MCCRAE AND COSTA’S FIVE FACTOR TRAIT THEORY
Source: Sarmiento, I.T.R.
I. Overview of Factor and Trait Theories
McCrae, Costa and others have used factor analysis to identify traits, that
is, relatively permanent dispositions of people. Robert McCrae and Paul
Costa have insisted that the proper number of personality factors is five
—no more and no fewer.
II. Biographies of Robert McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr.
Robert Roger McCrae was born April 28, 1949 in Maryville, Missouri,
the youngest of three children. After completing an undergraduate degree
in philosophy from Michigan State University, he earned a PhD in
psychology from Boston University. Following the lead of Raymond
Cattell, he began using factor analysis as a means of measuring the
structure of human traits. After completing his academic work, McCrae
began working with Paul Costa at the National Institute of Health, where
he is still employed. Paul T. Costa Jr. was born September 16 in Franklin,
New Hampshire. He earned his undergraduate degree in psychology from
Clark University and a PhD from the University of Chicago. In 1978 he
began working with Robert McCrae at the National Institute of Aging,
where he continues to conduct research on human development and
aging. The collaboration between Costa and McCrae has been unusually
fruitful, with well over 200 co-authored research articles and chapters,
and several books
III. In Search of the Big Five
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Costa and McCrae, like most other
factor researchers, were building elaborate taxonomies of personality
traits, which they were using to examine the stability and structure of
personality. As with many other factor theorists, they quickly discovered
the traits of extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and openness to
experience (O).
A. Five Factors Found
As late as 1983, McCrae and Costa were arguing for a three-factor
model of personality, but by 1985 they begin to report work on the
five factors of personality, having added agreeableness (A) and
conscientiousness (C). Costa and McCrae did not fully develop the A
and C scales until the revised NEO-PI personality inventory appeared
in 1992. Recently, the five factors have been found across a variety of
cultures and using a number of languages. In addition, the five factors
show some permanence with age; that is, adults tend to maintain a
consistent personality structure as they grow older.
B. Description of the Five Factors
McCrae and Costa agreed with Eysenck that personality traits are basically
bipolar, with some people scoring high on one factor and low on its
counterpart. For example, people who score high on N tend to be anxious,
temperamental, self-pitying, self-conscious, emotional, and vulnerable to
stress-related disorders, whereas people with low scores on N tend to have
opposite characteristics. People who score high on E tend to be affectionate,
jovial, talkative, a joiner, and fun-loving, whereas low E scorers tend to have
opposing traits. High O scorers prefer variety in their life and are contrasted
to low O scorers who have a need for closure and who gain comfort in their
association with familiar people and things. People who score high on A
tend to be trusting, generous, yielding, acceptant, and good natured. Low A
scorers are generally suspicious, stingy, unfriendly, irritable, and critical of
other people. Finally, people high on the C scale tend to be ordered,
controlled, organized, ambitious, achievement-focused, and self-disciplined.
Together these dimensions make up the personality traits of the five factor
model, often referred to as the "Big-Five."
IV. Evolution of the Five-Factor Theory
Originally, the five factors were simply a taxonomy, a classification of
personality traits. By the late 1980s, Costa and McCrae were confident
that they had found a stable structure of personality. In shaping a theory
from the remnants of a taxonomy, McCrae and Costa were insisting that
their personality structure was able to incorporate change and growth into
its tenets and to stimulate empirical research as well as organize research
findings. In other words, their Five-Factor taxonomy was being
transformed into a Five-Factor Theory (FFT).
V. Units of the Five-Factor Theory
McCrae and Costa predict behavior through an understanding of three
central or core components and three peripheral ones. The three core
components include: (1) basic tendencies, (2) characteristic adaptations,
and (3) self-concept.
A. Basic tendencies are the universal raw material of personality.
Characteristic adaptations are acquired personality structures that develop
as people adapt to their environment. Self-concept refers to knowledge
and attitudes about oneself.
Peripheral components include (1) biological bases, which are the sole
cause of basic tendencies; (2) objective biography, which is everything a
person does or thinks over a lifetime; and (3) external influence, or
knowledge, views, and evaluations of the self.
B. Basic Postulates
The two most important core postulates are basic tendencies and
characteristic adaptations. Basic tendencies have four postulates—
individuality, origin, development, and structure. The individuality
postulate stipulates that every adult has a unique pattern of traits. The
origin postulate assumes that all personality traits originate solely
from biological factors, such as genetics, hormones, and brain
structures. The development postulate assumes that traits develop and
change through childhood, adolescence, and mid-adulthood. The
structure postulate states that traits are organized hierarchically from
narrow and specific to broad and general.
VI. Related Research
The five-trait theory of McCrae and Costa has drawn a considerable
amount of research, and is very popular in the field of personality. Costa
and McCrae have developed a widely used personality inventory: the
NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992). Traits have been linked to vital
outcomes such as physical health (Martin, Friedman, & Schwartz, 2007),
well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1980), and academic success (Noftle &
Robins, 2007; Zyphur, Islam, & Landis, 2007). Traits have also been
linked to more everyday outcomes such as mood (McNiel & Fleeson,
2006a)
