PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

1991,44

THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB

PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS
MURRAY R. BARRICK, MICHAEL K. MOUNT
Department of Management and Organizations
University of Iowa

This study investigated the relation of the "Big Five" personality dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance
criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for
five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and
skilled/semi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of personality. Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job performance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining personality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by
occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and
sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and
Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion
(across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found
to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types,
but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small
(p < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical
findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and
practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of personnel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.

Introduction
Over the past 25 years, a number of researchers have investigated the
validity of personality measures for personnel selection purposes. The
overall conclusion from these studies is that the validity of personality as
a predictor of job performance is quite low (e.g., Ghiselli, 1973; Guion
& Gottier, 1965; Locke & Hulin, 1962; Reilly & Chao, 1982; Schmitt,
Both authors contributed equally to this study. We would like to thank Frank Schmidt,
Ralph Alexander, Paul Costa, Mike Judiesch, Wendy Dunn, and Jacob Sines for thoughtful
comments about the article and some of the data analyses. We gratefully acknowledge
the assistance of Mike Judiesch, Wendy Dunn, Eric Neumann, Val Arnold, and Duane
Thompson in categorizing the personality scales.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Murray R. Barrick,
Department of Management and Organizations, College of Business Administration, The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.
COPYRIGHT 1991 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. INC

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). However, at the time these studies were
conducted, no well-accepted taxonomy existed for classifying personality
traits. Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether there
were consistent, meaningful relationships between particular personality
constructs and performance criteria in different occupations.
In the past 10 years, the views of many personalify psychologists have
converged regarding the structure and concepts of personalify. Generally, researchers agree that there are five robust factors of personalify
(described below) which can serve as a meaningful taxonomy for classifying personalify attributes (Digman, 1990). Our purpose in the present
study is to examine the relationship of these five personalify constructs
to job performance measures for different occupations, rather than to
focus on the overall validify of personalify as previous researchers have
done.
Emergence of the 5-Factor Model

Systematic efforts to organize the taxonomy of personalify began

shortly after McDougall (1932) wrote that, "Personalify may to advantage be broadly analyzed into five distinguishable but separate factors,
namely intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper..."
(p. 15). About 10 years later, Cattell (1943, 1946, 1947, 1948) developed a relatively complex taxonomy of individual differences that consisted of 16 primary factors and 8 second-order factors. However, repeated attempts by researchers to replicate his work were unsuccessful
(Fiske, 1949; Tupes, 1957; Tupes & Christal, 1961) and, in each case,
researchers found that the 5-factor model accounted for the data quite
well. For example, Tupes and Christal (1961) reanalyzed the correlations
reported by Cattell and Fiske and found that there was good support for
five factors: Surgency, Emotional Stabilify, Agreeableness, Dependabilify, and Culture. As it would turn out later, these factors (and those of
McDougall 35 years before) were remarkably similar to those generally
accepted by researchers today. However, as Digman (1990) points out,
the work of Tupes and Christal had only a minor impact because their
study was published in an obscure Air Force technical report. The 5factor model obtained by Fiske (1949) and Tupes and Christal (1961)
was corroborated in four subsequent studies (Borgatta, 1964; Hakel,
1974; Norman, 1963; Smith 1967). Borgatta's findings are noteworthy
because he obtainedfivestable factors acrossfivemethods of data gathering. Norman's work is especially significant because his labels (Extraversion. Emotional Stabilify, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Culture) are used commonly in the literature and have been referred to,
subsequently, as "Norman's Big Five" or simply as the "Big Five."

BARRICK AND MOUNT

During the past decade, an impressive body of literature has accumulated which provides compelling evidence for the robustness of the 5factor model: across different theoretical frameworks (Goldberg, 1981);
using different instruments (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988;
Lorr & Youniss, 1973; McCrae, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987,
1989); in different cultures (e.g.. Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975;
Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987); using ratings obtained from different
sources (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock,
1981; Fiske, 1949; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963; Norman &
Goldberg, 1966; Watson, 1989); and with a variety of samples (see Digman, 1990, for a more detailed discussion). An important consideration
for the field of personnel psychology is that these dimensions are also relatively independent of measures of cognitive ability (McCrae & Costa,
1987).
It should be pointed out that some researchers have reservations
about the 5-factor model, particularly the imprecise specification of
these dimensions (Briggs, 1989; John, 1989; Livneh & Livneh, 1989;
Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987). Some researchers suggest that more than
five dimensions are needed to encompass the domain of personality. For
example, Hogan (1986) advocates six dimensions (Sociability, Ambition,
Adjustment, Likability, Prudence, and Intellectance). The principle difference seems to be the splitting of the Extraversion dimension into Sociability and Ambition.
Interpretations of the "Big Five"

While there is general agreement among researchers concerning the

number of factors, there is some disagreement about their precise meaning, particularly Norman's Conscientiousness and Culture factors. Of
course, some variation from study to study is to be expected with factors
as broad and inclusive as the 5-factor model. As shown below, however,
there is a great deal of commonality in the traits that define each factor,
even though the name attached to the factor differs.
It is widely agreed that the first dimension is Eysenck's Extraversion/Intraversion. Most frequently this dimension has been called Extraversion or Surgency (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Digman & TakemotoChock, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; Howarth, 1976; John, 1989;
Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). Traits frequently associated with it include being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active. As mentioned
above, Hogan (1986) interprets this dimension as consisting of two components. Ambition (initiative, surgency, ambition, and impetuous) and
Sociability (sociable, exhibitionist, and expressive).

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

There is also general agreement about the second dimension. This

factor has been most frequently called Emotional Stability, Stability,
Emotionality, or Neuroticism (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel,
1974; John, 1989; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller
et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). Common traits associated with
this factor include being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure. These two dimensions (Extraversion and
Emotional Stability) represent the "Big Two" described by Eysenck over
40 years ago.
The third dimension has generally been interpreted as Agreeableness or Likability (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Goldberg, 1981; Hakel,
1974; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al.,
1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Others have
labeled it Friendliness (Guilford & Zimmerman, 1949), Social Conformity (Fiske, 1949), Compliance versus Hostile Non-Compliance (Digman & Thkemoto-Chock, 1981), or Love (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989).
Traits associated with this dimension include being courteous, flexible,
trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant.
The fourth dimension has most frequently been called Conscientiousness or Conscience (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989;
McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963;), although it
has also been called Conformity or Dependability (Fiske, 1949; Hogan,
1983). Because of its relationship to a variety of educational achievement measures and its association with volition, it has also been called
Will to Achieve or Will (Digman, 1989; Smith, 1967; Wiggins, Blackburn, & Hackman, 1969), and Work (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). As
the disparity in labels suggests, there is some disagreement regarding the
essence of this dimension. Some writers (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Fiske,
1949; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Noller et al., 1987) have suggested that
Conscientiousness reflects dependability; that is, being careful, thorough, responsible, organized, and planful. Others have suggested that
in addition to these traits, it incorporates volitional variables, such as
hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering. Based on the evidence cited by Digman (1990), the preponderance of evidence supports
the definition of conscientiousness as including these volitional aspects
(Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985;
Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & TakemotoChock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug & Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982;
Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989; Norman,
1963; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989; Smith, 1967).
The last dimension has been the most difficult to identify. It has been
interpreted most frequently as Intellect or Intellectence (Borgatta, 1964;

