Paunonen & Ashton (2001) - Big Five Factors and Facets and The Prediction of Behavior

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2001, Vol. 81, No. 3, 524-539
Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0022-3514/01/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.3.524
Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior

Sampo V. Paunonen
Michael C. Ashton
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of Western Ontario
Brock University
The authors compared the Big 5 factors of personality with the facets or traits of personality that
constitute those factors on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria. Both the broad factors and the
narrow facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the latter did noticeably better in that regard,
even when the number of facet predictors was limited to the number of factor predictors. Moreover, the
criterion variance accounted for by the personality facets often included large portions not predicted by
the personality factors. The narrow facets, therefore, were able to substantially increase the maximum
prediction achieved by the broad factors. The results of this study are interpreted as supporting a more
detailed approach to personality assessment, one that goes beyond the measurement of the Big 5 factors
alone.
Past studies of personality structure have contributed to a voluminous archive of evidence pointing to the conclusion that most of
the personality-based consistencies in behavior can be adequately
explained in terms of the so-called five-factor model. That model
posits that there are exactly five personality dimensions, often
referred to as the Big Five, that play important roles in our
understanding of much of human behavior variation. The Big Five
factors of personality are often labeled Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. They are presumed to represent the topmost level of a
personality hierarchy in which narrower traits and even narrower
behaviors represent the lower levels (e.g., see McCrae & John,
1992; Paunonen, 1998). The Big Five are thought by some to be
universal across cultures (McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, &
Parker, 1998).
The Big Five personality factors continue to enjoy an unprecedented level of interest in personality research and practice. It is
unfortunate, however, that we see an increasing reliance on measures of these five superordinate personality variables to the exclusion of any other variables. Is it possible that some of those
other variables are partly independent of the Big Five and, consequently, might add something to the prediction and understanding
of behavior not achieved by the five factors alone? The purpose of
this empirical study is to answer this question.
Big Five personality factors? First, there may be some personality

traits that are largely independent of the Big Five factors and do
not fit well into the five-factor space. Whether such variables
actually exist is a point of some debate. For example, Saucier and
Goldberg (1998) reviewed data on several putative outliers to the
factor space of the Big Five. Their analysis led them to conclude
that most, if not all, traits of personality can be adequately subsumed within the five-factor model. However, Paunonen and Jackson (2000) have reanalyzed Saucier and Goldberg's data and come
to the opposite conclusion. The former authors concluded that
there are plenty of dimensions of behavior beyond the Big Five.
Moreover, some of these outlier dimensions might even form a
sixth major personality factor (Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000).
Even if there are no other dimensions of personality lying
beyond the sphere of influence of the five-factor model, there are
other variables of personality that might contribute to the prediction and understanding of behavior beyond that achieved by the
Big Five. We refer to the narrow facets of behavior that are
presumed to lie beneath the broad Big Five factors in the personality hierarchy. That is, each higher level personality factor is
thought to comprise several correlated but distinct lower level
dimensions of behavior. These dimensions of behavior, usually
thought of as personality traits or facets, share common elements.
It is those common elements that define the factor of personality
and each variable's communality with that factor. However, those
lower level variables do not correlate perfectly with one another or
with the personality factor. Instead, as has been observed by others
(e.g., Goldberg, 1999; Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, &
Livesley, 1998; Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen, 1998), each
has some amount of specificity or reliable (nonrandom) variance
that is independent of the Big Five. It might well be possible,
therefore, to exploit this specific variance in personality trait
measures for assessment purposes.
Behavior Variation Independent of the Big Five

What are some of those other variables that might represent
aspects of behavior consistency not covered by the domain of the
Sampo V. Paunonen, Department of Psychology, University of Western

Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Michael C. Ashton, Department of
Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grant 410-98-1555.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sampo
V. Paunonen, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada.
There is some debate about whether there is any utility to the

measurement of the narrow constituent facets of the Big Five
factors. Ones and Viswesvaran (1996), for example, have argued
that the measurement of the broad personality factors is sufficient
and is even preferable to the measurement of narrow personality
524
525
BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS
facets in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are situations

in which the criterion measure to be predicted by the personality
measure is also broad and complex, such as job performance in a
typical workplace. Ones and Viswesvaran argued that only broad
personality predictor variables can optimally predict broad criterion variables.
Paunonen, Rothstein, and Jackson (1999) have responded to
Ones and Viswesvaran's (1996) treatise. Paunonen et al.'s argument was, in short, that the specific variance of narrow personality
trait measures can only add to the validity of those measures in the
prediction of criterion variables. Even in the case of broad, complex criteria, the best predictors might well be a few narrow traits
representing different Big Five factors rather than many traits from
a single factor. A variable's communality and specificity are, by
definition, statistically independent and therefore might individually add unique contributions to the prediction and understanding
of behavior. Therefore, it behooves the personality assessor to
measure as much of the reliable personality-based variation in
human behavior as possible. Paunonen et al.'s (1999) conclusions
were supported by Ones and Viswesvaran's (1996) own data (see
also Ashton, 1998; Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995; Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen & Ashton,
2001; Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, & King, 1994).
The purpose of the present study is to further evaluate the
relative contributions of personality factors and personality facets
to the prediction of behavior. Our point of departure is a study by
Paunonen (1998), in which he correlated Big Five factor measures
and lower level personality trait measures with several criteria of
some social significance (e.g., smoking behavior). Paunonen reported results suggesting that the latter measures were generally
better than were the former as criterion predictors. He concluded
that "aggregating personality traits into their underlying personality factors could result in decreased predictive accuracy due to the
loss of trait-specific but criterion-valid variance" (p. 538).
One possible criticism of Paunonen's (1998) study is that he
evaluated many more lower level trait variables than higher level
factor variables in the prediction of each criterion. This gave the
trait variables a predictive edge over the factor variables because
the former had that many more chances (roughly 5 to 1 in that
study) of finding significant (but spurious) levels of correlation.
Although Paunonen was careful to use a Bonferroni correction to
the significance levels of his correlations (correcting for the number of predictors evaluated), an experimental rather than a statistical approach to solving the problem of capitalization on chance
might have been preferred. Such is one of the goals of the present
study.
& Gorsuch, 1988). In this study we used a more theoreticaldeductive approach and had expert judges choose a subset of five
facet scales as predictors for a criterion. In that way we were able
to compare the Big Five broad factors of personality, purportedly
encompassing most of the important personality-based variation in
behavior, with five narrower traits of personality, undoubtedly
accounting for much less behavior variation.
The second notable difference between this study and that of
Paunonen (1998) is in the Big Five factor and facet measures used.
In the previous study, the Big Five factors were measured by the
NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992).
This is a 60-item questionnaire that assesses each factor with
only 12 items. For this study, in contrast, we used the much longer
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae,
1992) to measure the Big Five. That questionnaire has 240 items
that assess each factor with 48 items. Moreover, the NEO-PI-R
contains 30 Big Five facet scales, which can be used in the present
factor-versus-facet comparison of predictive accuracy.
The third major difference between the present study and
Paunonen's (1998) study is in the number of criteria predicted.
Whereas Paunonen used a dozen or so criteria, we use more than
three times as many in this study. Criteria were chosen for both
studies so that they (a) can be argued to be of some social
significance (e.g., blood donations, ability to play musical instruments) and (b) are reasonable candidates for behaviors that have
personality determinants. With regard to this latter point, we
wanted to avoid criterion variables that are simply variants of the
personality predictor variables used (e.g., using peer ratings of
conscientiousness as a criterion for self-reports on a Conscientiousness factor scale or self-ratings on the adjective ambitious as
a criterion for self-reports on an Achievement Striving facet scale).
Method
Participants and Procedure

A total of 141 undergraduate university students (46 men and 95
women) participated in this study for a cash stipend. The students consisted
of 71 pairs of same-sex roommates at a university dormitory. (One of the
students came to the study without her roommate.) Their ages ranged
from 17 to 22 years, with a mean of 19.2.
Participants were tested in groups of 4 to 20 persons (M = 13.8) in two
sessions separated by a week. In the first session they completed a battery
of self-report measures. In the second session additional self-report measures were completed along with a peer rating form. The peer rating form
asked participants to rate their roommates on some of the variables measured by self-ratings in the first testing session. One of the participants
failed to show up to the second session.
Overview of the Present Study
Personality Measures
In this study we administered Big Five factor measures and Big
Five facet measures to respondents along with measures of many
different criterion variables. We then compared the factor measures and the facet measures in terms of their differential abilities
in predicting the criterion variables. Although this is the same
basic procedure as that used by Paunonen (1998), three important
differences should be noted. First, as mentioned earlier, Paunonen
(1998) used many more facet measures of personality than he used
factor measures, increasing the chances of finding large correlations for the former variables by chance alone (see also Mershon
Participants in this study completed two sets of self-report measures of

