Journal of Assessment, 91(6), 506–517, 2009 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online DOI: 10.1080/00223890903228158

2009 BRUNO KLOPFER DISTINGUISHED CONTRIBUTION AWARD

How to Win a Career Achievement Award in Five Easy Lessons

LEWIS R. GOLDBERG

Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, Oregon

This professional autobiography is based on a talk given as the recipient of the 2009 Bruno Klopfer Distinguished Contribution Award. It includes a discussion of 5 of my habits that might be useful as a guide for future awardees including 1. send everything that you write to everyone you know (and ask for their help); 2. don’t be afraid to pick up what’s been dropped by others; 3. don’t be afraid to go away and then to stay away a long time; and 4. remember good ideas—they can be useful in the future. For the fifth and most important lesson, one must read the article.

thoughts. Indeed, I’ve even asked my gang to suggest topics for a career achievement address. Virtually everyone argued for something autobiographical rather than technical, and I will here try to oblige.

LESSON NUMBER 2: DON’TBEAFRAID TO PICK UP WHAT’S BEEN DROPPED BY OTHERS An Example: The Taxonomic Challenge My very first class as a college freshman at Harvard in 1949 was taught by Gordon Allport (Figure 2), who used for a text- book his classic 1937 volume Personality: A Psychological In- terpretation. Chapter 11 in that text, titled “The theory of traits,” concluded with a section entitled “The problem of trait names,” describing the Allport and Odbert (1936) compendium “Trait- names: A psycho-lexical study.” Allport hoped to work with Odbert or others of his students to develop a taxonomy of the nearly 18,000 trait names that they LESSON NUMBER 1: SEND EVERYTHING THAT YOU had culled from the 1925 edition of the unabridged Webster’s WRITE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW (AND ASK FOR

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 New International Dictionary of the English Language, rather THEIR HELP) than leaving that project with merely those four long alphabeti- For all of my professional career, I’ve sent preview drafts of cal columns of trait terms. But it was not to be: Allport himself each of my reports to dozens of friends and colleagues, always was not much of an empirically oriented scientist, and none of asking for their help in making them better. Over the years, this his students took on this taxonomic challenge. particular bit of chutzpah has gained me an enormous amount That remained for Raymond B. Cattell (Figure 3), who saw of extraordinarily useful feedback, and my published reports the wisdom of combining the personality dictionary provided by have all profited from the wisdom of my peers. Exhibit 1 is the Allport and Odbert with the techniques of cluster analysis and Author Note from Goldberg (1991), expressing my appreciation factor analysis of which he was so enamored. Although Cattell for such help (Figure 1). One might well argue that the reason (1943, 1945, 1947) had made a heroic beginning, he arrived on that I have won any career awards is because many of my friends the scene too early in technological history, living still in an age have taught me to think better and to write better about those when hand calculations reigned and computers were in their infancy. That’s two dropped taxonomy balls, and one to go. Warren T. Norman (Figure 4) had just obtained his PhD from the University Received June 3, 2009; Revised June 16, 2009. of Minnesota when he took his first and only faculty position, Editor’s Note: This is a version of the award talk given at the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment. Articles based on award starting as an instructor in 1957 at the University of Michigan. addresses are not sent for peer review, as they reflect the recipient’s perspective He wasn’t there more than a few weeks when his department on their work and the field. head, E. Lowell Kelly, who had just been elected President of Address correspondence to Lewis R. Goldberg, Oregon Research Institute, the American Psychological Association, asked him to serve 1715 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, OR 97403–1983; Email: [email protected] on the dissertation committee of a very balding youngster, one 506 FIVE EASY LESSONS 507

FIGURE 1.—Author note from Goldberg (1991).

of whose committee members had gone away on leave. Thus began a friendship and intellectual collaboration (e.g., Norman & Goldberg, 1966) that lasted until Warren Norman’s early death in 1998 (see Goldberg, 1998, for an appreciation). It was Warren Norman who took up the Allportian challenge, intending to finally provide a scientifically compelling taxon- omy of personality characteristics, based on what I later dubbed the “” (Goldberg, 1981). And, it was Norman (1967) who was the first to collect empirical data on a subset of roughly 2,800 of the 18,000 terms in the Allport-Odbert com- pendium; and it was Norman (1963) who persuaded Goldberg that the next great challenge of a scientific personality psychol- ogy was to solve the riddle of personality structure. Then, he FIGURE 3.—Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998). c Cattell family (Wikimedia- too dropped that ball. Commons); licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0, What makes an extraordinarily brilliant young scientist burn http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ out at an early age? If we can answer that question, we may come to understand how Norman correctly identified a crucial scientific problem, contributed enormously to its solution, but working on it (e.g., Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004; Ashton, then stopped in mid tracks. In his explosive burst of brilliance Lee, Goldberg, & de Vries, 2009; Goldberg, 1982, 1990, and intellectual exuberance, he infected me, and I came to be- 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1995; 2001; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; lieve that it was my calling to carry on his vision. I always McCormick & Goldberg, 1997; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989; believed that the problem was going to be too difficult for me to Saucier & Goldberg, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003). solve, but that it was important enough to devote a lifetime to It is not yet solved, of course, but we have made some gains. A Second Example: The Hawaii Cohort Here is another example of picking up what others have, in this case inadvertently, dropped. From 1961 to 1965, I worked as a consultant to the U.S. Peace Corps, serving as a Field Selection Officer, selecting Peace Corps trainees to serve in Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009