BARRICK AND MOUNT

Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Peabody

and Goldberg, 1989). It has also been called Openness to Experience
(McCrae & Costa, 1985) or Culture (Hakel, 1974; Norman, 1963). Digman (1990) points out that it is most likely all of these. Itaits commonly
associated with this dimension include being imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive.
The emergence of the 5-factor model has important implications for
the field of personnel psychology. It illustrates that personality consists
of five relatively independent dimensions which provide a meaningful
taxonomy for studying individual differences. In anyfieldof science, the
availability of such an orderly classification scheme is essential for the
communication and accumulation of empirical findings. For purposes
of this study, we adopted names and definitions similar to those used
by Digman (1990): Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience.
Expected Relations Between PersonaUty Dimensions and Job Performance

In the present study, we investigate the validity of the five dimensions of personality for five occupational groups (professionals, police,
managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled) and for three types of job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel
data) using meta-analytic methods. We also investigate the validity of
thefivepersonality dimensions for objective versus subjective criteria.
We hypothesize that two of the dimensions of personality. Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability, will be valid predictors of all job
performance criteria for all jobs. Conscientiousness is expected to be
related to job performance because it assesses personal characteristics
such as persistent, planful, careful, responsible, and hardworking, which
are important attributes for accomplishing work tasks in all jobs. There
is some evidence that in educational settings there are consistent correlations between scores on this dimension and educational achievement (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Smith, 1967). Thus, we expect that the validity of this dimension will generalize across all occupational groups and criterion categories. We also expect that the validity
of Emotional Stability will generalize across occupations and criterion
types. Viewing this dimension from its negative pole, we expect that employees exhibiting neurotic characteristics, such as worry, nervousness,
temperamentalness, high-strungness, and self-pity, will tend to be less
successful than more emotionally stable individuals in all occupations
studied because these traits tend to inhibit rather than facilitate the accomplishment of work tasks.

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

We expect that other personality dimensions may be related to job

performance, but only for some occupations or some criteria. For example, in those occupations that involve frequent interaction or cooperation with others, we expect that two personality dimensions, Extraversion and Agreeableness, will be valid predictors. These two dimensions
should be predictive of performance criteria for occupations such as
management and sales, but would not be expected to be valid predictors for occupations such as production worker or engineer.
In a similar vein, we expect that Openness to Experience will be a
valid predictor of one of the performance criteria, training proficiency.
This dimension is expected to be related to training proficiency because it
assesses personal characteristics such as curious, broadminded, cultured,
and intelligent, which are attributes associated with positive attitudes
toward learning experiences. We believe that such individuals are more
likely to be motivated to learn upon entry into the training program and,
consequently, are more likely to benefit from the training.
Finally, we investigated a research question of general interest to personnel psychologists for which we are not testing a specific hypothesis.
The question is whether the validity coefficients for the five personality
dimensions diflfer for two types of criteria, objective and subjective. A
recent meta-analysis by Nathan and Alexander (1988) indicates that, in
general, there is no difference between the magnitude of the validities
for cognitive ability tests obtained for objective and subjective criteria for
clerical jobs. In another study, Schmitt et al. (1984) investigated the validity of personality measures (across dimensions and occupations) for
different types of criteria, but no definitive conclusions were apparent
from the data. The average validity for the subjective criterion (performance ratings) was .206. Validities for three of four objective criteria
were lower (.121 for turnover, .152 for achievement/grades, and .126 for
status change), whereas the validity was higher for wages (.268). Thus,
conclusions regarding whether the validities for personality measures are
higher for objective, compared to subjective, criteria depend to a large
extent on which objective measures are used. Because our study examines personality using a 5-factor model, we are able to assess whether
dimensions have differential relationships to various objective and subjective criteria.
In summary, the following hypotheses will be tested in this study.
Of thefivedimensions of personality. Conscientiousness and Emotional
Stability are expected to be valid predictors of job performance for all
jobs and all criteria because Conscientiousness measures those personal
characteristics that are important for accomplishing work tasks in all
jobs, while Emotional Stability (when viewed from the negative pole)
measures those characteristics that may hinder successful performance.

BARRICK AND MOUNT

In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate

with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, because interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants
of success in those occupations. Finally, Openness to Experience is expected to correlate with one of the criterion types, training proficiency,
because Openness to Experience appears to assess individuals' readiness
to participate in learning experiences. In addition, we investigated the
validity of various objective and subjective criteria for thefivepersonality
dimensions.
Method
Literature Review
A literature search was conducted to identify published and unpublished criterion-related validity studies of personality for selection purposes between 1952 and 1988. Three strategies were used to search
the relevant literature. First, a computer search was done of PsycINFO
(1967-1988) and Dissertation Abstracts (1952-1988) in order to find all
references to personality in occupational selection. Second, a manual
search was conducted that consisted of checking the sources cited in the
reference section of literature reviews, articles, and books on this topic,
as well as personality inventory manuals, Buros Tests in Print (volumes 49,1953-1985), and journals that may have included such articles (including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Academy of
Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes/Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Journal of Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Journal of Personality, and Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology). Finally, personality test publishers and over 60 practitioners known to utilize personalify inventories in selection contexts were
contacted by letter, requesting their assistance in sending or locating additional published or unpublished validation studies.
Overall, these searches yielded 231 criterion-related validify studies,
117 of which were acceptable for inclusion in this analysis. The remaining 114 studies were excluded for several reasons: 44 reported results
for interest and value inventories only and were excluded because they
did not focus on the validity of personality measures; 24 used composite
scores or, conversely, extracted specific items from difi^erent scales and
instruments; 19 reported only significant validity coefficients; 15 used
military or laboratory "subjects"; and 12 either were not selection studies or provided insufficient information.

