Five-Factor Model of Personality (Big Five)

The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in

of

five

basic

dimensions:

Extraversion, Agreeableness,

Conscientiousness,

Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives
and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the
model and its applicability across observers and cultures. This article summarizes the history
of the model and its supporting evidence; discusses conceptions of the nature of the factors;
and outlines an agenda for theorizing about the origins and operation of the factors. We argue
that the model should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a
number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.
The Five Factors
As it became evident to many psychologists that, mathematically, combinations of five
factors were useful in describing personality, there was a need to clearly define what these
factors were. Indeed, this process led to some dissent in the ranks. One dissenter from the
five-factor theorists was renowned psychologist H. J. Eysenck. Eysenck felt that, due to
overlaps in the five factors and their correlates, in fact a three-factor model was more
appropriate and accurate. His theory is called the PEN model (which stand for psychoticism,
extroversion, neuroticism) (Eysenck, 1991), or sometimes is even shortened to the two factor
E-IN model (extroversion-introversion, neuroticism) (Eysenck, 1991). According to Eysenck,
"Factor analysis has improved the situation...but the problem of naming factors is of course
still with us" (Eysenck, 1991, p. 775).
Many psychologists support Eysenck's PEN model. However, of the major "factor-analytic
models...the Big Five dominates the landscape of current psychological research" (Ewen,
1998, p. 141). Through extensive debating and experimenting, there is currently a general

consensus in the realms of scholarly psychology as to the identity of the five factors, and their
basic interpretations and values to analysis of personality. The five factors are extroversionintroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness (Ewen, 1998).
Extroversion has long been one of the traits that has appeared in factor-analytic models, and
is one of the two traits to appear in both the five-factor model and Eysenck's PEN and E-IN
models. Extroversion also is sometimes referred to as social adaptability, though the
popularity of this term seems to be waning (Zuckerman, 1991). Extroversion is defined as "a
trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth
with confidence into the unknown" (Ewen, 1998, p. 289).
Neuroticism is the other trait to play a role in most of the contemporary factor models for
personality. In some studies, adjustment is examined as a factor, instead of neuroticism. In
this case, higher scores will indicate a positive result, consistent with the other four factors.
This is because the term neuroticism has an inherent negative denotation (Bradshaw, 1997).
The bases of neuroticism are levels of anxiety and volatility. Within these bounds,
neuroticism is "a dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as
opposed to instability and high anxiety at the other end" (Pervin, 1989, p. G-7).
Openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are all terms with which most people outside
the realm of psychology are familiar. In general, openness refers to how willing people are to
make adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new ideas or situations.
Agreeableness measures how compatible people are with other people, or basically how able
they are to get along with others. Conscientiousness refers to how much a person considers
others when making decisions.
As with the two factors in the big five from Eysenck's E-IN, these three are also placed on
sliding scales. These three scales, like neuroticism and extroversion, slide between their limits

to give a clear picture of personality. The limits of these scales give a clear idea of their
applications and are defined as "trusting and helpful versus suspicious and uncooperative
(agreeableness), hard working and reliable versus lazy and careless (conscientiousness), and
nonconformist and creative versus conventional and down-to-earth (openness)" (Ewen, 1998,
p. 140).
Clinical Use of the Five Factors
With the five factors themselves more or less firmly established, the model is of little
importance to psychology if it cannot somehow be applied. Clinically, the five-factor model
works much like Freud's psychoanalysis. People who have a certain characteristic that falls at
an extreme on the chart of one or more of the five variables are likely to have some sort of
psychological abnormality associated with that trait. People are likely to select their
environment in such a way that this trait is perpetuated. To keep this cycle from iterating,
psychologists make their patients come to terms with the flawed trait, allowing the patient to
break the cycle (Pervin, 1989, p. 318). The five-factor model is perhaps even more useful in
research and learning than it currently is for psychological patients. To this end, supporters of
the five-factor model point to the fact that factor analysis "serves as a useful bridge between
the more clinical theories...and the learning, behavioral theories" (Pervin, 1989, p. 326).
Determining the Greatness of the Theory
To determine the greatness of a psychological theory, it is necessary to examine several key
factors. First, to truly be labeled a great theory, it should be established that the theory does
not contradict currently held or accepted theories. Also, once this is established, a great
theory would include some kind of taxonomy. In addition, a truly great theory would be
applicable. In other words, the theory would have some sort of clinical uses and would be
able to predict experimental results without contradiction and with a relatively high level of

