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