an alternative description of personality: the big-five...

PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

An Alternative "Description of Personality": The Big-Five Factor Structure

Lewis R. GoldbergUniversity of Oregon and Oregon Research Institute, Eugene

In the 45 years since Cattell used English trait terms to begin the formulation of his "description ofpersonality," a number of investigators have proposed an alternative structure based on 5 orthogo-nal factors. The generality of this 5-factor model is here demonstrated across unusually comprehen-sive sets of trait terms. In the first of 3 studies, 1,431 trait adjectives grouped into 75 clusters wereanalyzed; 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 revealedthe same structure in 2 samples of self-ratings and in 2 samples of peer ratings. None of the factorsbeyond the 5th generalized across the samples. In the 3rd study, analyses of 100 clusters derivedfrom 339 trait terms suggest their potential utility as Big-Five markers in future studies.

The variety of individual differences is nearly boundless, yetmost of these differences are insignificant in people's daily in-teractions with others and have remained largely unnoticed. SirFrancis Galton may have been among the first scientists torecognize explicitly the fundamental lexical hypothesis—namely that the most important individual differences in hu-man transactions will come to be encoded as single terms insome or all of the world's languages. Indeed, Galton (1884)attempted to tap "the more conspicuous aspects of the charac-ter by counting in an appropriate dictionary," and he "esti-mated that it contained fully one thousand words expressive ofcharacter, each of which has a separate shade of meaning, whileeach shares a large part of its meaning with some of the rest"(p. 181).

Galton's (1884) estimate of the number of personality-relatedterms in English was later sharpened empirically, first by All-port and Odbert (1936), who culled such terms from the secondedition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Lan-guage, and later by Norman (1967), who supplemented the ear-lier list with terms from the third edition. Galton's insight con-cerning the relations among personality terms has beenmirrored in the efforts of later investigators to discover thenature of those relations, so as to construct a structural represen-tation of personality descriptors (for historical reviews of suchefforts, see John, 1990; John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988;and Wiggins & Trapnell, in press).

This project was supported by Grant MH-39077 from the NationalInstitute of Mental Health.

I am enormously indebted to Sarah E. Hampson, Willem K. B. Hof-stee, Oliver P. John, Henry Kaiser, Kevin Lanning, Dean Peabody,Tina K. Rosolack, and Auke Tellegen for their thoughtful suggestions.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toLewis R. Goldberg, Oregon Research Institute, 1899 WillametteStreet, Eugene, Oregon 97401.

One of the first of these investigators was L. L. Thurstone, apioneer in the development of factor analysis, and the report ofhis initial findings reads today with almost haunting clairvoy-ance:

Sixty adjectives that are in common use for describing people. . .were given to each of 1300 raters. Each rater was asked to think of aperson whom he knew well and to underline every adjective thathe might use in a conversational description of that person.. . .The tetrachoric correlation. . .coefficients for the sixty personal-ity traits were then analyzed by means of multiple factor methodsand we found that five factors are sufficient to account for thecoefficients.

It is of considerable psychological interest to know that thewhole list of sixty adjectives can be accounted for by postulatingonly five [italics added] independent common factors.. . . Wedidnot foresee that the list could be accounted for by as few . . .factors. This fact leads us to surmise that the scientific description ofpersonality may not be quite so hopelessly complex as it is some-times thought to be (Thurstone, 1934, pp. 12-14 [italics added]).

The Big Five

One of the most influential scientists to apply empirical pro-cedures to the task of constructing a personality taxonomy wasRaymond B. Cattell, who began with a perusal of English per-sonality-descriptive terms. Allport and Odbert (1936) had cata-logued about 18,000 such terms and had divided them into fouralphabetical lists, the first of which included approximately4,500 terms that they had classified as stable traits. Cattell(1943) used this trait list as a starting point (adding some con-cepts gleaned from the psychological literature, includingvarious aspects of psychopathology) to construct 171 scales,most of which were bipolar. Guided by the correlations amongthe 171 scales in some empirical analyses, Cattell (1943) devel-oped a set of 35 bipolar clusters of related terms. Rating scalesbased on these clusters were then employed in various studies,in each of which the correlations among the variables werefactored using oblique rotational procedures (Cattell, 1945).

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990, Vol. 59, No. 6,1216-1229Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/90/S00.75

1216

PERSONALITY FACTOR STRUCTURE 1217

Cattell has repeatedly claimed to have identified at least adozen oblique factors. However, when Cattell's variables wereanalyzed by orthogonal rotational methods, only five factorsproved to be replicable (e.g, Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981;Fiske, 1949; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Similarfive-factor structures based on other sets of variables have beenreported by Borgatta (1964), Digman and Inouye (1986), andMcCrae and Costa (1985,1987).

These "Big-Five" factors have traditionally been numberedand labeled as follows: (I) Surgency (or Extraversion), (II)Agreeableness, (III) Conscientiousness (or Dependability), (IV)Emotional Stability (vs. Neuroticism), and (V) Culture. Alterna-tively, Factor V has been interpreted as Intellect (e.g., Digman &Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989) and asOpenness (eg., McCrae & Costa, 1987).

Because the Big-Five factor structure was originally discov-ered in studies using Cattell's 35 variables, some critics haveargued that these five factors have not been sufficiently general-ized beyond that initial set of variables. Indeed, Waller andBen-Porath (1987) have asserted

Much of the evidence that has been offered in support of thefive-factor model stems from an assemblage of cognate studiesbetter thought of as demonstrating the reliability rather than thevalidity (or comprehensiveness) of the five-factor paradigm. Inother words, we feel that many of these studies are better thoughtof as a series of quasi-literal replications, rather than conceptualvalidations of the five-factor model, (p. 887)

The present article is an attempt to rebut such arguments bydemonstrating the generality of the Big-Five representationwithin sets of trait terms that are far more representative of thetotal English trait lexicon than were those included in anyprevious studies. The article begins with analyses of the mostcomprehensive pool of English trait-descriptive adjectives everstudied empirically. Specifically, 1,431 trait terms grouped into75 clusters are used to (a) discover whether the Big-Five struc-ture can be confirmed with these data, (b) determine the ro-bustness of the structure across different procedures for factorextraction and rotation, and (c) examine the nature of any addi-tional factors beyond the first five. In a second study employing479 commonly used English trait adjectives, four different fac-tor structures are compared, two based on samples of individ-uals describing themselves and two based on samples of individ-uals describing others whom they know well. The use of fourindependent samples permits an analysis of the across-samplegenerality of the factor structures, thus providing a crucial testof the dimensionality of English trait adjectives. Finally, a thirdstudy focuses on the refinement of 100 synonym clusters basedon a pool of 339 common trait terms, to be available for use asBig-Five marker variables in future studies.

Study 1

Rationale and Background

This study was designed to investigate the structure of anearly comprehensive set of common English trait adjectives,probably the largest subset of the total pool that has yet beenstudied in this way. Initially, Norman (1967) had investigated2,800 trait terms selected from unabridged English dictionar-

ies. Nonoverlapping sets of 200 terms were administered tosamples of 100 university students (50 men and 50 women), whofor each term (a) provided a definition (or indicated that theycould not do so), (b) rated its social desirability, and (c) indicatedthe extent to which it characterized themselves and each ofthree peers. On the basis of these data, ambiguous terms andterms that were unfamiliar to the typical college student wereculled from the set.

Later, Norman classified the remaining 1,431 terms into 75categories based on his understanding of their similarities inmeaning. In making his classifications, Norman began by sort-ing the terms into a few broad categories, and then he subse-quently developed more fine-grained classifications withineach of the initial categories. Table 1 lists the number of termsin each of his final 75 categories, along with a few terms asexamples.

