for Human Resource Professionals

Section One: 

Background and Theory of the Five-Factor Model

       Get ready, trainers and consultants!  The personality paradigm is shifting.  For three decades, the training community has generally followed the assumptions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).  These assumptions included:

·         a four-dimension model,

·         bimodal distribution of scores on each dimension,

·         sixteen independent types,

·         the concept of a primary function determined by Judger/Perceiver preference, and

·         a grounding in the personality theory of Carl Jung (1971).

      The emerging new paradigm is not a radical departure from the MBTI, but rather more of an evolution from it.  But, the new paradigm is sufficiently different from the old one to require a significant shift in thinking.   For example, the new paradigm involves:

·         five dimensions of personality,

·         a normal distribution of scores on these dimensions,

·         an emphasis on individual personality traits (the type concept is gone),

·         preferences indicated by strength of score, and

·         a model based on experience, not theory.

THE SEARCH FOR THE BEST METAPHOR

       Personality theories, or models, are metaphors for describing something which is intrinsically indescribable--the human personality.  For example, Robert Ornstein (1993, pp. 2-3) writes, "Ideas for personality classifications...provide everyone from small children to clinical psychiatrists with a routine for classifying people, one that helps us make sense of ourselves and others.  But that's all they do, since one system doesn't map on to the other....  We need an explanation to get through the day, and that is what most personality-typing systems provide."

      All language, in fact, is metaphor--it is a process by which we express one thing--the complex fabric of people and their environments--in terms of another--language.  We shall never know the entire truth--we can only talk about it.  All our language is about what we experience, but it is not the experience itself.  Why, even our scientific instruments can only approximate a description of the true nature of things.  Again, Ornstein says that even positron emission tomagraphy (PET) scans are not a "‘window’ to the mind, but merely...a metaphor."  PET scans and personality models are both metaphors for describing the person.

      Certainly, some metaphors are more vague than others.  A PET scan is less vague than a paper and pencil questionnaire like the MBTI.  The history of the study of personality has been one of minimizing vagueness.  Just as the theory of Carl Jung reduced the vagueness of the theory of humors (which spoke of phlegmatics, melancholics, sanguines, and cholerics), so Jung's theory will be replaced by a model of personality which is yet less vague.  In a sense, the history of intellectual activity is the story of our efforts to find the "source" metaphor from which all other metaphors are derived.  Just as Latin was the parent, or source, language of all the romance tongues (such as French and Italian), so all of our personality metaphors (such as Freud's and Jung's) must have a parent, or source, metaphor that encompasses all the truths of the individually derived personality metaphors.  There is some truth in Jung's theory, Freud's theory, and others' theories, but the human personality fabric is woven from a far more complex set of fibers than any one theory contains.

LANGUAGE, NOT THEORY, IS THE PARENT METAPHOR

       Just as all cloths are woven from fibers, so all theories are composed of language.  Language is the one ingredient that all theories have in common.  So, it is from language itself, and not theories, that we must extract the source metaphor for describing personality.  This was the insight that propelled Tupes and Christal during the 1950’s into the research that led to what we know today as the Five-Factor Model (FFM), or the Big Five theory. 

      Allport and Odbert (1936) were the first researchers to identify the trait-descriptive words in the English language.  Their compendium of 4,500 words has been the primary starting point of language-based personality trait research for the last sixty years.  Much of the early research, however, was seriously flawed.  Raymond Cattell's work was typical of the serious limitations of lexical studies done in the 1940's.  Using modern computers, subsequent replications of his original studies done by hand or by early computers revealed calculation errors and, therefore, invalidated many of his findings.

      The first evidence that flaws existed in Cattell's work was revealed by Fiske (1949), who suggested that five, not sixteen, factors accounted for the variance in personality trait descriptors.  But Fiske stopped there, making no big deal of his finding and not himself quite sure what to make of his results.  From 1954-1961, two Air Force personnel researchers, Tupes and Christal (1961), became the first researchers to make use of Allport and Odbert's work.  Building on Cattell and Fiske, Tupes and Christal thoroughly established the five factors we know today.  Sadly, they published their results in an obscure Air Force publication that was not read either by the psychology or academic communities.

      Then, in the late 1950’s, Warren Norman at the University of Michigan learned of Tupes and Christal’s work.  Norman (1963) replicated the Tupes and Christal study and confirmed the five-factor structure for trait taxonomy.  For bringing this discovery into the mainstream academic psychology community, it became known, understandably but inappropriately, as “Norman's Big Five.”  Rightly, it should be Tupes and Christal's Big Five.  A flurry of other personality researchers confirmed Norman's findings.

