432904

2012
TAP22510.1177/0959354311432904CieciuchTheory & Psychology

Comment

Theory & Psychology

The Big Five and Big Ten: 22(5) 689­–696
© The Author(s) 2012
Between Aristotelian and Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Galileian physics of DOI: 10.1177/0959354311432904

tap.sagepub.com

personality

Jan Cieciuch
University of Finance and Management

Abstract 
This text is a polemic commentary on McCrae’s article presenting the analogies of the main
currents of psychology of personality to physics and chemistry. The article presents the
problematicity of the comparison of the Big Five model to physics based on the comparison
of psychology to Aristotelian and Galileian physics propounded by Lewin. According to the
interpretation assumed hereunder, the Big Five model constitutes a peculiar physics of personality
(in line with McCrae), but it is a physics performed in an Aristotelian manner (according to
the differentiation of Lewin), which is connected with significant limitations. The integration of
knowledge on personality posited by McCrae requires the change in paradigm of the physics of
personality from the Aristotelian to the Galileian that Lewin postulated. The first step towards
enacting such a change may be the introduction of Schwartz’s value model into the physics of
personality in McCrae’s approach.

Keywords 
Big Five, Big Ten, scientific progress, theory, values

McCrae (2009) draws an inspiring metaphoric parallel between two basic natural sci-
ences and two major branches of contemporary personality psychology. The purpose of
the metaphor propounded by him is to facilitate the understanding of the current state of
personality psychology and to undertake reflection on the possibility of integrating its
various currents.
This commentary undertakes the metaphoric thinking of McCrae, as I consider it
to be extremely valuable, while the goal that it should serve is of great significance.
This metaphoric thinking will be undertaken by recalling another metaphoric parallel

Corresponding author:
Jan Cieciuch, Faculty of Psychology, University of Finance and Management, ul. Pawia 55, 01-030 Warsaw, Poland.
Email: jancieciuch@gmail.com
690 Theory & Psychology 22(5)

between psychology and the natural sciences. This was the proposal of Lewin (1935),
who compared the psychology of his time (1930s) to Aristotelian and Galileian
physics. Lewin’s goal was similar to that of McCrae—to reflect on the current state of
psychology (of personality) and on the possibilities of its further development
(integration).
This commentary has two purposes: (a) to reveal that McCrae, in his metaphor with
physics, probably unintentionally, revealed the similarity of trait psychology to
Aristotelian physics alone, therefore—as interpreted by Lewin—an archaic physics and
(b) to point out a possible step that can be taken in the direction of modifying the para-
digm of personality psychology and the Big Five model, which would correspond to
Galileian physics, namely modern physics.

The physics and chemistry of personality according to McCrae

Physics and chemistry are, for McCrae (2009), the models of two currents in personality
psychology. The equivalent of physics is trait psychology, particularly the Big Five
Model, while the counterpart of chemistry is psychology of personality processes, thus,
he stated elsewhere—social cognitive approaches. The author makes the analogies based
on formal correspondence between physics and chemistry and the currents of personality
psychology.
The similarity between physics and trait psychology is, according to McCrae, based
on three pillars. First, both are focused on universals. The concept of traits, similarly to
main concepts in physics, is abstract. Just as a physicist measures mass (regardless of
whether they are measuring gold or lead, living or still matter), a psychologist measures,
for instance, extraversion (regardless of the age, sex, and nationality of the persons meas-
ured). Traits in the Big Five Model are universal (as shown by cross-cultural research)
and stable (as revealed by longitudinal studies).
Second, both physics as well as trait psychology apply mathematics to describe the
studied phenomena. Among the advanced statistical methods used, McCrae particularly
mentions factor analysis as a peculiar calculus of trait.
Third, both formulate general laws. Several basic physical laws are mentioned by
McCrae (2009) in his article in the form of mathematical equations. The author concen-
trates mostly on the law of conservation of energy. He states that its equivalent is the
thesis of personality psychology that various behaviours can be a manifestation of the
same trait. In the way that measurable energy lies at the base of such diverse phenomena
as sound, light, and movement, so the behaviours of a dutiful Muslim observing
Ramadan and the behaviour of a dutiful Marxist campaigning for the elimination of
religion, although so very different from each other, are a manifestation of the same
trait—conscientiousness.
Chemistry also uses mathematics and formulates laws. Contrary to physics it does not
construct concepts with which it would want to describe everything that exists, therefore,
chemistry applies mathematics for other purposes and formulates different laws. While
physics searches for fundamental and simple laws, chemistry concentrates on the infinite
richness of possible bonds between a finite amount of elements. The main difference
Cieciuch 691

between physics and chemistry of personality consists of the fact that physics (trait the-
ory) strives towards an abstract description of the entire universum, while chemistry
(social cognitive approaches) heads towards a description of the richness of the concrete.
In the further arguments, I concentrate on McCrae’s proposal of approaching physics as
a metaphor for the Big Five.

