The big five as tendencies in situations

Prr\,m.

urdirid.

/I;#:

Vol. 16.No. 5. PP.715-731.

Copyright

Pergamon

0

1994 Elsevier

Printed snGreatBritain. All

0I9

THE BIG FIVE AS TENDENCIES Guus

I -8X69/94

1994

Science Ltd

rnghts reserved $6.GiI + 0.00

IN SITUATIONS

L. VAN HECK,‘* MARCO PERUGINI,’ GIAN-VITTORIO CAPRARA’ and JOYCE FR~GER’

‘Tilburg

University,

P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy

and ‘University

of Rome

(Received 29 June 1993)

Summary-These studies scrutinize, in a Dutch and Italian sample, various types of consistency of the Big Five personality dimensions. Taking a general taxonomy of situations and the five-factor scheme as points of departure, an S-R Big Five Questionnaire, called TinSit, was constructed. Using this instrument, generalizability across situations and trait markers was studied, as well as the consistency of Person X Situation interactions (individual situation specificity) and Person X Trait Marker interactions (individual response specificity). The results suggest that the Big Five traits are less trait-like than the present proponents of the model make us believe. In the Dutch as well as the Italian sample, substantial support has been found for individual situation specificity and individual response specificity. Discussion addressed the importance of these outcomes for the study of personality from an interactionist perspective.

INTRODUCTION

Evidence has steadily mounted that the following five orthogonal factors originally found by Tupes and Christal (196 1) and Norman ( 1963) underlie the hundreds of dimensions that have been proposed to study personality: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and IntellectKulture/Openness to Experience. Although there is still some dispute about the validity of these five broad factors of personality (e.g. Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987), nowadays, large groups of trait psychologists seem to be generally convinced about the predictive power of these so-called Big Five factors of personality description (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 199 1; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & John, 1992; Schmidt, Ones & Hunter, 1992; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 199 1). At the present time, the five-factor model should be treated as a global working model. Contributors to the discussion have provided “examples of both the comprehensiveness of the working model and the necessity of focusing on less abstract facets or components of the model when applying it to specific areas of inquiry” (Wiggins, 1992, p. 528). In line with this, the specific concern of the present article is to examine and evaluate the five-factor model in terms of situational specificity and cross-situational consistency. The long person-situation controversy focussing on these issues has made clear that specific behaviours are highly sensitive to all sorts of environmental demands. Therefore, we will first briefly review the person-situation controversy focussing on the interactionist approach. Then, we will present a new interactional questionnaire of personality, based upon the Big Five taxonomy of personality trait descriptors and a general taxonomy of situations. Finally, we will demonstrate that this new instrument can be used for disentangling, in the frame of generalizability theory, the differential impact of persons, situations and modes of response. as well as their interactions. The person-situation

controversy

Even though the controversy between the role played by persons and situations started already in the 1930s (e.g. see Ekehammar, 1974), it was in the 1960s that the question played a more and more central role in the field of personality (e.g. Hunt, 1965; Peterson, 1968; Vernon, 1964) culminating in the full-blown frontal attack of Mischel’s book ‘Personulity cmcl A.s.ses.sment’ (1968). Mischel (1968) reviewed many empirical studies and noted that research showed strong evidence of poor correlations between a particular behavioural indicator of a given trait in one situation and other behavioural indicators of the same trait in different situations. He ironically called these usually < 0.30 correlation coefficients: ‘personality coefficients’. Mischel pointed at the relative instability of behaviour over time and especially over situations, emphasizing the decisive role played by even seemingly trivial situational differences in determining behaviour. This publication gave rise to a host *To whom correspondence

should be addressed. 715

of reactions (e.g. Alker. 1972; Block, 1977; Bowers, 1973; Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Epstein, 1979, 1980; Gormly & Edelberg. 1974; Hogan, DeSoto & Solano, 1977; Magnusson & Endler, 1977). There is no question that the outcomes of the person-situation ‘debate’-which was as a matter of fact no real debate but mainly a series of critical papers written by adherents to the situationism or interactionism position-are valuable. There now is a growing awareness that instead of debating the existence of dispositions, research should contribute to specify their nature with increasing precision, and should give a rationale to frame the self-evident mutual contribution of person and situation in determining behaviour. In this light, different reconceptualizations of the old trait model appeared in the recent literature (see Kenrick & Funder, 1988). Also several methodological improvements have been suggested: for instance, a higher sophistication in planning and executing research (Block, 1977; Olweus, 1977), the use of repeated measures in multiple occasions in order to aggregate data (Epstein, 1979. 1980, 1983; Jackson & Paunonen, 1985; Moskowitz, 1982; Kushton, Brainerd & Pressley, 19X3), the differentiation between phenotypic consistency or behavioural consistency (usually low) and genotypic consistency or dispositional consistency (relatively high) (Buss & Craik. 198.3, 1984), and the validation of dispositional constructs by using MultiTrait-MultiMethod designs (MTMM; Campbell & Fiske. 1959) analysed through structural equations models (e.g. Judd, Jessor & Donovan, 1986; Schwarzer, 1983). Moreover, new impulses were given to the moderator variable approach, focussing on \elf-reported consistency (Bern & Allen. 1974), trait observability (Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980). trait relevance (Zuckerman. Koestner, DeBoy. Garcia, Maresca & Sartoris, 19X8), the nature of behaviour itself (Funder & Colvin, 1991), and inter-item variance (Baumeister & Tice. 1988). The literature shows that the moderating role of all these variables have been tested with varying success (see Borkenau. 1993; Schmitt & Borkenau. 1992). Furthermore, notions of situational power have been introduced, both with respect to the fact that situations differ in terms of their power to elicit specific behaviour irrespective of personal characteristics of individuals (see the notion of ‘conditional dispositions’; Wright & Mischel, 1987. 1988). and the fact that situations do not induce the same behaviour in different people (Monson. Hesley & Chernick, 1982; Price & Bouffard. 1974: Schutte, Kenrick & Sadalla. I985 ). Finally, besides these suggested refinements, other outcomes have emerged from the controversy (cf. Kenrick & Funder, 1988), such as a growing awareness of systematic sources ofjudgemental bia\ and systematic ir~ter~rrctiorx between persons and situations.

The interactionist position is not new in personality psychology. Ekehammar ( 1974). Endler ( 1982 ). and Endler and Parker ( 1992) have presented well-documented historical overviews which show that the theoretical interest in interactional models can be traced back at least to the I92Os or 30s. ~OI instance. to authors like Kantor, Lewin. Murray and Angyal. One type of research within this tradition is the correlational research strategy. According to Magnuswn (1976). the correlational approach is the most direct and strongest test of the relative consistency hypothesis which stresses the stability of the rank order of persons acre\\ situation\. Classic examples of this approach are the ‘studies in the nature of character’ of Hartxhorne and Mu) (I 928). They collected data concerning honesty in children for a number of different \etting\. While. on the one hand, children showed considerable consistency as regards opinions OII all sorts ofdi~erse moral issues. on the other hand, their moral behaviour showed more inconsistency ah the situation was changed more. Such outcomes indicated the existence of a certain situation-speciticness of behaviour (see also Nelsen, Grinder & Mutterer, 1969. or Mischel & Peake. 1982. for a more recent example). In general. the correlational approach has found consistency for structural \:ariables (e.g. abilities. cognitive competency). for similar situation\. for longitudinal consistency, but little or no evidence for cross-situational consistency with respect to personal and social variable\ (cf. Endler & Edwards, 1986. p. 382). Another type ofresearch strategy is the person by situation (treatment) experimental design. In these designs. person and situation are both independent variables. The existence of an interaction rctlects their inter-dependency. So, the interaction is not between cause and effects. but between different

The Big Five and consistency

717

causes of behaviour (cf. Endler, 1988). Prototypical studies within this research strategy are the aptitude-treatment interaction studies with respect to instruction (cf. Cronbach & Snow, 1975), and the anxiety studies based on Endler’s (1975) interaction model of anxiety. A third type of research is the so-called variance components approach (e.g. Olweus, 1977). Most of the investigations within this approach have used Stimulus-Response (S-R) questionnaires (for a critical review of S-R inventory studies, see Furnham & Jaspars, 1983). By means of S-R questionnaires data can be collected on the behaviour of individuals in a series of situations, sifted according to different response modes (trait indicators). Each individual reports the intensity of every response variable for every situation. This makes it possible to sift the total variance in the reported behaviour according to main sources of variance (situations, responses, and persons) as well as interactions among them. When constructing S-R questionnaires, problems arise concerning the sampling of traits and their indicators and the selection of situations. Why should a particular trait or a particular situation be included? What is the relevance of the findings given some traits or some situations? In order to make a theoretical as well as a practical contribution, careful attention must be paid to the selection of traits and situations. Without a theoretical rationale, obtained outcomes can be very misleading. Therefore, S-R questionnaires should be based upon an adequate classification and sampling of personality characteristics and situations.

