 2. History, Measurement, and Conceptual Elaboration of the Big‑Five Trait Taxonomy  63
and Clark and Watson (1999; see also Clark 
& Watson, Chapter 6, this volume). In a 
comprehensive taxonomy, even at the broad -
est level, we need a “place” for an interper -
sonal dimension related to Communion, 
Feeling Orientation, Altruism, Nurturance, 
Love Styles, and Social Closeness, as con -
trasted with Hostility, Anger Proneness, and 
Narcissism. The existence of these question -
naire scales, and the cross-  cultural work on 
the interpersonal origin and consequences 
of personality, stress the need for a broad 
domain akin to Agreeableness, Warmth, or 
Love.
Similar arguments apply to the fifth and 
last factor included in the Big Five. For one, 
there are the concepts of Creativity, Origi -
nality, and Cognitive Complexity, which are 
measured by numerous questionnaire scales 
(Helson, 1967, 1985; Gough, 1979). Al -
though these concepts are cognitive, or, more 
appropriately, mental  in nature, they are 
clearly different from IQ. Second, limited- 
domain scales measuring concepts such as 
Absorption, Fantasy Proneness, Need for 
Cognition, Private Self-  Consciousness, Inde -
pendence, and Autonomy would be difficult 
to subsume under Extraversion, Neuroti -
cism, or Conscientiousness. Indeed, the fifth 
factor is necessary, because individual differ -
ences in intellectual and creative functioning 
underlie artistic interests and performances, 
inventions and innovation, and even humor. 
Individual differences in these domains of 
human behavior and experience cannot be 
neglected by personality psychologists.
Finally, the matches between the Big Five 
and other constructs sketched out in Table 
2.1 should be considered with a healthy dose 
of skepticism. Some of these correspondenc -
es are indeed based on solid research find -
ings, but others are conceptually derived 
and await empirical confirmation. These 
matches reflect broad similarities, ignoring 
some important, implicative, and useful dif -
ferences among the concepts proposed by 
different investigators. Nonetheless, at this 
stage in the field, we are more impressed by 
the newly apparent similarities than by the 
continuing differences among the various 
models. Indeed, the Big Five are useful pri -
marily because of their integrative and heu -
ristic value, a value that becomes apparent 
in Table 2.1. The availability of a taxonomy, even one that is as broad and incomplete as 
the Big Five, permits the comparison and 
potential integration of dimensions that, by 
their names alone, would seem entirely dis -
parate.
Critical Issues and  Theoretical  Perspectives
Like any scientific model, the Big Five tax -
onomy has limitations. Critics have argued 
that the Big Five does not provide a complete 
theory of personality (e.g., Block, 1995; 
Eysenck, 1997; McAdams, 1992; Pervin, 
1994), and we agree. In contrast to McCrae 
and Costa’s (1996) five-  factor theory, the Big 
Five taxonomy was never intended as a per -
sonality theory; it was developed to account 
for the structural relations among personal -
ity traits (Goldberg, 1993). Thus, like most 
structural models, it provides an account 
of personality that is primarily descriptive 
rather than explanatory, emphasizes regu -
larities in behavior and experience rather 
than inferred dynamic and developmental 
processes, and focuses on variables rather 
than on individuals or types of individuals 
(cf. John & Robins, 1993, 1998). Nonethe -
less, the Big Five taxonomy of trait terms 
provides a conceptual foundation that helps 
in examination of these theoretical issues. In 
this section, we begin with the hierarchical 
structure defined by the Big Five, then re -
view how the Big Five predict important life 
outcomes, how they develop, how they com -
bine into personality types, and how differ -
ent researchers view their conceptual status.
Hierarchy, Levels of Abstraction, 
and the Big Five
A frequent objection to the Big Five is that 
five dimensions cannot possibly capture all 
of the variation in human personality (e.g., 
Block, 1995; McAdams, 1992; Mershon & 
Gorsuch, 1988), and that they are much too 
broad. However, the objection that five di -
mensions are too few overlooks the fact that 
personality can be conceptualized at differ -
ent levels of abstraction or breadth. Indeed, 
many trait domains are hierarchically struc -
tured (Hampson, John, & Goldberg, 1986).
The advantage of categories as broad as 
the Big Five is their enormous bandwidth. 