68 I. THEORETICAL  PERSPECTI vES AND  CONCEPT uAL uNITS
the structure of temperament. Studies using 
free- response techniques found that the Big 
Five can account for a substantial portion of 
children’s descriptions of their own and oth -
ers’ personalities (Donahue, 1994), as well 
as teachers’ and parents’ descriptions of chil -
dren’s personality (Kohnstamm, Halverson, 
Mervielde, & Havill, 1998). In a large Inter -
net sample providing self-  reports on the BFI, 
Soto et al. (2008) analyzed data from chil -
dren and adolescents ages 10–20 years and 
found substantial changes in the coherence 
and differentiation of the Big Five domains, 
even though a variant of the adult Big Five 
factor structure was apparent as early as age 
10 when individual differences in response 
acquiescence were controlled (see Appen -
dix 2.2). In an even younger sample, Mea -
selle et al. (2005) found that using an age- 
appropriate puppet interview task, children 
as young as ages 5–7 were able to self-  report 
on their personality; by age 6, their self- 
reports were beginning to show evidence of 
coherence, longitudinal stability, and exter -
nal validity (using ratings by adults) for Big 
Five domains Extraversion, Agreeableness, 
and Conscientiousness.
Three large-scale studies suggest that the 
picture may be more complicated. John et 
al. (1994) tested whether the adult Big Five 
structure would replicate in a large and eth -
nically diverse sample of adolescent boys. 
They used the California Child Q -Sort, a 
comprehensive item pool for the description 
of children and adolescents that was not de -
rived from the adult Big Five and does not 
represent any particular theoretical orienta -
tion. Factor analyses identified five dimen -
sions that corresponded closely with a priori 
scales representing the adult Big Five. How -
ever, two additional dimensions emerged: Ir -
ritability involved negative affect expressed 
in age-  inappropriate behaviors, such as 
whining, crying, tantrums, and being overly 
sensitive to teasing. Activity was defined by 
items involving physical activity, energy, 
and high tempo, such as running, playing, 
and moving and reacting quickly. In several 
Dutch samples of boys and girls ages 3–16 
years, van Lieshout and Haselager (1994) 
also found the Big Five plus two additional 
factors—  one similar to the Activity factor 
observed by John et al. (1994), and a Depen -
dency dimension defined primarily by eager -
ness to please and reliance on others. Soto and John (2014) replicated the additional 
Activity factor in a large sample of par -
ent ratings of child personality, suggesting 
that the structure of personality traits may 
be more differentiated in childhood than 
in adulthood. Specifically, the additional 
dimensions may originate in temperamen -
tal features of childhood personality (e.g., 
activity level) that become integrated into 
adult personality structure over the course 
of adolescence (John et al., 1994).
These studies illustrate how the Big Five 
can help stimulate research that connects 
and integrates findings across long-  separate 
research traditions. They also provide some 
initial insights about the way personality 
structure may develop toward its adult form. 
Yet a great deal of work still lies ahead. Stud -
ies need to examine the antecedents of the 
Big Five and their relations to other aspects 
of personality functioning in childhood and 
adolescence. In this way, the Big Five can 
help connect research on adult personality 
with the vast field of social development.
Theoretical Perspectives on the Big Five: 
Description  and Explanation
Over the years, researchers have articulated 
a number of different perspectives on the 
conceptual status of the Big Five dimen -
sions. Because of their lexical origin, the 
factors were initially interpreted as dimen -
sions of trait description or attribution (John 
et al., 1988). Subsequent research, however, 
has shown that the lexical factors converge 
with dimensions derived in other personal -
ity research traditions, that they have exter -
nal or predictive validity (as reviewed ear -
lier), and that all five of them show about 
equal amounts of heritability (Loehlin et al., 
1998). We therefore need to ask how these 
differences should be conceptualized (e.g., 
Wiggins, 1996), and below we briefly sum -
marize some of the major theoretical per -
spectives (see also John & Gosling, 2000).
Researchers in the lexical tradition tend to 
take an agnostic stance regarding the con -
ceptual status of traits. For example, Saucier 
and Goldberg (1996) argued that their stud -
ies of personality description do not address 
issues of causality or the mechanisms un -
derlying behavior. Their interest is primar -
ily in the language of personality. This level 
of self-  restraint may seem dissatisfactory 