in&rid. /Iif/. Vol. 15, No. 3.pp.2X1-2X8.

Pm-son. 1993 0191-8869193

$6.00+0.00
Printed
inGreatBrltain Pergamon Press Ltd

THE BIG FIVE QUESTIONNAIRE: A NEW

QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSESS THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL

GIAN VITTORIO CAPRARA, CLAUDIA BARBARANELLI, LAURA BORCOGNI and

MARCO PERUCINI
Dipartimento di Psicologia. Universita degli studi La Sapienza, Via dei Marsi 78. 00185 Roma, Italy

(Rcceiwd 27 October 1992)

Summary-h this paper a new questionnaire for the measurement of the Big Five Factor Model
(which includes the factors Extraversion, Agreeableness or Friendliness, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability or Neuroticism, and Intellect or Openness to Experience) is presented. The various steps in the
development of the questionnaire involved more than 1000 subjects. Internal validity (factorial structure),
convergent and discriminant validity. internal consistency and temporal stability, and sex differences in
the scale scores are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to present a new questionnaire for the measurement of the Big Five
Factor Model. The new instrument (BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire) follows the results of a previous
lexical study (Caprara & Perugini, 1990, 1991 b) in an attempt to provide a questionnaire measure
for the Five Factor Model (FFM).

ASSESSING THE FFM

A number of review papers (Caprara & Perugini, 1991a; Digman, 1990; John, 1990; John,
Angleitner & Ostendorf. 1988; McCrae & John, 1992; Wiggins & Pincus, 1992) showed the
emergence of the FFM in the lexical approach. The same factors (identified as: I, Extraver-
sion/Introversion or Surgency; II, Friendliness/Hostility or Agreeableness; III, Conscientiousness
or Will; IV, Neuroticism/Emotional Stability; and V, Intellect or Openness to Experience), or
alternative versions of them emerged from the analysis of trait terms (adjectives or names) taken
from the dictionary, across variations in procedures of evaluation (self report vs ratings), techniques
of factor extraction and rotation, sample characteristics (sex, age), and countries and languages
(U.S.A., Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Taiwan).
More recently different contributions have suggested the presence of these same five factors when
phrases contained in inventories are used to assess personality. Results of conjoint or singular
factor analysis of questionnaires such as Cattells 16PF, Eysencks EPQ, Comreys CPS, etc., were
interpreted as supporting the FFM (Boyle, 1989; Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae, 1989; McCrae &
Costa, 1985). Although other studies (Hahn & Comrey, 1992; Zuckerman, Kuhlman & Camac,
1988) showed different results, demonstrating the arbitrariness of constraining the FFM outcomes
of every factor rotation, we agree with McCrae and Costa (1989) in considering the FFM as a
framework for interpreting the other personality systems and their dimensions. If the Big Five are
not the only broad factors of personality, at least they are, along with the Eysenck factors (Powell
& Royce, 1981; Eysenck, 1991) the most recurrent, and could then provide a common language
and a framework for orienting research and assessment in personality psychology.
As noted by Briggs (1992) the most common way to assess the FFM is by means of adjective
lists (either unipolar or bipolar). This is not surprising, considering that the FFM has its origin
in trait ratings and in research on the structure of trait-descriptive adjectives. Adjectives have the
advantage of providing a finite set of trait descriptors, which are simple, immediately linked to
behavior via the lexical hypothesis (Cattell, 1943) and easily and economically administered.
However they have the disadvantage of being blunt. dull-edged instruments (Briggs, 1992,
p. 258). Statements can offer an increased precision and richness for the description of personality.

281
282 GIAN VITTORIO
CAPRARAet al.