personality, which could be scored in terms of both lower level personality
traits and higher level personality factors. The first set of measures was
made up of scales from Jackson's (1984) Personality Research Form-E
(PRF) and the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI; Jackson, 1976). The
PRF consists of 20 trait scales and a Desirability Scale of 16 items each,
whereas the JPI has 15 personality trait scales each measured by 20 items.
(Both of these questionnaires also contain infrequency validity scales,
which were not used in our analyses.) The second set of personality scales
was that found in the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). That question-
526
PAUNONEN AND ASHTON
naire consists of 30 lower level facet measures, each of which has been
incorporated into the 240-item inventory because it is strongly associated
with one of the Big Five personality factors.
Criterion Measures
The behavior criteria used in this study, numbering 40 in all, were
measured by a variety of methods. First of all, participants completed the
Behavior Report Form, a short self-report measure first used by Paunonen
(1998) and expanded for this study to include more items. The students also
completed paper-and-pencil tasks designed to assess general knowledge,
quantitative ability, altruism, and monetary risk-taking. Other criterion
measures relied less on participants' self-reports. Experimenters rated each
person on attributes such as questionnaire neatness and physical attractiveness. Each participant was rated by his or her roommate on attributes likely
to be distorted by impression management tendencies in self-report such as
honesty and intelligence. University records were used to obtain gradepoint averages and course enrollment information. Tardiness to the study's
sessions and slowness in completing the experimental tasks were recorded
objectively. The 40 criterion measures are described in more detail in the
following sections and are summarized in Table 1.
Behavior Report Form. Self-rated and peer-rated criterion measures
were obtained using the Behavior Report Form, the pages of which are
reproduced in the Appendix. This form is similar to that used by Paunonen
(1998) but contains several additional items. However, not all of the
Behavior Report Form items were evaluated in the analyses that follow,
and responses to some items were transformed. For example, none of the
participants of this study was a member of a fraternity or sorority (see Item
12), so interest in joining a fraternity was used as a criterion instead of
actual fraternity membership. Because of a concern with impression management and a possible lack of impartiality in rating 5 of the items, we
evaluated roommate or experimenter ratings instead of self-ratings for the
Behavior Report Form measures of attractiveness (Item 1), intelligence
(Item 2), popularity (Item 3), femininity (Item 4), and honesty (Item 6).
(Following Paunonen's, 1998, p. 541, reasoning, we thought self-reports to
be the more accurate indices of behavior on the other Behavior Report
Form items, which mostly involve objective statements of fact.) The first
four ratings of driving behavior (Item 13) were combined into one variable
representing the mean number of all traffic violations per year of driving
experience. The number of prescription medications taken regularly (Item
18) was totaled over the five individual ratings. The ratings of prescription
lens usage (Item 19) were reduced into one score reflecting a preference for
contact lenses (1), glasses (-1), or either (0). Each participant's selfreported weight (in kilograms) and height (in meters) were used to compute
an index of obesity (by dividing weight by height squared). And finally,
some self-ratings were superseded by more objective measures (e.g., university registrar's records of grade-point average replaced Item 7).
Twenty-four criterion variables were derived from the Behavior Report
Form for analysis in this study. These variables, with numbers representing
their locations in Table 1, include the following: (1) roommate rating of
intelligence, (2) roommate rating of popularity, (3) roommate rating of
femininity, (4) roommate rating of honesty, (5) self-rating of religiosity, (6)
number of dates per month, (7) number of different people dated over a
year, (8) 5-point rating of smoking behavior, (9) 5-point rating of alcohol
consumption, (10) 9-point rating of interest in fraternity or sorority membership, (11) mean number of traffic violations per year, (12) maximum
speed driving a car, (13) money spent on lottery tickets per month, (14)
number of parties attended per month, (15) long-term dieting behavior,
(16) total number of prescription medications taken regularly, (17) preference for contacts over glasses as prescription lenses, (18) engaged or not
engaged in part-time employment, (19) ability to play musical instruments,
(20) participation in organized sports, (21) engagement in regular exercise,
(22) gives occasional blood donations, (23) obesity as defined by weight/
height2, and (24) participant sex or gender. (Sex was also used in this study
as a covariate in analyses of the other criteria.)
Other tests. Participants in this study completed paper-and-pencil measures of four attributes that were included in our criterion battery. Two of
these measures comprised scales taken from the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB; Jackson, 1990). The MAB is a timed test of several
distinct cognitive abilities. We extracted the Information and Arithmetic
subscales from that inventory and used those as indices of (25) general
knowledge and (26) numerical ability, respectively. The two other measures were developed specifically for this study as tests of (27) altruism and
(28) low risk taking. In the first case, participants completed a five-item
money allocation task in which each person had to decide, in five hypothetical scenarios, whether to share a certain amount of money with another
person at the expense of keeping a smaller amount of money for him- or
herself. In the second instance, participants completed an eight-item money
wagering task of low risk taking in which each person had to decide, in
eight hypothetical scenarios, on the amount of money he or she was willing
to gamble for a given monetary prize at a given probability of success.
Experimenter ratings. While the students in this study were completing their paper-and-pencil tasks, three experimenters independently observed them and made ratings of their (29) physical attractiveness and (30)
personal neatness. After the students completed the study, three experimenters (two women and one man) also rated their PRF computer-scanned
answer sheets for (31) neatness of the item responses. (The experimenters
were not able to discern the participants' personality scale scores from the
answer sheets.) All three experimenter ratings were then averaged for each
participant and each variable.
University records. Rather than relying on students' self-reports of
grade-point average as a criterion variable (Behavior Report Form Item 7),
we retrieved that information from the university registrar's office. We
used each student's academic record to obtain his or her (32) grade-point
average for the previous year and information about course preferences.
With regard to the latter measures, we counted the number of courses taken
in the previous year within five areas of study: (33) business, (34) social
sciences, (35) humanities, (36) mathematics, and (37) science. We also
obtained Department of Psychology records for those students who had
taken the introductory psychology course. One of the requirements of that
lst-year course is participation in 5 hr of experimental research over the
duration of the year. Several students, however, failed to complete all 5 hr,
and this count was used as (38) an absenteeism from experiments criterion
variable in this study.
Other records. Participants in this study had to sign in as they arrived
for each of the two testing sessions and sign out as they left. Their recorded
arrival order and departure order, averaged over the two testing sessions
and adjusted for group size, were used as indicators of (39) tardiness to
appointments and (40) slowness in completing experimental tasks,
respectively.
Missing data. We had almost complete data on all of our participants
measured on all 40 criterion variables. There were, however, the following
five exceptions. Eleven of the 141 participants in this study did not have a
driver's license, so the sample sizes for the (11) traffic violations and (12)
driving fast criteria were N = 130. For the (17) preference for contact
lenses criterion, data were available only for those students who had
corrected vision, 56 students in all. For the (28) unwillingness to gamble
criterion, an oversight meant that the measure was administered to only 104
of the 141 participants. Also, for the criterion of (38) absenteeism from
experiments, only 80 students in our sample had taken the introductory
psychology course on which that criterion measure was based. A few of the
analyses reported below, therefore, were based on sample sizes notably
smaller than N = 1 4 1 .
Rater Judgments of Personality-Criterion Association

As mentioned in the introduction, in this study we wanted to compare the
Big Five personality factors with five facets of those factors in terms of
their criterion predictability. Rather than picking those five facets at random for the prediction of each criterion variable, which would certainly put
527
Table 1
The 40 Criterion Variables
Description
Label
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Peer-rated intelligence
Peer-rated popularity
Peer-rated femininity
Peer-rated honesty
Religiosity rating
Dating frequency
Dating variety
Tobacco consumption
Alcohol consumption
Fraternity interest
Traffic violations
Driving fast
Buys lottery tickets
Parties attended
Dieting behavior
Medication usage
Preference for contacts
Part-time work
Plays musical instruments
Participation in sports
Routinely exercises
Blood donations
Obesity index
Participant sex
General knowledge
26. Numerical ability

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Willingness to share money

Unwillingness to gamble
Experimenter-rated attractiveness
Experimenter-rated neatness
Questionnaire neatness
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Grade-point average
Business courses
Social science courses
Humanities courses
Math courses
Science courses
Absenteeism from experiments
39. Tardiness to appointments

40. Task completion time
Nine-point roommate rating of intelligence.

Nine-point roommate rating of popularity.
Nine-point roommate rating of masculinity-femininity.
Nine-point roommate rating of honesty.
Nine-point self-rating of religiosity.
Number of dates per month.
Number of different people dated over a year.
Five-point rating of smoking behavior.
Five-point rating of alcohol consumption.
Nine-point rating of interest in joining a fraternity or sorority.
Mean number of traffic violations per year of driving experience.
Maximum speed driving a car.
Amount spent on lottery tickets per month.
Number of parties attended per month.
Has/hasn't engaged in a long-term diet.
Number of prescription medications taken regularly.
Preference for contact lenses over glasses.
Is/isn't employed part time.
Does/doesn't play a musical instrument.
Does/doesn't participate in organized sports.
Does/doesn't engage in regular exercise.
Does/doesn't donate blood occasionally.
Weight (in kg)/height2 (in m).
Binary code of participant's gender (1 = male, 2 = female).
Score on the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery Information
subscale.
Score on the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery Arithmetic
subscale.
Score on a money allocation task of altruism.
Score on a money wagering task of low risk taking.
Mean rating of three experimenters of physical attractiveness.
Mean rating of three experimenters of personal neatness.
Mean rating of three experimenters of the neatness of a
computerized answer sheet.
Grade-point average from university records.
Number of business courses taken.
Number of social science courses taken.
Number of humanities courses taken.
Number of mathematics courses taken.
Number of science courses taken.
Number of unfulfilled experimental credits in introductory
psychology course.
Mean order of arrival to two experimental sessions.
Mean order of completion of two assessment sessions.
them at a predictive disadvantage in such a contest, we used a more