      But, even within the academic bastion of truth, politics prevailed.  The influence of behaviorists, social psychologists and an especially withering attack by Walter Mischel (1968), led to the suppression of trait theory.  During the 1960's and 1970's traits were out of favor--only behaviors and situational responses were allowed.  However, radical behaviorism began to fall from its pedestal in the early 1980's with the rise of cognitive science.  Cognitive scientists proclaimed that there was more to the human mind than stimulus and response (Howard, 1994).  Throughout the 1980's and continuing through the present,  a plethora of personality researchers have established the Five-Factor Model as the basic paradigm for personality research.  Four excellent summaries of this research tradition are Goldberg (1993), Digman (1990), John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf (1988), and McCrae (1992).

THE BIG FIVE DEFINED

       Each of the Big Five dimensions is like a bucket that holds a set of traits that tend to occur together.  The definitions of the five super factors represent an attempt to describe the common element among the traits, or sub-factors, within each "bucket."  The most commonly accepted buckets of traits are those developed by Costa and McCrae (1992).  Their nomenclature was developed for an academic and clinical population.  Our emphasis will be on applying their knowledge to the workplace.  In 2001, we introduced the WorkPlace Big Five Profile (Howard & Howard, 2001a), a 107-item Big Five survey with language oriented towards the world of work that measures the Big Five and 24 subtraits. We had to abandon such NEO terms as “Neuroticism”--imagine an executive being called “High Neuroticism”!  In this section, we will present our workplace version for use in professional development activities.

The Need for Stability Factor (N)

       The Need for Stability refers to the degree to which a person responds to stress.  More resilient persons tend to handle stressful workplace situations in a calm, steady, and secure way.  More reactive personas tend to respond in an alert, concerned, attentive, or excitable way, thus creating the opportunity to experience more workplace stress than others.  

      We have identified four main correlated traits which comprise the need for stability “bucket”.  They are listed and defined in Table 1.

Levels of Need for Stability

       At one extreme of the need for stability continuum, we have the Reactive,  who experiences more  negative  emotions than  most people and who reports less satisfaction with life than most people.  That is not meant to place a value judgment on reactives, however, as the susceptibility to the need for stability in the workplace provides the basis for shaping extremely important roles in our society such as social scientists, customer service professionals, and academicians.  However, extreme reactivity (high need for stability) can interfere with the performance of many jobs.

 Table 1.  Four Facets of Need for Stability (Howard & Howard, 2001a) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of the Continuum

      On the other extreme of the need for stability continuum, we have the Resilients, who tend to be more rational at work than most people and who appear rather impervious sometimes to what's going on around them.  We think, for example, of our choir director who didn't miss a beat during a dress rehearsal when the podium on which he was standing collapsed forward.  He simply placed his feet at angles like a snow plow and kept his baton moving.  Of course, all the singers and instrumentalists broke out laughing at this classic example of non-reactivity.  He's unflappable.  And that extreme is also the foundation for many valuable social roles--from air traffic controllers and airline pilots to military snipers, finance managers, and engineers.

      Of course, along the Need for Stability continuum from reactive to resilient is the vast middle range of what we call Responsives, who are a mixture of qualities characteristic of resilients and reactives.  Responsives are more able to turn behaviors from both extremes on and off, calling on what seems appropriate to the situation.  A responsive, however, is not typically able to maintain the calmness of a resilient for as long a period of time, nor is a responsive typically able to maintain the nervous edge of alertness of a reactive (as, for example, would be typical of a stock trader during a session).

The Extraversion Factor (E)

       Extraversion refers to the the degree to which a person can tolerate sensory stimulation from people and situations.  Those who score high on extraversion are characterized by their preference of being around other people and involved in many activities.  Low extraversion is characterized by one’s preference to work alone and is typically described as serious, skeptical, quiet, and a private person.  Howard and Howard ‘s six main facets of extraversion are described in Table 2.

 Table 2.  Six Facets of Extraversion (Howard & Howard, 2001a) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of the Continuum

Levels of Extraversion

       On the one hand, the Extravert tends to exert more leadership, to be more physically and verbally active, and to be more friendly and outgoing around others than most people tend to be.  This extraverted profile is the foundation of many important social roles, from sales, to politics, to the arts and the softer social sciences.