They can allow for specificity and differentiation, and for a better articulation of the dimensions
of an explicit theory of personality.
In comparison with the number of adjective lists available to measure the FFM, only two
questionnaires explicitly developed for this purpose have gained a broad reputation, the NEO-
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI: Costa & McCrae, 1985; Costa, McCrae & Dye, 1991), and the
Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI: Hogan, 1986). Although the Five Factors can be recovered in
a number of other inventories (Briggs, 1992; Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1992) they cannot properly
be considered measures of the FFM.
The first version (Costa & McCrae, 1985) of the NEO-PI consisted of 181 statements organized
in five domain scales, and in 18 facet scales designed to capture more specific aspects of the
Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience factors. More recently (Costa et al., 1991)
a new version of the inventory has been published with 12 facet scales also for the Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness factors.
The HP1 consists of 310 statements organized into six scales labeled Intellectance, Adjustment,
Prudence, Likeability, Ambition and Sociability. For application purposes Hogan splits the
Extraversion factor into two different components, Ambition and Sociability, but these com-
ponents seem to reflect the same latent factor (Goldberg, 1992). Each scale is organized into a
different number of subscales (43 in total) aimed at the same purposes as the NEO-PI facets. Both
questionnaires share the same deductive approach to scale construction, and follow a hierarchical
organization of personality dimensions.
As noted by Briggs (1992) the NEO-PIs strength lies in its construct validity, tested across
different kinds of observers (self vs other), different measures of the FFM (as adjective lists) and
measures of virtually every major alternative personality system.
The HPIs strength lies in its utility for predicting work-related performance criteria (Briggs,
1992, p. 277). However, its factor structure (based on the analysis of subscales) is only partially
like the FFM, and its subdimensions are not always related to the factor measured. For these
reasons the HP1 can be considered a rougher measure of the FFM than the NEO-PI.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BFQ

As regards their hierarchical structure the NEO-PI and the HP1 present aspects that are at the
least questionable: in particular, the number of subdimensions or facets seems partially redundant
(especially in the HPI) and at odds with the simplicity of the FFM; moreover, in some cases the
classification of the subdimensions to one factor instead of another is not in agreement with the
literature (e.g. the NEO-PI facet Warmth is related to Extraversion instead of Agreeableness,
and Hostility, or Angry Hostility to Neuroticism instead of Disagreeableness). With these
premises, following the deductive and hierarchic approach of McCrae and Costa and Hogan we
produced a new questionnaire for the FFM having the following aims:
(1) to be more parsimonious in the number of facets referred to each primary dimension, and
in the number of statements produced;
(2) to be, as far as possible, coherent with the definition of the Five Factors and of their facets,
as they are referred to in the literature; and
(3) to provide a measure of social desirability by means of an L (Lie) scale.
We used the following definitions of the principal dimensions and of their facets, as generative
criteria for the statements in the BFQ.
For the Energy (E) dimension we refer, following in part Watson and Clark (in press), to the
characteristics that in the literature are subsumed by Extraversion (McCrae & Costa, 1987) or by
Surgency (Goldberg, 1990). The label Energy seemed more appropriate and more general
according to the more specific meanings that in the Italian context are associated with the word
Extraversion (always used as a synonym of Sociability) and Surgency. This dimension is
organized into the following two facets: Dynamism, which refers to expansiveness and
enthusiasm, and Dominance, which refers to assertiveness and confidence.
For the Friendliness (F) dimension we refer to the factor usually labeled Agreeableness (McCrae
& Costa, 1987) or Friendliness vs Hostility (Digman, 1990). This dimension is organized into the
following two facets: Cooperativeness/Empathy, which refers to concern and sensitiveness
 The Big Five Questionnaire 283

