On Traits and Values: With Special Reference to Openness to Experience

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY ARTICLE NO.

30, 23–41 (1996)

0002

On Traits and Values: With Special Reference to Openness to Experience STEPHEN J. DOLLINGER Southern Illinois University

FREDERICK T. L. LEONG The Ohio State University AND

SHAWNA K. ULICNI Southern Illinois University In three samples (total N 5 583), the Rokeach Values Survey correlates of the fivefactor model (NEO-PI, NEO-FFI, and NEO-PI-R) were examined with a particular focus on the openness to experience dimension, regarded as the least-understood of the ‘‘Big Five’’ factors. Using both individual values items and value composites (ratings and rankings), replicable correlates were identified. Among the 36 values, openness had nine replicable correlates, most notably the terminal value of world of beauty and the instrumental value imaginative. Openness also was reliably related to the positive valuing of being broadminded as well as negative valuing of social recognition, salvation, being clean, obedient, responsible, and self-controlled. Moreover, openness correlated positively in all three samples with the maturity and self-direction values composites, and negatively with the achievement and restrictive conformity composites. Results suggest that, more than the other dimensions of personality, openness to experience best accounts for what people value in their lives. The results also imply that people value qualities that they already possess. We conclude with a discussion of how traits and values relate more broadly and with speculations on the possible origins of openness. © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

The relation between values and traits represents an important topic at the intersection of social and personality psychology. Both values and personality The authors are grateful to William Graziano and Oliver John for their suggestions which much improved the results and discussion sections of this paper. Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Stephen J. Dollinger, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901. E-Mail: [email protected]. 23 0092-6566/96 $18.00 Copyright © 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

24

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

traits are broad categories of individual differences important to the study of persons that are, by definition, assumed to be cross-situationally and crosstemporally consistent. For example, Rokeach (1973) has defined values as ‘‘enduring . . . beliefs that a specific mode of behavior or end state of existence is preferred to (its) opposite . . . a standard that guides and determines action, attitudes toward objects and situations, ideology, presentation of self to others, evaluations, judgments, justifications, comparisons of self with others, and attempts to influence others’’ (p. 25). As such, values can be expected to converge with personality traits. Yet there has been relatively little research to establish such connections (cf., Furnham, 1984; Luk and Bond, 1993; Rim, 1970, 1984). Our particular interest is in the relation between values and openness to experience (Factor V), the most controversial dimension of the five-factor model of personality (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1993; John, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992; Saucier, 1992; Trapnell, 1994). Usually defined in terms of people’s preferences for variety vs sameness/ continuity in life experience, openness can be seen and measured in such diverse areas as fantasy proneness, aesthetic sensitivity, empathy and psychologicalmindedness, intellectual curiosity as well as one’s willingness to try new things. It is also evident in a person’s endorsement of open-minded or liberal vs authoritarian or traditional value systems (McCrae & Costa, 1985, in press; McCrae, 1993–1994, 1994). Although it is conceptually and empirically related to absorption (Glisky, Tataryn, Tobias, Kihlstrom, & McConkey, 1991), authoritarianism and need for cognition (Dollinger, 1992a),1 little is known about openness (Eysenck, 1992). It has been called the most controversial (McCrae & John, 1992) and the least-understood (Costa, 1991) of the personality factors. Despite a long history of research outside of the five-factor model (Coan, 1972; Fitzgerald, 1966; Joe, Jones, & Ryder, 1977; Parsons, Tittler, & Cook, 1984; Victor, Grossman, & Eisenman, 1973), it is certainly the least studied of the ‘‘Big Five.’’ In part this lack of study and understanding may reflect use of the term openness in therapeutic contexts to refer to an individual’s self-disclosive tendencies or lack of defensiveness, meanings which are not necessarily implicated by the concept of openness to experience (McCrae, 1994). In part, the lack of understanding may be stem from the small number of adjectives in the English language to describe aspects of openness (McCrae, 1990). Additionally, the concept is more abstract than other dimensions and higher reading levels are 1 For example, in a sample of 103 undergraduates, we found Byrne’s authoritarianism scale to correlate −.55, p < .001, with the values facet of openness (−.66 for men, −.48 for women); the need for cognition scale correlated .55, p < .001, with the ideas facet of openness (.42 for men, .62 for women). Considering their correlates among the five factors, authoritarianism and need for cognition best correlated with overall openness, respective r’s 4 −.47 and .37, both p < .001. Authoritarianism and need for cognition both correlated significantly (p < .05) with low neuroticism, high extraversion, and high conscientiousness. Need for cognition also correlated with high agreeableness but authoritarianism did not.

