Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
An in-depth analysis of the history and development of the Five-Factor Model of Personality, focusing on the contributions of L. L. Thurstone and subsequent investigators such as Fiske, Goldberg, and McCrae and Costa. the factors identified, their interpretations, and the replicability of the findings.
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 16
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Patrick E. Shrout New York University
Susan T. Fiske University of Massaeh usetts at Anlherst
~ LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS
CHAPTE(\
If a 11l0dern-day Rip van Winkle had been asleep during the 40-year interval between 1949 and 1989, he would have been slartled upon a\vakening by the alnount of scientific progress that had occurred in genclics and nledicinc, space science, nlaterials technology, conlpute." science, and even in lhe cognitive, behavioral, and neurosciences. On lhe olher hanu. if he had becn pat1icularly inlerested in the n10st basic and fundamental problenl in personality psychology- lhe slruclure of hunlan pcrsonality lraits-,he would \vonder why it had laken 40 years to begin to develop a scientific consensus about an appropriate taxononlic nlodel. In this chapter, I briefly describe sonle of the events leading to loday's en1erging consensus on a structuraJ represenlation for phenolypic personality truits. highlighting lhe historieal significance of Donald Fiske's (1949) senlinal analyses. 1 thcn point out sonle of the obstncles to scicntific agreenlent that occurrcd betwccn lhe publication of Fiske's report and the .present-day enlerging consensus. nlC overall ainl of this chaptcr is to provok~,lconjcctures about those praeticcs and procedures that could help ensure that fulure research on lhe "cutting edge'· in pcrsonaJity psychology will nol always take so torturously long lO be acecpted.
Thc seareh for a taxononly of individual differcnces is an aneient one: Humans have continuously sought to nlake sense of the nlyriad characteristics t!ley observe in others around thenl. However, until the present eentury t efforts to c<;lnstruct
29
five-factor structures bascd on othcrscts of variables have been reported by a number of other investigators (e.g., Borgatta; 1964; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Goldberg, 1990, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1985a, 1987), and these studics havc now becn revicwed extensivcly (c.g., Digman, 1990; John, 1990; McCrac & John, 1992; Wigg~ns & Pincus, 1992; Wiggins & Trapnell, in prcss). TIlese "Big-Fivc" factors have traditio'nally becn numbcrcd and labcled: (1)
1987). Although therc is sorne disagreement about the precise nature of these fivc dornains, there is widcspread agreelTIcnt that some aspccts of the language of pcrsonality description can be organized hierarchically (e.g., Cantor & Mischcl, 1979; Hampson (^) t John, & Goldberg, 1986). In such a representation, the Big-Five domains are Iocated at the highest levelthat is stin descriptive of bchavior, with only general evaluation locatcd at a higher and more abstract level (John, Hanlpson, & Goldberg, 1991). When lhus viewed hicrarchically, it shouJd be clear that proponcnts of lhe five~faclor nlodel have never intended to reduce lhe rich tapestry of personality to a nlere five traits. Rather, they scek lo providc a scientific,llly compelling framcwork in which to organizc the nlyriad individual differences tha1 characterize humankind. Indeed, these broad donlains incorporate hundreds, jf not thousands, of traits:
Reserve; Factor n (Agreeableness or Pleasalltlless) contrasts traits such as
lAs pointcd out by Peabody and Goldberg (1989), the interpretalion of Factor V as Cullure arose from a historieal acddent: Although Callell had initially constructed a subset of variables reJaling to ¡me/lcí:I, in lhe seminal sludies of Canell (1947) he omittcd all .hose variables in favor of an intelligence test. In tumo this test was omiucd from his I~tcr studies. leaving no direct rcpresentation of most ¡mcllccl variables. In lheir abscnce. Factor Vwas cancd Culturc by Tupes and Chrislal ( 1 % 1) and so me laler investigators. However. when variables related 10 ¡II/ellcel were reintroouced (e.g .• Goldbcrg. 19(0). il beca me clear lhat ¡lIlcllcel was lhe more appropriale label for lhe fiflh broad factor.