Method

From the 2,800 trait terms included in Norman (1967), Goldberg(1982) selected a subset of 1,710 (which included the 1,431 describedearlier) to be included in a self-report inventory of trait-descriptiveadjectives (see Goldberg, 1982, for the procedural details). Under in-structions to work on this task for no more than an hour at a time, 187college students (70 men and 117 women) described themselves oneach of the 1,710 terms, using an 8-step rating scale ranging from ex-tremely inaccurate to extremely accurate as a self-descriptor. After allomitted responses were given a middle (S) value in a transformed 1-9rating scale, the responses for each subject in turn were standardscored, thereby eliminating all intersubject differences in their meansand variances across the 1,710 items.

Responses to the terms in each of the Norman categories were ag-gregated to obtain 75 scale scores for every subject. The coefficientalpha reliability estimates for each of these variables, which are listedin Table 1, are quite high for scales constructed without recourse to anyinternal-consistency analyses: For the 74 scales including more thanone item, 95% of the reliability coefficients were larger than .60, and73% were at least .70; the median scale obtained a coefficient of .76.Because the scales vary markedly in their number of items and becausecoefficient alpha is highly sensitive to scale length, Table 1 also in-cludes the mean intercorrelation among the items in each scale.

The variables are listed in Table 1 by the factor on which they hadtheir highest loading in this first study, and within each factor by thesize of their loadings on that factor. Consequently, the first variableslisted for each factor (the factor definers) exemplify its core meaningand are likely to be the most robust across studies. On the other hand,the last variables listed for each factor, which are only peripherallyrelated to its core content, may be equally related to other factors, andtherefore the factor with which they are most highly related may tendto vary from study to study.

Results

Effects of different methods of factor extraction and rotation.At the outset, it is important to try to allay the qualms of anyreaders who assume that, in factor analysis, what one findsdepends primarily on how one looks. If that were so, the generalgoal of developing a scientifically compelling taxonomy of indi-vidual differences could be a foolish quest, as Eysenck (1981)once argued:

Correlational psychology cannot in the nature of things come upwith objective, universally agreed dimensions or categories; there

1218 LEWIS R. GOLDBERG

Table 1The 75 Categories in the Norman Taxonomy of1,431 Trait-Descriptive Adjectives

Reliability

Factor pole/category ExamplesNo.terms

2623928114436135612

192622181920

202918171917291816

131633161121492981829

43317132781116131713

il44

51172292713

a

.88

.86

.77

.77

.78

.86

.77

.76

.28

.55

.76

.74

.86

.87

.76

.79

.70

.83

.81

.70

.71

.76

.73

.76

.82

.67

.79

.75

.79

.74

.75

.79

.78

.86

.65

.61

.80

.85

.62

.64

.71

.77

.73

.68

.72

.67

.62

.86

.13

.74

.90

.72

.81

.73

.63

.67

r

.22

.21

.27

.11

.24

.12

.08

.20

.07

.17

.20

.13

.19

.23

.15

.17

.10

.19

.13

.11

.13

.14

.14

.10

.20

.11

.22

.16

.10

.15

.21

.15

.07

.17

.19

.08

.12

.12

.35

.10

.16

.11

.26

.16

.14

.13

.09

.31

.04

.42

.14

.13

.16

.23

.06

.13

1+SpiritTalkativenessSociabilitySpontaneityBoisterousnessAdventureEnergyConceitVanityIndiscretionSensuality

I -LethargyAloofnessSilenceModestyPessimismUnfriendliness

11+TrustAmiabilityGenerosityAgreeablenessToleranceCourtesyAltruismWarmthHonesty

II-Vindictiveness111 humorCriticismDisdainAntagonismAggressivenessDogmatismTemperDistrustGreedDishonesty

III+IndustryOrderSelf-disciplineEvangelismConsistencyGraceReliabilitySophisticationFormalityForesightReligiosityMaturityPassionlessnessThrift

I l l-NegligenceInconsistencyRebelliousnessIrreverenceProvincialityIntemperance

Jolly, merry, witty, lively, peppyTalkative, articulate, verbose, gossipyCompanionable, social, outgoingImpulsive, carefree, playful, zanyMischievous, rowdy, loud, prankishBrave, venturous, fearless, recklessActive, assertive, dominant, energeticBoastful, conceited, egotisticalAffected, vain, chic, dapper, jauntyNosey, snoopy, indiscreet, meddlesomeSexy, passionate, sensual, flirtatious

Reserved, lethargic, vigorless, apatheticCool, aloof, distant, unsocial, withdrawnQuiet, secretive, untalkative, indirectHumble, modest, bashful, meek, shyJoyless, solemn, sober, morose, moodyTactless, thoughtless, unfriendly

Trustful, unsuspicious, unenviousDemocratic, friendly, genial, cheerfulGenerous, charitable, indulgent, lenientConciliatory, cooperative, agreeableTolerant, reasonable, impartial, unbiasedPatient, moderate, tactful, polite, civilKind, loyal, unselfish, helpful, sensitiveAffectionate, warm, tender, sentimentalMoral, honest, just, principled

Sadistic, vengeful, cruel, maliciousBitter, testy, crabby, sour, surlyHarsh, severe, strict, critical, bossyDerogatory, caustic, sarcastic, cattyNegative, contrary, argumentativeBelligerent, abrasive, unruly, aggressiveBiased, opinionated, stubborn, inflexibleIrritable, explosive, wild, short-temperedJealous, mistrustful, suspiciousStingy, selfish, ungenerous, enviousScheming, sly, wily, insincere, devious

Persistent, ambitious, organized, thoroughOrderly, prim, tidyDiscreet, controlled, serious, earnestCrusading, zealous, moralistic, prudishPredictable, rigid, conventional, rationalCourtly, dignified, genteel, suaveConscientious, dependable, prompt, punctualBlase, urbane, cultured, refinedFormal, pompous, smug, proudAimful, calculating, farseeing, progressiveMystical, devout, pious, spiritualMatureCoy, demure, chaste, unvoluptuousEconomical, frugal, thrifty, unextravagant

Messy, forgetful, lazy, carelessChangeable, erratic, fickle, absent-mindedImpolite, impudent, rude, cynicalNonreligjous, informal, profaneAwkward, unrefined, earthy, practicalThriftless, excessive, self-indulgent


Table 1 (continued)

Factor pole/category

IV+DurabilityPoiseSelf-relianceCallousnessCandor

IV-Self-pityAnxietyInsecurityTimidityPassivityImmaturity

V+WisdomOriginalityObjectivityKnowledgeReflectionArt

V -Imperceptivity

Examples

Tough, rugged, unflinchingWorriless, calm, stable, sedate, peacefulConfident, independent, resourcefulRuthless, insensitive, cold, sternFrank, blunt, explicit, curt, terse

Touchy, careworn, whiny, oversensitiveFearful, nervous, fussy, unstableUnconfident, self-critical, unpoisedCowardly, timid, unventurous, waryDocile, dependent, submissive, pliantNaive, gullible, superstitious, childlike

Intelligent, philosophical, complex, deepInsightful, clever, creative, curiousAlert, perceptive, logical, certainInformed, literate, studious, intellectualPensive, thoughtful, meditativeLiterary, poetic, artistic, musical

Simple, ignorant, dull, illogical, narrow

No.terms

1123111731

143017142218

16172316104

45

Reliability

a

.66

.83

.71

.78

.69

.77

.85

.84

.72

.80

.70

.72

.78

.72

.80

.63

.49

.85

r

.15

.18

.18

.17

.07

.19

.16

.24

.15

.15

.11

.14

.17

.10

.20

.15

.19

.11

Note. The two estimates of internal consistency—the coefficient alpha value for the total scale and themean interitem correlation (f)—were based on the standardized (Z-scored) responses of 187 collegestudents (70 men and 117 women) who described themselves using an inventory of 1,710 trait-descriptiveterms.

are innumerable, mathematically equivalent ways of rotating fac-tors, for instance, and no statistical magic key (not even simplestructure) can close the door on alternative solutions.. . .Alterna-tive solutions and rotations are in principle, and usually in prac-tice, not only possible but also appeal to different people.. . . Thefinal factors never completely escape the shadow of. . .the selec-tion of methods of extraction and rotation, (p. 13)

Eysenck argued that scientific agreement on a structural rep-resentation is impossible, in part because alternative methodsof factor extraction and rotation will generate different factors.In an attempt to examine the extent to which factor structuresare influenced by the particular methods that are used, the 75Norman categories were analyzed using a wide variety of suchprocedures, specifically five methods of factor extraction (prin-cipal-components, principal-factors, alpha-factoring, image-factoring, and maximum-likelihood procedures), each rotatedby an orthogonal (varimax) and an oblique (oblimin) algorithm.