TRAITS AND VALUES

25

required to comprehend openness test items (cf. Schinka & Borum, 1994). Indeed, openness correlates with measured intelligence (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Holland, Dollinger, Holland, & MacDonald, 1995; John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994) and ego development (McCrae & Costa, 1980; Preston, 1995) more highly than do other personality dimensions. Along with conscientiousness, it predicts academic performance (Dollinger & Orf, 1991; John et al., 1994; Mervielde, Buyst, & DeFruyt, 1995). As openness is the most cognitive of the ‘‘Big Five’’ factors, values particularly should reflect levels of this trait because, according to Rokeach (1973, 1979), values are central to a person’s cognitive organization. Indeed openness is labeled intellectance by some researchers and viewed as more a part of intelligence than personality by others (for reviews, see John, 1990; McCrae, 1993–1994; 1994). It is noteworthy that some values were better predicted by intelligence than by factors like neuroticism or extraversion (Rim, 1984). In addition to ego development and cognitive variables, openness correlates more highly than the other four factors with creativity (McCrae, 1987), with not having a foreclosed identity (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993), and with the richness of self-depiction via photographs (Dollinger & Clancy, 1993). Openness correlates with striving on personal projects that are especially congruent with life values (Little, Lecci, & Watkinson, 1992), and it is also the factor most likely to predict political ideology. As noted by Furnham (1984), political ideology is one of the commonly studied correlates of the Rokeach Values Survey (e.g., Cochrane, Billig, & Hogg, 1979; Feather, 1979). Because the breadth of this domain is likely to organize people’s views on many activities, goals, and preferences, openness should play a role in people’s values (see also Dollinger, 1992b, 1993; Dollinger, Orf, & Robinson, 1991). The most immediately pertinent investigations to our hypothesis are those by Rim (1984), Furnham (1984) and the recent study by Luk and Bond (1993). Rim (1984) conducted an exploratory study of the value correlates of the EPQ, gender, and intelligence. Although finding a number of correlates of neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), psychoticism (P), and intelligence, Rim made little theoretical significance of the findings. Intelligence scores correlated with the values of being logical, intellectual, broadminded, imaginative, and sense of accomplishment, findings which are intuitively sensible and bear on the present concerns. Furnham (1984) took a more theoretical approach by seeking differences as a function of the four types resulting from the cross-classification of N and E. Several differences emerged suggesting that people value what they do not have (e.g., unstable introverts placed special value on self-respect). Overall, however, Furnham’s results were disappointingly few in number. Luk and Bond (1993) took a different strategy than Rim by offering many values 3 personality hypotheses, most of which involved neuroticism and agreeableness. While we do not disagree with their emphasis on agreeableness, they found several moderately strong relations involving openness which had not been

26

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

predicted. In any case, our approach was more theoretical than Rim but more parsimonious than Furnham (1984) and Luk and Bond (1993) in that we merely sought to identify the Rokeach values which correlated with the ‘‘Big Five’’ and to consider as noteworthy only those correlates which emerged in the first two studies. Because the studies differed in format, replicable correlates are probably not limited by inventory or scaling. Our expectation was that openness to experience would predict variation in people’s ratings of the Rokeach Values better than other personality dimensions. STUDIES 1 AND 2 Method Subjects and Procedure Subjects were 473 university students who participated for extra course credit. Sample 1 consisted of 158 male and 117 female introductory psychology students, averaging 19.8 years of age, who took part in a study in Spring 1990. Sample 2 consisted of 77 male and 121 female students, averaging 22.8 years of age, from an advanced personality course in Spring 1994. No subject participated in both samples. Data were collected in large group administrations. Instruments Personality. Sample 1 completed the 181-item NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985), an inventory which yields domain scores for the five broad factors of personality plus 8-item ‘‘facet’’ scales for subcomponents of 3 of these factors. Sample 2 completed the 60-item brief version of this test, the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989) which yields the five domains but not the facets. As noted in the test manual and in literature reviews (Hogan, 1989; Leong & Dollinger, 1990), the NEO-PI has sound psychometric properties, including impressive long-term reliability, and has been validated against most of the commonly used personality inventories. Initial work on the NEO-FFI has been equally promising. For all analyses, we used NEO domain (T) scores, based on same-sex collegestudent norms in the NEO manuals. Values. The Rokeach Values Survey (RVS) is a 36-item inventory that is the most widely used instrument in the study of human values (cf. Rokeach, 1973, 1979). Eighteen of the items reflect terminal values or end states (e.g., happiness, sense of accomplishment) and 18 reflect instrumental values or means-to-an-end (e.g., clean, honest). Although the RVS was designed for rank-order scaling, some researchers avoid the ranking approach because responses to any given value item are not independent of responses to other value items. Moreover, the rating of values yields results similar to rankings and has been recommended for statistical reasons (Alwin & Krosnick, 1985; Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Rankin & Grube, 1980). We wished to avoid item ipsativity, but we also hoped to prompt subjects to consider seriously the tradeoffs between values, the main advantage

TRAITS AND VALUES

27

of rankings. Thus, in Sample 1 we had subjects rate the values only after reading all 18 in the list. We instructed subjects to keep in mind that some decisions require giving up something to obtain something else; thus they were to be cognizant that one must often choose between values. They were reminded to make their ratings only after becoming familiar with all 18 terminal values, then doing the same with the 18 instrumental values. Ratings were made on a 9-point scale where higher numbers indicated a more important value. Participants in Sample 2 received similar instructions but the response format was modified by use of a 5-point scale and new anchor descriptors; the former change was made to maximize convenience of administration and the latter to increase the subjects’ sense of value-tradeoff while completing the survey. The descriptors were as follows. ‘‘1 4 not very important to me; 2 4 somewhat important but not high in my priorities; 3 4 an important value to me; 4 4 very important (try to use this rating no more than 6 times across the 18 values); 5 4 extremely important (try to use this rating no more than 3 times across the 18 values).’’ Data Analysis Strategy We addressed the research question in three ways. First, and most simply, we identified the individual value items which correlated (p < .05) with the same NEO domains in both samples. For this purpose, we controlled for differences in scales and scale use by standardizing each subjects ratings, subtracting his/her grand mean and dividing this difference score by the subject’s own standard deviation across the 36 values. Second, using Schwartz and Bilsky’s (1990) work on the universal structure of values as a point of departure, we combined most of the 36 values into 7 clusters. These clusters, labeled Enjoyment, Maturity, Prosocial, Security, Achievement, Restrictive Conformity, and Self-Direction, were in turn correlated with the NEO domains, partialing out variance due to scale use (i.e., subjects’ grand mean across the 36 values). Third, we regressed the 5 NEO domains on the 36 values in each sample and cross-validated the multiple correlations in the other (i.e., double cross-validation). This process was repeated by regressing each of the 7 values clusters on the 5 NEO domains. Results and Discussion Zero-Order Correlations Preliminary analyses suggested that gender did not moderate the correlations between values and personality factors. Table 1 shows the RVS items which correlated with the NEO-PI in Sample 1 and replicated with the NEO-FFI in Sample 2. Inspection of these correlations reveals a large number of relations to openness but few for the other personality factors. In general, the correlates showed relations that semantically match the personality correlates. An exciting life filled with positive affect (cheerful) fits with