Taxonomies

oj’traits

and situations

As stated above, in recent years, an impressive body of research has accumulated supporting a five-factor structure to describe personality (the so-called ‘Big Five’), in line with the original structure proposed by Fiske (1949), Tupes and Christal (1961), and Norman (1963). These five robust factors seem to emerge irrespective of factor analytical techniques (Goldberg, 1990; Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1992), employed rating procedures (Botwin & Buss, 1989), age of Ss (Costa & McCrae, 1988) and-although there are quite some differences between nationalities that are often disregarded-also irrespective of nationality of the sample tested. The most common labels for these five factors are (I) Extraversion/lntroversion, (II) Agreeableness/Hostility, (III) Conscientiousness, (IV) Neuroticism/ Emotional Stability, and (V) Intellect (or Openness to Experience). Although there are some divergences regarding the interpretation of each factor (see, e.g. Digman, 1990), the Big Five solution places itself at the intersection of two traditions of research: the lexicographic and thefactorial tradition. Both converged toward five-factor structures starting from Cattell’s (1943) ‘sedimentation hypothesis’ which states that the most salient and socially relevant individual differences are codified in the language: the more important a difference, the more likely it is that it can be expressed by a single term. In the realm of the lexicographic approach, five similar factors have been found, for instance, when studying English (Goldberg, 1990), German (Ostendorf, 1990), Dutch (De Raad, Hendriks & Hofstee, 1992), Chinese (Yang & Bond, 1990), Filipino (Church & Katigbak, 1989), Japanese (Bond, Nakazato & Shiraishi, 1975; Isaka, 1990), and Italian (Caprara & Perugini, 1990, 199 1) languages. In the realm of the factorial tradition, particularly relevant is the work of Costa and McCrae who assimilated the Big Five. They developed a questionnaire for measuring the five factors (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1989, in press). Through the NEO-PI, the five-factor model has been confronted with various alternative models of personality, such as Murray’s set of needs (Costa & McCrae, 1988), the Eysenck system (McCrae & Costa, 1985), and the Guilford structure (McCrae, 1989), showing its capability to subsume other models and to provide a robust structural framework. As regards the environment, situations have been defined and classified in several ways. For instance, situations have been studied in terms of physical properties, standing patterns of behaviour, and perceived qualities, including the capacity to elicit particular emotions (see for a recent overview, Forgas & Van Heck, 1992). In the present context, especially relevant are studies of situational consensual prototypes (e.g. Cantor, Mischel & Schwartz, 1982; Van Heck, 1984, 1989). Recently, a taxonomy of situations has been developed based on the outcomes of a study on such consensual prototypes (Van Heck, 1984, 1989). This study was directed at the development of a general and exhaustive taxonomy of situations, which reflects the degree of orderliness in the layperson’s everyday ‘natural’ categorical knowledge

about situations. As a first step in this taxonomic study, an exhaustive set of everyday terms (248 nouns), people use to describe their ecology, was obtained via dictionary searches. The aim of the next step was the definition of these concepts in terms of objective situational characteristics or attributes. Prototypicality ratings were obtained for more than 600 attributes within the following cue categories: context, locations, objectively discernible characteristics of the physical environment, persons, objectively discernible characteristics of the persons concerned, actions, objects and equipment, and temporal aspects. Factor analysis of the prototypicality ratings yielded a ten-factor solution (Varimax rotated). The factors were: ( I ) Inter-per.sonul conflict, (2) Joint working, exchungr ofthoughts, ideas, and knowledge, (3) Intimacy and inter-personal relmtions, (4) Recrecrtion, (5) Traveling, (6) Rituals, (7) Sport, (8) Excesses, (9) Sewing, and (10) Trclding. Aim of the present

studies

The present research was designed to investigate the amount of variance explained by the discernable sources of variance in a Person X Situations X Response Modes data box, scrutinizing the various types of consistency of the five basic dimensions of personality. Looking back at the person-situation debate, Mischel (1990) has recently stated: “The data available in 1968, like the data over two decades later, do not suggest that useful predictions cannot be made. They also do not imply that different people will not act differently with some consistency in different types of situations. Rather, the data both then and now do suggest that if predictive precision is the goal. the particular classes of conditions or equivalence units have to be taken into account much more carefully and seem to be considerably narrower and more local than traditional trait theories assumed. It should be self-evident that. instead of debating the existence of dispositions, the continuin g need is to specify their nature with increasing precision, to determine their organization and structure. and to identify types of if-then, condition-behavior relations that constitute them in particular contexts and populations”. (Mischel, 1990. p. I3 I ) Until now, external validity and predictive utility have received rather little attention from researchers working in the taxonomic Big Five tradition (John, 1990). The evidence that has been . .offered in support of the five-factor scheme stems “from an assemblage of cognate studies better thought of as demonstrating the reliability rather than the validity (or comprehensiveness) of the five-factor paradigm” (Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987). In this respect, it is quite remarkable that Big Five devotees virtually never answer the criticism formulated in the person-situation debate. When reading the Big Five literature, one gets the idea that the lessons from the person-situation debate have no relevancy at all for the five factors. According to McAdams ( 1992. p, 330): “today. no rehabilitation newfound hubris”. McAdams

(1992,

confidence

p. 343)

seems to be necessary. as trait theorists and trait theories

and visibility

continues

and even

begin

to display

periodic

bouts

enjoy of unabashed

by stating:

“Because they operate at such a general level analysis, the Big Five trait categories pay virtually no homage to contextual variables of any kind. Yet, if any good lesson is to be drawn from the tiresome “trait versus situation debate” of the 1970s. it is that personality needs lo be seen

in contextual terms. Context appears to be necessary for accurate prediction, detailed description. and comprehensive understanding”. Some years ago, Graziano (1987) has stated that a specification of context might lead to a better understanding of social behaviour. When making this point, he referred to Meehl’s (1978) classic article on the slow progress of soft psychology. According to Meehl (1978, p. 814), the problem of context is one of the major obstacles blocking a truly worthwhile science of behaviour: ‘L

the statistical dependencies we observe are always somewhat. and often strongly, dependent on the institution-cum-population setting in which the measurements were obtained. Lacking a ‘complete (causal) theory’ of what influences what, cd how IIZNCII. we simply cannot compute expected numerical changes in stochastic dependencies when movin g from one population or setting to another”.

We strongly feel that Meehl is right here. A tirst step in removing comprehensive description and precise prediction in personality research

the obstacles blocking a is to specify systematically

719

The Big Five and consistency Table

I. Formulas

G(P)

for generalizability

= V(P)/IV(P)

+ V(PS)/o

G(PS)

= V(PS)/[V(PS)

G(PR)

= V(PR)/[V(PR)

P = persons; G(P)

G(PS) which G(PR) which V(P) V(PS) o = number

error)/opl

Classes.

coefficient that assesses the degree to which a occurs across all levels of S and R;

PS

coefficient

interaction

= generalizability PR

occurs coefficient

interaction

= variance

component

= variance

of situations;

that assesses the degree

to

across

R;

all

levels

across

for

the

all levels Persons

for the Person X Situation

component

p = number

of

that assesses the degree

occurs

component

= variance

tion; V(PR)

+ V(PSR,

error)/01

R = Response

= generalizability

a

in P X S X R data

error)/pl

+ V(PSR,

S = Situations;

a

+ V(PR)/p

+ V(PSR,

= generalizability Person effect

coefticients

to

of S. facet; interac-

for the P X R interaction. of response

classes.

the nature of the elements of personality. As a consequence, the present studies are directed at scrutinizing the nature of the Big Five dimensions. This is in agreement with McAdams’s (1992, p. 332) view that “now the five-factor model is becoming an established dominant framework in the field of psychology, it is incumbent upon observers of and participants in the field to assess critically the model’s appropriate place and role”. personality

According to Ozer (1986), the following aspects of trait measures should be inspected in order to be able to determine precisely what a given trait measure refers to in terms of various response classes and situations: (1) power of prediction, (2) range of prediction, (3) behavioural domain, (4) discriminative power, (5) situational domain, (6) situational specificity, and (7) situational determinants of power. By focussing on an inspection of the G(P), G(PS), and G(PR) generalizability coefficients (see Table l), the current studies focus on most of these aspects, predominantly on individual situation spec$city and individual response specificity. Two studies were conducted, one with a Dutch sample (Study 1) and one with an Italian sample (Study 2). The use of these two samples created the opportunity to improve our assessment instrument ‘and to scrutinize the generalizability of the obtained scores and profiles.

