Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Goldberg, 1990 Five Factor
Goldberg, 1990 Five Factor
Goldberg, 1990 Five Factor
DIFFERENCES
1216
1217
Method
From the 2,800 trait terms included in Norman (1967), Goldberg
(1982) selected a subset of 1,710 (which included the 1,431 described
earlier) to be included in a self-report inventory of trait-descriptive
adjectives (see Goldberg, 1982, for the procedural details). Under instructions to work on this task for no more than an hour at a time, 187
college students (70 men and 117 women) described themselves on
each of the 1,710 terms, using an 8-step rating scale ranging from extremely inaccurate to extremely accurate as a self-descriptor. After all
omitted responses were given a middle (S) value in a transformed 1-9
rating scale, the responses for each subject in turn were standard
scored, thereby eliminating all intersubject differences in their means
and variances across the 1,710 items.
Responses to the terms in each of the Norman categories were aggregated to obtain 75 scale scores for every subject. The coefficient
alpha reliability estimates for each of these variables, which are listed
in Table 1, are quite high for scales constructed without recourse to any
internal-consistency analyses: For the 74 scales including more than
one item, 95% of the reliability coefficients were larger than .60, and
73% were at least .70; the median scale obtained a coefficient of .76.
Because the scales vary markedly in their number of items and because
coefficient alpha is highly sensitive to scale length, Table 1 also includes the mean intercorrelation among the items in each scale.
The variables are listed in Table 1 by the factor on which they had
their highest loading in this first study, and within each factor by the
size of their loadings on that factor. Consequently, the first variables
listed for each factor (the factor definers) exemplify its core meaning
and are likely to be the most robust across studies. On the other hand,
the last variables listed for each factor, which are only peripherally
related to its core content, may be equally related to other factors, and
therefore the factor with which they are most highly related may tend
to 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 any
readers who assume that, in factor analysis, what one finds
depends primarily on how one looks. If that were so, the general
goal ofdeveloping a scientifically compelling taxonomy of individual differences could be a foolish quest, as Eysenck (1981)
once argued:
Correlational psychology cannot in the nature of things come up
with objective, universally agreed dimensions or categories; there
1218
LEWIS R. GOLDBERG
Table 1
The 75 Categories in the Norman Taxonomy of1,431 Trait-Descriptive Adjectives
Reliability
Factor pole/category
1+
Spirit
Talkativeness
Sociability
Spontaneity
Boisterousness
Adventure
Energy
Conceit
Vanity
Indiscretion
Sensuality
ILethargy
Aloofness
Silence
Modesty
Pessimism
Unfriendliness
11+
Trust
Amiability
Generosity
Agreeableness
Tolerance
Courtesy
Altruism
Warmth
Honesty
IIVindictiveness
111 humor
Criticism
Disdain
Antagonism
Aggressiveness
Dogmatism
Temper
Distrust
Greed
Dishonesty
III+
Industry
Order
Self-discipline
Evangelism
Consistency
Grace
Reliability
Sophistication
Formality
Foresight
Religiosity
Maturity
Passionlessness
Thrift
IllNegligence
Inconsistency
Rebelliousness
Irreverence
Provinciality
Intemperance
Examples
No.
terms
26
23
9
28
11
44
36
13
5
6
12
.88
.86
.77
.77
.78
.86
.77
.76
.28
.55
.76
.22
.21
.27
.11
.24
.12
.08
.20
.07
.17
.20
19
26
22
18
19
20
.74
.86
.87
.76
.79
.70
.13
.19
.23
.15
.17
.10
20
29
18
17
19
17
29
18
16
.83
.81
.70
.71
.76
.73
.76
.82
.67
.19
.13
.11
.13
.14
.14
.10
.20
.11
13
16
33
16
11
21
49
29
8
18
29
.79
.75
.79
.74
.75
.79
.78
.86
.65
.61
.80
.22
.16
.10
.15
.21
.15
.07
.17
.19
.08
.12
43
3
17
13
27
8
11
16
13
17
.85
.62
.64
.71
.77
.73
.68
.72
.67
.62
.86
.12
.35
.10
.16
.11
.26
.16
.14
.13
.09
.31
4
4
.13
.74
.04
.42
51
17
22
9
27
13
.90
.72
.81
.73
.63
.67
.14
.13
.16
.23
.06
.13
13
i
1219
Table 1 (continued)
Reliability
No.