Aristotelian physics, Galileian physics, and psychology

according to Lewin
The overall intention of the metaphor propounded over 70 years before Lewin (1935)
differs from the proposal of McCrae in two points. First, Lewin suggests that psychology
be looked at as a whole, without dividing it into its currents. Second, it divides physics
into two ways of applying it but they are not current and equal ways but ways that are
ordered historically, therefore, one of them—the modern (Galileian)—is better than the
other, outdated (Aristotelian). Lewin concentrates on the manner of constructing con-
cepts and formulating laws as instruments of understanding the world in both modes of
thoughts in physics and searches for its parallels in psychology.
Reiterating the heart of the matter—the difference between the two modes of
thoughts in physics results from the fact that Aristotle classifies objects, whereas
Galileo formulates laws (concerning all objects). In Aristotelian physics the correct
classification is of vital importance because the behaviour of that object is designated
by the given class to which it belongs. Light objects soar up, for instance, while heavy
ones fall. Correct classification to a given class (heavy or light) enables its behaviour
to be foreseen (falling or soaring up). The explanation of an object’s behaviour consists
of assigning the object to a given class because the essence of the object defines its
behaviour.
Explanation in the physics of Galileo looks completely different. It consists of indi-
cating the law that connects various different sizes or objects together. An object falls not
because it possesses the trait of falling (as Aristotle wanted) but because it results from
the interaction of that object with the earth, described by the law of gravitation.
The interpretive thesis of Lewin was as follows: Contemporary psychology is applied in
an Aristotelian manner. Its development is determined by the adaptation of the way of
thinking proper to Galileian physics (namely, modern physics). Despite the fact that the
diagnosis of Lewin is already almost 70 years old, today’s psychology is still most proba-
bly closer to Aristotle than to Galileo, to which the excellent article of McCrae (2009)
testifies.

The Big Five: The physics of personality (but an

Aristotelian physics)
This polemic commentary to McCrae’s (2009) article will be formulated in four steps.
The first three have been inspired by the metaphor of Lewin and constitute a critique of
McCrae’s proposal. The fourth step entails the proposal of extending Aristotelian physics
towards Galileian physics (of personality).
692 Theory & Psychology 22(5)

Trait psychology is the physics of personality, as propounded by

McCrae, but it is a physics that is applied in the Aristotelian spirit
The Big Five is an elegant, Aristotelian classification of traits. In fact, it can even be
stated that it goes beyond the Aristotelian approach because it is rooted not only in the
phenotype (which was specific to Aristotle), but also in the genotype. Although it con-
centrates on what can be observed, it can still penetrate the things that are directly
imposed on observations in order to reach that which is fundamental and somewhat hid-
den (like the similarity between the religious behaviour of a Muslim and that of the athe-
ist Marxist). The classification of personality traits assumes the form of dimensions with
which the psychological universum can be described. A characteristic example is the
already mentioned comparison of extraversion to mass—both sizes are dimensions
describing the studied object. Classification is important because it designates the behav-
iour of an object in physics and a person in psychology. Thus, the behaviour of a Muslim
and a Marxist results from the trait of conscientiousness that they both possess. The
proper classification (measurement) of that trait allows us to explain their way of behav-
iour (conscientiousness), regardless of the content of that behaviour.
If, however, the example of the mass is comforting in terms of the condition of per-
sonality psychology (becoming similar in their descriptions to physics, the model of
empirical science), the example of the Muslim and the Marxist gives rise to certain anxi-
ety. The truly intriguing question is: why one of them is a conscientious follower of a
religion and the other its conscientious enemy? If a physicist contended that both objects
have the same mass but behave very differently—e.g., one is at rest and the other
moves—they would be capable of explaining it using the laws concerning forces that are
known to them. What laws has trait psychologist at its disposal? The similarity in the
behaviour of the Muslim and the Marxist is explained by their personality traits, but what
forces explain the differences in their behaviour?

