Journal of Counseling Psychology

1993, Vol. 40, No. 4, 518-524 Copyright 1993 by lire American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-0167/93/$3.OO

Personality and Vocational Interests: The Relation of Holland's Six Interest

Dimensions to Five Robust Dimensions of Personality

Gary D. Gottfreds-jn, Elizabeth M. Jones, and John L. Holland

Relations between interest-based personality dimensions from J. L. Holland's (1985a) theory of

vocational personalities and 5 robust factors of personality (R. R. McCrae & O. P. John, 1992) were
examined. Results for 479 male and 246 female U.S. Navy trainees imply that the 6 theoretical
scales of the Vocational Preference Inventory and 20 scales of the NEO Personality Inventory share
2 to 4 significant factors. Social and Enterprising vocational preferences were positively correlated
with Extraversion; Investigative and Artistic preferences were positively correlated with Openness;
and Conventional preferences were correlated with Conscientiousness. Examinations of correla-
tions for instruments with scales that are assumed to represent facets of 5 general personality
factors usually supported these interpretations. Despite their regularity, the vocational-personality
correlations were too low to suggest that either form of assessment is a dependable substitute for
the other.

The organization of data to facilitate explanation and pre-
diction is a traditional aim of science. In general, simpler
organizations are preferred to more complex organizations if
they achieve a similar degree of explanatory power. Thus,
many workers in the personality assessment field have used
factor analyses of specific personality indexes to organize
these data by reference to a small number of factors.
Early research by Tupes and Christal (1961/1992) and by
Norman (1963) suggested that a small number of replicable
factors provided a useful organization of multiple specific
personality assessments. In more recent years, the search for
robust factors of personality has coalesced into a five-factor
model of personality (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; Mc-
Crae & John, 1992; Wiggins & Pincus, 1992). There are
several operationalizations of the "big five" factors in per-
sonality inventories (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Goldberg,
1992; Hogan, 1986; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). The five-
factor model provides a useful structure for interpreting and
organizing information derived from a variety of inventories.
Different authors assign different names to the five per-
sonality factors, and inventories differ in the order in which
scores are organized. This makes introduction of the factors
and the organization of information cumbersome. Here we
follow an emerging convention of labeling factors with
Roman numerals. The following are generic labels (and, in
parentheses, the name applied by Costa & McCrae, 1985)
for each of the five personality factors: I. Extraversion
(Extraversion), II. Likability (Agreeableness), III. Control
Gary D. Gottfredson, Elizabeth M. Jones, and John L. Holland,
Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity.
We are grateful for the assistance of Susan A. McLean in pre-
paring the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Gary D. Gottfredson, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social
Organization of Schools, 3505 North Charles Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21218.
(Conscientiousness), IV. Neuroticism (Neuroticism), and
V. Intellectance (Openness).
Researchers have also sought useful organizing schemes
for vocational interests (vocational preferences and voca-
tional personalities). In the 1938 revision of his inventory,
Strong imposed an organization on the occupational scales
of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (Campbell, 1971).
Later, impressed by the usefulness of Roe's (1956) occupa-
tional classification and the usefulness of Kuder's (1960)
small number of vocational interest dimensions—and build-
ing on factor-analytic work conducted by Guilford, Chris-
tensen, Bond, and Sutton (1954)—Holland (1966) proposed
six dimensions of vocational preferences in a typology of
vocational personalities. In that proposal, the six dimensions
of vocational personality are regarded as assessing a person's
degree of resemblance to six personality "types." There have
been several operationalizations of Holland's six dimensions
in interest inventories (Campbell, 1977; Gottfredson, 1988;
Hansen & Campbell, 1985; Holland, 1985b, 1985c; Johan-
sson, 1982). Also, many interest inventories have classified
or interpreted more specific interest scales in terms of Hol-
land's six dimensions.
One study (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984) explored the
relations between the six vocational personality scales of the
Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, 1985b) and three scales
of the NEO (Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness) Inventory
(McCrae & Costa, 1983), which was a forerunner of the
five-factor NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa &
McCrae, 1985). In a sample of 394 adults, Investigative and
Artistic SDS scores were moderately positively correlated
with NEO Openness, and Social and Enterprising SDS scores
were moderately positively correlated with NEO Extraver-
sion scores. A second investigation (Hogan, 1986) reported
results consistent with the interpretation that Intellectance
(which appears to be related to the NEO Openness factor) is
most strongly correlated with the SDS Investigative scale and
that Ambition and Sociability (which appear to be related to
the NEO Extraversion factor) are correlated most with the
SDS Social and Enterprising scales.

