72 I. THEORETICAL  PERSPECTI vES AND  CONCEPT uAL uNITS
tiousness (see the traits defining this domain 
in Table 2.4) and Robert can be described 
by most of them. However, he also shows 
several other notable behavior patterns (in 
bold) that belong in the interpersonal trait 
domain, namely low Agreeableness.
As Gould (1981) observed, even in the bi -
ological and physical sciences, “taxonomy is 
always a contentious issue because the world 
does not come to us in neat little packages” 
(p. 158). Since the early 1980s, when the Big 
Five barely registered a blip in the published 
personality literature (see Figure 2.1), we 
have come a long way in understanding the 
“messy packages” that are personality traits. 
Researchers have made enormous progress 
on the Big Five trait taxonomy, producing 
an initial consensus that we can differentiate 
five replicable, broad domains of personality 
as summarized by the broad concepts of Ex -
traversion, Agreeableness, Conscientious -
ness, Neuroticism,  and Openness to Ex -
perience . Viewed from a historical vantage 
point, the emergence and widespread adop -
tion of the Big Five structure, and the fact 
that multiple groups of researchers worked 
on it jointly, brought about a major change 
in the way personality research is being con -
ducted today. In fact, our field has moved 
from a stage of early individualistic pioneers 
to a more mature stage of normal scientific 
inquiry: Researchers interested in studying 
the effects of personality traits on important 
theoretical or applied phenomena, such as 
emotion, social behavior and relationships, 
work and achievement, or physical and men -
tal health, now use a commonly understood 
framework to conceptualize their research 
and choose from several well-  validated 
instruments to operationalize these per -
sonality domains. With a shared and com -
monly understood model at hand, litera -
ture reviews and meta-  analyses can easily 
organize the available empirical knowledge 
about a phenomenon, and researchers can 
communicate findings efficiently. Clearly 
the current model is a work in progress, and 
the work is far from done. Still, instead of 
squabbling with each other about the right 
or best model, the availability of a consen -
sual and stable paradigm has brought us 20 
good years where we could just get to work 
and do our science. That’s the way it should 
be in the science of personality.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This chapter summarizes and updates previous 
reviews by John (1990), John and Srivastava 
(1999), and John, Naumann, and Soto (2008). 
The preparation of this chapter was greatly facili -
tated by faculty research grants and sabbatical 
awards by the University of California, Berke -
ley. This chapter could not have been prepared 
without the assistance of Christopher J. Soto, 
especially in helping to prepare the data analy -
ses, tables, and figures. Thanks are also due to 
Rosalinda Nava for her assistance with the lit -
erature searches for this chapter. We also grate -
fully acknowledge the support and resources pro -
vided by the Institute of Personality and Social 
Research, especially Dana Carney and Elizabeth 
Peele, and by eduLab21 at the Instituto Ayrton 
Senna, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
REFERENCES
Abrahams, L., Pancorbo, G., Primi, R., Santos, D., 
Kyllonen, P., John, O. P., et al. (2019). Social– 
emotional skill assessment in children and ado -
lescents: Advances and challenges in personality, 
clinical, and educational contexts. Psychological 
Assessment, 31 (4), 460–473.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological 
interpretation . New York: Holt.
Allport, G. W. (1958). What units shall we employ? 
In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Assessment of human mo -
tives (pp. 238–260). New York: Rinehart.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-
names: A psycho-  lexical study. Psychological 
Monographs, 47, No. 211.
Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). 
The Big Seven model: A cross-  cultural replication 
and further exploration of the basic dimensions 
of natural language trait descriptors. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 300–307.
Andersen, S. C., Gensowski, M., Ludeke, S. G., & 
John, O. P. (2020, January 2). A stable relation -
ship between personality and academic perfor -
mance from childhood through adolescence: 
An original study and replication in hundred- 
thousand-  person samples. Journal of Personal -
ity. [Epub ahead of print]
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). 
The personal sense of power. Journal of Person -
ality, 80,  313–344.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, 
A. (2001). Who attains social status?: Effects of 
personality and physical attractiveness in social 
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psy -
chology, 81,  116–132.
Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., & John, O. P. (1990). 
Towards a taxonomy of personality descrip -