 2. History, Measurement, and Conceptual Elaboration of the Big‑Five Trait Taxonomy  59
both kinds of representations, the unidi -
mensional facet profiles in Figure 2.2 and 
the two-  dimensional circumplex representa -
tions in Figure 2.3, have their place in help -
ing us understand the structure of the Big 
Five at the lower level of the hierarchy.
Big Five  Measurement: 
Conclusions  and Limitations
One of the limitations of the findings pre -
sented here is that we did not examine ex -
ternal (or predictive) validity. Future re -
searchers need to study the comparative 
validity of all three instruments using peer 
ratings and other external criteria. One of 
the advantages of the BFI-2 is its efficiency, 
taking only about 5 to 10 minutes of ad -
ministration time, compared with about 15 
minutes for the NEO-FFI and the 100-item 
TDA. Moreover, the BFI-2 items are shorter 
and easier to understand than the NEO-
FFI items (Benet-  Martinez & John, 1998; 
Soto & John, 2017a; Soto et al., 2008). The 
100 (or 40) adjectives on the TDA are even 
shorter; however, single-  trait adjectives can 
be ambiguous in their meanings.
When should researchers use each of these 
instruments? When participant time is not 
at a premium, participants are well educat -
ed and test-savvy, and the research question 
calls for the differentiated assessment of more 
than three facets for the Big Five, then the full 
240-item NEO-PI-R is most useful. Other -
wise, the 60-item BFI-2 or the 30-item BFI-
2S would seem to offer a measure of the core 
attributes of the Big Five and the three most 
important facets that are at least as efficient 
and easily understood as the 60-item NEO-
FFI and the 100-item TDA. At this point, 
we can recommend the use of even shorter 
instruments, with as few as 10–15 items 
(e.g., Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; 
Rammstedt & John, 2007; Soto & John, 
2017b, 2019), only  if a researcher encounters 
truly exceptional circumstances, such as the 
need to measure the Big Five as part of a na -
tional phone survey. From our perspective, 
the gains in time achieved by moving from 
a measure such as the BFI-2S (i.e., less than 
5 minutes of subject time) to an even shorter 
measure can rarely compensate for the poten -
tial losses in reliability and validity one has to 
risk with such minimalist measurement.Factor Names, Numbers, or Initials: 
Which Shall We Use?
Problems with  the English Factor  Labels
Now that we have considered both the his -
tory of the Big Five and its measurement, 
it is time to revisit the names or labels as -
signed to the factors (see Table 2.2). Al -
though the constructs that will eventually 
replace the current Big Five may be different 
from what we know now, labels are impor -
tant, because they imply particular inter -
pretations and therefore influence the direc -
tions that theorizing might take. Norman’s 
(1963) factor labels have been frequently 
used, but Norman offered little theoreti -
cal rationale for their selection. Norman’s 
labels differ vastly in their breadth or in -
clusiveness (Hampson, Goldberg, & John, 
1987); in particular, Conscientiousness and 
Culture are much too narrow to capture the 
enormous breadth of these two dimensions. 
Moreover, researchers have abandoned Cul -
ture as a label for Factor V, in favor of In -
tellect or Imagination (Saucier & Goldberg, 
1996) or Openness to Experience (McCrae 
& Costa, 1985b). Neither label is truly sat -
isfactory, however, because Intellect is too 
narrow and Openness, while broad enough, 
is somewhat vague.
Agreeableness is another problematic 
label. For one thing, it refers to the behav -
ioral tendency to agree  with others, thus 
incorrectly implying submissiveness, which 
is more closely related to the introverted 
pole of Factor I. Agreeableness is also too 
detached, too neutral a label for a factor 
supposed to capture intensely affective char -
acteristics, such as love, compassion, and 
sympathy. Freud viewed love and work as 
central; following this lead, we could call 
Factor II simply Love  (Peabody & Goldberg, 
1989). However, Work  is too narrow a label 
for Factor III. Even Conscientiousness is 
too narrow, because it omits a central com -
ponent that Peabody and Goldberg (1989) 
called “favorable impulse control.”
We could say more about the many short -
comings of the traditional labels, but better 
labels are hard to come by. The unsurpassed 
advantage of the traditional labels is that 
they are commonly known and used, thus 
preventing Babel from taking over the litera -
ture on the Big Five.