theoretical-deductive approach. Specifically, we asked judges to rate the
expected association between the diverse personality traits or facets and the
criteria, and we then chose the five highest rated facets as our predictors of
each criterion.
To obtain our expert judgments, we first developed short descriptions of
each of the 40 criterion variables described above. For example, the (39)
tardiness criterion was described as "Is often late for appointments." We
then developed descriptions of both the positive pole and the negative pole
of each of the trait dimensions used as predictors in this study (i.e., the
PRF, JPI, and NEO-PI-R facet scales). To illustrate, the NEO-PI-R facet
scale called Anxiety was described as "Worries a lot; is often nervous,
tense, anxious" at the positive end and "Tends to be very calm and relaxed,
doesn't dwell on problems" at the negative end. Judges then had to decide
on the degree to which each criterion implies each personality trait dimension. A 5-point rating scale was used in which a rating of 2 meant a strong
association with the positive pole of the trait dimension, a - 2 meant a
strong association with the negative pole, and a 0 meant no association.
Because of the large number of predictor-criterion pairings involved in

this study, we divided the judgment task up into four smaller sets of ratings.
One set crossed the 30 NEO-PI-R facet scales with 20 of the 40 criterion
variables, and another set crossed the same 30 facet scales with the other 20
criterion variables, for a total of 600 (30 X 20) ratings in both cases.
Similarly, 34 PRF and JPI scales were crossed with half of the criterion
variables in one set of ratings, and the same 34 scales were crossed with the
remaining criterion variables in another set, for a total of 680 (34 X 20)
ratings in both cases.1
Twenty paid graduate students in psychology served as raters of
predictor-criterion association. Those students were first divided randomly
The PRF and JPI scales total 36 in number. However, the JPI Breadth
of Interest and Social Participation scales were omitted from our expert
judges' rating forms and from the analyses that follow because of their
substantial overlap with the PRF scales of Understanding and Affiliation,
respectively.
528
PAUNONEN AND ASHTON
Table 2
PRF-JPI Factor Scales and 34 Constituent Trait Scales
Factor scale
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Trait scale
Succorance, Autonomy," Conformity, Interpersonal Affect, Social
Recognition, Harmavoidance, Anxiety, Risk Takinga
Affiliation, Self-Esteem, Exhibition, Dominance, Energy Level
Complexity, Understanding, Sentience, Nurturance, Innovation, Tolerance,
Change
Abasement, Aggression," Defendence," Responsibility, Social Adroitness"
Organization, Order, Impulsivity," Cognitive Structure, Desirability,
Achievement, Play,8 Endurance, Value Orthodoxy
Note. PRF = Personality Research Form; JPI = Jackson Personality Inventory.

Negatively keyed.
into four groups of five. The raters in each group were then given one of
the four sets of (600 or 680) ratings to complete. Their task was to consider
each trait-criterion pair and make a judgment about the expected strength
of association between the variables using the 5-point rating scale already
described.
Results
Overview of Analyses
In this study we treated the 34 PRF-JPI personality trait measures as one set of lower level predictors (see Footnote 1) and
the 30 NEO-PI-R facet scales as another independent set. We also
had two independent sets of Big Five factor predictors. For the
first, we simply scored the 30 NEO-PI-R facet scales on the Big
Five domain scales, according to the standard scoring procedure
for that inventory. For the PRF-JPI scales, the procedure was not
so straightforward, because those scales are not generally scored in
terms of the Big Five personality factors. The scales do, however,
have a relatively clear representation in the Big Five factor space.
This is evident in separate as well as joint factor analyses of the
PRF and JPI (Ashton, Jackson, Helmes, & Paunonen, 1998; Jackson, Paunonen, Fraboni, & Goffin, 1996; Paunonen & Jackson,
1996), even in cross-cultural data (Paunonen, Jackson, Trzebinski,
& Forsterling, 1992; Paunonen et al., 1996).
Our participants' scores on the 34 PRF-JPI trait scales were
subjected to a principal-components analysis in this study, in
which we extracted five factors and rotated them to a varimax
criterion. Those factors resembled typical Big Five personality
factors, albeit with some slight rotational variations (cf. Ashton et
al., 1998). The specific allegiances of the 34 lower level PRF-JPI
trait scales to the five higher level varimax factors are shown in
Table 2. In that table, each PRF-JPI scale is listed next to the
factor on which it had its highest loading in the present varimax
solution. For comparison purposes, the NEO-PI-R factors and
facets are shown in Table 3.
We decided to compute factor scores for the five PRF-JPI
varimax dimensions and use those as our second set of higher level
personality factor indicators. The factor scores for our participants
correlated quite highly, in general, with their corresponding NEOPI-R domain scores: Conscientiousness = .79, Extraversion = .71,
Agreeableness = .68, Openness to Experience = .60, and Neuroticism = .40. The lower correlation for Neuroticism probably
reflects the greater role of social dependency in the PRF-JPI
variant of that factor (i.e., reflecting conformity, succorance, social
recognition, and low autonomy). In any case, the fact that the
corresponding factor measures are by no means perfectly correlated means that there is ample opportunity in this study for the
PRF-JPI and NEO-PI-R measures to act independently in the
prediction of our criterion variables.
In the results described below, we first present the reliability of
our expert raters' judgments of predictor-criterion association. We
then present the reliabilities of our participants' personality inventory scores. The reliabilities of the criterion measures were not
determined because, on the whole, they comprised single-item
measures of behavior. Exceptions were the three experimenters'
ratings of participants' (29) physical attractiveness, (30) personal
neatness, and (31) questionnaire neatness, which yielded interrater
reliabilities of .61, .62, and .93, respectively. Although it might be
expected that single-item measures are very unreliable because of
their short length, many of our criteria reflect self-reports of
frequencies, such as amount of money spent on lotteries per
month, that are probably quite reliable.
Reliability of Rater Judgments

Recall that judges in this study estimated the associations between the 34 PRF-JPI personality predictors and each of the
behavior criteria using a 5-point rating scale. Similarly, different
judges estimated the associations between the 30 NEO-PI-R facet
scales and each criterion. To determine the reliability of these
judgments, we correlated with one another the five raters who
made the same judgments, separately for each criterion variable.
For example, five raters estimated the degree of association between grade-point average and each of the 30 NEO-PI-R facets,
and, consequently, those five sets of judgments for grade-point
average were intercorrelated across the 30 traits. The mean intercorrelation among those judges was then stepped up by the
Spearman-Brown formula to determine the internal consistency
reliability of the panel of five judges as an aggregate.
For the judgments of the PRF-JPI personality traits with the
individual criteria, the mean interjudge correlations ranged from
.06 (number of humanities courses) to .66 (blood donations), with
a mean of .39. The latter value corresponds to a .72 mean reliability for the combined panel of five judges. For the judgments of the
NEO-PI-R personality facet scales with the individual criteria, the
mean interjudge correlations ranged from .06 (dieting behavior) to
.71 (ratings of popularity), with a mean of .50, the latter value
corresponding to a mean five-member panel reliability of .81.
529
Table 3
NEO-PI-R Domain Scales and 30 Constituent Facet Scales
Facet scale
Domain scale
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Note.
Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness,

Vulnerability
Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement Seeking, Positive
Emotions
Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values
Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Tender-Mindedness
Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving, Self-Discipline,
Deliberation
NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
In general, the reliabilities of the aggregated graduate students'

judgments in this study were quite good. In the analyses that
follow, therefore, the judgments of the five raters for each
predictor-criterion combination were simply averaged to select
the five personality trait measures thought to be the best lower
level predictors of each criterion.
Reliability of Personality Measures

The internal consistency reliabilities of the participants' selfreports on the PRF-JPI trait scales and the NEO-PI-R facet scales
were calculated. Also calculated were the reliabilities for the
PRF-JPI factor scales and the NEO-PI-R domain scales. The
PRF-JPI trait scales' reliabilities ranged from .56 (Desirability) to
.88 (Order), with a mean of .73. The NEO-PI-R facet scales'
reliabilities ranged from .54 (Dutifulness) to .83 (Depression), with
a mean of .70. The PRF-JPI factor scales' reliabilities were all in
excess of .85, with a mean of .90. The NEO-PI-R domain scales'
reliabilities were all in excess of .88, with a mean of .89. (So that
they would be comparable to the NEO-PI-R domain scale reliabilities, we computed the PRF-JPI factor reliabilities for this analysis
by simply adding together the trait scales belonging to each factor,
as shown in Table 2.) In general, these results indicate that the
internal consistency of the participants' responses to the personality questionnaire items was very good.
Criterion Validity of Personality Predictors

The following analyses were designed to compare the five
higher level measures of personality factors against five lower
level measures of personality facets or traits in terms of criterion
prediction. In this section we describe the results of four separate
multiple regressions for each criterion variable. Specifically, we
evaluated the accuracy of predicting a criterion with (a) the Big
Five factors and then (b) five facets of those factors. Furthermore,
both evaluations were applied to (a) the PRF-JPI predictors and
then (b) the NEO-PI-R predictors.2 In every equation, we first
entered participant sex as a predictor and then assessed the extent
to which the personality factors or facets added to the prediction of
the criterion. Participant sex was used as the first predictor because
personality variables should be able to predict a relevant behavior
independently of sex differences that may be common to predictor
and criterion (see Paunonen, 1998).
PRF-JPI factor scales. In our first set of regression analyses
we used all five PRF-JPI factor scales to predict each of the 40
behavior criteria. The results of those analyses are summarized in