Of the 3,750 total factor loadings (75 variables X 10 meth-ods X 5 factors) generated by these analyses, in only 30 cases(fewer than 1%) was the highest loading on a different factorthan the modal one; in those few cases, moreover, the variablesloaded about equally on two factors, one of which was the mo-dal one. This high degree of intermethod congruence can bequantified more precisely by correlating across the 187 subjectsthe factor scores derived from each of the 10 factoring methods.When averaged across the five corresponding factors in eachpair of analyses, the mean correlation of the factor scores be-tween the orthogonal and oblique rotational procedures (hold-ing constant the method of factor extraction) ranged from .991to .995, and the mean intercorrelations among the five methods

of factor extraction (holding constant the procedure for rota-tion) ranged from .950 to .996. Table 2 lists the factor loadingsfrom varimax rotations of both principal factors and principalcomponents; the uniformity of the values in the table demon-strates the robustness of the solutions across these proceduralvariations.

Although it would be foolish to contend that factors are neverinfluenced by the particular algorithm that is used, such proce-dural effects are typically quite small in size. For the data setsanalyzed in this article, findings based on principal compo-nents have been compared with those based on principal fac-tors, and orthogonal rotations have been compared withoblique ones. In none of these analyses have the findingschanged in any substantial way as a function of the particularmethod used. As a consequence, this article will include onlythe varimax-rotated solutions based on an initial principal-components analysis of the variable intercorrelations. For con-venience, however, these components will typically be referredto as "factors."

Effects of the number of factors rotated. The intercorrelationsamong the factor scores derived from the analyses describedearlier were averaged across the 10 methods so as to providemean congruence correlations for each of the five factors.These mean intermethod correlations for Factors I and II (99for both) and for Factors III and IV (.98 for both) were somewhathigher than that for Factor V (.96). Nonetheless, the latter factor(Intellect) remained invariant as more factors were rotated. In-stead, Factor III bifurcated when six factors were rotated, pro-viding a more homogeneous version of the Conscientiousnessfactor, plus one that included the more peripheral categories


Table 2The 75 Norman Categories: Factor Loadings From Varimax Rotationsof Principal Components and Principal Factors


SpiritTalkativenessSociabilitySpontaneityBoisterousnessAdventureEnergyConceitVanityIndiscretionSensuality

I -LethargyAloofnessSilenceModestyPessimismUnfriendliness

11+TrustAmiabilityGenerosityAgreeablenessToleranceCourtesyAltruismWarmthHonesty

ti11—

Vindictiveness111 humorCriticismDisdainAntagonismAggressivenessDogmatismTemperDistrustGreedDishonesty

IndustryOrderSelf-disciplineEvangelismConsistencyGraceReliabilitySophisticationFormalityForesightReligiosityMaturity

Com

79*77*75*68*63*58*56*46*41*38*25"

-78*-78*-76*-66*-61*-53*

-25413006

-37-25

2633

-11

-01000812

-07300830

-15-26

28

-11-03-30

31- 2 3

27-05

052900

- 1 4-20

I

Fac

78*75*74*67*61*57*55*44"39*36'24*

-77*-76*-75*-65 '-60*-51*

-25412906

-37-24

2532

-11

-01000912

-06290830

- 1 4- 2 5

26

Com

II

Fac

Factor

III

Com

Factor I: Surgency

23- 0 7

2401

-31- 1 4- 1 9- 3 9-08-32- 1 7

01- 1 6

2044

-34-27

Factor

82*69*68*68*61*61*56'43*33*

-79*-74"-73*-67*-65*-64*-63*-58*-52*-51*-42*

Factor III

-11- 0 2- 3 0

30-23

26-05

05280113

- 1 8

- 1 3- 0 4

3401

-02231120

- 2 5142217

22-07

2401

-31- 1 4- 1 9-37-07-31- 1 6

00-16

2044

-33-26

021117

-37-31-31

130031

-12-01

01-11-12-08

07-35

II: Agreeableness

81*68*66*66*60*60*55*43"31"

-77*-72*-72*-64*-63*-63"-61"-57*-50"-49*-39"

05080711

-3033363827

00-09

32- 1 0- 1 2-21

10- 2 8-11

03-06

Fac

021117

- 3 7- 3 1-30

12-01

28- 1 2-01

01-11- 1 2-08

07-34

05080711

-2932363726

00-09

32- 1 0- 1 3-21

10-27-11

02-06

: Conscientiousness

- 1 2-03

3401

-02231120

-23142117

71*68*65*61*59*59"53*52*48*49"43"35*

70"65*64*58*59*56*51*49"45"47*40*34*

IV

Com

05-08

18- 1 4

02444214

-27- 1 6- 1 3

13-06-18-13- 4 6

17

1022

- 1 4-13

1720

-30- 4 1

18

08- 1 5

12-11- 1 8

303102

-33-09

11

17-18

03-07

45-01

2406

- 1 516

- 1 031

Fac

05-08

18- 1 3

02444114

- 2 4- 1 5- 1 0

13- 0 6- 1 8-1 3-45

16

0922

- 1 4-13

1719

-30-40

16

08-15

11-10-17

293002

-31-09

11

16- 1 7

02-07

43-01

2206

- 1 415

- 1 029

V

Com

01080403

-020418

-09-18-07

22

-2702

- 1 70109

-04

- 1 0- 0 2

0500191515

- 0 411

-0903111401

-15-20

1825

- 1 400

350103

-25-20

141331

-1744

-2111

Fac

01070403

-020518

-08- 1 7-07

18

- 2 602

- 1 70108

-03

-09-02

05-01

191514

-0411

-0903111300

- 1 4- 1 8

1722

- 1 300

340103

- 2 3- 1 9

131328

- 1 641

- 1 811


Table 2 (continued)


PassionlessnessThrift

Ill-NegligenceInconsistencyRebelliousnessIrreverenceProvincialityIntemperance

IV+DurabilityPoiseSelf-relianceCallousnessCandor

IV-Self-pityAnxietyInsecurityTimidityPassivityImmaturity

V+WisdomOriginalityObjectivityKnowledgeReflectionArt

V-Imperceptivity

]

Com

-11-21

-04-03

13-19-24

16

-06-37

16-46

20

-1425

-31-42-01

15

-0219

-0501

-4315

-18

[

Fac

-10-19

-04-03

12-18-23

14

II

Com

1917

1905

-54-18

06-14

Factor IV::

-06-37

15-45

19

-1426

-30-41-01

14

-0218

-0501

-4114

-18

-104214

-4503

-05-26-05

163922

Fac

1816

1905

-53-17

05-14

Factor

III

Com

31"26'

-73*-62"-55"-53*-53*-44'

