PERSONALITY RESEARCH,

METHODS, AND THEORY

A Festschrift Honoring Donald W. Fiske

cditcd by

Patrick E. Shrout
New York University
Susan T. Fiske
University of Massaeh usetts at Anlherst

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

1995 Hillsdale, New Jersey
Hove, UK

CHAPTE(\

3
WHAT THE HELL TOOK So LONG?
DONALD W. FISKE AND THE l3IG-FIVE

FAGOR

STRUGURE

Lewis rt Goldberg
Universiry of Oregon ond Oregon (\eseorch Insrirure

If a 11l0dern-day Rip van Winkle had been asleep during the 40-year interval
between 1949 and 1989, he would have been slartled upon a\vakening by the
alnount of scientific progress that had occurred in genclics and nledicinc, space
science, nlaterials technology, conlpute." science, and even in lhe cognitive,
behavioral, and neurosciences. On lhe olher hanu. if he had becn pat1icularly
inlerested in the n10st basic and fundamental problenl in personality psychologylhe slruclure of hunlan pcrsonality lraits-,he would \vonder why it had laken 40
years to begin to develop a scientific consensus about an appropriate taxononlic
nlodel. In this chapter, I briefly describe sonle of the events leading to loday's
en1erging consensus on a structuraJ represenlation for phenolypic personality truits.
highlighting lhe historieal significance of Donald Fiske's (1949) senlinal analyses.
1 thcn point out sonle of the obstncles to scicntific agreenlent that occurrcd betwccn
lhe publication of Fiske's report and the .present-day enlerging consensus. nlC
overall ainl of this chaptcr is to provok~,lconjcctures about those praeticcs and
procedures that could help ensure that fulure research on lhe "cutting edge' in
pcrsonaJity psychology will nol always take so torturously long lO be acecpted.

THE DIG-FIVE FAcrOR STRUcrURE

Thc seareh for a taxononly of individual differcnces is an aneient one: Humans
have continuously sought to nlake sense of the nlyriad characteristics t!ley observe
in others around thenl. However, until the present eentury t efforts to c<;lnstruct
29

30

GOLDDERG

taxononlic rcpresentations for human differences have relied on individual

intuitions, such as those of Aristot)e, who developed an early c1assification of
human character traits. To develop a truly scientific nlodcl of individual
differences, two fundamental problems had to be solv~d: ('l) how to obtain a
representative, if not comprehensive, set of such attributes; and (b) how to c1assify
or categorizc those attributcs into a structural nux]el. The first problenl was solved
by Sir Francis GaIton, who may have been the first scientist lo recognize explicitly
the fundanlental "Iexical hypothesis" (viz., that the most important individual
differences in hunlan transactions will come to be encoded as single tenns in
sonle or all of the world's languages). Moreover, Galton (1884) was certainly
one of the first scientists to consult a dictionary as a means of estimating the
nunlber of pcrsonality-descriptivc terms in the lexicon, and to appreciate the
extent to which trait tertns share aspects of their nleanings. Galton's eslinlate of
lhe nunlber of personality-related tcrms in English was later sharpcned
elnpirically, firsl by AlIport and Odbcrt (1936), who culled such temlS froln the
second edition of Webster' s Ullabridged Dictionary, and later by Norman (1967),
who supplemented the earlier list with tenns fronl lhe lhird edition. Galton's
insight conceming the relations anlong personality temlS has been nlirrored in
efforts by later investigators to discover the nature of those rclations, so as to
construct a structural representation of personal ity descriptors.
What Galton Iacked were the procedures for constructing such a taxonolnic
nlodel. That problem was sol ved with the development of the broad c1ass of
statistical techniques refelTed to generically as factor analysis. Moreover, the
father of factor analysis, L. L. Thurstone, becanle the first scientist to use lexical
nlaterials to test his new technique; he administered 60 conlnlon trait adjectives
to 1,300 subjects who used thenl to describe sonleone they knew well. Ana)yses
of the cOlTelalions anlong the 60 terms across lhe 1,300 subjects revealed five
broad factors, which led Thurstone (1934) to assert that u the scienlific
description of pcrsonalily nlay not be so hopelessly conlplcx as it is sonletimes
thought 10 be" (p. 14).
Curiously, 111urslone never followed up on his nitial analysis of personalitytrail temls. Inslead, the first scientist lo devote systenlatic attention to lhe problenl
was Raynlond B. Cattell, who began his personality explorations with a pcrusal
of the approximately 4,500 trait-dcscriptive temlS inc1uded in lhe Allporl and
Odbcrt compendium. Callell (1943) used this trail list as a starting point,
eventually devcloping a set of 35 highly conlplex bipolar variables, each poJe of
which includcd a composite set of adjectives and phrases. These variables were
lhen elnployed in various sludies, in each of which lhe correlations an10ng the
variables were factored using oblique rotational procedurcs (e.g., Cattell, 1947).
Cattell has repealcdJy c1ainled to have identified at lcast a dozen oblique
factors. However, when Cattell's variables were later analyzed by others, only
five factors proved lo be repJicable (e.g., Dignlan & Takenlolo-Chock, 1981;
Fiske, 1949; Nomlan, 1963; Smith, 1967; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Similar