Aristotelian physics of personality traits is connected with significant

limitations
Aristotelian physics of traits is connected with two limitations that make it impossible
for any of the two posed questions to receive satisfactory answers. The only laws that are
formulated on the grounds of Aristotelian physics (and trait theory) are connected with
belonging to a class that defines the nature of the object and determines its behaviour (a
Muslim behaves the way they do because they are conscientious). Consequently, only a
static description of the psychological universum (in the category of traits) is possible.
McCrae mentions several equations describing physical laws and discusses the prin-
ciple of energy conservation. But this principle transferred onto the field of personality
psychology has nothing in common with those laws because it concerns the stability of
the dimension and not the dynamics of changes.
Conjecturing a very liberal analogy, determining it as being whimsical, McCrae
(2009) mentions five main physical forces that push and pull all objects in the physical
universe. They are: gravitation, electric charge, magnetism, and strong and weak nuclear
force. Similarly, five traits push and pull people toward various—attention!—courses of
Cieciuch 693

behaviour. Jokes aside, a significant difference can be seen—surely, the mentioned phys-
ical forces do not only regulate the course of behaviour. They regulate something more—
namely, they regulate behaviour. Gravitation does not only regulate the manner of falling
but also falling itself. Personality traits, on the contrary, only regulate the course of
behaviour. The content of the behaviour remains unknown.
It is worth pointing out that extraversion on the one hand was compared to mass (as
an abstract dimension, independent from what the mass belongs to and whom extraver-
sion belonged to), and, on the other hand, to basic physical forces (to which gravitation
also belongs). However, these are completely different categories. From the point of
view of the differentiation conducted by Lewin, significant differences can be seen.
Comparing extraversion to mass is close to the Aristotelian spirit, while the comparison
to force moves towards Galileian physics. Mass is the property of the studied object;
gravitation is a force that acts between objects. If the comparison of extraversion to mass
does not give rise to any doubt, comparing it to force is relatively doubtful. The psycho-
logical universum proposed by McCrae’s Aristotelian physics of traits is a static
universum. In the Big Five model there is no room for dynamics—dynamics that surely
are the basic subdiscipline of modern physics.

The integration of knowledge on personality posited by McCrae

requires the change in paradigm of the physics of personality from
the Aristotelian to the Galileian, postulated by Lewin
Dynamic aspects of the personality were usually connected with motivation and as such
are acknowledged to be one of the historical sources of contemporary personality psy-
chology (McAdams, 1997). In the Big Five Theory, motivational aspects belong to so-
called” characteristic adaptations (McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2003),
thus, in the metaphor of the commented article of McCrae (2009), they are closer to the
chemistry of personality.
Nevertheless, it seems that the trait model is incapable of overcoming the limitations
of Aristotelian physics. A change in paradigm of trait physics means the necessity to
introduce the laws describing the action of forces into personality physics. From the
point of view of the Big Five Model, it is not a change in paradigm but merely its sup-
plementation. Traits (after the introduced modification) shall remain the same as they are
at present.
The law of metaphorical analogy—the patronage of such a modification can be traced
back to the ancient Greek philosopher Empedocles who was mentioned in psychology of
personality by Emmons (1995), among others. Empedocles saw the entire universe as
being composed of four elements (earth, air, fire, and water), which constitute an analogy
to the traits of the Big Five Model. However, the vision of Empedocles already contained
an explanation of changes, therefore, apart from the elements, he introduced two forces
(love and strife) into his concept. Thanks to this he explained not only what the world is
like, what it is composed of, and what the coming to be and change consists of.
Attention should be turned to the fact that the forces proposed by Empedocles that
explained the dynamics of the world were equally as universal as the elements, therefore,
694 Theory & Psychology 22(5)

they corresponded to the simplicity of physics rather than the richness of chemistry posited
by McCrae (2009). The vision of Empedocles was also an early harbinger of the physics of
Galileo—changes took place not because that was the nature of the changing object but
because that object entered into interaction with the forces. An equivalent of the elements of
Empedocles are the five personality traits. What corresponds to the forces of Empedocles?

Five personality traits and ten values: Towards Galileian

personality physics
The introduction of the motivational value theory of Schwartz
into personality trait physics can be a step towards changing the
Aristotelian paradigm to the Galileian
The Schwartz value theory fulfils (to the same extent as the trait theory) two, formulated
by McCrae and also previously mentioned here, criteria of similarity of psychological
constructs (traits) to physical sizes. The third criterion is fulfilled better by the Schwartz
value theory than the trait theory. Seeing that Schwartz (1992, 2006) proposes a cata-
logue of 10 values, through analogy to the Big Five personality traits, they shall be
referred to as the Big Ten values.
Value as a cognitive representation of motivational goals is abstract similarly to traits.
In the same way as the Big Five describes the universum of traits, the Big Ten describes
the universum of motives. Both abstract constructs are manifest in various behaviours,
which sometimes, at first instance, seem dissimilar.
Ten value types are a universal catalogue. Big Ten was verified in numerous studies,
including in representative groups already in four editions of the European Social Survey.
The number of respondents has reached hundreds of thousands. The grand scale of the
research on values in the Schwartz’s model is comparable in psychology perhaps only
with studies on personality traits in the model of Costa and McCrae. Advanced statistics
were performed in the research on values—not only simply factor analysis, which
McCrae writes about, but also multigroup confirmatory factor analysis within an invari-
ance study (Davidov, Schmidt, & Schwartz, 2008), which has not been performed to date
in any trait questionnaire.
The two mentioned properties of the Big Ten authorize, in principle, equal treatment
of the Big Five and Big Ten models as approaches to two different aspects of personality:
traits (the elements of Empedocles) and motives (the forces of Empedocles).
On the grounds of the Schwartz’s model, it is possible to formulate laws other than
Aristotelian laws resulting from belonging to a class. The Schwartz’s value model con-
tains not only classification of values (defined in motivational terms) but also description
of relation between values.
The key to Schwartz’s (1992) thesis concerns the structure of values in the form of a
circular continuum, organized by the rule of similarity (values located close to one
another on the wheel can be fulfilled jointly) and the rule of conflict (values located on
the opposite sides of the wheel cannot be fulfilled jointly). Based on the circumplex
structure thesis, a hypothesis can be formulated about the sinusoid pattern of relations
between an external variable and the whole system of values (Schwartz, 2006), which
Cieciuch 695