Whereas Thurstone (1934) found the correct number of broad pcrsonality factors, his collection of 60 trait adjectives was too idiosyncratically assembled lo have produced today's Big-Five structure. Instead, lhe honor of first discovery must be accorded to Fiske (1949), who analyzcd a set of 22 variables devclopcd by Caue1J, and found five factors that replicated across sanlp)es of self-ratings, observer ratings, and peer ratings. Fiske's labcls for his factors, like those proposed by subscquent invcstigators, can be viewed as never perfectly successful attenlpts to capture the prototypical content of these broad domains-Confidellt SelfExpression (Big-Five Factor 1), Social Adaptability (Factor I1), COllformity (Factor UI), Emotional Control (Factor IV), and Inqlliring ¡ntellect (Factor V). Of these five labcls, four could still be used loday; only ConJormily seenlS too narrow and undesirable lo capture lhe nlany aspccts of responsibiJity and dependability inherent in Big-Five Factor III (Conscientiousness). In Fiske 's article, entitled "Consislency of the Factorial Structures of Personality Ratings from Different Sources," he acknowledged the earlier contributions of Cattell (1947), and noted that no one had yet compared lhe factor slructures obtaincd fronl different typcs of raters. He asked, "Do (he factors in self-ratings bear any resemblanceto the factors in ratings by pcers? Are lhe factors fronl either of these sources conlparable to those found in lhe ratings of trained el inicians?" (p. 329). To answer lhese questions, he analyzed the ratings of 128 111en \vho were about to enter graduate schools in cJinical psychology and who haú attended one of lhe week-Iong asscssnlcnt sessions held at lhe University of Michigan in the sumnler of 1947; the details of this Veterans Adnlinistration Selection Research Projectare reported in the c1assic vo)ume by Kelly and Fiske (195). The subjects described thenlselves and were described by three peers and three rnembcrs of the assessment staff with 42 variables, of which 22 had been adapted from lhe set developed by CaUell () 947); 4111 ratings were made on 8-step sca)es. The self-ratings, median peer ratings, and the pooled staff ratings for lhe 22 Cattell variables were factored separatcly and then conlpared. That sounds easy. Today it would be. However, 45 years ago, before lhe conlputcr revolution, all analyses had to be carricd out by hand calculator. With lhe help of his wife, Barbara, the Fiskes hand-calculated the correlations anlong lhe 22 variables, hand-extracted five centroid faclors, hand-rotated those factors by Thurstone's nlethod of extended vcctors, and then hand-calcuJaled lhe transfomlation tnatrices between the unrotated and rotated factors, as \vell as lhe correlations anl0ng the rotated factors. Moreover, they did all this three tinles--once for each of lhe three data sources. Final1y, to compare the three solutions, they hand-correlated the rotated factor loadings from each data source with lhe loadings fronl the other two sources. Fiske caBed lhe five factors he discovered recurrent factors to enlphasize their similarity across lhe three data sources. He lhen conlpared his own five recurrenl
Dorgatta used other variables in separatc analyses of maJe and female samples and found five replicated factors, which he Jabcled Asserriveness (1), Likability (II), Responsibility (IlI), Enlotionality (IV), and Inrelligellce (V). Using composite scores on each of the five factors, he compared seIf-ratings, self-rankings, and pccr rankings (the laUer two in samples conlposed of cIose fricnds, as wcll as in samplcs of acquaintanccs) in a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) dcsign (Campbcll & Fiskc, 1959). Using the variables of CatteIl (1947), Smilh (1967) conlpared lhe structures derivcd from three large samples (N = 583 t 521, and
I (Exlraversion).
