Child Development, September/October 2002, Volume 73, Number 5, Pages 1517–1524
Emergence and Construct Validation of the Big Five Factors in Early Childhood: A Longitudinal Analysis of Their Ontogeny in Sweden Michael E. Lamb, Susan S. Chuang, Holger Wessels, Anders G. Broberg, and Carl Philip Hwang
Researchers have shown that the five major dimensions of personality (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) and two additional factors (irritability and positive activity) are evident from adolescence. This study attempted to replicate and extend these results in a longitudinal study of 102 Swedish children, followed from 2.3 to 15.2 years of age. Item analyses revealed consistently reliable irritability, conscientiousness, and positive activity factors, whereas the internal reliability of the extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience factors increased over time. Irritability and positive activity were not independent of the other factors. Scores on most of the personality factors were fairly stable over time. Over time, children became less extraverted, more agreeable, and more conscientious. Neuroticism and openness to experience increased in Phase III, although openness then decreased in Phase V. Validity of the original factors was demonstrated by correlations with independent assessments of the children’s cognitive performance and adjustment to school.
INTRODUCTION The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality has elicited a great deal of attention over the past decade (for overviews, see Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Digman, 1989, 1990; John, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). This model, which emphasizes the dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience, has primarily guided research on personality in adulthood. However, the FFM has also been useful when applied to adolescents. For example, Graziano and Ward (1992) reported that scores on the five principal dimensions were systematically related to school adjustment in 11- to 14-year-olds; and John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, and Stouthamer-Loeber (1994) found that the same “little” five factors, along with two other, possibly age-specific, factors, were evident in research on 12- to 13-year-old boys. Replication and extension of these findings could play an important role in building a conceptual and empirical link between personality and developmental psychology, particularly because the personality characteristics identified in children appear related to the Big Five factors found in adults (for a detailed review, see Kohnstamm, Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill, 1998). Thus, the goals of the present study were threefold: (1) data from a 13-year longitudinal study of Swedish children, first assessed at 2.3 years of age, were used to determine whether the Big Five factors were evident in children much younger than those studied by John et al. (1994); (2) the age at which these dimensions of personality become evident was investigated; and (3) the stability, continuity, and validity of individual differences on these dimensions were explored.
Although the focus on these five dimensions has been criticized (see, e.g., Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1991; McAdams, 1992), FFM profiles have been linked empirically to such disorders and outcomes as alcoholism (Martin & Sher, 1994), dependency and self-criticism (Mongrain, 1993), DSM-III (Costa & McCrae, 1990; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989; Yeung et al., 1993) and DSM-IV diagnoses (Wilberg, Urnes, Friis, Pedersen, & Karterud, 1999), and academic achievement (Digman, 1989). Conceptions of the five factors have thus served a valuable heuristic role in the formulation and interpretation of research on personality in adulthood. It would be of obvious value to determine whether similar factors are evident in childhood and whether their antecedents or correlates can be identified. In their research on adolescents, John et al. (1994) relied on data obtained using the California Child QSet (CCQ; J. Block & J. H. Block, 1969/1980a), a wellestablished 100-item Q-sort instrument developed to assess field independence, ego resilience, and egoundercontrol in childhood and adolescence (J. Block, 1993; J. H. Block & J. Block, 1980b). John et al. (1994) concluded that the five basic personality factors were indeed evident among adolescent boys, along with two other, possibly age-dependent, factors: irritability and positive activity. If these two additional factors are important constructs in adolescence, they are also likely to be important for younger children. Thus, the present study explored the possible existence of these two additional factors in the preschool and elementary school years. The adoption of a © 2002 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2002/7305-0013
1518
Child Development