Table 4. (In each of the following regression tables, only the 20
best predicted criteria are shown, ranked roughly by the significance levels of their personality predictors. Furthermore, all multiple correlations reported have been corrected for shrinkage.) We
see that the Big Five factor predictors were able to account for a
statistically significant (p < .05) amount of variance in almost half
of the criteria, in some cases substantially so. For example, the best
predicted criterion was smoking behavior. Whereas sex differences
alone did not account for individual differences in tobacco consumption (R = .00), adding the PRF-JPI Big Five predictors into
the regression equation increased prediction of that criterion by a
substantial 21.3% (R = .46). Overall, these higher level factor
scales were able to account for significant amounts of criterion
variance in 17 of the 40 cases, with a mean increment of 9.7%.
PRF-JPI trait scales. The results of the regression analyses
for the expert judges' selected PRF-JPI trait scales in predicting
the individual criteria are shown in Table 5. That table also
indicates which particular lower level traits the raters picked as
their top five choices for each criterion. (The PRF predictor scales
have two-character labels, whereas the JPI scales have threecharacter labels.) It is important to notice that those judges did
quite well in their selectionsthe relatively few traits they chose
were able to predict significant amounts of criterion variance for
fully half of the criteria (20/40). The average amount of criterion
variance those narrow traits were able to account for beyond
participant sex as a predictor was even greater than the amount for
the Big Five factor predictors shown in Table 4, being 10.2%
over 20 criteria in this case versus 9.7% over 17 criteria in the
other. These results are particularly noteworthy when one considers that the trait scales are much narrower than are the factor scales
and, as such, necessarily account for much less variation in human
behavior overall.
Because of the large number of predictors (34 PRF-JPI + 30 NEOPI-R facet scales + 1 0 factor scales) and criteria (the 40 variables listed in
Table 1) in this study, neither the predictor-criterion correlations, the
predictor-predictor correlations, nor the criterion-criterion correlations are
presented. (Those data can be obtained by writing to Sampo V. Paunonen.)
Instead, for each criterion we present only those results pertinent to a
comparison of the predictive validity of the Big Five personality factors
with the predictive validity of the five personality facets picked by our
judges as the best lower level predictor subset.
530
PAUNONEN AND ASHTON
Table 4
Validity in Predicting 20 Criteria: All Five PRF-JP1
Factor Scales
Incremental Validity of Personality Predictors
Criterion
*i
Ro
Tobacco consumption
Participant sex*
Parties attended
Driving fast
Alcohol consumption
Business courses
Routinely exercises
Grade-point average
Peer-rated honesty
Math courses
General knowledge
Religiosity rating
Part-time work
Humanities courses
Fraternity interest
.46
.48
.37
.37
.49
.33
.33
.30
.28
.27
.26
.26
.24
.35
.37
.25
.24
.22
.24
.17
.00
.18
.00
.00
.34
.00
.11
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.25
.29
.11
.11
.06
.14
.00
2i 3***
20.1***
13.6***
13.4***
12.5***
10.8***
9.6**
9.2**
7.8**
7.4**
6.9**
6.6*
5.9*
6.0*
5.3*
4.8*
4.5*
4.3
3.7
2.9
Note. The Big Five factor scales were used as the five predictors for each
criterion. Rt = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion;
Ro = multiple correlation of sex alone with criterion; % = percentage of
increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over Ro. Criteria are
ordered by the significance of the R, - Ro increase; the top 20 criteria are
shown. PRF = Personality Research Form; JPI = Jackson Personality
Inventory.
" Sex was not included in the predictor battery for this criterion.
*p<.05.
**p<.0l.
***/?<.001.
NEO-PI-R domain scales. Table 6 shows the results of the

regression analyses for predicting each criterion with all five
NEO-PI-R domain scales. Those Big Five factor predictors were
able to account for significant amounts of variance in 15 of the 40
criterion variables. The mean increment in criterion variance accounted for was 9.2% averaged over those 15 variables. These data
are very similar to those reported above for the PRF-JPI factor
predictors. Also, 11 of the 15 criteria that were significantly
predicted by the NEO-PI-R Big Five scales, shown in Table 6,
were also variables that were significantly predicted by the PRFJPI Big Five scales, shown in Table 4.
NEO-PI-R facet scales. In Table 7 we list the top 20 criterion
variables predicted by the NEO-PI-R facet scales. As with the
analyses reported for the PRF-JPI trait scales, only five facet
scales were included in each regression equation, as selected by
our expert judges. An inspection of the table shows that 17 of
the 40 criterion variables were significantly predicted by the NEOPI-R facet scales, with a mean increment in criterion variance
accounted for of 9.5%. Again, the lower level trait scales did as
good as or better than their higher level factor scales did in
criterion prediction, despite the fact that the former are substantially narrower than are the latter. Compared with the PRF-JPI
lower level predictors, the NEO-PI-R lower level predictors picked
by our judges were slightly less accurate in predicting the criterion
variables overall. However, we note that 12 of the 17 criterion
variables significantly predicted by the former trait scales (Table
5) were also variables that were significantly predicted by the latter
facet scales (Table 7).
In this section we describe our evaluation of both Big Five

factor measures and Big Five facet measures in the same regression equation as a means of testing incremental validity in criterion
prediction. Specifically, we used the factor measures as the first set
of criterion predictors and then added the facet measures as the
second set to determine whether the latter could increment the
predictive accuracy already achieved by the former.
Such tests of incremental validity are important because of the
belief by some that little is to be gained in behavior prediction and
explanation by considering personality variables other than the Big
Five (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996). If such a belief is true, then adding
the lower level facets of personality to the higher level factors of
personality in a prediction equation should do little to increase predictive accuracy. On the other hand, if there is a component of specific
variance in a trait measure, variance that is nonrandom and independent of the variable's common variance, then that specificity might
have important incremental utility in a predictive context. That being
the case, one might rightly question the wisdom of eschewing more
detailed assessments of personality in embracing the Big Five.
It is important to note in the following analyses of incremental
criterion prediction that the lower level and higher level personality
measures used in the same hierarchical regression equation were from
different questionnaires. That is, the PRF-JPI trait scales were tested
against the NEO-PI-R domain scales for incremental validity, and the
NEO-PI-R facet scales were tested against the PRF-JPI factor scales.
The reason for this transposition is that our participants' scores on the
NEO-PI-R domain scales, for example, are simple algebraic sums of
their scores on the NEO-PI-R facets scales, and we wanted to do our
hypothesis tests on lower level and higher level variables that were not
related by such strict linear dependencies. The present strategy is
comparable to that used by Paunonen (1998), in which he too compared the predictive ability of experimentally independent measures
of the Big Five factors and facets.3
PRF-JPI trait scales over NEO-PI-R domain scales. In this
set of analyses, participant sex was used as the first predictor of a
criterion variable. Then all five NEO-PI-R domain scales were
added to the regression and the degree of criterion prediction was
noted. Finally, the five PRF-JPI trait scales picked by our judges
as potentially the best predictors of the criterion were added to the
equation to see whether those lower level traits could increase the
prediction achieved by the higher level factors. As indicated in
Table 8, the personality trait scales were able to add significantly
to the Big Five factor scales in the prediction of 11 of the 40
criteria (p < .05). Furthermore, those increments amounted to an
average of 7.9% more criterion variance accounted for. It appears,
then, that there is some utility to exploiting the specific variance in
the lower level trait scales, not just their common factor variance,
for prediction purposes, at least as far as the present variables are
concerned.
NEO-PI-R facet scales over PRF-JPI factor scales. Our last
set of analyses paralleled the preceding set, with the exception that
3
We did, nevertheless, analyze the data by evaluating the incremental
validity of PRF-JPI trait scales over PRF-JPI factor scales and NEO-PI-R
facet scales over NEO-PI-R domain scales (see also Jang et al., 1998). The
results were essentially the same as those presented in the following two
sections of this article and summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
531
Table 5
Validity in Predicting 20 Criteria: Judges' Five PRF-JPI Trait Scales
Criterion
PRF-JPI predictors

Participant sexb
Tobacco consumption
Science courses
Routinely exercises
Alcohol consumption
General knowledge
Parties attended
Humanities courses
Fraternity interest
Grade-point average
Religiosity rating
Math courses
IAf Nu Res Adr" Aga

