fei75766_ch13_408-434.indd 415  02/06/20 01:05 PM
Chapter 13    McCrae and Costa’s Five-Factor Trait Theory415
Inthelate1970s andearly 1980s, Costa andMcCrae, likemost other factor 
researchers, werebuilding elaborate taxonomies ofpersonality traits, buttheywere
notusing these classifications togenerate testable hypotheses. Instead, theyweresim-
plyusing factor analytic techniques toexamine thestability andstructure ofpersonal -
ity.During thistime, Costa andMcCrae focused initially onthetwomain dimensions 
ofneuroticism andextraversion. 
Almost immediately aftertheydiscovered NandE,Costa andMcCrae found a
third factor, which theycalled openness toexperience. Most ofCosta andMcCrae’s 
early work remained focused onthese three dimensions (see,e.g.,Costa &McCrae, 
1976; Costa, Fozard, McCrae, &Bosse, 1976). Although Lewis Goldberg hadfirst
usedtheterm“BigFive” in1981 todescribe theconsistent findings offactor analyses 
ofpersonality traits, Costa andMcCrae continued theirwork onthethree factors. 
Five Factors Found
Aslateas1983, McCrae andCosta werearguing forathree-factor model ofpersonal -
ity.Notuntil1985 didtheybegin toreport work onthefivefactors ofpersonality. This
work culminated intheirnewfive-factor personality inventory: theNEO-PI (Costa &
McCrae, 1985). TheNEO-PI wasarevision ofanearlier unpublished personality inven -
torythatmeasured onlythefirstthree dimensions: N,E,andO.Inthe1985 inventory, 
thelasttwodimensions—agreeableness andconscientiousness—were stilltheleastwell-
developed scales, having nosubscales associated withthem. Costa andMcCrae (1992) 
didnotfullydevelop theAandCscales untiltheRevised NEO-PI appeared in1992.
Throughout the1980s, McCrae andCosta (1985, 1989) continued theirwork 
offactor analyzing almost every other major personality inventory, including the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962) andtheEysenck Personality Inventory (H.
Eysenck &S.Eysenck, 1975, 1993). Forinstance, inadirect comparison oftheir
model withEysenck’s inventory, Costa andMcCrae reported thatEysenck’s firsttwo
factors (NandE)arecompletely consistent withtheirfirsttwofactors. Eysenck’s 
measure ofpsychoticism mapped ontothelowendsofagreeableness andconscien -
tiousness butdidnottapintoopenness (Costa andMcCrae ,1985).
Atthattime, there weretwomajor andrelated questions inpersonality research. 
First, withthedozens ofdifferent personality inventories andhundreds ofdifferent 
scales, howwasacommon language toemerge? Everyone hadhisorherownsome -
what idiosyncratic setofpersonality variables, making comparisons between studies 
andcumulative progress difficult. Indeed, asEysenck (1991a) wrote:
Where wehaveliterally hundreds ofinventories incorporating thousands oftraits, 
largely overlapping butalsocontaining specific variance, eachempirical finding 
isstrictly speaking onlyrelevant toaspecific trait.Thisisnotthewaytobuild a
unified scientific discipline. (p.786)
Second, what isthestructure ofpersonality? Cattell argued for16factors, 
Eysenck forthree, andmany others werestarting toargue forfive.Themajor accom -
plishment oftheFive-Factor Model (FFM) hasbeen toprovide answers toboththese 
questions. 
Since thelate1980s andearly1990s, mostpersonality psychologists haveopted for
theFive-Factor Model (Digman, 1990; John&Srivastava, 1999). Thefivefactors haveFinal PDF to printer