The Big Five as States: How Useful Is the Five-Factor Model to Describe Intraindividual Variations over Time?

Abstract This study investigated the similarity between the factor structure of longitudinal variations in states and the factor structure of individual differences in traits. On 90 consecutive days, 22 students self-administered 30 self-report items that were markers of the Big Five. Most participants showed good discrimination among the 90 measurement occasions. Correlations were computed between items across measurement occasions. These P-correlations were factored, and the factor matrices were target rotated toward a reference factor structure of individual differences, using orthogonal Procrustes rotations. A substantial match was obtained between the factor structure of longitudinal correlations that had been averaged across participants and the factor structure of individual differences. For individual participants, this factor match was worse. It is concluded that the Big Five are useful to describe longitudinal variations in states. A sharp distinction between the five-factor model and the trait approach is recommended.

[1]  S. Paunonen.  On Chance and Factor Congruence Following Orthogonal Procrustes Rotation , 1997 .

[2]  Franjo Prot,et al.  The matching of two sets of factors by decomposition of variance approach , 1997 .

[3]  P. Costa,et al.  Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. , 1996 .

[4]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  Trait explanations in personality psychology , 1995 .

[5]  L. Feldman.  Valence Focus and Arousal Focus: Individual Differences in the Structure of Affective Experience , 1995 .

[6]  Lawrence A. Pervin,et al.  A Critical Analysis of Current Trait Theory , 1994 .

[7]  L. R. Goldberg.  The structure of phenotypic personality traits. , 1993, The American psychologist.

[8]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  D. McAdams,et al.  The five-factor model in personality: a critical appraisal. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[10]  P. Borkenau,et al.  Implicit personality theory and the five-factor model. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[11]  R. McCrae,et al.  An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[12]  Douglas N. Jackson,et al.  Personality structure across cultures: A multimethod evaluation. , 1992 .

[13]  O. John,et al.  Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho‐lexical study , 1990 .

[14]  Peter Borkenau,et al.  Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories , 1990 .

[15]  F. Ostendorf,et al.  Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: zur Validität des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit , 1990 .

[16]  P. Borkenau.  The multiple classification of acts and the big five factors of personality , 1988 .

[17]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  Conceptions of states and traits: dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  P. Borkenau.  Toward an understanding of trait interrelations: Acts as instances for several traits. , 1986 .

[19]  P. Barrett,et al.  FACTOR COMPARISON: AN EXAMINATION OF THREE METHODS , 1986 .

[20]  D. Watson,et al.  Toward a consensual structure of mood. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  W. Revelle,et al.  Personality traits: fact or fiction? A critique of the Shweder and D'Andrade systematic distortion hypothesis. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  R Hogan,et al.  A socioanalytic theory of personality. , 1983, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[23]  Auke Tellegen,et al.  The structure of mood change: An idiographic/nomothetic analysis. , 1982 .

[24]  S. Rosenberg,et al.  Linguistic factors in implicit personality theory. , 1981 .

[25]  J. Russell.  A circumplex model of affect. , 1980 .

[26]  R. Howell,et al.  Measurement in the social sciences , 1980 .

[27]  Richard A. Shweder,et al.  How relevant is an individual difference theory of personality? , 1975, Journal of personality.

[28]  R. D'Andrade.  Memory and the Assessment of Behavior , 1974 .

[29]  R. Cattell.  Personality and mood by questionnaire. , 1973 .

[30]  W. T. Norman,et al.  Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. , 1966 .

[31]  W. T. Norman,et al.  A universal conception of personality structure? , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  R. Cattell.  The chief invariant psychological and psycho-physical functional unities found by P-technique. , 1955, Journal of clinical psychology.

[33]  R. Cattell,et al.  Comparison of the ergic and self-sentiment structures found in dynamic traits by R-and P-techniques. , 1952, Journal of personality.

[34]  R. Cattell.  P-technique, a new method for analyzing the structure of personal motivation. , 1951, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[35]  R. Cattell,et al.  P-technique demonstrated in determining psychophysiological source traits in a normal individual , 1947, Psychometrika.

[36]  R. Cattell.  The Description and Measurement of Personality , 1947, Mental Health.