242 Structures of Personality Traits
Ironically, the 5-D approach meets with ambivalence from
the side of its very proponents in predictive respects. McCrae
and Costa (1992) and Jang and others (1998) have empha-
sized the incremental validity of the 30 subscales of the
NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) over its five factor
scales, thereby implicitly questioning the 5-D model as an
adequate representation of personality. The psychometric
value of such arguments, however, is quite limited. Principle
component analysis capitalizes on the common variance in
the predictor set; successive residuals follow the law of di-
minishing returns. So does validity, unless in some magical
and unintended way specific variance would be more valid
than common variance.
The value of the type approach is to be found at a differ-
ent, pragmatic level, at which personality is a subject of com-
munication between a diagnostician and a therapist (in the
wide sense of someone who is going to work with the indi-
vidual, possibly the individual him- or herself). Human dis-
course and cognition being what they are, it makes little sense
in that context to exchange vectors of continuous scores. Pro-
fessional communication is better served by an attempt to
capture the essence of the individual’s personality in a vivid
and suggestive picture. To insist on using a trait paradigm in
this context is to ignore the human element at the receiving
end of a communication.
In the end, the two sets of operations appear to refer to dif-
ferent conceptions of personality-in-context rather than
personality-in-vitro. The trait approach is geared toward au-
tomated predictive procedures in which substantive consider-
ations do not even surface. The type approach caters to
human receivers of personality information. Which of the
two scripts is appropriate in a particular case is difficult to say
in abstract terms. A personnel selection situation, for exam-
ple, may be conceived in predictive as well as in communica-
tive terms; the same goes for a clinical intake situation. The
emphasis here is on distinguishing the scripts: Predicting on
the basis of types and communicating in terms of traits are
both arguably deficient.
HIERARCHICAL AND
CIRCUMPLEX STRUCTURES
In a hierarchical model, trait concepts are seen as specifica-
tions of broader traits, which in turn may be grouped under
the heading of supertraits. In a circumplex model, trait vari-
ables appear as combinations of each other; they form a
network in which all concepts define each other in a recursive
manner, without subordination or superordination. In mixed
models, all variables and factors are equal, but some are more
equal than others because they explain more variance or are
assigned privileged status for conventional reasons.
This section contains an evaluation of trait taxonomies
that have been proposed or implied, and it works its way to-
ward a family model that may be acceptable by way of inte-
gration. However, it should be kept in mind that taxonomies
are subject to contradictory demands, namely, conceptual and
communicative simplicity on the one hand, and adequate
coverage of empirical reality on the other.The Principal Component Analysis Plus
Varimax Taxonomic ModelIn its elementary form, the Big Five structure consists of a
varimax rotation of the first five principal components taken
from a large heterogeneous set of trait adjectives (see, e.g.,
Ostendorf, 1990). Whether this result is intended as a model
in any proper sense is irrelevant, as it evidently functions like
one: People receive scores on the Big Five, and these scores
are interpreted as their personality structure—specifically, an
orthogonal structure according to which these factors vary
independently over persons.
Goldberg (1993a) articulated that the model in question
may be viewed as hierarchical: Items specify scales, and
scales specify factors. This argument presupposes simple
structure, but that condition is not fulfilled. A concomitant
and very widespread notion is that the Big Five are “broad”
(in the sense of fuzzy) factors of personality.The Implicit Assumption of Simple StructureSimple structure, in which each variable loads on only one
factor and factors exhaust the common variance would be
hierarchical indeed: Each variable would be a specification of
only that factor; a particular factor could legitimately and
meaningfully be interpreted in terms of the variables that load
on it. The interpretation would not surreptitiously introduce
other variance common to some subset of the variables in
question.
In empirical practice, however, variable structures are so
overwhelmingly complex—as opposed to simple—that the
hierarchical model functions as an obstacle to proper concep-
tualization: The practice of interpreting factors on the basis of
their highest loading items, which would be appropriate
under simple structure, is quite erroneous if the condition is
not fulfilled. For to the extent that some of the highest load-
ing items share other common variance, factor interpretations
become contaminated. For example, an extraversion factor
easily receives a social interpretation (sociability, social ex-
traversion, and the like; for an overview, see Digman, 1990)