3. FISKE ANO THE BIG-FIVE FACfOR'STRUCfURE

31

five-factor structures bascd on othcrscts of variables have been reported by a

number of other investigators (e.g., Borgatta; 1964; Digman & Inouye, 1986;
Goldberg, 1990, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1985a, 1987), and these studics havc
now becn revicwed extensivcly (c.g., Digman, 1990; John, 1990; McCrac &
John, 1992; Wigg~ns & Pincus, 1992; Wiggins & Trapnell, in prcss).
TIlese "Big-Fivc" factors have traditio'nally becn numbcrcd and labcled: (1)
Surgency (or Extraversion), (II) Agreeableness, (In) Conscientiousness, (IV)
Emotional Stability (vs. Neuroticism), and (V) Culture} More rccently, Factor V
has bccn rcinterprctcd as InteUect (e.g., Digman & Takemoto*Chock. 1981;
Peabody & Goldbcrg, 1989) and Openness lo Experience (c.g . McCrae & Costa,
1987).
Although therc is sorne disagreement about the precise nature of these fivc
dornains, there is widcspread agreelTIcnt that some aspccts of the language of
pcrsonality description can be organized hierarchically (e.g., Cantor & Mischcl,
1979; Hampson t John, & Goldberg, 1986). In such a representation, the Big-Five
domains are Iocated at the highest levelthat is stin descriptive of bchavior, with
only general evaluation locatcd at a higher and more abstract level (John,
Hanlpson, & Goldberg, 1991). When lhus viewed hicrarchically, it shouJd be
clear that proponcnts of lhe five~faclor nlodel have never intended to reduce lhe
rich tapestry of personality to a nlere five traits. Rather, they scek lo providc a
scientific,llly compelling framcwork in which to organizc the nlyriad individual
differences tha1 characterize humankind.
Indeed, these broad donlains incorporate hundreds, jf not thousands, of traits:
Factor 1 (SlIrgency or EXlraversion) contrasts traits such as Talkativeness,
Assertiveness, and Activity Level with traits such as Silellce, Passiv;ty, and
Reserve; Factor n (Agreeableness or Pleasalltlless) contrasts traits such as
Kindness, Trust, and Warmth wilh traits such as Hostility, Selflslmess, and
Dislrust; Factor III (CoIIscientiousness or Depenclability) contrasts traits such as
Organizarioll, Thorouglmess. and Re lia bi/ity with traits such as Carelessness,
Negligence, and Unrelia/iUity, Factor IV (Emotio1lal Stabi!ity vs. Neuroticisl1')
contrast traits such as Imperturbability and Calmness wilh traits such as
Nervousness, Moodiness, and TemperanJcllrality; and Factor V (lntellect or
Opelllless lO Experience) contrasts traits such as Imaginatioll, Curiosit)', ano
Creativity with traits such as Shallowness and buperceptiveness .

lAs pointcd out by Peabody and Goldberg (1989), the interpretalion of Factor V as Cullure arose
from a historieal acddent: Although Callell had initially constructed a subset of variables reJaling to
me/lc:I, in lhe seminal sludies of Canell (1947) he omittcd all .hose variables in favor of an
intelligence test. In tumo this test was omiucd from his I~tcr studies. leaving no direct rcpresentation
of most mcllccl variables. In lheir abscnce. Factor Vwas cancd Culturc by Tupes and Chrislal
( 1% 1) and so me laler investigators. However. when variables related 10 II/ellcel were reintroouced
(e.g . Goldbcrg. 19(0). il beca me clear lhat lIlcllcel was lhe more appropriale label for lhe fiflh
broad factor.

02

GOLDDERG

THE REMARKAOLE CONTRIOUTION OF DONALD W. FISKE

Whereas Thurstone (1934) found the correct number of broad pcrsonality factors,
his collection of 60 trait adjectives was too idiosyncratically assembled lo have
produced today's Big-Five structure. Instead, lhe honor of first discovery must
be accorded to Fiske (1949), who analyzcd a set of 22 variables devclopcd by
Caue1J, and found five factors that replicated across sanlp)es of self-ratings,
observer ratings, and peer ratings. Fiske's labcls for his factors, like those
proposed by subscquent invcstigators, can be viewed as never perfectly successful
attenlpts to capture the prototypical content of these broad domains-Confidellt
SelfExpression (Big-Five Factor 1), Social Adaptability (Factor I1), COllformity
(Factor UI), Emotional Control (Factor IV), and Inqlliring ntellect (Factor V).
Of these five labcls, four could still be used loday; only ConJormily seenlS too
narrow and undesirable lo capture lhe nlany aspccts of responsibiJity and
dependability inherent in Big-Five Factor III (Conscientiousness).
In Fiske 's article, entitled "Consislency of the Factorial Structures of
Personality Ratings from Different Sources," he acknowledged the earlier
contributions of Cattell (1947), and noted that no one had yet compared lhe factor
slructures obtaincd fronl different typcs of raters. He asked, "Do (he factors in
self-ratings bear any resemblanceto the factors in ratings by pcers? Are lhe
factors fronl either of these sources conlparable to those found in lhe ratings of
trained el inicians?" (p. 329). To answer lhese questions, he analyzed the ratings
of 128 111en \vho were about to enter graduate schools in cJinical psychology and
who ha attended one of lhe week-Iong asscssnlcnt sessions held at lhe University
of Michigan in the sumnler of 1947; the details of this Veterans Adnlinistration
Selection Research Projectare reported in the c1assic vo)ume by Kelly and Fiske
(195). The subjects described thenlselves and were described by three peers
and three rnembcrs of the assessment staff with 42 variables, of which 22 had
been adapted from lhe set developed by CaUell () 947); 4111 ratings were made on
8-step sca)es. The self-ratings, median peer ratings, and the pooled staff ratings
for lhe 22 Cattell variables were factored separatcly and then conlpared.
That sounds easy. Today it would be. However, 45 years ago, before lhe
conlputcr revolution, all analyses had to be carricd out by hand calculator. With
lhe help of his wife, Barbara, the Fiskes hand-calculated the correlations anlong
lhe 22 variables, hand-extracted five centroid faclors, hand-rotated those factors
by Thurstone's nlethod of extended vcctors, and then hand-calcuJaled lhe
transfomlation tnatrices between the unrotated and rotated factors, as \vell as lhe
correlations anl0ng the rotated factors. Moreover, they did all this three
tinles--once for each of lhe three data sources. Final1y, to compare the three
solutions, they hand-correlated the rotated factor loadings from each data source
with lhe loadings fronl the other two sources.
Fiske caBed lhe five factors he discovered recurrent factors to enlphasize their
similarity across lhe three data sources. He lhen conlpared his own five recurrenl

3. FISKE ANO TItE BtO-AVE FACfOR STRUCfURE

factors with the much larger number rcportcd by CattelI, and expressed his
feelings about the correspondence bctwcen lli lwO solutions: "A thorough study
of these two sets of factors, one from Catten and one fron10ur ratings by
teamnlates, leaves one with feelings of both optinlism and discouragement. Even
in the face of no cpmplcte congruence, the similarities support a belief in the
possibility of eventual agreement upon the basic variables in personality" (p.
341). Note the similarity between that last sentence and the one quoted earHer
fron1 1l1urstone (1934). who also obtained five personality factors.

