T
Two-Factor Model of Personality
Jan Cieciuch1,2 and Włodzimierz Strus1
1
Institute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan
Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Warsaw,
Poland
2
URPP Social Networks, University of Zurich,
Zürich, Switzerland
Synonyms
Big Two; Higher order factors; Metatraits
Definition
The two-factor model (TFM) of personality is a
model of personality traits structure that was dis-
covered through factor analysis of traits, with two
broad factors (also known as metatraits) emerging
at the highest level (Digman 1997; Saucier et al.
2014). These factors/metatraits have been found
to possess a theoretical meaning that corresponds
to many psychological constructs developed and
used in personality research (Digman 1997) and to
have the potential to integrate the various con-
cepts (Saucier et al. 2014; Strus and Cieciuch
2017). The TFM was developed in the course of
research on the Big Five traits (Goldberg 1990;
McCrae and Costa 2003) and can be treated either:
(1) as its continuation and extension (DeYoung
2015) or (2) as a step beyond this tradition,
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_2129-1
opening new possibilities for personality structure
description (Strus and Cieciuch 2017).
Introduction
The psychology of personality and individual dif-
ferences strives to identify personality dimensions
that would enable a description of both intraper-
sonal stability and interpersonal variability of
human behaviors. Throughout its short history,
psychology has seen the emergence of numerous
proposals for such personality dimensions. In the
most general of terms, such models may be gen-
erated in two ways within two distinct research
strategies. One begins with empirical observa-
tions, adopts only a minimum of theoretical
assumptions, and focuses on the discovery of
basic factors. The other strategy employs some
preliminary theoretical models, which are to be
verified in subsequent empirical investigations.
The first approach is of an inductive nature and
involves the gathering of elementary observa-
tions, which are then generalized and interpreted.
The other approach follows the logic of deduc-
tion: certain personality dimensions are identified
and conceptualized based on a preestablished
model, which is subsequently subjected to
empirical verification. A good example and
probably the fullest implementation of the first
research paradigm in the psychology of
individual differences is the Big Five, discovered
in psycholexical research (Goldberg 1990).
2 Two-Factor Model of Personality
Examples of the other paradigm include the Giant
Three personality superfactors (Eysenck and
Eysenck 1985) and so-called dual constructs,
which are used to describe different phenomena
in the psychology of personality (some of them
are presented in Table 1). The main advantage of
the first approach is its inductive potential for
completeness and comprehensiveness, with the
drawback being its descriptive nature with very
limited explanatory power. On the other hand, the
models developed under the deductive approach
offer high precision and often also provide some
explanatory mechanisms; however, they may lead
to arbitrary selected dimensions. While such
models may accurately describe certain phenom-
ena, it may be difficult to integrate them with other
frameworks dealing with similar phenomena. The
examples are numerous dual constructs, or pairs
of constructs that are not coordinated with one
another.
In the psychology of personality and individual
differences attempts have been made to combine
both approaches. One of the most important
efforts in this area was the five factor model of
personality (FFM; McCrae and Costa 2003),
which was constructed as a theoretical interpreta-
tion of the Big Five discovered within
psycholexical studies. Thus, the FFM utilized
results from inductive psycholexical research,
while taking into consideration theoretical studies
and inputs from other concepts and models of
personality (McCrae and Costa 2003). For some
time, the FFM was thought to describe universal,
orthogonal dimensions of human personality and
it was expected that it could serve as a unifying
reference framework for other models of traits and
various constructs which could be located within
its five-dimensional space. However, we now
know that the FFM is not entirely free from short-
comings, either. At the conceptual level, it has
been criticized for its atheoretical nature (e.g.,
Block 2001), and at the empirical level for the
systematic nonorthogonality of the proposed per-
sonality dimensions.
Currently, efforts are being made to combine
the inductive and deductive approaches under the
TFM, which not only exhibits the strengths of
both approaches but also overcomes the short-
comings of the FFM. The TFM describes the
personality traits as organized within two broad
factors revealed through the factor analysis. There
are different versions of the model varying, inter
alia, in (1) the variables included in analysis,
(2) the theoretical meaning ascribed to them, and
(3) the role the two factors play in a comprehen-
sive description of personality. Nevertheless, all
the variants share the common idea that many
personality traits are organized at the highest
level in two factors, which are very general
dimensions of personality.
The TFM stems from an inductive quest for
completeness and comprehensiveness of person-
ality description, which has been implemented
through psycholexical research; at the same time
it incorporates many theoretical intuitions from
the deductive approach, which gave rise to
many dual constructs (see Table 1). This
convergence seems rather surprising as it was
not actively pursued by either paradigm.
Nevertheless, today it can be considered a mile-
stone in the personality psychology as it revealed
two fundamental dimensions of personality dis-
covered in research on its trait structure (including
both psycholexical studies leading to the Big Five
and questionnaire surveys resulting in the FFM)
and interpreted in terms of many previously
developed theoretical models which proposed
pairs of variously termed constructs. In the TFM,
those dimensions are known as alpha and beta
(Digman 1997), stability and plasticity (DeYoung
et al. 2002), or social self-regulation and dyna-
mism (Saucier et al. 2014).
In what follows, we characterize theoretical
proposals which historically preceded the
TFM or were developed in other research tradi-
tions stemming from the theoretical-deductive
approach. Subsequently, we show how the TFM
was discovered in both paradigms of research in
personality traits: the psycholexical (inductive)
one and the questionnaire one (an early synthesis
of the inductive and deductive approaches). We
also discuss theoretical interpretations of these
two factors and indicate the similarity of their
content to the previously presented dual theoreti-
cal constructs. In the last part, we describe two
alternative models of the personality trait struc-
ture, with the TFM playing a key role in both.
These are the hierarchical model currently
Two-Factor Model of Personality 3

Two-Factor Model of Personality, Table 1 Dual constructs in psychology: Inspirations, examples from various fields
of psychology, and two-factor models in the psychology of personality traits
Inspirations for conceptualizations and labels
Inspirations Constructs Reference
Humanistic inspirations Agency and communion as basic modalities of human Bakan 1966
existence
Cybernetic inspirations Plasticity and stability as properties of learning systems Grossberg 1980
Example dual constructs in different fields of contemporary psychology
Content Constructs Example reference
Basic dimensions of social Agency and communion Abele and
cognition Wojciszke 2014
Basic motivation Power and intimacy McAdams 1988
Basic human values Openness (vs. conservation) and self-transcendence Schwartz et al. 2012
(vs. self-enhancement)
Basic dimensions of interpersonal Agency/status and communion/love Wiggins and
interaction Trapnell 1996
Basic properties of ego Ego-resiliency and ego-control Block and Block
1980
Basic development processes Accommodation and assimilation Piaget 1952
Basic dimensions of affect Positive and negative affect Watson and
Tellegen 1985
Basic dimension of temperament Impulsivity (BAS) and anxiety (BIS) Gray 1991
Basic types of psychopathology Internalizing and externalizing problems Krueger and
Markon 2006
Basic types of self-perception Superhero (egoistic bias) and saint (moralistic bias) Paulhus and John
biases 1998
Two-factor models: Basic dimensions of personality
Research paradigm Factors Example reference
Questionnaire tradition Beta and alpha Digman 1997
Plasticity and stability DeYoung et al. 2002
Lexical tradition Dynamism and virtue De Raad and
Barelds 2008
Dynamism and self-regulation Saucier et al. 2014
Outside the Big Five paradigm Mental health and behavior control Becker 1999

advanced by DeYoung (2015) and the circumplex
model proposed by Strus et al. (2014; Strus and
Cieciuch 2017). The conceptual location of the
TFM within the body of research on the structure
of personality traits is given in Fig. 1, which also
provides a kind of map of the content presented in
this paper.
