be prfitably used in mst applied settings, as Tupes and Christal (1961) nted lng ag, and as ther pratitiners are beginning t realize. Hgan (in press) disusses the relevane f persnality fr industrial and rganizatinal psyhlgy. Csta (1991) presents a series f artiles explring the utility f the mdel fr linial psyhlgists, and MCrae and Csta (1991) disuss its appliatin in unseling. Eduatinal, frensi, and health psyhlgists shuld be able t find ways t utilize the mdel in their wn disiplines. Indeed, anywhere persnality assessment has been emplyed may benefit frm a nsideratin f the five-fatr mdel. Mst f the artiles in this speial issue apply the mdel at a mre neptual level, nt t understand individuals, but t larify issues in disiplines related t persnality psyhlgy. Widiger and Trull exam-

33 Intrdutin 207 ine bth persnality disrders and sme Axis I psyhpathlgy frm the perspetive fthe mdel. Smith and Williams argue that the mdel, and the traditin f nstrut validity frm whih it has emerged, an reslve sme f the nfusin amng the many, ften redundant, nepts used in health psyhlgy. Grazian and Ward shw hw the five-fatr mdel an illuminate shl adjustment. Watsn and Clark ntinue t elabrate a mdel linking persnality traits t emtins, and D. M. Buss uses the mdel t understand interpersnal relatins frm the perspetive f evlutinary persnality psyhlgy. Finally, Little, Lei, and Watkinsn explre the ways in whih enduring persnality dispsitins affet the persnal prjets that upy individuals in their daily lives. This apprah prmises t help integrate nmtheti and idigraphi apprahes t persnality, and shws sme f the ways in whih the FFM is relevant t an understanding f the ways in whih individuals are unique. All f these authrs have fund the five-fatr mdel useful in sme way; they have als nted ways in whih it is limited. As MAdams argues, persnality psyhlgy has histrially been nerned with muh mre than mmn dimensins f individual differene, and the five-fatr mdel itself annt hpe t aunt fr all the rihness f human individuality, r all the presses that ntribute t a herent life struture and an evlving life histry. But neither is it irrelevant t a persnality psyhlgy that strives t understand the whle persn. Every extravert may be extraverted in his r her wn way, yet all are extraverts. Histry, ulture, and develpment prvide the ntext f individual lives, but s d enduring dispsitins (MCrae & Csta, 1990). We believe its lng histry, rss-ultural repliatin, and empirial validatin arss many methds and instruments make the five-fatr mdel a basi disvery f persnality psyhlgy re knwledge upn whih ther findings an be built. The mdel will ertainly nt explain everything that psyhlgists want t knw abut persnality, but it des prvide a useful starting pint, and, indeed, a hallenge: What an new sales, new methds, new neptins f persnality add t what we already an understand and predit frm knwledge f the five fatrs? Fr the past tw deades, persnality psyhlgy has wrked t establish the validity f its basi nstruts. Fr the future, the issue will be inremental validity, as persnality psyhlgy begins t beme a umulative siene.