PUITING IT ALL TOGETHER: THE DECADE OF THE 1960s

Before 1950, then, at least two separate five-factor models of phcnotypic
personality traits had appeared in the scientific lilcrature-both with roots in !he
lcxicographie tradition, but each using a differcnt set of trait-descriptivc variables.
Fiske (1949) did nol cite Thurstone (1934). although he did cite Thurstone's
textbook on multiple-factor analysis. Cattell (1947), who also did not cite
Thurstone t reported the findings fronl ana1yses of his 35 variables. soon followcd
by additional analyses oC the same or sinlilar variables in otber sanlples. In each
of his analyses, CaUell extractcd and rotatedat least 12 factors. Noting that many
of Cattell's factors wcre identified on the basis of quite low loadings, Fiske
comnlentcd that he u does not share this confidence in the significance of )OW
10adings U (p. 342). History has proved the wisdom of Fiske's observation:
Cattell' s factors have proved notoriously difficult to replicatc.
Among the nlany who tricd and failed were Tupes and Christal (1958, 1961),
who analyzcd a variety of datasets, including those collected by Fiske. CatteU,
and themselves. AH of the datasets included sets of variables from Cauell, and
werc based on either peer or observer ratings. Using across-sample replicability
as a criterion for deciding on the nunlber of factors. Tupes and Christal (1961)
discovered five robust factors, which they labeled SllrgelJcy (Factor 1),
Agreeableness (Factor 11), Dependability (Factor 111), EnJotional Stability (Factor
IV), and Culture (Factor V). Their c1assic 1961 Air Force technical repart has
now been reprinted (Tupes & Christal, 1992). along with an apprcciatory editorial
by McCrae (1992) and a historieal introduction by Christal (1992).
Norman (1963), Borgatta (1964), and Snlith(1967, 1969) an reactcd to the
work of Tupes and Christal (1958, 1961) with their own independent studies,
and found much the same five-factor structure. Of these reports, Norman's article
has been historically the most important, both bccause of his carefulness in
analysis and reporting and because it was published in a highly visible and prestigious journal. Norman selected the four variables frotll the Tupes and Christal
(1961) analyses that loaded most highly on each of the five factors, and then
collected peer' ratings with those 20 variables in four new samples.He found
such substantial factor replicability across the samplcs thathis five-factor solution
has often been incorrcctly cited as the "Nonnan Five!'

04

GOLDBERG

Dorgatta used other variables in separatc analyses of maJe and female samples
and found five replicated factors, which he Jabcled Asserriveness (1), Likability
(II), Responsibility (IlI), Enlotionality (IV), and Inrelligellce (V). Using composite
scores on each of the five factors, he compared seIf-ratings, self-rankings, and
pccr rankings (the laUer two in samples conlposed of cIose fricnds, as wcll as
in samplcs of acquaintanccs) in a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) dcsign
(Campbcll & Fiskc, 1959). Using the variables of CatteIl (1947), Smilh (1967)
conlpared lhe structures derivcd from three large samples (N = 583 t 521, and
324) and found five robust factors, which he labeled EXlraversioll (I),
Agreeableness (Il), Srrengrh ofCharacter (In), Enlotionality (IV), and Refinemellt
(V). Moreover, Smith found that scores derived fronl the Character (ni) factor
corrclatcd .43 with coUegc grades. In a latcr pccr-nomination study t Snlith (1969)
rccovercd the four factors other than Refinen,ellt in nlale and female sanlples at
bOth the junior high school and high school levels. Moreover, he found high
correlations with snl0king status, smoking being negatively rclated to Factors n
(Agreeableness) and III (Strenglh of Character), and positively related to Factor
I (Exlraversion).

TIME OUT: THE 1970s

DY 1970, then, one might have assumed that the five-factor nlodel had anlassed
more than enough evidence to ensure its viability as Ihe taxononlic framework
for phenotypic personality traiL~. Dut it was nol lo be. Other forces dominatcd
this decade, unlcashcd by a Zcilgeist that eschewed the very concept of personality
traits, if nol of pcrsonality itself (c.g., Mischel, 1968). The 1970s witnessed the
virtual abandonment of major segments of personality research, including the
investigation of personality-trait structure.

THE RENAISSANCE: THE 1980s

In the spring of 1978, John Digman was to teach a COUI"Se in factor analysis, for
which he obtained a number of corre)ation nlatrices frorn classic studies of
abilities and personality traits, including those previously analyzcd by Tupes and
Christal (1961) and Nonnan (1963). Before providing them to his students for
reanalysis, however, he chccked them careful1y and found clerical errors in the
matrices of two of Cattell's studies. More importantly, he discovered that when
six or more factors werc rotated from lhe various matrices, the factors did not
corrcspond; whereas when five factors werc rotated, there was striking interstudy
correspondencc (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Later rcsearch by Digman
and Inouye (1986) again obtained the Big-Five factors in teachcrs' ratings of the
children in their classrooms. This same period saw the publication of two of nly

