Digman on Five Factor Model

8/12/2019 Digman on Five Factor Model

1/24

A Pl 0 :-0C 0 b Al All

PERSONALITY STRUCTURE:

EMERGENCE OF THE FIVE-FACTOR

ODEL

Jh M. m

D U H M 6

CONTENTS

ROLOUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 TE FIVEFACTOR MODEL: A RAND UNFIED TEORY FOR ERSONALITY 4 1

ISTORICAL ROOTS OF TE IVE ROBUST DIMENSIONS OF ERSONALITY 4 1

TE RECENT LITERATURE ON TE FIVEACTOR MODEL 421Suis s n Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421rra f h D 4Th FivFr M s Rrsn in Qusinnir Din 425Th FivFr M n hvir 427

OTER ERSONALITY SYSTEMS AND TE BI FIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Ct's Ss 4snk's Ss 42

Guirs Ss 429Murras Ss 4Th nrprsn Cir 43Liguisi nss n h FivFr M 43

TEORETICAL CONJECTURES: WY FIVE DIMENSIONS . 432

CORRELATES OF ERSONALITY DIMENSIONS . . . . . 43Hribii f rsnit 432Dir Msurs f i un 432Crss Cuur Cprisns 433Msuini Fininit n h ig Fiv 434 r s n i t S b i i t 434

METODOLO ICAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435T h P r s n v s S i u i n D b 45 g g r g i n 435

E I L O U E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

400664308/90020047$0200

Annu.Rev.Psychol.1990.41:417440.Downloadedfromwww.annualr

eviews.org

byUniversityofChicagoLibrarieson07/01/13.

Forpersonaluse

only.


2/24

48 DG

PROLOGUE

William McDougal (932) writing in the rst issue of Character andPersonali (which later became the Joual of Personali), discussed atlength the special meanings of "chaacter and "personality for e twolanguages in which the new joal was to be pubished. Toward the end ofhis essay, he offered an interesting conjecture: "Personality may to advantae broadly anayzed into ve distinguishabe but sepable factors, namely,intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper each of theseis highly complex [and] comprises many ariables (p 15).

Although "factor, as McDougal used the term, is closer to "topic than tocontemporary usage of the term, the suggestion was an uncanny anticipationof the results of half a century of work to organize the language of personaity

into a coherent sucture

THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL: A GRAND.UNIFIED

THEORY FOR PERSONALITY?

T v f v structure of the concepts of personaity (ie. the language of personality). It

now appears quite likely that what Norman (1963)offered many yeas ago as

an effort "toward an adequate taxonomy for personaity atibutes has matured into a theoretical sucture of surising generality, with stimulatinglinks to psycholinguistics and css-cultural psychology, cognitive theory,and other areas of psychology Futhe work wil no doubt bring change, andclarication is needed at many points. Nonetheless, the hope that the methodof factor analysis would bring a clarity to the domain of personality, a hopevoiced years ago by Eriksen (1957) and Jensen (1958), seems close toz

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF TE FIVE ROBUST FACTORSOF ESONALITY

As an excellent review by ohn et a (988) points out, systematic efforts toorganize the language of personaity began shortly after McDougal's suggestion, although such efforts appear to be more surely linked to two Germanpsychologists, Klages (926) and Baumgarten (1933) than to McDougallKlages suggested that a carel analysis of language would assist the un

derstanding of personality, and this stimulated Baumgarten to examine per

sonality terms commonly found in the German languageAs ohn et al note, the efforts of Baumgarten had little effect on the course

of German psychology but did inluence Allport Odbert (1936) to un-


eviews.org

byUniversityofChicagoLibrari

eson07/01/13.

Forpersonaluse

only.


3/24

FVEFCTOR ODEL 419

derake heir own eaminaion of anuage and his was o have a direceffec on research eors ha foowed, beginning wih he sysemaic work ofCae 194, 1946 1947 1948

Cae's sysem based on facor-anayic sudies of peer raings of coege

sudens and aer eended o boh he quesionnaire and objeciveesreams was wecomed in many qaers as a more obecie apach o heorganiaion of he hosands of erms in he Engish or any) anguage used

o describe individa dierences The sysem, however, was of daningcompeiy empoying a minimum of 6 primary facors and8 second-orderfacors Cae e a 1970 Even a he ime of pubicaion of he secondraing sudy by Cae 1948, Banks 948 was hihy criica of he anaysisand oered an aeaive and mch siper anaysis of Cae's correaions

Effors o repicae h eary rain sudies of Cae began wih hecarefuy crafed sudies of iske 1949 Using 21of Cae's bipoar scaes,iske was unabe o find evidence fo anyhing more compe han a fivefacor soion Dubious abou he meaing of hese facors; iske noneheessrovided inerpreaions ha are no f off he mark of conemporary viewsiskes work ahough pbished in a oua frequeny read by personaiyresearchers, appears o have had ie eec on he deveopmen of he hreesysems so commony found in personaiy ebooks eg eshback Weiner 1982; addi 1989: ha is h sysems of Eysenck 1970 Guiford