Fac

29*25*

-73*-61*-55*-50*-49*-42*

Emotional Stability

-104214

-4503

-04-26-05

163821

-011414

-0611

1505

-210516

-26

Factor V: Intellect

-101204111525

25

-101104111424

24

-06-09

2427

-0703

-21

-011415

-0611

1405

-210515

-26

-06-09

2426

-0703

-21

IV

Com

-1309

-10-50

090808

-21

79*61*51*48*43*

-81*-75*-69*-60*-55*-52*

01204615

-32-08

-17

Fac

-1208

-09-48

090807

-20

77*60*49*47*39*

-80*-74*-67*-58*-53*-51*

01204415

-30-06

-17

V

Com

-2313

-36-03

3128

-11-24

01-01

39-07

18

-04-05-11-07-30-42

75*70*60*60*45*42*

-78*

Fac

-1912

-35-04

3025

-10-22

020037

-0617

-05-06-12-08-30-41

71*67*59*56*41*36*

-78*

Note. All values equal to or greater than ±.30 are listed in boldface. These analyses are based on thestandardized responses of 187 college students (70 men and 117 women) who described themselves usingan inventory of 1,710 trait-descriptive terms. Decimal points are omitted. Com = components. Fac =factors.* Highest factor loading of the variable in each analysis.

labeled Grace, Formality, Vanity, Sophistication, Order, Evan-gelism, and Religiosity (positive loadings) versus Provinciality,Irreverence, and Rebelliousness (negative loadings). Whenseven factors were rotated, the three Religiosity categories (Re-ligiosity and Evangelism versus Irreverence) formed their ownsmall factor.

Moreover, beyond these 7 factors, all additional ones weredenned by only one or two variables (eg., Thrift versus Intem-perance, Sensuality versus Passionlessness), whereas the initial7 factors remained nearly invariant across rotations of up to 13factors. For this set of variables, then, the factor structures seemto be remarkably robust, regardless of the number of factorsthat are rotated. Thus, one can conclude from this first studythat this five-factor structure seems to be nearly impervious tovariations in the specific factor procedures that are used, and it

remains quite stable across variations in the number of factorsthat are rotated.

Factor structures are, however, known to be especially sensi-tive to the selection of variables under analysis (Peabody &Goldberg, 1989). Indeed, the structural representation dis-played in Table 2 shows some anomalies when compared withanalyses of other sets of variables. Some of these anomalies canbe traced to the use of unfortunate terms as category labels; forexample, the trait adjectives conceited, vain, and unfriendly(which normally are highly related to the negative pole of FactorII) were unfortunately used as the labels for categories thatcombine aspects of Surgency (Factor I) and Disagreeableness(Factor II). Nonetheless, although one should expect some dif-ferences in factor structures from study to study, the basicmeaning of the factors must remain constant if they are to be


given the same labels. Specifically, to demonstrate the robust-ness of the Big-Five factor structure, it is necessary to show thatthe core variables associated with each factor (the factor de-finers in Table 2) play the same role when analyzed within othersubsets of variables.

Study 2

Rationale and Method

For inclusion in other studies, Norman's 75 categories havetwo major disadvantages. In the first place, the 1,431 terms inthat taxonomy are too numerous to be administered in a singletesting session. In addition, all of the classification decisionswere made by a single individual. To provide a more objectivebasis for such classifications, dictionaries and synonym finderswere used to classify trait adjectives into clusters of quasi-syn-onyms. As the criteria for this sorting task, the terms in a clusterhad to be independently judged by lexicographers as synonyms;in addition, their mean social-desirability ratings (Norman,1967) had to fall within a reasonably narrow range. The resultwas a set of 133 synonym clusters based on 479 commonly usedtrait adjectives. These 479 terms, all of which had been in-cluded in the inventory of 1,710 trait adjectives (1,710-TDA),were augmented by some others to form inventories of 566 and587 terms (for further details concerning the construction ofthese shorter inventories, see Goldberg, 1982).

Each of the 133 synonym clusters was treated as a personalityscale. Separate factor analyses of these 133 variables werecarried out within each of four samples, two of which providedself-descriptions and two of which provided peer descriptions.Sample D included the self-descriptions from those 187 sub-jects already described in Study 1, each of whom completed the1,710-TDA. Sample C included 320 other college students whodescribed themselves on the 587-TDA using the item formatthat was described in Studies 3 and 4 of Goldberg (198 lb); fourmiddle response options were provided {average or neutral, itdepends on the situation, don'tknow, and term unclearorambigu-ous), all of which were here given a midscale value of 0 on ascale ranging from - 3 to +3. Sample A included 316 of thesubjects from Sample C, who used the 587-TDA to describesomeone of their sex and approximate age whom they knewwell and liked. Sample B included 205 students in law schooland in an upper-division psychology course, roughly one thirdof whom were randomly assigned to describe one of three typesof peer targets: (a) "someone whom you know well and like as a.person," (b) "someone whom you know well but neither like nordislike'' or (c) "someone whom you know well and dislike as aperson." The targets were further specified in all three condi-tions to be "of the same sex as you are, and about your own age."Subjects in Sample B used the 566-TDA, with the same 8-step(transformed to 9-step) rating scale used by the subjects in Sam-ple D. Ratings of the three types of targets were pooled in theanalyses of Sample B.

Results

Self-ratings versus peer ratings. Because of space limitations,the findings from this study could not be presented in tabularform. Available from the author are the 133 variables analyzedin this study, including each of the terms in each cluster, the

coefficient alpha reliability estimates, and the mean correla-tions among the items. Because each of the clusters was de-signed to include only quasi-synonyms, they were all quite short(averaging fewer than 4 items each), and therefore their reliabil-ity coefficients would be expected to be low. The median ofthese alpha coefficients turned out to be .54, which is quite highfor scales of this length.

Also available from the author are tables presenting the fac-tor loadings from varimax rotations of five principal compo-nents analyzed separately in each of the four samples. Withineach sample, the Big-Five factor structure emerged quite clearly.Tucker's coefficient of factor congruence (Harman, 1967, p.257) was used as a quantitative index of the similarity betweenthe factors derived in each of the four samples. The mean con-gruence coefficients across the five factors ranged from .86(Samples B vs. D) to .94 (Samples A vs. C) and averaged .91.Moreover, the overall factor congruence between the two sam-ples of peer ratings (93) and between the two samples of self-ratings (.91) was not appreciably higher than that between theself and peer samples (90).

Of more theoretical interest, however, intersample con-gruence varied substantially by factor; the values for Factors I,II, and HI were all about .95, whereas those for Factors IV and Vwere both about .85. These findings, which replicate those re-ported by Peabody and Goldberg (1989) based on a set of 57bipolar scales selected to be representative of common traitadjectives (Peabody, 1987), reflect the differential distributionof variables associated with each of the Big-Five factors. Specifi-cally, within any pool of variables that is based on a reasonablyrepresentative sampling of the English lexicon of trait adjec-tives, there will be substantially more variables associated witheach of the first three factors than with each of the last two. Forexample, within the set of 133 synonym clusters there were, onaverage, twice as many variables associated with each of FactorsI, II, and III than with each of Factors IV and V

What lies beyond the Big-Five domains? The design of thisstudy permits a critical examination of the five-factor represen-tation, both because of the relatively large number of variablesunder study and because the simultaneous analysis of four sam-ples permits a direct test of factor replicability. Specifically, asprogressively more factors are rotated, one can discover howmany factors remain invariant across the four samples.

When additional factors were rotated in each of the foursamples, the results paralleled those from the analyses of the 75Norman categories in Study 1: The five original factors re-mained virtually invariant. Of even more significance, none ofthe additional factors replicated across the four samples. Inthree of the samples, Religiosity (Religious and Reverent) andNonreligiosity (Nonreligious and Irreverent) loaded highly inopposite directions on one additional factor, but the other vari-ables associated with that factor varied from sample to sample.In summary, then, this search for replicable domains beyondthe Big Five was not successful.

