NEO™ Inventories '

for the
NEO"' Personality Inventory-3 (NEO:PJ-3)
NEO™ Five-Factor lnventory-3 (NEO:FFI-3)
NEO™ Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R'M)

Professional Manual

Robert R. McCrae, PhD

Paul T. Costa, Jr., PhD

PAR ®
mil.: 16204 N. Florida Ave.• Lutz, FL 33549 • 1.800.331.8378 • www.parinc.com
Copyright© 2010 by PAR. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form or by any means without written permission of PAR.
98 Reorder #R0-6791 Printed in the U.S.A.

ii
 Acknowledgments

In the quarter century since the introduction of the NEO Inventories, psychologists have accu-
mulated a wealth of data on the instruments' validity and experience with their utility in clinical,
applied, and research contexts. The value of the inventories has grown because of these contri-
butions, and we are grateful for them, as we are for the critiques that have stimulated our own
research and revisions. It is no longer possible to list all those who have made significant con-
tributions, but we are particularly thankful for the work of Jiiri Allik, R. Michael Bagby, Spencer
R. Baker, Filip De Fruyt, William W. Eaton, Kerry Jang, John E. Kurtz, Gerald Nestadt, Ralph
L. Piedmont, Jean Pierre Rolland, Ilene C. Siegler, Antonio Terracciano, Thomas A. Widiger,
Jerry Wiggins, Redford Williams, and Jian Yang. Thomas A. Martin and his students showed the
utmost professionalism in the collection of data for the item selection and validation of the NEO
Personality Inventory-3. We deeply appreciate the efforts of collaborators around the world who
have translated the NEO Inventories into over 50 languages and have provided data document-
ing the universality of traits in the Five-Factor Model. We also thank the research participants
whose honest and careful responses are an essential foundation of trait psychology. Finally, we
acknowledge Bill and Karol for their steadfast support.

Robert R. McCrae
Paul T. Costa, Jr.
September 2010

From the 1992 Edition

In a very real sense, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) is the result of the
work of many personality psychologists and psychometricians who preceded us, especially those
whose work led to the Five-Factor Model of personality. We are indebted to them, as we are to
the many volunteers who participated in our research. In addition, we would like to express our
appreciation to the following psychologists who provided normative data, case studies, transla-
tions, and other assistance: Alois Angleitner, University of Bielefeld; Michael Harris Bond,
Chinese University of Hong Kong; Peter Borkenau, University of Bielefeld; Philippe Cappeliez,
University of Ottawa; Lee Anna Clark, Southern Methodist University; Theodore Dembroski,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County; John M. Digman, Oregon Research Institute; Peter
Fagan, Johns Hopkins University; Lewis R. Goldberg, University of Oregon; Hans Hoekstra,
PTT/Research, Groningen, The Netherlands; Wai-kwan Li, Chinese University of Hong Kong;
Brian Little, Carleton University; James MacDougall, Eckerd College; Timothy Miller, Stockton,
California; Inger Ulrikke M!llller, University of Oslo; I. Montag, Tel Aviv University; Erik Muten,
Montague Psychological Associates; Fritz Ostendorf, University of Koblenz-Landau; Ilene
Siegler, Duke University Medical School; and David Watson, Southern Methodist University.

From the 1989 Edition

Some of the data described in this Supplement were provided by Drs. Theodore M. Dembroski,
John M. Digman, Lewis R. Goldberg, and Timothy Miller. We extend our thanks to them for
sharing the findings from their research.

iii
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... ... .. ..... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... .... .. . iii
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................
2. Test Materials and Use.................................................................................................................................................... 3
NEO-PI-3 (and NEO PI-R) Materials ...............................................................~............................................................... 3
Form S and Form R Item Booklets............................................................................................................................... 3
Hand-Scorable (HS) and Scannable (SS) Answer Sheets ............................................................................................ 3
Profile Forms .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ... ... ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ....... .. 4
NEO-FFI-3 Materials........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Supplementary NEO Materials.......................................................................................................................................... 4
NEO Software System.................................................................................................................................................. 4
Your NEO Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 4
NEO Style Graph Booklet............................................................................................................................................ 4
NEO Problems in Living Checklist.............................................................................................................................. 4
NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 Licensing Agreements........................................................................................................... 5
Foreign Language Versions............................................................................................................................................... 5
Appropriate Populations.................................................................................................................................................... 6
Professional Requirements ........ ... .. .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ..... ... ... ... ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 6
3. Administration and Scoring of the NEO Pl-3. .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ......... .. .. ... ... ... ... .. .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 7
Administration................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Directions...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Alternative Administration Procedures and Accommodations .. ... ..... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... .. .... ... .. ... .... .. ... ... .. 7
Scoring............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Missing Responses........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Validity Checks ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... .... .. .... ... ... . 8
Acquiescence ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Nay-Saying .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Random Responding................................................................................................................................................ 9
Calculating Scores ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Hand-Scorable (HS) Answer Sheet ......................................................................................................................... 9
Scannable (SS) Answer Sheet.................................................................................................................................. 9
Profiling Scores.................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Directions...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Calculating and Using Factor Scores................................................................................................................................. 10
Providing Feedback to the Respondent............................................................................................................................. 12
Your NEO Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 12
NEO Style Graph Booklet ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Administration and Scoring of the NEO-FFl-3 .............................................................................................................. 15
Administration................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Directions...................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Scoring............................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Missing Responses........................................................................................................................................................ 15
Validity Checks............................................................................................................................................................ 15
Calculating Domain Scores .......................................................... :............................................................................... 16
Profiling Scores.................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Providing Feedback to the Respondent ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ....... ... ... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... ... ...... ..... ... ...... ... .... ... . 16