1975 and Cae 1965Toward he end of he 1950s an merican ir orce aemp o redic

ocer eeciveness was nderaken by Tupes 1957 Subsequeny, Tupes Chrisa 1961repored heir facor nayses of he0 Cae bipoar scaeshey had used in he earie sudy Like iske before hem, hey were unabe ond anyhing ike he deree of compeiy Cae had repored b agreedwih iske ha five facors appeared accon for he observaions remark

aby we Tupes Chrisa wen on o reanaye Cae's earier work basedon he pbished correaions) and iskes correaions finding a of hem in

raher good agreemen in erms of ve facors: Surgecy AgreeabeeDepedabiiy Emia Sabii and Cuure.

Unforunaey he Tupes Chrisa sudy was pubished in an obscure irorce echnica repor and remained unknown o viruay a personaiyresearchers, whie he pubicaions of Cae and Eysenck dominaed heieraure on personaiy srucure as eading modes obained by facor anaysis mehods

orman 196 however knew of he repor and repicaed he five-facorsrucure, offering he rai dimensions as seps oward an adequae aon

omy of personaiy aribues Oher sudies corroboraing he work of iskeand Tupes Chrisa were hose of Borgaa 1964 and Smih 1967Borgaa aware of he repor by Tupes Chrisa devised a se of behavior


eviews.org


eson07/01/13.

Forpersonaluse

only.


4/24

40 DG

descptors for peer ratngs to relect the fve factors obtained by Tupes Chstal Acoss ve methods of data gatherng n the course of a study ofsma group nteracton Borgatta found fve stable actors Hs ntepretatons

have a curent ng to the Asseiveness Likeabili Emoionali In-elligene and Respnsibili Sth (96) usng a set of bpoar scaes

from Cattel's studes for a stdy of peer ratngs of college students foundevdence for ony ve factors

Noman (96) contnued futher nvestgatng vaous eves of abstracton downward from the fve-factor evel through an ntermedate evel andeventually avng at a threetered eve of abstracton of personaty descrptors Snce t s as sued by vualy a trat theorsts despte thercrtcs) that personalty trats however as sessed have ther nks to behavor

a basc eve s the specc response to a specfc stuaton Responses ftypcay made to prototypc s tuatons are seen as habts act frequencesbehavor aggregates or specc tes on nventores eg "I s edo thnabout the future") Fgure represents these four leves of abstracton At thefourt eve are the fve broad constructsthe g Fvegenerated bysys tematc trat research of the past 0 years

The usefulness of one of these rai constructs was soon demonsated ySmth (96) and by N Wggns et a (969) Usng characterstcs denotngthe constrct often referred to as Respons bty or Conscentousness these

nvestgators noted the mpressve predctons that coud be made n the areaof educatonal acheveent for undergraduate and graduate s tudents

Thus ore than 20 years ago the doan of personaty attrbutes hadbeen successfuy anayzed not just once but by fve copetent ndependentnvestgatos all of whom came to the same general concuson that thedoan could be adequatey descrbed by fve superordnate constructs Thenas now some derence of opnon exsted about the ntepretaton of theseconstructs

One mght suppose gven the robustness of the s tudes conducted by

ndependent nvestgators that res earch would net have focused on thesedmensons carfyng them and seeng ther antecedents and correates asevdenced n personaty deveopent and poant fe events Howeverthe tmes were not ght for these pursuts Frst many psychologsts shftedthe attenton to s sues that seeed to have greater soca reevance for theate 960s and 90s Second a s trong attack was launched upon the entreed of trat reseach by Msche (96 Peterson (960) Umann Krasner(95) and other boagan fundamentasts who ecorated trat theory asakn to s centc sn whe others DAndrade 965 Shweder 95 Wegner

Vaacher 9 dsssed the stud of personaty trats as tte ore thanlusons generated n the heads of pesonaty resechers and ther sujectsalke Thrd the nuence of radcal behavorsm on a cosely reated feld


eviews.org

byUniversityofChicagoLibrarieson07/01/13.

Forpersonaluse

only.