TIME OUT: THE 1970s
DY 1970, then, one might have assumed that the five-factor nlodel had anlassed more than enough evidence to ensure its viability as Ihe taxononlic framework for phenotypic personality traiL~. Dut it was nol lo be. Other forces dominatcd this decade, unlcashcd by a Zcilgeist that eschewed the very concept of personality traits, if nol of pcrsonality itself (c.g., Mischel, 1968). The 1970s witnessed the virtual abandonment of major segments of personality research, including the investigation of personality-trait structure.
THE RENAISSANCE: THE 1980s
In the spring of 1978, John Digman was to teach a COUI"Se in factor analysis, for which he obtained a number of corre)ation nlatrices frorn classic studies of abilities and personality traits, including those previously analyzcd by Tupes and Christal (1961) and Nonnan (1963). Before providing them to his students for reanalysis, however, he chccked them careful1y and found clerical errors in the matrices of two of Cattell's studies. More importantly, he discovered that when six or more factors werc rotated from lhe various matrices, the factors did not corrcspond; whereas when five factors werc rotated, there was striking interstudy correspondencc (Digman &^ Takemoto-Chock,^ 1981).^ Later rcsearch^ by^ Digman and Inouye (1986) again obtained the Big-Five factors in teachcrs' ratings of the children in their classrooms. This same period saw the publication of two of nly
ehapters (Goldberg, 1981 t 1982), both stimulated by the lexical hypothesis. TI1C first provided sorne eonjectures about the possible universality of the Big-Fivc factor strueture, and the sccond described a program of research focusing on English trait-deseriptive adjeetives and nouns. TIle 1980s wit~essed the emergenee of the two dominant variants of lhe five-factor nlodel",one developed by McCrae and Costa (1985a, 1987) ano operationalizco in the Neuroticism-Extraversion .. Opcnness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & MeCrae, 1985), and the other associated with studies baseo on the lexieal hYPolhesis and operationaHzcd in the sets of factor nlarkers provided by Norman (1963), Pcabody and Goldberg (1989), Goldbcrg (1990, 1992), John (1989), Trapnel1 and Wiggins (1990), and Digman and his assoeiatcs (e.g., Dignlan, 1989; Dignlan & Inouye, 1986). Much is the sanle in both variants: (a) lhe nunlber of dinlensions is identical, namely five; (b) the eontenl of Factor IV is essentially lhe sanle, although it is orientcd in the opposite direclion in the two Jnodels, and is thus so labcled (Emorional Srability vs. Neuroticisln); and (e) therc is considerable sinli1arity, although not identity t in the eontent of Factor III (Collsciclltiousllcss). On· the olher hand, al leasl two of the differences bctween lhe véuianls are quite striking: (a) lhe localions of Faelors 1 and 11 are systenlatically rotateo, such thal Warmlll is a faeel 01' Exlraversioll in lhe NEO-PI, whereas it is a facet of Agrecableness in lhe lexical nlodcJ;2 and (b) Factor V is eoneeived as Openncss lo E~7}erienee in the NEO-PI and as Inlel/cet, or Imaginario" in lhe lexical nlodeI. These differenees stenl fronl the history of the NEO.. PI, which starled out as a questionnaire nleasurc of a thrce-faetor nlodel. including only Ncurolicisl1J. EXlraversioll, and Openness 10 Expericncc. Whcreas olher three-faetor lheorists sueh as Eysenek (1991) have stood firm as proponents of their original representations (^) t Costa and MeCrae reacted to the events of the early 19805 \Vilh sueh relllarkable Openness lo E~7}eriellce that,by the cnd of the deeade, lhese investigalors had beeome the world's nlost prolific and influential proponents of lhe five-faelor nlodel. TI1C prodigious oulpouring of rcports by McCrae and Costa probably did Jnore lo form the modem eonsensus aboul pcrsonalily structure lhan anything eIse that oeeurred during the 1980s. Specifieally, they used the NEO-PI seales as a franlework for integrating a wide varietyof other questionnaire scales, incIuding those developcd by Eysenek (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), Jackson (Costa & McCrae, 1988a), Spielbcrger (Costa & MeCrac, 1987), and Wiggins (McCrac & Costa, 1989b), as wcll as the scales included in lhe Minnesota Multipha~ic Personal ity Inventory (MMPI; Costa, Buseh, Zondcnnan, & MeCrae, 1986) ano
2Actually. (he trait descriptor Warm has been classified in racel 11+/1+ in sorne AB5C (Hofslee. de Raad. & Goldberg. 1992) analyses in (he lexical model. whereas Warmlh is considered a 1+/11+ facel in lhe McCrnc and Cosaa model. suggesting more agreemenl when both primary and secondary loadings are considercd (han when one cOllsiders lhe primary loadings alonc.