FIGURE 2.—Gordon Allport (1897–1967). FIGURE 4.—Warren T. Norman (1930–1998). 508 GOLDBERG

child cohort. Within a few months of receiving this grant, Jack died—suddenly and unexpectedly. We were all devastated. The research grant needed a Principal Investigator, and al- though I had not been part of this project, I was asked to take over. Now 12 years later, our team, which includes Sarah Hampson and Joan Dubanoski, has (a) located over 80% of the original cohort (Hampson et al., 2001); (b) administered a series of health-related questionnaires to most of them; and (c) recruited many of them to participate in a comprehensive physical-medical-psychological examination at the Kaiser Per- manente Center for Health Research in Honolulu. Already, in a project that we hope will follow this cohort to the end of their lives, we have made some important discoveries: We have found strong links between childhood personality traits (such as Conscientiousness) and health-related such as smoking and health outcomes such as obesity (e.g., Hampson, Goldberg, Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2006, 2007). And, in a first study of personality-trait stability over the 40-year span between elementary school and middle adulthood, we found substantial differences in long-term stability between different types of traits. Traits related to Extraversion and Conscientious- ness seem to have considerable stability, whereas traits related to Emotional Stability (vs. Neuroticism) and seem to have virtually no stability at all (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006). Our research grant is now funded by the National Institute on FIGURE 5.—John M. Digman (1923–1998). Aging, with Sarah Hampson as its Principal Investigator.

various countries in Southeast Asia, including the Philippines, A Third Example: Vocational Choices Thailand, and Malaysia. All of these projects trained on the As an undergraduate at Harvard, I took no courses in the Big Island in Hawaii, and in my role as a selection officer, I Department, which at that time included Skinner, met with each training group at the beginning, middle, and end Boring, Stevens, and a host of other such luminaries. Yet as a of their 3-month training period—virtually always in beautiful college junior faced with a decision about what to do with my Hilo, Hawaii. life, I decided to obtain graduate training in psychology—for the Being in Hawaii every 6 weeks or so, I met some colleagues obvious reason that psychology would teach me all about people, teaching at the University of Hawaii, one of whom, Jack Dig- and knowledge of people would be useful in any profession man (Figure 5), became one of my dearest friends. Unknown I might later elect to enter. Oh, sure. Once in the graduate to me at the time, during the years from 1959 to 1967, Digman program in at the University of Michigan, had persuaded 88 elementary-school teachers on the islands of which was highly psychodynamic in orientation, I found myself Oahu and Kauai to describe each of their students at the very skeptical about the scientific status of all that Rorschach-inkblot

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 end of the school years. All of the teachers rank ordered their prognosticating to which I was being exposed. students on each of about 50 personality traits, originally se- So, I set out to test whether clinical making pre- lected by Cattell but later augmented by Digman so as to be dictions from projective protocols were experts or quacks, and as comprehensive as possible. In total, Digman obtained per- these early excursions into the accuracy of human judgments sonality descriptions on about 2,400 kids in the first, second, remained a theme of my research for the next two decades fifth, and sixth grades. By analyzing some subsets of this rich (e.g., Goldberg, 1968, 1970, 1991). After a first study examin- data pool, Digman (1963, 1965, 1989, 1990; Digman & Inouye, ing whether brain-damaged patients could be distinguished from 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981) discovered five ro- psychotic ones by their after images from watching a rotating bust factors that generalized across subsamples, thus making an Archimedes spiral (Goldberg & Smith, 1958), I studied clinical important contribution to what I later dubbed the “Big-Five” expertise in diagnosing brain damage using a popular projec- factor representation (Goldberg, 1981). tive procedure of that era, the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt test The years went by. Digman’s wife moved to Lorane, Oregon, (Pascal & Suttell, 1951). In my first contribution to the scientific where she ran a horse ranch, and Jack followed her. He needed literature on clinical judgment (Goldberg, 1959), I showed that something of his own to do, and so elected to work with us at experienced clinicians, clinical psychology graduate students, the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) in Eugene. Our colleague, and hospital secretaries were all equally valid diagnosticians, Sarah Hampson, and others at ORI, kept urging Jack to apply but that the secretaries were more confident in their judgments for funds to study those elementary school children 40 years than the other two groups. Thus, I argued, for this task one later when they were now . It took awhile, but in 1998, he should use one’s secretaries because with no loss in accuracy, received a research grant from the National Institute of Mental they would feel a lot better about what they were doing. Health (NIMH), entitled “Personality and Health: A Longitu- At that time, it was not common for graduate students to dinal Study,” to locate as many as possible from that original publish reports of their research, but before I finished my FIVE EASY LESSONS 509