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

A total of 162 samples were obtained from the 117 studies. Sample
sizes ranged from 13 to 1,401 (M = 148.11; SD = 185.79), yielding a total
sample of 23,994. Thirty-nine samples were reported in the 1950s, 52 in
the 1960s, 33 in the 1970s, and 38 in the 1980s. Fifty samples (31%) were
collected from unpublished sources, most of which were unpublished
dissertations.
The studies were categorized intofivemajor occupational groupings
and three criterion types. The occupational groups were professionals
(5% of the samples), which consisted of engineers, architects, attorneys,
accountants, teachers, doctors, and ministers; police (13% of the samples); managers (41% of the samples), which ranged from foremen to
top executives; sales (17% of the samples); and skilledlsemi-skilled (24%
of the samples), which consisted of jobs such as clerical, nurses aides,
farmers, flight attendants, medical assistants, orderlies, airline baggage
handlers, assemblers, telephone operators, grocery clerks, truck drivers,
and production workers.
The three criterion types were fob proficiency (included in 68% of the
samples), training proficiency (12% of the samples), and personnel data
(33% of the samples). It should be noted that in 21 samples, data were
available from two of the three criterion categories, which explains why
the total percent of sample for the three criterion types exceeds 100%.
Similarly, the total sample size on which these analyses are based will be
larger than those for analyses by occupation. Job proficiency measures
primarily included performance ratings (approximately 85% of the measures) as well as productivity data; training proficiency measures consisted mostly of training performance ratings (approximately 90% of the
measures) in addition to productivity data, such as work sample data and
time to complete training results; and personnel data included data from
employeefiles,such as salary level, turnover, status change, and tenure.
Key variables of interest in this study were the validity coefficients,
sample sizes, range restriction data for those samples, reliability estimates for the predictors and criteria, the personality scales (and the inventories used), and the types of occupations. A subsample of approximately 25% of the studies was selected to assess interrater agreement
on the coding of the key variables of interest. Agreement was 95% for
these variables and disagreement between coders was resolved by referring back to the original study.
Scales from all the inventories were classified into thefivedimensions
defined earlier (i.e., Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) or a sixth Miscellaneous dimension. The personality scales were categorized into these dimensions by six trained raters. Five of these raters had received Ph.D.s in

BARRICK AND MOUNT

psychology (three were practicing consulting psychologists with responsibilities for individual assessment; the other two were professors of psychology and human resources management, respectively, and both had
taught personnel selection courses) and the other taught similar courses
while completing his Ph.D. in human resources management and was
very familiar with the literature on personality. A short training session
was provided to the raters to familiarize them with the rating task and
examples were provided. The description of thefivefactors provided to
the raters corresponded to those presented by Digman (1990) and as described above. Raters were provided a list of the personality scales and
their definitions for each inventory and were instructed to assign each
to the dimension to which it best fit. A sixth category. Miscellaneous,
was used in those cases where the scale could not be assigned clearly
into one of the five categories. If at least five of the six raters agreed
on a dimension, the scale was coded in that dimension. If four of the
six raters agreed and the two authors' ratings (completed independently
of the raters) agreed with the raters, the scale was coded into that dimension. If three or fewer raters agreed, the scale was coded into the
Miscellaneous dimension. At leastfiveof six raters agreed in 68% of the
cases, four of six raters agreed in 23% of the cases, and three or fewer
raters agreed on 9% of the cases. Of the 191 scales, 39 were categorized
as representing Emotional Stability; 32 as Extraversion; 31 as Openness
to Experience; 29 as Agreeableness; 32 as Conscientiousness; 28 as Miscellaneous. (A list of the inventories, their respective scales, and dimensional category assigned are available from the first author.) It should
be noted that an alternative method for assigning the scales would be to
use empirical data, such as factor analyses of inventories or correlations
among scales from different inventories. However, we were unable to
locate sufficient factor analytic studies or correlational data to allow us
to use these approaches because in both cases data was available for only
about half of the variables.
To arrive at an overall validity coefficient for each scale from an inventory, the following decision rules were applied in situations where
more than one validity coefficient was reported from a sample: (a) If an
overall criterion was provided, that coefficient was used and (b) when
multiple criteria were provided, they were assigned to the appropriate
criterion category (job proficiency, training proficiency, or personnel
data). If there were multiple measures from a criterion category, the
coefficients were averaged. However, because our analyses focused on
personality dimensions rather than individual personality scales (from
various inventories), the following decision rules were applied to establish the validity coefficient for each personality dimension from a sample:
(a) If a personality dimension had only one scale categorized into that

10

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

dimension for that sample, the overall validify coefficient from that scale
(calculated as previously explained) was used and (b) if multiple scales
were available for a dimension, the coefficients from each of these scales
from that sample were averaged and the resulting average validify coefficient was used in all analyses.
A number of analyses were conducted. The first was an analysis of
the validities for the five personalify dimensions for each occupational
group (across criterion types). The second was an analysis of personalify
dimensions for the three criterion types (across occupations). The final
analysis investigated the validify of the dimensions for objective versus
subjective criteria (across occupations and criterion fypes).
The meta-analytic procedure adopted in this study used the formulas available in Hunter and Schmidt (1990)-' and corrected the mean and
variance of validify coefficients across studies for artifactual variance due
to sampling error, range restriction, and attenuation due to measurement error. However, because the vast majorify of studies did not report
information on range restriction and measurement error, particularly
predictor reliabilities, it was necessary to use artifact distributions to estimate artifactually induced variance on the validify coefficients (Hunter
& Schmidt, 1990).
Because reliabilify coefficients for predictors were only rarely presented in the validify studies, the distributions were based upon information obtained from the inventories' manuals. The mean of the predictor
reliabilify distribution was .76 (SD = .08). Similarly, because information for the criterion reliabilities was available in less than one-third of
the studies, we developed an artifact distribution for criterion reliabilities based on data provided by Hunter, Schmidt, and Judiesch (1990) for
productivify data (with a mean of .92, SD = .05) and Rothstein (1990) for
performance ratings (with a mean of .52, SD = .05). It should be noted,
however, that 30 studies included criteria which were categorized as personnel data. For these criteria (e.g., turnover, tenure, accidents, wages,
etc.), reliabilify estimates were unknown because no estimates have been
provided in the literature. Therefore, the artifact distributions for criterion reliabilities did not include reliabilify estimates for these criteria.
Thus, for the objective versus subjective analysis, the productivity and
performance rating artifact distributions were used in each analysis, respectively, for each personalify dimension. For all other analyses, the
two criterion distributions were combined (with a mean value of .56, SD
= .10). Finally, the artifact distribution for range restriction data was
based upon those studies that reported both restricted and unrestricted
^All analyses were conducted using a microcomputer program developed by Frank
Schmidt and reported in Hunter and Schmidt, 1990.