and were able to show its conlparabiJity with tlleir painstaking hand ..ca1culations. However. by the time of Norman (1963), computers were hcre to stay, and today this problem has all bUl disappeared.
lock of Follow.. Up ,
Had Thurstone (1934) more fully enlbraccd lhe lexical hypothesis and realized the significance of his ¡nitial discovery, lhe history of the Big-Five model might have been quite different. But Thurstone devoted hinlself to other scicntific pursuits, as did Fiske, Borgatta, and Smith. Seenlingly. tllesc investigators did not reaBre lhe inlportance of their discoveries. Why? Here are sorne spcculative possibiHties.
111C ficld of personality psychology has faced continucd difficulties in establishing a curnulative scientific record. Perhaps bccause of lhe academic reward system, personalily psychologists lend lo function nlore Iike a nlotley array of superstars lhan. like a srnooth .. functioning lea m. Each of us has our own agenda. and intcgralion is not our long suil. Indeed, we do nol even agree about lhe mosl inlportant scientific questions, much less the answers. We estcenl our own contributions, and we are quick to pick holes in the contributions of others. Each of us scems to live by lhe moUo, If I didn't do U, it wasn't done right. One result of this egocentric bias has bcen the proliferation of taxononlic nlodels. Very rarely does lhe developer of a hlodel admil that a rival nlorlel is superior. As a conscquencc, we engage in wars of attrition: Models disappcar only when lhcir originators fade away. Thosc who are not ¡nvolved in rescarch on lhe structurc of individual rlifferences arc justifiably bewildered by lhe diversity of our conlpeting models and the vitriol of our arguments in favor of our own conlributions. Whom are they to be1 ieve? For we are bctter critics than integrators, bcttcr at finding holes lhan palching thenl. One could argue that the gradual acceptance of lhe Big ... Five modeI grew out of our continued attenlpts toreplaee it with sonlething more altractive. aH of which faBed. For example (^) t Nonnan, whose 1963 article is the single-nlost ciled reference to the Big-Five structure, spent much of his carly research career as a skeptic. ParadoxicaIly, altl10ugh his inlportance in the history of the
believcr has typically becn overlooked. Yet after his seminal studics confirming the five-faclor nlodel with a se)celcd set of Cattell variables (Nomlan, 1963), he instituted an cxtensive research program ainlcd at replacing that rnodel with a nlore eonlprchensivc one. He began by cxpanding the corpus of English personaJity tenns assembled by Al1port and Odbert (1936), lhen c1assifying lhe ternlS in lhe expanded pool into su eh categories as slales, traits, and roles, and finally collccting nonnativc ¡nfonnation about sonlC 2,800 trait-deseriptive temlS
(Nonnan, 1967). Nonnan was convinced that, because of the inevitable conlputational and other technicallimitations of research in the 1 930s and 1940s, CattclPs variables len much to be desired, and therefore studies utilizing a rcprcsentative subsct of thc total English pcrsonality-trait lexicon would uncovcr sonle broad dinlcnsions beyond thc Big-Five struclure. AlLhough Nornlan never tested this appealing conjecturc, others did (e.ge, GoJdberg, 1990), and it hRIi proyed to be wrong.