developmental perspective necessarily raised questions concerning stability, continuity, and change over time as well. It is important to examine both the stability of the factors over time to illuminate developmental trajectories, as well as the degree to which individuals maintain their relative positions on specific factors. METHOD Participants Participants were mothers and firstborn children of 137 families living in the Swedish city of Göteborg. In Phase I, the children (69 males, 68 females) averaged 2.3 years of age (SD .26). A comparison between this sample and a random sample of all families with young children in Göteborg indicated that the mothers and fathers in the sample were, on average, about 1 year older and had higher socioeconomic status, as measured by two-factor Hollingshead (1975) scores, than comparable families in Göteborg (Broberg & Hwang, 1987). Subsequent assessments of children in the present longitudinal study were conducted when the children averaged 3.3 years (Phase II: N 137, 67 males, 70 females), 6.7 years (Phase III: N 122, 59 males, 63 females), 8.4 years (Phase IV: N 109, 55 males, 54 females), and 15.2 years (Phase V: N 118 , 57 males, 61 females). One hundred two children (50 males, 52 females) participated in all phases, and thus the analyses focused exclusively on these 102 participants. Procedure In all five phases of data collection, a trained member of the research staff visited the homes and asked mothers to complete the CCQ (J. Block & J. H. Block, 1969/1980a), which had been translated into Swedish. Mothers’ responses to the Q-sorts were then used to construct the personality scale scores that had been developed by John et al. (1994). In Phase IV, when the children were in second grade, mothers and teachers were questioned about the children’s perceived verbal and mathematical abilities and their adaptation to school. The adults rated the children’s reading and writing abilities on two 5-point scales (1 much worse, 5 much better than the average child). The four ratings were then averaged to yield perceived verbal ability scores. Mothers and teachers also rated their perceptions of the children’s mathematical abilities on a single 5-point scale (1 much worse, 5 much better than the average child). Teachers rated the children’s adaptation to school on a 5-point scale
(1 poor adjustment, 5 good adjustment), using seven questions that pertained to the children’s adjustment to school rules, instruction, and peer relationships. Teachers also rated whether the children should have delayed entry into school for 1 year. Similarly, mothers rated their children’s adaptation to rules and peers, and indicated whether their children should have delayed entry into school. Except where otherwise indicated, all ratings were analyzed individually. All Swedish translations were evaluated by independent back-translations. In addition, cognitive abilities were assessed using the following assessment procedures: Standardized tests were used to assess the ability to recognize words and sentences (Häggström & Lundberg, 1990). Reading comprehension was assessed by having children read a story and answer questions about the content. The word and sentence recognition subtests were administered individually to the children by research assistants, whereas the reading comprehension test was administered in the classroom by the teachers, and then scored by a research assistant. Scores on the three tests were averaged to yield a single verbal abilities score. To assess mathematical abilities, the numerical subscales of a Swedish school readiness test (Ljungblad, 1967/1989) were administered individually to each child, with scores averaged to yield a single measure of mathematical ability.
RESULTS Constructing the Seven Personality Scales Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using the CCQ data from each of the phases to assess the replicability of the seven factors that were created by John et al. (1994): extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience, irritability, and positive activity. Because John et al. (1994) had studied 12- to 13-yearold boys, attempts were made to confirm the existence of the seven factors in Phase V, when the children in the present study were 15.2 years old. Varimax-rotated exploratory and confirmatory analyses failed to yield the seven-factor solution and the seven factors, respectively, as reported by John et al. (1994). This failure may have been due to the ipsative nature of the data; thus, the internal consistencies of the factors identified by John et al. were evaluated. The extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and positive activity factors were quite reliable (Cronbach’s s) in Phase V (see Table 1). Although the internal consistency for conscientiousness could have been raised from .63 to .69 in Phase V by removing items that
Lamb et al. Table 1 Internal Reliabilities (Cronbach’s s) of the Seven Personality Scales over Five Phases Phase (Age in Years)
Personality Scale
Number of Items
I (2.3)
II (3.3)
III (6.7)
IV (8.4)
V (15.2)
9 13 9 9
.38 .59 .68 .45
.38 .60 .62 .62
.59 .71 .64 .56
.68 .56 .63 .65
.82 .78 .63 .76
7 5 5
.33 .63 .71
.47 .68 .74
.32 .67 .71