518
 PERSONALITY AND INTERESTS
In this article, we extend these earlier inquiries by report-
ing on the relations between five-factor personality theory,
as represented by the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985), and
vocational personality, as represented by the Vocational Pref-
erence Inventory (VPI; Holland, 1985c). We also summarize
correlations between the scales of a variety of personality
inventories presumed to represent each of the five factors of
personality and Holland's six dimensions according to the
SDS or VPI.
Method
Participants
Male (n = 479) and female (n = 246) recruits who were be-
ginning basic training in U.S. Navy training centers were studied.
Women from five companies and men from seven companies were
assembled in groups and asked to complete the VPI (Holland,
1985c) and the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) at an early stage
in their training. The mean age of men was 19 years (range = 16
to 31), and the mean age of women was 21 years (range = 17 to
35). Approximately 59% of the women and 73% of the men were
high school graduates. Most recruits also completed several other
tasks not examined here (see Holland, Gottfredson, & Baker, 1990).
The VPI, a personality inventory composed entirely of occupa-
tional titles, is the source of six 14-item theoretical scales measuring
the six Holland dimensions: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, So-
cial, Enterprising, and Conventional. In the present sample, Kuder-
Richardson 21 ranged from .82 to .92 for women and from .78 to
.89 for men across the six scales. The NEO-PI measures five per-
sonality factors—I. Extraversion, II. Agreeableness, HI. Conscien-
tiousness, IV. Neuroticism, and V. Openness—and six facets each
for three of these factors. Costa and McCrae (1985, 1989) reported
alpha reliabilities for the five factor scales ranging from .76 to .93
(with all alphas except for Agreeableness higher than .86).
Analyses
Canonical correlation analysis was conducted to assess the sig-
nificance of common factors between the scales of the NEO-PI and
those of the VPI. In this analysis, the relations between linear com-
posites of scales from the two inventories were examined to explore
the magnitude of the correlations between one or more common
orthogonal, maximally related factors for the two inventories.
The NEO-PI produces redundant scores by including both facet
scales and factor scales for Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Open-
ness. Therefore, analyses were based on the facet scores for these
three factors (six facets each of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and
Openness) and the factor scores for Agreeableness and Conscien-
tiousness. The six theoretical vocational personality scales of the
VPI were also examined (omitting the VPI's other four scales and
its acquiescence index).
Specific correlations between each NEO-PI factor and facet score
and each VPI score were calculated for men and women to provide
a more fine-grained examination of the relations between the spe-
cific scales of the two respective instruments.
Organization of Previous Results
Our original analyses were supplemented by organizing available
correlations between measures of Holland's vocational personality
constructs and scales from a variety of inventories presumed to
519
represent the five factors of personality. The following sources were
used: (a) the Navy recruit samples described earlier; (b) a study of
an adult sample of men and women conducted by Costa et al.
(1984); (c) correlations for 104 Missouri adults studied by Holland,
Johnston, Asama, and Polys (1993); (d) Navy enlisted personnel for
whom Hogan (1986) reported results; (e) National Merit Scholar-
ship finalists (Holland, 1978); (f) sales job applicants (Holland,
1978); and (g) college students tested by G. I. Kelso (correlations
reported by Holland, 1978). No claim is made that all pertinent
correlations have been found.
Specific scales in our tables marked as representing the big five
factors were identified after consulting correspondence tables pro-
posed by Digman (1990) and by McCrae and John (1992). In a few
cases, we overruled the correspondence suggested in these sources
when our knowledge of the scale implied this was appropriate. For
example, whereas Digman (1990) suggested a correspondence of
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) Exvia scale
with Factor I (Extraversion), we placed Exvia under Factor V
(Intellectance).
Results
An exploration of the number of factors that the VPI and
the NEO-PI have in common are difficult to summarize suc-
cintly because the results of canonical analyses performed in
different ways are somewhat different. For the entire sample
of men and women, five canonical factors were significant
(p < .003). When analyses were conducted separately for
men and women, two canonical factors were significant for
women (p < .002) and four were significant for men (p <
.004). Significance levels depend on sample sizes, of course,
so one interpretation of these results is that the two inven-
tories have at least two and up to four factors in common. For
the female sample, four factors had squared canonical cor-
relations larger than .10; thus, by this criterion, the third and
fourth factors are equally important for women and men.
Table 1 shows the correlations between the inventory scales
and the first four factors for both sexes.
The structural coefficients shown in Table 1 suggest that
the first and largest factor involves artistic and investigative
interests and a personality style characterized by openness.
The remaining factors are more difficult to interpret. For
men, the second factor seems to be related to extraversion
(inversely); for women, both the second and the third factors
seem weakly related to extraversion. The third factor for men
and the fourth factor for women suggest that elevated scores
on all six VPI scales are somewhat related to having low
scores on neuroticism. Regardless of the interpretation of
these orthogonal canonical factors, the results imply that the
two inventories have two to four significant factors of non-
trivial size in common between the two inventories, only the
first of which is large and easily interpreted.
Correlations between the NEO-PI and the VPI scales for
men are shown in Table 2, and correlations for women are
shown in Table 3. There was a tendency for the six VPI
theoretical personality scales to have small negative corre-
lations with the NEO-PI Neuroticism factor scale and the six
facet scales. Although often statistically significant, these
correlations did not reach -.20 in magnitude.
 520 G. GOTTFREDSON, E. JONES, AND J. HOLLAND