Theoretical Context: Dual Constructs in
Psychology
Various models distinguishing two basic con-
structs have been developed in many fields of
personality psychology. Similarity between those
models has become much clearer and more obvi-
ous since the discovery of the TFM in research on
the structure of personality traits, as it has enabled
the incorporation of many theoretical intuitions
included in the dual constructs. In the current
literature, researchers refer to two sources outside
psychology that have inspired thinking in catego-
ries of two dimensions, namely philosophy and
computer science. The first one involves Bakan’s
(1966) book under the telling title The Duality of
Human Existence, which argues that there are two
fundamental modalities not only in humans but in
all forms of life: agency for the existence of an
organism as an individual, and communion for
the participation of the individual in some larger
4 Two-Factor Model of Personality
Two-Factor Model of Personality, Fig. 1 Conceptual location of the two-factor model within research on the structure
of personality traits
organism of which the individual is a part (p. 15).
The second source involves the stability-plasticity
dilemma posed by Grossberg (1980), which
describes the situation of artificial and biological
learning systems tasked with learning new things
without forgetting the old ones. Plasticity gives
the ability to acquire new knowledge, but too
much of it may result in catastrophic forgetting,
causing the loss of previous memories (Grossberg
1980). Thus, stability prevents the learning sys-
tem from catastrophic forgetting. These two pairs
of constructs: agency-communion and stability-
plasticity seem to denote quite different phenom-
ena, but both of them continue to inspire research
on the TFM.
The humanistic constructs proposed by Bakan
(1966) refer to human nature, while Grossberg’s
(1980) cybernetic constructs primarily concern
cognitive systems, although they can also be
extended to other entities. DeYoung et al. (2002)
popularized the two cybernetic terms in personal-
ity psychology by applying them to the two
factors discovered by Digman (1997), which
were in turn named metatraits (DeYoung 2015).
Although Bakan’s (1966) terms were also initially
used in personality psychology (e.g., Wiggins and
Trapnell 1996), in the current literature they are
mostly found in social (and especially socio-
cognitive) psychology, for instance in the model
proposed by Abele and Wojciszke (2014), where
agency and communion refer to the content of
social perceptions (the categories proposed by
Bakan are close to what people see, think, and
experience). Again, contrary to the expectation
that cybernetic terms would be more appropriate
for sociocognitive psychology, they appear to be
more useful in research on the structure of person-
ality, where the metatraits stability and plasticity
are used to describe how personality operates at
the most general level (DeYoung et al. 2002;
DeYoung 2015).
Along with Bakan’s (1966) and Grossberg’s
(1980) terms, Table 1 presents examples of dual
constructs from different areas of psychology (for
Two-Factor Model of Personality
more on dual constructs see: Digman 1997;
Paulhus and John 1998; Wiggins and Trapnell
1996).
Most of these dual constructs were proposed as
theoretical models of various phenomena. They
were usually developed in the deductive tradition,
with theoretical hypotheses being empirically val-
idated. These constructs have been (or can be)
used to interpret the theoretical content of the
two factors that were discovered (and confirmed)
both in psycholexical and questionnaire studies on
the structure of personality traits by means of
factor analysis (cf. Digman 1997; Saucier
et al. 2014).
Empirical Discovery: The Big Two as
Basic Dimensions of Personality
Some of the basic questions in personality
research are how many traits constitute fundamen-
tal dimensions of personality and what their struc-
ture is. Studies addressing these issues have been
conducted within two frameworks, namely, the
psycholexical and questionnaire paradigms, and
for some time they culminated in a consensus that
there exist five most general, fundamental, and
orthogonal dimensions, known as the FFM in
the questionnaire paradigm and as the Big Five
in the lexical paradigm. The latter term is also
often used as a shorthand for the five dimensions
irrespective of their theoretical underpinnings.
However, the existence of five orthogonal
dimensions has recently been questioned by the
TFM, which postulates two broader factors above
the Big Five. Indeed, after being confirmed in the
lexical and questionnaire research paradigms, the
Big Five was subsequently challenged within
both frameworks in favor of the TFM. In what
follows, we briefly present the two research
approaches, which first discovered the Big Five,
and then, as a result of continued studies, gave rise
to the TFM.
The Big Five
The Big Five was discovered in psycholexical
research founded on the lexical hypothesis,
according to which all the important personality
5
traits are reflected in language (Goldberg 1990).
Thus, one may investigate the linguistic traces of
personality and determine their structure. This can
be done by means of factor analysis, reducing a
large number of variables to a few dimensions. In
this case, the multiplicity of linguistic expressions
for personality traits was reduced to five basic
dimensions (Goldberg 1990). Due to the inductive
atheoretical approach used, the factors were sim-
ply labeled with Roman numerals (I through V),
which is consistent with inductionism, an
approach in the philosophy of science according
to which one should avoid any theoretical
assumptions to come as close as possible to the
facts. The observations gathered in this way are
then generalized and turned into universal state-
ments. In psychology, this methodological para-
digm seems to be best exemplified by
psycholexical research, as studies on the structure
of personality began with analysis of facts (words
describing personality) followed by efforts to
establish the structure of the traits conveyed by
those words.
The meaning of the identified factors was
determined on the basis of adjectives with the
strongest loadings in factor analysis, and their
order followed from the number of adjectives
that each of them comprised. In other words,
Factor I had the largest linguistic representation,
while Factor V was the least frequently
represented. Factor I is usually called surgency
or extraversion, Factor II – agreeableness, Factor
III – conscientiousness, Factor IV – emotional
stability, and Factor V – culture, intellect, or imag-
ination (Goldberg 1990).
Efforts to identify the structure of personality
traits were undertaken not only within the
psycholexical framework, but also under the
questionnaire paradigm, which sought to develop
the optimum model of personality structure
and dimensions pursuant to some theoretical
assumptions. This led to, inter alia, the Giant
Three model, which was termed PEN
(psychoticism-extraversion-neuroticism) by
Eysenck (Eysenck and Eysenck 1985) and inter-
personal circumplex by Wiggins (see Wiggins and
Trapnell 1996). Observing that most of the
existing psychometric personality questionnaires
6 Two-Factor Model of Personality
(including the instrument measuring the traits
identified by Eysenck and Eysenck 1985)
contained a measure of neuroticism (the opposite
of emotional stability) and extraversion, Costa
and McCrae adopted them as the fundamental
dimensions of personality (McCrae and Costa
2003). During further research, they added the
dimension of openness to experience (thus
forming the NEO model). Subsequently, inspired
by the results of psycholexical studies, they also
included agreeableness and conscientiousness.