28

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI TABLE 1 REPLICATED VALUES CORRELATES OF NEO-PI

Factor

Positive correlates

AND

NEO-FFI FACTORS Negative correlates

Extraversion

Cheerful (.18, .22) An Exciting Life (.13, .14)

Logical (2.14, 2.14)

Openness

World of Peace (.16, .17) World of Beauty (.30*, .32*) Broadminded (.20, .33*) Imaginative (.31*, .34*) Intellectual (.14, .19)

Self-Controlled (2.15, 2.23) National Security (2.24*, 2.17) Pleasure (2.16, 2.16) Social Recognition (−.23*, −.21) Clean (2.28*, 2.26*) Obedient (2.23*, 2.35*) Responsible (2.19, 2.19)

Agreeableness

Helpful (.25*, .30*) Forgiving (.24*, .15) Cheerful (.18, .18) Honest (.16, .26*) Loving (.22*, .14)

Social Recognition (2.20, 2.19)

Conscientiousness

Ambitious (.26*, .24*) Clean (.35*, .21)

Imaginative (2.17, 2.24*)

Note. Numerical entries are correlations for Sample 1 (NEO-PI), Sample 2 (NEO-FFI). All correlates listed are significant at p ! .05; those with an asterisk are significant at p ! .001.

most conceptions of an extraverted personality. Being forgiving, helpful, honest, loving and humble (devaluing social recognition) corresponds to agreeableness. Finally, being ambitious and clean reflects conscientiousness. These correlates imply that people value qualities that they already possess. The only surprise here might be the tendency for conscientious persons to devalue being imaginative although this fits some stereotypes of conscientiousness as ‘‘dull.’’ Openness correlated with 12 of the 36 RVS items. Indeed, were we to use a more reasonable inclusion criteria (correlations significant in one sample and marginally so, p < .10, in the other), four additional values would be added to Table 1; that is, by this criterion openness also correlates positively with equality and wisdom, and negatively with a comfortable life and salvation. The correlates suggest that open persons hold an abstract-communal or universalist orientation (world of peace, world of beauty, equality); and they have a preference for inner resources in their valuing (imaginative, intellectual, broadminded, wisdom). The negative correlates suggest that those low in openness prefer a restrictively conforming lifestyle with values on being obedient, clean, responsible, and selfcontrolled. The values correlates also reflect their political and religious conservatism (national security, salvation), and less open people place greater value on conventional personal gratifications (social recognition, pleasure, a comfortable life).

29

TRAITS AND VALUES

Partial Correlations with Values Composites Drawing on the cross-cultural research of Schwartz and Bilsky (1990), we grouped 27 of the 36 values into 7 clusters using unit weighting. These factors were labeled enjoyment, maturity, prosocial, security, achievement, restrictive conformity, and self-direction values.2 Table 2 presents the correlations between 2

We grouped together items that were predicted to cluster on a single relevant dimension and were found to do so in at least five of the seven cultures studied by Schwartz and Bilsky (1990). The Enjoyment composite consisted of the mean of ratings for a comfortable life, happiness, pleasure, and cheerful. Other composites were as follows. Maturity: world of beauty, mature love, wisdom, and courageous; Prosocial: equality, salvation, forgiving, helpful, honest, and loving; Security: family security, and national security; Achievement: social recognition, ambitious, and capable; Restrictive Conformity: clean, obedient, polite, and self-controlled; Self-Direction: imaginative, independent, intellectual, and logical. These composites used raw rather than standardized ratings as each subject’s grand mean was used as a covariate in the regression equations.

PARTIAL CORRELATIONS

OF

NEO TRAITS

TABLE 2 VALUES COMPOSITES, CONTROLLING SCALE USE

WITH

FOR

BIASED

Personality factor Values composite Enjoyment Sample 1 Sample 2 Maturity Sample 1 Sample 2 Prosocial Sample 1 Sample 2 Security Sample 1 Sample 2 Achievement Sample 1 Sample 2 Restrictive conformity Sample 1 Sample 2 Self-direction Sample 1 Sample 2

N

E

O

A

C

.03 .01

−.00 .22

−.06 −.10

.05 −.01

−.04 −.15

−.06 .10

.07 −.08

−.02 −.01

−.23* −.12

.13 −.00

−.09 .03

−.01 .10

.14 .32*

−.10 .10

.03 −.09

.01 −.06

−.23* −.27*

.02 .01

.13 .03

−.00 −.04

.01 .14

−.35* −.16

−.20 −.13

.23* .18

.06 −.08

−.13 −.06

−.38* −.32*

−.11 −.05

.31* .05

−.15 .09

−.04 −.11

.20 .20

−.07 −.20

.32* .27*

.03 −.11

Note. Partial correlations controlled for subjects’ tendency to use higher or lower ratings, operationalized as the grand mean across all 36 values. For statistical significance at the .05, .01 and .001 levels, correlations had to equal or exceed .13, .20, and .23, respectively. * p < .001.