34 208 MCrae and Jhn REFERENCES AUprt, G. W. (1937). Persnality: A psyhlgial interpretatin. New Yrk: Hlt. AUprt, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psyh-lexial study. Psyhlgial Mngraphs, 47 (1, Whle N. 211). Amelang, M., & Brkenau, P. (1982). Uber die faktrielle Struktur und externe Validitat einiger Fragebgen-Skalen zur Erfassung vn Dimensinen der Extraversin und emtinalen Labilitat [On the fatr struture and external validity f sme questinnaire sales measuring dimensins f extraversin and neurtiism]. Zeitshrift fur Differentielle und Diagnstishe Psyhlgie, 3, Angleitner, A., & Ostendrf, F. (1991. June). Temperament and the Big Five fatrs f persnality. Paper presented at the nferene n the Develping Struture f Temperament and Persnality in Childhd, Netherlands Institute fr Advaned Studies in the Humanities and Sial Sienes. Wassenaar. The Netherlands. Barrik, M. R., & Munt, M. K. (1991). The Big Five persnality dimensins and jb perfrmane: A meta-analysis. Persnnel Psyhlgy. 44, Benjafield, J., & Carsn. E. (1985). An histridevelpmental analysis fthe irumplex mdel f trait desriptive terms. Canadian Jurnal f Behaviural Siene. 17, Blk, J. (1961). The Q-srt methd in persnality assessment and psyhiatri researh. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thmas. Blk, J. (1965). The hallenge f respnse sets. New Yrk: Appletn-Century-Crfts. Blk. J. (1971). Lives thrugh time. Berkeley: Banrft Bks. Blk, J. (1977). The Eysenks and psyhtiism. Jurnal f Abnrmal Psyhlgy. 86, Blk, J. H.. & Blk, J. (1980). The rle f eg ntrl and eg resilieny in the rganizatin f behavir. In W. A. Cllins (Ed.). Develpment f gnitin, affet, and sial relatins: The Minnesta sympsium n hild psyhlgy (Vl. 13. pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrene Eribaum. Bnd, M. H. (1979). Dimensins f persnality used in pereiving peers: Crssultural mparisns f Hng Kng, Japanese. Amerian, and Filipin university students. Internatinal Jurnal f Psyhlgy Bnd. M. H., & Frgas, J. P. (1984). Linking persn pereptin t behavir intentin arss ultures: The rle f ultural lletivism. Jurnal f Cr.'is-Cultural Psyhlgy, 15, Bnd, M. H., Nakazat, H., & Shiraishi, D. (1975). Universality and distintiveness in dimensins f Japanese persn pereptin. Jurnal fcrss-culturtl Psyhlgy. 6, Brkenau. P., & Ostendrf. F. (1989). Untersuhungen zum Funf-Fatren-Mdell der Persnlihkeit und seiner diagnstishen Erfassung [Investigatins f the fivefatr mdel f persnality and its assessment]. Zeitshrift fiir Dijferentielle utid Diagnstishe Psyhlgie. 10, Brkenau. P.. & Ostendrf. F. (1990). Cmparing explratry and nfirmatry fatr analysis: A study n the 5-fatr mdel f persnality. Persnality and Individual Differenes Byle, G. J. (1989). Re-examinatinf the majr persnality-type fatrs in the Cattell. Cmrey and Eysenk sales: Were the fatr slutins by Nller et al. ptimal? Persnality and Individual Differenes

35 Intrdutin 209 Brand, C. R. (1984). Persnality dimensins: An verview f mdem trait psyhlgy. In J. Nihlsn & H. Belff (Eds.), Psyhlgy survey (Vl. 5, pp ). Leiester: British Psyhlgial Siety. Brand, C. R., & Egan, V. (1989). The 'Big Five" dimensins f persnahty? Evidene frm ipsative, adjetival self-attributins. Persnality and Individual Differenes, 10, Briggs. S. R. (1988). Shyness: Intrversin r neurtiism? Jurnal f Researh in Persnality. 22, Briggs, S. R. (1989). The ptimal level f measurement fr persnality nstruts. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantr (Eds.). Persnality psyhlgy: Reent trends and emerging diretins (pp ). New Yrk: Springer-Verlag. Buss, A. H. (1989). Persnality as traits. Amerian Psyhlgist, 44, Buss, D. M. (Ed.). (1990). Bilgial fundatins f persnality: Evlutin, behaviral genetis, and psyhphysilgy [Speial issue]. Jurnal f Persnality, 58(1). Buss, D. M. (1991). Evlutinary persnality psyhlgy. Annual Review f Psyhlgy, 42, Caspi. A.. Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. J. (1987). Mving against the wrld: Lifeurse patterns f explsive hildren. Develpmental Psyhlgy, 23, Cattell, R. B. (1946). The desriptin and measurement f persnality. Ynkers. NY: Wrld Bk. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuka, M. M. (1970). The handbk fr the Sixteen Persnality Fatr Questinnaire. Champaign. IL: Institute fr Persnality and Ability Testing. Clninger, C. R. (1988). A unified bisial thery f persnality and its rle in the develpment f anxiety states: A reply t mmentaries. Psyhiatri Develpment, 2, Can, R. W. (1974). The ptimal persnality. New Yrk: Clumbia University Press. Csta. P. T., Jr. (1991). Clinial use fthe five-fatr mdel: An intrdutin. Jurnal f PersnaUty Assessment, 57, Csta. P. T.. Jr., & MCrae, R. R. (1976). Age differenes in persnality struture: A luster analyti apprah. Jurnal f Gerntlgy, 31, Csta, P. T., Jr., & MCrae. R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Persnality as a key t sme issues in adulthd and ld age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life span develpment and behavir (Vl. 3. pp ). New Yrk: Aademi Press. Csta, P. T., Jr., & MCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Persnality Inventry manual. Odessa, FL: Psyhlgial Assessment Resures. Csta, P. T., Jr., & MCrae, R. R. (1988). Frm atalg t lassifiatin: Murray's needs and the five-fatr mdel. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy Csta, P. T., Jr., & MCrae, R. R. (1989). TheNEO-PIINEO-FFl manual supplement. Odessa. FL: Psyhlgial Assessment Resures. Csta. P. T., Jr., MCrae, R. R.. & Dye. D. A. (1991). Faet sales fr Agreeableness and Cnsientiusness: A revisin f the NEO Persnality Inventry. Persnality and Individual Differenes. 12, Dembrski, T. M., MaDugall, J. M., Csta, P T., Jr., & Grandits, G. (1989). Cmpnents f hstility as preditrs f sudden death and myardial infartin in the Multiple Risk Fatr Interventin Trial. Psyhsmati Mediine. 51,

36 210 MCrae and Jhn Depue, R. A., Krauss, S. P., & Spnt. M. R. (1987). A tw-dimensinal threshld mdel f seasnal biplar affetive disrder. In D. Magnussen & A. Ohman (Eds.), Psyhpathlgy: An interatinal perspetive (pp ). Orland. FL: Aademi Press. Digman, J. M. (1979, Nvember). The five majr dmains f persnality variables: Analysis f persnality questinnaire data in the light f the five rbust fatrs emerging frm studies f rated harateristis. Paper presented at the annual meeting f the Siety f Multivariate Experimental Psyhlgy. Ls Angeles. Digman, J. M. (1985. Nvember). The big five fatrs f persnality: Sme effbrts after meaning. Paper presented at the meeting f the Siety f Multivariate Experimental Psyhlgy, Berkeley. Digman, J. M. (1989, Nvember). Fatr redux: Re-analyses f studies f hild persnality. In O. P. Jhn (Chair), The Big Five: Histrial perspetive and urrent researh. Sympsium nduted at the annual meeting fthe Siety fr Multivariate Experimental Psyhlgy. Hnlulu. Digman, J. M. (1990). Persnality struture: Emergene f the five-fatr mdel. Annual Review qf Psyhlgy Digman, J. M., & Takemt-Chk. N. K. (1981). Fatrs in the natural language f persnality: Re-analysis, mparisn, and interpretatin f six majr studies. Multivariate Behaviral Researh Eysenk, H. J. (1967). The bilgial basis f persnality. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thmas. Eysenk, H. J.. & Eysenk, S. B. G. (1964). Manual f the Eysenk Persnality Inventry. Lndn: University Press. Eysenk, H. J., & Eysenk. S. B. G. (1975). Manual f the Eysenk Persnality Questinnaire. San Dieg: EdITS. Eysenk, H. h, & Eysenk, S. B. G. (1976). Psyhtiism as a dimensin f persnality. Lndn: Hdder and Stughtn. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Cnsisteny fthe fatrial strutures f persnality ratings frm different sures. Jurnal f Abnrmal and Sial Psyhlgy Funder, D. C. (1991). Glbal traits: A Ne-Allprtian apprah t persnality. P.syhlgial Siene, 2, Funder, D. C, & Clvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Aquaintaneship, agreement, and the auray f persnality judgment. Jurnal qf Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy Funder, D. C.. & Clvin. C. R. (in press). Cngruene f self and thers' judgments f persnality. In S. R. Briggs, R. Hgan, & W. H. Jnes (Eds.). Handbk qf persnality psyhlgy. New Yrk: Aademi Press. Gldberg, L. R. (1971). A histrial survey f persnality sales and inventries. In P. MReynlds (Ed.), Advanes in psyhlgial a.ssessmerit {\\. 2. pp ). Pal Alt. CA: Siene and Behavir Bks. Gldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differenes: The searh fr universals in persnality lexins. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Review f persnality and sial psyhlgy (Vl. 2, pp ). Beverly Hills: Sage. Gldberg, L. R. (1982). Frm ae t zmbie: Sme explratins in the language f persnality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Buther (Eds.). Advanes in persnality assessment (Vl. 1. pp ). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrene Eribaum.