Finally, they constructed scales for measuring all
the dimensions (the NEO-PI), which were later
revised as the NEO-PI-R (McCrae and Costa
2003).
In this way, the psycholexical model of the
Big Five was incorporated in questionnaire
research. The FFM, consisting of neuroticism
(vs. emotional stability), extraversion, openness
to experience (counterpart of Intellect), agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness, was conceptualized
in terms of lower-order traits (facets) and
operationalized in questionnaires. Within this
approach, research on personality structure was
expanded both theoretically and empirically.
Since then, the five factors have been treated not
only as merely descriptive personality traits
(Saucier and Goldberg 2001), but they have also
been interpreted in terms of dispositions or ten-
dencies to certain patterns of thoughts, emotions,
and behaviors, and the relationship of the FFM to
other models and theoretical concepts has been
studied (McCrae and Costa 2003). Finally,
McCrae and Costa (2003) developed the Five
Factor Theory (FFT) of personality on the basis
of the FFM.
The FFT treats the FFM as biologically based
basic tendencies, which constitute one of two core
components of a personality system and influence
characteristic adaptations (the second core com-
ponent, comprising the self-concept). The latter
are in turn related to other interfacing elements
(objective biography and external influences).
These one-way or mutual influences or relation-
ships form causal pathways in which dynamic
processes operate.
Discovery of the Big Two in Psycholexical
Research
The Big Five model was discovered in
psycholexical studies conducted in the English
language (Goldberg 1990), and the replication of
the Big Five has encountered substantial problems
in non-Germanic languages despite continued
efforts since the 1990s (e.g., De Raad et al.
2010). Some of the findings pointed to the exis-
tence of a sixth factor, giving rise to the Big Six
model, also known as HEXACO in the question-
naire approach (Ashton and Lee 2007; Saucier
2008), while others indicated that replicability
was possible only for a smaller number of basic
factors (cf. De Raad et al. 2010; Saucier 2008;
Saucier and Goldberg 2001). Large-scale
psycholexical studies based on systematic taxo-
nomic comparisons of more than a dozen different
languages have shown that only the Big Three
factors were replicable (De Raad et al. 2010).
Indeed, there is now a considerable body of
evidence that only two broad factors appear to be
fully ubiquitous across languages and cultures
(Saucier 2008; Saucier et al. 2014). The Big Two
factors were found in data from the lexicons of
several languages belonging to different linguistic
families or groups, such as Chinese, Korean, Fil-
ipino, Turkish, Greek, Polish, Hungarian, Maasai,
and Senoufo (Saucier et al. 2014), representing
diverse cultural characteristics and spoken on
different continents, including Europe, North
America, Asia, Africa, and Australia (Saucier
et al. 2014; cf. Saucier 2008; Saucier and
Goldberg 2001). These factors can be replicated
despite differences in the criteria and procedures
of word selection, factor extraction, replicability
assessment, research method, and data collection
(Saucier 2008; Saucier et al. 2014). It should be
stressed that the psycholexical Big Two were not
derived as higher-order factors from the Big Five;
instead, they emerged in exploratory factor
analysis which extracted two factors at the
first-order level from hundreds of natural
language trait descriptors (cf. Saucier 2008;
Saucier et al. 2014). The Big Two may be further
subdivided into three, five, or more traits.
One of the cross-culturally universal dimen-
sions of the Big Two has been variously labeled
Two-Factor Model of Personality 7

virtue (De Raad and Barelds 2008), morality or cf. De Raad and Barelds 2008; De Raad
social propriety (Saucier 2008; Saucier and et al. 2010).
Goldberg 2001), and recently social self- The psycholexical TFM can be treated as a
regulation (or S dimension; Saucier et al. 2014), parsimonious model of the basic bivariate
while the other factor has been invariably termed structure of personality attributes (Saucier et al.
dynamism (or D dimension). According to the 2014). The factors S and D are broad dimensions
study of Saucier et al. (2014), the key adjectival incorporating the overlapping content of
markers of the Big Two factors in the lexicons of various two-dimensional models or dual con-
nine diverse European, Asian, and African lan- structs, e.g., communion and agency, morality
guages (see above), were: good, obedient, kind, and competence, or externalizing and internaliz-
generous, respectful, honest, selfish ( ) [( ) ing tendencies (see Table 1). For this reason,
denotes inverse pole], diligent, gentle, and respon- Saucier et al. (2014) argue that the psycholexical
sible in the case of the social self-regulation factor, Big Two is a common-denominator model includ-
and weak ( ), bold, brave, shy ( ), timid ( ), ing the two most crucial axes of personality vari-
active, and lively in the case of dynamism. These ation serving as a framework for linking diverse
17 adjectives were the most consensual, i.e., they theoretical models and associated empirical
were found to be salient, recurrent markers in five findings.
of the nine languages. With slightly more relaxed
criteria (presence in four of the nine languages),
Discovery of Two Higher-Order Factors in
the additional markers were: careful, calm,
Questionnaire Research
patient, polite, and disciplined (for S dimension),
Within the questionnaire tradition, the FFM was
and strong, fearful ( ), sad ( ), silent ( ), ener-
built on the psycholexical discovery of the Big
getic, cowardly ( ), daring, sociable, cheerful,
Five; however, further questionnaire research on
pessimistic ( ), and dynamic (D dimension).
personality traits was conducted quite indepen-
However, while this set of markers captures the
dently from psycholexical studies. From the very
core lexical content of the Big Two, it does not
beginning, proponents of the FFM have had to
cover the full breadth of their meaning (Saucier
defend the thesis that there exist exactly five basic
et al. 2014).
dimensions of personality. Some researchers have
In general, social self-regulation includes attri-
proposed to change the number of dimensions,
butes associated with socialization, solidarity,
with Eysenck’s Giant Three (Eysenck and
communion, cohesion, and adhering to socio-
Eysenck 1985) and Ashton and Lee’s (2007) six
moral rules, and so it concerns morality, social
factor HEXACO being the most serious alterna-
propriety, and respect for others and for authority.
tives in the 1990s and 2000s, respectively.