30

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

these 7 values composites and the NEO domains. Partial correlations controlled for the tendency to rate all values high or low, as indicated by the subject’s grand mean across the 36 values. As in the individual-value results, openness had the clearest and most replicable set of correlates. No replicated partial rs obtained for neuroticism or extraversion. Quite sensibly, agreeableness correlated with prosocial values and conscientiousness with achievement values. Openness was reliably correlated with higher ratings of maturity and self-direction values and lower ratings of the security, achievement, and restrictive conformity values. Multiple Correlations Regression models for predicting the five NEO domains from the 36 values were derived in each sample and then applied to the other sample. Table 3 shows the multiple correlations obtained in this fashion. These analyses support the conclusions noted above in that openness to experience had the largest multiple correlations with the values survey, the largest cross-validated multiple R’s, and least shrinkage from one sample to another. Given the item intercorrelations (and number of predictors), we cannot place much significance on the individual b’s. We note in passing that the two items to replicate as significant in these regressions predicting openness were the instrumental values imaginative and obedient. The lower portion of Table 3 shows comparable data when using the seven composites as predictors. Again, openness is more predictable from the values survey than are the other personality dimensions. Significant bs to emerge in predicting openness in both samples were for the maturity, restrictive conformity, and self-direction composites. Together, the analyses in Table 3 suggest that

MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS PREDICTING

Criterion

Sample 1

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness

.377 .654 .683 .564 .614

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness

.189 .333 .537 .310 .399

a b

TABLE 3 FIVE NEO DOMAINS VALUES COMPOSITES

THE

Cross-validationa

FROM THE

36 VALUES

Sample 2

AND

SEVEN

Cross-validationb

Part A: Prediction from all 36 values .092 .549 .071 .179 .470 .421 .478 .696 .503 .355 .574 .362 .272 .667 .344 Part B: Prediction from seven values composites −.077 .160 −.088 .173 .329 .146 .404 .466 .418 .287 .363 .175 .032 .371 .246

These multiple correlations applied the Sample 1 b weights to the data in Sample 2. These multiple correlations applied the Sample 2 b weights to the data in Sample 1.

31

TRAITS AND VALUES

openness was predictable from individual values and composites; that agreeableness and conscientiousness were somewhat predictable from individual values but not from composites. Prediction of extraversion suffered major shrinkage upon cross-validation, and prediction of neuroticism was not possible even in the original analyses in each sample. In a final analysis, we used the NEO domains to predict each of the seven Schwartz–Bilsky values clusters and again cross-validated the multiple correlations in the other sample. This double cross-validation, shown in Table 4, shows that none of the multiple correlations was particularly strong; with shrinkage they were quite small in the cross-validation analyses. The achievement values composite was most predictable whereas maturity and self-direction values were least predictable. Summary of multiple correlation analyses. The median cross-validated multiple R for predicting values from traits was .18 (see columns 2 and 4 of Table 4). With the exception of openness, the median cross-validated multiple R for predicting traits from values was also .18 (see columns 2 and 4 of Table 3). In light of this general picture, it is noteworthy that the median cross-validated multiple R for predicting openness was .41 using values composites and .49 using individual values. Thus, at the composite level, predictions from traits to values and values to traits were generally not impressive, with an important exception— the trait of openness to experience seems to best reflect people’s values. STUDY THREE Although we do not regard the use of values ratings as a weakness, a final study using the more traditional values rankings would further extend the generality of our findings, as would a study using the revised version of the NEO-PI. In conducting this third study, our purposes were to observe which values and values composites would replicate, to note whether openness would continue to be the best trait correlate of values and to examine replicable facet correlations,

MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS PREDICTING

Criterion Enjoyment Maturity Prosocial Security Achievement Restrictive conformity Self-direction a b

TABLE 4 SEVEN VALUES COMPOSITES DOMAIN SCORES THE

FROM THE

FIVE NEO

Sample 1

Cross-validationa

Sample 2

Cross-validationb

.302 .379 .356 .359 .371 .321 .273

.225 .076 .167 .126 .283 .196 .121

.289 .220 .308 .242 .404 .280 .243

.237 .158 .212 .149 .294 .228 .110

These multiple correlations applied the Sample 1 b weights to the data in Sample 2. These multiple correlations applied the Sample 2 b weights to the data in Sample 1.