Study 3

Rationale

The inclusion in the 479 set of some peripheral terms such asthose tapping Religiosity and Nonreligiosity, the inelegance of


including among the 133 "clusters" a few single terms (for whichthere were no synonyms in the 1,710-TDA), and the low reliabil-ities of a few of the remaining clusters stimulated efforts torefine the set further. For this purpose, a new sample of subjectswas used to develop a refined set of synonym clusters, and thentwo of the samples from Study 2 were used to provide indepen-dent evidence of their factor structure.

Derivation of the 100 Revised Clusters

As a first step, the 479 trait adjectives were ordered alphabeti-cally and administered with instructions to describe oneself "asaccurately as possible," using a 9-step rating scale where 1 =extremely inaccurate as a self-description, 5 = I'm uncertain orthe meaning of the term is unclear, and 9 = extremely accurate asa self-description. Subjects in this study were 192 university un-dergraduates enrolled in an introductory course in personalitywho elected to complete a course-related battery of self-reportmeasures for extra credit. Subjects responded to these measuressemi-anonymously, using only numbers for identification. Tocorrect for individual differences in their rating means andvariances, the responses of each subject were standard (Z)scored across the items, and all analyses were carried out sepa-rately using both the original and the standard-scored responsevalues.

For each of the original 133 synonym clusters that had beenderived in Study 2, internal-consistency analyses were carriedout separately within each data set. As would be expected, theclusters tended to be slightly more homogeneous when basedon the original response values (M alpha = .55) than whenbased on the Z-scored data (Malpha = .48), demonstrating thatpart of the covariation in the original responses can be attrib-uted to individual differences in usage of the rating scales. Con-sequently, the standard-scored data were used to cull out theleast homogeneous items from each cluster, and in rare cases toadd an item that had been excluded from another cluster.Through an iterative process, the least homogeneous clusterswere eliminated, including all of the single items, and a few newsynonym sets were formed.

The result is a set of 100 clusters based on 339 trait adjectives.Table 3 lists the terms in each of the clusters, as well as theircoefficient alpha reliability estimates and mean item inter-correlations. Whereas the original 133 synonym clusters aver-aged 3.7 items, the corresponding length of the 100 revisedclusters was 3.4. Moreover, as would be expected to occur inthis derivation sample, the reliabilities of the new clusters werehigher than the old ones; the mean alpha was raised from .55 to.66 (original responses) and from .48 to .61 (Z-scores), whereasthe mean item intercorrelation was raised from .29 to .40 (origi-nal responses) and from .23 to .34 (Z-scores).

Five principal components were rotated by varimax sepa-rately within the original and Z-scored responses from this der-ivation sample, and clear versions of the Big-Five structureemerged; a table presenting both of these factor structures isavailable from Lewis R. Goldberg.

To provide independent replications of these factor struc-tures, two of the data sets from Study 2 were used. The selfsample included those 320 subjects in Sample C of Study 2 whoused the 587-TDA to describe themselves. The liked-peer sam-

ple included a subset of 316 of those subjects (called Sample Ain Study 2), who used the same inventory of 587 trait adjectivesto describe someone of their own age and sex whom they knewwell and liked.

Results

Table 4 presents the factor loadings from varimax rotationsof five principal components separately in the liked and the selfsamples. The congruence coefficients between the correspond-ing factors in the two data sets were .97, .97, .97, .93, and .92 forFactors I through V, respectively. Moreover, when the factorscores based on the 100 clusters were related to those based onthe original 133 synonym clusters derived in Study 2, the corre-lations were .99, .99, .98, .93, and .97 in the liked sample and.97, .98, .98, .93, and .96 in the «?//sample.

Clearly, then, the factors derived from the 100 clusters arevirtually identical to those derived from the 133 clusters, eventhough the former are based on 140 fewer terms. Moreover, the100 clusters provide essentially the same factor structure forself-descriptions as for descriptions of liked peers. And, finally,the factors displayed in Table 4 are nearly perfect examples ofthe Big-Five: Not only do each of the clusters load highly on thefactor with which they are normally most highly associated, butinstances of extreme factorial complexity are quite rare.

General Discussion

The major aim of this article has been to provide sufficientevidence to alleviate any qualms about the generality of theBig-Five structure. To this end, findings were presented to dem-onstrate factor robustness within a near-comprehensive set of1,431 trait adjectives across a wide variety of factor-analyticprocedures (Study 1), and within a representative set of 479commonly used terms across samples of both self- and peerdescriptions (Study 2). Moreover, in both studies it was possibleto assess the overall dimensionality of the pool of commonEnglish trait adjectives by examining successively more factorsbeyond the initial five. In no case was any additional factor ofany substantial size, and in Study 2 no additional factor demon-strated any significant amount of across-sample generality.

Consequently, it now seems reasonable to conclude that analy-ses of any reasonably large sample of English trait adjectives ineither self- or peer descriptions will elicit a variant of the Big-Five factor structure, and therefore that virtually all such termscan be represented within this model. In other words, trait ad-jectives can be viewed as blends of five major features, featuresthat relate in a gross way to Power, Love, Work, Affect, andIntellect (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). These features are clearlydimensional, rather than categorical, in nature (Chaplin, John,& Goldberg, 1988). Moreover, it has been shown that it is possi-ble to uncover a variant of the Big-Five structure from analysesof judgments of the semantic similarity among a representativeselection of trait descriptors (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989).

Given that the Big-Five structure seems to characterize therelations among English trait adjectives, it is reasonable to try todiscover its generality to other types of stimuli, as well as toother languages (Goldberg, 1981a). Although a preliminary tax-onomy of common English trait nouns has been constructed


Table 3The 100 Revised Synonym Clusters

Factor pole/cluster

1+SpiritGregariousnessPlayfulness

ExpressivenessSpontaneityUnrestraintEnergy levelTalkativenessAssertionAnimationCourageSelf-esteemCandorHumorAmbitionOptimism

T1 —

AloofnessSilenceReserveShynessInhibitionUnaggressivenessPassivityLethargyPessimism

TT4-

Cooperation

AmiabilityEmpathy

LeniencyCourtesy

GenerosityFlexibilityModestyMorality

Warmth

Earthiness

NaturalnessTTIl~

Belligerence

Overcriticalness

BossinessRudeness

CrueltyPomposityIrritabilityConceitStubbornnessDistrustSelfishnessCallousnessSurlinessCunning

Terms included

Enthusiastic, spirited, vivacious, zestfulExtroverted, gregarious, sociableAdventurous, mischievous, playful,

rambunctiousCommunicative, expressive, verbalCarefree, happy-go-lucky, spontaneousImpetuous, uninhibited, unrestrainedActive, energetic, vigorousTalkative, verbose, wordyAssertive, dominant, forcefulDemonstrative, exhibitionistic, flamboyantBrave, courageous, daringAssured, confident, proudDirect, frank, straightforwardHumorous, wittyAmbitious, enterprising, opportunisticCheerful, jovial, merry, optimistic

Seclusive, unsociable, withdrawnQuiet, silent, untalkativeDetached, reserved, secretiveBashful, shy, timidInhibited, restrainedUnadventurous, unaggressive, uncompetitiveDocile, passive, submissiveLethargic, sluggishBitter, joyless, melancholic, moody, morose,

pessimistic, somber

Accommodating, agreeable, cooperative,helpful, patient, peaceful, reasonable

Amiable, cordial, friendly, genial, pleasantConsiderate, kind, sympathetic, trustful,

understandingLenient, uncritical, undemandingCou'rtfeous, diplomatic, polite, respectful,

tactfulBenevolent, charitable, generousAdaptable, flexible, obligingHumble, modest, selfless, unassumingEthical, honest, moral, principled, sincere,

truthfulAffectionate, compassionate, sentimental,

warmDown-to-earth, earthy, folksy, homespun,

simpleCasual, easygoing, informal, natural, relaxed

Antagonistic, argumentative, combative,quarrelsome

Faultfinding, harsh, unforgiving,unsympathetic

Bossy, demanding, domineering, manipulativeAbusive, disrespectful, impolite, impudent,

rude, scornfulCruel, ruthless, vindictiveCondescending, pompous, smug, snobbishCrabby, cranky, irritable, grumpyBoastful, conceited, egocentric, egotistical, vainBullheaded, obstinate, stubbornCynical, distrustful, skeptical, suspiciousGreedy, selfish, self-indulgentCold, impersonal, insensitiveCaustic, curt, flippant, gruff, surlyCrafty, cunning, devious, sly