Su IAf Ha Ab Aga
Anx Res" CSa Dya Enr"
Com Un Ac En Inn
Enr En SR Org Ac
Af Ex PI Enr Ac
PI Dya Anx Orga Ac"
Un Com En Org Ac
Com Un Inn Ac Do
PI Af Se Enr Est
Or Org En Ima Res
Rska Ha Ima Aca Cha
Se Com Af Ch Un
Af PI SR Con Est
Ac En Un Com Org
Af PI Est Aga Dea
Nu Ha Su IAf Tola
Com Ac En Aba Ch
CSa Orga Ena Im Resa
Com Un Af Tol Nu
.50
.45
.39
.39
.34
.33
.31
.41
.30
.29
.31
.33
.32
.27
.26
.25
.28
.23
.30
.33
.18
.00
.00
.00
.00
.06
.00
.29
.00
.00
.11
.04
.14
.00
.00
.00
.11
.00
.00
.25
21.6***
20.3***
15.0***
14.9***
11.6***
10.5***
97**
8.9**
8.8**
8.4**
8.4**
10.8**
7.9**
7.1**
6.7**
6.2*
6.5*
5.4*
10.0*
4.5*
Note. Rl = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; Ro = multiple correlation of sex alone
with criterion; % - percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by i?, over Ro. Criteria are ordered
by the significance of the /?, - Ro increase; the top 20 criteria are shown. PRF = Personality Research
Form; JPI = Jackson Personality Inventory; IAf = Interpersonal Affect; Nu = Nurturance; Res = Responsibility; Adr = Social Adroitness; Ag = Aggression; Su = Succorance; Ha = Harmavoidance; Ab = Abasement;
Anx = Anxiety; CS = Cognitive Structure; Dy = Desirability; Enr = Energy Level; Com = Complexity; Un =
Understanding; Ac = Achievement; En = Endurance; Inn = Innovation; SR = Social Recognition; Org = Organization; Af = Interpersonal Affect; Ex = Exhibition; PI = Play; Do = Dominance; Se = Sentience; Est =
Self-Esteem; Or = Order; Im = Impulsivity; Rsk = Risk Taking; Ch = Change; De = Defendence; Tol =
Tolerance.
a
Negative predictor-criterion relation. b Sex not included in the predictor battery for this criterion.
*p<.05.
**p<.0\.
* * * / > < .001.
our judges' five top-picked NEO-PI-R facet scales were added to

the regression equations after including participant sex and the
PRF-JPI factor scales. We did this to determine with different
measures whether lower level traits could once again increase the
criterion prediction achieved by higher level factors. As seen in
Table 9, significant increments in criterion prediction were obtained by the NEO-PI-R facet scales in 10 out of the 40 cases.
Furthermore, the mean increment in criterion variance accounted
for in those cases was 8.3%. These results corroborate the preceding analyses, illustrated in Table 8, and suggest that substantial
improvements in predictive accuracy can be obtained by incorporating into the prediction task variables that are not just statistical
summaries of the Big Five factors. For example, performance on
our numerical ability task was not predicted significantly by any of
the Big Five, even as a group, but adding five lower level traits to
the prediction equation (Table 9) raised the multiple correlation
from R = .08 (p > .05) to R = .34 (p < .001).
Discussion
In this study we seek to compare the relative merits of the Big
Five personality factors and facets in terms of their ability to
predict a variety of behavior criteria that possess some social
importance. The results of our comparisons generally show that (a)
a few carefully selected personality facet scales can predict as well
as or better than can all of the Big Five factors scales combined,
and, more important, (b) a substantial part of the criterion variance

predicted by the facet scales is variance not predicted by the factor
scales. This means, in short, that using only Big Five personality
measures as behavior predictors, as seems to be in vogue in much
contemporary personality research, may entail a substantial compromise of one's assessment goals.
Our data suggest that the highest levels of behavior prediction
with personality measures can be achieved by using both the
common variance that makes personality traits alike and the specific variance that makes those traits unique. But what are these
two independent components of variance in traits? Consider the
trait dimensions of orderliness and ambition. Both are typically
placed on the Big Five Conscientiousness factor, and, as such, both
share variance with each other and with other facets of Conscientiousness such as low impulsivity and high endurance. But both
order and ambition also have components of variance that do not
overlap with any other Conscientiousness facet scale, including
each other. It is that variance, nonrandom and specific to the trait,
that has the potential to predict some criterion of interest. It is that
specific variance that should not be cast aside in personality
assessment but should instead be fully exploited.
But there is more to be gained from the use of narrow rather than
broad personality trait measures in personality research. Besides
leading to nontrivial increments in behavior prediction, the use of
narrow facet measures for personality assessment can lead to
532
PAUNONEN AND ASHTON
Table 6
Validity in Predicting 20 Criteria: All Five NEO-PI-R
Domain Scales
Criterion
Parties attended
Humanities courses
Participant sex"
Tobacco consumption
Grade-point average
Science courses
Dieting behavior
Alcohol consumption
General knowledge
Fraternity interest
Business courses
Routinely exercises
Obesity index
Buys lottery tickets
.43
.42
.40
.39
.34
.33
.29
.29
.25
.28
.37
.23
.26
.21
.22
.18
.26
.17
.17
.72
*o
.00
.18
.14
.00
.00
.00
.00
.13
.00
.11
.29
.00
.11
.00
.06
.00
.18
.00
.00
.71
18.4***
14.1***
142***
15.2***
11.7***
11.1***
8.3**
6.7*
6.4*
6.3*
5.5*
5.5*
5.8*
4.6*
4.5*
3.3
3.3
2.8
2.8
1.6
Note. The Big Five Factor scales were used as the five predictors for each
criterion. R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion;
Ro = multiple correlation of sex alone with criterion; % = percentage of
increase in criterion variance accounted for by Rl over Ro. Criteria are
ordered by the significance of the Rl - Ro increase; the top 20 criteria are
shown. NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
a
Sex was not included in the predictor battery for this criterion.
*p<.05.
**/><.01. ***p<.001.
important advances in behavior explanation. For example, consider again the orderliness and ambition facets of the Big Five
Conscientiousness factor. It is possible that, in a work setting for
instance, Conscientiousness predicts assembly-line productivity by
some amount. If that were all the information available to the
researcher, he or she would have to conclude that all facets of
Conscientiousness contribute equally to that prediction. However,
a more detailed assessment of personality at the level of those
narrow traits might indicate otherwise: for example, that it is
orderliness and not ambition that is most responsible for individual
differences in productivity on the assembly line. Such information,
unavailable with factor level assessments, could be used to design
appropriate personnel programs. More important, it can be very
useful information for the development of a general theory of work
behavior.
Generalizability of the Present Results

This study adds to a growing body of research supporting the
use of narrower, trait-level personality measures for behavior
prediction. Paunonen (1998), for example, has described a similar
study that had similar results. The present study, however, extends
the preceding one because different behavior criteria were used, as
were different indicators of the Big Five personality factors and
facets. Nonetheless, it is also important to highlight the fact that
different approaches were used in the two studies to select lower
level personality facets as predictors. Whereas Paunonen used an
empirical regression procedure to choose a few predictor traits
from a large pool of traits against which the Big Five personality
factors were compared, in this study we relied on the subjective
decisions of human judges for that selection task. This resulted in
one notable difference between the results of the two studies.
Compared with the results of the present study, Paunonen
(1998) found somewhat larger prediction discrepancies favoring
trait-level assessments over factor-level assessments, even though
he took care to equate his empirical procedures for capitalization
on chance. To illustrate, the former study reported the trait scales
as being able to increase the predictive accuracy of the factor
scales by an amount in the neighborhood of 14-15% more criterion variance accounted for, whereas the comparable amount in
this study was about 8%. This difference could be due to at least
two possibilities: (a) The human judges in this study were not quite
as able to identify the strongest personality-behavior links as were
the quantitative, data-based procedures used by Paunonen, or (b)
empirical procedures such as those used by Paunonen require even
greater statistical corrections to guard against capitalization on
chance. Either way, the data of both studies still strongly support
the use of facet-level personality measures over factor-level measures for behavior prediction.
The present data also corroborate findings reported by Ashton
and his colleagues. For example, Ashton et al. (1995) compared
the validity of the Big Five Extraversion and Conscientiousness
factors with the validity of narrow traits that define those factors,
in the prediction of fun-seeking behaviors such as party going,
sports participation, and alcohol consumption. They reported that,
consistent with their predictions, the facets of Extraversion and
Conscientiousness that are thought to be conceptually related to
fun-seeking behavior (i.e., traits involving sociability and impulse
control) were better predictors of fun-seeking behavior than were
the broad factors to which they belong. In a similar study, Ashton
(1998) compared the validities of broad and narrow personality
variables in predicting workplace delinquency behaviors such as
theft, absenteeism, and safety violations. Consistent with his predictions, Ashton found that the theoretically relevant narrow traits
of responsibility and risk taking were better predictors of workplace delinquency than were even the best predicting Big Five
factors, which were Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
Other data have been reported supporting our contention that
narrow personality traits can outpredict broader personality factors, even when both are part of the Big Five domain. Paunonen
and Ashton (2001) compared two Big Five factors with two of
their constituent traits in the prediction of academic performance
in an introductory personality course. Their analyses were based
on two facet traits that were rated by a panel of judges to be most
relevant to academic performance (i.e., need for achievement and
need for understanding) with the factors that comprise those scales
(Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience, respectively).
The results of the Paunonen and Ashton study clearly show, once
again, that the narrow traits had the predictive advantage over the
broad factors, this time with respect to a criterion of undergraduate
course grades in a very large sample (N 717).
Expected Prediction Results?