consistency. Also, a great theory requires a ring of originality. It is not a great deed by
anyone's standards to simply restate a long existing belief, or to remold it slightly and call it
new. Finally, a great personality theory also needs to be universal. Cultural or situationally
dependent models, although certainly of some relevance, are not worthy of being called great.
Compatibility
To establish the five-factor model's compatibility with other models, it is necessary to
examine other popular or long held psychological theories. First and foremost, it is easy to
see that the five-factor model is consistent with other factor-analytical models. As mentioned
before, Eysenck developed his PEN model from Cattell's sixteen-factor model. In this same
vein of factor-analytic models, it is now proposed that "the structure of personality is best
conceptualized as consisting of five major traits, rather than Eysenck's three types"
(McMartin, 1995, p. 138). Still, it seems natural that any factor analytic model should not
directly contradict other factor analytic models.
It has been established in recent years that the five-factor model is quite compatible with
other popular psychological theories as well, not just those concerned with factor analysis. It
has been a recent endeavor of some psychologists to build bridges between the five-factor
model and Freud's theories of psychoanalysis. For example, recent experiments have shown
correlates between Freud's concept of the ego (and resiliency or control thereof) and the five
variables in the five-factor model. As stated in the report of one such experiment conducted
by Huey and Weisz (1997), focusing on ego resiliency and ego control in adolescent boys,
"Ego resiliency seems to reflect, in part, the well adjusted pole of each FFM (five-factor
model) dimension, whereas Ego undercontrol...reflects high extroversion, low agreeableness,
and low conscientiousness" (p. 412). The correlation between elements of Freud's theory of
psychoanalysis (known for its application, but known as much for its lack of taxonomy) and

elements of the five-factor model (among the more quantifiable theories in psychology) helps
demonstrate the compatibility of the five-factor model.
Taxonomy
With the five factors placed on sliding scales, it becomes only an exercise in persistence
(through experimentation, survey, and interview) to associate various human characteristics
with one or more of the five factors. Strong correlates quickly become evident, and as trends
develop it becomes possible to assign very accurate descriptions about people via their
placement on the sliding scales associated with the five factors. Certainly, it seems plausible
that these results can be used to extrapolate many behavioral characteristics, including such
dependent traits as financial success and depth of religious faith. Psychologists are currently
working towards this end, attempting to empirically establish what Langston and Sykes
(1997) called "a taxonomy of personality" (p. 142). Naturally, this taxonomy has long been
the goal of personality psychologists, though it seems that, of late, somewhat of a snag has
developed in trying to extrapolate past the very broadest of personality traits (the big five,
essentially) (Langston & Sykes, 1997). This problem with the five-factor model is that,
although often very categorical and taxonomic, it does not delve deeply into the causation of
certain correlates. In fact, some relationships are even somewhat counterintuitive, making
extrapolation by common sense difficult. For example, one recent study found that type A
behavior, which is characterized by general optimism and ambitiousness (Ewen, 1998), had a
low correlation to conscientiousness (Morrison, 1997).
Application
In accordance with the aforesaid flaw in the second criterion for greatness, the five-factor
model runs into the most trouble when approached through the standards set forth by the third
criterion. This criterion calls for a great theory to be applicable. McAdams (1992) states,