FIGURE 8.—E. Lowell Kelly (1905–1986).

sky and Dan Kahneman who conducted their early studies of judgmental heuristics and biases with us at ORI. Now back to my penchant for picking up stuff dropped by FIGURE 6.—Paul J. Hoffman. others. As a graduate student at Michigan, the clinical psychol- ogist who made the most sense to me was the one who became degree, I had published two articles (Goldberg, 1959; Gold- my advisor and friend, Lowell Kelly (Figure 8). Kelly, with his berg & Smith, 1958), the one on clinical accuracy being widely student Donald Fiske, had conducted a large-scale study of all reprinted. Among those who read that article was Paul J. Hoff- incoming graduate students in clinical psychology throughout man (Figure 6), who was starting to achieve some fame from the immediately after World War II, and their a classic Psychological Bulletin article entitled “The paramor- 1951 report (Kelly & Fiske, 1951) of that study entitled “The phic representation of clinical judgment” in which he argued Prediction of Performance in Clinical Psychology” became a that human judgments could be captured by multiple regression milestone in the history of psychological assessment. However, equations linking the numerical values of the cues that are used despite the title of that classic volume, Kelly and Fiske had ob- to the numerical values of the predictions from those cues (Hoff- tained no information about the actual work “performance” of man, 1960). A few years later in my life, I was to join Hoffman their graduate-student cohort, intending to collect such criterion in Eugene, Oregon, where he had just started a new organi- information in the years ahead. Another ball was about to get zation called the Oregon Research Institute (ORI; Figure 7). dropped. At ORI we were joined by Leonard Rorer (whose 1965 article For my doctoral dissertation, I picked up this particular ball, Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 on “The Great Response-Style Myth” became a classic of that and began a massive detective hunt to find the members of this period), then later by Paul Slovic and Sarah Lichtenstein, and graduate-student cohort 10 years later in their lives. In this, my in one of the headiest years of our young lives by Amos Tver- first longitudinal investigation, I managed to locate 95% of the original cohort, and 100% of those who had gone on to ob- tain their PhD degrees in psychology. I showed that the kind of work that these individuals ended up doing (clinical practice, academic teaching/research, or administration) was predictable from their personality and interests when they first entered grad- uate school (Kelly & Goldberg, 1959). This early research stim- ulated an interest in occupational choices, an interest that lay dormant for many decades until recently when I began develop- ing new public-domain measures of vocational and avocational preferences (e.g., Goldberg, in press).

LESSON NUMBER 3: DON’TBEAFRAIDTOGOAWAY AND THEN TO STAY AWAY A LONG TIME My first academic job was at Stanford University where the faculty superstars included , Richard Sears, Jack Hilgard, Quinn McNemar, and Alex Bavelas. In the office across FIGURE 7.—First ORI building, 1960. from me was a youngster named , and a few doors 510 GOLDBERG

FIGURE 11.—Adriaan De Groot (1914–2006).

FIGURE 9.—Jerry S. Wiggins (1931–2006). found evidence that long periods spent living in other cultures are associated with increased creativity. My first sabbatical was spent at the University of Nijmegen in The Netherlands, where as a Fulbright Professor I got to away was an even younger Jerry Wiggins (Figures 9 and 10), visit the five other psychology departments in Holland at that with whom I cotaught a graduate assessment course and with time and to meet most if not all of their faculty members. The whom I outlined a textbook in assessment that would eventually most famous of that era was Adriaan De Groot become that great Wiggins (1973) classic, Personality and Pre- (Figure 11) who pioneered the study of expert decision making diction: Principles of Personality Assessment. I had been hired in chess (e.g., De Groot, 1965) and whom I invited to spend a as a temporary 1-year replacement, which then got renewed for year with us at ORI, during which time I helped edit his clas- a second year. When the time came to take a permanent posi- sic volume on Methodology (De Groot, 1969), which he had tion, I joined the faculty at the University of Oregon in Eugene, translated from Dutch to English. But it was a young whip- which has remained my residence for almost 50 years. But, un- persnapper at the University of Groningen, Willem Hofstee like most folks I know, whenever I could take a leave, I stayed (Figure 12), who ended up as one of my closest and most away for a year or more at a time, and these years away from stimulating of colleagues. Wim Hofstee visited us at ORI on home have been the most stimulating ones in my life. a number of occasions, along with his students Arend Tomas A number of colleagues have remarked to me that my years and Frank Brokken (Figure 13), whose doctoral dissertation spent away from home have been followed by periods of rich (Brokken, 1978) was an early milestone in lexical research; scientific productivity, but I have always doubted those obser- Frank has now visited the United States so frequently that he vations. It was not until a few days ago that I discovered any owns a truck parked in Eugene. It is Wim Hofstee who deserves scientific evidence for their conclusions; in a series of exper- primary credit for the development of the Abridged Big-Five di- imental and naturalistic studies, Maddux and Galinsky (2009)