BARRICK AND MOUNT

11

Standard deviation data (i.e., from accepted and rejected applicants).

The effects on the mean validities due to range restriction were relatively
small because the mean range restriction was .94 (SD = .05).
As previously stated, the Schmidt-Hunter non-interactive validity
generalization procedure (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) was applied to the
data for assumed (predictors and criteria) and sample-based artifact distributions (range restriction). (These distributions are available from the
first author.) However, because the purpose of our study is to enhance
theoretical understanding of the five personality constructs, we present
fully corrected correlations that correct for unreliability in the predictor
as well as the criterion.
Finally, there has been some confusion regarding the use and interpretation of confidence and credibility values in meta-analysis (Whitener,
1990). The confidence interval is centered around the sample-size
weighted mean effects sizes (r, before being corrected for measurement
error or range restriction) and is used to assess the influence of sampling
error on the uncorrected estimate. In contrast, the credibility value is
centered around the estimated true score correlations (generated from
the corrected standard deviation) and is used to assess the influence of
moderators. Our purpose in the present study is to understand the true
score correlations between the personality dimensions and job performance criteria for different occupations and to assess the presence of
moderators. Therefore, the focus in this study is on p and the corresponding credibility values.
Results
Analysis by Occupational Group

The number of correlations upon which the meta-analysis is based is

shown in Table 1 for the five personality dimensions, five occupational
types, and three criterion types. It can be seen that the frequencies differ
substantially from cell to cell. For example, the number of correlations
for the job proficiency criterion is generally larger for all personality
dimensions and occupations than for the other criterion types. It can also
be seen that the number of correlations for the management occupation
is greater than for the other occupations. The table also shows that
for some cells there are two or fewer correlations for professionals and
sales for the training proficiency criterion, and for professionals and
police for the personnel data criterion. Consequently, we were unable to

12

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 1
Call Frequencies of Correlations for Personality Dimensions,
Occupational Groups, and Criterion Types

Occupational group
Job proficiency
Professionals
Police
Managers
Sales
Skilled/Semi-skilled
Training proficiency
Professionals
Police
Managers
Sales
Skilled/Semi-skilled
Personnel data
Professionals
Police
Managers
Sales
Skilled/Semi-skilled

Extraversion

Personality dimensions
Emotional Agree- Conscienstability
ableness tiousness

Openness to
experience

4
10
29
16
16

5
12
26
14
15

7
8
25
11
17

6
12
25
17
16

4
8
19
8
10

0
6
9
1
3

0
6
10
1
4

0
6
9
I
4

0
5
10
1
3

0
5
7
I
1

0
0
21
5
4

0
0
19
4
7

0
0
13
4
5

0
2
17
3
6

0
0
11
3
5

analyze the data using the 3-way categorization (personalify dimension

by occupational type by criterion fype).
Table 2 presents the results of the meta-analysis for the five personalify dimensions across the occupational groups (professionals, police,
managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled labor). The first six columns
of the table contain, respectively, the total sample size, the number of
correlation coefficients on which each distribution was based, the uncorrected (i.e., observed) mean validify, the estimated true correlation
(p), the estimated true residual standard deviation (SDp), and the lower
bound of the 90% credibilify value for each distribution, based on its true
correlation and SDp estimates. The true SDp is the square root of the
variance that was not attributed to the four artifacts (i.e., sampling error
and between-study differences in test unreliabilify, criterion unreliabilify, and degree of range restriction), after correcting for those artifacts.
The last column in Table 2 reports the percentage of observed variance
that was accounted for by the four artifacts.
As shown in Table 2, the correlations for the occupational categories
differed across the five personalify dimensions. Consistent with our hypothesis, the Conscientiousness dimension was a valid predictor for all
occupational groupings. It can be seen that the estimated true score correlations are noticeably larger for Conscientiousness compared to the

BARRICK AND MOUNT

13

TABLE 2
Meta-Analysis Results for Personality Dimension-Occupation
Combinations (all Criterion Types Included)
Occupational group

Total N

Number Obs
of r's
r

SDp

90% % Variance
C.V accounted

Extraversion
Professionals
476
1,496
Police
Managers
11,335
Sales
2,316
Skilled/Semi-Skilled
3,888
Mean (across occupations)

4
16
59
22
23

-.05 -.09
.05 .09
.11 .18
.09 .15
.01 .01
.08 .13

.05
.00
.13
.16
.08
.11

-.03
.09
.01
-.05
-.10
-.01

92
127
48
54
72
69

Emotional stability
Professionals
518
Police
1,697
10,324
Managers
Sales
2,486
Skilled/ Semi-Skilled
3,694
Mean (across occupations)

5
18
55
19
26

-.07 -.13
.06 .10
.05 .08
.04 .07
.05 .12
.05 .08

.04
.00
.09
.19
.10
.10

-.07
.10
-.04
-.18
-.06
-.05

92
138
65
38

Agreeableness
Professionals
Police
Managers
Sales
Skilled/Semi-Skilled
Mean (across occupations)

557
1,437
8,597
2,344
4,585

7
14
47
16
28

.01
.06
.05
.00
.04
.04

.02
.10
.10
.00
.06
.07

0
.02
0
.10
.03
.06
.24 -.31
.17 -.16
.09 -.05

158
121
94

Conscientiousness
Professionals
767
Police
2,045
Managers
10,058
Sales
2,263
Skilled/Semi-Skilled
4,588
Mean (across occupations)

6
19
52
21
25

.11
.13
.13
.09
.12
.13

.20
.22
.22
.23
.21
.22

.00
.20
.20 -.03
.10
.09
.00
.23
.09
.09
.09
.10

106
40
64
150
67

Openness to experience
Professionals
Police
Managers
Sales
Skilled/Semi-Skilled
Mean (across occupations)

4
13
37
12
16

476
1,364
7,611
1,566
3,219

-.05 -.08 .04 -.03

.00 .00 .00
.00
.05 .08 .16 -.12
-.01 -.02 .16
.18
.01 .01 .12 -.15
.03 .04 .13
.13

50
63

25
37
54

70
94
181
37
46
49
59

An unbiased estimate of mean percentage of variance accounted for across metaanalyses, calculated by taking the reciprocal of the average of reciprocals of individual
predicted to observed variance ratios (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).

Other personality dimensions and are remarkably consistent across the

five occupational groups (p ranges from .20 to .23).