V
5. Conceptualization and Interpretation ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .... .. ... ... .. ... .... ... .... ... ... 17
The Meaning of Scale Scores ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ..... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ..... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... .... .... ... ... 17
Choice of Comparison Group............................................................................................................................................ 18
Clinical Profiles ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
The Five-Factor Model of Personality............................................................................................................................... 18
The Five Domains .... .... .. ... ... ...... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ....... .. ... ... ... .. .. 19
Neuroticism (N) ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Extraversion (E). ... ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ........ ... .. ... .. ... .. .... .. ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 19
Openness to Experience (0) ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Agreeableness (A) .... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ..... ... .. ..... ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ..... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ..... ... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... . 20
Conscientiousness (C) .................................................................................................................................................. 20
The Facet Scales .....................................................................................................,.......................................................... 21
Neuroticism Facets....................................................................................................................................................... 21
Nl: Anxiety.............................................................................................................................................................. 21
N2: Angry Hostility................................................................................................................................................. 21
N3: Depression......................................................................................................................................................... 21
N4: Self-Consciousness........................................................................................................................................... 21
NS: Impulsiveness.................................................................................................................................................... 22
N6: Vulnerability..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Extraversion Facets....................................................................................................................................................... 22
El: Warmth............................................................................................................................................................... 22
E2: Gregariousness ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ..... .. ... ... .. .. ...... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ..... .. ... ... ..... ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .... ... .. 22
E3: Assertiveness .................................................................................................... ;................................................ 22
E4: Activity.............................................................................................................................................................. 22
ES: Excitement-Seeking........................................................................................................................................... 22
E6: Positive Emotions.............................................................................................................................................. 22
Openness Facets............................................................................................................................................................ 22
01: Fantasy .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ..... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ...... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ...... .. ... .. ... .... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. 22
02: Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................................................... 22
03: Feelings............................................................................................................................................................. 23
04: Actions.............................................................................................................................................................. 23
05: Ideas.................................................................................................................................................................. 23
06: Values............................................................................................................................................................... 23
Agreeableness Facets.................................................................................................................................................... 23
Al: Trust................................................................................................................................................................... 23
A2: Straightforwardness .......................................................................................................................................... 23
A3: Altruism .......................................................................................................................................:.................... 23
A4: Compliance....................................................................................................................................................... 23
AS: Modesty ......................................................................................................................................,....................... 23
A6: Tender-Mindedness........................................................................................................................................... 23
Conscientiousness Facets.............................................................................................................................................. 23
C1: Competence....................................................................................................................................................... 23
C2: Order................................................................................................................................................................. 24
C3: Dutifulness........................................................................................................................................................ 24
C4: Achievement Striving........................................................................................................................................ 24
CS: Self-Discipline ......................................................... :......................................................................................... 24
C6: Deliberation....................................................................................................................................................... 24
Interpreting Profiles ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
Combinations of Traits .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. .. 24
Combining Self-Reports and Observer Ratings....................................................................................................... 25
An Example of Profile Interpretation: Case A.............................................................................................................. 25
The NEO-PI-3 Interpretive Report............................................................................................................................... 25

vi
 Case Studies.................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Case B ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Case C ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Case D ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Case E ...................................................................................................................................................................... 41
6. Applications...................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Use of Form S and Form R................................................................................................................................................ 47
Uses in Counseling, Clinical Psychology, and Psychiatry................................................................................................ 48
Clinical Applications of the NEO Inventories.............................................................................................................. 48
Ways to Use the NEO-PI-3 ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Understanding the Client......................................................................................................................................... 48
Diagnosis ................................................................................................. :................................................................ 49
Empathy and Rapport .......................................................................................... ,................................................... 49
Feedback and Insight ... ... ..... ..... ... ..... ... .. ..... ..... ..... ... .......... .. ... ... .. ... ..... ... ... .. ... ........ ... ... .. ... ...... ...... .. ...... ....... ... ..... ... 49
Anticipating the Course of Therapy......................................................................................................................... 49
Selecting Optimal Treatment................................................................................................................................... 50
Personality Disorders, Problems in Living, and the NEO-PI-3.................................................................................... 50
Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology ................................................................................................................... 52
Vocational Counseling and Industrial/Organizational Psychology................................................................................... 53
The NEO Job Profiler............................................................................................................................................... 54
Evaluative Bias in 1/0 Applications .... .. ... .. ... ...... .. ...... ....... ..... ..... ... ..... ... ... .......... ...... ... ...... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... .. 55
Research Applications .. ..... .. .. ..... .. ... ........ ........ ........... ............. .......... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ........ ... ... ..... ... ... ......... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... 55
Cross-Cultural Research ... ..... .. ... ... ..... ..... .............. ... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ... ........... ........ ... ..... ... ... ... .. .... .. ... ...... ... ... ....... ... 55
Behavior and Molecular Genetics............................................................................................................................ 56
Educational Psychology................................................................................................................................................ 56
Other Research.............................................................................................................................................................. 57
7. Rationale and Development ............................................................................................................................................ 59
Domains and Facets: A Strategy for Measuring Personality............................................................................................. 59
The NEO Facets: An Optimal Set? .................................................................................................................................... 60
Approach to Scale Construction........................................................................................................................................ 60
Hierarchical Structure.............................................................................................................................................. 61
Basis in Psychological Literature............................................................................................................................. 61
Rational Scale Construction..................................................................................................................................... 61
Psychometric Requirements..................................................................................................................................... 61
Parallel Forms .......................................................................................................................................................... 61
Construct Validation................................................................................................................................................ 62
Validity Checks and Validity Scales: A Novel Perspective .............................................................................................. 62
Data Quality Indicators in the NEO-PI-3 ..................................................................................................................... 62
Validity Checks........................................................................................................................................................ 62
Acquiescence and Nay-Saying ................................................................................................................................ 62
Random Responding................................................................................................................................................ 62
The Utility and Use of NEO Validity Indicators .. ........ .. ... ..... ..... ... .. ... ... ... ........ ... ..... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ...... ....... .. ... 63
Validity Scales Intentionally Omitted from the NEO Inventories................................................................................ 63
Social Desirability.................................................................................................................................................... 63
Inconsistency Scales .. .. .. ... ... .. ... ..... ... .......... .. ... ..... ... ..... ..... ........ ... ........ ... ..... ...... ......... .. ... ... ... ... .... .......... ...... .......... 64
Development of the NEO-PI-3 .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Research Context and Samples..................................................................................................................................... 64
Phase 1 Adolescent Sample ... ... ... ..... .......... ... .. ... ..... ... ............. ........ ... ... ...... ... .. ... ... .... ... .... .... ..... ..... ....... ........ .... 65
Phase 2 Adult Sample .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ..... ... .. .. ... ........ ... .. ... ..... ... ..... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... .... ... .... ..... ..... ............ ....... ... 65
Phase 3 Middle School Sample........................................................................................................................... 65
Item Selection ... .. ..... ... ... ..... ... .. ... ... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ... .. ........ ........ ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... .... .... ............ .... ..... ...... ........... ... .. 65