5/24

leve 4Traits

eve 3ChactersticsScaesFace

eve2HabtsAl requiesDsponsItems

eveReps

FVFCOR MODL 42

gur Four ve o ab raon, om f bhavor o ai

oc pcoog o of u g D & 98Mgm 93) m o mo ovwmg fuc of uo upo bvo A mpo pp b Fu Oz 983) v mo u fo uo vw mp gomuc o vc cug fc uo vb uu o ccou fo mo 5% of co vc pug po pp o b cco w p of m, bow pcoog cu cc g

THE RECENT ITERTURE ON THE FIVE-FCTORMODEL

Studies Based on Ratings

p c p cg fvfco moA u of wok o xc Gobg 98) o obu of mo g " ou b pob o gu c any o fo ucug vu c w v o comp om vomg k bg fv mo p 59)

Gobg fu ugg fv mo mo of g cou pov fmwok fo m oc ogzo of p-o cocp, cug vw of C 95) Nom 93)ck 90) Gufo 95) Ogoo 95) Wgg 980)

Dgm & kmooCock 98) z x u b og cug cc wok of C Fk, po obu of fvfco ouo of g om cocug fv fco f b Fk b up C p "

mpv oc ucu Regardless of whether teachers rate chil-ren, oicer canidates rate one another college students rate one another

An

nu.Rev.Psychol.1990.41:41744

0.Downloadedfromwww.annua

lreviews.org

byUniversityofChicagoLibrarieson07/01/13.Forpersonalus

eonly.


6/24

422 DGMA

r linil t member rte grute trinee. the reult re pret muhthe me" (pp. 1645.

Hogan (193 reviewing many stuies o trait organization suggeste that

six major imensions woul probably encompass all the particulars oobservation as i Bran (94 he principal ierence between thesixactor an the iveactor moel seems to involve a splitting o the usuaExtraversion imension into sociabiit an activity. [In the Hogan ersonal-ity Inventory (Hogan 196 Extraversion is ivie into Ambition (surgencyor ascenancy an Sociability.]

Recently, Golberg (unpublishe as provie what he consiers to be"stanar marers o the Big Five a et o 50 selrating scales 10 or eacho the ive trait imensions Reliability estimates or actor scores orme by

unweighte summation o scale scores vary between 4 an 9 Golbergalso note that te scores thus obtane correlate highly with the ve traitscores o the Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness ersonality Inventory(NEOI (Costa & cCrae 195 an inventory specially tailore alongte lines o te FiveFactor oel.

cCrae & Costa (l95b ae 40 rating scales to a set o 40 evelopepreviously by Golberg (93 Sbjects rom the Baltimore ongituinalStuy on Aging were rate by our or ve peers wo new them well. Factoranalysis o the 0 scales pointe to a amiliar iveactor solution. Trait

scores obtaine by unweighte summation o scale values correlate generally in te high .40s with scores obtane by selreport, using a selreportversion o the same instrument.

Interpretations of the Dimensions

While airly goo agreement appears to be eveloping conceing the numbero necessary imensions, tere is less accor with respect to their meaning.Table 1 is base on te eorts o Golberg (19, Hogan (193, Bran(194, Digman (19 an John (199 to organie te various iveactorsolutions that have been note

There is general agreement that Dimension I is Eysencs (194 Ex-traversion/Introversion an tat IV represents te presence an eects onegative aect or Tellegen's (195 Negative Emotionality To line up withthe vast wor o Eysenc over the years, Dimension IV is usually reee tos Neuroticism vs Emotional Stabilty Here, then, are the original Eysenc"Big Two, rst elineate over 40 years ago.

Dimension II has generally been interprete as Agreeableness (Tupes &Christal 1961 Norman 1963; Goberg 191 Costa & cCrae 195Agreeableness, however seems tepi or a imension that appears to involvethe more humane aspects o umaniyharacteristics such as altruism nur


eviews.org


eson07/01/13.

Forpersonaluse

only.


7/24

Table 1 The five obust dmensons of personalty fro Fske (1949) to the present

Author II I

Fske (99) socal adaptablt confomt wll to acheve"Esenck (970) extaversion P s c h o t c i s mupes Chrstal 96) surgec agreeableness dependabltNoman (963) surgec agreeableness conscientousnessBorgatta (964) asseveness likeabilit task nterestattell (957) exva coteta superego strength

Guilford (975) social actvit paranod dsposto thnkng intoversonDgman (988) extaerson frendl complance wll to achieveHogan (986) sociablt ambtion lkeablit pdenceosa Mcrae 985) exaveson ageeabeness conscenousnesseabod Goldberg (989) power love workBuss Plomin (984) activt socabilit impulsvitellegen (985) posite emotioalit constraintL (98) ntepersonal nolve- level of socializaton self-cotol

ent

Not in the orginal analysis but noted a re-analysis y Dgma & Takeot-Cock (981).

IV

emotonal contrl

neurotcis

emotionalitemotional

emotionalitaxet

emotona sabilitneuroticsmadjustment

neucsmaffect

emotionalit

negatve emotionalit

emotiona sabilit

nquring intellect

cultre

cultrentelligence

intelligence

intellect

intellectance

openessntellect

independent

:

Documents

Digman on Five Factor Model