Failure to See the Forest From rhe Trees
Digrnan espoused a lO-factor modcl of child personality structurc as latc as 1977 t and Cattell still espouses an even more complex representation. lloth invcstigators followed a "bottonl-up" strategy for conslructing a hierarchical rnodel, llsing oblique rotations lo oblain correlated factors, which in tum could then be analyzed obliquely al successively higher levcls. In contrast, investigators such as Tupes and Olrislul (1961), Nonnan (1963), and Goldberg (1990, 1992) followed a "top-down" slralegy, using orlhogonal rotations so as to firsl establish the oyerall dirnensionality of their variable sets, and only later atternpting to discover lhe facets wilhin each broad factor dornain (Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldbcrg, 1992). By analogy, the fonner strategy builds up the forest on a tree-by-tree bRc;is, whereas lhe latter.strategy first locales lhe outlines of the forcst and lhen focuses on lhe individual trees. Using a geographical analogy, the fOlmer strategy first finds such distinclive features of lhe landscape as lakes, rivers, and nlountain rimges, which in turn are used to discover lhe continents, where,lS lhe laller strategy first locales lhe continenlli and later nlaps lheir distinctive features. Which is lhe best way lo proceed? If the history of the five-factor rnodel is to be one's guide, one should place one's bets on lhe top-down strategy. As Dignlan (1990) noted, when factors are rotated obliquely to a simple-structure criterion, they are likely lo be associaled with relatively hornogeneous clusters of variables, rather than lhe basic dirnensions of lhe multivariate space. Whereas il is possible lhat the two strategies could converge on a cornrnon representation, this would be nlost unlikely unless lhe ¡nitial selection of variables had been carried out with extraordinary prescience. That is, to select the initial variables so thoughtfully requires knowledge of the nurnbcr of overall factor dornains and lhe naturc of lhe facets located within each dorna¡n. One is not like)y lo know all this in advance.
Failure ro Separare Signal From Noise
As early as 1961, Tupes and OlfistaJ caBed attention lo lhe difficulties invo)vcd in dcciding when two structural reprcscntations were lhe sanle ano when they truly oiffcrcd. In discussing their own finding that five factors replicated across the diverse datasets that they analyzcd, they cOO"lmented:
A Malignant Zeitgeist
In 1961, Tupes and Christal had no way of knowing that the 1970s would witness a virtual moratorium on the investigation of many fundamental problems in personality psychology, inc1uding the search for a compclIing taxononly of personality traits. However, the 1970s turoed out to be a decade of controversy about the scientific status of traits in general and broad traits in particular, stimulated by such critics as D' Andrade (1965), Mischel (1968), and Shweder (1975). Many of the issues ¡nvolved in this controversy may have now been resolved (e.g., Borkenau, 1992; Funder, 1991), with optinlistk implications for the eventual transformation of personality psychology into a nlore cumulative seien- tifk enterprise.
Fiske was nluch ¡nvolved in the controversies of the 1970s, and he was profoundly infiuenced by the behavioristic Zeitgeist that was swccping the field at thallinle. Perhaps as a reaction to lhe "nattering nabobs of ncgativism" who were punlnleling personality psyehology t he lost ¡nlerest in broad pcrsonalily traits (e.g., Fiske, 1973, 1974), and began to argue in favor of more bchavioral unils of anaIysis. so as to ensure high levcls of interjudge agreement on lhe bask elements of pcrsonality. Moreover, he began to feel quite pessimistic about lhe likelihood of ever reaching agreetnent on a taxonomy of personality traits, with the result that he did not further pursue his seminal study of trait factor struetures. Today t Fiske is renowned for his methodological and philosophkal contributions to the ficld of personality. Wouldn't it be ¡ronie if historians of lhe future also judged his 1949 empirical study as bcing of such signa1 importance that it served as a verification of his earlier "belief in the possibility of eventual agreement upon the basic variables of personal ity" (Fiske, 1949 t p. 341)1 If so, he has lhe right lo ask, What lhe hell look so long?