STUDY

I:

THE

DUTCH

SAMPLE

Method Subjects All I 15 Ss were introductory psychology and sociology students at Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Data were obtained from 28 men (average age = 20.5 years; SD = 1.9) and 87 women (average age = 20.1 years; SD = 1.7). All Ss were volunteers. They were paid $3 for their participation. The instrument For this project, an S-R questionnaire was constructed with 15 situations and 3 markers (bipolar trait scales) for each Big Five dimension. The scale is called the TinSit Scale. TinSit stands for Tendency-in-a-Situation. TinSits are, according to Coutu (1949), the only acceptable units for behavioural studies. For the TinSit Scale, two situations were selected from each of the first five situation factors, reflecting inter-personal conflict, joint working, exchange of thoughts, ideas, and knowledge, intimacy and inter-personal relations, recreation, and traveling (cf. Van Heck, 1984, 1989). Furthermore, one situation was chosen for each of the remaining, much smaller situation factors, reflecting rituals, sport, excesses, serving, and trading. High loadings on the respective factors and representativeness of design (cf. Brunswik, 1956) were used as selection criteria. The 15 situations selected for the TinSit Scale are presented in Table 2. The selection of response classes. The selection of Big Five markers for the Dutch version of the scale was primarily based on Goldberg’s ( 1989) Tables of Standard Markers of The Big Five Factor

Structure, especially on his Table 3, containing 133 synonym clusters, and Tables 7 to 12 with the bipolar scales. The selected bipolar trait scales are presented in Table 3 (second column). The response format. Ss were asked to describe themselves as they see themselves in each of the situations. The 9-point bipolar rating scale ranged from (1) Very (left pole), through (5) Neither (left pole) nor (right pole), to (9) Very (right pole). The bipolar scales were ordered such that those expected to be associated with the same factor were separated by scales from each of the other four factors (I, II, III, IV, V. I, II, III, etc.).

5’s were recruited during classes. They received an envelope with the scale and were asked to till in the questionnaire at home. Completed questionnaires were put in a special ‘mail-box’ near the entrance of the main building of the psychology department. One-hundred-and-fifteen (72%) of the 160 distributed envelopes were returned.

To investigate the relative importance of persons. situations, response modes. and their interactions. generalizability theory (Cronbach, Gleser. Nanda & Rajaratnam, lY72) was used. Generalizability theory provides a framework for analysing the functional equivalences which might exist among persons, situations, and response modes of trait indicators. The main goal of generalizability theory is the identification of various influences on the generality of data (Asendorpf, 1990; Cronbach et (II., 1972; Ozer, 1986). It extends reliability theory by recognizing and estimating the magnitude of the multiple sources of measurement error (Shavelson. Webb & Rowley, 1989). It starts by estimating variance components and the percentages for each component, the so-called variance components are used to calculate the Omega-squared ratios. Then, the estimated generalizability coefficients. Essentially, generalizability coefficients are a general form of an intra-class correlation. They reflect the degree of generalizability from one set of observations to an universe of similar observations. Functional equivalence among response modes implies the existence of a higher order trait concept. Moreover, functional equivalent situations are behavioural contexts in which there are consistent individual differences in terms of consistent response profiles. Ozer (I 9X6) and Asendorpf ( 1990) have proposed conceptual frameworks of personality and a structural representation of these frameworks. based on generalizability theory. Their approach provides a way for quantifying the various types of consistency that can be discerned in a Person X Situation X Response Modes data box. Using generalizability theory each Big Five factor was analyzed separately. As regards the percentage of variance explained. the interpretation is straightforward: the total variance is partitioned into three facets (P, S, R) and their interactions (P X S, P X R, R X S) with the second-order interaction (P X S X R) and the unexplained residual variance being confused in the Error term.

factor

Stability

Intellect-Culture-Opennehr

Emotional

Conscientiousness

Agreeableness

ExtraverGon

Personalitv Passive-Active

Uncreative-Creative

Uninquisitive-Curious (niet-creatief-creatief)

(niet-nieuwsgierig-nieuwsgierig)

(onopmerkzaam-sensitiefl

(onzeker-zeker)

Imperceptive-Perceptive

Insecure-Secure

(emotioneel-niet-emotioneel)

ease (zenuwachtig-rustig)

Emotional-Unemotional

Nervous-At

(chaotisch-orderlijk)

(lichtzinnig-serieus)

Disorganized&Organized

Frivolous-Serious

(nalatig-nauwgezet)

(opschepperig-hescheiden)

(onvriendelijk-vriendelijk)

Scale

(disinvoltola-impacciato/a)

(amichevole-ostile)

UnsharpSharp

Intuitive-Not

intuitive/a)

(fantasioso/a-privo/a (intuitivobnon

fantasy (ottuso/aacuto/a)

intuitive

fantasy-Without

(teso/a-riIassato/a)

Tense-Relaxed

With

(agitato/a-calmo/a)

Agitated-Calm

Ease (nervoso/a-tranquillola)

(seriola-frivolo/a)

Serious-Frivolous

Nervous-At

(precise/a-imprecise/a)

(affidahile-inaffidahile)

(sgarhato/a-gentile)

Precise-Imprecise

Reliable-Unreliable

Ungentle-Gentle

version

(taciturno/a-zomunicativo/a)

(freddo/a-caldo/a)

Friendly-Unfriendly

Warn-Cold

Italian (pasaivola-attivola)

Unconstraint-Constraint

Silent-Talkative

Passive-Active

trait scales

for the TinSIt

Bipolar

trait scales selected

(egoistisch-onhaatzuchtig)

(geremd-impulaief)

(zwijgzaam-praatgraag)

(passief-actief)

Negligent&Conscientious

Boastful-Modest

Unfriendly-Friendly

Selfish-Unselfish

Inhibited-Impulsive

Quiet-Talkative

version

3. Bipolar

Dutch

Table

di fantasia)

Prrwm

(P)

Situatlw~s (SI Re\pon\e cla\\e\ PS PR SR PSR. rrrtv

0.65

CR)

0.53 0.00 0.94 0.15 0.12 I 17

17.1 IJ.1 0.00 25 0 4 0 3.2 36.4

0.36 0.39 0.2-l 0.31 0.27 0.2’) 1.75

11.x

17.X 7.x IO.1 7.2 Y.5 40.x

Oh5

0. I3 0.20 0.3’) O.IX 0.20 I I4

12.5

4.5 6.9 13.5 6.2 6’) 3YJ

0 46

N.52 0.27 0.57 0.42 0.2 I I.56

Il.5 13.0 6.7 13.2 IO.5 5.2 3X.4,

0.24 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.4Y 0.13 I.12

0.X 2.9 X.2 x.2 20.0 5.3 4s 7

As regards the generalizability coefficients, they are independent from each other (in contrast with percentages of variance explained which are dependent, i.e. the sum must be equal to 100%). In this article, we will focus on three generalizability coefficients: G(P), G(PS), and G(PR) (see Table I for the formulas for calculation). G(P) gives information about the consistency of ordering of persons across situations and trait indicators (global truif). G(PR) reflects the consistency of ordering of persons expressing the trait using the same response mode across situations (individual rrsponsr spec$ficity). G(PS) reflects the degree to which a Person by Situation interaction occurs across all the various response modes that are assumed to form a higher order trait (indir~icfuul situ&on .sprc$ficit~). Krsults For each of the five dimensions of the Big Five framework, a I 15 X 15 X 3 (Persons by Situations by Response Classes) analysis of variance was performed, along with a components of variance analysis for an all-random model. A random effects model is recommended for this type of research by Asendorpf ( 1990) and Ozer ( 1986), despite the fact that all three facets will not usually be randomly sampled by standard definitions. The reasons for this recommendation are: (1) the fact that in this way it is not necessary to assume that the V(PSR) is zero: (2) estimates of variance components are in a conservative direction; and (3) traditional definitions of random sampling may be unnecessarily narrow. The estimated variance components and the percentages for each component, the so-called Omega-squared ratios, are presented in Table 4. Table 4 shows that the range of the estimated percentages of the total variation from the facet Persons was 9.8 to 22.5%. The highest percentages were found for Extraversion and Conscientiousness; the lowest percentage was obtained in the case of the Intellect-Culture-Openness dimension. Omega-squared ratios for the main effect Situations ranged from 2.9 to 14. I. For Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Intellect-Culture-Openness the estimates of the percentages from Persons exceeded those from Situations. In the case of Agreeableness and Emotional Stability the S effect was slightly larger than the P effect. PS was the major interaction term in the case of Extraversion (six times as high as PR), Agreeableness. Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. For Factor V. Intellect-Culture-Openness, the PR interaction was nearly four times as large as the PS interaction. The estimated variance components were used to calculate G(P), G(PS), and G(PR). Table 5 gives these generalizability coefficients. They show that generalization across situations and response classes was highest for Extraversion. Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. G(P) for Emotional