No.terms

434

3333333333234

333323327

7

55

35

3346

4

5

5

4

4

46

3445343354

a

Raw

.76

.62

.57

.71

.64

.52

.75

.68

.61

.55

.71

.67

.74

.61

.63

.71

.74

.80

.62

.79

.59

.56

.60

.65

.79

.66

.68

.72

.50

.75

.59

.45

.45

.77

.70

.49

.57

.78

.66

.73

.75

.74

.71

.87

.83

.64

.68

.66

.72

.79

.76

Z

.71

.58

.55

.67

.67

.49

.66

.64

.55

.48

.69

.65

.73

.58

.54

.71

.68

.79

.55

.77

.58

.58

.57

.49

.65

.68

.68

.72

.59

.72

.58

.46

.48

.74

.66

.51

.59

.67

.45

.65

.45

.55

.60

.82

.73

.63

.60

.57

.62

.63

.68

r

Raw

.45

.35

.25

.45

.37

.26

.50

.42

.34

.29

.46

.41

.49

.45

.36

.38

.48

.57

.35

.55

.42

.29

.34

.48

.35

.23

.30

.36

.24

.39

.33

.21

.17

.38

.38

.16

.21

.47

.33

.41

.34

.48

.39

.62

.50

.38

.36

.39

.47

.44

.45

Z

.38

.31

.24

.40

.39

.24

.39

.38

.29

.24

.43

.38

.48

.42

.28

.38

.41

.55

.29

.52

.41

.31

.31

.33

.21

.25

.30

.35

.31

.36

.32

.22

.19

.35

.34

.18

.23

.34

.17

.31

.13

.29

.28

.55

.35

.37

.28

.30

.35

.26

.35


Table 3 (continued)

Factor pole/duster

PrejudiceUnfriendlinessVolatilityStinginessDeceit

Thoughtlessness

OrganizationEfficiency

DependabilityPrecisionPersistenceCautionPunctualityDecisivenessDignityPredictabilityThriftConventionalityLogic

Il l-Disorganization

Negligence

InconsistencyForgetfulnessRecklessnessAimlessnessSlothIndecisivenessFrivolityNonconformity

IV+PlacidityIndependence

VI-Insecurity

FearInstabilityEmotionalityEnvyGullibilityIntrusiveness

V+Intellectuality

DepthInsightIntelligenceCreativity

CuriositySophistication

V -ShallownessUnimaginativenessImperceptivenessStupidity

M

Terms included

Bigoted, prejudicedUnfriendly, ungracious, unkindExplosive, tempestuous, volatileMiserly, stingyDeceitful, dishonest, underhanded,

unscrupulousInconsiderate, tactless, thoughtless

Orderly, organized, systematicConcise, exacting, efficient, fastidious, self-

disciplinedDependable, reliable, responsibleMeticulous, perfectionistic, preciseIndustrious, persistent, tenacious, thoroughCareful, cautiousPrompt, punctualDecisive, deliberate, firm, purposefulDignified, formal, mannerlyConsistent, predictable, steadyEconomical, thriftyConventional, traditionalAnalytical, logical

Disorganized, haphazard, inefficient,scatterbrained, sloppy, unsystematic

Careless, negligent, undependable,unconscientious, unreliable

Erratic, inconsistent, unpredictableForgetful, absent-mindedFoolhardy, rash, recklessAimless, unambitiousLazy, slothfulIndecisive, wishy-washyExtravagant, frivolous, impracticalNonconforming, rebellious, unconventional

Passionless, unexcitable, unemotionalAutonomous, independent, individualistic

Defensive, fretful, insecure, negativistic, self-critical, self-pitying

Anxious, fearful, nervousTemperamental, touchy, unstableEmotional, excitableEnvious, jealousGullible, naive, suggestibleIntrusive, meddlesome, nosey

Contemplative, intellectual, introspective,meditative, philosophical

Complex, deepForesighted, insightful, perceptiveBright, intelligent, smartArtistic, creative, imaginative, innovative,

inventiveCurious, inquisitiveCosmopolitan, cultured, refined, sophisticated,

worldly

Shallow, unintellectual, unreflectiveUncreative, unimaginativeImperceptive, unobservantDull, ignorant, unintelligent

No.terms

23324

3

35

33422433222

6

5

32322233

33

6

332233

5

2335

25

32233.4

a

Raw

.68

.76

.68

.67

.69

.69

.84

.61

.85

.71

.59

.70

.86

.53

.51

.60

.68

.57

.45

.80

.78

.50

.80

.70

.56

.52

.49

.61

.46

.63

.52

.78

.61

.66

.57

.73

.58

.71

.74

.63

.59

.81

.84

.61

.74

.63

.84

.52

.59

.66

Z

.59

.65

.56

.56

.45

.60

.84

.62

.82

.68

.52

.66

.87

.46

.47

.64

.70

.54

.43

.73

.67

.44

.77

.58

.57

.41

.50

.53

.43

.49

.46

.70

.48

.53

.44

.71

.56

.60

.71

.55

.56

.76

.81

.56

.74

.51

.84

.41

.49

.61

r

Raw

.51

.52

.42

.51

.35

.45

.63

.24

.66

.46

.26

.54

.76

.22

.27

.34

.51

.40

.30

.41

.43

.25

.67

.44

.39

.36

.33

.34

.22

.36

.27

.36

.34

.40

.40

.57

.31

.46

.36

.46

.35

.60

.53

.46

.37

.36

.74

.35

.33

.40

Z

.41

.38

.31

.39

.17

.34

.62

.24

.60

.42

.21

.50

.77

.17

.23

.38

.53

.37

.28

.32

.30

.21

.63

.31

.40

.26

.34

.27

.20

.23

.22

.27

.24

.28

.29

.55

.29

.33

.32

.38

.31

.52

.47

.40

.36

.25

.73

.26

.25

.34

Note. The two estimates of internal consistency—coefficient alpha and the mean interitem correlation(r)—were based on the original (raw) and standardized (Z) responses of 192 college students who describedthemselves using an inventory of 479 terms.


Table 4Varimax-Rotated Factor Loadings From the 100 Clusters in the Liked and the Self Samples

Factor pole/cluster

1+SpiritGregariousnessPlayfulnessExpressivenessSpontaneityUnrestraintEnergy levelTalkativenessAssertionAnimationCourageSelf-esteemCandorHumorAmbitionOptimism

ii—

AloofnessSilenceReserveShynessInhibitionUnaggressivenessPassivityLethargyPessimism

11+CooperationAmiabilityEmpathyLeniencyCourtesyGenerosityFlexibilityModestyMoralityWarmthEarthinessNaturalness

f ¥11 —

BelligerenceOvercriticalnessBossinessRudenessCrueltyPomposityIrritabilityConceitStubbornnessDistrustSelfishnessCallousnessSurlinessCunningPrejudiceUnfriendlinessVolatilityStinginess

I

Liked

.70*

.70*

.61*

.58*

.58*

.55*

.54*

.53*

.49*

.46*

.40

.48*

.44*35*37*.59*

-.78*-.78*-.66*-.66*-.59*-.57*-.48*-.46*-.55*

.0432.17

-.19.00.16.13

-JO-.10

37-.03

.22

.10-.11

.34-.04

.02-.04-.13

.14

.08-.29-.01-.38

.02

.18-.04-33

.23-.32*

Self

.63*

.73"