Preparation of this chapter was supporled by Grant MH-49227 from the Nalional Institute of Mental Health. 1 am indebted to A. Timothy Church, Jacob Cohen, Paul T. Costa, Jr., Lec J. Cronbach, Robyn M. Dawes, Qlarlcs F. Dkken, John M. Digman, Donald W. Fiske, Susan T. Fiske, Sarah E. Hampson, Willem K. B. Hofslee, Oliver P. John, Daniel Lcvitin, Maurice Lorr, Clarence McCormkk, Ivan Mervielde, Warren T. Norman, Delroy L. Paulhus, Lawrence A. Pervin, James A. Russell, Gerard Saueier, Mkhael F. Scheier, Patrick E. Shrout, and Auke Tellegen for lheir thoughtful suggestions. Portions of this chaptcr have
J. FISKE ANO TI-IE BlG-FlVE FACfOR STRUCfURE 41
bccn adaptcd from Goldbcrg (1993), which can be consultcd for furthcr dctails about thc Big-Fivc factor structurc and its historical dcvclopn1cnt.
Allport. G. W.• & Odbcrt. H. S. (1936). Trail-names: A psycho-Iexical sludy. Ps)'dlOlogical MonogrofJhs, 47 (1, Wholc No. 211). Barrick. M. R•• & Mount. M. K. (1991). The Big Fivc pcrsonality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. PersO/Ille! PsydlOlogy, 44. 1 ... 26. Borgatla. E. F. (1964). Thc structure of pcrsonaJity characteristics. Behavioral Science. 9. 8-17. Borkenau. P. (1992). Implicil personality theory and lhe five-faclor model. JourtuJl of Personality.
60. 295-327. Campbell. O. T .• & Fiske. O. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validalion by (he multitrait-multimethod matrix. PsydlOlogic:al Bullel;n, 56. 81-105. Cantor. N.• & Mischel. W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception.ln L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad\·ance.f ill experimelltal sodall'syt:llOlogy (Vol. 12. pp. 2-52). San Diego. CA: Aeademic Prcss. Callell. R. B. (1943). The deseription of personality: Baste traits resolved into cluslers. Jourllal of Abllormal ond Sodal PsydlOlo¡:y. 38. 476-506. Canell, R. U. (1947). Confirmation and clnrificalion of primary personality faclors. PsydlOmelril.:a. /2, 197-220. Christal. R. E. (1992). Aulhor's note On "Recurrent persona lit y ractors based en traíl ratings." Joumal of Personality. 60. 221-224. Costa. P. T .• Jr., Busch, C. M., Zonderman. A. B., & McCrae. R. R. (1986). Correlations of MMPI faclor scales with measures of the five factor model of personality. JuurtuJl of Ptrsonality Aues.fmelll. 50. 640-650. Costa, P. T .• Jr., & McCrae, (~. R. (1985). Tire NEO Persollality Im·tlllory malllllll. Odessa. FL: Psychological Assessmenl Resources. Costa. P. T .• Jr.• & McCrae. R. R. (1987). Personality assessment in psychosornatie medicine: Value of a lraÍl taxonomy. In G. A. Fava & T. N. Wise (Eds.). Advanc'es illl'syc:Jwsomalk medicine: Vol. /7. Researd, I,aradi¡:"'s illl,sydlOsomal;c medic;lte (pp. 71-..82). Basel, Swilzerland: Karger. Costa, P. T .• Jr•• & McCrae. R. R. (1988a). From eatalog lO classification: Murray's needs and lhe five-factor model. )oufl,al of Persolla/ity and Social Psyehology. 55. 258-265. Costa. P. T., Jr.• & McCrac. R. R. (1988b). Personality in adullhood: A six-year longiludinal study of self-reports and spouse ralings on lhe NEO Personalily Inventory. Journal of Persolfalily and Scx..'ial Psyelroloxy. 54. 853-863. O' Andrade, R. G. (1965). Trail psychology and eomponential analysís. AmericlllJ AltlhrOI)()lo¡:isl. 67.215-228. Oigman. J. M. (1989). Five robusl trail dimcnsions: OeveJopmenl, stabilily. and utility. Jourltal uf /)er.wnalily. 57. 195-214. Digman. J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of 'he five-faclor model. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.). A""ual review of psyclw/u¡:y (Vol. 41. pp. 417 ... 440). Palo Alto. CA: Annual I~eviews. Oigman. J. M.• & Inouye. J. (1986). Further spccification of lhe five robust faclors of personality. Juumal of Personality all(1 Scx..·ial PsydlOlo¡:y. 50, 116-123. Digman. J. M•• & Takemolo-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in lhe natural languageof personality: Re-analysis. comparison. and interpretation of síx major studies. Mulli,'ariale Belra";oral Researe". /6. 149-170. Eysenck. H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16. S. or 3?-Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Per.wnalily.alUl lI,di"idllal Dij)erences. 12. 773-790.