vii
 Equivalence of the NEO-PI-3 and NEO PI-R ................................................................................................................... 66
Structural Equivalence.................................................................................................................................................. 66
Equivalence of Age and Gender Differences .... ... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... ..... ... ..... ... .. ... ... ..... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. . 66
Equivalence of Means and Variances........................................................................................................................... 68
NEO-PI-3 Norms ............................................................................................................................................................... 68
Supplementary Norms............................................................................................................................................. 69
Percentiles ........... ... .................................................................................................................................................. 69
Abbreviated Administration of the NEO-PI-3................................................................................................................... 69
8.cValidation of the Inventories and Materials.................................................................................................................. 71
Reliability and Stability..................................................................................................................................................... 71
The NEO Factor Structure................................................................................................................................................. 72
Validity of the NEO Inventories ...........................................................................,............................................................ 72
Validity of the Five Factors.......................................................................................................................................... 72
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Facet Scales.......................................................................................... 74
Convergence with Sentence Completion Measures ..................................................................................................... 76
Consensual Validation ofNEO Inventory Traits.......................................................................................................... 77
Cross-Observer Discriminant Validity................................................................................................................ 78
Construct Validity: Predicting Other Criteria............................................................................................................... 78
Validity of the NEO-PI-3 .................................................................................................................................... 80
Basic Studies on the NEO PI-R ............................................................................................................................... 80
Psychological Well-Being................................................................................................................................... 80
Coping and Defenses........................................................................................................................................... 80
Needs and Motivation......................................................................................................................................... 81
Jungian Types...................................................................................................................................................... 81
Interpersonal Traits ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ..... ... .. ... .. ... ..... ..... ... .. .. ...... .. ... ... ..... ... ..... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ...... ... ... ... .. ... ...... ... ... .. 82
Openness, Creativity, and Divergent Thinking................................................................................................... 82
Development and Validation of the NEO-FFI-3 ............................................................................................................... 83
The NEO-FFI-R ....................................................................................................................................................... 83
The NEO-FFI-3........................................................................................................................................................ 83
Validity of the Translated NEO Inventories...................................................................................................................... 84
Evaluation of Your NEO Summary................................................................................................................................... 84
Utility and Use of the NEO Style Graphs.......................................................................................................................... 85
9. Directions for Future Research........................................................................................................................................ 87
Psychopathology, Personality Disorders, and Problems in Living................................................................................... 87
References.............................................................................................................................................................................. 89
Appendix A: Items ................................................................................................................................................................ 1O1
Appendix B: Normative Data for the NEO Pl-3, the NEO PI-R, and the NEO-FFl-3 ..................................................... 111
Appendix C: Information for Translators and Adaptors .................................................................................................. 121
Appendix D: Development of the NEO PI-R ....................................................................................................................... 123
Appendix E: Supplemental Norms for Special Purposes .................................................................................................. 127
Appendix F: T-Score to Percentile Rank Conversions for the NEO-Pl-3 and the NEO FFl-3 ........................................ 135
Appendix G: lntercorrelations of NEO Pl·R Form S Scales in the Adult Normative Sample ........ '. ............................... 137
Appendix H: SAS and SPSS Programs for Targeted Rotation to the NEO Normative Structure ................................. 141

vm
 Introduction
The NEO Inventories are concise measures of the five
major dimensions, or domains, of personality and the most
important traits or facets that define each domain.
Together, the five broad domain scales and the 30 specific
facet scales allow a comprehensive assessment of adoles-
cent and adult personality.
The NEO Inventories comprise a series of closely
related instruments developed over a period of 30 years
from the original NEO Inventory, a measure of 18 traits
grouped into the domains of Neuroticism (N), Extraversion
(E), and Openness to Experience (0). Since 1985, the
Inventories have also included measures of two other basic
dimensions of personality, Agreeableness (A) and Con-
scientiousness (C). This Professional Manual describes the
current versions of the NEO Inventories: The NEO
Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3); the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R); and the short form, the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3).
The major innovation in this edition is the publication
of the NEO-PI-3, an instrument suitable for the assessment
of individuals age 12 years and older. It is a modification
of the NEO PI-R in which 37 of the 240 items have been
replaced. The new items are easier to understand and have
better psychometric properties. In addition, the NEO-PI-3
has been shown to be suitable for assessing personality in
middle school-aged children and adolescents, as well as in
adults. The NEO-PI-3 retains the validity and interpreta-
tion of the NEO PI-R, but is applicable to a wider range of
respondents, including adults with lower educational lev-
els. This Professional Manual includes new normative data
for the NEO-PI-3.
Researchers and clinicians who have extensive experi-
ence with the NEO PI-R may wish to continue using that
version and the norms with which they are familiar. For
that reason, the NEO PI-R will continue to be made avail-
able in both print and computer versions.
This Professional Manual also introduces the NEO-FFI-3.
This 60-item instrument assesses the five major domains of
personality. The NEO-FFI-3 is a revision of the NEO-FFI
in which 15 of the 60 items have been replaced to improve
readability and psychometric properties. All items are
taken from the NEO-PI-3; thus, the NEO-FFI-3 is also
appropriate for respondents age 12 years and older. New
norms are provided in this Professional Manual.
The NEO-FFI-3 supercedes the NEO-FFI. Researchers
who need to use the original NEO-FFI (for example, for a
longitudinal retest) must obtain it by license from PAR.
Among the other new features discussed in this
Professional Manual are:
• the NEO Problems in Living Checklist (NEO-PLC),
a tool for clinicians to assess problematic behaviors
and symptoms associated with a NEO-PI-3 or
NEO PI-R profile;
• the NEO Style Graph Booklet, a new way to provide
feedback to respondents;
• the NEO Job Profiler, a tool to identify traits rele-
vant to an occupation or position;
• adolescent norms for the observer rating version of
the NEO-FFI-3;
• supplementary norms for different age groups and
for international comparisons;
• a new item order that permits an abbreviated admin-
istration of the NEO-PI-3;
• a glossary of less familiar NEO-PI-3 words for
respondents with limited literacy; and
• a list of published translations of the NEO Inventories.
There are two versions of all NEO Inventories: Form S,
for self-reports, and Form R, for observer ratings. Form S
consists of a series of items answered by respondents to
describe themselves; Form R is a companion instrument
with parallel items written in the third person for peer,
spouse, or expert ratings. Form R can be used to obtain
independent estimates on the same five domains of per-
sonality and may be of particular value in instances when
it is desirable to validate or supplement self-reports.
The NEO Inventories embody a conceptual model that
distills decades of factor analytic research on the structure
of personality. The scales themselves were developed and
refined by a combination of rational and factor analytic
methods and have been the subject of intensive research
conducted for 30 years on both clinical and nonclinical
samples. Evidence of scale reliability, stability, and con-
struct validity has been presented in detail in a series of
publications and is summarized in this Professional
Manual. A bibliography of more than 2,500 publications
using the NEO Inventories is available from the pub-
lisher's Web site, www.parinc.com.
Table 1 lists the NEO domains and their facets and pro-
vides a rough sense of the constructs measured by the instru-
ments. To understand the constructs, professionals should
read chapter .5 on conceptualization and interpretation,
review the correlates, which are discussed in chapter 8, and
study the item content given in Appendix A of this Pro-
fessional Manual.
The NEO Inventories are measures of general person-
ality traits that have demonstrated their utility in clinical,
applied, and research settings. This Professional Manual
provides information on administration and scoring, the
interpretation of scale scores and individual profiles, and
suggested applications. It also summarizes the develop-
ment and validation of the instruments and points to areas
where further research is needed to widen understanding
and application of the NEO Inventories.