Examples
terms
11
23
11
17
31
.66
.83
.71
.78
.69
.15
.18
.18
.17
.07
14
30
17
14
22
18
.77
.85
.84
.72
.80
.70
.19
.16
.24
.15
.15
.11
Art
16
17
23
16
10
4
.72
.78
.72
.80
.63
.49
.14
.17
.10
.20
.15
.19
Imperceptivity
45
.85
.11
Factor pole/category
IV+
Durability
Poise
Self-reliance
Callousness
Candor
IVSelf-pity
Anxiety
Insecurity
Timidity
Passivity
Immaturity
V+
Wisdom
Originality
Objectivity
Knowledge
Reflection
V-
Note. The two estimates of internal consistencythe coefficient alpha value for the total scale and the
mean interitem correlation (f)were based on the standardized (Z-scored) responses of 187 college
students (70 men and 117 women) who described themselves using an inventory of 1,710 trait-descriptive
terms.
are innumerable, mathematically equivalent ways of rotating factors, for instance, and no statistical magic key (not even simple
structure) can close the door on alternative solutions.. . .Alternative solutions and rotations are in principle, and usually in practice, not only possible but also appeal to different people.. . . The
final factors never completely escape the shadow of. . .the selection of methods of extraction and rotation, (p. 13)
Eysenck argued that scientific agreement on a structural representation is impossible, in part because alternative methods
of factor extraction and rotation will generate different factors.
In an attempt to examine the extent to which factor structures
are influenced by the particular methods that are used, the 75
Norman categories were analyzed using a wide variety of such
procedures, specificallyfivemethods of factor extraction (principal-components, principal-factors, alpha-factoring, imagefactoring, and maximum-likelihood procedures), each rotated
by an orthogonal (varimax) and an oblique (oblimin) algorithm.
Of the 3,750 total factor loadings (75 variables X 10 methods X 5 factors) generated by these analyses, in only 30 cases
(fewer than 1%) was the highest loading on a different factor
than the modal one; in those few cases, moreover, the variables
loaded about equally on two factors, one of which was the modal one. This high degree of intermethod congruence can be
quantified more precisely by correlating across the 187 subjects
the factor scores derived from each of the 10 factoring methods.
When averaged across the five corresponding factors in each
pair of analyses, the mean correlation of the factor scores between the orthogonal and oblique rotational procedures (holding constant the method of factor extraction) ranged from .991
to .995, and the mean intercorrelations among thefivemethods
of factor extraction (holding constant the procedure for rotation) ranged from .950 to .996. Table 2 lists the factor loadings
from varimax rotations of both principal factors and principal
components; the uniformity of the values in the table demonstrates the robustness of the solutions across these procedural
variations.
Although it would be foolish to contend that factors are never
influenced by the particular algorithm that is used, such procedural effects are typically quite small in size. For the data sets
analyzed in this article, findings based on principal components have been compared with those based on principal factors, and orthogonal rotations have been compared with
oblique ones. In none of these analyses have the findings
changed in any substantial way as a function of the particular
method used. As a consequence, this article will include only
the varimax-rotated solutions based on an initial principalcomponents analysis of the variable intercorrelations. For convenience, however, these components will typically be referred
to as "factors."
Effects ofthe number of factors rotated. The intercorrelations
among the factor scores derived from the analyses described
earlier were averaged across the 10 methods so as to provide
mean congruence correlations for each of the five factors.
These mean intermethod correlations for Factors I and II (99
for both) and for Factors III and IV (.98 for both) were somewhat
higher than that for Factor V (.96). Nonetheless, the latter factor
(Intellect) remained invariant as more factors were rotated. Instead, Factor III bifurcated when six factors were rotated, providing a more homogeneous version of the Conscientiousness
