Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.
TL;DR: Intercorrelations among ratings on 35 personality traits, selected as representative of the personality domain, were obtained for eight samples, which differed in length of acquaintanceship from 3 days to more than a year.
Abstract: Intercorrelations among ratings on 35 personality traits, selected as representative of the personality domain, were obtained for eight samples. These samples differed in length of acquaintanceship from 3 days to more than a year; in kind of acquaintanceship from assessment programs in a military training course to a fraternity house situation; in type of subject from airmen with only a high-school education to male and female undergraduate students to first-year graduate students; and in type of rater from very naive persons to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists with years of experience in the evaluation of personality. Centroid or multiple-group factors were extracted and rotated orthogonally to simple structure. For one study, an independent solution was obtained in which analytic rotations were accomplished on an IBM 650 computer using Kaiser's normal varimax criterion. Five fairly strong and recurrent factors emerged from each analysis, labeled as (a) Surgency, (b) Agreeableness, (c) Dependability, (d) Emotional Stability, and (e) Culture.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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).
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.
8,018 citations
01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: The Big Five taxonomy as discussed by the authors is a taxonomy of personality dimensions derived from analyses of the natural language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others, and it has been used for personality assessment.
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 …
7,787 citations
Cites background from "Recurrent personality factors based..."
...To clarify these factors, Tupes and Christal (1961) reanalyzed correlation matrices from eight different samples, ranging from airmen with no more than high-school education to first-year graduate students, and included ratings by peers, supervisors, teachers, or experienced clinicians in settings…...
[...]
...Moreover, reanalyses of Cattell's own correlation matrices by others have not confirmed the number and nature of the factors he proposed (e.g., Tupes & Christal, 1961; reprinted 1992)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the auteur discute un modele a cinq facteurs de la personnalite qu'il confronte a d'autres systemes de the personNalite and don't les correlats des dimensions sont analyses.
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
6,111 citations
TL;DR: The generality of this 5-factor model is here demonstrated across unusually comprehensive sets of trait terms, which suggest their potential utility as Big-Five markers in future studies.
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.
5,621 citations
TL;DR: Two data sources--self-reports and peer ratings--and two instruments--adjective factors and questionnaire scales--were used to assess the five-factor model of personality, showing substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors.
Abstract: Two data sources--self-reports and peer ratings--and two instruments--adjective factors and questionnaire scales--were used to assess the five-factor model of personality. As in a previous study of self-reports (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), adjective factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness-antagonism, and conscientiousness-undirectedness were identified in an analysis of 738 peer ratings of 275 adult subjects. Intraclass correlations among raters, ranging from .30 to .65, and correlations between mean peer ratings and self-reports, from .25 to .62, showed substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors. Similar results were seen in analyses of scales from the NEO Personality Inventory. Items from the adjective factors were used as guides in a discussion of the nature of the five factors. These data reinforce recent appeals for the adoption of the five-factor model in personality research and assessment.
5,462 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, an analytic criterion for rotation is defined and the scientific advantage of analytic criteria over subjective (graphical) rotational procedures is discussed, and a computational outline for the orthogonal normal varimax is appended.
Abstract: An analytic criterion for rotation is defined. The scientific advantage of analytic criteria over subjective (graphical) rotational procedures is discussed. Carroll's criterion and the quartimax criterion are briefly reviewed; the varimax criterion is outlined in detail and contrasted both logically and numerically with the quartimax criterion. It is shown that thenormal varimax solution probably coincides closely to the application of the principle of simple structure. However, it is proposed that the ultimate criterion of a rotational procedure is factorial invariance, not simple structure—although the two notions appear to be highly related. The normal varimax criterion is shown to be a two-dimensional generalization of the classic Spearman case, i.e., it shows perfect factorial invariance for two pure clusters. An example is given of the invariance of a normal varimax solution for more than two factors. The oblique normal varimax criterion is stated. A computational outline for the orthogonal normal varimax is appended.
6,754 citations
1,670 citations
920 citations
TL;DR: Factorization yielded eleven factors, of which, on “blind” rotation for simple structure, 9 or 10 proved to be identical with those of the previous study.
Abstract: In connection with a study bridging rating, questionnaire, and objective test factors, confirmation was sought with respect to the twelve personality factors previously found for young adult men. Variables were chosen to clarify and discriminate the nature of related factors. Ratings of and by 373 students were obtained, and the present study describes the separate factorization for the 133 men among them. Factorization yielded eleven factors, of which, on “blind” rotation for simple structure, 9 or 10 proved to be identical with those of the previous study. A new factorM is described.
321 citations
285 citations