It is also linked to using social norms as standards
Another challenge was to prove the orthogonality
for regulating one’s own behavior. Dynamism
of the five factors, which ultimately led to the
includes attributes valuing active qualities and
emergence of the TFM.
individual ascendancy, pertaining to liveliness,
The orthogonality assumption was not con-
self-expression, self-confidence, and skills
firmed, as the five factors were found to be corre-
useful in dealing with social situations. It is
lated with one another (at levels often exceeding
associated with the activation-inhibition ratio
.40, or even .50), regardless of the measurement
and reward-punishment sensitivity. Therefore,
instrument used (e.g., McCrae and Costa 2003;
while D dimension shows affinity to biological
Digman 1997). Digman (1997) was the first to
and process variables, revealing its temperamental
notice there a pattern suggesting the existence of
core (e.g., approach-avoidance system), S dimension
two higher-order factors. Interestingly, Digman
exhibits socialization and moral-ethical meaning,
(1997) discovered the TFM within the FFM par-
and so it involves the internalization of social
adigm using both exploratory factor analysis
and cultural norms, being predominantly a
(typical of psycholexical research) and
character-related dimension (Saucier et al. 2014;
8 Two-Factor Model of Personality
confirmatory factor analysis (usually applied in
validating predefined models).
One higher-order factor was found to be related
to the shared variance of emotional stability
(vs. neuroticism), conscientiousness, and agree-
ableness, with the other one being responsible
for the covariance of extraversion and openness
to experience (intellect). This finding was based
on reanalysis of more than a dozen studies
conducted using different measures and informant
types (teachers ratings, peer ratings, and self-
reports) on samples originating from several
countries and consisting of children and adoles-
cents as well as young and mature adults. Digman
(1997) named these factors alpha and beta, respec-
tively, interpreting the former as a socialization
factor and the latter as a personal growth factor in
correspondence with the dual construct developed
within the traditional and contemporary theories
of personality (see Table 1).
Several years later the two higher-order factors
of the Big Five were replicated and
reconceptualized by DeYoung et al. (2002), who
defined them as “metatraits” and relabeled them
using the terms proposed by Grossberg (1980).
Thus, alpha became the metatrait of stability,
being linked to stability in the emotional domain
(low neuroticism), motivational domain (high
conscientiousness), and social domain (high
agreeableness). In turn, beta was labeled the meta-
trait of plasticity, being meant to reflect behavioral
(high extraversion) and cognitive (high openness)
plasticity, reflected in the tendency to explore and
voluntarily engage (behaviorally and cognitively)
in new experiences (DeYoung et al. 2002). In
other words, while the first metatrait is responsible
for maintaining stability of psychosocial function-
ing, the second one involves exploration and
adaptation to novelty and change. As such, the
two higher-order factors (metatraits) of the Big
Five have been supported in many studies (e.g.,
Chang et al. 2012; DeYoung 2006; cf. Strus
et al. 2014).
Two Basic Personality Factors Identified
Outside the Big Five Paradigm
The discovery of and research on the TFM took
place mainly within the psycholexical and
questionnaire traditions of the Big Five research.
However, two broad personality factors were also
found or confirmed in other studies and analyses
carried out independently and outside the research
lines discussed above. Of special importance is
the series of studies by Becker (1999), who iden-
tified two higher-order factors of personality as
mental health and behavior control, both being
multifaceted constructs. Mental health, defined
as the ability to cope with external and internal
demands, encompasses: freedom from distress,
meaningfulness, self-obliviousness, self-esteem,
autonomy, capacity to love, flexibility and tenac-
ity versus low physical and mental well-being,
low coping ability, negative emotions, pessimism,
self-centeredness, distrust, dependency, neuroti-
cism. Behavior control is characterized by self-
control (norm-, future-, and work-orientation,
rationality, prudence, dutifulness, dependability,
orderliness, frugality, conservatism and dogma-
tism) versus spontaneity (hedonism, excitement
seeking, risk-taking, feeling orientation, change-
ability, radicalism, exhibitionism, dominance,
egoism, and openness to experience). These two
broad factors, also termed by Becker (1999) the
Big Two, were found by extracting the first two
orthogonal first-order factors from many analyses
and reanalyses of large and representative pools of
personality variables, as well as by extracting five
or six oblique first-order factors and running a
second-order factor analysis.
Mental health and behavior control do not
seem to correspond well to the two broad person-
ality factors described in the preceding sections.
However, the results obtained by Becker (1999)
led him to the conclusion that personality traits are
organized in a circumplex structure, as many per-
sonality variables exhibit cross-loading on the Big
Two higher-order factors. On this basis Becker
(1999) has developed the circumplex model of
higher-order personality factors. Treating Mental
Health and Behavior Control as orthogonal axes
of the circumplex, Becker (1999) proposed two
other orthogonal, multifaceted dimensions: social
adaptation versus unrestraint and self-
actualization versus inhibition, located at 45
rotation to the former. The meaning and facets of
these two additional higher-order factors
Two-Factor Model of Personality
correspond strongly to the two factors of person-
ality discussed above, and especially to their ver-
sions developed by Digman (1997) and by the
psycholexical approach (Saucier et al. 2014).
Finally, Becker’s (1999) circumplex is an eight-
octant model, with the octants being poles of four
higher-order dimensions, according to which
eight personality types can be defined (e.g., the
high behavior control type, the low mental health
type, the socially adapted type, and the inhibited
type). Importantly, these types are clinically rele-
vant, and the circumplex model itself is useful for
the description of personality disorders, with valu-
able etiological hypotheses and therapeutic impli-
cations. In general, this line of research is
continued in the circumplex model proposed by
Strus and colleagues (Strus et al. 2014; Strus and
Cieciuch 2017), although their model, in contrast
to Becker’s, is directly based on the Big Five.
The Big One Above the Big Two?
Systematic intercorrelations between the five
basic personality traits provided a point of depar-
ture for structural analysis which finally led to the
discovery of the TFM. Analogously, the question
arose as to whether the two basic dimensions are
orthogonal or again systematically interrelated. If
the latter were the case, this could suggest the
existence of one general factor above the two
previously identified ones. Indeed, Musek
(2007) proposed the general factor of personality
(GFP), analogous to factor g in the structure of
cognitive abilities (intelligence). The GFP
(Musek 2007; Rushton and Irwing 2011) was
found to occupy the apex of a hierarchically orga-
nized structure of personality traits, and under-
stood as a fundamental disposition integrating
the most general, noncognitive dimensions of per-
sonality. The positive pole of the GFP was related
to the optimal configuration of all functional
aspects of personality, while its negative pole
included a general tendency towards personality
disorders and other psychopathologies (Rushton
and Irwing 2011). Accordingly, the GFP could be
characterized by high (vs. low) alpha/stability and
beta/plasticity (Musek 2007; Rushton and Irwing
2011), and on the level of the Big Five by a
configuration of high emotional stability,
9
extraversion, openness to experience, agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness, although some find-
ings have indicated that the GFP occupies the
highest position in the hierarchical structure of
personality regardless of the model adopted
(Rushton and Irwing 2011).