      On the other hand, the Introverts tend to be more independent, reserved, steady, and more comfortable with being alone than most people are.  This introverted profile is the basis of such varied and important social roles as production managers and the harder physical and natural sciences.

      In between these two extremes are the Ambiverts, who are able to move comfortably from outgoing social situations to the isolation of working alone.  The stereotypical ambivert is the Player-Coach, who moves upon demand from the leadership demands of Coach to the personal production demands of the Player.

 The Originality Factor (O)

       Originality refers to the degree to which we are open to new experiences/new ways of doing things. Highly original people tend to have a variety of interests and like cutting edge technology as well as strategic ideas.  Those who are low in originality tend to possess expert knowledge about a job, topic, or subject while possessing a down-to-earth, here-and-now view of the present. 

      Howard and Howard (2001) identify four main facets of originality, which are described in Table 3.

Levels of Originality           

 On the one hand, the Explorer has broader interests, has a fascination with novelty and innovation, would generally be perceived as liberal, and reports more introspection and reflection.  Explorers are not unprincipled, but they tend to be open to considering new approaches.  The explorer profile forms the basis for such important social roles as entrepreneurs, architects, change agents, artists, and theoretical scientists (social and physical).

 Table 3.  Four Facets of Originality (Howard & Howard, 2001a) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of the Continuum

      On the other hand, the Preserver has narrower interests, is perceived as more conventional, and is more comfortable with the familiar.  Preservers are perceived as more conservative, but not necessarily as more authoritarian.  The preserver profile is the basis for such important social roles as financial managers, performers, project managers, and applied scientists.

      In the middle of the continuum lies the Moderate.  The moderate can explore the novel with interest when necessary, but too much would be tiresome; on the other hand, the moderate can focus on the familiar for extended periods of time, but eventually would develop a hunger for novelty.

      This trait is not really about intelligence, as explorers and preservers both score well on traditional measures of intelligence, but it is about creativity. 

The Accommodation Factor (A)

       Accommodation refers to the degree to which we defer to others.  High accommodation describes a person who tends to relate to others by being tolerant, agreeable and accepting of others. Low accommodation describes one who tends to relate to others by being expressive, tough, guarded, persistent, competitive or aggressive.  Low accommodating people may not accept information without checking and may come across to others as hostile, rude, self-centered, and not a team player.

      In defining the components of accommodation, Howard and Howard list five facets, which are presented in Table 4. 

 Table 4.  Five Facets of Accommodation (Howard & Howard, 2001a)  with Anchors for the Two Extremes of the Continuum

Levels of Accommodation

       At the one end of the continuum, the Adapter is prone to subordinate personal needs to those of the group, to accept the group's norms rather than insisting on his or her personal norms.  Harmony is more important to the Adapter than, for example, broadcasting one's personal notion of truth.  Galileo, in recanting his Copernican views before the Roman Inquisition, behaved like an adapter (or, like a challenger with some common sense!).  The adapter profile is the core of such important social roles as teaching, social work, and psychology.

      At the other end of the continuum, the Challenger  is more focused on his or her personal norms and needs rather than on those of the group.  The challenger is more concerned with acquiring and exercising power.  Challengers follow the beat of their own drum, rather than getting in step with the group.  The challenger profile is the foundation of such important social roles as advertising, managing, and military leadership.

      In the middle of the continuum is the Negotiator, who is able to move from leadership to followership as the situation demands.  Karen Horney described the two extremes of this trait as "moving toward people" (adapter) and "moving against people" (challenger).  The former, known as tender-minded, in the extreme become dependent personalities who have lost their sense of self.  The latter, known as tough-minded, in the extreme become narcissistic, antisocial, authoritarian, or paranoid personalities who have lost their sense of fellow-feeling.  In one sense, this trait is about the dependence (or altruism) of the adapter, the independence (or egocentrism) of the challenger, and the interdependence (or situationalism) of the negotiator.

The Consolidation Factor (C)

       Consolidation refers to the degree to which we push toward goals at work.   High consolidation refers to a person who tends to work towards goals in an industrious, disciplined, and dependable fashion.  Low consolidation refers to one who tends to approach goals in a relaxed, spontaneous, and open-ended fashion.  Low consolidation people are usually capable of multi-tasking and being involved in many projects and goals at the same time.

      Table 5 lists the five facets which Howard and Howard associate to form the consolidation factor.