.47 .72 .78
.52 .58 .73
Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience Irritability Positive activity
were weakly related to the others, the internal consistency of this scale declined in the earlier phases by doing so. Thus, we decided to include all the items used by John et al. (1994). The openness to experience and irritability scales were not adequately reliable in Phase V. As shown in Table 1, internal consistencies for extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience tended to increase as the children grew older. Internal reliabilities remained fairly stable over the five phases for conscientiousness, irritability, and positive activity. Intercorrelations among the Seven Scales One half of the concurrent correlations (53 of 105) among scores on the seven scales were not statistically significant, ps .05, and 12 of the correlations
were weak but significant, rs .25, ps .05. Systematic patterns of more substantial intercorrelations, rs .30, were evident, however (as shown in Table 2). More specifically, irritability was negatively correlated with agreeableness and conscientiousness, and positively correlated with neuroticism, in each of the five phases. Extraversion and neuroticism were negatively correlated in Phases IV and V, whereas extraversion and positive activity were positively correlated in all phases. The consistently high correlations between positive activity and extraversion, as well as between irritability and agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, suggest that irritability and positive activity might not be independent factors but rather facets of the Big Five factors, as suggested by Costa and McCrae (1992b) and Hofstee, de Raad, and Goldberg (1992) in their studies of adults. Thus, further analyses focused exclusively on the Big Five scales. Developmental Trajectories on the Five Scales Although the scores studied were ipsative and mean scores should thus be analyzed and interpreted with caution, developmental changes in the mean scores were examined (see Table 3). The developmental trajectories were assessed using 2 (gender) 5 (phase) repeated-measures ANOVAs with polynomial trend decomposition of the within-subjects effects for each of the scales. The spacing of the polynomials was adjusted to reflect the varying time lags between the phases. The analyses revealed no main or interaction effects involving gender, but main effects for phase were evident in each analysis. Table 3 shows that there were significant linear trajectories for extraversion
Table 2 Significant Intercorrelations among the Personality Scales Scale
Scale
Phase
Irritability
I II III IV V
Extraversion
I II III IV V
** p 01; *** p .001.
Agreeableness .46*** .31** .42*** .35*** .37***
1519
Conscientiousness Neuroticism .53 .40 .57 .50 .45
Positive Activity
.36 .44 .49 .49 .57
.34 .45
.45 .54 .55 .63 .63
1520
Child Development
Table 3 Developmental Trends in Perceptions of the Children’s Personality over Five Phases Phase (Age in Years) I (2.3) Scale
II (3.3)
III (6.7)
IV (8.4)
V (15.2)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Trend
F
p
Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness
7.34 5.82 5.54
.67 .69 1.01
7.34 6.01 5.80
.68 .69 .89
6.95 6.12 6.22
.89 .83 1.00
6.86 6.20 6.37
1.01 1.05 .98
6.03 6.30 6.90
1.26 .93 .87
Neuroticism
2.73
.66
2.78
.75
3.36
.86
3.48
.91
3.37
1.07
Openness to experience
6.50
.75
6.74
.77
6.76
.78
6.63
.90
6.28
.92
Linear Linear Linear Quadratic Linear Quatratic Linear Quadratic
133.92 17.62 137.83 5.62 38.09 52.90 11.65 18.01
.001 .001 .001 .02 .001 .001 .001 .001
and agreeableness, with children becoming less extraverted and more agreeable over time (Figure 1). The trend analyses also revealed significant linear and quadratic (inverted U shape) trajectories for conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Figure 1). The significant linear trends revealed that children became significantly more conscientious and neurotic as they grew older, with quadratic trends reflecting the discontinuous nature of the increases over time. Post hoc t tests revealed that conscientiousness did not increase significantly between the assessments at 6.7 and 8.4 years of age, and neuroticism did not increase between 2.2 and 2.3 years of age or after the children reached 6.7 years of age. In the case of openness to experience, the linear and quadratic
Figure 1
trends reflected the fact that the levels rose between 2.2 and 3.3 years, and then decreased steadily. As a result, the 3.3-, 6.7-, and 8.4-year-olds (Phases II, III, and IV) were significantly more open to experiences than when they were younger or older. Because the extraversion scales were not reliable in Phases I and II and the neuroticism scale was not reliable in Phase I, further trend analyses were conducted excluding these scores. The developmental trends reported above remained unchanged. Stability over Time Intracorrelations between scores of the Big Five scales over the five phases are displayed in Table 4.
Developmental trajectories of the five personality scales.
Lamb et al.