factor, plus one that included the more peripheral categories
1220
LEWIS R. GOLDBERG
Table 2
The 75 Norman Categories: Factor Loadings From Varimax Rotations
of Principal Components and Principal Factors
Factor
I
Factor pole/category
Com
II
Fac
Com
III
Fac
IV
Com
Fac
Com
Fac
Com
Fac
05
-08
05
-08
01
18
-13
04
-30
18
-14
02
44
01
07
04
12
42
41
04
18
-01
28
14
-27
-16
-13
14
-24
-15
-10
-09
-18
-07
22
-08
13
13
-06
-18
-13
-27
-06
-18
-13
-17
01
-26
02
-17
01
-34
-46
17
-45
16
09
-04
08
-03
05
08
10
22
09
22
-10
-02
-09
-02
07
11
-14
-14
-13
-13
05
00
05
-01
19
15
14
Factor I: Surgency
Spirit
Talkativeness
Sociability
Spontaneity
Boisterousness
Adventure
Energy
Conceit
Vanity
Indiscretion
Sensuality
79*
77*
75*
68*
63*
58*
56*
46*
41*
38*
25"
78*
75*
74*
67*
39*
36'
24*
-08
-32
-78*
-78*
-76*
-66*
-61*
-53*
-77*
-76*
-75*
-65'
-60*
-51*
01
-16
61*
57*
55*
44"
23
22
02
02
-07
24
01
-31
-14
-19
-39
-07
24
01
-31
-14
-19
11
17
11
17
-37
-31
-17
-37
-07
-31
-16
-37
-31
-31
13
00
31
-12
-01
-12
-01
02
44
08
03
-02
03
-02
05
18
-17
-07
18
ILethargy
Aloofness
Silence
Modesty
Pessimism
Unfriendliness
20
00
-16
20
44
44
-34
-27
-33
-26
01
-11
-12
01
-11
-12
-08
07
-35
-08
07
02
-25
-25
41
41
30
06
-37
-25
26
33
29
06
-37
-24
25
32
-11
-11
-01
00
08
-01
00
09
12
12
-07
30
08
30
-06
-15
-14
-25
-79*
-74"
-73*
-67*
-65*
-64*
-63*
-58*
-52*
-51*
26
-42*
82*
69*
68*
68*
61*
61*
56'
43*
33*
81*
68*
66*
66*
60*
60*
55*
43"
31"
05
08
07
11
-30
33
36
38
27
-29
32
36
37
26
17
17
20
-30
19
-30
-40
16
19
15
15
-04
11
08
-15
-09
03
-09
03
11
11
14
11
-41
18
-04
11
ti
11
Vindictiveness
111 humor
Criticism
Disdain
Antagonism
Aggressiveness
Dogmatism
Temper
Distrust
Greed
Dishonesty
-26
28
29
08
30
-77*
-72*
-72*
-64*
-63*
-63"
-61"
-57*
-50"
-49*
-39"
00
-09
32
-10
-12
-21
00
08
-09
32
-15
12
-11
-18
-28
-11
-10
-13
-21
10
-27
-11
03
-06
02
-06
10
30
31
02
-33
-09
-10
-17
29
30
02
01
-15
-20
18
13
00
-14
-18
17
-31
25
22
-09
-14
-13
11
11
00
00
16
-17
02
-07
43
35
01
03
34
01
03
-25
-20
-01
22
06
-14
15
-10
29
14
13
31
-17
44
-21
11
-23
-19
13
13
28
-16
41
-18
11
-03
-30
-11
Evangelism
Consistency
Grace
31
-23
27
Reliability
Sophistication
Formality
Foresight
Religiosity
-05
05
29
00
-14
Maturity
-20
-11
-02
-30
30
-23
26
-05
05
28
01
13
-18
-13
-04
34
01
-02
23
11
20
-25
14
22
17
-12
71*
70"
17
-03
68*
65*
65*
64*
61*
58*
59*
56*
-18
03
-07
45
34
01
-02
23
11
20
-23
14
21
17
59*
59"
53*
52*
48*
49"
43"
35*
51*
49"
45"
47*
40*
34*
-01
24
06
-15
16
-10
31
1221
Table 2 (continued)
Factor
Com
IV
III
II
][
Fac
Factor pole/category
Com
Fac
Com
Fac
Passionlessness
Thrift
IllNegligence
Inconsistency
Rebelliousness
Irreverence
Provinciality
Intemperance
-11
-21
-10
-19
19
17
18
16
31"
26'
29*
25*
-04
-03
13
-19
-24
16
-04
-03
12
-18
-23
14
19
05
-54
-18
06
-14
19
05
-53
-17
05
-14
-73*
-62"
-55"
-53*
-53*
-44'
-73*
-61*
-55*
-50*
-49*
-42*
Com
Fac
Com
Fac
-13
09
-12
08
-23
13
-19
12
-10
-50
09
08
08
-21
-09
-48
09
08
07
-20
-36
-03
31
28
-11
-24
-35
-04
30
25
-10
-22
-06
-37
16
-46
20
-06
-37
15
-45
19
-10
42
14
-45
03
-10
42
14
-45
03
-01
14
14
-06
11
-01
14
15
-06
11
79*
61*
51*
48*
43*
77*
60*
49*
47*
39*
01
-01
39
-07
18
02
00
37
-06
17
-14
25
-31
-42
-01
15
-14
26
-30
-41
-01
14
-05
-26
-05
16
39
22
-04
-26
-05
16
38
21
15
05
-21
05
16
-26
14
05
-21
05
15
-26
-81*
-75*
-69*
-60*
-55*
-52*
-80*
-74*
-67*
-58*
-53*
-51*
-04
-05
-11
-07
-30
-42
-05
-06
-12
-08
-30
-41
Factor V: Intellect
V+
Wisdom
Originality
Objectivity
Knowledge
Reflection
Art
VImperceptivity
-02
19
-05
01
-43
15
-02
18
-05
01
-41
14
-10
12
04
11
15
25
-10
11
04
11
14
24
-06
-09
24
27
-07
03
-06
-09
24
26
-07
03
01
20
46
15
-32
-08
01
20
44
15
-30
-06
75*
70*
60*
60*
45*
42*
71*
67*
59*
56*
41*
36*
-18
-18
25
24
-21
-21
-17
-17
-78*
-78*
Note. All values equal to or greater than .30 are listed in boldface. These analyses are based on the
standardized responses of 187 college students (70 men and 117 women) who described themselves using
an 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, Evangelism, and Religiosity (positive loadings) versus Provinciality,
Irreverence, and Rebelliousness (negative loadings). When
seven factors were rotated, the three Religiosity categories (Religiosity and Evangelism versus Irreverence) formed their own
small factor.
