 6. Temperament  151
taxonomic schemes share a common “Big 
Two” of N/NE and E/PE. Furthermore, the 
DvC dimension of the Big Three has been 
shown to be a complex combination of (low) 
conscientiousness and agreeableness; that is, 
disinhibited individuals tend to be impulsive, 
carefree, reckless (low conscientiousness), 
uncooperative, deceitful and manipulative 
(low agreeableness) (e.g., Digman, 1997; Ey -
senck, 1997); thus, the inelegant Markon et 
al. (2005) labels, disagreeable disinhibition 
and unconscientious disinhibition. In this 
regard, as we document subsequently, our 
GTS Disinhibition scale contains both Care -
free Orientation and Antisocial Behavior 
subscales that correlate differentially with 
(low) conscientiousness and agreeableness, 
respectively. Finally, openness appears to be 
largely unrelated to the Big Three dimensions 
(Markon et al., 2005). Taken together, these 
data indicate that one can transform the Big 
Three into the Big Five by (1) decomposing 
the DvC dimension into component traits of 
conscientiousness and agreeableness, and (2) 
including the additional dimension of open -
ness. Thus, although we use the Big Three as 
our primary structural framework, we can 
take advantage of the enormous amounts of 
available data using various Big Five mea -
sures.
Beyond Structural Validity
Development of a clear structural model is 
an important first step in the articulation 
of scientific concepts, but we argued earlier 
that trait models have transcended structur -
alism to provide authentic explanations for 
human behavior. In the following sections, 
we present a portion of these data as illustra -
tive offerings. The first section draws largely 
from our own research and presents—  in 
overview—  a systematic array of correlates 
for each of the Big Three. Subsequent sec -
tions summarize (1) genetic evidence that 
supports the existence of these traits (but 
that also has raised vexing research ques -
tions), (2) factors that affect trait stability 
and change, and (3) relations with psycho -
pathology.
In the first section, we begin by presenting 
relations between mood and temperament; 
thereafter, we largely avoid data on variables whose correlations with temperament may 
be explained—  directly or in large part—by 
a shared mood component (e.g., the volumi -
nous literature on life and job satisfaction). 
We then turn to other correlates, such social 
and lifestyle variables. This chapter is far 
from comprehensive, however, as research 
has increasingly documented the variety of 
ways in which personality/temperament is 
related to important life outcomes. Thus, 
although we cover some of their results, we 
recommend that readers interested in ex -
ploring this topic further consult both the 
review by Ozer and Benet-Martínez (2006) 
comprehensive review of personality’s con -
sequential outcomes and Soto’s (2019) tour 
de force replication study.
Correlates of the Big Three Traits
Mood
As we mentioned earlier, a great deal of 
data link N/NE and E/PE with individual 
differences in affective experience, to the 
point that affectivity may be viewed as a 
core—if not the  core—of these two dimen -
sions. More specifically, mood also has been 
shown to have two major dimensions, com -
monly labeled negative affect (or negative 
activation) and positive affect (or positive 
activation), respectively (see Watson, 2000; 
Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Watson, Wiese, 
Vaidya & Tellegen, 1999). Negative affect 
(NA) is a general dimension of subjective 
distress, encompassing a number of specific 
negative emotional states, including fear, 
sadness, anger, guilt, contempt, and disgust. 
Positive affect (PA), by contrast, reflects 
the co-  occurrence among a wide variety of 
positive mood states, including joy, interest, 
attentiveness, excitement, enthusiasm, and 
pride.
Despite the conceptual distinctiveness of 
these various specific negative (or positive) 
mood states, it is quite well-  established that 
they substantially co-occur both within and 
across individuals to form general (i.e., high -
er order) affect dimensions (Diener, Smith, 
& Fujita, 1995; Watson, 2000; Watson & 
Clark, 1992a, 1992b; Watson et al., 1999). 
These two highly robust mood dimensions 
have been recovered from mood ratings of 
widely ranging terms, formats, and time 