Table 1
Correlations of Assessment Scores With Canonical Factors for Men and Women
Canonical factors for men Canonical factors for women
Inventory and scale 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Vocational Preference Inventory
Realistic -31 15 57 37 27 47 -03 76
Investigative 31 -06 67 -49 58 35 -30 47
Artistic 81 -13 45 28 84 14 43 15
Social 21 -70 54 16 15 -31 12 75
Enterprising 09 -75 17 10 27 28 -09 16
Conventional -19 -60 64 04 -16 56 32 33
NEO Personality Inventory
I. Extraversion facets
Warmth -01 -54 17 -04 -18 -38 02 44
Gregariousness -05 -53 02 05 -08 -16 02 15
Assertiveness 04 -70 -08 -25 03 -08 -24 15
Activity -02 -27 16 -16 -05 -22 -22 -05
Excitement-seeking 03 02 12 06 -14 -13 -42 08
Positive emotions 15 -28 28 13 -10 -40 -02 25
II. Agreeableness -03 -16 54 -17 -16 -12 12 31
III. Conscientiousness -24 -38 53 -23 00 45 17 15
IV. Neuroticism facets
Anxiety 10 -05 -03 41 -05 -22 08 -28
Hostility 09 30 -41 43 -03 12 -14 -39
Depression 05 09 -07 47 -10 03 12 -19
Self-consciousness 09 18 -22 15 03 -10 08 -39
Impulsiveness 14 10 -28 24 -02 -26 -26 -23
Vulnerability 11 16 -30 48 -03 03 00 -53
V. Openness facets
Fantasy 51 13 -37 -08 42 -10 -36 14
Aesthetics 86 -16 40 06 79 -18 19 15
Feelings 30 -32 08 05 21 -39 -13 11
Actions 24 23 18 -13 18 -27 10 57
Ideas 42 -10 30 -62 38 05 -36 56
Values 24 -11 -09 -44 -08 -25 -27 52
R 54 38 33 28 60 47 34 32
Wilks's lambda 45 64 74 84 34 53 68 78
= 479) and two were significant for women (n =
246).