I. II. Ill. IV v.

Extra\cr\,on Agreeablrne\.\ Consuentiou\ne\\ Emotional Stahiltty Intellrct~Culture~Openne\\

0 x1 0.74 (MS 0.6X 0.54

0.67 0.43 0 51 0.52 0 35

0.62 0.73 0 70 fI.XO 0 x7

723

The Big Five and consistency

Stability was modest (0.68), and was rather low for Intellect-Culture-Openness (0.54). As Table 5 shows, the consistency of PS interactions across response classes was highest for Extraversion and lowest for Intellect-Culture-Openness. G(PR) was highest for Intellect-Culture-Openness and lowest for Extraversion. Discussion A first important finding of Study 1 was that, with the exception of Conscientiousness, in no case was the main effect Persons the largest source of variation. The generalizability coefficients G(P) revealed that the degree to which the Person effect [the consistent ordering of persons or “relative consistency” in Magnusson & Endler’s (1977) terminology] occurs across all levels of S and R, was lowest in the case of Intellect-Culture-Openness. In contrast, the other four factors, especially Extraversion and Conscientiousness, reflect better the classical trait measurement model. Furthermore, the finding that a quarter to a third of the total variance comes from the simple interactions is important. The PS interaction indicates that, while behavioural manifestations of a broad dispositional category are shaped by the situation, the shape it takes is not independent of the individual. Individuals show more or less manifestations of the broad Big Five factors in different situations, independently of the specific response classes. This interaction was strongest with respect to Extraversion and the least important in Intellect-Culture-Openness. The PR interaction implies that individuals vary considerably in terms of the patterns of traits that constitute the broaddispositional dimension. This was most substantial in Factor V (Intellect-CultureOpenness). One possible shortcoming of the S-R questionnaire used in Study 1 has to do with the way situations were presented in the TinSit scale. When the situation is introduced with only one noun reflecting the situation concept, one runs the risk that different Ss adopt a different role when imagining that they are actually in such a situation. For instance, when confronted with the request to imagine an accusation situation, maybe some Ss spontaneously take the role of the accusing person, while others are inclined to see themselves as being accused by somebody else. However, an additional analysis of a reduced TinSit scale, excluding the accusation situation from analysis, showed no substantial changes. Another possible weakness is the decision to use Goldberg’s (1989) standard markers which may be non-optimal for the Dutch situation. Therefore, in the construction phase of the Italian version of the TinSit scale these points were taken into account. STUDY

2:

THE

ITALIAN

SAMPLE

Method Subjects The Italian sample consisted of 385 Ss: 165 males and 220 females (average age = 28.0 years, SD = 15.1). 193 of them were undergraduate students following a course on Personality Psychology at the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’. They all participated on a voluntary basis. The other 192 were recruited by them. Instruments

and procedure

The Italian version of the TinSit scale again systematically crossed the Big Five factors of personality with the 10 situation factors. As regards the Italian version, we added per Big Five factor three bipolar pairs of adjectives to the three bipolar markers of the Dutch version. The selection of these extra markers was based upon the outcomes of an e;-lier study on the Italian lexicon of trait terms (Caprara & Perugini, 1990, 199 1). Subsequently, we asked a small panel of 10 judges to evaluate the applicability of each of the six pairs of adjectives [i.e. ‘To what extent is it possible to be (pair of adjectives) in the situation (Situation)?‘]. The best three applicable pairs of adjectives were selected for each Big Five factor. As regards the situation side, the Italian version was identical to the Dutch version. Because the emphasis in the present study was on specifying the nature of Big Five, it was decided to administer two other instruments specifically constructed to measure the Big Five factors. The first

724

Guus. Table 6. Principal components analy~

L. VAN HIXK

er trl.

on the NEO-PI and the BFQ 01 = 193, Italian smplr~

Scale\ EmNEO-PI E-BFQ A-NEO-PI AmBFQ C-NEO-PI CmBFQ N-NEO-PI S-BFQ 0-NEO-PI 0-BFQ Only VBIlm

> 0.2s we reported.

instrument was the 18 1-item NEO-PI questionnaire (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The second instrument was the 132-item Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni & Perugini, 1993). The BFQ is a newly developed questionnaire aimed at measuring the Big Five in the Italian context. In addition to these Big Five questionnaires, a third instrument was administered. viz. the Eyaenck 1975). This questionnaire measures Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, Extraversion-Introversion, Psychoticism, and Neuroticism. Al1 instruments were administered individually. Data analyses To verify the relationship between the TinSit scale and measures of the Big Five factors, the TinSit scale was related to the NEO-PI and the BFQ. In order to obtain a more parsimonious and reliable result, first a principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was performed on the NEO-PI and the BFQ at the factor level. Then, the emerging five-factor solution was related to the five TinSit dimensions, using factor scores. The five TinSit dimensions were obtained by aggregating for each dimension the answers on the three bipolar adjectives across the 15 situations. Thus, each dimension score was calculated by summing 45 items. In order to scrutinize the relation between the TinSit scale and the dimensions of Eysenck’s PEN-system, the TinSit scale was related to the EPQ. To investigate the relative importance of persons, situations. response modes and their interactions, we again used generalizability theory (see Table 1 for the formulas for the generalizability coefficients). Results and Disc~ussion Validity analyses The first point investigated regards the validity of the TinSit scale, in terms of its capability of measuring the Big Five factors of personality effectively. The five factors extracted by means of principal component analysis were rotated orthogonally (Varimax rotation). The resulting structure supported the expectations from a theoretical point of view (see Table 6). The correlations between these five factors and the TinSit dimensions were generally supportive of the effectiveness of the latter instrument in measuring the Big Five factors. The obtained correlations were in the same range of correlations as generally found when correlating Big Five measures in the adjectives domain with Big Five measures using questionnaire items (cf. Briggs, 1992). However, some caution is suggested as regards the fifth factor, Intellect-Culture-Openness (see Table 7). The second analysis focussed upon the relationship between the TinSit scores and Eysenck’s P, E, and N dimensions. The respective correlations are presented in Table 8. Inspection of Table 8 reveals a significant negative correlation between EPQ-P and TinSit-Conscientiousness. This outcome is in line with earlier findings (e.g. McCrae & Costa, 1985). Furthermore. Table 8 shows significant correlations of EPQ-E with four of the five TinSit scales with the highest correlation between EPQ-E and TinSit-Extraversion, but also with sizeable links with TinSit-Agree-

725

The Big Five and consistency Table

7. Correlations

between

the TInSit

dimensiom

and the Big Five as resulting 01 = 193: Italian samole)

from the conjoint

analysis

ofthe

NEO-PI

and the BFQ

Big Five dimensions TinSit

ExtraverGon

dimenkms

0.62”* 0.21*

Extraversion Agreeahlentw Conscientiownes Emotional

- 0.09

Stability

Intellect-CultureeOpennev *P < 0.01:

Agreeableness

+*P < 0.001

(one-talled

Table

Conscientiousness

Emotional

Stability

Openness

to Experience 0.17*

0.17* 0.53**

0.09 0.1s

0.20* 0.09

0.21*

0.49*

0.17*

- 0.0s

0.05

0.24**

0.04

- 0.09

oso**

0.09

0.3s**

0.07

0.12

0.19*

0.36**

te\ted).