32

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

when compared with Sample 1. Although multiple R’s within the third sample were determined, further cross-validation of multiple regression equations was not attempted due to the different scaling of values. Method Subjects and Procedure One hundred and ten Introductory Psychology students participated for extra course credit in Spring 1995. These 57 men and 53 women averaged 20.0 years of age. Participants completed the RVS and the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in small groups of 6–12 persons. For the RVS, subjects were asked to rank each set (terminal then instrumental values) from most to least important before applying them via the gummed label on the back to a response record form. For analyses, the rankings were reverse coded (1 4 least important, 18 4 most important) for ease of interpretation and consistency with the rating format results. Results and Discussion First, zero-order correlations were examined for findings that replicated at least one of the earlier studies (p < .05). Neuroticism had only 1 significant correlate; it did not replicate any finding from Samples 1 or 2. Extraversion had 4 significant correlates, none of which obtained in Samples 1 or 2. Openness had 11 significant correlates and 10 of these had appeared at least once before. They included positive relations with world of beauty, r 4 .40, broadminded, r 4 .42, imaginative, r 4 .40; and negative relations with social recognition, r 4 −.30, obedient, r 4 −.29, polite, r 4 −.27, self-controlled, r 4 −.25, salvation, r 4 −.24, clean, r 4 −.22, and responsible, r 4 −.22. Agreeableness had 5 correlates and 2 of these had appeared previously: agreeable persons valued being helpful, r 4 .22 and devalued social recognition, r 4 −.20. Conscientiousness had 4 correlates, 3 of which appeared before: broadminded, r 4 −.29, imaginative, r 4 −.25, and responsible, r 4 .28.3 Composites and multiple correlations. Neuroticism and conscientiousness failed to correlate (p < .05) with any of the Schwartz–Bilsky composites in this sample. Extraversion correlated with three of the composites but only one replicated a finding in the first two samples: specifically, it related inversely to restrictive conformity, r 4 −.23. Openness had four significant correlates and all were replications: restrictive conformity, r 4 −.43, maturity, r 4 .32, selfdirection, r 4 .22, and achievement, r 4 −.20. Thus, only the negative correlation with security values failed to replicate, although its correlation was in the correct direction (−.15, ns). Agreeableness had three correlates, two of which were replications: prosocial values, r 4 .23 and achievement, r 4 −.22. 3 Conscientiousness also correlated −.16, p < .10 with the value of clean, thus weakly replicating Samples 1 and 2. Conscientiousness had one important new correlate, a sense of accomplishment, r 4 .28, p < .01, which did not emerge in Samples 1 or 2.

TRAITS AND VALUES

33

Multiple regressions predicting the NEO-PI-R domains yielded significant models for openness, R2 4 .30, agreeableness, R2 4 .20, and extraversion, R2 4 .16. Multiple regressions predicting the Schwartz–Bilsky composites were significant in four of the seven instances but only for restrictive conformity did the model account for more than 15% of the variance, R2 4 .19. The common theme running through these analyses was the negative association between restrictive conformity and openness to experience. Openness facets. Because the NEO-PI-R includes facet scales for all of the ‘‘Big Five’’ domains, it allows a more fine-grained understanding of the main results.4 Correlations between openness facets and Schwartz-Bilsky composites were explored for replicated patterns between Samples 1 and 3. Partial correlations were used for sample 1 to remove the influence of differential scale use. (Sample 2 was ignored because the NEO-FFI does not yield facet scores.) We consider only those correlates which were obtained in both samples. Restrictive conformity was negatively related to all 6 openness facets in both studies, usually at p < .001. Second, maturity values were reliably related to the aesthetics, feelings, and ideas facets of openness. Aesthetic openness also correlated inversely with security and achievement values and positively with self-direction values. Finally, achievement values correlated inversely with openness to fantasy. To summarize, restrictive conformity values had the greatest saturation across openness facets; and aesthetic openness had the greatest range of values– composite correlates. GENERAL DISCUSSION In sum, the present studies suggests a number of meaningful connections between values and traits, particularly the Big-Five trait of openness to experience. Across three samples differing in RVS format and NEO form, open persons consistently valued a world of beauty and being broadminded and imaginative, whereas closed persons valued social recognition, salvation, and being clean, obedient, responsible, and self-controlled. Openness had the greatest number of values correlates including items from the Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) value domains called maturity, self-direction, and restrictive conformity. These results seem more sensible than Furnham’s (1984) value-what-we-lack hypothesis. Thus, open people value imagination and a world of beauty whereas agreeable people value prosocial qualities such as being helpful, loving, honest and forgiving. So too, conscientious people value being ambitious whereas extraverts value an exciting life full of cheerfulness. In other words, most people value qualities that they already possess. Although some of the relationships were 4 Our focus here is a descriptive presentation of noteworthy results for the openness facets. Upon request, the senior author will provide interested readers with complete correlation matrices of these data and with matrices of correlations involving the facets of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

34

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

quite modest in magnitude, the correlations were often highly similar across the studies. More importantly, their consistency across values response formats, forms of the NEO inventory, and three data sets separated by 5 years suggests that the obtained results are quite reliable. Thus, they invite consideration of two broader questions: why do traits and values correlate? And what are the origins of openness to experience? Traits and Values Although generally falling on different sides of the boundary between personality and social psychology, traits and values have occasionally been grouped in theoretical discourse. Thus, Campbell (1963) counted values and personality traits in his list of some 70 acquired behavioral dispositions that also included attitudes, beliefs and habits. Campbell emphasized the similarity across all of these categories, representing capacities or dispositions that behaving organisms acquire with experience. Thus, values and traits are ways to summarize past dispositions and predict future instances. They may both, for example, predict people’s choice of situations in which to recreate, pursue goals, and in general behave. Scheibe (1970) likewise grouped values and traits with the latter implicitly subordinate: ‘‘A definitive catalog of human values has been a central preoccupation throughout the history of psychology. Despite an enormous variety of general names for items in the list [for example, instincts, faculties, needs, motives, traits (italics added), or primary drives], there are common ways of going about the task, and the lists that emerge are similar in many respects’’ (p. 48). From a different perspective, Gorsuch and Cattell (1977) concluded that values ‘‘are surely rooted in temperamental capacities and dispositions.’’ Thus, values and traits can be viewed as parallel constructs or as similar but with one having some hierarchical superiority. Other useful distinctions can be made however. Whereas both values and traits are implicitly stable, traits are prototypically very stable, long-lasting and internally caused (Chaplin, John, & Goldberg, 1988). By contrast, values are usually viewed as susceptible to the influence of self-confrontation as well as changes in the overall society (Rokeach, 1973, 1979). As an example of how involvement in a new environment or subculture shapes values, college attendance seems to be a major values-changing step (e.g., Biddle, Bank, & Slavings, 1990). Recalling Allport’s (1937) early discussion, values can be viewed as basic to a person’s negotiation of life in the sense of providing an anchoring or ‘‘unifying philosophy of life’’ (p. 225). Cattell views values in a similar way, calling them ‘‘investments in abstractions’’ especially in the realms of ethics, philosophy, religion, the artistic, and society (see Gorsuch & Cattell, 1977). If so, then Hogan’s distinction between personality from the observer’s vs the actor’s perspective is relevant (e.g., Hogan & Hogan, 1991). Whereas the ‘‘Big Five’’ (six in Hogan’s model) could indicate the former perspective, the latter would tend to include the person’s motives (e.g., for acceptance and status) and strategy for