The GFP exhibits an interesting theoretical
meaning as it appears to be a general factor of
mental health (Musek 2007; Rushton and Irwing
2011; cf. Becker 1999), revealing a strong rela-
tionship with social desirability, satisfaction with
life, well-being, and self-evaluation (Musek
2007). Indeed, the GFP is claimed to be biologi-
cally based, whether in temperamental, neuropsy-
chological, genetic, or evolutionary terms (Musek
2007; Rushton and Irwing 2011). According to
the latter interpretation, the GFP is the effect of
natural selection of socially desirable qualities,
which facilitate functioning in a wide range of
life situations, and which result from the K-strat-
egy of reproduction in the context of Darwin’s
theory of evolution and Wilson’s sociobiology
(Rushton and Irwing 2011). Moreover, the GFP
has a counterpart in the psycholexical approach
termed the Big One, which is usually yielded with
high intercultural replicability as the first factor in
an unrotated structure (Saucier 2008). The
psycholexical Big One includes a broad range of
socially desirable traits (De Raad and Barelds
2008; Saucier 2008), and therefore has been
labeled evaluation (Saucier and Goldberg 2001),
socially desirable qualities (Saucier 2008), or vir-
tue (De Raad and Barelds 2008).
However, in contrast to the TFM, which enjoys
a rather widespread consensus in the literature
(cf. Chang et al. 2012; DeYoung 2015; Musek
2007; Strus et al. 2014), the GFP hypothesis has
been met with considerable criticism backed by
studies questioning its existence (cf. Chang et al.
2012; Revelle and Wilt 2013), according to which
it is an artifact or a method factor resulting from a
social desirability bias.
In this context, of crucial importance are those
studies on personality structure which apply
multi-trait, multi-informant, and multi-instrument
procedures. The use of more than one informant
(self-reports combined with peer ratings) and
more than one measure of the Big Five traits has
10
not only corroborated the existence of alpha/sta-
bility and beta/plasticity, but has also proved any
correlations between them to be artifacts, as the
two factors are not correlated in the latent space of
multi-informant models (DeYoung 2006; see also
Chang et al. 2012). Empirical evidence for the
orthogonality of these two basic factors under-
mines the existence of one general factor located
at the top of a hierarchically organized structure of
personality.
Toward Further Elaboration of
Theoretical Meaning
Theoretical Meaning and Usefulness of the
Two Factors
The Two-Factor model has been found to be a
significant contribution to the description, under-
standing, and explanation of personality, as the
two basic factors exhibit some unique psycholog-
ical meaning, irreducible to the meaning of com-
binations of the Big Five traits (Strus and Cieciuch
2017). These two factors, or metatraits, refer to
some very general patterns of behavior and expe-
rience (DeYoung 2006), and empirical research
has shown that this level of description may be
appropriate for the analysis, understanding, and
prediction of other broad constructs (see DeYoung
2015; Saucier et al. 2014; Strus and Cieciuch
2017).
Moreover, the two factors have considerable
theoretical potential and some researchers deem
them a vehicle for overcoming the essentially
atheoretical, descriptive nature of the Big Five
model (cf. Block 2001; Digman 1997; Strus and
Cieciuch 2017). This potential is related to three
important characteristics of metatraits pointed out
in the literature:
1. Biological foundations – alpha/stability and
beta/plasticity have been found to be geneti-
cally determined and are thought to have neu-
robiological substrates in the serotonergic and
dopaminergic systems, respectively (DeYoung
2006; DeYoung et al. 2002).
2. Theoretical explanatory mechanisms
(DeYoung 2006, 2015; DeYoung et al.
Two-Factor Model of Personality
2002) – alpha/stability and beta/plasticity are
considered to describe, e.g., the broadest psy-
chological properties (parameters) of the
human cybernetic system (DeYoung 2015).
3. Possibility of integration with many other con-
structs developed within various models and
theories of personality, emotion, and motiva-
tion (Digman 1997; Saucier et al. 2014; Strus
and Cieciuch 2017) – see relationships of both
alpha/stability and beta/plasticity, as well as
social self-regulation and dynamism, with the
constructs listed in Table 1.
In fact, the third point concerns the crucial
mission of personality psychology, which is com-
prehensive integration or synthesis of knowledge
generated within the some sub-disciplines of
psychology. The constructs depicted in Table 1
relate to many different domains of human
psychological functioning, e.g., basic properties
of the ego, dimensions of motivations, values and
affect, dimensions of social cognition and inter-
personal interaction, as well as basic developmen-
tal processes and classes of psychopathology.
Importantly, most of these broad theoretical con-
cepts and constructs are of dynamic and explor-
atory nature and have been developed in a
deductive process.
Popper (1976) argues that real progress in sci-
ence and the discovery of new things are carried
out through deduction. While induction can lead
to a detailed and precise description and classifi-
cation of the phenomena under study, in principle
it cannot lead to any explanation. In turn, using
deduction, one can propose mechanisms
explaining not only how things look, but also
why they look the way they do. In this approach,
the researcher proposes a theoretical model,
which may initially come across as surprising,
especially if it connects things not ostensibly
related or similar to each other. However, if the
model is correctly developed and empirically test-
able, it can considerably enhance our understand-
ing of human behavior, by going beyond the
observable facts and offering new insights. Some
of the dual constructs in Table 1 are examples of
such deductive models explaining some phenom-
ena. However, due to their disparate nature, not all
Two-Factor Model of Personality
of those constructs are readily amenable to testing,
and some have yet to be operationalized. More-
over, their number is very large and they concern
very specific domains of human psychology.
Therefore, of great value is the opportunity
offered by the TFM to integrate these dynamic
and explanatory theoretical constructs with empir-
ically established knowledge of the personality
trait structure. Indeed, the two broad personality
factors could play the role of a common-
denominator or umbrella model, to use the term
coined by Saucier et al. (2014), by linking dispo-
sitional personality traits with theoretical con-
structs and models, and the latter with each other
(Digman 1997; Saucier et al. 2014; Strus and
Cieciuch 2017). Some efforts have been already
made to achieve such integration. Below, we pre-
sent two current models striving to integrate
knowledge about personality in which the TFM
plays a crucial role.
The Big Two in the Hierarchical Structure of
Personality: The Cybernetic Big Five Theory
Recently, DeYoung (2015) has proposed a com-
prehensive, integrative, and mechanistic explana-
tory theory of personality drawing on cybernetics
as a study of adaptive, goal-directed, and self-
regulating systems. Similarly to the FFT, his
Cybernetic Big Five Theory (CB5T) assumes
that all constructs describing individual psycho-
logical differences can be divided into personality
traits and characteristic adaptations. However, in
the CB5T personality is understood as an evolved
cybernetic system, and so traits are taken to reflect
variation in the parameters of evolved cybernetic
mechanisms, while characteristic adaptations are
thought to represent relatively stable goals
(desired future states), interpretations (factual
and evaluative representations of the current – past
and present – state of the world and the self), and
strategies (plans, actions, skills, and routines used in
attempting to transform the current state into the
desired future state) specified in relation to the indi-
vidual’s particular life circumstances.