"Personality theories do more than specify traits" (p. 336). In essence, what he is getting at is
that the five-factor model (although it provides an excellent basis for the description of much
of what, in psychology, falls into the realm of personality study) falls short of attaining or
ever having a chance to attain the title of the unified psychological theory (McAdams, 1992).
As stated, the five-factor model is used effectively in application. Because of this, it can be
said that it is applicable, even though this does not address McAdams' claim that the fivefactor theory should not really be considered a theory, but more appropriately just a list of
five variables that are useful when attempting to identify and classify personality traits. In
general, though, most of the applications of the five-factor model as it now exists seem to
come in the academic and experimental forum. In reference to the model's usefulness in
academics, Digman (1990) says, "At a minimum, research on the five-factor model has given
us a useful set of very broad dimensions that characterize individual differences. These
dimensions can be measured with high reliability and impressive validity" (p. 436). In
summary, Digman states that the five variables that compose the five-factor model "provide a
good answer to the question of personality structure" (Digman, 1990, p. 436).
Originality
It would be possible to argue that the five-factor model does not meet the criterion of
originality. Indeed, when Fiske first derived a model for predicting behavior that consisted of
five factors, Cattell's sixteen-factor system was already nearly five years old (Digman, 1990).
Despite this, the five-factor model could arguably be considered distant enough from Cattell's
model to warrant the label of originality. Perhaps instead, though, it is more useful to think of
the factor models together, as a single set of theories that, although very different
individually, all fit into one family. This family of models, starting with Cattell's sixteenfactor system, and including Eysenck's model and the five-factor model, grew from a study of

language initiated by German psychologists Allport and Odbert (Digman, 1990), who were
inspired for their studies by two other German psychologists, Baumgarten and Klages
(Digman, 1990). Through this family history of the factor models, it is easy to see that they
came to exist more or less independently of any other major psychological theories.
Universality
The fulfilment of the fourth criterion listed for a great theory in personality is that the theory
should be nearly universally true. In a non-physical science, like psychology, it is naturally
too much to ask that a theory always hold true. The basic premise, though, is that the theory
should transcend culture and situation. As the premise is in two parts, so too shall be the
response.
It appears that the five-factor model holds very well across cultural and linguistic lines.
Digman gives three examples of other cultures (and languages) in which the five-factor
theory has held up nicely. His three studies took place in Japan, the Philippines, and
Germany, and in all three cases, a five-factor solution was clearly evident at the end of testing
(Digman, 1990). On the subject of the ability of the five-factor model to cross cultural and
linguistic barriers, Digman (1990) writes, "something quite fundamental is involved here. Is
this the way people everywhere construe personality, regardless of language or culture?" (p.
434).
A current fault of the five-factor model seems to be that it fails to anticipate behavior in many
situations. The same virtue that allows the five-factor model to hold true across cultural
boundaries is its fault in specific situations: The five variables are too broad (McAdams,
1992). McAdams accurately sums up this problem by saying, "Because the Big Five operate
at such a general level of analysis, trait scores...may not be especially useful in the prediction
of specific behavior in particular situations" (McAdams, 1992, p. 338).

Conclusion
Five criteria were established to test the hypothesis that the five-factor model was a great
psychological theory. The first criterion for greatness was that the theory should be
compatible with other major psychological theories. On this point, the five-factor model was
shown to be not only compatible, but even complementary to other theories, including a
theory that would seemingly be at the other end of the spectrum from the five-factor model,
Freud's highly subjective theory of psychoanalysis. Second, it was suggested that a great
theory should be empirical. Although the five-factor model leaves much to be desired as far
as the explanation of the numbers, it was shown that with the sliding scales associated with
each of the five variables, the five-factor model was easily quantifiable. The five-factor
model does have some real problems when scrutinized for its theoretical qualities. It has been
suggested that the five-factor model was not so much a theory, but rather, just an idea or a
means of classification. This is certainly a stumbling block for the five-factor model's chances
at greatness. Also, whereas the five-factor model passed the test of originality with flying
colors, when examined to see if it held true universally (or as close as a psychological theory
can get) another flaw appeared. The broad taxonomy that is so elemental to the model makes
it difficult to specifically anticipate behaviour in many situations.