The VPI Social and Enterprising scales usually were sig-
nificantly positively correlated with NEO-PI factor and facet
scales for Extraversion for the male subsample. Correlations
for women were smaller and usually nonsignificant. No cor-
relation exceeded .23 in size.
The VPI Investigative and Artistic scales were positively
correlated with the NEO-PI Openness factor and most of the
associated facet scores. The Artistic scale had a correlation
above .40 with Aesthetics (a facet of Openness) for both men
and women. Correlations of Openness facets with the In-
vestigative scale, although generally positive, were always
.28 or lower.
NEO-PI Agreeableness had no correlation as large as .20
with any VPI scale. NEO-PI Conscientiousness had signifi-
cant positive correlations (.17 for women and .25 for men)
with the VPI Conventional scale.
Correlations from the present investigation and from
other studies are assembled in Table 4. This table is or-
ganized to show correlations of Holland scales with
scales from the NEO-PI, the Hogan Personality Inventory
(Hogan, 1986), the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament
Survey (GZTS; Guilford & Zimmerman, 1948), the
California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1957),
and the 16PF (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) that
are assumed to be markers for each of the five personality
factors.
The correlations shown in Table 4 may be interpreted as
follows: Scales presumed to be related to the Extraversion
factor (I) tended to have positive correlations with the VPI
Social and Enterprising scales. Scales presumed to be mark-
ers for Likability (II) usually had small correlations with the
VPI theoretical personality scales. Scales presumed to be
markers for Control (III) usually had moderate positive cor-
relations with VPI Conventional scores, although the CPI
Socialization and Self-Control scales did not. Markers for
Neuroticism (IV) were usually negatively correlated with all
of the VPI theoretical personality scales. Markers for Intel-
lectance (V) were often correlated with the VPI Investigative
and Artistic scales. The 16PF Intelligence score was not cor-
related with Investigative or Artistic scores in the sample of
National Merit Scholarship finalists, probably because of an
insufficient ceiling in the Intelligence scale for this sample.
The CPI Achievement via Independence and the GZTS
Thoughtfulness scales diverged from other markers for In-
 PERSONALITY AND INTERESTS 521

Table 2
Correlations Between NEO Personality Inventory Scales and Vocational Preference Inventory Scales: Men
Vocational Preference Inventory Scale
NEO Personality Inventory
scale and facet scale Realistic Investigative Artistic Social Enterprising Conventional

I. Extraversion 05 10 08 19 23 17
Warmth 02 07 04 19 16 14
Gregariousness 00 01 03 12 19 16
Assertiveness -03 08 04 16 25 15
Activity 04 08 02 09 11 10
Excitement seeking 11 08 05 02 07 03
Positive emotions 07 11 13 16 12 09
II. Agreeableness 10 16 06 14 06 13
Ill Conscientiousness 10 12 -01 14 15 25
IV. Neuroticism -03 -13 04 -06 -06 -12
Anxiety -03 -08 07 03 00 00
Hostility 02 -11 01 -13 -04 -14
Depression 01 -09 03 01 -06 -06
Self-consciousness -04 -06 00 -05 -08 -12
Impulsiveness -05 -08 03 -05 -04 -10
Vulnerability -06 -15 03 -08 -06 -10
V. Openness -11 25 34 14 07 -02
Fantasy -17 00 16 -06 -03 -15
Aesthetics -07 23 45 21 12 04
Feelings -06 06 16 13 12 07
Actions 03 12 11 00 -03 -04
Ideas -08 23 18 10 06 04
Values -09 10 06 04 02 -04
Note. N = 479. Decimal points are omitted. Correlations of .09 or larger in absolute value are significant at the p < .05 level.

Table 3
Correlations Between NEO Personality Inventory Scales and Vocational Preference Inventory Scales: Women
Vocational Preference Inventory Scale
NEO Personality Inventory
scale and facet scale Realistic Investigative Artistic Social Enterprising Conventional
I. Extraversion -02 -06 -09 11 02 -04
Warmth -02 -06 -07 19 02 02
Gregariousness 01 -08 -01 10 10 05
Assertiveness 03 02 00 08 09 01
Activity -06 -02 -10 -05 -14 -15
Excitement seeking -02 -02 -13 02 01 -04
Positive emotions -04 -06 -07 10 -06 -08
II. Agreeableness 03 -04 -07 05 -10 -02
III. Conscientiousness 11 11 06 00 07 17
IV. Neuroticism -12 -10 -08 -15 -12 -13
Anxiety -14 -09 -05 -05 -10 -10
Hostility -05 -06 -06 -16 -05 -07
Depression -03 -09 -06 -12 -13 -07
Self-consciousness -10 -07 -02 -13 -14 -14
Impulsiveness -09 -09 -08 -06 -06 -15
Vulnerability -12 -08 -05 -17 -08 -08
V. Openness 16 25 22 18 03 -13
Fantasy 10 18 16 05 06 -11
Aesthetics 12 26 42 13 09 -10
Feelings -03 05 06 09 -03 -13
Actions 12 08 10 16 -03 -06
Ideas 20 28 17 17 13 03
Values 08 04 -10 08 -13 -12
Note. N = 246. Decimal points are omitted. Correlations of .13 or larger in absolute value are significant at the p < .05 level.
 522 G. GOTTFREDSON, E. JONES, AND J. HOLLAND