Moreover, beyond these 7 factors, all additional ones were
denned by only one or two variables (eg., Thrift versus Intemperance, Sensuality versus Passionlessness), whereas the initial
7 factors remained nearly invariant across rotations of up to 13
factors. For this set of variables, then, the factor structures seem
to be remarkably robust, regardless of the number of factors
that are rotated. Thus, one can conclude from this first study
that this five-factor structure seems to be nearly impervious to
variations in the specific factor procedures that are used, and it
1222
LEWIS R. GOLDBERG
coefficient alpha reliability estimates, and the mean correlations among the items. Because each of the clusters was designed to include only quasi-synonyms, they were all quite short
(averaging fewer than 4 items each), and therefore their reliability coefficients would be expected to be low. The median of
these alpha coefficients turned out to be .54, which is quite high
Study 2
for scales of this length.
Also available from the author are tables presenting the facRationale and Method
tor loadings from varimax rotations of five principal compoFor inclusion in other studies, Norman's 75 categories have
nents analyzed separately in each of the four samples. Within
two major disadvantages. In the first place, the 1,431 terms in
each sample, the Big-Five factor structure emerged quite clearly.
that taxonomy are too numerous to be administered in a single
Tucker's coefficient of factor congruence (Harman, 1967, p.
testing session. In addition, all of the classification decisions
257) was used as a quantitative index of the similarity between
were made by a single individual. To provide a more objective
the factors derived in each of the four samples. The mean conbasis for such classifications, dictionaries and synonym finders
gruence coefficients across the five factors ranged from .86
were used to classify trait adjectives into clusters of quasi-syn(Samples B vs. D) to .94 (Samples A vs. C) and averaged .91.
onyms. As the criteria for this sorting task, the terms in a cluster
Moreover, the overall factor congruence between the two samhad to be independently judged by lexicographers as synonyms;
ples of peer ratings (93) and between the two samples of selfin addition, their mean social-desirability ratings (Norman,
ratings (.91) was not appreciably higher than that between the
1967) had to fall within a reasonably narrow range. The result
self and peer samples (90).
was a set of 133 synonym clusters based on 479 commonly used
Of more theoretical interest, however, intersample contrait adjectives. These 479 terms, all of which had been ingruence varied substantially by factor; the values for Factors I,
cluded in the inventory of 1,710 trait adjectives (1,710-TDA),
II, and HI were all about .95, whereas those for Factors IV and V
were augmented by some others to form inventories of 566 and
were both about .85. These findings, which replicate those re587 terms (for further details concerning the construction of
ported by Peabody and Goldberg (1989) based on a set of 57
these shorter inventories, see Goldberg, 1982).
bipolar scales selected to be representative of common trait
Each of the 133 synonym clusters was treated as a personality
adjectives (Peabody, 1987), reflect the differential distribution
scale. Separate factor analyses of these 133 variables were
of variables associated with each of the Big-Five factors. Specificarried out within each of four samples, two of which provided
cally, within any pool of variables that is based on a reasonably
self-descriptions and two of which provided peer descriptions.
representative sampling of the English lexicon of trait adjecSample D included the self-descriptions from those 187 subtives, there will be substantially more variables associated with
jects already described in Study 1, each of whom completed the
each of thefirstthree factors than with each of the last two. For
1,710-TDA. Sample C included 320 other college students who
example, within the set of 133 synonym clusters there were, on
described themselves on the 587-TDA using the item format
average, twice as many variables associated with each of Factors
that was described in Studies 3 and 4 of Goldberg (198 lb); four
I, II, and III than with each of Factors IV and V
middle response options were provided {average or neutral, it
What lies beyond the Big-Five domains? The design of this
depends on the situation, don'tknow, and term unclearorambigu- study permits a critical examination of thefive-factorrepresenous), all of which were here given a midscale value of 0 on a
tation, both because of the relatively large number of variables
scale ranging from - 3 to +3. Sample A included 316 of the
under study and because the simultaneous analysis of four samsubjects from Sample C, who used the 587-TDA to describe
ples permits a direct test of factor replicability. Specifically, as
someone of their sex and approximate age whom they knew
progressively more factors are rotated, one can discover how
well and liked. Sample B included 205 students in law school
many factors remain invariant across the four samples.
and in an upper-division psychology course, roughly one third
When additional factors were rotated in each of the four
of whom were randomly assigned to describe one of three types
samples, the results paralleled those from the analyses of the 75
of peer targets: (a) "someone whom you know well and like as a.