can be seen as an example of mathematical clarity and generality of the physics of

personality.
What is more, rules of the value structure constitute the germ of laws in the Galileian
spirit. Two directions of recently conducted research are particularly promising and close
to the physics of personality in the Galilean spirit. The first of those concerns the devel-
opment of the value structure in childhood. Research started by Döring, Blauensteiner,
Aryus, Drögekamp, and Bilsky (2010) presents the development of the circumplex struc-
ture of values by, as a first step, isolating two dimensions and then carrying out the dif-
ferentiation of values aimed at the Big Ten circumplex model. The emerging structure of
values results from Galilean interactions between partly innate needs and culture within
which socialization takes place.
The other direction of research and theory development is related to laws governing a
change in values. Research done both in the laboratory (Maio, Pakizeh, Cheung, & Rees,
2009) and in natural conditions (Bardi, Lee, Hofmann-Towfigh, & Soutar, 2009) indi-
cates that an intraindividual value change mirrors the circumplex structure of values so
that conflicting values change in opposite directions and compatible values change in the
same directions, in accordance with the sinusoidal hypothesis. Such results allow us to
determine regularities behind a change in values (Bardi & Goodwin, 2011).
Both the mentioned research directions are the first but, nevertheless, quite consider-
able step toward the Galilean physics of personality, in which the object’s behaviour is
explained not through his or her belonging to a class, but based on laws governing rela-
tions between objects.
The elegant classification of 10 values is comparable to the classification of five per-
sonality traits constituting a supplement of the static description of personality by the
dynamic aspect. Furthermore, the structure of the value theory is described in a way that
exceeds the limitations of Aristotelian physics of personality. In the interpretation that
has been propounded herein, they are rather proper to the first level of personality accord-
ing to the classification of McAdams and Pals (2006), that is, the physics of personality
in the metaphor of McCrae (2009).

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References
Bardi, A., & Goodwin, R. (2011). The dual route to value change: Individual processes and cultural
moderators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 271–287.
Bardi, A., Lee, J. A., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Soutar, G. (2009). The structure of intraindividual
value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 913–929.
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in. The adequacy of the
European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3),
420–445.
Döring, A. K., Blauensteiner, A., Aryus, K., Drögekamp, L., & Bilsky, W. (2010). Assessing
values at an early age: The Picture-Based Value Survey for Children. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 92(5), 439–448.
696 Theory & Psychology 22(5)

Emmons, R. (1995). Levels and domains in personality: An introduction. Journal of Personality,

63(3), 341–364.
Lewin, K. (1935). The conflict between Aristotelean and Galileian modes of thought in contem-
porary psychology. In K. Lewin (Ed.), A dynamic theory of personality (pp. 1–42). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Maio, G. R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W.-Y., & Rees, K. (2009). Changing, priming, and acting
on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97, 699–715.
McAdams, D. (1997). A conceptual history of personality psychology. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, &
S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 4–40). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
McAdams, D., & Pals, J. (2006). A new Big Five. Fundamental principles for an integrative science
of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204–217.
McCrae, R. R. (2009). The physics and chemistry of personality. Theory & Psychology, 19, 670–687.
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (2003). Personality in adulthood. A five-factor theory perspective. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical
tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25,
pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: Theory measurement and applications. Revue francaise
de sociologie, 47(4), 929–968.

Jan Cieciuch is a researcher (PhD) at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Finance and
Management in Warsaw. His interests include personality and developmental psychology and
methodology and philosophy of science. He is currently undertaking research on values and traits
in cross-cultural and developmental perspective. Address: Faculty of Psychology, University of
Finance and Management, ul. Pawia 55, 01-030 Warsaw, Poland. Email: jancieciuch@gmail.com