Table 4
Correlations Between the Theoretical Scales of the Vocational Preference Inventory and Measures of Five Robust
Dimensions of Personality From Different Inventories
Personality dimension Instru-
and scale Sample ment N R I
Dimension I (Extraversion)
NEO-PI Extraversion3 Male Navy recruits VPI 479 05 10 08 19 23 17
Female Navy recruits VPI 246 -02 -06 -09 11 02 -04
NEO-PI Extroversion" Adult men SDS 2)7 14 00 18 50 65 15
Adult women SDS 144 05 14 33 43 51 -10
NEO-PI Extraversion0 Missouri adults SDS 104 04 12 01 26 38 12
Ambition (HPI) Navy enlisted personnel SDS 167 13 15 19 28 49 34
Sociability (HPI) Navy enlisted personnel SDS 167 05 09 19 34 34 09
Social Activity (GZTS) Sales job applicants VPI 200 -08 -02 13 20 48 11
Sociability (CPI) College students VPI 188 00 14 08 19 26 -05
Dimension II (Likability)
NEO-PI Agreeablenessa Male Navy recruits VPI 479 10 16 06 14 06 13
Female Navy recruits VPI 246 03 -04 -07 05 -10 -02
NEO-PI Agreeablenessc Missouri adults SDS 104 -29 -12 10 23 -04 05
Likability (HPI) Navy enlisted personnel SDS 167 10 15 30 39 30 13
Cortertia (Controlled, 16PF) Male National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 783 09 12 -02 -07 -11 -08
Female National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 394 12 10 10 01 -14 -01
Femininity (CPI) College students VPI 188 -16 -10 12 11 -09 -07
Dimension III (Control)
NEO-PI Conscientiousness" Male Navy recruits VPI 479 10 12 -01 14 15 25
Female Navy recruits VPI 246 11 11 06 00 07 17
NEO-PI Conscientiousness0 Missouri adults SDS 104 03 03 -02 11 24 34
Prudence (HPI) Navy enlisted personnel SDS 167 -21 -02 02 19 09 25
Super Ego Strength Male National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 783 06 04 -11 11 09 18
(Conscientious, 16PF) Female National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 394 16 09 -04 04 01 17
Restraint (GZTS) Sales job applicants VPI 200 -13 05 -09 -03 -09 29
Socialization (CPI) College students VPI 188 19 10 -20 05 -02 00
Self-Control (CPI) College students VPI 188 08 00 -23 10 -08 -03
Dimension IV (Neuroticism)
NEO-PI Neuroticisma Male Navy recruits VPI 479 -03 -13 04 -06 -06 -12
Female Navy recruits VPI 246 -12 -10 -08 -15 -12 -13
NEO-PI Neuroticismb Adult men SDS 217 -08 -13 16 -09 -04 05
Adult women SDS 144 09 -05 03 -17 -08 02
NEO-PI Neuroticismc Missouri adults SDS 104 -01 -14 -01 03 -07 02
Low Adjustment (HPI) Navy enlisted personnel SDS 167 -18 -04 07 -17 -03 -05
Anxiety (16PF) Male National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 783 -02 22 08 -30 -29 -14
Female National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 394 12 12 -10 -30 -27 -15
Low Objectivity (GZTS) Sales job applicants VPI 200 20 -09 09 -05 -06 01
Low Well Being (CPI) College students VPI 188 -08 -14 06 -17 -05 15
Dimension V (Intellectance)
NEO-PI Openness3 Male Navy recruits VPI 479 -11 25 34 14 07 -02
Female Navy recruits VPI 246 16 25 22 18 03 -13
NEO-PI Openness" Adult men SDS 217 12 33 49 17 16 00
Adult women SDS 144 17 40 53 28 23 -15
NEO-PI Opennessc Missouri adults SDS 104 24 36 52 24 09 -26
Intellectance (HPI) Navy enlisted personnel SDS 167 03 55 36 28 32 35
Intelligence (16PF) Male National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 783 -11 -06 04 -02 -10 -07
Female National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 394 04 -02 -03 -10 -02 -02
Exvia (Radicalism, 16PF) Male National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 783 08 20 05 -14 -18 -08
Female National Merit Scholarship finalists VPI 394 -01 19 08 -22 -05 -16
Thoughtfulness (GZTS) Sales job applicants VPI 200 02 09 10 19 -07 18
Achievement via Independence (CPI) College students VPI 188 02 01 08 10 -13 -17
Intellectual Efficiency (CPI) College students VPI 188 05 19 09 10 00 -17
Psychological Mindedness (CPI) College students VPI 188 -08 20 -03 00 -08 -10
Note. Decimal points are omitted. R = Realistic; I = Investigative; A = Artistic; S = Social; E = Enterprising; C = Conventional.
NEO-PI = NEO Personality Inventory. VPI = Vocational Preference Inventory. SDS = Self-Directed Search. HPI = Hogan (1986)
Personality Inventory. 16PF = Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire correlations reported by Holland (1978). GZTS = Guilford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey correlations reported by Holland (1978). CPI = California Psychological Inventory correlations
reported by G. I. Kelso (cited in Holland, 1978). In instances in which scale names may not be easily understood, alternative designations
are also given in parentheses in the first column.
a
Present study. b Costa, McCrae, and Holland (1984). c Holland, Johnston, Asama, and Polys (1993).
 PERSONALITY AND INTERESTS
Table 5
Median Correlations Between Presumed Markers for Personality Factors and Holland Scales
Personality factor Realistic Investigative
I. Extraversion 05 10
II. Likability 09 10
HI. Control 08 05