1521
Table 4 Intrascale Correlations between Scores on the Five Personality Scales over Five Phases Phases (Age in Years)
Personality Scale Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience
I–II (2.3–3.3)
II–III (3.3–6.7)
III–IV (6.7–8.4)
IV–V (8.4–15.2)
I–III (2.3–6.7)
II–IV (3.3–8.4)
III–V (6.7–15.2)
I–IV (2.3–8.4)
.48** .63** .65** .51** .64**
.50** .37** .54** .38** .45**
.69** .69** .70** .68** .56**
.52** .45** .47** .56** .55**
.37** .33** .39** .37** .39**
.56** .34** .42** .43** .53**
.42** .48** .45** .49** .41**
.39** .32** .32** .39** .47**
II–V I–V (3.3–15.2) (2.3–15.2) .44** .28** .27** .25* .36**
.21* .20* .17 .17 .25*
* p .05; ** p .01.
Most of the intracorrelations were statistically significant, rs .30, ps .01, revealing moderate levels of stability over time. Intracorrelations between scores in Phases I and V were the lowest, with nonsignificant correlations between the relevant scores on both the conscientiousness and neuroticism dimensions. The intracorrelations between the Phase I and IV scores were all statistically significant, however, and the highest correlations, .56 rs .70, were between scores in Phases III and IV, when the children were 6.7 and 8.4 years of age. Correlations between Personality Scales and School Performance To examine the extent to which the five reliable and stable scales predicted school performance and adaptation to school in middle childhood, this study next focused on Phase IV, when the children averaged 8.4 years of age. School performance. John et al. (1994) reported that scores on their conscientiousness and openness to experience scales were correlated with indices of the adolescents’ cognitive abilities. In this study, similarly, the conscientiousness and openness to experience scores from Phase IV were significantly correlated with scores on the standardized verbal, rs .22 and .41, respectively, and mathematical, rs .29 and .21, respectively, achievement tests administered in Phase IV. Scores on the extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism factors were not significantly associated with the standardized verbal and mathematical achievement scores. A series of multiple regression analyses further revealed that whereas openness to experience independently predicted the children’s tested verbal abilities, r .26, p .01, conscientiousness was the only independent predictor of the children’s tested mathematical abilities, r .39, p .001. Mothers’ ratings of openness to experience likewise predicted their perceptions of their children’s verbal
abilities, r .28, and their assessments of conscientiousness predicted their perceptions of both verbal and mathematical abilities, rs .20 and .27, respectively. Similarly, teachers’ perceptions of the children’s mathematical abilities were associated with conscientiousness and openness to experience, rs .24 and .22, respectively, although only teachers’ perceptions of the children’s verbal abilities were associated with the openness to experience scores. Multiple regression analyses revealed that conscientiousness independently predicted maternal perceptions of the children’s verbal abilities, r .26 and p .01, whereas openness to experience independently predicted teachers’ perceptions of the children’s verbal abilities, r .21, p .05. Adaptation to school. Correlations between the indices of adjustment and the five personality scale scores in Phase IV, when the children averaged 8.4 years of age, are presented in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, teachers believed that more extraverted children adjusted to their peers more quickly, whereas more agreeable and conscientious children needed less time to learn instructions and adjust to rules. More conscientious children were believed to have better peer relationships and were better adjusted to school. From the teachers’ perspectives, more neurotic children cried more often and were more anxious, needed more time to adjust to their peers, and had more overall adjustment problems in school. There were no significant associations between openness to experience and the teachers’ ratings of the children’s adjustment. As shown in Table 5, mothers believed that more extraverted children adjusted to peers more readily, whereas children who were more open to experiences were perceived as less likely to benefit if school entry was delayed by 1 year. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism scores were not significantly associated with mothers’ perceptions of their children’s adaptation to school.
1522
Child Development
Table 5 Correlations between Personality Scale Scores and Ratings of the Children’s Adaptation to School at Phase IV (8.4 Years) Personality Scale Score
Rater
Extraversion
Cried a lot and was anxious
Teacher
.10
Needed time to adjust to rules
Teacher
.05
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
Openness to Experience
.08
.06
.35**
.03
.23*
.25*
.13
0
Learned rules quickly
Teacher
.19
.30**
.43**
.06
.02
Good relations to peers
Teacher
.08
.22
.16
.07
.09
Overall, had no problem adjusting to school
Teacher
.19
.16
.20*
.35**
Now well adapted to rules
Teacher Mother
.12 .15
.04 .14
.16 .19
Adjusted to peers quickly
Teacher Mother
.36** .22*
.22 .10
.16 .14
Better to delay entry into school for 1 year
Teacher Mother
.12 .05
.11 .02
.24* .18
.07
.09 .17
.03 .12
.35** .11
.07 0
.07 .14
.07 .26**
* p .05; ** p .01.