.58*

.60*

.48*

.55*

.60*

.58*

.56*

.45*

.45*

.51*34*.21*.42*.47

-.71*-.75*-.53*-.66*-.64*-.62*-.48"-.28-.52*

-.06.24.04

-.21.04.03.05

-39-.09

.19-.11

.19

.22-.19

.40-.07

.05

.05-.18

.16

.12-.35-.05- 3 2

.09

.23-.03- 3 8

.29"-.04

II

Liked Self

Factor

III

Liked

Factor I: Surgency

.27

.07

.01

.09

.26-.01

.09-.02-.46-.16-.04-.07-.01

.29-.06

.50

-.07.18

-.0235.16.4633

-.06- 3 7

35.13.01.05.29.01.18

-.05- 3 3-.14-.03

.08-.10

.07-.10

.59*

-.13.10

-.08.20.08.19.28

-.12- 3 5

.05-.06-.18

.04-.28- 3 2

.19-.14

.14-.21

.06

.25

.12-.12

36.08

-.01.14.04.06.15

-.06.01

-.26-.09

Factor II: Agreeableness

.77*

.61*

.74*

.63*

.55*36*.55*.56*.50*.54*.45*.45*

-.74*-.70*-.68*-.63*-.59*-.54*-.61*-.64*-.57*-.53*-.51*-.50*-.44*-.41*-.44*-.41*

.41*- 3 1

.72*

.60*

.70*

.49*

.48*

.48*

.54*

.40*

.48*

.50*

.40*

.44*

-.56*-.67*-J4*-.53*-.46*-.50*-.42*-.43*- 3 5 *-.49*-.44*-.48*-37*- 3 5 *—34*-38*-.23-36*

.25

.04

.21-.10

37.02.15.12.45.09.08

-.17

-.02.01.07

-.29-.02-.06-.04-.16-.07-.13-.22

.00-.08-.10-.09-.19-.10

.04

[

Self

.08-.03-.17-.01-.21-.14

.16-.09

.15-.14

.06

.24

.03-.04

.28

.01

-.07.11.03

-.01.12

-.21-.07-30*-.02

.27-.02

.16-.15

38.04.05.11.24.08.08

-.09

-.12-.07

.15-.29

.03

.00-.07-.21-.15-.12-.18-.05-.10

.12

.01-.26-.17

.04

IV

liked

-.07.03.00

-.07.11.17.18

-.24.24

-.07.42*.44.29.08.29.09

.01

.08

.00-.19-.13-.11- 3 5-.07-.29

.13-.11-.21

.24-.23-.04

.12

.08-.05- 3 7

.1835

-.14.08

-.09.26.13

-.15- 3 0-.02

.00-.02-.13

33.07.07.08.28

-.20-.03

Self

-.09-.07

.04-.08

.03

.07

.15-.14

.28

.023338.29

-.07.15.07

.13

.14

.17-.18

.01-.14-.20-.15-.24

.15-.08-.18

.16-.14

.03

.11

.02

.25-.44

.1237

-.07.08.04.28.12

-.07-.41

.02-.07-.01-.18

.42

.08

.05

.0430

-.26-.07

V

Liked

.10

.02

.10

.19-.07

.07

.06-.06

.11

.08

.10

.08

.06

.14

.19-.03

-.02.05

-.02-.06-.13-.10-.27-.10-.07

.00

.08

.06-.18

.18

.14

.04-.05

.10

.13-.21-.06

.01-.14

.00-.16-.22-.10-.05

.03

.04

.05

.04-.17-.26

.08-.17-.14-.06-.06

Self

-.01.03

-.10.21

-.16.09

-.09-.00

.09

.11-.09

.07

.17

.17

.21-.05

.05-.04-.05-.18-.08

.05- 3 2-.19-.06

-.13.07

-.07-.16

.08

.06

.03-.16

.01

.00- 3 2-.19

-.11-.03

.06-.07-.27-.12-.06

.21-.03

.14

.22-.01- 3 4

.08-.08-.07-.12

.04


Table 4 (continued)

Factor pole/cluster

DeceitThoughtlessness

OrganizationEfficiencyDependabilityPrecisionPersistenceCautionPunctualityDecisivenessDignityPredictabilityThriftConventionalityLogic

Il l -DisorganizationNegligenceInconsistencyForgetfulnessRecklessnessAimlessnessSlothIndecisivenessFrivolityNonconformity

IV+PlacidityIndependence

IV-InsecurityFearInstabilityEmotionalityEnvyGullibilityInstrusiveness

V+IntellectualityDepthInsightIntelligenceCreativityCuriositySophistication

V -ShallownessUnimaginativenessImperceptivenessStupidity

Liked

.09-.15

-.09-.06

.04-.13

.13-.26

.00

.18-.12-.20-.22-.21-.11

.05-.10

.04-.10

.20- 3 1-.20-.28

.14

.11

-.49.14

-.45-.15-.20

37-.03-.15

30"

-.27-.12

.06-.05

.09

.21

.08

-.10-.23-.20-.27

I

Self

II

Liked Self

Factor

III

Liked Self

Factor II: Agreeableness (continued)

.02-.04

-.43"-.49"

Factor III:

-.08-.05-.02-.06

.21-.24-.07

.19

.00-.12-.10-.15-.14

-.08.03.09

-.09.18

-.26-.26-.25

.13

.07

.03

.0331

-.06-.05

.14

.10-.09

.18

.20

.20

.24

.01

-.02-.22-.22-.05-.21

.06-.15

.04-.13-.15

Factor IV:

- 3 7.04

-.46-.21-.16

30-.11-.08

.17

-.21-.11

.00-.01

.09

.11

.15

-.03-.16-.17-.28

-.09-.07

- 3 0-.08-.42

.21-.26

.27-.24

- 3 1 "- 3 4

- 3 7- 3 7

-.10-.44"

Conscientiousness

.02

.10

.29-.08

.00

.10

.08-.02

.05

.21

.10

.09-.01

.04-.12-.17

.03-.25

.12-.10

.07-.12-.08

.71"

.75"

.67"

.54"

.56"

.55"

.58"

.56"

.53"

.49"

.49*

.41"

.45"

-XV-.75"-55"-.55"-.55"-.50*-.46*-.45"-.45"-.42*

.74"

.73"

.61"

.62"

.52"

.42*

.40"

.51'54*.48*.43"3730

-XV-.68*-.54"-.49*-AT-.29"-.42"-AS'-.40*- 3 3

Emotional Stability

-.14-.09

-.28-.08-.27

.10- 3 0

.27-.27

.04

.21

-.15.01

-.17-.05-.12-.22-.15

Factor V: Intellect

.23

.11

.25

.19

.13

.01

.12

-.09.04.08

-.08

.14

.14

.14

.08

.01

.03-.01

-.04.09.13.10

.02-.08

.24

.19

.02

.00

.26

-.06.09

-.23-.07

.03

.09

-.11-.02-.15-.07-.01-.20-.13

-.08-.11

.18

.06

.05-.13

.29*

-.04-.03-.20-.16

IV

Liked

.08

.27

-.02.19.12

-.0531

-.13.0639

-.1830.06

-.05.22

.00-.04-.19

.00

.01-.07

.00- 3 5-.22

.22

.54"38"

-.56"-.55"-.53*-.53*-.49*-37*-.18

.09

.02

.26

.24

.10

.11-.15

.04

.09

.06

.00

Self

.02

.21

.03

.12-.02

.09

.24-.02-.07

36-.18

.26

.13-.03

34

-.02.03

-.12-.15

.00

.03-.13-.25- 3 2

.24

.59*37*

-.53"-.61*- 5 8 *

cnaJ7-32'

-.46*-.29*

.13-.02

.07

.08

.12

.00-.01

.01

.02

.08-.05

V

Liked

-.21-.24

-.05.10.00.16.18.04

-.01.11.14

-.20-.16- 3 3

34

-.04-.09

.12-.01-.14-.26-.11-.11

.0636

-.06.26

.02-.05-.06

.08-.10- 3 2-.12

.64*

.62*

.50"

.54"

.59*34*.41*

-.66*-.51*-.49*-.49*

Self

-.17-.14

-.03.11

-.10.14.15

-.10-.01

.06

.02- 3 1-.09-.42"

39*

-.08-.06

.21

.01-.14-.08-.16-.04-.01

39"

-.0931

.04-.08

.11-.02-.15-.18-.22

.71*

.58"39*.58".55".24*.29

-.67*-.49"-.45*-.41"

Note. All values equal to or greater than±.3O are listed in boldface. The values are based on subject-stan-dardized responses in the liked fyi = 316) and the self (n = 320) samples.* Highest factor loading of each variable.


