In the 45 years since Cattell used English trait terms to begin the formulation of his "description of personality," a number of investigators have proposed an alternative structure based on 5 orthogonal factors. The generality of this 5-factor model is here demonstrated across unusually comprehensive sets of trait terms. In the first of 3 studies, 1,431 trait adjectives grouped into 75 clusters were analyzed; virtually identical structures emerged in 10 replications, each based on a different factor-analytic procedure. A 2nd study of 479 common terms grouped into 133 synonym clusters revealed the same structure in 2 samples of self-ratings and in 2 samples of peer ratings. None of the factors beyond the 5th generalized across the samples. In the 3rd study, analyses of 100 clusters derived from 339 trait terms suggest their potential utility as Big-Five markers in future studies.

To satisfy the need in personality research for factorially univocal measures of each of the 5 domains that subsume most English-language terms for personality-traits, new sets of Big-Five factor markers were investigated. In studies of adjective-anchored bipolar rating scales, a transparent format was found to produce factor markers that were more univocal than the same scales administered in the traditional format. Nonetheless, even the transparent bipolar scales proved less robust as factor markers than did parallel sets of adjectives administered in unipolar format. A set of 100 unipolar terms proved to be highly robust across quite diverse samples of self and peer descriptions. These new markers were compared with previously developed ones based on far larger sets of trait adjectives, as well as with the scales from the NEO and Hogan personality inventories.

This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences. The roots of this taxonomy lie in the lexical hypothesis and the insights of Sir Francis Galton, the prescience of L. L. Thurstone, the legacy of Raymond B. Cattell, and the seminal analyses of Tupes and Christal. Paradoxically, the present popularity of this model owes much to its many critics, each of whom tried to replace it, but failed. In reaction, there have been a number of attempts to assimilate other models into the five-factor structure. Lately, some practical implications of the emerging consensus can be seen in such contexts as personnel selection and classification.

No abstract

The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound renaissance and has now become an extraordinarily diverse and intellectually stimulating field (Pervin & John, 1999). However, just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is practical or usefulone would need to show that personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as health and longevity, marital success, and educational and occupational attainment. In fact, two recent reviews have shown that different personality traits are associated with outcomes in each of these domains (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005;Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). But simply showing that personality traits are related to health, love, and attainment is not a Address correspondence to Brent W. Roberts, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820; broberts@cyrus.psych.uiuc.edu. HHS Public Access Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript stringent test of the utility of personality traits. These associations could be the result of "third" variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES), that account for the patterns but have not been controlled for in the studies reviewed. In addition, many of the studies reviewed were cross-sectional and therefore lacked the methodological rigor to show the predictive validity of personality traits. A more stringent test of the importance of personality traits can be found in prospective longitudinal studies that show the incremental validity of personality traits over and above other factors.The analyses reported in this article test whether personality traits are important, practical predictors of significant life outcomes. We focus on three domains: longevity/mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment in work. Within each domain, we evaluate empirica...

To integrate the 5-dimensional· simple-structure and circumplex models of personality, the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex (AB5C) taxonomy of personality traits was developed, consisting of the 10 circumplexes that can be formed by pitting each of the Big Five factors against one another. The model maps facets of the Big Five dimensions as blends of2 factors. An application to data consisting of 636 self-ratings and peer ratings on 540 personality trait adjectives yielded 34 well-defined facets out of a possible 45. The AB5C solution is compared with simple-structure and lower dimensional circumplex solutions, and its integrative and corrective potential are discussed, as well as its limitations. ·

The purpose of this study was to identify the underlying structure of the trait domain of Conscientiousness using scales drawn from 7 major personality inventories. Thirty-six scales conceptually related to Conscientiousness were administered to a large community sample (N = 737); analyses of those scales revealed a hierarchical structure with 6 factors: industriousness, order, self-control, responsibility, traditionalism, and virtue. All 6 factors demonstrated excellent convergent validity. Three of the 6 factors, industriousness, order, and self-control, showed good discriminant validity. The remaining 3 factors-responsibility, traditionalism and virtue-appear to be interstitial constructs located equally between Conscientiousness and the remaining Big Five dimensions. In addition, the 6 underlying factors had both differential predictive validity and provided incremental validity beyond the general factor of Conscientiousness when used to predict a variety of criterion variables, including work dedication, drug use, and health behaviors.

Three determinants of the factor structures of personality traits are investigated. The 1st, selection of variables, was controlled by using 57 bipolar scales, selected to be representative of common trait terms. In analyses of 7 data sets, variants of the "Big Five" factors were always found. Factor similarities were very strong for the 3 largest factors, which were transformed into general evaluation and 2 descriptive dimensions. As a 2nd determinant, judgments about real people were compared with judgments about the conceptual relations among traits. Factor structures based on the 2 types of judgments are similar, but those based on conceptual judgments tend to be simpler. The 3rd determinant involved the degree of restriction of the sample to evaluatively homogeneous targets. Restriction of range reduced the size of all factors, especially Factor II. Findings from previous studies are integrated within this framework.