14

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Very little support was found for the hypothesis regarding Emotional
Stability. Compared to the Conscientiousness dimension, the correlations for Emotional Stability are lower (p ranges from -.13 to .12). In
fact, for professionals the relationship was in the opposite direction predicted (p = -.13).
It was also hypothesized that Extraversion and Agreeableness would
be valid predictors for the two occupations involving interpersonal skills,
managers and sales representatives. This hypothesis was supported for
Extraversion for both occupations (p = .18 and .15, respectively). However, very little support was obtained for Agreeableness, as p = .10 for
managers and .00 for sales. With respect to the other dimensions, the
remaining true score correlations reported in the table were quite low
(i.e., p = .10 or less).
Analysis by Criteria Type

Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients for the five personality dimensions for the three criterion types. Consistent with our hypothesis. Conscientiousness is a valid predictor for each of the three criterion types. As was the case with the occupational analysis in Table 2,
the results for Conscientiousness are quite consistent across the criterion types (p ranges from .20 to .23). As reported, the correlations are
generally higher than for the other personality dimensions. Also consistent with our hypothesis. Openness to Experience predicted the training
proficiency criterion relatively well (p = .25). Interestingly, Extraversion
was also a significant predictor of training proficiency (p = .26). Most
of the remaining correlations for the three criterion types are relatively
small (i.e., p = .10 or less).
Analysis by Objective and Subjective Criteria

Table 4 shows the validity of the five personality dimensions for criteria categorized as objective and subjective. It should be noted that this
analysis is different from that reported in Table 3 because two of the three
criterion types contain some objective and subjective measures. First, it
can be seen that the subjective criteria are used about twice as frequently
as objective criteria. Second, the estimated true score correlations are
generally higher for subjective, compared to objective, criteria. In fact,
only one objective criterion, status change, has true score correlations
equal to or larger than the subjective ratings for four of the personality dimensions. For the fifth personality dimension. Conscientiousness,
the estimated true correlations for the subjective criteria are higher (p
= .23) than for all objective criteria (p ranges from .12 to .17).

15

BARRICK AND MOUNT

TABLE 3
Meta-Analysis Results for Personality Dimension and Criteria
(Pooled Across Occupational Groups)
Criterion type

Total N

Number
of r's

SDp

90%
C.V.

% Variance
accounted

Extraversion
Job proficiency
Ti-aining proficiency
Personnel data
Mean (across criteria)

12,396
3,101
6,477

89
17
33

.10
.26
.11
.13

.10
.14
.18
.13

-.03
.08
-.12
-.01

69
49
33

Emotional stability
Job proficiency
Training proficiency
Personnel data
Mean (across criteria)

47

11,635
3,283
5,644

.11

.05
.05

.07
.07
.09
.08

.16
.10

-.07
.07
-.11
-.05

64
120
38
60

Agreeableness
Job proficiency
TVaining proficiency
Personnel data
Mean (across criteria)

80
19
26

.04
.06
.08
.04

.06
.10
.14
.07

.14
0
.11
.10

-.12
.10
.00
-.05

49
134
59
68

92
17
32

.13
.13
.11
.13

.23
.23
.22

.10
.15
.10
.10

.10
.04
.07
.08

70
41
71
57

-.02 -.03
.14
.25
.01
.01
.03
.04

.04
.16
.15
.09

.00
.05
-.18
-.02

Obs
r

.06
.15
.06
08

87
19
29

.04

11,526
3,685
4,474

Conscientiousness
Job proficiency
Raining proficiency
Personnel data
Mean (across criteria)

12,893
3,585
6,175

Openness to experience
Job proficiency
Raining proficiency
Personnel data
Mean (across criteria)

9,454
2,700
3,785

55
14
22

.04

.20

93
40
44

51

An unbiased estimate of mean percentage of variance accounted for across metaanalyses, calculated by taking the reciprocal of the average of reciprocals of individual
predicted to observed variance ratios (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).

We conducted additional analyses of the correlation coeflicients by

personality dimensions, criterion types, and occupational subgroups.
Data from these analyses are not reported here (though available upon
request) because for many of the subgroup categories there were too few
validity studies. Overall, however, the results for those subcategories
where data were available do not alter the conclusions reported above.
A key outcome in any meta-analysis of selection studies is the amount
of variation in the validities that is attributed to different situations. For
a majority of the analyses reported in Tables 2, 3, and 4, the percentage
of variance accounted for by the four statistical artifacts (i.e., sampling

16

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 4
Meta-Analysis Results for Personality Dimensions and Objective
and Subjective Criteria (Pooled Across Occupational Groups)
Criterion type

Total N

Extraversion
Productivity data
1,774
1,437
Turnover/Tenure
4,374
Status change
Salary
666
Objective mean (across criteria)
Subjective ratings
12,943
Emotional stability
Productivity data
1,436
Turnover/Tenure
1,495
3,483
Status change
Salary
666
Objective mean (across criteria)
Subjective ratings
12,739
Agreeableness
Productivity data
2,082
TurnoverATenure
1,838
Status change
2,515
Salary
121
Objective mean (across criteria)
Subjective ratings
12,467
Conscientiousness
Productivity data
1,639
2,759
Turnover/Tenure
2,698
Status change
Salary
718
Objective mean (across criteria)
Subjective ratings
14,059
Openness to experience
Productivity data
1,060
Turnover/Tenure
1,628
Status change
1,766
Salary
121
Objective mean (across criteria)
Subjective ratings
10,639

Number Obs
of r's
r

12
13
15
4
93
11
13
12
4
95
15
15
9
2
83
14
19
8
5
94
9
12
5
2
62

90% % Variance

p SDp CV accounted

.07 .10
-.03-.03
.10 .14
.04 .06
.07 .10
.08 .14

.03
.12
.16
.08
.11
.14

.06
.12
-.06
-.04
-.04
-.05

95
52
31
68

52
52

-.03 -.04 .14 -.14

.01 .02 .17 -.20
.08 .11 .11 -.03
-.01 -.01 0 -.01
.04 .05 .12 -.10
.05 .09 .07 .00

45
37
38
181
49"
83

-.03 -.05 .23 .24

.06 .09 0 .09
.09 .13 .13 -.04
-.01 -.02 0 -.02
.04 .05 .14 -.13
.05 .09 .08 -.01

28
129
30
143
48""
76

.17
.02
.10
.14
.10
.n

176
47
88
97
82
60

.00 .01 0 .01

- . 0 8 - . 1 1 .06 -.03
.09 .12 0 .12
.04 .05 0 .05
.01 .02 .09 -.10
.02 .04 .16 -.16

161
80
119
120
113
42

.10
.09
.11
.13
.10
.15

.17
.12
.15
.17
.14
.26

0
.08
.04
.02
.03
.12

An unbiased estimate of mean percentage of variance accounted for across metaanalyses, calculated by taking the reciprocal of the average of reciprocals of individual
predicted to observed variance ratios (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).

error and between-study differences in test unreliability, criterion unreliability, and degree of range restriction) failed to exceed the 75% rule
(Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). This suggests that differences in correlations
may exist across subpopulations.