Norman categories in Study 1: The five original factors reperson," (b) "someone whom you know well but neither like nor
mained virtually invariant. Of even more significance, none of
dislike'' or (c) "someone whom you know well and dislike as a
the additional factors replicated across the four samples. In
person." The targets were further specified in all three condithree of the samples, Religiosity (Religious and Reverent) and
tions to be "of the same sex as you are, and about your own age."
Nonreligiosity (Nonreligious and Irreverent) loaded highly in
Subjects in Sample B used the 566-TDA, with the same 8-step
opposite directions on one additional factor, but the other vari(transformed to 9-step) rating scale used by the subjects in Samables associated with that factor varied from sample to sample.
ple D. Ratings of the three types of targets were pooled in the
In summary, then, this search for replicable domains beyond
analyses of Sample B.
the Big Five was not successful.
given the same labels. Specifically, to demonstrate the robustness of the Big-Five factor structure, it is necessary to show that
the core variables associated with each factor (the factor definers in Table 2) play the same role when analyzed within other
subsets of variables.
Results
Self-ratings versus peer ratings. Because of space limitations,
the findings from this study could not be presented in tabular
form. Available from the author are the 133 variables analyzed
in this study, including each of the terms in each cluster, the
Study 3
Rationale
The inclusion in the 479 set of some peripheral terms such as
those tapping Religiosity and Nonreligiosity, the inelegance of
including among the 133 "clusters" a few single terms (for which
there were no synonyms in the 1,710-TDA), and the low reliabilities of a few of the remaining clusters stimulated efforts to
refine the set further. For this purpose, a new sample of subjects
was used to develop arefinedset of synonym clusters, and then
two of the samples from Study 2 were used to provide independent evidence of their factor structure.
1223
Results
1224
LEWIS R. GOLDBERG
Table 3
Factor pole/cluster
1+
Spirit
Gregariousness
Playfulness
Expressiveness
Spontaneity
Unrestraint
Energy level
Talkativeness
Assertion
Animation
Courage
Self-esteem
Candor
Humor
Ambition
Optimism
Terms included
Enthusiastic, spirited, vivacious, zestful
Extroverted, gregarious, sociable
Adventurous, mischievous, playful,
rambunctious
Communicative, expressive, verbal
Carefree, happy-go-lucky, spontaneous
Impetuous, uninhibited, unrestrained
Active, energetic, vigorous
Talkative, verbose, wordy
Assertive, dominant, forceful
Demonstrative, exhibitionistic, flamboyant
Brave, courageous, daring
Assured, confident, proud
Direct, frank, straightforward
Humorous, witty
Ambitious, enterprising, opportunistic
Cheerful, jovial, merry, optimistic
a
No.
terms Raw Z
r
Raw
4
3
4
.76
.62
.57
.71
.58
.55
.45
.35
.25
.38
.31
.24
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
.71
.64
.52
.75
.68
.61
.55
.71
.67
.74
.61
.63
.71
.67
.67
.49
.66
.64
.55
.48
.69
.65
.73
.58
.54
.71
.45
.37
.26
.50
.42
.34
.29
.46
.41
.49
.45
.36
.38
.40
.39
.24
.39
.38
.29
.24
.43
.38
.48
.42
.28
.38
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
7
.74
.80
.62
.79
.59
.56
.60
.65
.79
.68
.79
.55
.77
.58
.58
.57
.49
.65
.48
.57
.35
.55
.42
.29
.34
.48
.35
.41
.55
.29
.52
.41
.31
.31
.33
.21
.66
.68
.23
.25
5
5
.68
.72
.68
.72
.30
.36
.30
.35
3
5
.50
.75
.59
.72
.24
.39
.31
.36
3
3
4
6
.59
.45
.45
.77
.58
.46
.48
.74
.33
.21
.17
.38
.32
.22
.19
.35
.70
.66
.38
.34
.49
.51
.16
.18
.57
.59
.21
.23
.78
.67
.47
.34
.66
.45
.33
.17
4
6
.73
.75
.65
.45
.41
.34
.31
.13
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
3
5
4
.74
.71
.87
.83
.64
.68
.66
.72
.79
.76
.55
.60
.82
.73
.63
.60
.57
.62
.63
.68
.48
.39
.62
.50
.38
.36
.39
.47
.44
.45
.29
.28
.55
.35
.37
.28
.30
.35
.26
.35
Aloofness
Silence
Reserve
Shyness
Inhibition
Unaggressiveness
Passivity
Lethargy
Pessimism
TT4-
Cooperation
Amiability
Empathy
Leniency
Courtesy
Generosity
Flexibility
Modesty
Morality
Warmth
Earthiness
Naturalness
TT
Il~
Belligerence
Overcriticalness
Bossiness
Rudeness
Cruelty
Pomposity
Irritability
Conceit
Stubbornness
Distrust
Selfishness
Callousness
Surliness
Cunning
1225
Table 3 (continued)
Factor pole/duster
Prejudice
Unfriendliness
Volatility
Stinginess
Deceit
Thoughtlessness
Organization
Efficiency
Dependability
Precision
Persistence
Caution
Punctuality
Decisiveness
Dignity
Predictability
Thrift
Conventionality
Logic
IllDisorganization
Negligence
Inconsistency
Forgetfulness
Recklessness
Aimlessness
Sloth
Indecisiveness
Frivolity
Nonconformity
IV+
Placidity
Independence
VIInsecurity
Fear
Instability
Emotionality
Envy
Gullibility
Intrusiveness
V+
Intellectuality
Depth
Insight
Intelligence
Creativity
Curiosity
Sophistication
VShallowness
Unimaginativeness
Imperceptiveness
Stupidity
M
Terms included
a
No.