Table 1
Domains and Facets Measured by the NEO Personality lnventory-3 (NEO-Pl-3)
Domains Extraversion (E) facets Agreeableness (A) facets
N: Neuroticism El: Warmth Al: Trust
E: Extraversion E2: Gregariousness A2: Straightforwardness
0: Openness E3: Assertiveness A3: Altruism
A: Agreeableness E4: Activity A4: Compliance
C: Conscientiousness E5: Excitement-Seeking A5: Modesty
Neuroticism (N) facets E6: Positive Emotions A6: Tender-Mindedness
Nl: Anxiety Openness (0) facets Conscientiousness (C) facets
N2: Angry Hostility 01: Fantasy C 1: Competence
N3: Depression 02: Aesthetics C2: Order
N4: Self-Consciousness 03: Feelings C3: Dutifulness
N5: Impulsiveness 04: Actions C4: Achievement Striving
N6: Vulnerability 05: Ideas C5: Self-Discipline
06: Values C6: Deliberation

2
 Test Materials and Use
NEO-Pl-3 (and NEO PI-R) Materials
The NEO-PI-3 (and NEO PI-R) materials consist of this
Professional Manual; reusable Form S and Form R Item
Booklets; Hand-Scorable and/or Scannable Answer Sheets;
six NEO-PI-3 Profile Forms; Your NEO Summary, which
provides a description of the examinee' s personality traits
on the five factors; the NEO Style Graph Booklet, which
assists in the interpretation of pairs of factor scores; and
the NEO Problems in Living Checklist. In addition to the
print materials, computerized components of the NEO-PI-3
are available. The measure can be computer-administered,
scored, and interpreted or simply computer-scored and
interpreted. The NEO Professional Report Service, a mail-
in scoring and interpretation service, and the NEO On-Site
Scanning Software require the use of the Scannable
Answer Sheet, which is available from the publisher.
The NEO Software System-the computerized assess-
ment system for the NEO Inventories-has its own
On-Screen Help system. The computerized administration
also gives instructions to the respondent. Most individu-
als, including those with no previous experience with
computers, find this form of administration both easy
and interesting.
Form S and Form R Item Booklets
There are two versions of the NEO-PI-3 Item Booklets:
the self-report item booklet (i.e., Form S) and the observer-
report item booklet (i.e., Form R). Both versions are appro-
priate for both adolescents and adults.
Form S is an eight-page booklet that contains the 240
statements that comprise the NEO-PI-3. The first page of
the booklet presents the instructions for completing the
Hand-Scorable Answer Sheet, and the second page pres-
ents the instructions for completing the Scannable Answer
Sheet. The items of the NEO-PI-3 are presented on pages
3 through 8.
The Form R Item Booklet is parallel to the Form S Item
Booklet, but with items written in the third person for peer,
spouse, or expert ratings. Form R-Female is to be used
when the individual being rated is a girl or woman, and
Form R-Male is to be used when the individual being rated
is a boy or man. Like the Form S booklet, Form R book-
lets are eight pages long. The first page of each Form R
booklet presents the instructions for completing the Hand-
Scorable Answer Sheet, and the second page presents the
instructions for completing the Scannable Answer Sheet.
The items of the NEO-PI-3 are presented on pages 3
through 8.
Hand-Scorable (HS) and
Scannable (SS) Answer Sheets
The Hand-Scorable (HS) Answer Sheet is a two-part,
carbonless paper form designed for use with either Form S
or Form R Item Booklets. (Although 37 of the items on
the NEO-PI-3 differ from those of the NEO PI-Rand the
item order is different, the keying is identical, and thus the
same Answer Sheet can be used for either instrument.) The
HS Answer Sheet contains areas for recording basic demo-
graphic information and responses to the NEO-PI-3 items.
The three validity check items of the NEO-PI-3 are also
presented on the HS Answer Sheet. Respondents complete
the demographic information and mark their item
responses on the top sheet. This information is reproduced
on the bottom sheet, which provides keys for scoring the
domain and facet scales of the NEO-PI-3 (or the NEO PI-R).
The Scannable (SS) Answer Sheet is an 8112'' x 11" form
designed for use with either Form S or Form R Item
Booklets. The front of the form presents instructions for
completing the form. Additionally, the SS Answer Sheet
contains an area for demographic information and direc-
tions for entering this information. The back of the form
contains the area for recording responses to the NEO-PI-3
items. The three validity check items of the NEO-PI-3 are
also presented on this side of the SS Answer Sheet.
Completed SS Answer Sheets can be sent to the publisher
for scoring and interpretation through the NEO Profes-
sional Report Service, or they can be used with the
NEO-PI-3 On-Site Scanning Software.
3
Profile Forms
The NEO-PI-3 Profile Forms have been constructed to
aid in interpretation. The Profile Forms allow raw scores to
be easily converted to T scores for each domain and facet.
The T scores presented on the forms have a mean of 50
and a standard deviation of 10.
There are six NEO-PI-3 Profile Forms; each form is
color-coded and presents the five domains and 30 facets
on an 11" x 17'' sheet folded to 8112'' x 11 ". Four Profile
Forms offer male norms on one side and female norms on
the other: two for Form S (i.e., one form for adolescents,
one form for adults) and two for Form R (i.e., one form
for adolescents, one form for adults). Two additional
Profile Forms offer combined gender norms for adoles-
cents (i.e., Form Son one side, Form Ron the other side)
and for adults (i.e., Form Son one side, Form Ron the
other side).
These Profile Forms are based on new normative data
for the NEO-PI-3, which are provided in Appendix B of
this Professional Manual. The five domain scale scores are
plotted on the left-hand side of the form to give an
overview of the individual's personality. The 30 facet
scales, grouped by domain, follow. A graph of the profile
may be drawn to visually portray the individual's scores.
Profile Forms for the NEO PI-R, based on the 1992
norms, are still available from the publisher. Note that it is
inappropriate to use the NEO PI-R Profile Forms to plot
data from the NEO-PI-3; the new forms, which are based
on new norms, are needed.
NEO-FFl-3 Materials
The NEO-FFI-3 materials consist of this Professional
Manual, the NEO-FFI-3 Form Sand Form R Item Book-
lets, Your NEO Summary, and the NEO Style Graph
Booklet. There are separate Item Booklets for adults and
adolescents, and separate Form R Item Booklets for rating
males and females. The Item Booklets are four-page, two-
part carbonless forms. The first page presents instructions
for completing the NEO-FFI-3, and the second page con-
tains spaces for recording basic demographic information.
The 60 items of the NEO-FFI-3 are presented on the sec-
ond and third pages of the Item Booklet. The three valid-
ity check items and an area for recording item responses
are presented on the third page. The demographic infor-
mation and item responses are reproduced on the bottom
sheet. The bottom sheet provides templates for scoring the
domain scales of the NEO-FFI-3 and provides profile areas
for converting raw scores to T scores and for graphing the
individual's scores. T scores are based on age-specific data
for male, female, and combined-gender norms. Your NEO
4
Summary provides a description of the individual's per-
sonality traits on the five factors that can be used to provide
feedback. The NEO Style Graph Booklet summarizes
implications of scores on pairs of factors.
Supplementary NEO Materials
NEO Software System
The NEO Software System offers a comprehensive sys-
tem for administering, scoring, and interpreting the NEO
Inventories (NEO-Pl-3, NEO PI-R, and NEO-FFI-3). The
Software System generates both detailed interpretive
reports and client feedback reports. The structure of the
comprehensive interpretive report is described in chapter
5 of this Professional Manual. The NEO Style Graph
Booklet and the NEO Problems in Living Checklist, dis-
cussed later in this section, are included as options in the
interpretive report.
Your NEO Summary
Your NEO Summary is a one-page, 8112'' x 11" form
designed to provide feedback to the individual in under-
standable terms regarding his or her scores on the five
domains. It may be used to report the results of the five
domain or factor scores from the NEO-PI-3, the NEO PI-R,
or the NEO-FFI-3. The top portion contains an introduc-
tory statement explaining what the NEO Inventories do
and do not measure. The remainder of the form presents
five rows of descriptions, one for each domain, which
characterize high (T > 55), average (T = 45-55), and low
(T < 45) scorers within each domain. The test administra-
tor should check off the appropriate boxes based on the
individual's scores before providing it to the individual.
Your NEO Summary can be used with either Form S
or Form R data. If feedback is based on observer ratings
(Form R), it is the professional' s responsibility to ensure
that informed consent for feedback has been obtained from
both the rater and the target.
NEO Style Graph Booklet
The NEO Style Graph Booklet is intended to assist in
understanding the implications of specific pairs of factor
scores, and may be used by professionals or included as
part of feedback to respondents. The 10 graphs are based
on the 10 combinations of five factors, taken two at a time
(e.g., N and E, N and 0). NEO Style Graph Booklets can
be used with Tscores from the NEO-PI-3, the NEO PI-R,
or the NEO-FFI-3 and from Form Sor Form R.
NEO Problems in Living Checklist
The NEO Problems in Living Checklist (NEO-PLC) is
a tool that helps clinicians assess problematic behaviors
and symptoms associated with an individual's NEO-PI-3
profile. Problems described on the NEO-PLC were identi-
fied through content analyses and a review of relevant lit-
erature. The list presents potential problems that may or
may not be relevant to a particular exarninee for each NEO
domain and facet. The checklist is designed to serve as a
guide for a focused clinical interview. The full NEO-PI-3
(or NEO PI-R) must be administered before the NEO-PLC
can be completed.
NEO-Pl-3 and NEO-FFl-3
Licensing Agreements
Occasionally, professionals may wish to employ only a
subset of the NEO-Pl-3 scales or to present or score the
scales in a manner other than the standard format. For
example, researchers may have time to include only the
specific scales that they hypothesize will be related to their
criterion, or they may wish to administer NEO-PI-3 items
as part of a preprinted assessment battery. Similarly, the
need may arise for a test component that has not yet been
published, such as a foreign language version of the instru-
ment. In all such cases, the professional must obtain a for-
mal, written licensing agreement from the publisher (PAR).
Unless there are compelling reasons, such ad hoc ver-
sions are discouraged. One of the great strengths of the
instrument is its comprehensiveness, which makes sys-
tematic research possible. If some scales are omitted,
important relations with other criteria may be missed.
Further, nonstandard versions of the instrument may con-
tain errors in the phrasing of items, the keying of scales, or
the application of norms. The accuracy and validity of
these licensed derivations remain the responsibility of the
professional who holds the license.
Foreign Language Versions
The Five-Factor Model and the NEO Inventories have
become the focus of personality research worldwide; the
NEO-PI-3 has been used to rate adolescents age 12 to 17
years in 24 cultures. To date, the NEO Inventories have
been translated into more than 50 languages and dialects.
Table 2 lists 24 validated, published versions; professionals
who wish to use these versions should contact the pub-
lisher. In addition, many other translations have been
made, reviewed, and authorized; some of these have sup-
porting data. Researchers interested in these unpublished