BARRICK AND MOUNT

17

Discussion

This study differs from previous studies by using an accepted taxonomy to study the relation of personality to job performance criteria. The
results illustrate the benefits of using this classification scheme to communicate and accumulate empirical findings. Using this taxonomy, we
were able to show that there are differential relations between the personality dimensions and occupations and performance criteria.
Before discussing the substantive findings, a comment is in order
regarding the relatively small observed and true score correlations obtained in this study. We would like to re-emphasize that our purpose
was not to determine the overall validity of personality; in fact, we question whether such an analysis is meaningful. Rather, the purpose was to
increase our understanding of the way the Big Five personality dimensions relate to selected occupational groups and criterion types.
It is likely that the purpose and methodology used in the present
study, both of which differ from other reviews, may have contributed
to the lower correlations. For example, in the present study, only those
samples that reported zero-order correlations for all scales from an inventory were included in the analysis. Studies were excluded if they reported composite validities or reported only those scales with significant
correlations. Thus, the results for each of thefivedimensions are based
on the average of the correlations between personality scales and job
performance criteria. Further, for those studies reporting multiple measures for each dimension, an average correlation was used in the metaanalysis, rather than a composite score correlation (which adjusts the
average correlation by the sum of the covariances among the measures
incorporated in the average estimate). Use of the composite score correlation always results in a mean validity estimate larger in size than that
resulting from the average correlation (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). However, because intercorrelations among personality scales or dimensions
were generally not reported (even inventory manuals report only a few
intercorrelations), it was not possible to use the composite score correlation in this analysis. A better estimate of the validity of a personality
dimension would be provided by combining all scales measuring a single dimension into a predictor composite. Doing this would provide a
better measure of the predictive validity of the construct in question.
Therefore, in interpreting the results of this study, the reader should focus on understanding which dimensions are the best predictors for specific occupations and criterion types rather than on the magnitude of the
validities because they are underestimates.
The most significantfindingin the study relates to the Conscientiousness dimension. It was found to be a consistently valid predictor for all

18

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

occupational groups studied and for all criterion types. Thus, this aspect of personality appears to tap traits which are important to the accomplishment of work tasks in all jobs. That is, those individuals who
exhibit traits associated with a strong sense of purpose, obligation, and
persistence generally perform better than those who do not. Similar findings have been reported in educational settings where correlations between scores on this dimension and educational achievement (Digman &
Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Smith, 1967) and vocational achievement (Takemoto, 1979) have consistently been reported in the range of .50 to .60.
Further evidence that this dimension is a valid predictor of job performance is found in two studies conducted as part of the U.S. Army Selection and Classification Study (Project A) (Hough, Hanser, & Eaton
1988; McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990). Two of
the personality constructs. Achievement Orientation and Dependability,
were found to be valid predictors of job performance measures in both
studies. Although the relationship of the personality constructs investigated by the researchers to the 5-factor taxonomy was not specified, it
appears that these two constructs (Achievement/Achievement Orientation and Dependability) are aspects of the Conscientiousness dimension
as defined earlier. Achievement taps traits such as planful, organized,
persistent, and hardworking, whereas Dependability assesses traits such
as careful, thorough, and responsible.
An important area of future research suggested by these results is
to further delineate the boundaries of the Conscientiousness dimension.
There is some disagreement among researchers about the precise meaning of this construct. Some define it in terms of responsibility or dependability (e.g., Hogan, 1986), whereas others view it as also including
volitional aspects, such as hardworking, persistent, and achievementoriented (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Krug & Johns, 1986;
McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989). It is not likely that there will ever
be complete agreement among researchers regarding the content of this
or any of the other dimensions. However, results of recent studies by
researchers in the field of personality psychology, in wfiich scales from
personality inventories are factor analyzed and assessed via the 5-factor
model, may yield valuable insight into the content of the Conscientiousness dimension (and the four others as well) (McCrae, 1989).
Another area of research suggested by these results is to investigate
whether measures of Conscientiousness should be incorporated into theories which attempt to account for work performance. For example.
Hunter (1983) has shown that cognitive ability has an indirect effect on
supervisory ratings of performance through its effects on the acquisition
of job knowledge, which in turn impacts work sample performance. In

BARRICK AND MOUNT

19

view of the relatively low correlation between Conscientiousness and

cognitive ability (McCrae, 1989), it seems plausible that this aspect of
personality may account for unique variance in the acquisition of job
knowledge and (therefore) in job performance. Of course, an important
issue is whether the effects of Conscientiousness on job perfonnance are
direct or indirect, or both, and whether the resulting model would generalize to different occupations. We believe that this is a fertile area for
future research.
Consistent with our hypotheses, Extraversion was a valid predictor
(across the criterion types) for two occupations, managers and sales. For
both types of jobs, interaction with others is a significant portion of the
job. Thus traits such as sociable, gregarious, talkative, assertive, and
active would lead to effective performance in these jobs, whereas these
traits would be less important in jobs such as skilled/semi-skilled (e.g.,
secretaries, orderlies, assemblers, accountants, production workers) and
professionals (e.g., engineers, architects). In both of these cases, however, the estimated true score correlations are less than .20.
The results with respect to Openness to Experience suggest some
fruitful areas for future research. This personality construct was found
to be a valid predictor of one of the criterion categories, training proficiency, but not for the other two, job proficiency or personnel data.
One possible explanation of thesefindingsis that individuals who score
high on this dimension (e.g., intelligent, curious, broad-minded, and cultured) are more likely to have positive attitudes toward learning experiences in general. Several researchers have shown that a key component
in the success of training programs is the attitude of the individual when
s/he enters the training program. As Goldstein (1986) states, "... it is
also clear that individuals who are motivated upon entry into the training program have an advantage from the very beginning" (p. 70). Research by Ryman and Biersner (1975) supports this, as they found that
scores on a scale designed to measure attitudes of trainees prior to the
training (e.g., "If I have trouble during training I will try harder"; "I will
get more from this training than most people") predicted eventual graduation from a Navy School for Divers. Similarly, Sanders and Vanouzas
(1983) have shown that the attitudes and expectations of the trainees
influence whether or not learning is likely to occur. That is, trainees
who accepted personal responsibility for the learning process and were
willing to participate in discussions, engage in self assessment, and so
forth, were more likely to benefit from the training. Thus, measures
of Openness to Experience may identify which individuals are "training
ready"those who are most willing to engage in learning experiences
and, consequently, may be useful in identifying those who are most likely
to benefit from training programs. As afinalcomment, it should also be