terms Raw Z
r
Raw
Bigoted, prejudiced
Unfriendly, ungracious, unkind
Explosive, tempestuous, volatile
Miserly, stingy
Deceitful, dishonest, underhanded,
unscrupulous
Inconsiderate, tactless, thoughtless
2
3
3
2
4
.68
.76
.68
.67
.69
.59
.65
.56
.56
.45
.51
.52
.42
.51
.35
.41
.38
.31
.39
.17
.69
.60
.45
.34
3
5
.84
.61
.84
.62
.63
.24
.62
.24
3
3
4
2
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
.85
.71
.59
.70
.86
.53
.51
.60
.68
.57
.45
.82
.68
.52
.66
.87
.46
.47
.64
.70
.54
.43
.66
.46
.26
.54
.76
.22
.27
.34
.51
.40
.30
.60
.42
.21
.50
.77
.17
.23
.38
.53
.37
.28
.80
.73
.41
.32
.78
.67
.43
.30
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
.50
.80
.70
.56
.52
.49
.61
.46
.44
.77
.58
.57
.41
.50
.53
.43
.25
.67
.44
.39
.36
.33
.34
.22
.21
.63
.31
.40
.26
.34
.27
.20
3
3
.63
.52
.49
.46
.36
.27
.23
.22
.78
.70
.36
.27
3
3
2
2
3
3
.61
.66
.57
.73
.58
.71
.48
.53
.44
.71
.56
.60
.34
.40
.40
.57
.31
.46
.24
.28
.29
.55
.29
.33
.74
.71
.36
.32
2
3
3
5
.63
.59
.81
.84
.55
.56
.76
.81
.46
.35
.60
.53
.38
.31
.52
.47
2
5
.61
.74
.56
.74
.46
.37
.40
.36
3
2
2
3
3.4
.63
.84
.52
.59
.66
.51
.84
.41
.49
.61
.36
.74
.35
.33
.40
.25
.73
.26
.25
.34
Note. The two estimates of internal consistencycoefficient alpha and the mean interitem correlation
(r)were based on the original (raw) and standardized (Z) responses of 192 college students who described
themselves using an inventory of 479 terms.
1226
LEWIS R. GOLDBERG
Table 4
Varimax-Rotated Factor Loadings From the 100 Clusters in the Liked and the Self Samples
Factor
I
Factor pole/cluster
Liked
II
Self
Liked
III[
Self
Liked
IV
Self
liked
Self
Liked
Self
Factor I: Surgency
1+
Spirit
Gregariousness
Playfulness
Expressiveness
Spontaneity
Unrestraint
Energy level
Talkativeness
Assertion
Animation
Courage
Self-esteem
Candor
Humor
Ambition
Optimism
i
i
Aloofness
Silence
Reserve
Shyness
Inhibition
Unaggressiveness
Passivity
Lethargy
Pessimism
.70*
.70*
.61*
.58*
.58*
.55*
.54*
.53*
.49*
.46*
.40
.48*
.44*
35*
37*
.59*
.63*
.73"
.58*
.60*
.48*
.55*
.60*
.58*
.56*
.45*
.45*
.51*
34*
.21*
.42*
.47
.27
.07
.01
.09
.26
-.01
.09
-.02
-.46
-.16
-.04
-.07
-.01
.29
-.06
.50
35
.13
.01
.05
.29
.01
.18
-.05
-33
-.14
-.03
.08
-.10
.07
-.10
.59*
.05
-.06
-.18
.04
-.28
-32
.19
-.14
.14
-.21
.06
.25
.12
-.12
36
.08
.08
-.03
-.17
-.01
-.21
-.14
.16
-.09
.15
-.14
.06
.24
.03
-.04
.28
.01
-.07
.03
.00
-.07
.11
.17
.18
-.24
.24
-.07
.42*
.44
.29
.08
.29
.09
-.09
-.07
.04
-.08
.03
.07
.15
-.14
.28
.02
33
38
.29
-.07
.15
.07
.10
.02
.10
.19
-.07
.07
.06
-.06
.11
.08
.10
.08
.06
.14
.19
-.03
-.01
.03
-.10
.21
-.16
.09
-.09
-.00
.09
.11
-.09
.07
.17
.17
.21
-.05
-.78*
-.78*
-.66*
-.66*
-.59*
-.57*
-.48*
-.46*
-.55*
-.71*
-.75*
-.53*
-.66*
-.64*
-.62*
-.48"
-.28
-.52*
-.07
.18
-.02
35
.16
.46
33
-.06
-37
-.13
.10
-.08
.20
.08
.19
.28
-.12
-35
-.01
.14