37 Intrdutin 211 Gldberg, L. R. (1989, June). Standard markers fthe Big Five fatr struture. Paper presented at the First Internatinal Wrkshp n Persnality Language, Grningen, The Netherlands. Gldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "desriptin f persnality": The Big-Five fatr struture. Jurnal qf Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy Gugh, H. G. (1987). Califrnia Psyhlgial Inventry administratr's guide. Pal Alt. CA: Cnsulting Psyhlgists Press. Gugh, H.G., &Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. {\9S3). Adjetive Chek List manual. Pal Alt, CA: Cnsulting Psyhlgists Press. Grazian, W. G., & Eisenberg. N. H. (in press). Agreeableness: A dimensin f persnality. In S. R. Briggs. R. Hgan, & W. H. Jnes (Eds.). Handbk f persnality psyhlgy. New Yrk: Aademi Press. Guilfrd, J. P. (1977). Will the real fatr f extraversin-intrversin please stand up? A reply t Eysenk. Psyhlgial Bulletin Guilfrd, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilfrd. J. P. (1976). The Guilfrd-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Handbk: Twenty-five years f researh and appliatin. San Dieg: EdITS. Hfstee. W. K. B., & Van Hek, G. L. (Eds.). (1990). Persnality language [Speial issue]. Eurpean Jurnal qf Persnality. 4(2). Hgan. R. (1983). Sianalyti thery f persnality. In M.M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska Sympsium n Mtivatin: Persnality urrent thery and researh (pp ). Linln: University f Nebraska Press. Hgan. R. (1986). Hgan Persnality Inventry manual. Minneaplis: Natinal Cmputer Systems. Hgan. R. (1987). Persnality psyhlgy: Bak t basis. In J. Arnff, A. I. Rabin, & R. A. Zuker (Eds.). The emergene f persnauty (pp ). New Yrk: Springer. Hgan, R. (in press). Persnality and persnality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. Hugh (Eds.), Handbk f industrial I rganizatinal psyhlgy. Pal Alt, CA: Cnsulting Psyhlgists Press. Hyland. M. E. (1985). D persn variables exist in different ways? Amerian Psyhlgist. 40, Jaksn, D. N. (1984). Persnality Researh Frm manual (3rd. ed.). Prt Hurn, MI: Researh Psyhlgists Press. Jhn. O. P. (1989a, Nvember). Big Five prttypes fr the Adjetive Chek List using bserver data. In O. P. Jhn (Chair). The Big Five: Histrial perspetive and urrent researh. Sympsium nduted at the annual meeting f the Siety fr Multivariate Experimental Psyhlgy. Hnlulu. Jhn, O. P. (1989b). Twards a taxnmy f persnality desriptrs. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantr (Eds.). Persnality psyhlgy: Reent trends and emerging diretins (pp ). New Yrk: Springer-Verlag. Jhn. O. P. (1990a). The "Big Five" fatr taxnmy: Dimensins f persnality in the natural language and in questinnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbk f persnality thery and researh (pp ). New Yrk: Guilfrd. Jhn. O. P. (1990b). The searh fr basi dimensins f persnality: A review and ritique. In P. MReynlds. J. C. Rsen. & G. L. Chelune (Eds.), Advanes in psyhlgial assessment (Vl. 7, pp. 1-37). New Yrk: Plenum.