20

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

recognized that this dimension has the highest correlation (uncorrected,

r = .20 to .30) of any of the personality dimensions with measures of
cognitive ability (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Therefore, it is possible that
Openness to Experience is actually measuring ability to learn as well as
motivation to learn.
Similarly, Extraversion was found to predict the training proficiency
criterion relatively well. Although the relationship with Extraversion was
not hypothesized, in retrospect the findings are not surprising, especially
in light of the types of training programs that were used in these studies.
Most required a high energy level among participants and were highly
interactive, such as assessment centers, police academy training, on-thejob training for sales and fiight attendants, and so forth. Because Extraversion assesses traits associated with general activity level (talkative,
active, assertive) and sociability, these relationships would be expected.
As Burris (1976) indicates, based on his review of the literature, research
and experience suggest overwhelmingly that learning is more effective
when the learner is active rather than passive. However, it seems logical that these relations would not exist in training programs that do not
involve social interaction (e.g., lectures, computer assisted instruction,
videotapes). The results for Openness to Experience and Extraversion
suggest that the relation of personality measures to training proficiency
is an important area for future research.
Most of the correlations for Emotional Stability were relatively low.
These findings may be due to a type of range restriction, based on
a "selecting-out" process, which was not accounted for in the present
study. At the extreme, those individuals who are highly neurotic are unable to function effectively on their own and, as a result, are not likely
to be in the labor force. More generally, individuals may have "selfselected out" based on their own interests or perceptions of their emotional stability. Another explanation is that there may not be a linear
relation between Emotional Stability and job performance beyond the
"critically unstable" range. That is, as long as an individual possesses
"enough" Emotional Stability, the predictive value of any differences are
minimized.
Finally, it was interesting to observe that the coefficient for professionals for this dimension was in a negative direction, suggesting that
individuals who are worrying, nervous, emotional, and high-strung are
better performers in these jobs. It is difficult to explain these results, although it is possible that the causal direction may be such that in some
professional jobs pressures related to high performance cause the individuals to display neurotic traits. Given that these results are based on
only five samples, however, they should be interpreted cautiously.

BARRICK AND MOUNT

21

The results for Agreeableness suggest that it is not an important predictor of job performance, even in those jobs containing a large social
component (e.g., sales or management). Such results are in contrast with
the other socially based personality dimension, Extraversion. Thus, it appears that being courteous, trusting, straight forward, and soft-hearted
has a smaller impact on job performance than being talkative, active, and
assertive.
An issue of general interest to many personnel psychologists is
whether objective measures of job performance result in different validity results than subjective criteria, particularly because objective and
subjective measures often cannot be treated as substitutes for one another (Heneman, 1986). In general, for thefivepersonality dimensions,
the true score correlations for subjective criteria were larger than for objective criteria. However, for one objective measure, status change, the
correlations were equal to or larger than subjective measures for four of
thefivepersonality dimensions.
However, for one dimension. Conscientiousness, the correlations for
all objective criteria were smaller than for the subjective ratings. This result is particularly intriguing because this dimension was found to be the
most predictive personality dimension in this study. A possible explanation for the lower correlations is that the objective criteria are contaminated or deficient, or both. An alternative explanation is that the subjective measures may be susceptible to bias resulting from the individual's
personality. For example, Hogan (in press) suggests that one meaning
of personality refers to a person's social reputation; that is to the manner in which he or she is perceived by friends, co-workers, and supervisors. Viewed in this way, personality concerns the amount of esteem,
regard, and status accorded by his or her social groups. Thus, according
to Hogan, reputations summarize what individuals say about a person's
past behaviors and may be used to forecast future performance or, at
least, what others are likely to say about a person's future behavior. The
higher correlations for the subjective criteria in the present study suggest
that one's reputation may infiuence judgments of performance.
The results of the present study have implications for both research
and practice in personnel selection. From a practitioner's standpoint,
the results suggest that if the purpose is to predict job performance based
on an individual's personality, then those measures associated with Conscientiousness are most likely to be valid predictors for all jobs. In fact,
it is difficult to conceive of a job in which the traits associated with the

22

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Conscientiousness dimension would not contribute to job success. Interestingly, this dimension, which measures traits such as planful, organized, hardworking, persistent, and achievement oriented, has been labeled Work by Peabody and Goldberg (1989) in recognition that these
personality traits are closely related to the performance of work tasks.
Of course this does not preclude the possibility that some measures
from other personality dimensions may predict job performance. For example, Hogan and Hogan (1989) developed and validated a personality
instrument called Employee Reliability, which was composed of relevant
measures from the five personality dimensions studied in this analysis.
A large component of this instrument was associated with dependability
and carefulness, traits which are representative of the Conscientiousness
dimension in the present study. Thus, their finding that the Employee
Reliability instrument was a valid predictor of job performance criteria (in addition to counterproductive work behaviors) is consistent with
the results of the present study. Taken together, these results further
strengthen the conclusion that the most predictive measures of personality are those that emphasize traits associated with the Conscientiousness
dimension. (For another example, the reader is directed to the Work
Orientation Scale developed by Gough (1985), based on items from multiple scales of the CPI).
In retrospect, it is not surprising that the overall validity of personality measures has been found to be relatively low. As one example, the
MMPI is often seen as the prototypical personality inventory. However,
a fact that cannot be overlooked is that the MMPI was not designed to
predict job performance in normal populations. Thus, findings that the
MMPI is a relatively poor predictor of job performance would be expected, based on the results of this study, because most scales on the
MMPI measure Emotional Stability and none measure Conscientiousness directly (based on the classifications made by the raters in this study
and based on factor analyses of the MMPI by Johnson, Null, Butcher, &
Johnson, 1984). Thus, the results of the present study are also useful in
explaining why some personality inventories are likely to be better predictors of job performance than others.
Of interest to those in the training and development field are the
findings that two of the personality dimensions. Openness to Experience
and Extraversion, are related to performance in training programs. Very
little research has investigated the relation of individual measures of personality to measures of training readiness and training success. Perhaps
future research and practice in the training and development field will
be stimulated by the availability of a classification scheme for organizing
individual differences in personality.

