50 
TABLE 2.4.  Big Five Prototypes: Most Central Trait Adjectives Selected Consensually by Expert Judges and Their Factor Loadings in Personality Ratings 
by 10 Psychologists Serving as Observers
Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness
Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
–.83 Quiet
–.80 Reserved
–.75 Shy
–.71 Silent
–.67 With -
drawn
–.66 Retiring.85 Talkative
.83 Assertive
.82 Active
.82 Energetic
.82 Outgoing
.80 Outspoken
.79 Dominant
.73 Forceful
.73 Enthusiastic
.68 Show-off
.68 Sociable
.64 Spunky
.64 Adventurous
.62 Noisy
.58 Bossy–.52 Fault-
finding
–.48 Cold
–.45 Unfriendly
–.45 Quarrel -
some
–.45 Hard-
hearted
–.38 Unkind
–.33 Cruel
–.31 Stern
–.28 Thankless
–.24 Stingy.87 Sympathetic
.85 Kind
.85 Appreciative
.84 Affectionate
.84 Soft-hearted
.82 Warm
.81 Generous
.78 Trusting
.77 Helpful
.77 Forgiving
.74 Pleasant
.73 Good-
natured
.73 Friendly
.72 Cooperative
.67 Gentle
.66 Unselfish
.56 Praising
.51 Sensitive–.58 Careless
–.53 Disorderly
–.50 Frivolous
–.49 Irrespon -
sible
–.40 Slipshod
–.39 Unde -
pendable
–.37 Forgetful.80 Organized
.80 Thorough
.78 Planful
.78 Efficient
.73 Responsible
.72 Reliable
.70 Dependable
.68 Conscien -
tious
.66 Precise
.66 Practical
.65 Deliberate
.46 Painstaking
.26 Cautious–.39 Stable
–.35 Calm
–.21 Contented.73 Tense
.72 Anxious
.72 Nervous
.71 Moody
.71 Worrying
.68 Touchy
.64 Fearful
.63 High-strung
.63 Self-pitying
.60 Tempera -
mental
.59 Unstable
.58 Self-punish -
ing
.54 Despondent
.51 Emotional–.74 Common -
place
–.73 Narrow 
interests
–.67 Simple
–.55 Shallow
–.47 Unintel -
ligent.76 Wide inter -
ests
.76 Imaginative
.72 Intelligent
.73 Original
.68 Insightful
.64 Curious
.59 Sophisti -
cated
.59 Artistic
.59 Clever
.58 Inventive
.56 Sharp-
witted
.55 Ingenious
.45 Witty
.45 Resourceful
.37 Wise
Note.  Based on John (1990). These items were assigned to one Big Five domain by at least 90% of the judges and thus capture the most prototypical (or central) content of each Big Five 
domain. The factor loadings, shown here only for the expected factor, were obtained in a sample of 140 males and 140 females, each of whom had been described by 10 psychologists 
serving as observers during an assessment weekend at the Institute of Personality and Social Research at the University of California at Berkeley (see also John, 1989).