In this study we have emphasized that Big Five facet scales have
something that Big Five factor scales do not havetrait-specific
variance. Furthermore, that trait-specific variance was shown in
533
Table 7
Validity in Predicting 20 Criteria: Judges' Five NEO-PI-R Facet Scales
Criterion
NEO-PI-R predictors

Religiosity rating
Grade-point average
Tobacco consumption
Numerical ability
Humanities courses
Parties attended
Routinely exercises
Fraternity interest
Dieting behavior
General knowledge
Alcohol consumption
Obesity index
Dating variety
Participant sexb
Plays musical instruments
Str Alt Mod Ten Tru

Vala Tru Ten Imp8 Alt
Ach Dis Ide Com Dut
Imp Anx Vul Disa Hos
Gre Acy SCs" War Cpl
Com Del Exca Ide Val
Ide Aes Val Fan Fee
Gre War Acy Emo SCsa
Acy Dis Vula Exc Anxa
Gre War Exc Emo Acy
Dep Anx Disa SCs Imp
Ide Val Act Aes Ach
Imp Dep Duta Disa Hos
Dep SCs Anx Imp Acha
Fee Ide Val Gre Aes
Gre Acy Exc Act Val
Fee Assa Mod War Exca
Ord Dut Del Anx Com
Fee War Alt Ten Dut
Aes Fee Val Fan Dis
Ro
.48
.46
.39
.35
.33
.33
.34
.30
.30
.29
.30
.38
.25
.31
.33
.22
.73
.24
.20
.19
.18
.11
.00
.00
.06
.13
.14
.00
.00
.00
.13
.29
.00
.18
.25
.00
.71
.11
.00
.00
19.9***
20.0***
15.3***
12.3***
10.7***
9.5**
9.5**
9.1**
9.1**
8.3**
7.4**
6.2*
6.1*
6.3*
4.4*
4.7*
2.4*
4.3
4.1
3.8
Note. /?, = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; Ro = multiple correlation of sex alone
with criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R, over Ro. Criteria are ordered
by the significance of the Rt - Ro increase; the top 20 criteria are shown. NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality
Inventory; Str = Straightforwardness; Alt = Altruism; Mod = Modesty; Ten = Tender-Mindedness; Tru =
Trust; Val = Values; Imp = Impulsiveness; Ach = Achievement Striving; Dis = Self-Discipline; Ide = Ideas;
Com = Competence; Dut = Dutifulness; Anx = Anxiety; Vul = Vulnerability; Hos = Angry Hostility; Gre =
Gregariousness; Acy = Activity; SCs = Self-Consciousness; War = Warmth; Cpl = Compliance; Del =
Deliberation; Exc = Excitement Seeking; Aes = Aesthetics; Fan = Fantasy; Fee = Feelings; Emo = Positive
Emotions; Dep = Depression; Act = Actions; Ass = Assertiveness; Ord = Order.
a
b
Negative predictor-criterion relation.
*p < .05. **p<.0l.
***/><.001.
our data to add to the traits' common factor variance in the

prediction of many socially important criteria. However, one might
argue that these results merely demonstrate a tautology, in that it
will always be true that the specific variance adds to the common
variance in criterion prediction (e.g., Goldberg, 1999, p. 9).
Viewed from the perspective of hierarchical regression, this is to
say that adding trait variables to a prediction equation cannot
decrease the multiple correlation achieved by the factor variables
already in that equation and, instead, will generally increase that
multiple correlation.
It is certain that more variables in a regression equation will
always predict better than will a subset of those variables, even
if the variables are not facets and factors of one another as they
were in this study. But it is by no means certain whether those
additional variables will add significantly and substantially to
prediction (assuming realistic sample sizes). In the present
study, they often did. The PRF-JPI trait scales were able to add
significantly to the Big Five factor measures in the prediction
of 11 criteria. The NEO-PI-R facet scales were likewise able to
add to the Big Five measures in the prediction of 10 criteria.
This is all the more remarkable when one considers that (a) all
of the Big Five factor variance was partialed from those criteria
before only five relatively narrow traits, each with its own
modicum of specific variance, were added to the equation and
(b) the sample size of 140 or so participants was not inordinately large.
We believe that one reason for the success of our narrow traits
in adding incrementally to criterion prediction is the fact that those
few traits were rationally selected by expert judges as being
criterion predictive. Other narrow traits might not have done so
well. In fact, we ran some follow-up hierarchical regressions
evaluating the incremental validity of trait scales over factor
scales, but using trait scales that were not expected to predict
specific criteria. For each criterion, we first used the Big Five
factors as predictors and then added five lower level traits, but
traits that were randomly selected from those rated by the expert
judges as being unrelated to the criterion. In only 5 of the 40
evaluations did the PRF-JPI trait scales increase criterion prediction relative to Big Five factor predictors (cf. Table 8). Only 4 of
the 40 evaluations were significant for the similarity chosen NEOPI-R facet scales (cf. Table 9).
Our point in this section is that although the specific variance of
lower level trait scales is almost guaranteed to add to the predictive
accuracy of Big Five factor scales, the amount gained could be
trivial. A judicious selection of trait variables will maximize the
probability of finding increments in prediction that are both substantial and meaningful. We further believe that a theoretically
guided selection of such predictors will result in a predictor subset
that has better generality than those predictors selected by purely
empirical means. The regression weights for predictors chosen by
the former method will almost certainly be more stable than will
the weights for the latter type of predictor (which are more likely
534
PAUNONEN AND ASHTON
Table 8
Incremental Validity in Predicting 20 Criteria: Judges' Five PRF-JPI Trait Scales
Criterion
PRF-JPI predictors
Science courses
Participant sexb
Alcohol consumption
Routinely exercises
Fraternity interest
Religiosity rating
Business courses
Tobacco consumption
General knowledge
Math courses
Dating frequency
Medication usage
Part-time work
Com Un Ac En Inn
IAf Nu Res Adr" Aga
Su IAf Ha Ab Aga
Af Ex PI Enr Ac
Rska Ha Ima Aca Cha
PI Dya Anx Orga Aca
Enr En SR Org Ac
Af PI SR Con Est
Nu Ha Su IAf Tola
Ac Do En Af Au
Anx Resa CSa Dya Enra
Com Un Inn Ac Do
Un Com En Org Ac
CSa Orga Ena Im Resa
Com Ac En Aba Ch
Af PI Est Su Ch
Com Un Af Tol Nu
Anx Enra Su Aua CS
En Au Enr Res Ac
Af PI Est Aga Dea
.45
.52
.49
.39
.38
.38
.33
.34
.29
.34
.40
.27
.42
.22
.18
.15
.31
.24
.20
.22
.29
.42
.39
.22
.17
.25
.21
.23
.18
.26
.34
.17
.37
.00
.00
.00
.26
.19
.15
.18
12.2**
9.5**
8.6**
10.1**
11.9**
8.4**
6.1*
6.1*
5.3*
4.4*
4.2*
4.4
3.8
6.7
4.4
3.4
3.0
2.2
1.6
1.6
Note. Rx = multiple correlation of (sex + the NEO-PI-R domain scales + these predictors) with criterion; Ro =
multiple correlation of (sex + the NEO-PI-R domain scales) with criterion; % = percentage of increase in
criterion variance accounted for by /?, over Ro. Criteria are ordered by the significance of the fl, - Ro increase;
the top 20 criteria are shown. PRF = Personality Research Form; JPI = Jackson Personality Inventory;
NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; Com = Complexity; Un = Understanding; Ac = Achievement; En = Endurance; Inn = Innovation; IAf = Interpersonal Affect; Nu = Nurturance; Res = Responsibility;
Adr = Social Adroitness; Ag = Aggression; Su = Succorance; Ha = Harmavoidance; Ab = Abasement; Af =
Affiliation; Ex = Exhibition; PI = Play; Enr = Energy Level; Rsk = Risk Taking; Im = Impulsivity; Ch =
Change; Dy = Desirability; Anx = Anxiety; Org = Organization; SR = Social Recognition; Con =
Conformity; Est = Self-Esteem; Tol = Tolerance; Do = Dominance; Au = Autonomy; CS = Cognitive
Structure.
a
Negative predictor-criterion relation.
b
* p < .05. **p<.01.
***/?<.001.
to be influenced by capitalization on chance). In a cross-validation

study, for example, one would expect the results for our judgechosen "best" trait predictors (as summarized in Tables 5, 7, 8, and
9) to replicate and generalize across different samples of participants and different operationalizations of the criteria much better
than would the results for trait predictors chosen empirically, or
even for those traits chosen randomly as described in the previous
paragraph.
In a related study, Mershon and Gorsuch (1988) did not
preselect their predictor variables by rational, empirical, or
random means. Instead, they added their entire pool of 16 lower
level traits to regression equations that already contained the
common factors underlying those traits. (They, too, were interested in predicting socially important criteria such as marijuana
usage, psychiatric status, etc.) Those authors recognized, of
course, the fact that the relatively large number of narrow scales
would necessarily add their specificities to the regression equations and thus would increase the factor-based predictions.
What they found to be surprising, however, was the sheer
amount by which the criterion prediction was improved by
considering the traits' specificitiesthe narrow trait scales
almost doubled the amount of criterion variance explained by
the broad factor scales in that study.
Unidimensional Versus Multidimensional Criteria

Ones and Viswesvaran (1996) have suggested that the factorial
complexity or dimensionality of a predictor should match the
dimensionality of the criterion to optimize accuracy in prediction.
That is, a relatively narrow, unidimensional predictor (e.g., trait
scale) should be used to predict an equally narrow criterion,
whereas a broad, multidimensional predictor (e.g., factor scale)
should be used to predict a multidimensional criterion. We note,
however, that there is no mathematical requirement that the predictor and criterion dimensionalities be the same for effective
prediction (Paunonen et al., 1999). No algebraic proof is needed to
show that a unidimensional predictor could correlate poorly with a
unidimensional criterion and, at the same time, correlate highly
with a multidimensional criterion. The latter, high correlation
would occur if the unidimensional predictor represented one of the
facets of the multidimensional criterion. Furthermore, because
which variable is the predictor and which is the criterion can be
arbitrary, the reverse case must also be true. That is, a multidimensional predictor could correlate poorly with a multidimensional criterion and yet correlate highly with a unidimensional
criterion. As pointed out by Paunonen et al. (1999), even Ones and
Viswesvaran's (1996) own data showed ample evidence of this
535
Table 9
Incremental Validity in Predicting 20 Criteria: Judges' Five NEO-PI-R Facet Scales
Criterion
NEO-PI-R predictors
Religiosity rating
Numerical ability
Grade-point average
General knowledge
Fraternity interest
Dating variety
Dieting behavior
Humanities courses
Routinely exercises
Parties attended
Obesity index
Blood donations
Math courses
Medication usage
Science courses
Tobacco consumption
Vala Tru Ten Impa Alt