BARRICK AND MOUNT

23

In summary, in order for any fleld of science to advance, it is necessary to have an accepted classiflcation scheme for accumulating and
categorizing empirical flndings. We believe that the robustness of the
5-factor model provides a meaningful framework for formulating and
testing hypotheses relating individual differences in personality to a wide
range of criteria in personnel psychology, especially in the subflelds of
personnel selection, performance appraisal, and training and development.
REFERENCES
Bernstein IH, Garbin CP, McClellan PG. (1983). A confirmatory factoring of the California
Psychological Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 687-691.
Bond MH, Nakazato HS, Shiraishi D. (1975). Universality and distinctiveness in dimensions of Japanese person perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 346355.
Borgatta EE (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 12,
8-17.
Botwin MD, Buss DM. (1989). Structure of act-report data: Is the five-factor model of
personality recaptured? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56, 988-1001.
Briggs SR. (1989). The optimal level of measurement for personality constructs. In Buss
DM, Cantor N (Eds.), Personality Psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Burris RW. (1976). Human Learning. In Dunnette MD. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. Chicago, Rand McNally.
Cattell RB. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 38, 476-506.
Cattell RB. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY: World
Book.
Cattell RB. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12,197-220.
Cattell RB. (1948). The primary personality factors in women compared with those in
men. British Journal of Psychology, 1,114-130.
Conley JJ. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multimethodmultioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49,1266-1282.
Costa PT Jr., McCrae RR. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.
Digman JM. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility.
Journal of Personality, 57,195-214.
Digman JM. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41,417-440.
Digman JM, Inouye J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.
Digman JM, Takemoto-Chock NK. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-Analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 16,149-170.
Fiske DW. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Ghiselli EE. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection, PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 26, 4 6 1 ^ 7 7 .

24

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Goldberg LR. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in
personality lexicons. In Wheeler L. (Ed.), Review of PersonaUty and Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-166). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Goldstein IL. (1986). Trainingin Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gough HG. (1985). A work orientation scale for the California Psychological Inventory.
Journal of Applied Psychotogy, 70,505-513.
Guilford JP, Zimmerman WS. (1949). The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply.
Guion RM, Gottier RF. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 18, 135-164.

Hakel MD. (1974). Normative personality factors recovered from ratings of personality
descriptors: The beholder's eye. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 27,409-421.

Heneman RL. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented
measures of performance: A meta-analysis. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 59, 811-826.
Hogan R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Page MM. (Ed.), Personalitycurrent theory & research: Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan R. (1986). Manual for the Hogan Personality Inventory. Minneapolis: National
Computer Systems.
Hogan R. (In press). Personality and personality measurement. In Dunnette MD. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hogan J, Hogan R. (1989). How to measure reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
273-279.
Hough LM, Hanser LM, Eaton NK. (1988). Literature review: Utility of temperament,
biodata, and interest assessment for predicting job peiformance. Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Army, Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI research
note 88-02).
Howarth E. (1976). Were Cattell's 'personality sphere' factors correctly identified in the
first instance? British Journal of Psychology, 67, 213-230.
Hunter JE. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge, job performance,
and supervisory ratings. In Landy F, Zedeck S, Cleveland J (Eds.), Performance
Measurement and Theory (pp. 257-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in
research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Judiesch MK. (1990). Individual differences in output as a function of job complexity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,28^2.
John OP. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In Buss DM, Cantor
N (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Johnson JH, Null C, Butcher JN, Johnson KN. (1984). Replicated item level factor analysis
of the full MMPI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,105-114.
Krug SE, Johns EF. (1986). A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality
structure defined by the 16PF Psychological Reporis, 59, 683-693.
Lei H, Skinner HA. (1982). What difference does language make? Structural analysis of
the personality research form. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 33-46.
Livneh H, Livneh C. (1989). The five-factor model of personality: Is evidence for its crossmedia premature? Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 75-80.
Locke EA, Hulin CL. (1962). A review and evaluation of the validity studies of activity
vector analysis, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 15, 25-42.

BARRICK AND MOUNT

25

Lorr M, Manning TT. (1978). Higher-order personality factors of the ISI. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 13,3-7.
Lorr M, Youniss RP. (1973). An inventory of interpersonal style. Joumal of Personality
Assessment, 37,165-173.
McCrae RR. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint factor analyses of the
NEO-PI with other instruments. In Buss DM, Cantor N (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. New York: Springer-Verlag.
McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy": Intelligence
and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Joumal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Joumal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52,81-90.
McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggin's circumplex and the five-factor model. Joumal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56,
586-595.
McDougall W. (1932). Of the words character and personality. Character Personality, 1,
3-16.
McHenry JJ, Hough LM, Toquam JL, Hanson MA, Ashworth S. (1990). Project A validity
results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains, PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 43, 335-367.
Nathan BR, Alexander RA. (1988). A comparison of criteria for test validation: A metaanalytic investigation, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 41,517-535.

Noller P, Law H, Comrey AL. (1987). Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors
compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? Joumal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 775-782.
Norman WX (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated
factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Joumal of Abnormal &
Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Norman WT, Goldberg LR. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Joumal of Personality & Social Psychology, 4, 681-691.
Peabody D, Goldberg LR. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personalitytrait descriptors. Joumal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57,552-567.
Reilly RR, Chao GT. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection
procedures, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, i 5 , 1 - 6 2 .

Ryman DH, Biersner RJ. (1975). Attitudes predictive of training success, PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 28, 181-188.
Sanders P, Vanouzas JN. (1983). Socialization to learning. Training and Development
Joumal, 37,14-21.
Schmitt N, Gooding RZ, Noe RA, Kirsch M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies
published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 37, 407-422.

Smith GM. (1967). Usefulness of peer ratings of personality in educational research.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 967-984.
Takemoto NK. (1979). The prediction of occupational choice from childhood and adolescent
antecedents. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Tupes EC. (1957). Personality traits related to effectiveness of junior and senior Air Force
officers (USAF Personnel Training Research, No. 57-125). Lackland Airforce Base,
TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory.
Tupes EC, Christal RE. (1961, May). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings
(ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division,
Personnel Laboratory.

26

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Waller NG, Ben-Porath YS. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychology to embrace the fivefactor model of personality? American Psychologist, 42,887-889.
Watson D. (1989). Strangers' ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a
surprising convergence with self-report. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
57,120-128.
Whitener EM. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in MetaAnalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315-321.
Wiggins N, Blackburn M, Hackman JR. (1969). The prediction of first-year success in
psychology: Peer ratings. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 81-85.