Table 2
Published Foreign Language Versions of the NEO Inventories
Language Publisher Web site
British English The Test Agency, Hogrefe http://www.hogrefe.co. uk
Brazilian Portuguese Vetor Editora, Sao Paulo http://www.vetoreditora.com.br
Bulgarian Organizzazioni Speciali
Croatian Naklada Slap http://www.nakladaslap.com
Czech Hogrefe Testcentrum, Prague http://www.testcentrum.com
Danish Dansk Psykologisk Forlag http://www.dpf.dk
Dutch Hogrefe, Amsterdam http://www.hogrefe.nl
Finnish Hogrefe Psykologiforlaget
French Hogrefe, Paris http://www.hogrefe.fr
French Canadian Institute de Recherches Psychologiques, Montreal http://www.i-r-p.ca
German Hogrefe, Gottingen http://www.testzentrale.de
Hebrew BIP Institute of Psychology, Bnei Brak
Japanese Tokyo Shinri
Korean PSI Consulting, Seoul
Lithuanian Psichologija, Vilnius
Norwegian Gyldendal Akademisk
Polish Pracownia Testow Psychologicznych http://www.practest.com. pl
Portuguese CEGOC-TEA, Lisbon http://www.cegoc.pt
Romanian D&D Consultants Grup http://www.testcentral.ro
Russian Psychodiagnostica, Yaroslavl
Slovak Hogrefe Testcentrum http://www.testcentrum.com
Spanish (Castilian) TEA Ediciones, Madrid http://www.teaediciones.com
Swedish Psykologiforlagt, Stockholm http://www.hogrefe.se
Turkish Assess Insan Gucu Degerlendirme ve danismanhk, Istanbul
Note. A Spanish-language version suitable for use in the United States is published by PAR. For other published versions, see the table above. Contact PAR for
information on unpublished translations.