towards others and their needs, and Politeness, which refers to kindness, civility, docility and
trust.
For the Conscientiousness (C) dimension we refer to impulse control in both its proactive and
inhibitory aspects (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1989). This dimension is organized into the
following two facets: Scrupulousness, which refers to dependability, orderliness and precision,
and Perseverance, which refers to the capability of fulfilling ones own tasks and commitments.
For the Emotional Stability (S) dimension we refer to aspects of negative affectivity (Watson
& Tellegen, 1985; McCrae & Costa, 1987). This dimension is organized into the following two
facets: Emotion Control, which refers to the capacity to cope adequately with ones own anxiety
and emotionality, and Impulse Control, which refers to the capability of controlling irritation,
discontent, and anger.
The Openness (0) dimension refers to the factor labeled Culture (Norman, 1963), or Intellect
(Goldberg, 1990), or Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1985). This dimension is organized
into the following two facets: Openness to Culture, which refers to the broadness or narrowness
of ones own cultural interests, and Openness to Experiences, which refers to openness to novelty,
tolerance of different values, interest toward different people, habits and life-styles.
Each facet scale contains 12 items; half the items are positively worded with respect to the scale
name, and half are negatively worded in order to control for possible acquiescence response set.
The Lie (L) scale is designed to assess the social desirability type of response set and contains
12 items.
For replying to the 132 items in the questionnaire the respondent has a 5-choice answer scale
that ranges from complete disagreement (1 = very false for me) to complete agreement (5 = very
true for me). The Appendix gives sample items of the dimensions and subdimensions in the
questionnaire.

SUBJECTS

The version of the questionnaire that is presented here is the result of a series of studies in which
items were produced, administered to several groups, and then dropped if they did not have
desirable characteristics in factor and reliability analyses. The results that we present in this paper
are based on 1189 Ss organized as follows:
Groups involved in the examination of structural properties of the questionnaire:
A.1: 420 volunteer Ss, 225 females and 195 males, aged between 19 and 63 years (mean
age = 36.66, SD = 11.08), predominantly middle class and well educated;
A.2: 242 volunteer undergraduate university students attending different courses (predomi-
nantly not psychological courses) at the University of Rome La Sapienza, 145 females
and 97 males, aged between 18 and 29 years (mean age = 21.30, SD = 2.31);
A.3: 215 volunteer high school Ss, 127 females and 88 males, aged between 16 and 21 years
(mean age = 17.66, SD = 1.02);
A.4: 126 volunteer Ss who were applying for a job, 12 females and 114 males, aged between
19 and 32 years (mean age = 24.52, SD = 2.26).
Groups involved in the examination of construct validity:
B.1: 288 volunteer Ss, 152 females and 136 males (included in group A.l);
B.2: 186 volunteer undergraduate psychology students, 159 females and 27 males, aged
between 19 and 38 years (mean age = 21.38, SD = 2.33).
A group involved in the examination of temporal stability (test-retest):
C: 133 volunteer undergraduate psychology students (included in group B.2), 115 females
and 18 males, to whom the questionnaire was administered in two sessions, with an
interval of about 2 weeks.

VALIDITY
Factor structure
To examine the factor structure of the BFQ, Pearson correlations were obtained over the 10 facet
scores. This 10 x 10 matrix was factor analyzed by the principal factor method as implemented in
 284 GIAK VITTORIOCAPRARA et ul