DISCUSSION This longitudinal study sought to determine whether the seven personality factors that John et al. (1994) identified in a study of 13-year-olds were evident and reliable among younger children. As expected, item analyses of the data obtained in Phase V, when the children were 15.2 years old, revealed fairly high internal consistencies for extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and positive activity factors similar to those described by John et al. (1994), although the conscientiousness, openness to experience, and irritability factors were less coherent than those of John et al. Over the five phases studied (covering a 13-year span), the internal reliabilities for conscientiousness, irritability, and positive activity were stable and modest, whereas the reliability of the extraversion scale gradually increased over time, and was adequate from Phase IV onward. The internal reliability of the neuroticism dimension generally increased over time, whereas the openness to experience scale was never adequately reliable. The incoherence of the extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism scales in early childhood suggests that these aspects of children’s personality are not well defined or apparent to parents until later childhood. Perhaps such personality dimensions do not become apparent until children have had opportunities to experience a variety of social situations that allow their tendencies to be expressed or consolidated. If so, the findings of the present study provide a reminder that some dimen-
sions of personality may not be evident at all ages or in all contexts. As discussed by John et al. (1994), openness to experience is the most heterogeneous of the Big Five scales and thus tends to emerge as the last factor in factor analyses (Goldberg, 1990; John et al., 1994; Norman, 1963). Although the openness scale has fewer items (seven) than the extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism scales (which might help explain the low levels), it has more items than the irritability and positive activity scales (five items each), both of which were more reliable. The findings of the present study may instead suggest that openness to experience is not a meaningful dimension of personality prior to adolescence, although further exploration of this construct among children and adolescents in diverse cultural contexts may be instructive. Two additional factors identified by John et al. (1994) were also explored in this longitudinal study. Studying adults, Costa and McCrae (1992a) suggested that irritability and positive activity were best viewed as components of the broader neuroticism and extraversion dimensions, but John et al. (1994) challenged this idea, noting that intercorrelations were low in their study of male adolescents. The present analyses, in contrast, revealed consistently high correlations between irritability and three other factors (neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness) as well as between positive activity and extraversion. These results suggest that irritability and positive activity may indeed be facets of the original
Lamb et al.
five dimensions, rather than independent dimensions of personality as suggested by John et al. (1994). Although research has examined the temporal stabilities of scores on the five major dimensions of personality (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman, 1989), little attention has been paid to the developmental trajectories that were explored in the current research. Over a 13-year span, this study found that children became significantly less extraverted over time, although extraversion scores changed little between Phases I and II and between Phases III and IV. The children were also more agreeable when they were older. Similarly, children became more conscientious over time, perhaps in response to demands imposed by the educational system. Interestingly, mothers rated their children as being more neurotic during the school years (Phases III to V) than in earlier childhood (Phases I and II). Although neuroticism increased when children entered school, their mean neuroticism scores did not change significantly from then on. Levels of openness to experiences increased from Phase I to III, but then significantly declined at Phase V. Interpretation of these findings is limited by the consistent lack of internal reliability, however. The validity of the five central dimensions of personality was underscored by significant correlations between scores on these factors and on independent assessments of the children’s cognitive performance and adjustment to school. As reported by John et al. (1994), children who were more conscientious and open to experiences achieved higher verbal and mathematical test scores. Conscientiousness was an independent predictor of the children’s mathematical abilities whereas openness to experience predicted their verbal abilities. In addition, conscientiousness was associated only with maternal ratings of their children’s verbal and mathematical abilities, whereas openness to experience was associated with maternal ratings of the children’s verbal abilities. Similarly, teachers rated students who were more conscientious and open to experience as having higher mathematical abilities, whereas openness to experiences was associated with enhanced verbal abilities. Mothers and teachers also assessed the children’s adjustment to school. According to teachers, more neurotic children cried more often and were more anxious, more agreeable and conscientious children needed less time to adjust to rules and were quicker at learning instructions, children who were more extraverted and less neurotic adjusted to their peers more quickly, and those who were more conscientious had better peer relationships. More conscientious and less neurotic children were viewed as having less difficulty adjusting to school. Similarly, more extraverted chil-