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 mensional Circumplex (AB5C) model integrating dimensional and circular representations of the Big-Five domains (Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992). By the end of my first European sabbatical, it had become obvious to Jerry Wiggins and to me that my heart lay in empirical analyses, not in textbook writing, and thus that Jerry should complete our assessment volume on his own. When that book finally came out (Wiggins, 1973), it was dedicated “To ORI: The people and the concept.” During the 1971–1972 academic year, I got to hang out with Ravenna Helson and Harrison Gough (Figure 14) in the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) at the Univer- sity of California in Berkeley, and with Jack Block (Figure 15), usually at his home. Jack and I had met years earlier at a conven- tion in Honolulu, where we spent hours on a beach discussing the crazy response-set wars of that period, ongoing discussions that culminated in Block’s (1965) remarkable critique, “The Challenge of Response Sets.” While spending a year with Block in Berkeley, I accompanied him on his weekly excursions to San Francisco to pick up, each from a different small specialty shop, FIGURE 10.—Jack Digman and Jerry Wiggins. his weekly assortments of wines, pastas, cheeses, sausages, FIVE EASY LESSONS 511

FIGURE 14.—Harrison Gough.

provided the ultimate kind of experience. During a Fulbright- supported year in Istanbul in the mid-1970s, I got to explore a city diametrically opposite of my home in Eugene, Oregon, in so many ways that it could take my breath away. I taught courses at Istanbul University, the oldest university in the Middle East, and certainly the most entertaining. During the days, I walked

FIGURE 12.—Willem K. B. Hofstee. the streets of this ancient city, and when the sun went down, I sa- vored the sights and sounds along the mighty Bosporus. Roughly bagels, rolls, and bread-sticks. Once through those demanding once a month, I wrote a raki-enfused account of our adventures, errands, it was time for our weekly dim-sum Chinese lunch. and the collection of these unpublished “Letters from Turkey” The Netherlands was cool, Berkeley was hot (especially dur- became something of an underground collector’s item. In my ing these years of frenzied counter-cultural protests), but Turkey second letter, I described a period of “Unmitigated gawking, while walking every side-street, sniffing every smell, visiting every mosque, riding every ferry, bus, and dolmus I could find.” It was one hell of a ride, and one hell of a year. Had I not spent that year in Istanbul, would I have still devoted so much time to studying the Turkish language of personality? Strangely, the two periods of my life were not connected. Two decades after my Istanbul odyssey, a Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 young Turkish psychologist, Oya Somer, discovered the lexical

FIGURE 13.—Frank Brokken. FIGURE 15.—Jack Block. 512 GOLDBERG

FIGURE 17.—William F. Chaplin.

sonality traits as semantic categories, eventually discovering a FIGURE 16.—Oliver John. basic level in personality trait hierarchies (e.g., Chaplin, John, & Goldberg, 1988; Hampson, John, & Goldberg, 1986; John, Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991). hypothesis, the Big-Five factor structure, and me. She obtained the data; I planned the analyses; and together we published two articles describing our many findings from this ancient Al- taic language (Goldberg & Somer, 2000; Somer & Goldberg, 1999). But, another full year abroad was connected to my earlier Dutch sabbatical. Probably because of my friendship with Wim Hofstee, I was invited to spend a year as a fellow-in-residence

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS), in Wassenaar, near the Hague in the Netherlands. Frank Brokken set up a computer connection between my NIAS office and his Groningen computer center, which had the most advanced academic computer system in Holland at that time. Where I had once learned to program in Fortran II, I could now use SPSS to do it for me, and so again I could function as my own data analyst, which I did all day most of the days of that wonderful year. When not computing, I was driving—from Bielefeld in Ger- many to Wassenaar in Holland with stops in Groningen along the way—with my new graduate student, Oliver John (Figure 16). Oliver had been an undergraduate at Bielefeld with Alois An- gleitner, who sent Oliver on a scouting expedition to inter- view Block, Wiggins, Fiske, Jackson, Mischel, and Goldberg in search of an ideal personality graduate program. Somehow I won out, and Oliver came to team up with Bill Chaplin (Figure 17) at Oregon, and then returned to Bielefeld during my year at NIAS. Through Angleitner, Oliver and I met Sarah Hampson (Figures 18 and 19), and together John, Hampson, Chaplin, and Goldberg (Figure 20) spent eight heady years studying per- FIGURE 18.—Sarah E. Hampson. FIVE EASY LESSONS 513

FIGURE 21.—Gerard Saucier.