the Comrey program for factor analysis (Comrey, 1973; Comrey & Lee, 1992). As an initial estimate
for the communalities the maximum correlation coefficient shown by each of the variables in the
matrix was taken.
Five principal factors were extracted before convergence occurred on vectors of opposite signs,
indicating that no more factors could be extracted. The solution was then iterated three times to
partially stabilize the final communalities estimate and the five factors were rotated using the
Criterion I method of the Tandem Criteria for orthogonal analytic rotation (Comrey, 1967). This
method puts as much variance as possible on as few factors as possible, subject to the limitation
that variables appearing on a given factor must be correlated with each other. Application of this
criterion to the present data resulted in the retention of all factors extracted which were then rotated
by Criterion II of the Tandem Criteria. This criterion distributes the variance among the factors
to approximate a simple-structure kind of solution, subject to the limitation that variables that are
not correlated and have to appear on different factors. In comparison with other rotation methods
the Tandem Criteria permits one to obtain factor solutions which are more clean and more fitted
to the observed relations between variables (Lee & Comrey, 1979).
An inspection of the Criterion II factor matrix (Table 1) confirmed the hypothesized five factor
model. Each pair of facets showed high primary loadings on the same component, and lower
loadings on the other components. The only exception was for the facet Perseverance (of
dimension C), which showed high loadings not only on its proper factor (fifth = Conscientiousness)
but also on the second factor ( = Energy).
The factor scores were computed for the principal factors solution and were then correlated with
the theoretical scores on the five dimensions, obtained by summing the scores for the items
related to each of them. The correlations were 0.93 for E, 0.93 for F, 0.99 for S, 0.97 for 0 and
0.88 for C. A substantial overlapping then occurred between the factor scores and the theoretical
scores.
These analyses seemed to support the structural validity of the questionnaire: five factors were
clearly recovered in the analysis of facet scores. Moreover, the overlapping of the factor scores with
the scores defined a priori was quite high. One element of concern emerged from the position
of the facet Perseverance with respect to the dimensions C and E. Apparently this facet of
dimension C also seemed related to E. A confirmatory factor analysis (Bollen, 1989) was then
conducted using the EQS program (Bentler, 1989) to test different models in which Perseverance
was related only to C, only to E, and both to E and C. The model which fitted the observed
correlation matrix best was the one in which Perseverance was related only to C (Table 2).
The stability of the factor structure depicted in Table 1 across different groups of Ss was
examined using the congruence coefficient (Gorsuch, 1983). Six different principal factor analyses
were conducted on groups A.l&4 and on male and female groups. Average stability coefficients
were 0.96 for E, 0.96 for F, 0.97 for S, 0.91 for 0 and 0.88 for C. The factor structure seemed
thus to be stable across different administration conditions as well as different groups of Ss
(university and high school students. adults, males, and females).

Table I. Rotated matrix factor loadings Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysts

S E F 0 c HSQ zJ (I/ P NFI
Dynamism 06 67 28 36 07 67 structureI: 16.25 I4 0.30 0.99
DOliaCe IO 67 -22 19 24 59 structure 2, 218.57 I6 0.00 I 0.98
Cooperativeness 07 00 61 26 16 48 structure 3. 20.55 I3 0.08 0.99
Politeness 15 03 72 09 04 55
Hypothesized loadings for Structure 1: Dynamism and Domi-
Scrupulousess 05 -05 03 -06 66 45
nance = E; Scrupulousness and Perseverance = C; Emotion
PeWZVerCe IO 48 09 21 50 54
Control and Impulse Control = S; Cooperat~venesa and
Emotion Control 79 23 02 09 10 70
Politeness = F: Openness to Culture and Openness to Experi-
Impulse Control 79 ~07 23 04 17 71
ences = 0.
op. to Culture 09 02 08 61 32 49
Hypothesued loadings for Structure 2: Dynamism, Dommance and
Op. to Experiences 01 27 I9 65 -01 53
Perseverance = E; Scrupulousness = C: Emotion Control and
Sums of sQares 1.32 1.26 I.12 I .09 0 92 Impulse Control = S: Cooperativeness and Poh~eness = F;
Openness to Culture and Openness to Experiences = 0.
Decimal points have been omitted. Loading of facets referring to
Hypothesized loadings for Structure 3. Dynamisma, Dominance and
the same factor are in boldface. S = Emotional Stability.
Perseverance = E; Scrupulousess and Perseverance = c;
E = Energy, F = Friendliness, 0 = Openness. C = Consclen-
Emotion Control and Impulse Control = S; Cooperativeness
tiousness, HSQ = Communalities.
and Pohtenrss = F: Openness to Culture and Openness to Ex-
per1ences = 0.
df = Degrees of freedom; NFI = Normed Fir Index.
 The Big Five Questionnaire 285

Table 3. Correlations between the main dimensions of the BFO

E F C S 0
F n 1354**
c 0.3441; 0.1701**
s 0.2066** 0.2501** 0.2224**
0 0.3494** 0.3013** 0.2608** 0.1738**
Lie 0.14s3** 0.2349** 0.1867 0.321 I ** 0.0127
No. of cases= 1003; **P <O.OOl. For abbreviations see Table I

Finally, Table 3 gives the correlation matrix between the 6 principal scales of the BFQ.
Most correlations, although low, are significantly positive. In fact only the correlations between
E and C, E and 0, F and 0, S and Lie exceeded 0.3. However, this pattern of non-zero correlations
seems to be recurrent in research on the FFM (see McCrae & Costa, 1987; Costa et al., 1991). This
may suggest that the examined dimensions are not fully orthogonal. In this regard one cannot
exclude the possibility that it may be due to a common method effect as well as to common higher
order factors.