1523
dren were believed by mothers to have fewer problems adjusting to peers, and children who were less open to experiences appeared to have more difficulty adapting to school rules. Mothers believed that children who were less open to experiences should have waited an additional year before entering school. All of these associations speak to the validity of the Five Factor assessments of the children’s personalities. Although the five major personality dimensions were internally consistent, externally valid, and generally stable over time, a closer examination revealed that the factors may not be independent and orthogonal dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Goldberg, 1992; John et al., 1994). Specifically, one third of the intercorrelations among the five scales over time were statistically significant, ps .01. Such findings further support J. Block’s (1995) observation that exclusive focus on these five “primary” dimensions of personality is excessive and premature. Although this 13-year longitudinal study yielded rich insight into some aspects of personality development and their relation to external factors such as school performance and adjustment, several limitations of the study must be acknowledged. First, the sample was relatively small. Second, all assessments of the children’s personalities were based on their mothers’ ratings; ratings by fathers, teachers, and the children themselves might also have been informative. Therefore, even though the FFM has greatly facilitated research on adolescent and adult personality development, caution is necessary when applying the FFM to younger children. Further research on these dimensions and their developmental trajectories over time is clearly needed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to the children, parents, careproviders, and teachers who gave so generously of their time during this research, and to the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Sweden) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (United States) for their extended financial support. They also thank Gunilla Hult, Majt Frodi, Anders Wellsmö, and Thomas Tjus for their assistance in collecting and coding the data.
ADDRESSES AND AFFILIATIONS Corresponding author: Michael E. Lamb, Section on Social and Emotional Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Rockledge One Center, Suite 8048, 6705
1524
Child Development
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892; e-mail: michael_
[email protected]. Susan S. Chuang is also at the NICHD. At the time of this study, Holger Wessels was at the NICHD; he is currently at Chisquare, Berlin, Germany. Anders G. Broberg and Carl Philip Hwang are at Göteborgs University, Göteborg, Sweden.
REFERENCES Block, J. (1993). Studying personality the long way. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Wideman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 9–44). Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the Five-Factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980a). The California Child Q-Set. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (Original work published 1969) Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980b). The role of ego-control and ego-resilience in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Broberg, A., & Hwang, C.-P. (1987). Barnomsorg i Göteborg: En longitudinell studie [Children in Göteborg: A longitudinal study]. (Rapport No. 1987:5). Göteborg Sweden: Psykologiska Institutionen, Göteborgs Universitet. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 43–60. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 362–371. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions or personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big Five Factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in
adolescence: Personality and adjustment during a developmental transition. Journal of Personality, 60, 425–439. Häggström, S., & Lundberg, I. (1990). Prov i svenska för den nationella utvärderingen av kunskaper och färdigheter i den svenska skolan [Tests in Swedish for the national evaluation of knowledge and skills in Swedish schools]. Umeå, Sweden: Psykologiska Institutionen, Umeå Universitet. Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT. 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 Press. 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. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and practice (2nd ed.; pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press. Kohnstamm, G. K., Halverson, C. F., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (1998). Parental descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ljungblad, T. (1989). Höstproven [Tests of school readiness]. Stockholm: Psykologiförlaget. (Original work published 1967) Martin, E. D., & Sher, K. J. (1994). Family history of alcoholism, alcohol use disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 81–90. McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. Mongrain, M. (1993). Dependency and self-criticism located within the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 455–462. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure of peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment, 1, 305–316. Wilberg, T., Urnes, O., Friis, S., Pedersen, G., & Karterud, S. (1999). Borderline and avoidant personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: A comparison between DSM-IV diagnoses and NEO-PI-R. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13, 226–240. Yeung, A. S., Lyons, M. J., Waternaux, C. M., Faraone, S. V., & Tsuang, M. T. (1993). The relationship between DSMIII personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 34, 227–234.