TRAITS AND VALUES

35

establishing identities relevant to these motives. Presumably values would fit well within the actor’s view of his/her own personality since they are selfattributed rather than implicit or nonconscious (cf. McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989). Given these considerations, the present data would not suggest a clear hierarchical relation between traits and values with one superior to the other. At the composite level, and with the important exception of openness, these two domains of individual differences seem to predict each other about equally with a cross-validated multiple R of about .2 The exceptions—values and openness— become noteworthy because it seems most consistent with Allport’s unifying philosophy of life and with Hogan’s notion of strategy in self-identification and development. Specifically, openness is the factor among the ‘‘Big Five’’ that best relates to exploration of possible identities (Tesch & Cameron, 1987; Whitbourne, 1986) and that most encompasses an interest in thoughtful consideration of philosophical and psychological speculation. Values and the Origins of Openness The results also invite brief speculation on the origins of openness. Given that values like imaginative, obedient, and clean predict a person’s level of openness, it is reasonable to hypothesize that early experience with and encouragement in these directions will have profound influence. Very little has been done on the origins of openness (see McCrae & Costa, 1988), and this work is controversial because of its dependence on retrospective report (Halverson, 1988). However, a fairly extensive literature exists on childhood antecedents of such ‘‘open’’ behaviors as creativity and imagination. Consistent with the idea proposed here, Helson (1965) found that, as children, creative women tended to show greater involvement in imaginary play as well as more artistic expression and tomboy characteristics. The latter quality probably reflects the reaction of open persons toward boundaries: an unwillingness to be restrained by artificial or sociallyimposed boundaries and a proclivity to surmount, cross or set new boundaries (cf. Hartmann, 1991). Another early-childhood expression of imagination is the imaginary companion which has been shown to predict later creativity (Manosevitz, Fling, & Prentice, 1977; Schaefer, 1969). In their summary of the literature on fantasy proneness and hypnotic responsiveness, Lynn and Rhue (1988) noted that parental encouragement of fantasy involvement was one of two key influences. The other was an harsh or lonely family environment where fantasy may have served as a mode of coping. The findings on harsh-punitive parenting, while intriguing, are controversial. Other studies of imagination/creativity suggest that a warm supportive environment, and one relatively free from constraint, contributes to creativity (Amabile, 1983; Harrington, Block, & Block, 1987; MacKinnon, 1962; Martindale, 1989; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Wallach, 1970). The opposite of such characteristics seems close to the concept of poisonous pedagogy which undermines later cre-

36

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

ativity (Harrington, 1993). McCrae and Costa’s (1988) work on recalled parent– child relations is relevant here as well. In their research, openness itself correlated with recollected experiences of parents as more loving and more casual/ nondemanding. Thus, there is an interesting discrepancy in terms of whether harsh-punitive parents might produce lesser or greater openness or whether the effects are circumscribed (e.g., harshness might influence fantasy involvement but not other kinds of creativity or openness). Empirical work on the antecedents of such ‘‘closed’’ traits as authoritarianism and dogmatism also contribute to this picture (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950/1982; Hanson & Clune, 1973; Hassan, 1974; Lesser & Steininger, 1975; Mantell, 1974; Rokeach & Kemp in Rokeach, 1960). Specifically it appears that authoritarian and dogmatic parenting with implicit emphasis on the restrictively conforming values and use of harsh discipline will yield relatively closed-minded offspring. So too, there are likely to be important interaction effects between the family’s and educational systems’ influences (e.g., Liebes, Katz, & Ribak, 1991). At this point more research is needed on developmental experiences with values as they influence growth toward high or low openness. We speculate that key institutional influences will include not only the family but educators, coaches, and religious authority figures. Such individuals can emphasize following rules and staying within boundaries (‘‘color within the lines’’ to use a current phrase) or the use of one’s intelligence or imagination to see or dream beyond the limits of one’s own direct experience of the world. Such individuals can encourage the child’s move toward individuality or toward conformity with group norms. Conceivably many small interactions (such as freedom vs constraint in choice of ‘‘how to dress for school tomorrow’’), accumulated over time, will have an effect. Value-instilling extracurricular activities such as sports, drama, scouts, and music or dance will likely also be important. Emphasis on competition and winning (e.g., ‘‘winning first-chair clarinet’’ or in the coach’s platitude, ‘‘winning isn’t everything but losing is nothing’’) may encourage the pursuit of traditional definitions of success—unless they are overdone—and as such shape a more conventional, boundaried personality style. Recalling Gough’s distinction in the California Psychological Inventory between achievement via conformity vs independence (cf. McCrae, Costa, & Piedmont, 1993), emphasis on individual achievement in novel ways or by surpassing one’s own previous limits should encourage greater openness. (In this regard, it is interesting that in all three samples conscientiousness negatively related to the ‘‘open’’ value of being imaginative and yet conscientiousness best-predicts academic achievement.) Also relevant in these culturally enriching educative experiences is the child’s sensory acuity (cf. Daniels-McGhee & Davis, 1994; McCrae, 1993– 1994) and whether the sense experiences are deeply felt, a capacity that may not be susceptible to direct instruction. Conceivably too, some aspects of openness