Com Del Exca Ide Val
Str Alt Mod Ten Tru
Gre Acy SCs" War Cpl
Ach Dis Ide Com Dut
Ide Val Act Aes Ach
Gre War Exc Emo Acy
Gre Acy Exc Act Val
Dep Anx Dis" SCs Imp
Ide Aes Val Fan Fee
Acy Dis Vula Exc Anxa
Gre War Acy Emo SCsa
Dep SCs Anx Imp Acha
Alt Ten Anxa Vula War
Ide Com Aesa Ord Ach
Anx Vul Dep Emo3 Dis
Fee Assa Mod War Exca
War SCsa Gre Alt Emo
Ide Ach Orda Coma Dut
Imp Anx Vul Dis" Hos
*o
.49
.34
.56
.30
.39
.44
.31
.24
.30
.33
.34
.41
.31
.23
.30
.23
.72
.31
.18
.47
.24
.08
.48
.07
.27
.37
.17
.00
.17
.24
.28
.37
.25
.13
.24
.16
.71
.26
.10
.46
17.9***
10.7***
7.9**
8.6**
7.7**
6.3*
6.6*
5.8*
6.1*
5.1*
4.1
3.4
3.5
3.4
2.9
2.6
1.3
2.5
2.1
1.2
Note. /?, = multiple correlation of (sex + the PRF-JPI factor scales + these predictors) with criterion; Ro =
multiple correlation of (sex + the PRF-JPI factor scales) with criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion
variance accounted for by Rt over Ro. Criteria are ordered by the significance of the Rt Ro increase; the top 20
criteria are shown. NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; Val = Values; Tru = Trust; Ten =
Tender-Mindedness; Imp = Impulsiveness; Alt = Altruism; Com = Competence; Del = Deliberation; Exc =
Excitement Seeking; Ide = Ideas; Str = Straightforwardness; Mod = Modesty; Gre = Gregariousness; Acy =
Activity; SCs = Self-Consciousness; War = Warmth; Cpl = Compliance; Ach = Achievement Striving; Dis =
Self-Discipline; Dut = Dutifulness; Act = Actions; Aes = Aesthetics; Emo = Positive Emotions; Dep =
Depression; Fan = Fantasy; Fee = Feelings; Vul = Vulnerability; Ord = Order; Ass = Assertiveness; Hos =
Hostility; PRF = Personality Research Form; JPI = Jackson Personality Inventory.
" Negative predictor-criterion relation.
* p < . 0 5 . **p<.Ql.
***/><.001.
latter phenomenon, where broad Big Five personality factors predicted relatively narrow job performance criteria better than they
predicted broader job performance criteria (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen,
1974).
What about the issue of dimensionality and the present study?
As has been argued elsewhere (Paunonen, 1998), criteria of the
type used here arguably represent multidimensional and multidetermined variables. One may consider smoking and drinking behavior, grade-point average and general knowledge, interest in
joining a fraternity and dieting behavior, or number of humanities
courses taken and peer ratings of intelligence. It seems improbable
to us that any personality-based determinants of such behaviors are
simple and one-dimensional. It is more likely that their determination involves the complex interplay of many personality (and
nonpersonality) variables.
One could argue in the present context that, if anything, the
broad Big Five personality factors in our study should have had a
predictive advantage over the narrow traits. This conclusion follows logically if (a) our criteria are indeed as multidimensional as
they appear to be and (b) predictor-criterion dimensionality match
does in fact facilitate prediction. Instead, the opposite was true in
many instances, where the narrow personality variables did better
at predicting our criteria than did broader personality variables (cf.
Table 4 with Table 5 and Table 6 with Table 7; see also Ashton et
al., 1995; Paunonen, 1998; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). We there-
fore maintain that the specific variance of narrow trait measures

can be used to advantage in the prediction of both unidimensional
and multidimensional criteria (see also Nunnally, 1978, p. 268).
Beyond the Big Five

We have argued in this study for the exploitation of non-Big
Five personality variation in the prediction and explanation of
behavior. Our focus, in particular, has been on the specific variance of lower level traits once their Big Five variance has been
removed. However, is this the only non-Big Five personality
variance available for such use? We maintain that there is, in fact,
much more useful personality variance that can be utilized. We
refer here to specific lower level trait dimensions that have only
trivial projections into the Big Five factor spacein other words,
traits that have no variance in common with the Big Five.
Some researchers believe that the five-factor model of personality structure essentially subsumes all the traits of personality that
have been invented. Saucier and Goldberg (1998), for example,
evaluated this hypothesis by purposefully seeking traits beyond the
Big Five. The traits they scrutinized in that context were facets of
behavior that have been suspected in the past as having very weak
relations to any Big Five factor (e.g., religiosity, humorousness,
egotism). Their analyses, which relied primarily on the calculation
of communalities between their trait measures and Big Five factor
536
PAUNONEN AND ASHTON
measures, led Saucier and Goldberg to conclude that virtually all

traits of personality fall within the factor space of the Big Five.
Paunonen and Jackson (2000) examined the evidence presented
by Saucier and Goldberg (1998) and questioned their conclusions.
Specifically, the latter authors considered a trait variable to fall
within the Big Five factor space if it had a communality of just .09
or greater. This represents only 9% of the variable's variance in the
factor space, the other 91% of the variance being attributable to
some combination of trait specificity and random error. (A .09
communality is also equivalent to a variable having a loading of
.30 on one Big Five factor and loadings of .00 on the other four
factors.)
Paunonen and Jackson (2000) argued that variables need higher
communalities to be considered part of a factor space, and they
used a more reasonable but still very liberal value of .20 to
reevaluate Saucier and Goldberg's (1998) own data. With this
revised criterion, Paunonen and Jackson were led to the conclusion, in contrast to that of Saucier and Goldberg, that there are at
least 9 or 10 relatively narrow dimensions of behavior not well
accounted for by the five-factor model. Those dimensions include
religiosity, manipulativeness, dishonesty, seductiveness, thriftiness, conventionality, masculinity-femininity, egotism, humorousness, and possibly risk taking. Moreover, some of those traits
might be intercorrelated, producing a sixth major dimension of
personality such as the broad Honesty factor studied recently by
Ashton et al. (2000).
Our discussion at this point raises the possibility that those other
personality traits, traits not well represented within the typical Big
Five inventory, might further be exploited for purposes of behavior
prediction. A measure of religiosity, for example, could well
predict important criteria not predicted by any Big Five factor.
Moreover, that measure could even add to the level of prediction
achieved by the best lower level Big Five facet predictors, such as
those evaluated in the present study. Our point, once again, is that
one can be doing oneself a great disservice, either in personality
research or in personality practice, by relying on Big Five factor
measures alone for the assessment of personality.
A Final Word
Are there assessment situations in which the exclusive use of
Big Five factor measures over an equivalent number of facet
measures is to be recommended for the prediction of human
behavior? Of course there are. Lest anyone think we are promoting
the wholesale abandonment of the Big Five in this article, we
hasten to emphasize that measures of those factors do have their
applications. And those applications go beyond formal empirical
evaluations of interesting theoretical questions, as represented in
this comparison study. At the same time, we believe that such
applications are relatively scant.
An occasion in which it would be desirable, in our view, to use
personality factor measures rather than personality facet measures
for behavior prediction is when pragmatic considerations limit the
amount of time available for the assessment and one of the following two conditions applies: Either (a) one has no good basis for
identifying the few best lower level predictors of the criterion or
(b) many criteria are to be predicted and they represent a diverse
array of variables with many different personality determinants. In
the former case, the Big Five measures would probably do better
at prediction, in general, than would an equal number of narrow

measures chosen with little justification from the universe of
personality traits. In the latter case, a small group of trait measures,
even carefully selected, might not predict all of the multiple
criteria equally well, and the Big Five measures might do better
overall. But if there are no such undue constraints on the testing
context, our advice is to use narrow trait measureswhich, in any
case, often can be combined into Big Five factor scoresfor
personality assessment and behavior prediction.
Conclusions
The Big Five factors of personality account for a substantial
amount of the variation in human behavior. Measures of those
factors, therefore, can be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. But there is also reliable personality-based
variation in behavior that is not accounted for by the Big Five. That
additional variation is evident in the specific variance residing
within the facet or trait scales that make up the personality factors.
Such variation also is evident in the nonrandom variance characterizing trait scales that have little or no communality with the Big
Five personality factors. The results of this and other studies amply
support our conclusion that those sources of non-Big Five personality variance can and should be used for the purposes of reducing
error in behavior prediction and increasing accuracy in behavior
explanation.
References
Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of
narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.
Ashton, M. C , Jackson, D. N., Helmes, E., & Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Joint
factor analysis of the Personality Research Form and the Jackson Personality Inventory: Comparisons with the Big Five. Journal of Research
in Personality, 32, 243-250.
Ashton, M. C , Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Rothstein,
M. G. (1995). The criterion validity of broad factor scales versus specific
trait scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 432-442.
Ashton, M. C , Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of
personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, primary psychopathy,
and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359-368.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-P1-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FF1) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Fishbein, M , & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of
single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 5 9 74.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models.
In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality
psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, the Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Jackson, D. N. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory manual. Port Huron,
MI: Research Psychologists Press.
Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron,
MI: Research Psychologists Press.
Jackson, D. N. (1990). Multidimensional Aptitude Battery manual. Port
Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Fraboni, M., & Goffin, R. G. (1996). A
five-factor versus a six-factor model of personality structure. Personality
and Individual Differences, 20, 33-45.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J.