 Levels of Consolidation

       On the one hand, the Focused profile exhibits high self-control resulting in consistent focus on personal and occupational goals.  In its normal state, the focused person is characterized by academic and career achievement, but when focusedness turns extreme, it results in workaholism.  The focused person is difficult to distract.  Such a profile is the basis for such important social roles as leaders, executives, and, in general, high achievers.

      On the other hand, the Flexible person is more easily distracted, is less focused on goals, is more hedonistic, and is generally more lax with respect to goals.  The flexible is easily seduced from the task at hand by a passing idea, activity, or person; i.e., they have weak control over their impulses.  Flexibles do not necessarily work less than focused people, but less of their total work effort is goal-directed.  Flexibility facilitates creativity, inasmuch as it remains open to possibilities longer without feeling driven to closure and moving on.  This profile is the core of such important social roles as researchers, detectives, and consultants.

Table 5.  Five Facets of Consolidation (Howard and Howard, 2001a) with Anchors for the Two Extremes of the Continuum

      Towards the middle of this continuum is the Balanced person, who finds it easier to move from focus to laxity, from production to research.  A balanced profile would make an ideal manager for either a group of flexibles or a group of focuseds, providing just enough of the opposite quality to keep flexibles reasonably on target without alienating them, and to help focused people relax periodically to enjoy life a little.

Relation of the Big Five to the MBTI/Jung Model

      Perhaps one of the reasons for the popularity of the MBTI has been that it closely resembles the empirically derived Five-Factor Model.  Although the MBTI derives from theory and not experience, apparently Carl Jung and the MBTI test developers were closely attuned to human experience when defining their four dimensional model.  The transition, then, from using the MBTI to using the FFM is a relatively easy one.  McCrae and Costa (1989) in their watershed article--"Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality"--clearly highlight how the MBTI is both supported by FFM research and corrected by it.  The principal points they make are:

      1.  The Judgment dimension (Thinking vs. Feeling) is unstable because of its failure to separate Need for Stability from Accommodation.  The concept of thinking vs. feeling does not fit isomorphically to the FFM.  In order to measure the thinking/feeling supertrait, one would need to piece together several different facet scores from among the thirty facets of the FFM (as defined by Costa and McCrae).

      2.  Because the distribution of factor scores is normal and not bimodal, the practice of dichotomizing respondents, for example, into extraverts and introverts, is unjustified.  McCrae and Costa prefer speaking of degrees of extraversion.  For convenience's sake, we speak of three levels, or regions, in which one might score--extraversion, ambiversion, and introversion. 

      3.  The Judger/Perceiver preference does not identify one's primary.  In fact, assuming, as sound psychometric practice requires, that one's primary function (from among sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling) would be the function with the highest score, then the J/P preference picks the highest function score at a rate no better than chance.

      4.  The type concept has no validity.  Assuming the integrity of the sixteen four-letter types, one would expect to find consistent correlations among the types and other behavioral measures.  This is not the case.  Rather than reporting a five-letter type, then, the FFM simply reports five trait scores.  Certainly, many behaviors are explained by the combinative effect of two or more FFM traits, such as authoritarian behavior being associated with high Need for Stability, low Originality, and low Accommodation.  We call these behaviors with multi-trait explanations "themes" or interactive effects.  The second and third sections in this monograph will discuss such thematic behaviors.

      5.  Introspection, or reflection, is not associated with introversion, but rather with the trait called intuition (by the MBTI) or Originality/Openness (by the FFM).

      6.  The judgment/perception scale does not measure one's decisiveness, but rather appears to measure one's need for structure.

      7.  The definitional problems with the thinker/feeler dimension are many, but they are resolved by adopting the two new dimensions, Need for Stability and Accommodation.  A preference for reason and logic belongs to the Need for Stability (low) bucket, while a preference for harmony belongs to the Accommodation (high) bucket.

      Because of the empirical origins of the FFM, no single theory is best supported by its structure.  On the other hand, because the FFM is essentially an attempt to find the "lowest common denominators" among personality words across all languages, it is uniquely able to serve as a source for measuring the constructs defined by most other personality tests.  By being in possession of FFM scores, for example, one could derive an individual's profile using such models as the FIRO, LIFO, AVA, MBTI, DISC, Holland Hexagon, and Social Styles Inventory, as well as such popular concepts as leadership style, conflict management style, and attributional style.

CONSENSUS IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITY?