IV. Neuroticism -02 -10
V. Intellectance 04 20
Note. Decimal points are omitted.
tellectance; they were not much correlated with VPI Inves-
tigative or Artistic scores. The correlations from Table 4 are
summarized in Table 5, which displays the median correla-
tions of Holland scales with scales representing each per-
sonality factor.
Discussion
This article has pulled together data from a variety of
samples and instruments to provide information on the de-
gree of overlap between two approaches to organizing per-
sonality information. None of the information sources is
ideal. Perhaps the most diverse sample of large size—and
therefore the sample that comes closest to being ideal for
studying the relations between the two personality assess-
ment structures—is the adult sample studied by Costa et al.
(1984). For that sample, however, information was reported
only for three of the five personality factors. Other samples
are limited in one way or another, and judgment was involved
in selecting markers from a variety of instruments for the
five-factor system.
Despite these limitations, the results imply that the per-
sonality variables represented by the five factors are related
to Holland's six personality dimensions. Thus, despite de-
cades of separate development, vocational interests or pref-
erences and personality as assessed by variables subsumed
by the five-factor model are related. In short, we second and
extend the conclusion of Costa et al.'s (1984) earlier inves-
tigation. Extraversion (I) is related to social and enterprising
interests. Intellectance (V) is related to investigative and ar-
tistic interests, and Control (III) is related to conventional
interests. Neuroticism (IV) has small negative correlations
with all six Holland interest dimensions (see also Gottfredson
& Jones, 1993).
Nevertheless, the correlations tend to be small to modest
in size, with the exception of the correlations between
some markers for Intellectance (V) and Artistic and Inves-
tigative interests. Equally important, the sizes of correla-
tions representing the same factors estimated using differ-
ent scales for different samples are extremely variable. For
example, the correlation in Table 4 of VPI and SDS Artis-
tic scales with the alternative markers for Intellectance (V)
range from -.03 to .53 for different samples. Therefore,
neither the canonical correlations of Table 1 nor the me-
dian correlations of Table 5 should be regarded as defini-
tive. There is still a need for research with large diverse
samples using scales developed specifically to represent
523
Artistic Social Enterprising Conventional
13 26 38 11
10 11 -09 -01
-04 10 07 18
05 -16 -06 -02
10 12 02 -09
the five robust personality factors (e.g., Goldberg, 1992)
and scales measuring Holland's dimensions.
Our results also suggest that the important Neuroticism
(IV), Likability (II), and Control (III) domains are not well
represented in Holland's interest dimensions. Because
Neuroticism, Likability, and Control are probably all rel-
evant to core problems in vocational psychology—work
adjustment, job satisfaction, integrity, and interpersonal re-
lations in the workplace—supplementing interest assess-
ments with assessments of these three factors or with more
comprehensive assessments of all five robust personality
factors may be useful in counseling and organizational ap-
plications. In other words, counselors should supplement
Holland's formulations about the types and about person-
environment interactions with straightforward applications
of the personality dimensions omitted from Holland's
theory—especially Neuroticism, Likability, and Con-
scientiousness—to understand client problems such as job
dissatisfaction and work adjustment.
Wiggins and Pincus (1992) recently illustrated how the
five-factor model might be useful in counseling related to
interpersonal problems. Research and examples that supple-
ment interest assessment using Holland's six interest dimen-
sions with assessment of some or all of the five personality
factors now appear useful.
References
Campbell, D. P. (1971). Handbook for the Strong Vocational In-
terest Blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Campbell, D. P. (1977). Manual for the Strong-Campbell Interest
Inventory T325 (merged form). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook
for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Cham-
paign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality
Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO PI/FFI
manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality
and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 390-400.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-
factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big Five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 4, 26-42.
524 G. GOTTFREDSON, E. JONES, AND J. HOLLAND