.04
.06
.15
-.06
.01
-.26
-.09
-.07
.11
.03
-.01
.12
-.21
-.07
-30*
-.02
.01
.08
.00
-.19
-.13
-.11
-35
-.07
-.29
.13
.14
.17
-.18
.01
-.14
-.20
-.15
-.24
-.02
.05
-.02
-.06
-.13
-.10
-.27
-.10
-.07
.05
-.04
-.05
-.18
-.08
.05
-32
-.19
-.06
.04
32
.17
-.19
.00
.16
.13
-JO
-.10
37
-.03
.22
-.06
.24
.04
-.21
.04
.03
.05
-39
-.09
.19
-.11
.19
.10
-.11
.34
-.04
.02
-.04
-.13
.14
.08
-.29
-.01
-.38
.02
.18
-.04
-33
.23
-.32*
.22
-.19
.40
-.07
.05
.05
-.18
.16
.12
-.35
-.05
-32
.09
.23
-.03
-38
.29"
-.04
.77*
.61*
.74*
.63*
.55*
36*
.55*
.56*
.50*
.54*
.45*
.45*
.72*
.60*
.70*
.49*
.48*
.48*
.54*
.40*
.48*
.50*
.40*
.44*
.25
.04
.21
-.10
37
.02
.15
.12
.45
.09
.08
-.17
.27
-.02
.16
-.15
38
.04
.05
.11
.24
.08
.08
-.09
.13
-.11
-.21
.24
-.23
-.04
.12
.08
-.05
-37
.18
35
.15
-.08
-.18
.16
-.14
.03
.11
.02
.25
-.44
.12
37
.00
.08
.06
-.18
.18
.14
.04
-.05
.10
.13
-.21
-.06
-.13
.07
-.07
-.16
.08
.06
.03
-.16
.01
.00
-32
-.19
-.74*
-.70*
-.68*
-.63*
-.59*
-.54*
-.61*
-.64*
-.57*
-.53*
-.51*
-.50*
-.44*
-.41*
-.44*
-.41*
.41*
-31
-.56*
-.67*
-J4*
-.53*
-.46*
-.50*
-.42*
-.43*
-35*
-.49*
-.44*
-.48*
-37*
-35*
34*
-38*
-.23
-36*
-.02
.01
.07
-.29
-.02
-.06
-.04
-.16
-.07
-.13
-.22
.00
-.08
-.10
-.09
-.19
-.10
.04
-.12
-.07
.15
-.29
.03
.00
-.07
-.21
-.15
-.12
-.18
-.05
-.10
.12
.01
-.26
-.17
.04
-.14
.08
-.09
.26
.13
-.15
-30
-.02
.00
-.02
-.13
33
.07
.07
.08
.28
-.20
-.03
-.07
.08
.04
.28
.12
-.07
-.41
.02
-.07
-.01
-.18
.42
.08
.05
.04
30
-.26
-.07
.01
-.14
.00
-.16
-.22
-.10
-.05
.03
.04
.05
.04
-.17
-.26
.08
-.17
-.14
-.06
-.06
-.11
-.03
.06
-.07
-.27
-.12
-.06
.21
-.03
.14
.22
-.01
-34
.08
-.08
-.07
-.12
.04
11
Belligerence
Overcriticalness
Bossiness
Rudeness
Cruelty
Pomposity
Irritability
Conceit
Stubbornness
Distrust
Selfishness
Callousness
Surliness
Cunning
Prejudice
Unfriendliness
Volatility
Stinginess
1227
Table 4 (continued)
Factor
I
Factor pole/cluster
Liked
III
II
Liked
Self
Self
Liked
IV
Self
Liked
Self
Liked
Self
-.21
-.24
-.17
-.14
.09
-.15
.02
-.04
-.43"
-.49"
-31"
-34
-37
-37
-.10
-.44"
.08
.27
.02
.21
-.09
-.06
.04
-.13
.13
-.26
.00
.18
-.12
-.20
-.22
-.21
-.11
-.08
-.05
-.02
-.06
.21
-.24
-.07
.19
.00
-.12
-.10
-.15
-.14
.03
.03
31
-.06
-.05
.14
.10
-.09
.18
.20
.20
.24
.01
.02
.10
.29
-.08
.00
.10
.08
-.02
.05
.21
.10
.09
-.01
.71"
.75"
.67"
.54"
.56"
.55"
.58"
.56"
.53"
.49"
.49*
.41"
.45"
.74"
.73"
.61"
.62"
.52"
.42*
.40"
.51'
54*
.48*
.43"
37
30
-.02
.19
.12
-.05
31
-.13
.06
39
-.18
30
.06
-.05
.22
.03
.12
-.02
.09
.24
-.02
-.07
36
-.18
.26
.13
-.03
34
-.05
.10
.00
.16
.18
.04
-.01
.11
.14
-.20
-.16
-33
34
-.03
.11
-.10
.14
.15
-.10
-.01
.06
.02
-31
-.09
-.42"
39*
.05
-.10
.04
-.10
.20
-31
-.20
-.28
.14
.11
-.08
.03
.09
-.09
.18
-.26
-.26
-.25
.13
.07
-.02
-.22
-.22
-.05
-.21
.06
-.15
.04
-.13
-.15
.04
-.12
-.17
.03
-.25
.12
-.10
.07
-.12
-.08
-XV
-.75"
-55"
-.55"