Basically, the functioning of cybernetic sys-
tems is characterized by a five-stage cycle:
(1) goal activation, (2) action (or strategy) selec-
tion, (3) action, (4) outcome interpretation, and
(5) goal comparison. However, given that actions
11
are mainly serial, one needs to delineate the
necessary elements of a cybernetic system in rela-
tion to cycles built around actions. Personality
traits and characteristic adaptation are the two
basic categories of such elements. While charac-
teristic adaptations represent learned, updateable,
specific memory contents of the cybernetic sys-
tem, and are defined in relation to particular cul-
tural and individual contexts, personality traits are
the products of basic, general, and universal func-
tional mechanisms of that system. These mecha-
nisms are needed to perform the cybernetic cycle
irrespective of the goal pursued (goal), action
selected (strategy), and specific situation per-
ceived (interpretation). Characteristic adaptations
are deployed by cybernetic mechanisms, and the
CB5T describes the causal dynamics between
traits and characteristic adaptations, and identifies
mechanisms the variation of which is responsible
for traits on the top three levels of the hierarchical
taxonomy (see Fig. 2).
Due to the above considerations, the CB5T
adopted a three-level hierarchical structure of
traits. As the name of the theory indicates, this
taxonomy is based on the Big Five factors treated
as the basic cybernetic parameters and regarded as
the main dimensions of personality trait covaria-
tion. The CB5T recognizes the cybernetic func-
tion of each of the Big Five factors and their
10 aspects, because CB5T additionally includes
a set of 10 intermediate factors or traits placed in
the personality structure between the basic
domains (the Big Five) and their facets. Impor-
tantly, this 10-aspect substructure of the Big Five
was established empirically (see DeYoung 2015),
in contrast to the facets, which mostly were spec-
ulatively derived, and there is no widespread con-
sensus as to their number or content. For this
reason, the CB5T is based on the Big Five
domains and their aspects, whereas the number
and identity of the facets is deemed unknown.
Both the Big Five traits and their aspects fulfill
specific cybernetic functions as parameters of the
cybernetic personality system, although they are
linked to different processes and stages of the
cybernetic cycle. These functions may character-
ize people’s ongoing cybernetic adjustments to
their environments in terms of selection among
the existing goals and strategies. However, a
12
Stability
Neuroticism Agreeableness
Industrious-
Withdrawal Volatility Compassion Politeness
Facets (number unknown)…
Two-Factor Model of Personality, Fig. 2 Two factors located in the hierarchical structure of traits as proposed by
DeYoung (2015) in his Cybernetic Big Five Theory
cybernetic theory of human behavior needs to
explain the process by which new goals and strat-
egies are created, thus transforming the individ-
ual’s collection of characteristic adaptations.
Thus, the CB5T accounts for that process via the
two metatraits of stability and plasticity, which
occupy the top level of personality trait structure.
While cybernetic systems must maintain stable
operation, they must also allow sufficient plastic-
ity to adapt to unpredictable environments and
change.
Stability reflects the capacity of the cybernetic
system to resist disruption and replacement of its
operative goal with immediate goals (e.g.,
expressing anger or pursuing a distraction)
which interfere with longer-term goals when
faced with an anomaly. Then, stability is related
to the resistance of characteristic adaptations to
interruption by emotions, impulses or doubts, and
to descending into chaos under the influence of
anomalies or threats. In turn, plasticity reflects the
readiness of the cybernetic system to generate
new characteristic adaptations voluntarily, in
response to incentives (the reward value of the
unknown), and not only as a result of stressors
causing instability and disintegration. In the face
of an anomaly, plasticity may provide a motiva-
tion to explore by putting the current operative
Two-Factor Model of Personality
Plasticity
Conscientiousness Extraversion Openness/Intellect
Orderliness Enthusiasm Assertiveness Intellect Openness
ness
plans on hold and formulating some new interpre-
tation, strategy, or goal (DeYoung 2015).
In light of the above, the two metatraits of
stability and plasticity represent the broadest
psychological properties of the cybernetic
system. The cybernetic function of stability
(vs. instability) is the protection of goals, interpre-
tations, and strategies from disruption by
impulses, while that of plasticity (vs. rigidity) is
exploration in terms of the creation of new goals,
interpretations, and strategies. They both refer to
whether an individual’s goals, interpretations, and
strategies are stable or unstable, plastic or rigid in
relation to entropy (chaos, the unknown, uncer-
tainty, or unpredictability) as a fundamental prob-
lem for any cybernetic system.
Summing up, at the core of the CB5T theory is
a hierarchical structure of personality traits built
around the Big Five dimensions with a crucial role
played by the metatraits derived from the TFM.
The prominent function of the later can be traced
to the nature of the theory itself, i.e., an interpre-
tation of personality within the framework of
cybernetics as a study of goal-directed, self-
regulating systems.
The CB5T has implications for well-being and
psychopathology linking them to function and
dysfunction in traits and characteristic adapta-
tions. Moreover, DeYoung (2015), comparing
Two-Factor Model of Personality
the advantages and limitations of the CB5T with
other salient theories (e.g., social-cognitive theo-
ries), called the CB5T an integrative, or synthetic
theory. However, it seems that the integrative
potential of the CB5T does not lie in providing a
platform for reconciling various models and con-
structs in their original form, but rather in
reinterpreting them within the framework of an
empirically established and theoretically
interpreted (in mechanistic exploratory terms)
model of personality traits and within a precisely
conceptualized domain of characteristic adapta-
tions (in contrast to the FFT), with a focus on the
causal dynamics between traits and characteristic
adaptations. Moreover, as noted by DeYoung
(2015), the hierarchical model of personality traits
is an oversimplification at levels below the
Big Five, as the structure of personality is not
simply organized. According to DeYoung
(2015), the CB5T is compatible with the existence
of these additional relationships, but it does not
change the fact that some traits, aspects, and facets
have cross-loadings, being composites of two or
more higher-order traits.
The Big Two in a Circular Structure of
Personality: The Circumplex of Personality
Metatraits
The Circumplex of Personality Metatraits (CPM)
proposed by Strus and colleagues (Strus et al.
2014; Strus and Cieciuch 2017) continues the
line of thinking in terms of broad personality
dimensions, or higher-order factors of personality,
resolving some of the problems that have arisen in
this research field. The CPM is based on the idea
of circular organization of metatraits, arranging
alpha/stability and beta/plasticity as orthogonal
axes within a circumplex structure. In addition,
the CPM incorporates two other metatraits, i.e.,
gamma/integration and delta/self-restraint, which
derive from a combination of alpha and beta, and
are located orthogonally to each other and in 45
rotation to the former. The model is presented in
Fig. 3.