Murray implemented this plan with Harvard undergraduates, al- FIGURE 19.—Chaplin and Hampson. though that kind of sample has a shelf-life of only 4 years. But, the general idea is a winner. More than 40 years after I first came across that idea, Ger- LESSON NUMBER 4: REMEMBER GOOD IDEAS—THEY ard Saucier (Figures 21–23) and I obtained an NIMH grant, CAN BE USEFUL IN THE FUTURE “Mapping Personality Trait Structure,” which had elicited a high Back when I was an undergraduate at Harvard, I read Henry enough priority score to win a Merit Award, thus doubling the Murray et al.’s (1938) classic volume, Explorations in Personal- length of our grant. Now with eight years of guaranteed funding, ity: A Clinical and Experimental Study of Fifty Men of College the time seemed right to solicit our own pet sample. We needed Age. Perhaps I didn’t get much past the Preface of that long to find individuals who would be living stably in the community tome, at least at that early stage of my life, but it was in that for at least the next 10 years, and therefore university students short preface that Murray raved about the advantages of us- and other transients were out. Instead, we solicited participants ing the same sample of research participants to study many from lists of home owners, asking folks if they wanted to help different topics. He argued that if different investigators col- lected data from the same sample, the resulting data pool would be rich enough so that one could check on possible alternative

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 explanations for one’s findings using data obtained by others.

FIGURE 20.—John, Chaplin, and Goldberg. FIGURE 22.—Saucier and Goldberg jam. 514 GOLDBERG

core of personality-trait variance measured by these seemingly quite diverse inventories (Grucza & Goldberg, 2007). Data from our community sample have been provided freely to a host of investigators throughout the world. Yet, the many who have used ESCS data are but a tiny fraction of those who have used the public-domain measures available at the IPIP Web site (Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006). The same re- search grant that funded our community sample supported this international collaboratory, which now includes around 2,500 personality items and around 250 personality scales. English IPIP items have now been translated into more than 30 other languages, and the IPIP Web site already lists over 300 publica- tions that have used IPIP scales. It was Willem Hofstee of the University of Groningen in the FIGURE 23.—Chaplin, Saucier, Goldberg, and John. Netherlands who called attention to the fact that those single trait-descriptive adjectives used in lexical studies of personality structure are not ideal items to include in personality inventories because they are too broad and abstract in their nature, and per- science and get paid (at least modestly) for their time. Roughly haps because of this, it is often difficult to find exact one-to-one 500 men and 500 women between the ages of 18 and 85 ini- translations across languages; in many cases, terms that seem tially expressed an interest in the project and completed a mini- descriptively identical differ in their evaluations. Hofstee and his inventory of 360 trait-descriptive adjectives, and around 850 of students (e.g., Hendriks, Hofstee, & de Raad, 1999) pioneered them then completed our first real inventory, a set of 858 items the use of short verbal phrases, which are more contextualized that became the kernel of the International Personality Item Pool than single adjectives but still more compact than many items in- (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999). cluded in popular inventories, and these verbal phrases are used Thus was born the Eugene-Springfield Community Sample for all IPIP items. Examples include: “Believe in an eye for an (ESCS), a loyal stable of research participants who have now eye.” “Can read people like a book.” “Dislike being the center of completed by mail over 30 questionnaires covering an enormous attention.” “Enjoy the beauty of nature.” “Forget appointments.” range of topics, including personality traits, values and atti- “Get upset easily.” “Have gotten better with age.” tudes, vocational and avocational interests, possessions, current By far my favorite IPIP item is “Am able to disregard rules,” and past activities, aspects of psychopathology and of physical because I like both the structure and the content of that IPIP health, talents and skills, and exposure to potentially traumatic item: Note that it describes an ability (“am able to”), not a fail- events both in childhood and adulthood. Remarkably, over the ing (“can’t help”) nor a propensity (“tend to”); and it concerns decade between 1994 and 2004, virtually all participant attrition “rules” rather than “laws.” Breaking rules can be good for you, was due to death or disability. In addition to the extraordinary if the rule-breaking hurts no one else and if one knows what one collection of self-report measures we have obtained, participants is doing and why one is doing it. If you are the kind of person wrote projective stories to TAT pictures, and most of them have who is not able to disregard rules, perhaps you might give it a been described by two or three individuals who knew them well. try. Over the years, members of this sample have completed a Actually, rule-bound conformity is better than taking oneself wide array of current personality inventories, including the too seriously. What I really believe is that in the battle between