35

3. FISKE AND TI-IE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE

ehapters (Goldberg, 1981 t 1982), both stimulated by the lexical hypothesis. TI1C
first provided sorne eonjectures about the possible universality of the Big-Fivc
factor strueture, and the sccond described a program of research focusing on
English trait-deseriptive adjeetives and nouns.
TIle 1980s wit~essed the emergenee of the two dominant variants of lhe
five-factor nlodel",one developed by McCrae and Costa (1985a, 1987) ano
operationalizco in the Neuroticism-Extraversion .. Opcnness Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI; Costa & MeCrae, 1985), and the other associated with studies baseo
on the lexieal hYPolhesis and operationaHzcd in the sets of factor nlarkers provided
by Norman (1963), Pcabody and Goldberg (1989), Goldbcrg (1990, 1992), John
(1989), Trapnel1 and Wiggins (1990), and Digman and his assoeiatcs (e.g.,
Dignlan, 1989; Dignlan & Inouye, 1986). Much is the sanle in both variants: (a)
lhe nunlber of dinlensions is identical, namely five; (b) the eontenl of Factor IV
is essentially lhe sanle, although it is orientcd in the opposite direclion in the
two Jnodels, and is thus so labcled (Emorional Srability vs. Neuroticisln); and
(e) therc is considerable sinli1arity, although not identity in the eontent of Factor
III (Collsciclltiousllcss). On the olher hand, al leasl two of the differences bctween
lhe vuianls are quite striking: (a) lhe localions of Faelors 1 and 11 are
systenlatically rotateo, such thal Warmlll is a faeel 01' Exlraversioll in lhe NEO-PI,
whereas it is a facet of Agrecableness in lhe lexical nlodcJ;2 and (b) Factor V is
eoneeived as Openncss lo E~7}erienee in the NEO-PI and as Inlel/cet, or
Imaginario" in lhe lexical nlodeI.
These differenees stenl fronl the history of the NEO..PI, which starled out as
a questionnaire nleasurc of a thrce-faetor nlodel. including only Ncurolicisl1J.
EXlraversioll, and Openness 10 Expericncc. Whcreas olher three-faetor lheorists
sueh as Eysenek (1991) have stood firm as proponents of their original
representations t Costa and MeCrae reacted to the events of the early 19805 \Vilh
sueh relllarkable Openness lo E~7}eriellce that,by the cnd of the deeade, lhese
investigalors had beeome the world's nlost prolific and influential proponents of
lhe five-faelor nlodel. TI1C prodigious oulpouring of rcports by McCrae and Costa
probably did Jnore lo form the modem eonsensus aboul pcrsonalily structure lhan
anything eIse that oeeurred during the 1980s. Specifieally, they used the NEO-PI
seales as a franlework for integrating a wide varietyof other questionnaire scales,
incIuding those developcd by Eysenek (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), Jackson (Costa
& McCrae, 1988a), Spielbcrger (Costa & MeCrac, 1987), and Wiggins (McCrac
& Costa, 1989b), as wcll as the scales included in lhe Minnesota Multipha~ic
Personal ity Inventory (MMPI; Costa, Buseh, Zondcnnan, & MeCrae, 1986) ano
the Myers-Briggs Typc Indicator (MeCrae & Costa, I989a).
t

2Actually. (he trait descriptor Warm has been classified in racel 11+/1+ in sorne AB5C (Hofslee.
de Raad. & Goldberg. 1992) analyses in (he lexical model. whereas Warmlh is considered a 1+/11+
facel in lhe McCrnc and Cosaa model. suggesting more agreemenl when both primary and secondary
loadings are considercd (han when one cOllsiders lhe primary loadings alonc.

06

GOLDBERG

THE MINORITY REPORTS: PRESENT-DAy OPPONENTS

AND CRITICS
An enlergi'ng consensus is not the same as universal agreenlent 1l1ere are those
who do not accept the Big-Five factor structure. Indeed, the two most famous
holdouts, Cattell and Eysenck, share Hule but their opposition to the five-factor
model. Catte11 renlains convinced that there are far nlore faclors than five, whcreas
Eysenck is certain that five is too many. Specifically, Eysenck (1991, 1992) has
argued that Faclors n (Agreeableness) and 111 (Conscientiousness) in the Big-Five
represcntation are nlere)y facets of the highcr level construct of Psychoticism in
his Psychoticism-Extraversion-Neuroticisnl (P-E-N) nlodcl.

SO WHY DIO IT TAKE SO LONG?

Despite lhe crities, any alert reader of the primary literature in personality
psychology would be struck by the extent to which the Big-Five factor structure
has gained recognilion and grudging acceptance as the major representation of
phenotypic personality traits. Moreover, this franlework has begun to win converts
in industrial/organizational contexts. Indeed, bOlh qualitative (e.g., Schnlidt &
Ones, 1992) and quantitative (e.g., Barriek & Mount, 1991) reviews of lhe
literature have concluded that personality nleasures, when classified within lhe
Big-Five donlains, are systenlatically related to a variety of criteria of job
pcrfornlance. If it is fair to say that lhe five-factor nlodel is now gencrnlly seen
as lhe mosl useful organizalion of personality lraits (e.g., Dignlan, 1990), lhen
it is rcasonable to ask, what took it so long to be accepted? What force s kept
the field fractionated for al1 lhose ycars? In the remainder of lhis chapter, 1 brieny
outline sonle of the pressures against consensus that characterized lhe history of
personalily psychology in the years since Fiske (1949). My hope is that, by
understanding these pressures, we can mitigate deJays in the acceptance of rulure
nlodcls and procedures, thus allowing the field to proceed on its scientific course
Inorc expeditiously.
Ooing Ir AII by Hand

Certainly one of the forces that worked against ear)y rcplications of lhe five-factor
nl0del was the sheer c.lifficulty of the calcuJations prior to the widespread
availabiJity of reasonably efficient conlputers and standardizcd COtllputcr
progranls. From Thurstone (1934) through Fiske (1949) to Tupes and Christal
(1961), factor analyses were carried out by hand, which virtuaIly guaranteed the
possibility of sorne clerical errors, as Digman and Takemoto-Chock (1981)
discovered when they reanalyzed sonle of the datasets provided by Cattell. Tupes
anc.l Christal included lhe findings fronl one computer analysis in their report,

