John M. Digman

Bio: John M. Digman is an academic researcher from Oregon Research Institute. The author has contributed to research in topics: Big Five personality traits & Alternative five model of personality. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 5 publications receiving 2079 citations.

Higher-order factors of the Big Five.

Abstract: Estimated factor correlations from 14 studies supporting the 5 factor, Big Five model of personality trait organization--5 studies based on children and adolescents, 9 on adults--were factor analyzed. Two higher-order factors were clearly evident in all studies. One was principally related to the Big Five trait dimensions Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability; the other, the dimensions Extraversion and Intellect. Two models, one for children and adolescents, the other for adults, were tested by confirmatory factor analysis with generally excellent results. Many personality theorists appear to have considered one or both of these 2 metatraits, provisionally labeled alpha and beta.

The structure of temperament and personality in Russian children.

Abstract: Russian schoolchildren (N = 480) 8-10 years old were rated by their teachers on 60 scales drawn from 3 sources: the temperament literature, studies of child personality, and Russian educators. Analysis of 21 temperament scales produced 4 meaningful components: sociability, anger, impulsivity, and fear. Component scores formed from these scales were then analyzed in the context of the remaining scales, leading to a solution that demonstrated the usefulness of the Big Five for the organization of personality characteristics in the Russian language and culture. The high degree of relation between the temperament dimensions and 4 of the 5 personality dimensions supports the view of many developmentalists that temperament not only is a major component of personality but may be the foundation of personality.

The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis

Abstract: This study investigated the relation of the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of personality, Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job performance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining personality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion (across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types, but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small (ρ < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5-factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of personnel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.

The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.

Abstract: 2 Taxonomy is always a contentious issue because the world does not come to us in neat little packages (S. Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at various levels of Each of these levels has made unique contributions to our understanding of individual differences in behavior and experience. However, the number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). Researchers, as well as practitioners in the field of personality assessment, were faced with a bewildering array of personality scales from which to choose, with little guidance and no overall rationale at hand. What made matters worse was that scales with the same name often measure concepts that are not the same, and scales with different names often measure concepts that are quite similar. Although diversity and scientific pluralism are useful, the systematic accumulation of findings and the communication among researchers became difficult amidst the Babel of concepts and scales. Many personality researchers had hoped that they might devise the structure that would transform the Babel into a community speaking a common language. However, such an integration was not to be achieved by any one researcher or by any one theoretical perspective. As Allport once put it, " each assessor has his own pet units and uses a pet battery of diagnostic devices " (1958, p. 258). What personality psychology needed was a descriptive model, or taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, a taxonomy would permit researchers to study specified domains of personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique. Moreover, a generally accepted taxonomy would greatly facilitate the accumulation and communication of empirical findings by offering a standard vocabulary, or nomenclature. After decades of research, the field is approaching consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the " Big Five " personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality …

Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model

Abstract: L'auteur discute un modele a cinq facteurs de la personnalite qu'il confronte a d'autres systemes de la personnalite et dont les correlats des dimensions sont analyses ainsi que les problemes methodologiques

Remembering. A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge (University Press) 1964.

Abstract: Part I. Experimental Studies: 2. Experiment in psychology 3. Experiments on perceiving III Experiments on imaging 4-8. Experiments on remembering: (a) The method of description (b) The method of repeated reproduction (c) The method of picture writing (d) The method of serial reproduction (e) The method of serial reproduction picture material 9. Perceiving, recognizing, remembering 10. A theory of remembering 11. Images and their functions 12. Meaning Part II. Remembering as a Study in Social Psychology: 13. Social psychology 14. Social psychology and the matter of recall 15. Social psychology and the manner of recall 16. Conventionalism 17. The notion of a collective unconscious 18. The basis of social recall 19. A summary and some conclusions.

An alternative "description of personality": the big-five factor structure.

Abstract: 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.