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 NEO PI–R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), California Psychologi- frivolity and ponderousness, it is better to veer to the light- cal Inventory (Gough & Bradley, 2002), Sixteen Personality hearted (Figure 24). Factor questionnaire (Conn & Rieke, 1994), Hogan Personal- My final lesson for winning a career achievement award is by ity Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995), Multidimensional Per- far the most important. sonality Questionnaire (Tellegen, in press), Jackson Personal- ity Inventory (Jackson, 1994), Temperament and Character In- LESSON NUMBER 5: SHAVE YOUR HEAD,STAY ventory (Cloninger, Przybeck, Svrakic, & Wetzel, 1994), and HEALTHY, AND OUTLIVE THE COMPETITION HEXACO–PI–R (Lee & Ashton, 2004). The availability of so many instruments, all developed to provide broad bandwidth assessments of normal personality functioning, suggested the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS possibility of a comparative-validity horse race. In a study con- This article is a modified version of my address accepting ducted with Rick Grucza of Washington University medical the 2009 Bruno Klopfer Career Achievement Award from the school in St. Louis, we used multiple regression analyses and Society for Personality Assessment (SPA) at the SPA annual bootstrap resampling procedures to provide cross-validity coef- meeting in Chicago on March 5, 2009. That address in turn ficients for 11 inventories predicting each of three kinds of cri- was shamelessly cribbed from previous versions used to ac- teria: (a) the frequencies of occurrence of diverse activities, (b) knowledge the Jack Block Career Achievement Award from personality descriptions by knowledgeable informants, and (c) the Society of Personality and (January 25, clinical indicators known to be associated with various kinds of 2007, in Memphis, TN) and the Saul Sells Career Achievement emotional disorders. Perhaps the most remarkable of our many Award from the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychol- findings is that interinventory differences across the entire range ogy (October 20, 2007, in Chapel Hill, NC). Given its starkly of criteria were quite small, suggesting some sort of common autobiographical nature, it might also be considered as an entry FIVE EASY LESSONS 515

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Goldberg, L. R., & de Vries, R. E. (2009). Higher-order factors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79–91. Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding , acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. Brokken, F. B. (1978). The language of personality. Meppel, Netherlands: Krips. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506. Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90. Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12, 197–220. Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 541–557. Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University. Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF technical manual (5th ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inven- tory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FF) Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. De Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. De Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology: Foundations of inference and research FIGURE 24.—Goldberg as Godfather. in the behavioral sciences. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Digman, J. M. (1963). Principal dimensions of child personality as inferred from teachers’ judgments. Child Development, 34, 43–60. in the Journal of Personality Assessment special series on per- Digman, J. M. (1965). Further evidence for a multiple-factor model of child sonality autobiographies. Funds for my work on this article have personality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 787–799. been provided by Grant AG20048 from the National Institute Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and on Aging, National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Public Health utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214. Service. Among the many who have helped me over the years, Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. I want to publically thank some of those whose impact on my Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. work has been especially important, including Bob Altemeyer, Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust Chris Arthun, Michael C. Ashton, Peter Bentler, Jack Block, factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, Frank Brokken, Matthias Burisch, David P. Campbell, William 116–123. F. Chaplin, Jacob Cohen, Adriaan De Groot, John M. Digman, Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural lan- guage of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major Joan P. Dubanoski, Herbert W. Eber, Richard F. Farmer, Jen- studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149–170. nifer J. Freyd, Janice C. Goldberg, Harrison G. Gough, Richard Goldberg, L. R. (1959). The effectiveness of clinicians’ judgments: The di- A. Grucza, Sarah E. Hampson, Paul J. Hoffman, Willem K. B.

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 agnosis of organic brain damage from the Bender–Gestalt test. Journal of Hofstee, Robert Hogan, Oliver P. John, John A. Johnson, Henry Consulting Psychology, 23, 25–33. Kaiser, E. Lowell Kelly, Daniel Levitin, William McConochie, Goldberg, L. R. (1968). Simple models or simple processes? Some research on Clarence C. McCormick, Robert E. McGrath, Paul E. Meehl, clinical judgments. American Psychologist, 23, 483–496. Lawrence R. Moran, Warren T. Norman, Gerald Patterson, Dean Goldberg, L. R. (1970). Man vs. model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, Peabody, Peter J. Rentfrow, William Revelle, Brent W. Roberts, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 73, Leonard G. Rorer, Myron Rothbart, James A. Russell, Gerard 422–432. Saucier, Paul Slovic, Oya Somer, Dennis Sweeney, Marjorie Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality Taylor, Auke Tellegen, Tina Rosolack Traxler, , and social psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Erika Westling, and Jerry S. Wiggins. Color versions of most of Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language the pictures sprinkled throughout this article are available from of personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in per- the author ([email protected]). sonality assessment: Vol. 1 (pp. 203–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “Description of personality”: The Big- REFERENCES Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216– Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.NewYork: 1229. Holt. Goldberg, L. R. (1991). Human mind versus regression equation: Five contrasts. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. In D. Cicchetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Psychological Monographs, 47(1, Whole No. 211). Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl: Vol. 1. Matters of public interest (pp. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 173–184). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor Social Psychology, 87, 707–721. structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. 516 GOLDBERG