8. Correlations

between

TinSit

scores and EPQ

scores 01 = 193: Italian

amole)

EPQ Psychoticism

TinSlt

Extraversion

Neurotictam

0.03

o&4**

- 0.29**

Agreeahlenes

-0.12

0.35**

-0.17*

Conacientiousnes

- 0.28*”

0.02

- 0.03

0.33**

- 0.46**

0.37**

-0.21*

Extraversion

Emotional

0.1 I

Stability

- 0.00

Intellect/Culture/Openness

*P < 0.01;

**P < 0.001

(one-tailed

tested).

ableness, TinSit-Emotional Stability, and TinSit-Intellect-Culture-Openness. With respect to neuroticism, again associations with TinSit scales were significant in four of the five cases. Only in the case of TinSit-Conscientiousness a zero-correlation was obtained. The highest correlation revealed a negative relation with EPQ-N and TinSit-Emotional Stability. Generuli~ability

analysis

For each of the five TinSit factors, a 385 X 15 X 3 (Persons X Situations X Response Modes) analysis of variance was performed, along with a variance components analysis for an all-random model. The percentages of variance for each component (Omega-squared ratios) are presented in Table 9. As regards the facet Persons, the percentages of variance were comprised between 6.66 for Agreeableness and 15.43 for Intellect-Culture-Openness (average = 10.52). Omega-squared ratios for the main effect Situation ranged from 0.39 for Conscientiousness to 37.79 for Emotional Stability (average = 14.84). This latter value is remarkably high, whereas, by contrast, the first is practically negligible. The Response Modes main effect was generally negligible, with a lowest value of 0.08 for Emotional Stability and a highest value of 4.37 for Agreeableness (average = 1.90). As regards interactions, the PS effect ranged from 8.38 for Conscientiousness to 32.82 for Emotional Stability (average = 17.44); the PR effect from 0.93 for Emotional Stability to 1 1.24 for Intellect-Culture-Openness (average = 7.95), and the SR effect from 0.27 for Emotional Stability to 16.33 for Conscientiousness (average = 7.18). The three simple interactions combined contributed on average 32.57%, with the lowest contribution for Agreeableness (27.07%) and the highest for Conscientiousness (35.69%). Finally, as regards residual variance (the PSR interaction plus error), the lowest value was for Table

Y. Variance Factor

V

Source Per\on\

IP)

Situation\

(S)

Response

clawz\

IR)

component\

I

and Omr~a\qwred

FnctorII

%

0.55

Y.Y

0.5’)

IO.6

V 0.32

%

Factor

\’

ratio\ III

(Italian

sample) Factw

%

IO.0

V

IV

‘i

6.7

0.46

0.75

10.6

o.s4

15.4

O.XY

IX.5

0 02

0.4

2.6X

37.X

0.2s

7.0

0.I I

I .Y

0 21

4.4

0.06

I.2

O.OI

0.

I

PS

O.YO

16.3

O.SY

12.1

0.3’)

x.4

7.33

32.X

0.62

Il.6 Il.2

0.07

I .Y

PR

0.42

7,s

O.JJ

9. I

0 51

I I .o

0.07

0.9

0.40

SK

0.60

IO.7

0.2x

5.‘)

0.76

16.3

0.02

0.3

0. IO

2.7

PSR. error

2.3X

43.0

2.10

43.5

2.15

s2.7

I.24

l7.S

I .ss

44. I

Table 10. Baw

conmtency

coefficienta

(Italian

wmple)

Generaltzability coefticient

I-actor\ I. II. Ill.

GCPS)

GCPR)

Extra\cr\lon

0.6’)

0.53

0 72

rQreeablene\\

0.5x

0 46

0.76

Cl,nscIentloLhne\\

IV. Emmonal v.

G(P)

StablIlly

lntellect~Culture~openne\\

0.65

0 31

0.76

0.73

0.X5

0.44

0.72

0.54

0.73

Emotional Stability (17.52) whereas the highest was for Conscientiousness (52.75) (average = 40.17). The estimated variance components were also used to calculate the three generalizability coefficients for each factor (cf. the formulas presented in Table 1). These coefficients are presented in Table 10. The results show that for four of the tive factors the highest generalization was obtained for the PR interaction across situations or the ‘individual response specificity’ (on average, 0.76), whereas for Emotional Stability the highest generalizability was for the PS interaction across response modes, that is. for ‘individual situation specificity’ (0.85). So, the major conclusion of Study 2 is that in no case was the main effect Persons the largest source of variation. Furthermore, the finding that approximately one-third of the total variance comes from simple interactions is important. As in the Dutch sample, Study 2 shows that it is probably a mistake to expect a great deal of cross-contextual consistency in expressions of the Big Five.

GENEKAL

DISCUSSION

In both studies, the Dutch as well as the Italian, it was shown that traits are much less trait-like than they normally are supposed to be. In the Dutch sample, the average of the generalizability coefficients reflecting the consistent ordering of persons across different situations and different trait markers was 0.73. Coefficients were modest to low for at least three of the five dimensions, viz. Agreeableness. Emotional Stability and Intellect-Culture-Openness. In the Italian sample, these coefficients were even lower: 0.67 on average, with the relatively highest coefficients for Emotional Stability and Intellect-Culture-Openness. It should be noted that the rank orders for the five dimensions, ranging from ‘most trait-like’ to ‘least trait-like’, differed considerably for the Dutch and the Italian sample. In The Netherlands, Conscientiousness and Extraversion appeared to be more or less ‘real’ traits; in Italy, Emotional Stability and Intellect-Culture-Openness were the characteristics that were most trait-like. As noted by McAdams ( 1992) proponents of the five-factor model have disregarded the pervasive roles not only of situational contexts, but also of cultural and historical contexts. The present studies offer some warnings that such a decontextualization of the Big Five traits is not justified. Although a superficial inspection of these outcomes could easily lead to the conclusion that results obtained with this type of S-R Five-Factor questionnaire are not especially useful and rather misleading. due to the fact that outcomes appear to change drastically from sample to sample, we nevertheless strongly believe that these differences reflect genuine cultural differences between the different samples, not merely ‘irregularities’ due to obscure sample characteristics. Our findings have demonstrated that interactions, PS as well as PR, play important roles in human functioning. not only with respect to the global traits that were reviewed by Mischel (1968) such as honesty, dependency. etc., but also with respect to the Big Five traits. The PS interaction indicates that while behavioural manifestations of a broad dispositional category are shaped by the situation, the shape it takes is not independent of the individual. It represents the classic interactionist position: individuals show more or less manifestations of the broad Big Five factors in different situations, independently of the specific response modes (markers). The PR interaction implies that individuals vary considerably in terms of the pattern of traits that constitute the broad dispositional dimension, and it refects systematic interactions between persons