Gamma/integration is a CPM reinterpretation
of the GFP, which enables the inclusion of accu-
rate findings and correct interpretations from GFP
proponents (Musek 2007; Rushton and Irwing
13
2011) while avoiding the weaknesses and misin-
terpretations pointed out by its opponents (see
Revelle and Wilt 2013). In the CPM model, the
GFP (i.e., gamma/integration) retains its theoreti-
cal meaning, but is located at the same level of the
circumplex structure as alpha/stability and beta/
plasticity (cf. Revelle and Wilt 2013), rather than
hierarchically above them. In other words, from
the CPM perspective, most controversies linked to
the GFP result from it being assigned the wrong
status within the structure of personality. Gamma/
integration is one of two possible combinations of
alpha/stability and beta/plasticity (both high
vs. both low), with the second combination
being delta/self-restraint (high alpha/stability and
low beta/plasticity vs. low alpha/stability and high
beta/plasticity). The presence of delta/self-
restraint results both from the logic of the
circumplex structure already incorporating alpha,
beta, and gamma (Revelle and Wilt 2013), as well
as from empirical findings indicating different-
sign correlations of alpha/stability and beta/plas-
ticity with other variables (e.g., DeYoung et al.
2002; cf. Becker 1999).
Moreover, the CPM assumes that the opposite
poles of each metatrait exhibit some psychologi-
cal meaning beyond simple opposition, defining
the positive and negative poles of alpha, beta,
gamma, and delta separately (Strus et al. 2014),
with the negative ones being labeled disinhibition,
passiveness, disharmony, and sensation seeking,
respectively. Therefore, the CPM proposes an
octant structure of personality metatraits, includ-
ing four bipolar metatraits (dimensions) or eight
unipolar ones (octants). Each of the eight octants
represents a certain configuration of the Big Five
traits (see Fig. 3).
According to Strus et al. (2014), the addition of
another two metatraits to alpha/stability and beta/
plasticity in conjunction with the assumption of a
circumplex structure of metatraits enhances the
integrative potential of the TFM, providing foun-
dations for a truly comprehensive, wide-ranging
theoretical synthesis. The CPM model can be
treated as a kind of matrix accommodating vari-
ous constructs and models of personality, temper-
ament, emotion, motivation, well-being, and
psychopathology, of which many are in fact
14 Two-Factor Model of Personality

Two-Factor Model of
Personality, Fig. 3 Two
basic factors located within
a circular structure of
metatraits as proposed by
Strus and colleagues (Strus
et al. 2014; Strus and
Cieciuch 2017) in their
Circumplex of Personality
Metatraits. N =
Neuroticism; E=
Extraversion; O = Openness
to Experience; A =
Agreeableness; C =
Conscientiousness; +
means positive pole of the
trait; – means negative pole
of the trait

circular models (Strus and Cieciuch 2017).
Moreover, the CPM makes it possible to reconcile
the tradition of personality description in terms of
traits with its description in terms of types (Strus
et al. 2014), as the gamma and delta poles directly
correspond to basic personality prototypes under-
stood as the most common configurations of the
Big Five personality profiles (Gramzow et al.
2004). At the least, the CPM model facilitates,
more readily than TFM, consistent theoretical
integration of the trait (dispositional) approach to
personality with those personality theories that
make use of dynamic and explanatory theoretical
constructs. This is so because many of the con-
structs presented in Table 1 exhibit closer theoret-
ical correspondence with gamma/integration and
delta/self-restraint than with alpha/stability
and beta/plasticity. Examples include Block’s
constructs of ego-control and ego-resiliency,
showing affinity to delta-plus and gamma-plus in
terms of psychological meaning, respectively
(cf. Gramzow et al. 2004). In turn, the activity of
the neurobiological BIS and BAS systems (Gray
1991) as mechanisms explaining the basic
dimensions of temperament (anxiety and impul-
sivity) appear to be related to gamma-minus and
delta-minus, respectively (see Strus and Cieciuch
2017).
However, it is worth noting that to date the
CPM has not offered (in contrast to the CB5T)
any explanatory mechanisms underlying the
metatraits. Instead, it has demonstrated its
potential to provide a platform for a wide-ranging
theoretical synthesis. The CPM can be deemed a
bridge between the trait-dispositional and
dynamic-exploratory components of personality
(e.g., characteristic adaptations), as well as an
“intermediator” or “broker” linking constructs
from other models, showing connections, and
enabling exploration of deeper interrelationships
between the phenomena that they describe. The
CPM may also provide inspiration for further
development or refinement of some models (see
Strus and Cieciuch 2017). Obviously, the CPM is
quite similar to Becker’s model (1999) as both
consist of eight unipolar octants whose psycho-
logical content is much alike. However, the mean-
ings of the metatraits comprising the CPM and
Becker’s model differ in some important aspects,
due to the some essential differences between the
two models particularly pronounced in terms of
the theoretical origins, context, and implications.
Conclusions
A major problem in the psychology of personality
and individual differences is the concurrence of
numerous models of broader or narrower scope
with unclear or unknown interrelationships.
Indeed, this state of affairs brings to mind ancient
Greece, where philosophers pondering the nature
of the world sought arche, which was supposed to
be the substance and origin of all existing things.
Two-Factor Model of Personality
Different schools of thought advanced different
positions in this respect: arche was claimed to be
water by Thales of Miletus, air by Anaximenes,
fire by Heraclitus, and earth by Xenophanes. In
turn, Empedocles believed that each of his pre-
decessors was in part right and that the world
consisted of four elements: water, air, earth, and
fire. These elements could combine with each
other creating an infinite number of arrangements
as a result of the action of two forces: love and
strife, also termed attraction and repulsion.
Actually, Empedocles’s reasoning contains
several important characteristics, which have
enabled the emergence of the TFM in the field of
psychology: (1) differences between theoretical
models should entail synthesis incorporating
legitimate insights from various models, rather
than the choice of one over others; (2) of particular
value are simple solutions and models, especially
those which provide a point of departure for more
informative and sophisticated models; (3) a good
model contains a description of both a static struc-
ture and dynamic forces which constitute an
explanatory mechanism. The TFM, stemming
from both psycholexical and questionnaire studies
of five factors of personality, as well as from some
other research paradigms, may integrate many
theoretical insights and models (such as the dual
constructs presented in Table 1) in a straightfor-
ward way, offering a good starting point for fur-
ther, more sophisticated models describing both
the static structure and dynamic forces of
personality.
There is a considerable body of research indi-
cating the existence of two broad and orthogonal
factors located at the top of the personality struc-
ture (e.g., Chang et al. 2012; DeYoung 2006;
DeYoung et al. 2002; Digman 1997). Moreover,
many authors report evidence supporting their
substantive nature (e.g., Chang et al. 2012;
DeYoung 2006), i.e., that they are not (or not
entirely) method factors or response biases,
resulting from, e.g., egoistic and moralistic biases
in self-perception (Paulhus and John 1998; see
Table 1). Obviously, the TFM is not in itself
sufficient for describing that structure and does
not invalidate more informative models, such as
the FFM or HEXACO (DeYoung 2015; Saucier
15
2008; Saucier et al. 2014). However, the broadest
dimensions of personality appear to be truly cross-
culturally universal, biologically based, and capa-
ble of wide-ranging theoretical integration, and as
such form a parsimonious model with a unique
theoretical potential (DeYoung 2015; Saucier
et al. 2014; Strus et al. 2014; Strus and Cieciuch
2017).