Goldberg, L. R. (1993a). The structure of personality traits: Vertical and hor- Hoffman, P. J. (1960). The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. izontal aspects. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 116–131. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the (pp. 169–188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Big-Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality Goldberg, L. R. (1993b). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Ameri- and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163. can Psychologist, 48, 26–34. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory manual (2nd ed.). Goldberg, L. R. (1995). What the hell took so long? Donald Fiske and the Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Big-Five factor structure. In P. E. Shrout & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory—Revised manual. Port research, methods, and theory: A Festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp. Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. 29–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). The basic level in Goldberg, L. R. (1998). Warren T. Norman (1930–1998): An appreciation. personality-trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 391–396. contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 348–361. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality in- Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The prediction of performance in clinical ventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. psychology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychol- Kelly, E. L., & Goldberg, L. R. (1959). Correlates of later performance and ogy in Europe: Vol. 7 (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University specialization in psychology. Psychological Monographs, 73(12, Whole No. Press. 482). Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Analyses of Digman’s child-personality data: Derivation Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO of Big-Five factor scores from each of six samples. Journal of Personality, Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. 69, 709–743. Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: Goldberg, L. R. (in press). Personality, demographics, and self-reported behav- The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality ioral acts: The development of avocational interest scales from estimates of and Social Psychology, 96, 1047–1061. the amount of time spent in interest-related activities. In C. R. Agnew, D. McCormick, C., & Goldberg, L. R. (1997). Two at a time is better than one at a E. Carlston, W. G. Graziano, & J. R. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: time: Exploiting the horizontal aspects of factor representations. In R. Plutchik Focusing on in social psychological theory and research.NewYork: &H.R.Conte(Eds.),Circumplex models of personality and (pp. Oxford University Press. 103–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Murray, H. A., et al. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and ex- Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality perimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Press. Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure as Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s P-E-N Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. model. In C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operat- The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to ing characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology, adulthood (pp. 7–35). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Goldberg, L. R., & Smith, P. A. (1958). The clinical usefulness of the Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in Archimedes spiral in the diagnosis of organic brain damage. Journal of Con- personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681– sulting Psychology, 22, 153–157. 691. Goldberg, L. R., & Somer, O. (2000). The hierarchical structure of common Pascal, G. R., & Suttell, B. J. (1951). The Bender-Gestalt Test. New York: Grune Turkish person-descriptive adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 14, & Stratton. 497–531. Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor struc- Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (2002). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: tures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Consulting Psychologists Press. Psychology, 57, 552–567. Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response-style myth. Psychological Bulletin, 63,

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and 129–150. clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 167–187. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996a). Evidence for the Big Five in analyses Hampson, S. E., Dubanoski, J. P., Hamada, W., Marsella, A. J., Matsukawa, J., of familiar English personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, Suarez, E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Where are they now? Locating former 10, 61–77. elementary-school students after nearly 40 years for a longitudinal study of Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996b). The language of personality: Lexical personality and health. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 375–387. perspectives on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large-cohort study of person- model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 21–50). New York: Guil- ality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. ford. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 763–779. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M., & Dubanoski, J. P. (2006). Forty of Personality, 66, 495–524. years on: Teachers’ assessments of children’s personality traits predict self- Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality reported health behaviors and outcomes at midlife. , 25, factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847– 57–64. 879. Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M., & Dubanoski, J. P. (2007). Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the Big Five: Applications Mechanisms by which childhood personality traits influence adult health of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. In B. de status: Educational attainment and healthy behaviors. Health Psychology, 26, Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 29–58). Goettingen, 121–125. Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. Hampson, S. E., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth and Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in judgments of M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the trait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 37–54. role of personality in organizations (pp. 1–29). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & de Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Bass. Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, Somer, O., & Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The structure of Turkish trait-descriptive 307–325. adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 431–450. FIVE EASY LESSONS 517