TRAITS AND VALUES

37

will be genetically influenced (Bergeman, et al., 1993). Clearly, there are many possibilities for worthwhile research. Values Composites Insofar as different values composites share similar personality correlates, the results inadvertently have a bearing on Schwartz and Bilsky’s (1990) suggestions about the structure and compatibility of different values. They offered the hypothesis that values sharing adjacent multidimensional space would be compatible but values with marked spatial separations would be incompatible. They suggested, for example, that restrictive conformity and security values would be compatible; that maturity and self-direction values would also be compatible; but that self-direction and restrictive conformity values would not be compatible. In the present data, the first two pairs reliably correlated in the same direction with openness to experience, whereas the third correlated in opposite directions with openness. These findings suggest that one basis for the values’ compatibility will be their association with openness. Schwartz and Bilsky also suggested that prosocial and achievement values should be incompatible; we found weak support in that these composites align in opposite directions with the factor of agreeableness (see Table 2). Finally, Schwartz and Bilsky suggested that security and achievement should be incompatible, but found only weak support for this claim. The present results suggest that these values will both align with low openness and, to varying degrees with high conscientiousness. Thus, at least some relations between values and traits may help clarify the internal structure of values. Conclusion The results confirm our general expectation that many items of the RVS relate to the openness-to-experience factor of personality. As such, they increase our understanding of openness by showing this still-somewhat unfamiliar concept in an older more familiar form. They also suggest that much variance in the RVS will depend on the overall level of openness of the person. Individuals who score high on this ‘‘fifth dimension’’ of personality are likely to endorse more abstract ideals such as a world of beauty, equality, wisdom and imagination. Persons scoring low on this factor—those who are more conventional or even closed— may regard such values as too irrelevant, grandiose, or ephemeral. Instead they may prefer ‘‘conventional’’ or ‘‘everyday’’ values (like comfortable life, pleasure, or social recognition), or values that constitute a view of what one should be, probably acquired early in life (e.g., clean, obedient, responsible, selfcontrolled). A desirable next step may be to study the meanings and associations of high- and low-openness persons to values such as beauty and imagination and to extend the present findings to Schwartz’s (1992) elaborated model of values.

38

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950/1982). The authoritarian personality. New York: Norton. Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1985). The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 535–552. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bergeman, C. S., Chipuer, H. M., Plomin, R., Pedersen, N. L., McClearn, G. E., Nesselroade, J. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1993). Genetic and environmental effects on openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness: An adoption/twin study. Journal of Personality, 61, 159–179. Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., & Slavings, R. L. (1990). Modality of thought, campus experiences, and the development of values. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 671–682. Braithwaite, V. A., & Law, H. G. (1985). Structure of human values: Testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 250–263. Campbell, D. T. (1963). Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions. In Sigmund Koch (Ed.), Psychology: The study of a science (Vol. 6, pp. 94–172). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 541–557. Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and personality. I: Identity status and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 227–245. Coan, R. W. (1972). Measurable components of openness to experience. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 346. Cochrane, R., Billig, M., & Hogg, M. (1979). Politics and values in Britain: A test of Rokeach’s two-value model. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 159–167. Costa, P. J. Jr. (1991). Review of Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries of the mind, on outer cover of same. New York: Basic Books. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Daniels-McGhee, S., & Davis, G. A. (1994). The imagery-creativity connection. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 151–176. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Dollinger, S. J. (1992a). Authoritarianism, need for cognition, and the ‘‘Big Five.’’ Unpublished raw data, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Dollinger, S. J. (1992b, May). The imagined futures scale. Paper presented at convention of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago. Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Personality and music preference: Extraversion and excitement seeking or openness to experience? Psychology of Music, 21, 73–77. Dollinger, S. J., & Clancy, S. M. (1993). Identity, self, and personality: II. Glimpses through the autophotographic eye. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1064–1071. Dollinger, S. J., & Orf, L. A. (1991). Personality and performance in ‘‘Personality’’: Conscientiousness and openness. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 276–284. Dollinger, S. J., Orf, L., & Robinson, A. (1991). Personality and campus controversies: Preferred boundaries as a function of openness to experience. Journal of Psychology, 125, 399–406.