3. FISKE ANO THE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCfURE

07

and were able to show its conlparabiJity with tlleir painstaking hand ..ca1culations.
However. by the time of Norman (1963), computers were hcre to stay, and today
this problem has all bUl disappeared.
lock of Follow..Up ,
Had Thurstone (1934) more fully enlbraccd lhe lexical hypothesis and realized the
significance of his nitial discovery, lhe history of the Big-Five model might have
been quite different. But Thurstone devoted hinlself to other scicntific pursuits, as
did Fiske, Borgatta, and Smith. Seenlingly. tllesc investigators did not reaBre lhe
inlportance of their discoveries. Why? Here are sorne spcculative possibiHties.
Doing Our Own Things

ficld of personality psychology has faced continucd difficulties in establishing

a curnulative scientific record. Perhaps bccause of lhe academic reward system,
personalily psychologists lend lo function nlore Iike a nlotley array of superstars
lhan. like a srnooth.. functioning lea m. Each of us has our own agenda. and
intcgralion is not our long suil. Indeed, we do nol even agree about lhe mosl
inlportant scientific questions, much less the answers. We estcenl our own
contributions, and we are quick to pick holes in the contributions of others. Each
of us scems to live by lhe moUo, If I didn't do U, it wasn't done right.
One result of this egocentric bias has bcen the proliferation of taxononlic
nlodels. Very rarely does lhe developer of a hlodel admil that a rival nlorlel is
superior. As a conscquencc, we engage in wars of attrition: Models disappcar
only when lhcir originators fade away. Thosc who are not nvolved in rescarch
on lhe structurc of individual rlifferences arc justifiably bewildered by lhe
diversity of our conlpeting models and the vitriol of our arguments in favor of
our own conlributions. Whom are they to be1 ieve?
For we are bctter critics than integrators, bcttcr at finding holes lhan palching
thenl. One could argue that the gradual acceptance of lhe Big . . Five modeI grew
out of our continued attenlpts toreplaee it with sonlething more altractive. aH
of which faBed. For example t Nonnan, whose 1963 article is the single-nlost
ciled reference to the Big-Five structure, spent much of his carly research career
as a skeptic. ParadoxicaIly, altl10ugh his inlportance in the history of the
five-faetor mode1 is universal1y acknowledgcd, his refusa) to bccome a truc
believcr has typically becn overlooked. Yet after his seminal studics confirming
the five-faclor nlodel with a se)celcd set of Cattell variables (Nomlan, 1963), he
instituted an cxtensive research program ainlcd at replacing that rnodel with a
nlore eonlprchensivc one. He began by cxpanding the corpus of English
personaJity tenns assembled by Al1port and Odbert (1936), lhen c1assifying lhe
ternlS in lhe expanded pool into su eh categories as slales, traits, and roles, and
finally collccting nonnativc nfonnation about sonlC 2,800 trait-deseriptive temlS

111C

08

GOLDBERG

(Nonnan, 1967). Nonnan was convinced that, because of the inevitable

conlputational and other technicallimitations of research in the 1930s and 1940s,
CattclPs variables len much to be desired, and therefore studies utilizing a
rcprcsentative subsct of thc total English pcrsonality-trait lexicon would uncovcr
sonle broad dinlcnsions beyond thc Big-Five struclure. AlLhough Nornlan never
tested this appealing conjecturc, others did (e.ge, GoJdberg, 1990), and it hRIi
proyed to be wrong.
Failure to See the Forest From rhe Trees
Digrnan espoused a lO-factor modcl of child personality structurc as latc as 1977 t
and Cattell still espouses an even more complex representation. lloth invcstigators
followed a "bottonl-up" strategy for conslructing a hierarchical rnodel, llsing
oblique rotations lo oblain correlated factors, which in tum could then be analyzed
obliquely al successively higher levcls. In contrast, investigators such as Tupes
and Olrislul (1961), Nonnan (1963), and Goldberg (1990, 1992) followed a
"top-down" slralegy, using orlhogonal rotations so as to firsl establish the oyerall
dirnensionality of their variable sets, and only later atternpting to discover lhe
facets wilhin each broad factor dornain (Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldbcrg, 1992).
By analogy, the fonner strategy builds up the forest on a tree-by-tree bRc;is,
whereas lhe latter.strategy first locales lhe outlines of the forcst and lhen focuses
on lhe individual trees. Using a geographical analogy, the fOlmer strategy first
finds such distinclive features of lhe landscape as lakes, rivers, and nlountain
rimges, which in turn are used to discover lhe continents, where,lS lhe laller
strategy first locales lhe continenlli and later nlaps lheir distinctive features. Which
is lhe best way lo proceed?
If the history of the five-factor rnodel is to be one's guide, one should place
one's bets on lhe top-down strategy. As Dignlan (1990) noted, when factors are
rotated obliquely to a simple-structure criterion, they are likely lo be associaled
with relatively hornogeneous clusters of variables, rather than lhe basic
dirnensions of lhe multivariate space. Whereas il is possible lhat the two strategies
could converge on a cornrnon representation, this would be nlost unlikely unless
lhe nitial selection of variables had been carried out with extraordinary
prescience. That is, to select the initial variables so thoughtfully requires
knowledge of the nurnbcr of overall factor dornains and lhe naturc of lhe facets
located within each dornan. One is not like)y lo know all this in advance.
Failure ro Separare Signal From Noise
As early as 1961, Tupes and OlfistaJ caBed attention lo lhe difficulties invo)vcd
in dcciding when two structural reprcscntations were lhe sanle ano when they
truly oiffcrcd. In discussing their own finding that five factors replicated across
the diverse datasets that they analyzcd, they cOO"lmented:

3.