5
foreign language versions should contact the publisher's
Customer Support department for licensing information.
We discourage multiple translations into the same lan-
guage, although we understand that adaptations for partic-
ular dialects are often needed. Researchers who wish to
prepare a new translation or modify an existing one must
first obtain a license from the publisher. Information on
the process of translating the NEO Inventories is presented
in Appendix C of this Professional Manual.
Appropriate Populations
The NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 may be appropriately
used with individuals who are 12 years of age or older.
Individuals who are suffering from disorders that affect
their ability to complete self-report measures reliably and
validly (e.g., acute psychosis, dementia) should not be
asked to complete the NEO-PI-3 or NEO-FFI-3, but
research has shown that individuals with a wide range of
psychiatric disorders including, for example, schizophre-
nia, can provide valid data on these instruments (Costa &
McCrae, 2009). The NEO Inventories can be administered
orally to individuals with limited literacy or with visual
problems.
Some respondents are likely to be unwilling or unable
to give accurate self-descriptions for a variety of reasons.
In these cases, psychologists should consider obtaining
personality ratings from competent and unbiased inform-
ants using Form R.
6
The NEO-PI-3 does not provide all the information
needed for a complete psychological assessment. Depend-
ing on the purpose of the assessment and the individual
being assessed, life history interviews, mental status exam-
inations, measures of cognitive ability, or medical labora-
tory tests may be needed to assess the individual or
establish an appropriate diagnosis and treatment plan. The
NEO-PI-3 is designed to be part of a comprehensive psy-
chological assessment.
Professional Requirements
'
The NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 are essentially self-
administered instruments. Thus, the administration and
scoring of these instruments can be performed by individ-
uals who do not have formal training in clinical psychol-
ogy, personality, or related fields. The administration and
scoring procedures detailed in this Professional Manual
should be carefully studied by the examiner.
In keeping with the Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing (American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, &
National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999),
interpretation of the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 requires
professional training in psychological testing and meas-
urement (e.g., reliability and validity, use of norms), in
addition to familiarity with the materials and procedures
presented in this Professional Manual. The utility of the
NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 is clearly related to the profes-
sional's background and knowledge.
 Administration and Scoring of the NEO-Pl-3
Administration
The NEO-PI-3 and NEO PI-R may be administered indi-
vidually or in groups. The testing environment should be
comfortable and free of distractions and provide adequate
lighting. A pencil and a flat surface, such as a desk or clip-
board on which the respondent can write, are also needed
for administration. If the respondent uses eyeglasses, the
examiner should be sure that the respondent uses them dur-
ing testing. The examiner should engage the respondent in
the task of completing the test to reduce the possibility of
response sets or random responding to the items.
Directions
Provide each respondent with the appropriate NEO-PI-3
(or NEO PI-R) Item Booklet, a Hand-Scorable (HS) or
Scannable (SS) Answer Sheet, and a pencil. A No. 2 lead
pencil is required for completing the SS Answer Sheet.
Depending on which Answer Sheet has been selected, tell
the respondent to read the instructions for completing the
NEO-PI-3 on the first or second page of the Item Booklet.
Tell the respondent to provide the identifying information
requested on the Answer Sheet. If an identification number
is to be used, provide the respondent with the number so he
or she can enter it, or fill it in yourself. If Form R is being
used, the respondent should provide the initials of the per-
son being rated. It is the examiner's responsibility to
ensure that the person being rated can be correctly iden-
tified by these initials, the identification number, and/or
the name of the rater. The examiner is also responsible for
ensuring that all identifying information is properly
marked on the Scannable Answer Sheet.
After the respondent has provided the demographic
information and read the instructions for completing the
NEO-PI-3, ask if there are any questions. When all ques-
tions have been answered to the respondent's satisfaction,
tell the respondent to turn to the third page and begin.
There is no time limit for completing the NEO-PI-3. Most
respondents require 30 to 40 minutes to complete the
measure, but older respondents and those with limited
reading skills may take longer.
Alternative Administration
Procedures and Accommodations
There are circumstances that dictate that the standard
administration procedures be modified. In cases where the
anonymity of the respondent must be guaranteed, the
instructions for providing demographic information may
be modified. Similarly, the presence of an examiner,
although desirable for answering questions and observing
test-taking behavior, is not required. The NEO Inventories
have been used frequently in projects for which respon-
dents completed the instrument at home. In settings where
no examiner is present, the professional is responsible for
protecting the integrity of the test by ensuring that all mate-
rials are returned. Finally, administration and recording
procedures also can be modified to enable individuals with
poor reading skills or who are visually impaired to com-
plete the NEO-PI-3. In these cases, the examiner should
read the items aloud and mark the exarninee's responses on
the Answer Sheet for the respondent (cf. Costa et al., 1986).
Although the items in the NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3
were chosen to be understandable to a wide range of ado-
lescents and adults, occasionally respondents do not under-
stand an item. In such cases, the respondent can be
instructed to leave the item blank, and it will be treated as
missing data. Alternatively, it is permissible for the test
administrator to provide an explanation of the word or item.
Table 3 provides suggested language for selected items.
These paraphrases were reviewed by middle school teach-
ers; however, they may be helpful for respondents of any
age who have difficulty with the meanings of these items.
Scoring
Missing Responses
Once the measure has been completed, examine the
Answer Sheet to be sure that a response has been given for
each item. If unanswered items are found, the respondent
should be asked to complete them. If a respondent is
unsure of the meaning of an item or is unsure of how to
respond, he or she may be told to use the neutral response
7
 Table 3
Glossary of Less Familiar Words Used in the NEO-Pl-3
The following is a list of words used in the NEO-PI-3 that some middle school-aged children did not understand. These definitions
may be given to respondents of any age who express difficulty understanding the meaning of the item.

Word NEO-Pl-3 Item No. Glossary definition

assertive 12 Speaking out and claiming my rights
seldom 21, 71, 103, Not very often
121, 163, 166
impulses 21 Strong desires for things that may not be good for me, like candy
well-intentioned 34 Well-meaning; trying to be nice
manipulate 39 Trick
philosophical (arguments) 53 Talk about ideas that are important but hard to understand, like the
meaning of life
hasty (decisions) 60 Quick choices made without thinking things through
methodical 70 In an systematic, organized way
evoke 73 Produce or create
calculating 74 Secretly planning or scheming to get what I want
spur (of the moment) 90 Immediately, without giving any thought
speculating 113 Thinking about possible answers
broad-minded 118 Respecting beliefs that differ from mine
hypocrite 129 Person who says one thing but believes another; a phony
egotistical 134 Concerned only with myself
ambitious 140 Wanting very much to succeed, to get ahead
happy-go-lucky 147 Carefree, untroubled, not serious
temperamental 156 Easily angered or offended
ethical (principles) 165 Beliefs about what I ought to do
theoretical (matters) 173 Ideas that are hard to understand and not part of real life
compulsive 190 Feel strongly that I have to do it
empathize 193 Understand how others feel
charitable 194 Generous, freely giving gifts or money
intellectual (curiosity/interests) 203,233 Interest in ideas and in studying things
optimist 207 A person who thinks everything will tum out well
controversial (speakers) 208 People with ideas that some people strongly disagree with
conscientiously 225 Completely and carefully
merciful 239 Not strict, forgiving

Note. The authors thank Lori Lupolt, Faithe Bastian, Leola Gaugler, Glenda Nichols, Kelly King, and Karen Hoke of Selinsgrove Area Middle School, Selinsgrove,
PA, for their advice on the phrasing of entries in this glossary.

option. It is also appropriate to explain the meaning of substituted for the m1ssmg response. Individual facet
words the respondent does not understand (see the previ- scores should be interpreted with caution when more than
ous section). three responses are missing from that facet.