(1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample:
Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 1556-1565.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J.-P., & Parker,
W. D. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the Five-Factor Model: The
revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor
model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality
sphere: Does increase in factors increase the predictability of real-life
criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 675-680.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in
personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626.
Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and
prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538-556.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic
achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 78-90.
537
Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1996). The Jackson Personality

Inventory and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Research
in Personality, 30, 42-59.
Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five?
Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821-835.
Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., Trzebinski, J., & Forsterling, F. (1992).
Personality structure across cultures: A multimethod evaluation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 447-456.
Paunonen, S. V., Keinonen, M., Trzebinski, J., Forsterling, F., GrishenkoRose, N., Kouznetsova, L., & Chan, D. W. (1996). The structure of
personality in six cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27,
339-353.
Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow
reasoning about the use of broad personality measures in personnel
selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389-405.
Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C , & King, G. A. (1994).
Personality and cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate
business school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 516-530.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five?
Journal of Personality, 66, 495-524.
(Appendix follows)
538
PAUNONEN AND ASHTON
Appendix
Behavior Report Form
INSTRUCTIONS
Please describe yourself by answering all of the questions in this booklet.
Be as accurate as possible in describing you, and try not to omit any item.
First, please indicate the following about you.
Your Name:
Your Student No.:

Your Sex: (1)
M
Your Age:
(years)
Your Height:
Your Weight:
or(2)_
(in.) or_
(lbs.) or
Your Hand Preference:

Your Year of Study:
(1)
.(cm.)
_ (kg.)
_ Right
or(2).
Left
Please answer the following six questions by circling a number on each of the corresponding 9-point rating scales.
1. How would you rate your level of physical attractiveness compared to the average student? Circle a number on the following scale:
UNATTRACTIVE
AVERAGE
ATTRACTIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Extremely
Very
Moderately
Somewhat
Somewhat
Moderately
Very
Extremely
2. How would you rate your level of general intelligence compared to the average student? Circle a number on the following scale:
UNINTELLIGENT
AVERAGE
INTELLIGENT
9
8
2
6
1
Extremely
Moderately
Moderately
Somewhat
Very
Somewhat
Very
Extremely
3. In relation to people you know, how would you describe your popularity among your peers?
UNPOPULAR
AVERAGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
Extremely
Very
Moderately
Somewhat
Somewhat
4. In relation to other people of your sex, how masculine/feminine are you?
MASCULINE
AVERAGE FOR MY SEX
1
2
3
4
5
6
Extremely
Very
Moderately
Somewhat
Somewhat
Moderately
POPULAR
8
Very
9
Extremely
Moderately
FEMININE
8
Very
9
Extremely
5. Would you consider yourself a religious person who, for example, might be interested in attending (or already does attend) formal religious
services?
NONRELIGIOUS
AVERAGE
RELIGIOUS
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Extremely
Very
Moderately
Somewhat
Somewhat
Moderately
Very
Extremely
6. How would you describe your honesty compared to that of your friends?
DISHONEST
AVERAGE
1 2 3
4
5
Extremely
Very
Moderately
Somewhat
7. Indicate your overall average grade for last year.
6
Somewhat
Moderately
HONEST
7
8
Very
9
Extremely
% (percent)
8. Estimate the average number of dates per month that you have had over the past year with someone of the opposite sex.
How many different people did you date over the course of the past year?
(per month)
539
9. Do you consider yourself a nonsmoker, infrequent smoker, light smoker, moderate smoker, or heavy smoker! Circle a number below.
1
NonSmoker
3
Light
Smoker
Infrequent
Smoker
If you smoke, how many cigarettes do you smoke a day on average?
4
Moderate
Smoker
5
Heavy
Smoker
(per day)
10. Do you consider yourself a nondrinker, infrequent drinker, light drinker, moderate drinker, or heavy drinker of alcohol? Circle a number below.
1
NonDrinker
3
Light
Drinker
Infrequent
Drinker
4
Moderate
Drinker
5
Heavy
Drinker
If you drink, how many drinks do you consume a week on average?

(one drink = 1 ounce spirits = 1 glass wine = 1 bottle beer)
(drinks per wk.)
11. If you had to choose one program of study (or, if you have already chosen one), which of the two below would you (did you) choose? Check one.
(1)
Liberal Arts (Arts, Fine Arts, Humanities, etc.)
(2)
Non-Liberal Arts (Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Professional Schools, etc.)
12. Are you currently a fraternity/sorority member or pledge? Check one.
(1)
no (2)
yes
If you are not currently a fraternity/sorority member or pledge, how much interest would you have in joining a fraternity/sorority?
UNINTERESTED
NEUTRAL
INTERESTED
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
Extremely
Very
Moderately
Somewhat
Somewhat
Moderately
Very
9
Extremely
13. How long have you had a driver's license? Put 0 if never.
(years)
If you have a driver's license:
How many speeding tickets have you had in the past?
How many parking tickets!
How many other traffic violations?
What is the fastest you have driven?
(m.p.h.) or
(k.p.h.)
14. Indicate your graduating average grade from high school.
% (percent)
15. On average, how much money do you spend monthly buying lottery tickets?
($ per month)
16. Estimate the average number of parties per month that you attend.
(per month)
17. Have you ever been on a long-term diet (i.e., one month or more)? Check one.
(1)
no (2)
yes
18. Do you regularly take any prescription medications for the following ailments? Check each item.
asthma:
allergies:
diabetes:
depression:
other:
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
no (2)
no (2)
no (2)
no (2)
no (2)
ves
ves
ves
ves
yes
19. How would you describe your uncorrected eyesight! Check one.
(1)
normal vision
(2)
nearsighted
(3)
farsighted
(4)
nearsighted in one eye, farsighted in the other
Do you wear vision-correcting prescription lenses! Check both items.
glasses:
(1)
no (2)
yes
contacts:
(1)
no (2)
yes
20. Do you currently hold a part-time job! Check one.
(1)
no (2)
yes
If yes, how many hours do you work in the average week?
21. Do you:
play any musical instruments)!

play any organized sport(s)!
exercise regularly (aerobics, weights, running, etc.)?
donate blood occasionally?
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(hrs. per week)

no
no
no
no
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
yes
yes
yes
yes
Received November 21, 2000

Revision received March 19, 2001
Accepted March 21, 2001

Paunonen & Ashton (2001) - Big Five Factors and Facets and The Prediction of Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paunonen & Ashton (2001) - Big Five Factors and Facets and The Prediction of Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

2001, Vol. 81, No. 3, 524-539

Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

Big Five Factors and Facets and the Prediction of Behavior

University of Western Ontario

Big Five personality factors? First, there may be some personality

Behavior Variation Independent of the Big Five

Sampo V. Paunonen, Department of Psychology, University of Western

There is some debate about whether there is any utility to the

BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS

facets in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are situations

Participants and Procedure

Overview of the Present Study

Participants in this study completed two sets of self-report measures of

PAUNONEN AND ASHTON

Rater Judgments of Personality-Criterion Association

BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS

26. Numerical ability

Willingness to share money

39. Tardiness to appointments

Nine-point roommate rating of intelligence.

them at a predictive disadvantage in such a contest, we used a more

Because of the large number of predictor-criterion pairings involved in

PAUNONEN AND ASHTON

Note. PRF = Personality Research Form; JPI = Jackson Personality Inventory.

Reliability of Rater Judgments

BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS

Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness,

NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory.

In general, the reliabilities of the aggregated graduate students'

Reliability of Personality Measures

Criterion Validity of Personality Predictors

behavior criteria. The results of those analyses are summarized in

PAUNONEN AND ASHTON

Incremental Validity of Personality Predictors

NEO-PI-R domain scales. Table 6 shows the results of the

In this section we describe our evaluation of both Big Five

BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS

Willingness to share money

IAf Nu Res Adr" Aga

* * * / > < .001.

our judges' five top-picked NEO-PI-R facet scales were added to

and, more important, (b) a substantial part of the criterion variance

PAUNONEN AND ASHTON

Generalizability of the Present Results

Expected Prediction Results?

BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS

Willingness to share money

Str Alt Mod Ten Tru

our data to add to the traits' common factor variance in the

PAUNONEN AND ASHTON

to be influenced by capitalization on chance). In a cross-validation

Unidimensional Versus Multidimensional Criteria

BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS

Vala Tru Ten Impa Alt

fore maintain that the specific variance of narrow trait measures

Beyond the Big Five

PAUNONEN AND ASHTON

measures, led Saucier and Goldberg to conclude that virtually all

at prediction, in general, than would an equal number of narrow

BIG FIVE FACTORS AND FACETS

Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1996). The Jackson Personality

PAUNONEN AND ASHTON