Nevertheless, further research is needed to con-
firm the identity of the two broad factors
established independently in questionnaire and
psycholexical studies. They clearly correspond
to each other and their identity is highly likely,
but the results of existing investigations are not
conclusive (De Raad et al. 2010; Saucier 2008;
Saucier et al. 2014). For instance, the pattern of
relationships of the Big Two factors with the Big
Five ones differs to some extent (particularly in
the case of neuroticism/emotional stability; cf. De
Raad et al. 2010; Digman 1997; DeYoung 2006;
Saucier et al. 2014), and both Big Two factors
reveal some differences in theoretical meaning.
The relationship between the Big Two factors
is likely to be clarified within the CPM model
(Strus et al. 2014), which represents one of the
two main avenues for further theoretical extension
of the TFM. The CPM continues the line of
research adopting a circumplex structure of per-
sonality traits (Becker 1999; Eysenck and
Eysenck 1985; Wiggins and Trapnell 1996), and
supplements the TFM with two additional meta-
traits. In this way, the CPM enhances the theoret-
ical synthesis potential of the TFM, forming a
matrix or platform for accommodating different
constructs and models in their original form, and
revealing their internal and external interrelation-
ships (Strus and Cieciuch 2017). However, to date
the CPM has not offered any explanatory mecha-
nisms underlying the metatraits.
The second avenue for theoretical extension of
the TFM, the CB5T, does not include the GFP or a
fourth metatrait (delta). However, it does fully
retain the hierarchical model of personality struc-
ture and accommodate the empirically derived
Big Five aspects, which are absent in direct form
from the CPM. Most importantly, the CB5T offers
mechanistic explanations of the Big Two factors
of personality, as well as descriptions of causal
16
dynamics between traits and characteristic adap-
tations, although its integrative potential involves
reinterpretation of other personality constructs
and models within its conceptual frame, rather
than enabling integration in their original form.
Acknowledgments The work was prepared within
Grants 2014/14/M/HS6/00919 from the National Science
Centre, Poland.
Cross-References
▶ Big Five Model
▶ Personality Structure
▶ Meta-traits
References
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and
agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective
model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
50, 195–255. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.
00004-7.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical,
and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of
personality structure. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Review, 11, 150–166. doi:10.1177/
1088868306294907.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. An
essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand
Mcnally.
Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the Big Five. Personality and
Individual Differences, 26, 511–530. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(98)00168-8.
Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five-factor
approach to personality description 5 years later. Jour-
nal of Research in Personality, 35, 98–107. doi:10.
1006/jrpe.2000.2293.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control
and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In
W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect,
and social relations (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Chang, L., Connelly, B. S., & Geeza, A. A. (2012).
Separating method factors and higher order traits of
the Big Five: A meta-analytic multitrait–multimethod
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 102(2), 408–426. doi:10.1037/a0025559.
De Raad, B., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). A new taxonomy
of Dutch personality traits based on a comprehensive
and unrestricted list of descriptors. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 94, 347–364. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.94.2.347.
Two-Factor Model of Personality
De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P. H., Levert, E., Ostendorf, F.,
Mlacic, B., Di Blas, L., Hrebickova, M., Szirmak, Z.,
Szarota, P., Perugini, M., Church, A. T., &
Katigbak, M. S. (2010). Only three factors of person-
ality description are fully replicable across languages:
A comparison of 14 trait taxonomies. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 98, 160–173. doi:10.
1037/a0017184.
DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big
Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151. doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138.
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five theory. Jour-
nal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58. doi:10.1016/
j.jrp.2014.07.004.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002).
Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict confor-
mity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and
Individual Differences, 33, 533–552. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(01)00171-4.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factor of the Big Five.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1246–1256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and
individual differences. A natural science approach.
New York: Plenum Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of
personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.
Gramzow, R. H., Sedikides, C., Panter, A. T., Sathy, V.,
Harris, J., & Insko, C. A. (2004). Patterns of self-
regulation and the Big Five. European Journal of Per-
sonality, 18, 367–385. doi:10.1002/per.513.
Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament.
In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Exploration in
temperament: International perspectives on theory
and measurement (pp. 102–128). New York: Plenum
Press.
Grossberg, S. (1980). How does a brain build a cognitive
code? Psychological Review, 87, 1–51.
Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2006). Reinterpreting
comorbidity: A model-based approach to understand-
ing and classifying psychopathology. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 2, 111–133. doi:10.1146/annurev.
clinpsy.2.022305.095213.
McAdams, D. P. (1988). Power, intimacy, and the life
story: Personological inquiries into identity.
New York: The Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in
adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory perspective
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence
of the Big One in the Five-Factor Model. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233. doi:10.1016/j.
jrp.2007.02.003.
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moral-
istic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-
deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal
Two-Factor Model of Personality
of Personality, 66, 1025–1060. doi:10.1111/1467-
6494.00041.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children.
New York: International Universities Press.
Popper, K. R. (1976). The myth of the framework. In
E. Freeman (Ed.), The abdication of philosophy – Phi-
losophy and the public good: Essays in honor of Paul
Arthur Schilpp (pp. 23–48). LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
Revelle, W., & Wilt, J. (2013). The general factor of per-
sonality: A general critique. Journal of Research in
Personality, 47, 493–504. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.
012.
Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2011). The general factor of
personality: Normal and abnormal. In T. Chamorro-
Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The
Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences
(pp. 134–163). London: Blackwell Publishing.
Saucier, G. (2008). Measures of the personality factors
found recurrently in human lexicons. In G. J. Boyle,
G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The
sage handbook of personality theory and assessment
(Vol. 2, pp. 29–54). Los Angeles: Sage.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of
indigenous personality factors: Premises, products,
and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847–879.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696167.
Saucier, G., Thalmayer, A. G., Payne, D. L., Carlson, R.,
Sanogo, L., Ole-Kotikash, L., Church, A. T.,
17
Katigbak, M. S., Somer, O., Szarota, P., Szirmak, Z.,
& Zhou, H. (2014). A basic bivariate structure of per-
sonality attributes evident across nine languages.
Journal of Personality, 82(1), 1–14. doi:10.1111/jopy.
12028.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E.,
Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M.,
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., &
Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individ-
ual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 103, 663–688. doi:10.1037/a0029393.
Strus, W., & Cieciuch, J. (2017). Towards a synthesis of
personality, temperament, motivation, emotion and
mental health models within the Circumplex of Person-
ality Metatraits. Journal of Research in Personality,
66, 70–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.12.002.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014). The
circumplex of personality metatraits: A synthesizing
model of personality based on the Big Five. Review of
General Psychology, 18(4), 273–286. doi:10.1037/
gpr0000017.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual
structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98,
219–235. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic – inter-
actional perspective on the Five Factor Model. In J. S.
Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of personality
(pp. 88–162). New York: The Guilford Press.