Construct validity
To test convergent and discriminant validity, the BFQ was administered with Italian versions
of the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) whose scales constitute standard markers of the FFM,
and the EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) which contains measures for the alternative taxonomy
developed by H. Eysenck.
The BFQ and NEO-PI were conjointly administered to Ss in group B.1, the BFQ and EPQ to
Ss in group B.2.
Also in this case, although the highest correlations were those with analogous or homologous
dimensions, dimensions measured by the BFQ (Table 4) showed many significant correlations with
those of the other two questionnaires. Surely this finding should not be underestimated and, as
noted above, further research should clarify what at the present can be only a matter of speculation.
However one should not underscore either the highest correlations among homologous or
analogous scales:
E showed high positive correlations with NEO-PI and EPQ Extraversion; F showed a high
positive correlation with NEO-PI Agreeableness; C showed a high positive correlation with
NEO-PI Conscientiousness and a small negative one with EPQ Psychoticism; S showed high
negative correlations with NEO-PI and EPQ Neuroticism; 0 showed a high positive correlation
with NEO-PI Openness to Experience; the L scale showed a high positive correlation with the EPQ
Lie scale.
In general these findings certify both convergent and discriminant validity for the scales in the
BFQ. Where the first is corroborated by high correlations with homologous dimensions, the second
one is corroborated by the absence of high correlations with dimensions tapping different aspects
of personality.

Table 4. Correlation coefficients of the BFQ dimensions with NEO-PI and EPQ
dimensions
E F C S 0 L
NEO-PI (N = 288)
E 71 29* 13 08 36** 12
A -04 66** 04 21 13 l8**
C 31** 03 63** 12 01 23;
N -37 -29** -17** -so** -218 -28**
0 27; 33** 08 -03 65** -II

EPQ (N = 186)
P -01 - 26 -36 -13 -01 -I2
E 63: 39** 03 23 26* 36**
N -25** -21 -02 -7s -21 -26**
L 00 29 30 32** 07 so**
*P <0.05; **p < 0.01.
BFQ: For abbreviations see Table I.
NEO-PI: N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, 0 = openness to Experience,
A = Aggreableness, C = Conscientiousness.
EPQ: P = Psychoticism, E = Extraversion, N = Neuroticism, L = Lie.
286 GIAN VITTORIO CAPRARA et al.

Table 5. Reliability coefficients for the facets, dimensions and L Table 6. Principal descriptive statistics of the 5 dimensions and the
scales L scales
Alpha Testwetest SC& Meall SD Kurt&s Skewness
Dynamism 0.72 0.87 Total sample (N = 1003)
Dominance 0.74 0.82 80.09 II.43 0. I5 -0.12
Cooperativeness 0.60 0.68 79.97 9.29 0.4 I -0.20
Politeness 0.63 0.79 X3.52 10.96 0.05 -0.12
Scrupulousness 0.78 0.80 68.89 15.10 -028 0.09
Pei-SWeGlIlCe 0.78 0.8 I X4.93 10.33 -0.13 -0.04
Emotion Control 0.86 0.83 30.09 6.77 0.06 0.04
Impulse Control 0.82 0.80
Male .suhsample (N = 494)
op. to Culture 0.67 0.75
E X2.26 10.61 0.05 -0.03
Op. to Experiences 0.64 0.74
F 79.47 9.18 0.69 -0.31
Energy 0.81 0.86 C X4.69 I I .26 0.1 I -0.24
Friendliness 0.73 0.77 S 74.53 13.81 0.02 -0.02
Concientiousness 0.81 0.84 0 85.50 10.35 -0.09 -0.01
Emotional Stability 0.90 0.83 L 30.90 7.02 0.16 -0.03
Openness 0.75 0.77
Female subsample (N = 509)
Lie 0.74 0.74 E 77.65 Il.80 0.18 -0.07
F 80.46 9.44 0.16 -0.14
N 1003 133
C 82.30 10.46 0.10 -0.08
S 62.38 13.74 ~ 0.40 0.22
0 X4.39 10.36 -0.17 -0.08
L 29.32 6.32 -0.04 n 09
For abbreviations see Table I