The Big Five and consistency

727

and response modes. In the earlier days, Allport, the father and critic of the five-factor model (cf. John & Robins, 1993), in propagating the individual character of traits, already stated that, strictly speaking, no two men ever have precisely the same trait: “Though each of two men may be aggressive (or aesthetic), the style and range of the aggression (or aestheticism) in each case is noticeably different” (Allport, 1937, p. 297). Also Alston (1975) has created room within trait psychology for individual styles of expressing traits: “Again, it would be a veritable chameleon who would use equally often all the various modes This is not to say that some sub-categories may not be highly correlated . . However, I do believe that for any R-category there will be some sub-categories that are not highly correlated with each other . . . Clearly a lack of high correlation between sub-classes of R can do nothing to show an inapplicability of the concept, for no such correlation is required by a T-concept (R = response; T = trait; GVH)“. (Alston, 1975, pp. 36-37). The present studies offer support for such a view with respect to the Big Five variables. Though each of two persons may be extraverted (agreeable, conscientious, emotionally stable, and open for new experience), the style of the extraversion (agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, or openness) in each case could be noticeably different. Recent developments have shown that the five-factor model allows for the differentiation of components within each of its relatively independent content domains. For instance, the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, in press) provides precisely identified facets for more fine-grained analyses of each of the five common factors. Also recent models developed by Hofstee, De Raad and Goldberg ( 1992) and Saucier (1992) focus on more specification through facetting. These specifications are to a certain extent a form of contextualization. However, as Briggs (1992) has rightly pointed out, investigations on the five-factor model that target such middle-level categories or primary constructs belong mainly to the next generation of research. For the moment, most prominent is the temptation “to concentrate primarily, if not exclusively, on the five robust factors” (Briggs, 1992, p. 283). Recent innovative models that focus on a dynamic, holistic view of personality (Magnusson & Torestad, 1993) feature the principle that the individual is not only a carrier of a limited set of traits, but also an active, purposeful agent in relation to the physical and social environment (see, e.g. Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Hettema, 1989; Pervin, 1983) an actor with outspoken preferences for certain ways of reacting. We strongly feel that the present studies and the proposed methodology can contribute to the further development of such a holistic, dynamic model of personality. In their plea for such a model, Magnusson and Torestad (1993, p. 433) have pointed to the regrettable fact that the prevalence of trait-centred or dimensional approaches, has led, among other things, to the conviction that the psychological significance of a hypothetical variable is “the same for individuals at all levels of the dimension. ., which implies that individuals differ only quantitatively, not qualitatively with respect to each variable under study”. The present studies underline that such a variable-oriented approach indeed has its weaknesses. Much remains to be done. First, the present studies should be replicated in other national contexts. Furthermore, via the construction of new S-R questionnaires, containing other selections of situations and Big Five markers, the question of whether the current findings apply more broadly can be answered. In future research, it is necessary to have estimates of the triple interaction PSR that are not confounded with error. This can be done by forming new equivalence classes or by extending the design with an additional factor. By taking into account the Time facet, the framework for consistency studies becomes a P X S X R X T structure. This structure offers several new descriptive units for the study of personality structure and personality development and several new indices for evaluating the meaning of measurement instruments (cf. Asendorpf, 1990; Ozer, 1986). It should be realized, however, that the present studies were restricted to one particular mode, viz. self-descriptions. The real touchstone for the predictive utility of the five-factor structure will be tests whether or not the lexical approach may explain or account for everyday action. As stated by McAdams (1992, p. 342) it is “surprising that very little research has been done relating Big-Five factors to behavioral counts sampled across a range of situations”. For, only in the confrontation with actual behaviour in natural settings, can the Big Five show that they are real traits, that is, that they do exist outside the trait-namer’s head and outside Webster’s Dictiontr~v, Vm Dnlr, Wcrhrig, or Oli-Devoto.

728

Guus. L. VAN HECK et cd.

As pointed out by Meehl (1978). the fact is that organisms differ not only with respect to the strengths of various dispositions, but, more common and more distressing for researchers, also as to how their dispositions are shaped and organized. Meehl also said that, as a result, “the individual differences involved in ‘mental chemistry’ are tougher to deal with than, say, the fact that different elements have different atomic numbers or that elements with the same atomic number vary in atomic weights (isotopes)” (Meehl, 1978, p. 809). We feel that this is one of the major lessons from the person-situation debate; not only for critics of the Big Five model of perceived personality trait descriptors, but also for proponents and assimilators of the five-factor model.

REFERENCES Alker, H. A. (1972). Is personality situationally specific or intrapsychically consistent’! Joilrr~trl c!f Per-corltrlitv. 40. I -I 6. Allport, G. W. ( 1937). Persono/if>~: A p~~chologicnl interpretation. New York: Holt. Alston, W. P. (1975). Traits, consistency, and conceptual alternatives for personality theory. Joumtr/,fi~r r/~c T/lro,s (!/ Soctrrl BehmGur, 5, 1747. Amelang. M. & Borkenau, P. (1986). The trait concept: Current theoretical considerations. empirical facts. and implications for personality inventory construction. In Angleitner, A. & Wiggins, _I.S. (Eds). Prrsonc~lir~ O.YSC~.YI?I~III t,itr c/uc,.c-rior~rroi~c,.c. Current issues in them-v and measurement (pp. 7-34). Berlin/New York: Springer-Verlag. Asendorpf, J. (1990). Die differenerenrieleSichttiaeise in der Psychologie [The individual differences perspective In p\qchology I. Cattingen, Germany: Hogrefe, Verlag tir Psychologie. Barrick, M. R. &Mount, M. K. (199 I). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysi\. Prr,co,l,rc~/ Psychology, 44, l-26. Baumeister. R. F. & Tice, D. M. (1988). Metatraits. ./ounxl/ c~~Per,sono/if~. 56, 57 I-59X. Bern, D. J. & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cro\s-\ituational consistencies in behavior. fsychologiccrl Review, Xl, 506520. Block, J. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic shift or improving the quality of research. In Magnusson, D. & Endler, N. S. (Eds), Personcllir~ ut the crossroods: C1trrrr7t is.vue.v it7 i~rrrrtrctiomrl /I.$~c~ludo,y~ (pp. 37-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bond, M. H., Nakazato, H. & Shiraishi, D. (1975). Universality and distinctiveness in dimension3 of Japanese per\on perception. Journrd qf Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 346-357. Borkenau, P. (1993). To predict some of the people more of the time. Individual trait\ and the prediction of b&a\ Ior. In Crash. K. H., Hogan, R. & Wolfe, R. N. (Eds), Flfry yeclrs ofpersoncllity /~s~cho/ogy (pp. 237-249). New Yorh: Plenum Pre\\. Botwin, M. D. & Buss, D. M. (1989). Structure of act report data: is the five-factor model of personality recaptured” ./~~lr/-rl~,/ of Personnlity and So&d Psychology, 56, 988-1001. Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. P.~\c.h,,/o,r:ic,tr/ RPI,~OW. SO, 307-336. Briggs, S. R. ( 1992). Assessing the five-factor model of personality description. .10107~(/1of Po-.\~mtr/ir~. 60. 2.53-33. Brunswik, E. ( 1956). Perception and the representative desip of /‘.v?.‘,llo/o,~ic.t,I r.v/~rimc~t.s. Berheley. CA: L’ni\ er\it> ot California Press. Buss, D. M. (I991 ). Evolutionary personality psychology. Anmu/ ReLie,\, of P.r,~ho/o,q~, 12. 35919 I. Buss, D. M. & Craik, K. H. (I 983). The act frequency approach to personality. P.\~c/rr~/o:,c~tr/ Rc~~ic~, 00. IO% 126. Buss, D. M. & Craik, K. H. (1984). Acts, dispositions, and personality. In Maher, B. A. & Maher. W. B. (E&J. /‘J-~J,Y~,-(,\\ in experimental per.sona/ity resrcrrch (Vol. 13, pp. 241-301). New York: Academic Pres\. Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity in the Inultitrait-multiIncthod matrix Psychological Bulletin, 56, 8 I - 105. Cantor, N., Mischel, W. & Schwartz, J. C. ( 1982). A prototype analyaih of psychological \ituatlon\. (‘o,~/rrri~~c P\\(~/rr~/~~,~\ 14, 45-77. Caprara, G.-V. & Perugini, M. (1990). Personality described by adjectives: Could the “Big Fi\c” lx e\tcndcd to the Italian context. Paper presented at the FifthEuropetm Crmferenc,r OII Prrxmo/it,v, June 1990. Ariccia-(icn/ano. Ital) Caprara, G.-V. & Perugini, M. (1991). II ruolo dei Big Five nellu descrilione della perhonalitb. l%rcndibllitil aI contc\to italiano. Communicrrzioni Scientifiche di P.sico/o~itr Ge~zrrtrlr. 6, X3- IOI A new quc\lionn;lirc Caprara, G.-V., Barbaranelli, C.. Borgogni. L. & Perugini. M. ( 1993). Th e “Big Five Quc\lionnalrt“‘: to assess the Five Factor Model. Per.sontr/ity rmd Indi~klutrl D(tfi~rcvrct,\. 15, 2X I -7Xx. Carson, R. C. ( 1989). Personality. Annucd Revievt, of P.‘ryc~ho/o~y~. 40. 227-24X. Cattell (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into cluster%. .//~~~~~rtr/ ,jt .~\/>//~~,.,,lrl/tl!l
729

The Big Five and consistency

Coutu, W. (1949). Emergent humun nuture. New York: Knopf. Craik, K. H. (1969). Personality unvanquished. Contemporary Psychology, 14, 147-148. Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1975). Aptitudes and instructionul methods. New York: Irvington. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H. & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability qfbehaviorul meusurements: Theory ofgenera/i,-ohility,for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley. De Raad, B., Hendriks, A. A. J. & Hofstee, W. K. B. ( 1992). Towards a relined structure of personality traits. European Journcrl of Personrrlit~, 6. 30 I-3 19. Digman, J. M. ( 1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Ann& Review ofPs.vchology, 41.4 17440. Ekehammar, B. (1974). lnteractionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 8/, 1026-1048. Endler, N. S. (1975). A person-situation interaction model of anxiety. In Spielberger, Ch. D. & Sarason, I. C. (Eds), Stress nnd cmxiety (Vol. I, pp. 145-164). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Endler. N. S. (1982). lnteractionism comes of age. In Zanna, M. P., Higgins, E. T. & Herman, C. P. (Eds), Consistency in social hehrrviort The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 209-249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Endler. N. S. (1988). lnteractionism revisited: A discussion of ‘On the role of situations in personality research’. In Cole, S. G.. Demaree, R. G. & Curtis, W. (Eds). Applications ofinteractionist psychology: Es.qs in honor of Saul B. Sells (pp. 179-l 88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Endler, N. S. & Edwards, J. M. (1986). lnteractionism in personality in the twentieth century. Personality und individual Di’erences,

7, 379-384.