-.55"
-.50*
-.46*
-.45"
-.45"
-.42*
-XV
-.68*
-.54"
-.49*
-AT
-.29"
-.42"
-AS'
-.40*
-33
.00
-.04
-.19
.00
.01
-.07
.00
-35
-.22
.22
-.02
.03
-.12
-.15
.00
.03
-.13
-.25
-32
.24
-.04
-.09
.12
-.01
-.14
-.26
-.11
-.11
.06
36
-.08
-.06
.21
.01
-.14
-.08
-.16
-.04
-.01
39"
-.49
.14
-37
.04
-.09
-.07
-.14
-.09
.04
.21
.03
.09
.54"
38"
.59*
37*
-.06
.26
-.09
31
-.45
-.15
-.20
37
-.03
-.15
30"
-.46
-.21
-.16
30
-.11
-.08
.17
-30
-.08
-.42
.21
-.26
.27
-.24
-.28
-.08
-.27
.10
-30
.27
-.27
-.15
.01
-.17
-.05
-.12
-.22
-.15
-.11
-.02
-.15
-.07
-.01
-.20
-.13
-.56"
-.55"
-.53*
-.53*
-.49*
-37*
-.18
-.53"
-.61*
-58*
.02
-.05
-.06
.08
-.10
-32
-.12
.04
-.08
.11
-.02
-.15
-.18
-.22
.09
.02
.26
.24
.10
.11
-.15
.13
-.02
.07
.08
.12
.00
-.01
.64*
.62*
.50"
.54"
.59*
34*
.41*
.71*
.58"
39*
.58"
.55"
.24*
.29
.04
.09
.06
.00
.01
.02
.08
-.05
-.66*
-.51*
-.49*
-.49*
-.67*
-.49"
-.45*
-.41"
cna
J7
-32'
-.46*
-.29*
Factor V: Intellect
V+
Intellectuality
Depth
Insight
Intelligence
Creativity
Curiosity
Sophistication
VShallowness
Unimaginativeness
Imperceptiveness
Stupidity
-.27
-.12
.06
-.05
.09
.21
.08
-.21
-.11
.00
-.01
.09
.11
.15
.23
.11
.25
.19
.13
.01
.12
.14
.14
.14
.08
.01
.03
-.01
.02
-.08
.24
.19
.02
.00
.26
-.08
-.11
.18
.06
.05
-.13
.29*
-.10
-.23
-.20
-.27
-.03
-.16
-.17
-.28
-.09
.04
.08
-.08
-.04
.09
.13
.10
-.06
.09
-.23
-.07
-.04
-.03
-.20
-.16
Note. All values equal to or greater than.3O are listed in boldface. The values are based on subject-standardized responses in the likedfyi= 316) and the self (n = 320) samples.
* Highest factor loading of each variable.
1228
LEWIS R. GOLDBERG
1229
operating characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
Ostendorf, F. (1990). SpracheundPersonlkhkeitsstruktur: ZurValiditat
des Funf-Fdktoren-Modells der Personlichkeit [Language and personality structure: On the validity of the five-factor model of personality]. Regensburg, Federal Republic of Germany: Roderer Verlag.
Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 59-71.
Peabody, D , & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor
structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality
and 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 factors
based on trait ratings (Technical Report No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US. Air Force.
Waller, N. G., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychology to embrace the five-factor model of personality? American Psychologist, 42, 887-889.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. XX (in press). Personality structure: The
return of the Big Five. In S. R. Briggs, R. Hogan, & W H. Jones (Eds.),
Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies
beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic
dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107.