McCrae. R. R., & Jolm, O. P. (1992). An introduction lo lhe nve-factor model and its applications. J ourlUll 01 Persollality, 60, 175-215. Mischel, W. (1%8). Pcrsonality and asscssnrenl. New York: Wiley. Norman, W. T. (1%3). Toward an adcquate laxonomy of personalily atlributes: Replicalcd factor structure in pec'r nomination pcrsonality ratings. Journal 01 Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66. 574-583.
a university IXlIJUlalioll. Ann Arbor, MI: Dcpartmcnlof Psychology, University of Michigan. Peabody. D., & Goldbcrg. L R. (1989). Sorne delcrminants of factor structures from pcrsonality-lrait descriptors. Journal 01 Persotrality alld Social Psyclwlogy, 57.552-567. Saucicr, G. (1992). Openness versus ¡ntelleca: Much ado about nothing? European Journal 01 PersonalilY, 6, 381-386. Schmidl, F. L.. & Ones, D. S. (1992). Personnel selection. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Portcr (Eds.), A""ual rcview OllJSyclwlogy (Vol. 43, pp. 627-670). Palo Alto. CA: Annual Reviews. Shweder. R. A. (1975). How relevanl is nn individual dirrcrcncc theory of personality? Journal 01 PersolJality. 43. 455-484. Smilh, G. M. (1967). Usefulncss of pcer ralings of pcrsonality in cducational rcscarch. Educalional and PsycllOloJ:ic:al Measureme,,', 27, 967-984. Smilh. G. M. (1 %9). Rclations bctwecn personality and smoking bchavior in pre-adult subjects. Journal tI/CoII.mlli"R and Clínical P.fycllOlogy, J3, 710-715. Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The veclors of mind. Psych(JloRical Review, 4/, 1-32. Trapnell. P. D.• & Wiggins. J. S. (1990). EXlensionof lhe Inlérpersonal Adjcclive Scales lo ¡ndude lhe Uig Five dimcnsions of pcrsonality. JourfUll 01 I'trsollality and Social !'sycllOloRY. 59. 781-790. Tupes. E. C .• & Christal, R. E. (1958). Stability of personality traÍl raling factors obtaincd undcr diverse conditions (USAF WADC Tech. Note No. 58-61). L.ackland Air Force Base. TX: U.S. Air Force. Tupes. E. C., & Chrislal. R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors bascd on trait ratings (USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97). L.ackland Air Force Base. TX: U.S. Air Force. Tupes, E. C .• & Christal. R. E. (1992). Recurrent personalily factors based on trail ratings. Journal 01 Persollalíty. 60. 225-25 l. Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1992). Personality: Slruclure and assessmcnt. In M. R. Rosenzwcig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Amulal rcview 01 psychology (Vol. 43. pp. 473-504). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Rcviews. Wiggins, J. S•• & Trapncll, P. D. (in press). Personality structure: The retum oC the Big Ave. In R. Bogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), lIalldhook 01 persona/ity psychology. Orlando. FL: Acadcmic Prcss.