TRAITS AND VALUES

39

Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673. Feather, N. T. (1979). Value correlates of conservatism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1617–1630. Fitzgerald, E. T. (1966). Measurement of openness to experience: A study of regression in the service of the ego. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 655–663. Furnham, A. (1984). Personality and values. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 483–485. Glisky, M. L., Tataryn, D. J., Tobias, B. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., & McConkey, K. M. (1991). Absorption, openness to experience, and hypnotizability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 263–272. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. Gorsuch, R. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1977). Personality and socio-ethical values: The structure of self and superego. In R. B. Cattell & R. M. Dreger (Eds.), Handbook of modern personality theory (pp. 675–708). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Halverson, C. F. Jr. (1988). Remembering your parents: Reflections on the retrospective method. Journal of Personality, 56, 435–443. Hanson, D. J., & Clune, M. (1973). Dogmatism and anxiety in relation to childhood experience. Journal of Social Psychology, 91, 157–158. Harrington, D. M. (1993). Child-rearing antecedents of suboptimal personality development: Exploring aspects of Alice Miller’s concept of the poisonous pedagogy. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, and K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 289–313). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Harrington, D. M., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers’s theory of creative environments: Child-rearing antecedents of creative potential in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851–856. Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries of the mind. New York: Basic Books. Hassan, M. K. (1974). Child rearing practices and authoritarianism. Indian Journal of Psychiatric Social Work, 3, 1–5. Helson, R. (1965). Childhood interest clusters related to creativity in women. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 352–361. Hogan, R. (1989). Review of the NEO Personality Inventory. In J. C. Conoley & J. J. Kramer (Eds.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 546–547). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1991). Personality and status. In D. G. Gilbert & J. J. Connolly (Eds.), Personality, social skills, and psychopathology: An individual differences approach (pp. 137– 154). New York: Plenum. Holland, D., Dollinger, S. J., Holland, C. J., & MacDonald, D. A. (1995). The relationship between psychometric intelligence and the five-factor model of personality in a rehabilitation sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 79–88. Joe, V. C., Jones, R. N., & Ryder, S. (1977). Conservatism, openness to experience, and sample bias. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 527–531. John, O. P. (1990). The ‘‘big five’’ factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford. John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The ‘‘little five’’: Exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160–178. Leong, F. T. L., & Dollinger, S. J. (1990). NEO Personality Inventory. In D. J. Keyser and R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. 8, pp. 527–539). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

40

DOLLINGER, LEONG, AND ULICNI

Lesser, H., & Steininger, M. (1975). Family patterns in dogmatism. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126, 155–156. Liebes, T., Katz, E., & Ribak, R. (1991). Ideological reproduction. Political Behavior, 13, 237–252. Little, B. R., Lecci, L., & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and personal projects: Linking Big Five and PAC units of analysis. Journal of Personality, 60, 501–525. Luk, C. L., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Personality variation and values endorsement in Chinese university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 429–437. Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1988). Fantasy proneness: Hypnosis, developmental antecedents, and psychopathology. American Psychologist, 43, 35–44. MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484–495. Manosevitz, M. Fling, S., & Prentice, N. M. (1977). Imaginary companions in young children: Relationships with intelligence, creativity, and waiting ability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 18, 73–78. Mantell, D. M. (1974, September). Doves vs. hawks: Guess who had authoritarian parents? Psychology Today, 56–62. Martindale, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 211–232). New York: Plenum. McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265. McCrae, R. R. (1990). Traits and trait names: How well is openness represented in natural languages? European Journal of Personality, 4, 119–129. McCrae, R. R. (1993–1994). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 13, 39–55. McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1980). Openness to experience and ego level in Loevinger’s Sentence Completion Test: Dispositional contributions to developmental models of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1179–1190. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1985). Openness to experience. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 145–172.) Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1988). Recalled parent-child relations and adult personality. Journal of Personality, 56, 417–434. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (in press). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In S. R. Briggs, W. H. Jones, & R. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego: Academic Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., & Piedmont, R. L. (1993). Folk concepts, natural language, and psychological constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the Five-Factor model. Journal of Personality, 61, 1–26. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & DeFruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the big-five as a model for teachers’ ratings of individual differences among children aged 4–12 years. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 525–534.

TRAITS AND VALUES

41

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43. Parsons, R. J., Tittler, B. I., & Cook, V. J. (1984). A multi-trait multi-method evaluation of creativity and openness. Psychological Reports, 54, 403–410. Preston, L. A. (1995). Photographing the self: Richness of self-depiction as a correlate of ego development. Unpublished masters thesis. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Rankin, W. L., & Grube, J. W. (1980). A comparison of ranking and rating procedures for value system measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 233–246. Rim, Y. (1970). Values and attitudes. Personality, 1, 243–250. Rim, Y. (1984). Importance of values according to personality, intelligence, and sex. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 245–246. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values. New York: The Free Press. Saucier, G. (1992). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing. European Journal of Personality, 6, 381–386. Schaefer, C. E. (1969). Imaginary companions and creative adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 1, 747–749. Scheibe, K. E. (1970). Beliefs and values. New York, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Schinka, J. A., & Borum, R. (1994). Readability of normal personality inventories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 95–101. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891. Tesch, S. A., & Cameron, K. A. (1987). Openness to experience and development of adult identity. Journal of Personality, 55, 613–630. Trapnell, P. D. (1994). Openness versus intellect: A lexical left turn. European Journal of Personality, 8, 273–290. Victor, H. R., Grossman, J. C., & Eisenman, R. (1973). Openness to experience and marijuana use in high school students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 78–85. Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) Carmichael’s manual of child psychology, 3rd ed. (Vol. 1, pp. 1211–1272). NY: Wiley. Whitbourne, S. K. (1986). Openness to experience, identity flexibility, and life change in adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 163–168.