       In the strictest sense of the word, consensus requires universal agreement, as in a unanimous vote.  Consensus within a group implies that all within the group agree with a particular point.  While many have claimed that consensus exists within the psychological community on the FFM as the research paradigm for the foreseeable future, certainly not 100% of personality researchers would agree.  Hans Eysenck (1991), for one, holds out for a three-factor solution.  Hogan (1986) holds out for a six-factor solution.  But what is different about the personality research community today versus twenty years ago is that there has been a clear trend towards embracing a single model--the FFM--as the research paradigm to follow.  Up until twenty years ago, the personality research community was fragmented, with Freud, Erikson, Horney, Jung, Murray, Eysenck, and others all claiming the best model.  All were partially right, but only the FFM has arms big enough to include them all. 

      But while unanimity among personality researchers is still beyond our grasp, one can sense the excitement among researchers in the recent literature:

A series of research studies of personality traits has led to a finding consistent enough to approach the status of law.          

                  --Digman & Inouye (1986)

The comprehensive analyses in Dutch have provided so far the strongest cross-language evidence for the Big Five.                        

                  -- John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf (1988)

The past decade has witnessed a rapid convergence of views regarding the structure of the concepts of personality.           

                 --Digman (1990)

The major aim of this article has been to provide sufficient evidence to alleviate any qualms about the generality of the Big-Five structure.

                 --Goldberg (1990)

We believe that the robustness of the 5-factor model provides a meaningful framework for formulating and testing hypotheses relating individual differences in personality to a wide range of criteria in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of personnel selection, performance appraisal, and training and development.

                 --Barrick & Mount (1991)

I again, anticipate more extensive use by tomorrow's practitioners of new generations of inventories, for example, the NEO Personality Inventory developed by Costa and McCrae (1988) for the assessment in healthy individuals of something akin to today's five basic dimensions of character and personality that have evolved empirically from a line of inquiry first suggested by Galton a century ago.

                 --Matarazzo (1992)

The past decade has witnessed an electrifying burst of interest in the most fundamental problem of the field--the search for a scientifically compelling taxonomy of personality traits.  More importantly, the beginning of a consensus is emerging about the general framework of such a taxonomic representation.

                 --Goldberg (1993)

      While we do not mean to overwhelm or steamroll you by this surge of interest in the FFM, we do hope that you will catch some of the excitement.  It may be helpful for us to explain how we converted fourteen years ago to the FFM.  Pierce was researching his book on practical applications of brain research (Howard, 1994).  Each chapter of the book attempted to find the most current brain research in a particular field (e.g., aging, sleep, memory, intelligence, gender, motivation, etc.) and present how the findings might be used in everyday life.  While researching the chapter on personality, he encountered the groundswell of support for the FFM described earlier.  This presented a dilemma for us.  We had been using the MBTI for team building and professional development activities, as well as the 16-PF for individual coaching and counseling.  According to the research literature, we were using instruments with less than desirable validity and reliability.  Not only that, but improved instrumentation was also available in the form of Costa and McCrae's NEO tests.

      We should note that other instruments for measuring the Big Five are available; see discussion of them in Stephen Briggs' article "Assessing the Five-Factor Model of Personality Description" in McCrae, 1992.  For assessing life at large, beyond the workplace, we prefer the NEO series of tests because 1) both short and long forms are available, and 2) most FFM researchers point to Costa and McCrae’s test as the research standard for overall life application.  For specifically job application, we prefer the Workplace Big Five, which uses work related language and concepts in understanding the five factor model and its application towards employers as well as employees.

      Pierce had no choice but to write about the FFM in his book.  So, as professional management consultants, were we to preach one thing and continue to do another, or were we to make our practice consistent with our preaching?  We knew that the only responsible choice was to fully embrace the FFM in both the book and in our practice.  It was a costly decision--retooling is always costly, and is a major reason why many people do not embrace new and better paradigms.  But it would have been more costly in the long run if we had not made the change.  For a while, it was a lonely, tough decision.  All our colleagues were marching to a different drum.  There were no applications materials available.  We had to develop all our own exercises, forms, games, etc., to use in feedback and training sessions.  Now that the process is complete, we know that it has been worth it.  Our clients know that the FFM is a significantly improved approach to discussing individual differences.  It is not just a new twist on an old theme, it is a new paradigm.  And, we have built on the inconvenience of having to develop all of our own applications materials—in December 2000 we published The Owner’s Manual for Personality at Work (Howard & Howard, 2001b).  In 2001, we unveiled our WorkPlace Big Five test. Presently we are working on the Schoolplace Big Five ProFile to be used within the schools based on the Five Factor Model, and focused on students from age 12 to 22..  