38 212 MCrae and Jhn Jhn, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendrf, F. (1988). The lexial apprah t persnality: A histrial review f trait taxnmi researh. Eurpean Jurnal f Persnality, 2, Jung, C. G. (1971). Psyhlgial types (H. G. Baynes, Trans., revised by R. F. C. Hull). Prinetn: Prinetn University Press. (Original wrk published 1923) Kamp, J., & Gugh, H. G. (1986, August). The Big Five persnality fatrs frm an assessment ntext. Paper presented at the annual nventin f the Amerian Psyhlgial Assiatin, Washingtn, DC. Kelly, E. L., & Cnley, J. J. (1987). Persnality and mpatibility: A prspetive analysis f marital stability and marital satisfatin. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 52, Kenny, D. A. (1991). A general mdel f nsensus and auray in interpersnal pereptin. Psyhlgial Review, 98, Klukhhn, C, & Murray, H. A. (1953). Persnality frmatin: The determinants. In C. Klukhhn, H. A. Murray, & D. M. Shneider (Eds.), Persnality in nature, siety, and ulture. New Yrk: Knpf. Krug, S. E., & Jhns, E. F. (1986). A large-sale rss-validatin fthe send-rder persnality struture defined by the 16PF. Psyhlgial Reprts, 59, Lanning, K., & Gugh, H. G. (1991). Shared variane in the Califrnia Psyhlgial Inventry and the Califrnia Q-Set. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy. 60, Leary, T. (1957). Interpersnal diagnsis f persnality. New Yrk: Rnald Press. Little, B. R. (1989). Persnal Prjets Analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnifient bsessins and the searh fr herene. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantr (Eds.), Persnality psyhlgy: Reent trends and emerging diretins (pp ). New Yrk: Springer-Verlag. Lehlin, J. C. (1987). Heredity, envirnment, and the struture f the Califrnia Psyhlgial Inventry. Multivariate Behaviral Researh. 22, Levinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measurement f eg develpment. Amerian Psyhlgist, 21, Lrr, M. (1978). The struture f the Califrnia 0-Set. Multivariate Behaviral Researh, 13, MCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and penness t experiene. Jurnal f PersnaUty and Sial Psyhlgy. 52, MCrae, R. R. (1989). Why 1 advate the five-fatr mdel: Jint analyses f the NEO-PI and ther instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantr (Eds.), PersnaUty psyhlgy: Reent trends and emerging diretins (pp ). New Yrk: Springer- Verlag. MCrae, R. R. (1990). Traits and trait names: Hw well is Openness represented in natural languages? Eurpean Jurnal f PersnaUty. 4, MCrae, R. R. (1991). The five-fatr mdel and its assessment in linial settings. Jurnal f PersnaUty Assessment MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1985a). Cmparisn f EPI and Psyhtiism sales with measures f the five-fatr mdel f persnality. Persnality and Individual Differenes, 6, MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P T.. Jr. (1985b). Openness t experiene. In R. Hgan & W. H. Jnes (Eds.). Perspetives in persnality (Vl. 1. pp ). Greenwih. CT: JAI Press.