Tellegen, A. (in press). MPQ (Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire): self and various types of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: Uni- 41, 517–552. versity of Minnesota Press. Goldberg, L. R. (1986). The validity of rating procedures to index the hierar- Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality chical level of categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 323–347. assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The social psychology of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 89–94. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The Curious Experiences Survey, a revised version of SELECTED ADDITIONAL CITATIONS BEYOND THOSE the Dissociative Experiences Scale: Factor structure, reliability, and relations EFERENCED IN THE EXT OPIES OF THESE AND R T (C to demographic and personality variables. Psychological Assessment, 11, OTHER PUBLICATIONS ARE FREELY AVA I L A B L E AT 134–145. HTTP://WWW.ORI.ORG/LRG/) Goldberg, L. R. (2006). Doing it all bass-ackwards: The development of hierar- Ashton, S. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1973). In response to Jackson’s challenge: chical factor structures from the top down. Journal of Research in Personality, The comparative validity of personality scales constructed by the external 40, 347–358. (empirical) strategy and scales developed intuitively by experts, novices, and Goldberg, L. R., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Self-reports of potentially traumatic laymen. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 1–20. experiences in an adult community sample: Gender differences and test- Chaplin, W. F., & Goldberg, L. R. (1984). A failure to replicate the Bem and retest stabilities of the items in a Brief Betrayal-Trauma Survey. Journal of Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency. Journal Trauma and Dissociation, 7(3), 39–63. of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1074–1090. Goldberg, L. R., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1985). The prediction of semantic con- Goldberg, L. R. (1963). A model of item ambiguity in personality assessment. sistency in self-descriptions: Characteristics of persons and of terms that Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 467–492. affect the consistency of responses to synonym and antonym pairs. Journal Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs: The diagnosis of of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 82–98. psychosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI. Psychological Monographs, 79 (9, Goldberg, L. R., Norman, W. T., & Schwartz, E. (1980). The comparative valid- Whole No. 602). ity of questionnaire data (16PF scales) and objective test data (O-A Battery) Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Grades as motivants. Psychology in the Schools, 2, in predicting five peer-rating criteria. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17–24. 4, 183–194. Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Reliability of Peace Corps selection boards: A study of Goldberg, L. R., & Rorer, L. G. (1966). The use of two different response modes interjudge agreement before and after board discussions. Journal of Applied and repeated testings to predict social conformity. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 50, 400–408. Social Psychology, 3, 28–37. Goldberg, L. R. (1969). The search for configural relationships in personality Goldberg, L. R., & Slovic, P. (1967). The importance of test item content: An assessment: The diagnosis of psychosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI. Multi- analysis of a corollary of the deviation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling variate Behavioral Research, 4, 523–536. Psychology, 14, 462–472. Goldberg, L. R. (1971). A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. Goldberg, L. R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P. F., & Hughes, J. E., Jr. (1996). The In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment: Vol. 2 (pp. Big-Five factor structure as an integrative framework: An analysis of Clarke’s 293–336). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. AVA m o d e l . Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 441–471. Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Man versus mean: The exploitation of group profiles Goldberg, L. R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P. F., & Hughes, J. E., Jr. (1998). Demo- for the construction of diagnostic classification systems. Journal of Abnormal graphic variables and personality: The effects of gender, age, education, and Psychology, 79, 121–131. ethnic/racial status on self-descriptions of personality attributes. Personality Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Parameters of personality inventory construction and and Individual Differences, 24, 393–403. utilization: A comparison of prediction strategies and tactics. Multivariate Goldberg, L. R., & Velicer, W. F. (2006). Principles of exploratory factor analy- Behavioral Research Monographs, 7, 72–2. sis. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (2nd Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Some recent trends in personality assessment. Journal ed., pp. 209–237). New York: Springer. of Personality Assessment, 36, 547–560. Goldberg, L. R., & Werts, C. E. (1966). The reliability of clinicians’ judgments: Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Student personality characteristics and optimal college A multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, learning conditions: An extensive search for trait-by-treatment interaction 199–206.

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009 effects. Instructional Science, 1, 153–210. Hase, H. D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1967). The comparative validity of different Goldberg, L. R. (1974). Objective diagnostic tests and measures. Annual Review strategies of constructing personality inventory scales. Psychological Bul- of Psychology, 25, 343–366. letin, 67, 231–248. Goldberg, L. R. (1977). Admission to the PhD program in the Department of Kelly, E. L., Goldberg, L. R., Fiske, D. W., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1978). Twenty- Psychology at the University of Oregon. American Psychologist, 32, 663–668. five years later: A follow-up of the graduate students in clinical psychology Goldberg, L. R. (1977). What if we administered the wrong inventory? The assessed in the VA Selection Research Project. American Psychologist, 33, prediction of scores on Personality Research Form scales from those on the 746–755. California Psychological Inventory, and vice versa. Applied Psychological Perkins, J., & Goldberg, L. R. (1964). Contextual effects on the MMPI. Journal Measurement, 1, 339–354. of Consulting Psychology, 28, 133–140. Goldberg, L. R. (1978). The differential attribution of trait-descriptive terms to Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). oneself as compared to well-liked, neutral, and disliked others: A psychome- The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, tric analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1012–1028. socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life out- Goldberg, L. R. (1978). The reliability of reliability: The generality and cor- comes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. relates of intra-individual consistency in responses to structured personality Rorer, L. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Acquiescence in the MMPI? Educational inventories. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 269–291. and Psychological Measurement, 25, 801–817. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Unconfounding situational attributions from uncertain, Rorer, L. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Acquiescence and the vanishing variance neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of descriptions of one- component. Journal of , 49, 422–430.