RELIABILITY

The reliability of the 10 facet scales, the 5 dimension scales and the Lie scale was examined
calculating the Cronbach alpha coefficient (using the scores of Ss in groups A.ll4) and the
correlation between the scales administered twice to the same Ss with an interval of about 2 weeks
(only for the Ss in group C).
The results of these analyses (Table 5) showed good indexes for both internal consistency and
temporal stability.

DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCALES

Table 6 gives the descriptive statistics of the five dimension scales and the L scale in the total
sample (groups A.l-4) and in the male and female subsamples.
Six one-way ANOVAS were conducted taking as a design variable the sex of the S, and as
dependent variables the total scores in the 5 dimension scales and in the L scale. As shown in
Table 6, male Ss obtained higher scores than female Ss in E (F = 42.37, P = O.OOOO), C (F= 12.14,
P = O.OOOS), S (F = 195.20, P = 0.0000) and L (F = 14.09, P = 0.0002), while the differences
between males and females were not signicant for F (F = 2.86, P = 0.09) and 0 (F = 2.88,
P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics demonstrated by the BFQ seem to be positive. Its factor structure was
consistent with the expected hypotheses, and showed a high stability across different groups of Ss
with different demographic characteristics, to whom the questionnaire was administered under
different conditions. The factor scores resulting from the principal factor analysis showed a
substantial overlap with the scores for the expected five dimensions. The temporal stability and the
internal consistency of the dimensions and facet scales were quite satisfactory. The construct
validity, convergent and discriminant, was proved by the correlations with standard markers of the
FFM and personality factors of alternative taxonomies.
With regard to the factor structure, some concern is raised by the position of the facet
Perseverance, which refers to the proactive aspects of C, but seemed to also share variance with
E. One could question whether it is admissible to consider this facet as a proper indicator of the
latent factor C. However these concerns could be ruled out when considering that scale C (which
is made up by Perseverance and Scrupulousness phrase-items) showed a high internal consistency
and high test-retest reliability, and a high discriminant and convergent validity. Moreover,
 The Big Five Questionnaire 287

confirmatory factor analysis results converged with construct validity showing as the best fitted
model the one in which Perseverance (along with Scrupulousness) defines C, and no relationship
is hypothesized between this facet and the E dimension.
In this regard we agree with McCrae and Costa (1989) that if one knows in advance what
constructs one wishes to measure, it is more useful and more opportune to rely on the pattern of
correlations that the operationalizations of these constructs show with externally valid criteria (i.e.
on their convergent and discriminant validity). In our case the constructs are the Five Factors, the
external criteria the markers of these factors in the NEO-PI. The relationships between
Perseverance and E remain, however, a topic to be investigated in the future.