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality
traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1988). Development of the Civilian-Military
Interest Survey (C-MIS) (NPRDC TN 88-20). San Diego, CA:
Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Jones, E. M. (1993). Psychological meaning
of profile elevation in the Vocational Preference Inventory. Jour-
nal of Career Assessment, 1, 35—49.
Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual for the California Psychological In-
ventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Bond, N. A., Jr., & Sutton, M. A.
(1954). A factor analysis study of human interest. Psychological
Monographs, 68(4, Whole No. 375).
Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1948). Guilford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply.
Hansen, J. C , & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manualfor the SVIB-SCU.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Minne-
apolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice: A theory
of personality types and model environments. Waltham, MA:
Blaisdell.
Holland, J. L. (1978). Manual for the Vocational Preference In-
ventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Holland, J. L. (1985a). Making vocational choices: A theory of
vocational personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1985b). Manual for the Self-Directed Search.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L. (1985c). Manual for the Vocational Preference In-
ventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, G. D., & Baker, H. G. (1990). Validity
of vocational aspirations and interest inventories: Extended, rep-
licated, and reinterpreted. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37,
337-342.
Holland, J. L., Johnston, J. A., Asama, N. F, & Polys, S. M.
(1993 ). Validating and using the Career Beliefs Inventory. Jour-
nal of Career Development, 19, 233-244.
Johansson, C. B. (1982). Manual for the Career Assessment
Inventory (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems.
Kuder, G. F. (1960). Administration's manual: Kuder Preference
Record, Vocational, Form C. Chicago: Science Research Asso-
ciates.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Joint factors in self-
reports and ratings: Neuroticism, extraversion, and open-
ness to experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 4,
245-255.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-
factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 52, 175-
215.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality
attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination person-
ality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66,
574-583.
Roe, A. (1956). The psychology of occupations. New York: Wiley.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Inter-
personal Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
781-790.
Tupes, E. C , & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors
based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225-251.
(Original work published 1961)
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1992). Personality: Structure and
assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 473-504.
Received November 19, 1992
Revision received March 1, 1993
Accepted March 3, 1993 •

1994 APA Convention "Call for Programs"

The "Call for Programs" for the 1994 APA annual convention appears in the September issue
of the APA Monitor. The 1994 convention will be held in Los Angeles, California, from
August 12 through August 16. The deadline for submission of program and presentation
proposals is December 3, 1993. Additional copies of the "Call" are available from the APA
Convention Office, effective in September. As a reminder, agreement to participate in the
APA convention is now presumed to convey permission for the presentation to be
audiotaped if selected for taping. Any speaker or participant who does not wish his or her
presentation to be audiotaped must notify the person submitting the program either at the
time the invitation is extended or before the December 3 deadline for proposal submission.