Endler, N. S. & Hunt, J. McV. (1966). Sources Psychological

Endler,

Bulletin,

N. S. & Magnusson,

of behavioral

variance

as measured

by the S-R Inventory

of Anxiousness.

65, 336-346.

D. (1976).

Toward

an interactional

psychology

of personality.

Psychological

Bulletin,

83.

956-974.

Endler, N. S. & Parker, J. D. A. (1992). lnteractionism European

Journrrl

ofPersonality,

revisited:

Reflections

on the continuing

crisis in the personality

area.

6, 177-l 98.

Endler, N. S.. Hunt, J. McV. & Rosenstein.

A. (1962). An S-R Inventory

of Anxiousness.

Psychological

Monographs,

536,

I-31.

Epstein,

S. (1979). The stability

of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journcrl ofPersoncr/ity 126. Epstein, S. ( 1980). The stability of behavior: Il. Implications for psychological research. Americcm Psychologist, 35.790-806. Epstein, S. (I 983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of behavior. Journcrl of Personrdity, 5/, and Socirrl Psychology,

37, 1097-l

360-392.

Epstein, S. & O’Brien,

E. J. (1985). The person-situation

debate in historical

and current perspective.

P.cychologiccr/

Bulletin,

YX, 513-537.

Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. ( 1975). Mnnualofthe Exsenck Personcdit~ Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratmgs from different sources. Journal ofAhnormal and Social

Psvcholog:v,

44, 329-344.

Fiske, D. W. (1974). The- limits for the conventional science of personality. Journal of Personcdity, 42, l-l I. Foreas. J. P. & Van Heck, G. L. (1992). The osvchologv of situations. In Canrara. G.-V. & Van Heck, G. L. (Eds). Modern ~,ersonality psychology. Criticrd reviews&d new~>irec.tions (pp. 418-4’55). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Funder, D. C. &Colvin, C. R. (1991). Explorations in behavioral consistency: Properties of persons, situations, and behaviors.

ofPersonality

Journal

und Social

Psychology,

60, 773-794.

Furnham, A. & Jaspars. J. (1983). The evidence for interactionism in psychology. A critical analysis of the situation-response inventories. Personulit~ and lndividuul Differences, 4, 627-644. Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In Spielberger. Ch. D. & Butcher, J. N. (Eds), Advcmces in personality ctssessment (Vol. I, pp. 203-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Goldberg, L. R. ( 1989). Standard Markers of the Big-Five factor structure. /rl\itd Workshop on Prrsonolity Ltrnguqe. University of Groningen, The Netherlands, June 1989. Goldberg, L. R. ( 1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The Big-Five factor structure. Journtrl of Per.vontr/ity ctnd Sociul P.yhology, 59, I2 16-l 229. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Amrric,trn P.sycho/ogist, 48. 26-34. Gormly, J. & Edelberg, W. (I 974). Validity in personality trait attributions. Americcm P.sycho/ogi.vt, 2Y. I X9-193. Graziano, W. G. (1987). Lost on thought at the choice point: Cognition, context, and equity. In Masters, J. C. & Smith, W. P. (Eds), Soc,icrl comparison, socicrl justice. rmd relntive depril’ution. Theoretic,cd. empirical. rrnd policy per.specti~,rs (pp. 265-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartshorne. H. & May, M. A. ( 1928). Studies in the ncuure of chctrtrctrr. Vol. 1. Studies in dec,eit. New York: MacMillan. Hettema, P. J. (Ed.) ( 1989). Prrsonrrlity und en~+ronnrrnt. Asse,s.vnrnt of hum~m ~ulupt~ttion. Chichester: Wiley. Hettema, P. J. & Kenrick, D. T. (1989). Biosocial interaction and individual adaptation. In Hettema. P. J. (Ed.). Prr.vnrur/it~ Nnd environment. A.ssr.xsment of humcm ctdctpttrtior~ (pp. 3329). Chichester: Wiley. Hofstee, W. K. B.. De Raad, B. & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journtrl ofPersotztrlity and Soc~icrl Psyhology. 63, I46- 163. Hogan, R., DeSoto. C. B. & Solano, C. ( 1977). Traits. tests. and personality research. An7rrictur Ps~cholo,~ist. -32. 255-264. Hunt, J. McV. (1965). Traditional personality theory in the light of recent evidence. Amrrictrn .Sc:irnti.st, 53, 80-96. lsaka. H. (I 990). Factor analysis of trait terms in everyday Japanese language. Prrsoncdit~ and /ndi~~iduo/ [email protected]. I/, 115-124.

Jackson,

D. N. & Paunonen,

Social

Ps~choio~~.

S. V.

( 1985). Construct

validity

and the predictability

of behavior.

Jorrrnol

l!f Persontrlit~

trnd

49. 554-570.

John, 0. P. (1989). Towards

a taxonomy

of personality descriptors. In Buss, D. M.&Cantor. N. (Eda), Pervorlrrlit~ps~cholo,~~. (pp. 261-27 I ). New York: Springer-Verlag. John, 0. P. ( 1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In Pervin, L. A. (Ed.), Hrmdhook of per.vonu/it~. Throy r/m/ re.srtrrch (pp. 66-100). New York: The Cuilford Press, John, 0. P. & Robins, R. W. ( 1993). Gordon Allport. Father and critic of the live-factor model. In Craik. K. H.. Hogan, R. & Wolfe. R. N. (Eds). Fifty yetrnv of per,vonu/it~ p.\~+~o/og~ (pp. 2 I S-236). New York: Plenum Press. Recent trends rmd emerging

PAID 16:5-F

directio,ls

730

Gws.