REFERENCES

Bentler, P. M. (1989). Theory and implementation of E&S: A structural equations program. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical
Software House.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations usith latent variables. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Boyle, G. J. (1989). Re-examination of the major personality-type factors in the Cattell, Comrey and Eysenck Scales: Were
the factor solutions by Noller et al. optimal? Personality and Individual d@erences, 10, 1289-1299.
Briggs, S. (1992). Assessing the Five Factor model of personality description. Journal qf Personality, 60, 254-293.
Caprara, G. V. & Perugini, M. (1990). Personality described by adjectives: Could the Big Five be extended to the Italian
context? Paper presented at the F[fth European Conference on Personality, June 1990, Ariccia, Italy.
Caprara, G. V. & Perugini, M. (1991a). LApproccio Psicolessicale e Iemergenza dei Big Five nello studio della Personalita.
Giornale Italian0 di Psicologia, XVIII, 721-741.
Caprara, G. V. & Perugini, M. (1991b). I1 ruolo dei Big Five nella descrizione della personalita: estendibilita al contest0
italiano. Communicazioni Scientifiche di Psicologia Generale, 6, 83~101,
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: 1. Foundations of trait measurement. Psychological Review, 50,
339-594.
Comrey, A. L. (1967). Tandem Criteria for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 143-154.
Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A firSt course in ,factor anal.vsis (second edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NE0 Personaliiy Incentury Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreableness and Conscientiousness: A revision of the
NE0 Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the Five Factors Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417-440.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3 ? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual
Difjerences, 12, 773-790.
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manualfor the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
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.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (second edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hahn, R. & Comrey, A. L. (1992). Factor analysis of the NEO-PI and the CPS. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Society,for Multiuariute E.xperimental Psychology, Cape Cod, MA, October 22-24, 1992.
Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems,
John, 0. P. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: dimensions of Personality in natural language and in questionnaires.
In Pervin, L. A. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 666100). New York: Guilford.
John, 0. P., Angleitner, A. & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: a historical review of trait taxonomic
research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171-203.
Krug, S. E. & Johns, E. F. (1986). A large sample validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF.
Psychological Reports, 59, 683-693.
Lee, H. B. $r Comrey, A. L. (1979). Distortions in a commonly used factor analysis procedure. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 14, 301-321.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the Five Factor model: joint analysis of the NEO-PI and other instruments. In
BUSS, D. M. &Cantor, N. (Eds), Personalitypsychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 237-245). New York:
Springer Verlag.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and Psvchoticism scales with measures of the Five Factor model
of Personality. Personality and Individuil Dijjerences, 6, 5871597.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the Five Factor model of personality across instrument and observers.
Journal qf Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1989). Rotation to maximize the construct validity of factors in the NE0 Personality
Inventory. Multicariate Behavioral Research, 24, 107-124.
McCrae, R. R. & John, 0. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality,
60, 175-215.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicate factor structure in peer
nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Ostendorf, F. & Angleitner, A. (1992). On the generality and comprehensiveness of the Five-Factor model of personality:
Evidence for five robust factors in questionnaire data. In Caprara, G. V. & Van Heck, G. (Eds), Modern personality
psychology. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
288 GIAN VITTORIO CAPRARA el al

Powell, A. & Royce, J. R. (1981). An overview of a multifactorial-system theory of personality and individual differences:
I. The factor and system models and the hierarchical factor structure of individuality. Journal ofPer.sonalif)~ and Social
P.~ychology, 41, 8 18-829.
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (in press). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Briggs, S. R.. Jones. W. H. & Hogan.
R. (Eds). Handbook of personality psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Ps~Jchological Bu//e/in, YX, 219-235.
Wiggins, J. S. & Pincus, A. L. (1992). Personality: structure and measurement. Annual Review cfPsycho/og~~, 43. 473 504.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M. & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analysis of scales believed to
measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal q/ Personality and Social Psychology, 54. 96-107.

Acknowledgemenfs-This study was partially supported by a 60% Grant of MURST. We gratefully acknowledge the
comments of professor Andrew L. Comrey of UCLA on earlier drafts of this article.

APPENDIX

Examples of lhr Items of /he BFQ

Energy
-Dynamism
I am an active and vigorous person.
-Dominance
Generally I tend to assert myself rather than give in.
Friendliness
Xooperativeness
If necessary I dont refrain from giving help to a stranger.
-Politeness
I hold that theres something good in everyone.
Conscientiousness
-Scrupulousness
I usually attend to the smallest details of everything.
-Perseverance
I always pursue the decisions Ive made through to the end.
Emotional Stability
-Emotion Control
I usually dont react in an exaggerated way even to strong emotions.
-Impulse Control
Usually I dont lose my calm.
Openness
4penness to Culture
Im always informed about whats happening in the world.
-0pennes to Experiences
Im fascinated by novelties.
Lie Scale
Ive always gotten along with everyone.
Ive never told a lie.