FISKE ANO iHE B1G-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE

09

In many ways it sccms rcmarkable that such stability shouJd be found in an area
which to date has granted anything but consistent results. Undoubtedly lhe
consistency has always beCn thcre, bUl it has becn hiddcn by inconsistcncy of
factorial lcchniques and philosophics, the lack of replication using identical
variables, amI disagrccment among analysts as lo factor titles. None of lhe factors
idcntificd in this s,tudy are new. They have becn idcntificd many times in previous
analyscs, although they havc nol always becn callcd by thc sanlC names. (Tupes
& Christal, 1961, p. 12)

Littlc did those investigators realize that it would lake yet another 25 years
for lhe ficld to separate lhe Big-Five signal from the noise of alternative factor
representations. Inconsistency of factorial techniques and philosophies have
renlained, and have increased over tinle. On the other hand, lhe widcsprcad
availability of cotnputer progrmns forconducting a standard analysis (such as
principal cornponents rotated by varimax) has servcd to decrcase lhe use of
idiosyncratic proccdurcs. In any case, wc now know that nlost reservations about
the fragility of factor solutions are unfounded, provided that the datasets nelude
substantial nunlbcrs of variables and sanlples of largc sizc. Por example, Goldbcrg
(1990) dcnlonslratcd lhe virtual idenlity of Big-Five factor loadings across 10
factorial procedurcs, incJuding bOlh factor anuconlponent analyses, and both
orthogonal and obl que rotational algorithrns.
A sccond problenl identificd by Tupes and Christal (1961) was a )ack of
replications using identical variables. Indecd, it hasproved 10 be extrcrnely
difricult lo cunlulatc concJusions fronl single-shot studics with uniquc scts of
variables. In lhe history of lhe Big-Five factor SlruClure, the studies thal have
provcd to be most persuasive to critics of the nlodel were those that conlpared
the factor slructurcs from similar sets of variables across divcrse samplcs or
procedurcs (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1988b; Dignlan & Takemoto-Chock, 1981;
Fiskc, 1949; Goldbcrg, 1990; McCrae & Cosla, 1987; Norman, 1963; Tupes &
Christal, 1961).
lllC final problelll identified by Tupes and Christal waS that of disagrecnlcnt
anlong analysts as to factor tilles. Everyone scems to have a favorite labcJ.
espccially for the Big-Pive factors, which are c1early loo broad to be captured
wcll by any single trait-descriptive teml. Critics of lhe rnodel are quick lo nole
the discord an10ng investigators in lheir factor Jabcls, and to attribute such
diffcrences in labcls to fundamental differences in the undcrlying factor structures.
However, n10st of the diffcrences in labcls rcsult from individual styles or tastes
(e.g., COllscienliollslless vs. WiU for Pactor 111). One difference inlabcls docs
renect a sonlewhat different conception of the underlying factor: Factor V is
labcJcd as Openness lo Experience in the McCrae and Costa variant of the
five-factor nlodel, and as Illtellect in the lexical variant. Actually, as suggestcd
by Saucicr (1992), neither Openness nor Illlellect captures weJl the central cluster
of traits thai define Factor V. Perhaps a more apt tabe) is Imaginarion for a
dornain incJuding such traits as Crealivily and Curiosity.

40

GOLDDERG

A Malignant Zeitgeist

In 1961, Tupes and Christal had no way of knowing that the 1970s would witness
a virtual moratorium on the investigation of many fundamental problems in
personality psychology, inc1uding the search for a compclIing taxononly of
personality traits. However, the 1970s turoed out to be a decade of controversy
about the scientific status of traits in general and broad traits in particular,
stimulated by such critics as D' Andrade (1965), Mischel (1968), and Shweder
(1975). Many of the issues nvolved in this controversy may have now been
resolved (e.g., Borkenau, 1992; Funder, 1991), with optinlistk implications for the
eventual transformation of personality psychology into a nlore cumulative seientifk enterprise.

CODA

Fiske was nluch nvolved in the controversies of the 1970s, and he was profoundly
infiuenced by the behavioristic Zeitgeist that was swccping the field at thallinle.
Perhaps as a reaction to lhe "nattering nabobs of ncgativism" who were
punlnleling personality psyehology he lost nlerest in broad pcrsonalily traits
(e.g., Fiske, 1973, 1974), and began to argue in favor of more bchavioral unils
of anaIysis. so as to ensure high levcls of interjudge agreement on lhe bask
elements of pcrsonality. Moreover, he began to feel quite pessimistic about lhe
likelihood of ever reaching agreetnent on a taxonomy of personality traits, with
the result that he did not further pursue his seminal study of trait factor struetures.
Today t Fiske is renowned for his methodological and philosophkal contributions
to the ficld of personality. Wouldn't it be ronie if historians of lhe future also
judged his 1949 empirical study as bcing of such signa1 importance that it served
as a verification of his earlier "belief in the possibility of eventual agreement
upon the basic variables of personal ity" (Fiske, 1949 p. 341)1 If so, he has lhe
right lo ask, What lhe hell look so long?
t

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this chapter was supporled by Grant MH-49227 from the Nalional
Institute of Mental Health. 1 am indebted to A. Timothy Church, Jacob Cohen,
Paul T. Costa, Jr., Lec J. Cronbach, Robyn M. Dawes, Qlarlcs F. Dkken, John
M. Digman, Donald W. Fiske, Susan T. Fiske, Sarah E. Hampson, Willem K. B.
Hofslee, Oliver P. John, Daniel Lcvitin, Maurice Lorr, Clarence McCormkk,
Ivan Mervielde, Warren T. Norman, Delroy L. Paulhus, Lawrence A. Pervin,
James A. Russell, Gerard Saueier, Mkhael F. Scheier, Patrick E. Shrout, and
Auke Tellegen for lheir thoughtful suggestions. Portions of this chaptcr have

J. FISKE ANO TI-IE BlG-FlVE FACfOR STRUCfURE

41

bccn adaptcd from Goldbcrg (1993), which can be consultcd for furthcr dctails
about thc Big-Fivc factor structurc and its historical dcvclopn1cnt.