If the respondent has not provided a response to every Validity Checks

item and the respondent is no longer available to the exam-
iner, the examiner must determine whether the data may
be validly scored and interpreted. The NEO-PI-3 and
NEO PI-R should not be scored if 41 or more responses
are missing. If fewer than 41 responses are missing, the
missing items should be scored as if the neutral response
option was selected. In research applications in which
large samples are used, the group mean for an item can be
Items A, B, and C, which are presented on the Answer
Sheet, provide simple validity checks to help ensure that
the respondent has completely and accurately completed
the NEO-PI-3. Item A asks if the respondent has responded
to the items in an honest and accurate manner. Approxi-
mately 99% of all volunteer participants responded agree
or strongly agree to Item A. Respondents who disagree
may do so because they have not been fully candid,

8
because they have responded carelessly, or because they
have confused the response categories. Whatever the rea-
son, a disagree or strongly disagree response to Item A
normally invalidates formal scoring of the NEO-PI-3.
Clinicians or other users concerned with interpreting indi-
vidual profiles may wish to discuss the reason for a neg-
ative response to this item with the respondent and, in
some cases, may determine that the data are valid despite
the response.
Items B and C ask if the respondent has answered all
the items (Item B) and has marked his or her responses in
the correct spaces (Item C), questions that are chiefly
intended as prompts to the respondent to complete missing
items and to double-check the location of his or her
answers. If the respondent answered No to Item B, the
examiner may wish to explore the respondent's reason for
the missing responses and will need to attend closely to
the instructions for treating missing items. The response
of No to Item C may indicate careless responding and nor-
mally invalidates formal scoring of the NEO-PI-3. The
professional may wish to discuss the reason for this
response with the respondent to determine whether or not
the data are valid.
Acquiescence
All NEO-PI-3 scales are roughly balanced to control for
the effects of acquiescence. This means that a respondent
who endorses an excessive number of agree or strongly
agree responses will tend to receive average scores instead
of extreme-and perhaps extremely misleading-scores.
To screen for acquiescence, count the number of agree and
strongly agree responses made across all items. In a large
volunteer sample (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991), 99% of
respondents agreed with fewer than 150 items. Thus, if the
respondent has 150 or more agree and strongly agree
responses, the NEO-PI-3 should be interpreted with
caution because a strong acquiescence bias may have
influenced the results.
Nay-Saying
Nay-saying on the NEO-PI-3 is indicated by a paucity
of agree or strongly agree responses. To screen for nay-
saying, count the number of agree and strongly agree
responses made across all items. Approximately 99% of a
large volunteer sample (Costa, McCrae, et al., 1991) agreed
with more than 50 items. If the respondent endorsed 50 or
fewer items as agree or strongly agree, the NEO-PI-3
should be interpreted with caution.
Random Responding
Occasionally, respondents are uncooperative and com-
plete the NEO-PI-3 in a careless or random fashion. This
is most likely to occur when the test is group-administered
and the examiner has not provided sufficient explanation
of the purpose for testing. Unmotivated test-takers often
respond in a haphazard manner simply to complete the
assigned task quickly. Ideally, the examiner can avoid this
problem by ensuring that the NEO-PI-3 is presented in a
way that will engage respondents.
One common form of random responding can be eval-
uated by visually inspecting the Answer Sheet to deter-
mine whether the same response option has been used over
a long series of items. Based on the results of item
response patterns in a volunteer sample (Costa & McCrae,
2008b ), endorsements of strongly disagree to more than
six consecutive items, disagree to more than nine consec-
utive items, neutral to more than 10 consecutive items,
agree to more than 14 consecutive items, or strongly agree
to more than nine consecutive items invalidate formal
scoring and interpretation of the NEO-PI-3.
All these validity checks are included in the NEO
Software System interpretive report.
Calculating Scores
Hand-Scorable (HS} Answer Sheet
Tear off the perforated stub at the top of the Answer
Sheet and remove the top page. Locate the first row of
items (i.e., Items 1, 31, 61, 91, 121, 151, 181, and 211) and
sum the values of the circled responses to these eight
items. Enter this sum in the space on the right labeled N1.
This number is the raw score for facet NI. Use an analo-
gous procedure to calculate the remaining facet raw scores.
After all facet scores have been calculated, add the
scores for facets Nl, N2, N3, N4, N5, and N6. Enter this
sum in the box labeled N within the Domain Raw Score
table at the bottom of the answer sheet. This number is the
raw score for the N domain. Use an analogous procedure
to calculate the remaining domain raw scores.
Scannable (SS} Answer Sheet
The Scannable (SS) Answer Sheet is scored and inter-
preted through the Professional Report Service available
through the publisher. Return completed SS Answer
Sheets to the publisher along with a completed control
sheet for the mail-in Professional Report Service for scor-
ing and interpretation.
Researchers and other professionals who collect large
quantities of data occasionally need to obtain NEO-PI-3
scores but do not need the interpretive reports which
accompany the results of the Professional Report Service.
In these cases, special arrangements can be made with the
publisher. Professionals interested in this service should
contact PAR before ordering NEO-PI-3 testing materials.
9
 Profiling Scores
When the Hand Scorable (HS) Answer Sheet is used,
NEO-PI-3 results may be presented on a Profile Form to
facilitate raw score to standard score conversions. Profile
Forms provide T scores based on different normative sam-
ples. Separate Profile Forms are available for adults and
adolescents and for Form S and Form R. The Adult Profile
Forms are appropriate for use with individuals age 21 years
and older. The Adolescent Profile Forms are appropriate
for use with individuals age 12 to 20 years. Profiles are
plotted separately for men and women, unless the com-
bined norms are being used. When Form R scores are plot-
ted on the Form R Profile Form, the sex of the individual
rated determines which form to use-the sex of the rater
is irrelevant.
If the 1992 NEO PI-R is administered, NEO Pl-R Profile