(Goldberg, 1980), no empirical analyses of these terms havebeen undertaken. On the other hand, analyses of Dutch traitnouns are already under way (de Raad & Hoskens, 1990), andthe first analyses of German trait adjectives suggest that theBig-Five structure may well characterize the terms in thatclosely related language (Angleitner, Ostendorf, & John, 1990;Ostendorf, 1990).

When one turns from single terms to multiword statements,the picture is less clear. In some factor analyses of scales fromone or more personality inventories, the investigators have in-terpreted their findings in terms of the Big-Five structure (e.g.,Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987), as have some reviewers (e.g., Dig-man, 1990; John, 1990), whereas other investigators have not(e.g., Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988). However, only instudies in which markers of the Big-Five structure have beenincluded is it possible to discover the actual degree of conver-gence. To solve this problem, Costa and McCrae (1985) haveused questionnaire statements to construct a personality inven-tory (the NEO Personality Inventory [NEO-PI]) based on theBig-Five structure, and these investigators have been activelytrying to assimilate the scales from a host of other inventorieswithin the Big-Five framework (e.g., Costa, Busch, Zonderman,& McCrae, 1986; Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa,1985,1987,1989).

In addition, the scales included in the NEO-PI have also beenused as Big-Five factor markers in an extensive study by Bor-kenau and Ostendorf (1989). In a sample of 300 German adults,these investigators analyzed 36 scales, including the 5 from theNEO-PI, 14 from the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jack-son, 1967), 11 from the Freiburger Personality Inventory (FPI;Fahrenberg, Hampel, & Selg, 1984), 3 from the Eysenck Person-ality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964), and 3 measuresof response bias. Within this set of scales, the congruence withthe Big-Five structure was exquisite: Factor I was defined by theExtroversion scales of the FPI, EPI, and NEO-PI; Factor II byAgreeableness (NEO-PI), Nurturance (PRF), Social Orienta-tion (FPI), and Affiliation (PRF) versus Aggression (PRF andFPI); Factor HI by Achievement (PRF), Conscientiousness(NEO-PI), Endurance (PRF), Order (PRF), and AchievementOrientation (FPI) versus Impulsivity (PRF); Factor IV by Emo-tionality (FPI), Neuroticism (EPI), Edwards's (1957) Social De-sirability scale, Proneness to Stress (FPI), Somatic Complaints(FPI), and Irritability (FPI); and Factor V by Openness (NEO-PI) and Understanding (PRF).

The 100 new synonym clusters developed in Study 3 provideanother set of Big-Five markers, which might now be includedin future investigations. An inventory of the 339 adjectives usedto score the 100 clusters is roughly the same size as the NEO-PI,and they both take about the same amount of time for self-de-scriptions. On the other hand, it should probably be easier tocollect descriptions of a target from knowledgeable informantsusing the adjective inventory than using the NEO-PI. A de-scription of the development of a number of more economicalsets of adjective-based Big-Five markers is the topic of anotherreport (Goldberg, 1990).

References

Allport, G. W, & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexicalstudy. Psychological Monographs, 47(1, Whole No. 211).

Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, E, & John, O. R (1990). Towards a taxonomyof personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study. Euro-pean Journal of Personality, 4, 89-118.

Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Be-havioral Science, 9, 8-17.

Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1989). Descriptive consistency and so-cial desirability in self- and peer reports. European Journal of Person-ality, 3, 31-45.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits re-solved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38,476-506.

Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles andfindings in a factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58,69-90.

Chaplin, W F, John, 0. P, & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions ofstates and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 541-557.

Costa, P. T, Jr., Busch, C. M., Zonderman, A. B., & McCrae, R. R.(1986). Correlations of MMPI factor scales with measures of the fivefactor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50,640-650.

Costa, P. T, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventorymanual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification:Murray's needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 55, 258-265.

de Raad, B., & Hoskens, M. (1990). Personality descriptive nouns. Euro-pean Journal of Personality, 4,131-146.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-fac-tor model. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W Porter (Eds.), Annual reviewof psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 417-440). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Re-views.

Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the fiverobust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 50,116-123.

Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natu-ral language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpre-tation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16,149-170.

Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personalityassessment and research. New Ybrk: Dryden.

Eysenck, H. J. (1981). General features of the model. In H. J. Eysenck(Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 1-37). New \brk: Springer-Verlag.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Person-ality Inventory. London: University of London Press.

Fahrenberg, X, Hampel, R., & Selg, H. (1984). Das Freiburger Person-lichkeitsinventar [The Freiburg Personality Inventory]. Gottingen,Federal Republic of Germany: Hogrefe.

Fiske, D. W (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personal-ity ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 44, 329-344.

Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36,179-185.

Goldberg, L. R. (1980). A catalogue of 1947 nouns that can be used todescribe personality and a taxonomy of 1342 nouns that are typicallyso used. Unpublished report, Oregon Research Institute.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981a). Language and individual differences: Thesearch for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.),Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981b). Unconfounding situational attributions fromuncertain, neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis ofdescriptions of oneself and various types of others. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 41, 517-552.

Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in thelanguage of personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.),


Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203-234). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). Standard markers of the Big-Five factor struc-ture. Unpublished report, Oregon Research Institute.

Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis (2nd ed}. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality Research Form Manual. Goshen,NY: Research Psychologists Press.

John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions ofpersonality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A.Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approachto personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. Euro-pean Journal of Personality, 2,YI\ -203.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psy-choticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personal-ity. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587-597.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factormodel of personality across instruments and observers. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

McCrae, R. R, & Costa, P. T, Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor modelof personality. Journal of Personality, 57,17-40.

Noller, P, Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Comrey, and Ey-senck personality factors compared: More evidence for the five ro-bust factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 775-782.

Norman, W T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personalityattributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personal-ity ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66,574-583.

Norman, W T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative

operating characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor: De-partment of Psychology, University of Michigan.

Ostendorf, F. (1990). SpracheundPersonlkhkeitsstruktur: ZurValiditatdes Funf-Fdktoren-Modells der Personlichkeit [Language and person-ality structure: On the validity of the five-factor model of personal-ity]. Regensburg, Federal Republic of Germany: Roderer Verlag.

Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 59-71.

Peabody, D, & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factorstructures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.

Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of mind. Psychological Review, 41,1-32.

Tupes, E. C, & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factorsbased on trait ratings (Technical Report No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lack-land Air Force Base, TX: US. Air Force.

Waller, N. G., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychol-ogy to embrace the five-factor model of personality? American Psy-chologist, 42, 887-889.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. XX (in press). Personality structure: Thereturn of the Big Five. In S. R. Briggs, R. Hogan, & W H. Jones (Eds.),Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What liesbeyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basicdimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 54, 96-107.

Received September 5,1989Revision received March 7,1990

Accepted June 19,1990

an alternative description of personality: the big-five...

Documents