REFERENCES
Allport. G. W. & Odbcrt. H. S. (1936). Trail-names: A psycho-Iexical sludy. Ps)'dlOlogical
MonogrofJhs, 47 (1, Wholc No. 211).
Barrick. M. R & Mount. M. K. (1991). The Big Fivc pcrsonality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. PersO/Ille! PsydlOlogy, 44. 1...26.
Borgatla. E. F. (1964). Thc structure of pcrsonaJity characteristics. Behavioral Science. 9. 8-17.
Borkenau. P. (1992). Implicil personality theory and lhe five-faclor model. JourtuJl of Personality.
60. 295-327.
Campbell. O. T . & Fiske. O. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validalion by (he
multitrait-multimethod matrix. PsydlOlogic:al Bullel;n, 56. 81-105.
Cantor. N. & Mischel. W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception.ln L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad\ance.f
ill experimelltal sodall'syt:llOlogy (Vol. 12. pp. 2-52). San Diego. CA: Aeademic Prcss.
Callell. R. B. (1943). The deseription of personality: Baste traits resolved into cluslers. Jourllal of
Abllormal ond Sodal PsydlOlo:y. 38. 476-506.
Canell, R. U. (1947). Confirmation and clnrificalion of primary personality faclors. PsydlOmelril.:a.
/2, 197-220.
Christal. R. E. (1992). Aulhor's note On "Recurrent persona lit y ractors based en tral ratings." Joumal
of Personality. 60. 221-224.
Costa. P. T . Jr., Busch, C. M., Zonderman. A. B., & McCrae. R. R. (1986). Correlations of MMPI
faclor scales with measures of the five factor model of personality. JuurtuJl of Ptrsonality
Aues.fmelll. 50. 640-650.
Costa, P. T . Jr., & McCrae, (~. R. (1985). Tire NEO Persollality Imtlllory malllllll. Odessa. FL:
Psychological Assessmenl Resources.
Costa. P. T . Jr. & McCrae. R. R. (1987). Personality assessment in psychosornatie medicine: Value
of a lral taxonomy. In G. A. Fava & T. N. Wise (Eds.). Advanc'es illl'syc:Jwsomalk medicine:
Vol. /7. Researd, I,aradi:"'s illl,sydlOsomal;c medic;lte (pp. 71-..82). Basel, Swilzerland: Karger.
Costa, P. T . Jr & McCrae. R. R. (1988a). From eatalog lO classification: Murray's needs and lhe
five-factor model. )oufl,al of Persolla/ity and Social Psyehology. 55. 258-265.
Costa. P. T., Jr. & McCrac. R. R. (1988b). Personality in adullhood: A six-year longiludinal study
of self-reports and spouse ralings on lhe NEO Personalily Inventory. Journal of Persolfalily and
Scx..'ial Psyelroloxy. 54. 853-863.
O' Andrade, R. G. (1965). Trail psychology and eomponential analyss. AmericlllJ AltlhrOI)()lo:isl.
67.215-228.
Oigman. J. M. (1989). Five robusl trail dimcnsions: OeveJopmenl, stabilily. and utility. Jourltal uf
/)er.wnalily. 57. 195-214.
Digman. J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of 'he five-faclor model. In M. R. Rosenzweig
& L. W. Porter (Eds.). A""ual review of psyclw/u:y (Vol. 41. pp. 417... 440). Palo Alto. CA:
Annual I~eviews.
Oigman. J. M. & Inouye. J. (1986). Further spccification of lhe five robust faclors of personality.
Juumal of Personality all(1 Scx..ial PsydlOlo:y. 50, 116-123.
Digman. J. M & Takemolo-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in lhe natural languageof personality:
Re-analysis. comparison. and interpretation of sx major studies. Mulli,'ariale Belra";oral
Researe". /6. 149-170.
Eysenck. H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16. S. or 3?-Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm.
Per.wnalily.alUl lI,di"idllal Dij)erences. 12. 773-790.

42

GOLDBERG

Eysenck. H. J. (1992). rour ways five faclors are 1101 basic. Personality and J"d;~'id'lQl DW'crenc:cs,

IJ.667-673.
Fiskc. D. W. (1949). Consislcncy of lhe factorial struclures of personalily ralings from differcnl
sources. 10urllal of Ab"ormal a"d Sodal PsycJlOlogy. 44, 329-344.
Fiske. D. W. (1973). Can a personality construct be validated empirically? PsycllOlogic:al Bulle/i",