L. VAN HECK et trl

John, 0. P.. Angleitner. A. & Ostendorf. F. (198X). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review oftrait taxonomic research. Europrtrn lorrrntrl of Per.vo,~cr/ir\; 2, I7 I-203. Judd. C. M.. Jessor. R. & Donovan. J. E. (19X6). Structural equation models and personality research. Special issue: Methodological developments in personality research. .lournrr/ r$Per.concr/irv. 54. 149-198. Kenrick, D. T. & Dantchik. A. (1983).Interactionism, idiographics, and the so&al-psychological invasion of personality. Journal of Prrsonnlir?; 51. 2X6-307. Kenrick, D. T. & Funder. D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34. Kenrick, D. T. & Stringfield, D. 0. (1980). Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. Psycholo~icul KeL~icb~~,87. X8-104. Magnusson, D. (1976). The person and the situation in an interactional model of behavior. Sccrndinrrr~icrn Journcrl of Psy%olo~~. 17, 253-27 I Magnusson, D. 6i Endler, N. S. ( 1977). Personality or tha cro.s.rrorrd.\c Curwnr issue.\ in inrurrrctionrrl p.swho/o~~. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Magnusson, D. & TSrestad, B. (I 993). A holistic view of personality: A model revisited. Anrum/ /?r\,irw ofP.swho/o,q~. 44, 427452. McAdams. D. P. (1992). The tive-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journtrl c$ Personality. 60, X29-361. McCrae. R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the live-factor model: Joint factor analyses of the NEO-PI with other instruments. In Buss, D. M. & Cantor. N. (Eds). Persontrliry psycho/o,p~: Krtenr /tads rind emergin,q dirrction.c (pp. 237-245). New York: Springer. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr ( 19x5). Comparison of EPI and Psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Prrsontrliry nnd Individutrl D(frrrnc~rs. 6, 587-597. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal oj Perrormlit~ and Sock1 Pswhology, 52, X1-90. McCrae, R. R. & John, 0. P. (1992). An-introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Jourrml offrrsormlir~. 60. 175-21s. Meehl. P. E. ( 1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the \low progress of soft psychology. Jounml of Co~~.cu/ting trnd Clinictd P~~~c~ho/o~q~.46. X(36-834. Mischel. W. (1968). Perrontrlify trnd N.~C.~I~CIII. New York: Wiley. Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality. Awwrrc~trn Psychologisr, 24, IO1 2-1018. Mischel. W. ( 197 I ). fntroducfion m pcrsontrlity. New York: Holt. Rinehart, & Winston. Mischel, W. (1990). Personality dispositions revisited and revised: A view after three decade\. In Pervin. L. A. (Ed.). Htrndhook ofper.rona/if~. T&or): rrnd resrrrrch (pp. I I l-l 34). New York: The Guilford Press. Mischel. W. & Peake. P. K. ( 1982). Bevond deih vu in the search for cross-situational consistencv.~ Psvc~/w/o~ic~tr/ _. Kn,icw. 89.730-755. Monson, T. C.. Hesley, J. W. & Chernick. L. ( 19X2). Specifying when personality trait\ can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single-act criteria. Journtrl c$‘Pcr.wntr/if~ trnd Sock/ P.\ycho/o,~~, 43. 385-399. Moskowitz, D. S. ( 19X2). Coherences and cross-situatlonal gene?ality In personality: A new analysis ofold problemb. Journtrl of Prrsormlitv cmd SOL.I’LII P.\ycho/qyy, 4.3. 753-768. Nelsen, E. A., Giinder. R. F. & Mutterer. M. L. (1969). Sources of variance in behavioral measures of honesty in temptation situations: Methodological analyses. L)c~~~~/o/wwn~tr/ P\ycho/o,~~, 1. 265-279. Newcomb, T. M. ( 1929). C’or~sisrrnc~~of ccrtcrirr ertroI,rrt-irirrol,rrt lwha~~iw ptrtrc’rru irr 51 prohlw~ boy\. New Yorh: Columbia University, Teachers College. Bureau of Publications. Norman, W. T. (196.7). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. JourrmI c$Ahnonncrl try/ Switrl P.swho/o~~. 6cj, 574+5X3. Olweus. D. (1977). A critical analysis of the ‘modern’ interactionist position. In Magnusson. D. CyrEndler. N. S. (Ed\), Per.wmlit~ (it thr c~ro.s.srocrd.~:tiurrrnf issue.\ if1 ittrrrtrc~tiorml /~.~&m/og~ (pp. 2211233). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Ostendorf. F. ( 1990). Snrtrche und Prr.vdrt/it~hLc~it.s.s/rrt~t~~r. Zrrr Vtriidiliit de7 F’ii,ll’E‘trr(torc~rr-Mods//.\ der P~,,:sii,r/ic,/rXri/ [Language and persbnality structure: On the structured validity of the live-facior model of personality]. Regen\burg: Roderer. Ostendorf. F. & Angleitner, A. (1992). On th e generality and comprehensiveneah of the five-factor model of personality. Evidence for five robust factors in questionnaire data. In Caprara. G.-V. & Van Heck, G. L. (Eda). Mot/c,rri /w’som//i!\ p.yc’ho/o,qy. Critical rr\~iov.s trnd WM dirwtionr (pp. 73- 109). New, York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Ozer, D. J. ( 19X6). Consi.srrnc:\ in /wr.wm/it~: A r,lt,//loc/ologi[,o/,/n,r,lc,~l,or~. New York: Springer-Verlag. Paunonen, S. V. & Jackson. D. N. (1985). Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and prediction: Some unredeemed promissory notes. Pvwholq~~ctrl Kc~~iw. Y2. 386-S I I Pervin. L. A. ( 1983). The stasis and Row of behavior: Toward a theory of goals In Page. M. M. (Ed.). Nrhro.\ktr \vrtr/~o\irtr~~ on moti~wrion (pp. l-53). Lincoln. NE: University of Nebrakha Prc\s. Peterson, D. R. (196X). T/le c~liniccrl .stu& of.cocitr/ hrhtrr~/or. New Yorh: Appleton-Century-Croft\. Price, R. H. & Bouffard, D. L. ( 1974). Beha\ Ioral appropriatcncss and Gtuational constraint a\ dimenaion~ ofxxial behavior. Jounml of Prrsontrlir~ tmd Soc,itr/ P.swho/o,qv, 30, 579-S X6. Rushton, J. P.. Brainerd. C. J. & Pressley, M. (19X.3). Brha\ioral development and construct validity: The principle 01 aggregation. Ps~c,holo,~ic,cl/ Bulletin. Y4, 18-3X. Saucier, G. (I 992). Benchmarks: Integrating affecrive and Interpersonal circle\ with the BigFive personality factor\. .Joco7m/ of‘ Prrwrmlirv cmd Soc~itrl P r~c~ho/o,y~. 62. IO2S~lO35. Schmidt, F. L., &es, D. S. Rc H.unter. j: E. ( 1992). Personnel selection. Afr~rfrol Ket,rc,~l, of /“v~c+~r~//~~~~, 43. 627-670. Schmitt, M. & Borkenau. P. ( 1992). The consistency of personality. In Caprara, G.-V. Xr Van Heck. G. L. (Ed%). Mor/cr!z pervonrrlit~ p.s~c~holog~~. Critical rw,ews trml IWH tlirwtirul Y (pp. 7%55). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheat’. Schutte. N. S.. Kenrick. D. T. & Sadalla. E. K. ( 1985). The search for nredictahle \ettlng\: Situational Drototvoe\, _. constraint, and behavioral variation. Jounml of Prr.wmt/if~ trrzd .Soc~itr/ P~\~c~ho/o,~~. 4Y. I? l-7 2X. Sch\r arzer, R. ( 1983). The evaluation of convergent and dlacriminant validity by ux of structural equations. i\,-c,/r,\, fiir ?s~c.holo,qir, /35. 2 19-243.

731

The Big Five and consistency

Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M. & Rowley, G. L. (1989). Generalizability theory. American Psychologist, 44, 922-932. Ten, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Persotrnel Psychology, 44, 703-742. Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force. Reprinted in Jrjunicrl of Per.sonaliry (1992) 225-25 I. Van Heck, G. L. (1984). The construction of a general taxonomy of situations. In Bonarius, H., Van Heck, G. L. & Smid, N. (Eds), Personcrliry psychology in Europe: Theoretical and empirical developments (Vol. I, pp. 149-I 64). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Van Heck, G. L. (1989). Situation concepts: Dehnitions and classification. In Hettema, P. J. (Ed.), Per.sonalify cmd environment. Assessment of human adaptation (pp. 53-69 and pp. 241-259). Chichester: Wiley. Van Heck, G. L., Jansen, J. H. & Lamberts, C. L. H. (1986). Cross-situationele variabiliteit en de voorspelbaarheid van personen [Cross-situational variability and the predictability of persons]. Nederlunds Tijdschrift voorde Psychologie, 41, 346-357.

Vernon, P. E. ( 1964). Personality ussessment: A critical survey. New York: Wiley. Wailer, N. G. & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychology to embrace Americurl

Psychologist,

West, S. G. (1983). Personality and Wiggins, J. S. (1992). Have model, Wright, J. C. & Mischel, W. (1987). behavior. Journal ofPersonulity Wright, J. C. & Mischel, W. (1988). Social

Psychology.

the live-factor

model of personality?

42, 887-889.

prediction: An introduction. Journal of Personality,5/, 275-285. will travel. Journal off’ersonubty, 60, 527-532. A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social und Social Psychology, 53, I 159-l 177. Conditional hedges and the intuitive psychology of traits. Journrrl ofPerxmcr/it~ cmd

55, 454-469.

Yang, K. S. & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journcrl of Personality und Social Psychology, 58, 1087-1095. Zuckerman. M., Koestner, R., DeBoy, T., Garcia, T., Maresca, B. C. & Sartoris, J. M. (1988). To predict some of the people some of the time: A reexamination of the moderator variable approach in personality theory. Journcrl ofPersonali?\ and Social Psychology. 54, IOO6- IO 19.