39 Intrdutin 213 MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Nrman's "adequate taxnmy": Intelligene and persnality dimensins in natural language and in questinnaires. Jurnal f PersnaUty and Sial Psyhlgy, 49, MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validatin f the five-fatr mdel f persnality arss instruments and bservers. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 52, MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1989a). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indiatr frm the perspetive f the five-fatr mdel f persnality. Jurnal f PersnaUty. 57, MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1989b). Rtatin t maximize the nstrut validity f fatrs in the NEO Persnality Inventry. Multivariate Behaviral Researh, 24, MCrae. R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1989). The struture f interpersnal traits: Wiggins's irumplex and the five-fatr mdel. Jurnal f PersnaUty and Sial Psyhlgy, 56, MCrae. R. R., & Csta, P. T.. Jr. (1990). Persnality' in adulthd. New Yrk: Guilfrd. MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1991). The NEO Persnality Inventry: Using the five-fatr mdel in unseling. Jurnal f Cunseling and Develpment, 69, MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (in press). Cneptins and rrelates f Openness t Experiene. In S. R. Briggs, R. Hgan, & W. H. Jnes (Eds.), Handbk f persnauty psyhlgy. New Yrk: Aademi Press. MCrae. R. R., Csta, P. T., Jr.. & Bush, C. M. (1986). Evaluating mprehensiveness in persnality systems: The Califrnia Q-Set and the five-fatr mdel. Jurnal f Persnality, 54, MCrae, R. R., Piedmnt, R. L., & Csta, P T.. Jr. (1990, August). The CPI and the five-fatr mdel: Ratinal and empirial analyses. Paper presented at the annual nventin fthe Amerian Psyhlgial Assiatin. Bstn. Mershn, B., & Grsuh, R. L. (1988). Number f fatrs in the persnality sphere: Des inrease in fatrs inrease preditability f real-life riteria? Jurnal f Persnality and Sial P.syhtgy, 55, Miller, G. E. (1956). The magial number seven, plus-r-minus tw: Sme limits n ur apaity fr pressing infrmatin. Psyhlgial Review. 63, Milln. T. (1983). Milln Clinial Multiaxial Inventry manual (3rd ed.). Minneaplis: Interpretive Sring Systems. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explratins in persnauty. New Yrk: Oxfrd University Press. Muten. E. (1991). Self-reprts, spuse ratings, and psyhphysilgial assessment in a behaviral mediine prgram: An appliatin f the five-fatr mdel. Jurnal f Persnality Assessment. 57, Myers, I. B., & MCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide t the develpment and use fthe Myers-Briggs Type Indiatr. Pal Alt, CA: Cnsulting Psyhlgists Press. Nller, P., Law, H., & Cmrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Cmrey. and Eysenk persnality fatrs mpared: Mre evidene fr the five rbust fatrs? Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 53, Nrman, W. T. (1963). Tward an adequate taxnmy f persnality attributes: Repliated fatr struture in peer nminatin persnality ratings. Jurnal f Abnrmal and Sial Psyhlgy

40 214 MCrae and Jhn Nrman, W. T. (1969). "T see ursels as ithers see us!": Relatins amng selfpereptins, peer-pereptins, and expeted peer-pereptins f persnality attributes. Multivariate Behaviral Researh, 4, Ostendrf, F. (1990). Sprahe und Persnlihkeitsstruktur: Zur Validitdt des Funf- Faktren-Mdells der Persnlihkeit [Language and persnality struture: Tward the validatin f the five-fatr mdel f persnality]. Regensburg, Germany: S. Rderer Verlag. Peabdy, D. (1987). Seleting representative trait adjetives. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 52, Peabdy, D., & Gldberg, L. R. (1989). Sme determinants f fatr strutures frm persnality-trait desriptrs. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy. Sl, Piedmnt, R. L., MCrae, R. R., & Csta, P. T. Jr. (1991). Adjetive Chek List sales and the five-fatr mdel. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, Plmin, R., & MClearn, G. E. (1990). Human behaviral genetis f aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Shaie (Eds.), Handbk f the psyhlgy f aging (3rd ed.. pp ). New Yrk: Aademi Press. Read, S. J., Jnes, D. K., & Miller, L. C. (1990). Traits as gal-based ategries: The imprtane f gals in the herene f dispsitinal ategries. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 58, Rgers, C. R. (1961). On beming a persn: A therapist's view f psyhtherapy. Bstn: Hughtn Mifflin. Rkeah, M. (1960). The pen and lsed mind. New Yrk: Basi Bks. Rushtn, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C, Nias, D. K. B.. & Eysenk, H. J. (1986). Altruism and aggressin: The heritability f individual differenes. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 50, Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersnal thery f psyhiatry. New Yrk: Nrtn. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual fr the Differential Persnality Questinnaire. Unpublished manusript. University f Minnesta. Tellegen, A. (in press). Persnality traits: Issues f definitin, evidene and assessment. In D. Cihetti & W. Grve (Eds.), Thinking learly abut psyhlgy: Essays In hnr f Paul Everett Meehl. Minneaplis: University f Minnesta Press. Tellegen, A., & Atkinsn, G. (1974). Openness t absrbing and self-altering experienes ("absrptin"), a trait related t hypnti suseptibility. Jurnal f Abnrmal Psyhlgy, 83, Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (in press). Explring persnality thrugh test nstrutin: Develpment fthe Multidimensinal Persnality Questinnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Persnality measures: Develpment and evaluatin (Vl. 1). Greenwih, CT: JAI Press. Thmae, H. (1989, July). Hw Eurpean is persnality psyhlgy in Eurpe? Invited leture, 1st Eurpean Cngress f Psyhlgy, Amsterdam. Thrne, A. (1987). The press f persnality: Cnversatins between intrverts and extraverts. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy. 53, Tby, J., & Csmides, L. (1990). On the universality f human nature and the uniqueness f the individual: The rle f genetis and adaptatin. Jurmd f Persnality

41 Intrdutin 215 Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extensin fthe Interpersnal Adjetive Sales t inlude the Big Five dimensins f persnality (IASR-B5). Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 59, Tupes, E. C, & Christal, R. E. (1961). Reurrent persnauty fatrs based n trait ratings (USAF ASD Teh. Rep. N ). Lakland Air Fre Base, TX: U.S. Air Fre. Waller, N.G., & Ben-Prath, Y. S. (1987). Is it time fr linial psyhlgy t embrae the five-fatr mdel f persnality? Amerian Psyhlgist, 42, Watsn, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affetivity: The dispsitin t experiene aversive emtinal states. Psyhlgial Bulletin, 96, Watsn, D., & Clark, L. A. (in press). Extraversin and its psitive emtinal re. In S. R. Briggs, W. H. Jnes, & R. Hgan (Eds.), Handbk f persnauty psyhlgy. New Yrk: Aademi Press. Wiggins, J. S. (1968). Persnality struture. Annual Review f Psyhlgy. 19, Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psyhlgial taxnmy f trait-desriptive terms: The interpersnal dmain. Jurnal f PersnaUty and Sial Psyhlgy, 37, Wiggins, J. S. (in press). Ageny and mmunin as neptual rdinates fr the understanding and measurement f interpersnal behavir. In D. Cihetti & W. Grve (Eds.), Thinking learly abut psyhlgy: Essays in hnr f Paul Everett Meehl. Minneaplis: University f Minnesta Press. Wiggins, J. S., & Pinus, A. L. (1989). Cneptins f persnality disrders and dimensins f persnality. Psyhlgial Assessment: A Jurnal f Cnsulting and Clinial Psyhlgy, 1, Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (in press). Persnality struture: The return fthe Big Five. In S. R. Briggs, R. Hgan, & W. H. Jnes (Eds.), Handbk f persnality psyhlgy. New Yrk: Aademi Press. Yang, K., & Bnd, M. H. (1990). Explring impliit persnality theries with indigenus r imprted nstruts: The Chinese ase. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 58, Znderman, A. B., Stne. S. V., & Csta, P. T., Jr. (1989, August). Age and neurtiism as risk fatrs fr the inidene f diagnses f psyhti and neurti disrders. Paper presented at the annual nventin fthe Amerian Psyhlgial Assiatin, New Orleans. Zukerman, M. (1984). Sensatin seeking: A mparative apprah t a human trait. Behaviral and Brain Sienes, 7, Zukerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Cama, C. (1988). What lies beynd E and N? Fatr analyses f sales believed t measure basi dimensins f persnality. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 54, Zukerman, M., Bernieri, F., Kestner, R., & Rsenthal, R. (1989). T predit sme f the peple sme f the time: In searh f mderatrs. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial P.syhlgy, 57, Manusript reeived Otber : revised May

42