80.89-92.
Fiske. D. W. (1974). The IimUs for lhe convcnlional scicnce of personaJity. Joumal 01 Pcr.'iOIlality,
42, 1-11.
Funder. D. C. (1991). Globaltrals: A neo-A 11 portian apprCh1ch lo pcrsonality. Psyc:110108ical SdCIICC,
2.31-39.
Galton. F. (1884). Measuremcnt of charaeter. Forllf;8hlly Review, J6. 179-185.
Goldberg. L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality
Icxicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), RevietV cifl'ersollalily a"d sodal psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165).
Beverly Bilis. CA: Sage.
Goldberg. L. R. (1982). From ace lo zombie: Sorne exploralions in lhe language of personality. In
C. D. Spiclbergcr & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Allvalu:c./f in I'cr.wllalily aS.U.umCIII (Vol. 1, (lp.
203-234). HiIlsdale. NJ: L1wrenee Erlbaum Associates.
Goldhcrg, L. R. (1990). An altemalive uDescription of pcrsonalily": ll1e Dig-Five factor stnacture.
Joumal of I'crsollalily all Social Psychol08Y. 59. 1216-1229.
Goldberg. L. R. (1992). 111e devcJopmcnt of markers for lhe Big-Five fclor slructure. l'sYc:/10108ic:al
A.uc.umclfI, 4, 2()-42.
Goldhcrg, L. Ro (1993). ll1e slruclure of phcnolYpic pcrsonality tmls. Amcricm, I'sydw/08i:t1. 4t't.
2()-34.
Ilmnpsoll. S. E. o John, O. P. & Goldbcrg, L. It (1986). Calcgory brcadlh and hierarchieal Slnaclure
in personalily: Studies of asymmelries in judgmenls of lral implications. JOllrl.al o/ Persollalily
alld SIH.:ial Psyellology. 5/, 37-54.
Ilofslec, W. K. B. de Raad. B., & Goldberg. L. R. (1992). Illlegralion of lhe Big-Five and cireumplcx
apprChlches lo (mil struelure. Joumal of Pcrsollalily and Sodal Psyd10108Y. 6J. 146-163.
Jolm, O. P. (1989).' Towards a laxonomy of personalily descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor
(Eds.). /'ersollalily l,sycI10108Y: Rece," Irelldf a"d cmcr8i"8 dircl'liolls (pp. 261-271). Ncw York:
Springer-Verlag.
Jolm. O. r. (1990). Thc UBig Five" factor taxonomy: Dimcnsions of pcrsonality in lhe naturallanguage
and in questionnaircs. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), /Ialldhook (Jll,crsollalily: r'eory alUl rescare" (pp.
66-100). New York: Guilrord.
John. 0.1' .. Hampson. S. E . & Goldbcrg, L. R. (1991). ll1e basie levcl in personality-trail hierarchies:
Studies of trail use and aceessibility in differenl conlexlS. JOllmal of Pcrsollalily allll Sodal
Psydlolo8Y. 60, 348-361.
Kelly. E. L., & Fiske. D. W. (1951). rile predic:lioll o/I'er/ormmu:e in dillkal I's)'('/10108Y. Ann
Arbor. MI: University of Michigan I'ress.
McCrac. R. R. (1992). Editor' s introduClion lo Tupes and Chrislal. JOllma/ (if Per.wllalilJ'. 60.
217-219.
McCrae. R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985a). Updating Norman's "adcquate laxonomy": Intelligcnce
and personality dimensions in natural languagc and in questio.nnaires. Joumal (Jf Pcr.wnalily and
Sodal P./fyC:/10108Y, 49, 710-721.
McCrae. R. R, & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985b). Comparison or EPI and psycholicism scalcs wilh measures
of lhe (ve-factor model of personalily; Persollalily a"d Indh'idlllJl Dij)'erenc:cs. 6. 587-597.
McCrac~ R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of lhe five-ractor modcl of personality across
instruments and observcrs. Jounwl 01 Persollalily alld Social Psychol08Y, 52. 81-90.
McCrae. R. R. & Costa. P. T Jr. (1989a). Reinterpreling lhe Myers-Origgs Type Indicator from
lhe pcrspectivc of lhe five-faclor model or personaJity. Jourllal o/ Per.'iOIlality, 57, 17-40.
McCrae. R. R. & Costa. P. T . Jr. (1989b). The struclure of interpersonallrails: Wiggins' circumplex
lhe fivefaetor model. Joumal o/ PersOIUllity a"d Social Psyc'oI08Y, 56, 586-595.

:too

3. FISKE AND TI-IE BIG-FIVE FACfOR STRUcruRE

43

McCrae. R. R., & Jolm, O. P. (1992). An introduction lo lhe nve-factor model and its applications.

J ourlUll 01 Persollality, 60, 175-215.

Mischel, W. (1%8). Pcrsonality and asscssnrenl. New York: Wiley.
Norman, W. T. (1%3). Toward an adcquate laxonomy of personalily atlributes: Replicalcd factor
structure in pec'r nomination pcrsonality ratings. Journal 01 Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66.

574-583.
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 pcrsollality Irail dcscriptors: Normalive 0l)(!raling characlcristics lor
a university IXlIJUlalioll. Ann Arbor, MI: Dcpartmcnlof Psychology, University of Michigan.
Peabody. D., & Goldbcrg. L R. (1989). Sorne delcrminants of factor structures from pcrsonality-lrait
descriptors. Journal 01 Persotrality alld Social Psyclwlogy, 57.552-567.
Saucicr, G. (1992). Openness versus ntelleca: Much ado about nothing? European Journal 01

PersonalilY, 6, 381-386.
Schmidl, F. L.. & Ones, D. S. (1992). Personnel selection. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Portcr
(Eds.), A""ual rcview OllJSyclwlogy (Vol. 43, pp. 627-670). Palo Alto. CA: Annual Reviews.
Shweder. R. A. (1975). How relevanl is nn individual dirrcrcncc theory of personality? Journal 01

PersolJality. 43. 455-484.

Smilh, G. M. (1967). Usefulncss of pcer ralings of pcrsonality in cducational rcscarch. Educalional

and PsycllOloJ:ic:al Measureme,,', 27, 967-984.

Smilh. G. M. (1 %9). Rclations bctwecn personality and smoking bchavior in pre-adult subjects.

Journal tI/CoII.mlli"R and Clnical P.fycllOlogy, J3, 710-715.

Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The veclors of mind. Psych(JloRical Review, 4/, 1-32.
Trapnell. P. D. & Wiggins. J. S. (1990). EXlensionof lhe Inlrpersonal Adjcclive Scales lo ndude
lhe Uig Five dimcnsions of pcrsonality. JourfUll 01 I'trsollality and Social !'sycllOloRY. 59.

781-790.
Tupes. E. C . & Christal, R. E. (1958). Stability of personality tral raling factors obtaincd undcr
diverse conditions (USAF WADC Tech. Note No. 58-61). L.ackland Air Force Base. TX: U.S.
Air Force.
Tupes. E. C., & Chrislal. R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors bascd on trait ratings (USAF
ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97). L.ackland Air Force Base. TX: U.S. Air Force.
Tupes, E. C . & Christal. R. E. (1992). Recurrent personalily factors based on trail ratings. Journal
01 Persollalty. 60. 225-25 l.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1992). Personality: Slruclure and assessmcnt. In M. R. Rosenzwcig
& L. W. Porter (Eds.), Amulal rcview 01 psychology (Vol. 43. pp. 473-504). Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Rcviews.
Wiggins, J. S & Trapncll, P. D. (in press). Personality structure: The retum oC the Big Ave. In R.
Bogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), lIalldhook 01 persona/ity psychology. Orlando. FL:
Acadcmic Prcss.