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

       As fellow human resource professionals, we encourage you to study the FFM.  The academic psychology community is now ahead of the human resource development community.  We must play catch-up.  The Big Five will influence most areas of our work.  Since 1991 we have been using the NEO as well as the Workplace Big Five Profile tests in many areas of our professional practice:

·         team building

·         selection

·         job analysis

·         training design

·         customer service

·         management and professional development

·         coaching and counseling

·         career development

·         leadership development

·         conflict management

       In the next two sections of this monograph, we will describe how we use the FFM in both individual and team development.  We suggest that, in order to get the most out of this reading, you administer to yourself both the short and long forms of the Workplace Big Five ProFile.  Also,  read some more from the now steadily growing literature on the Five Factor Model.  Here is a reasonable plan:

      1.  Order a WorkPlace  Big Five ProFile  specimen set (includes self-scoring tests and manual) from the Center for Applied Cognitive Studies (CentACS) in Charlotte, NC.  These tests are Level B products (requires B.A. in psychology or related field plus coursework in testing to qualify for purchasing).   Call 1-800-BIG-5555 to arrange for your specimen set.  Be sure to ask to be added to CentACS’ mailing list.

      2. Order Pierce and Jane Howard’s The Owner’s Manual for Personality at Work from CentACS.  Order McCrae and Costa's Personality in Adulthood, their excellent summary of the development of the FFM published in 1990 by Guilford Press, 72 Spring Street, New York 10012. 

      3.  Call the Center for Applied Cognitive Studies and order a sample set of applications materials (includes The Big Five Workbook, feedback forms, and assorted learning materials) at 1-800-BIG-5555, or fax request to 704-331-9408, or E-mail request to info@centacs.com.

      4.  To engage in professional dialog about FFM theory and applications, send E-mail to info@ centacs.com or follow the bulletin board "alt.psychology.personality" on the Internet/Usenet.

      5.  For training in the use of the FFM in professional development settings, contact the authors at the Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.  Public certification programs, both in class and online, are offered several times annually for both the Workplace and the NEO tests.

      Some half dozen years ago, an intern with whom we were working looked at his results on the MBTI.  All his scores were just at zero on each of the scales.  He commented forlornly, "Does this mean that I don't have a personality?"  I wish he were back with us today, looking at his FFM results.  He would never have asked that question.  Welcome, in advance, to the new paradigm of the Big Five.

  �

Section Two: 

Using the Big Five with Individuals

       In the first section, we showed how, by analyzing the language of personality descriptors, researchers have identified five correlated groups of behaviors.  The most popular formulation of the FFM is that of Costa and McCrae (1992) as measured by their NEO tests (short form=NEO-FFI, long form=NEO-PI-R).  For the use of human resource professionals, the authors of this series have come up with the professional development version (as opposed to the clinical or academic version) of the FFM, which is called the Workplace Big Five Profile (both long and short form).

      The purpose of this section is to present how the FFM may be used in fostering individual development, whether through individual coaching and counseling, classroom training, or as a part of the personnel selection process.

GUIDELINES FOR USING THE FFM IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

      While this monograph is no substitute for a university course in Tests and Measurements or for the NEO test manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992) or for the Workplace Big Five Profile, we nonetheless feel professionally bound to provide some guidelines for the use of FFM test scores.

Stability Over Time

      In their extensive research conducted through the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, McCrae and Costa (1990) have identified small interaction effects between all five personality dimensions and aging.  Namely, from late adolescence through young adulthood (i.e., roughly from 20 to 30 years old),  accommodation  (A)  and  consolidation (C)

Figure 1.  Stability and Change in the Five-Factor Model (Howard & Howard, 2001c)

       From age 20 to age 30, need for stability, extraversion, and originality tend to decrease, while accommodation and consolidation tend to increase.

both tend to increase, while need for stability (N), extraversion (E), and originality (O) all three tend to decrease.  This relationship is portrayed in Figure 1.  Norms which reflect this relationship are available for both college age people and adults over 30 (Costa & McCrae, 1992).  One should be aware of this relationship when presenting test feedback to individuals.  When younger persons have high N, E, or O, or low A or C scores, they should be advised of the natural tendency of these scores to moderate somewhat over the next ten years.  On the other hand, persons with extremely low N, E, or O or high A or C scores should be concerned with how to live comfortably with such extremes which could, in fact, become more extreme over time.  For example, a twenty-year