Forms must be used; NEO-PI-3 Profile Forms are based
on different norms.
Form R ratings for an individual from multiple raters
may be averaged to increase the accuracy of the ratings;
these averages may be plotted on the Profile Form.
Alternatively, multiple observer ratings can be plotted on
one Form R Profile Form for comparison. However, when
self-reports and observer ratings are compared, the asso-
ciated scores cannot be plotted directly on the same form
because different norms are used in determining the
T scores. In these cases, the Form S Profile Form can be
used to determine T scores for the self-report. These
T scores can then be plotted on the Form R Profile Form
(according to the T score values, not raw score values),
along with the Form R ratings (see Case Din chapter 5 for
an example).
Directions
Select the appropriate Profile Form based on the
NEO-PI-3 form administered and the relevant comparison
group. Complete the demographic information at the top of
the Profile Form. Locate the raw score for the N domain at
the bottom of the Answer Sheet and transcribe this score
to the space at the bottom of the Profile Form labeled N.
Use an analogous procedure to transcribe the remaining
domain raw scores.
Similarly, locate the raw score for the Nl facet on the
right side of the Answer Sheet and transcribe this score to
the space at the bottom of the Profile Form labeled NI. Use
an analogous procedure to transcribe the remaining facet
raw scores. Add the transcribed facet scores for Nl, N2,
N3, N4, NS, and N6 and enter this number in the space
labeled Total (N) at the bottom of the Profile Form.
Compare this number to the N domain raw score entered
on the left-hand side of the Profile Form. If the numbers do
10
not match, an error in addition or transcription has been
made. Locate and correct the error. Use an analogous pro-
cedure to check the accuracy of the remaining facet scores.
In the column for the N domain, locate the number that
corresponds to the N domain raw score and mark it with an
X. Use a similar procedure to mark the remaining domain
and facet scores on the Profile Form. The T scores corre-
sponding to each mark are then read off the scale in the
column marked T at the left or right side of the profile.
Write the T score for each scale in the space provided at the
top of the profile below each domain or facet name. These
T scores are used in Your NEO Summary, the NEO Style
Graph Booklet, and the NEO Problems in Living Check-
list. After all scores have been marked, connect the Xs of
the domain scales and the Xs of the facet scales within
each domain with a line to produce a graph of the individ-
ual's scores. See Figure 8 in chapter 5 for an example of a
completed NEO-PI-3 Profile Form.
Calculating and Using Factor Scores
The five domains of the NEO-PI-3 correspond to the
five factors of personality that have been found in the
analysis of many different instruments, including factor
analyses of the 30 NEO-PI-3 facets. Chapter 8 of this
Professional Manual, Validation of the Inventories and
Materials, presents the results of a varimax-rotated prin-
cipal components analysis of Form S NEO PI-R data from
its normative sample and shows that the domain scales are
strongly correlated with their associated factors. However,
from a psychometric point of view, factor scores them-
selves are slightly better than domain scores. Because fac-
tor scores combine information from each of the 30 facets
to estimate each of the five factors, they benefit from the
secondary factor loadings. Factor scores are more nearly
orthogonal and tend to have somewhat higher validities
against external criteria (McCrae & Costa, 1989c; McCrae
et al., 2008).
For these reasons, computerized versions of the
NEO-PI-3 (i.e., the Professional Report Service and the
NEO Software System) compute factor scores and use
them in generating the interpretive profile. Researchers
who hand-score the NEO-PI-3 can use the formulas in
Table 4 to calculate factor scores. These formulas must be
applied to T scores, not raw scores, and yield factor scores
expressed as T scores. The factor score weights are based
on analyses of the Form S NEO PI-R sample, which pro-
vides the gold standard for the structure of NEO Inven-
tories. Because, as Table 6 in chapter 7 shows, the factor
structure of the NEO-PI-3 is almost identical to that of the
NEO PI-R, it is appropriate to use the weights in Table 4
to score factors for the NEO-PI-3 (once T scores based on
 Table4
Formulas for Calculating Form S and Form RFactor Scores from NEO PI-R T Scores
Form S factor scores:
N Factor= (.26Nl + .18N2 + .23N3 + .22N4 + .11N5 + .18N6
+ .OlEl .06E2 .07E3 + .08E4 .02E5 + .02E6
+ .0201 + .0902 + .1603 .0604 .0205 .0606
.09Al + .05A2 + .05A3 .02A4 + .07A5 + .05A6
.03Cl + .10C2 + .05C3 + .09C4 + .01C5 + .02C6)
- 31.00
E Factor= (.02Nl + .OON2 .02N3 .04N4 + .16N5 .01N6
+ .21El + .24E2 + .10E3 + .15E4 + .21E5 + .24E6
.0101 .1202 + .0703 .0104 .1405 .0506
+ .05Al .05A2 + .19A3 .03A4 .01A5 + .08A6
.OlCl + .01C2 .07C3 + .01C4 + .02C5 .14C6)
2.50
0 Factor= (.OONl + .OON2 + .03N3 + .OON4 .06N5 .01N6
.02El .09E2 + .02E3 .02E4 .06E5 .03E6
+ .2301 + .3402 + .1703 + .2204 + .3505 + .2106
+ .05Al + .OOA2 .09A3 + .03A4 .04A5 + .03A6
+ .04Cl .09C2 + .03C3 + .04C4 .05C5 + .04C6)
- 13.50
A Factor= (.03Nl .12N2 + .03N3 + .05N4 .04N5 + .05N6
+ .12El + .02E2 .12E3 .09E4 .11E5 + .03E6
.0101 + .0802 + .0203 + .0204 .0205 .0106
+ .16Al + .20A2 + .16A3 + .23A4 + .19A5 + .20A6
.02Cl .03C2 + .06C3 .06C4 .02C5 + .04C6)
2.00
C Factor= (.09Nl + .09N2 + .04N3 + .07N4 .05N5 .02N6
.03El .09E2 + .05E3 + .13E4 .05E5 .02E6
.0801 + .0802 + .0803 .0504 + .0505 .0706
.08Al + .07A2 + .03A3 .04A4 .01A5 .03A6
+ .16Cl + .24C2 + .21C3 + .25C4 + .21C5 + .18C6)
20.50
Form R factor scores:
N Factor= ((((.26Nl + .18N2 + .23N3 + .22N4 + .11N5 + .18N6
+ .OlEl .06E2 .07E3 + .08E4 .02E5 + .02E6
+ .0201 + .0902 + .1603 .0604 .0205 .0606
.09Al + .05A2 + .05A3 .02A4 + .07A5 + .05A6
.03Cl + .10C2 + .05C3 + .09C4 + .01C5 + .02C6)
- 31.00) - 50.00) * 1.031) + 50.00
E Factor= ((((.02Nl + .OON2 .02N3 .04N4 + .16N5 .01N6
+ .21El + .24E2 + .10E3 + .15E4 + .21E5 + .24E6
.0101 .1202 + .0703 .0104 .1405 .0506
+ .05Al .05A2 + .19A3 .03A4 .01A5 + .08A6
.OlCl + .01C2 .07C3 + .01C4 + .02C5 .14C6)
- 2.50) - 50.00) * 1.068) + 50.00
0 Factor= ((((.OONl + .OON2 + .03N3 + .OON4 .06N5 .01N6
.02El .09E2 + .02E3 .02E4 .06E5 .03E6
+ .2301 + .3402 + .1703 + .2204 + .3505 + .2106
+ .05Al + .OOA2 .09A3 + .03A4 .04A5 + .03A6
+ .04Cl .09C2 + .03C3 + .04C4 .05C5 + .04C6)
- 13.50) - 50.00) * 0.975) + 50.00
A Factor= ((((.03Nl .12N2 + .03N3 + .05N4 .04N5 + .05N6
+ .12El + .02E2 .12E3 .09E4 .11E5 + .03E6
.0101 + .0802 + .0203 + .0204 .0205 .0106
+ .16Al + .20A2 + .16A3 + .23A4 + .19A5 + .20A6
.02Cl .03C2 + .06C3 .06C4 .02C5 + .04C6)
- 2.00) - 50.00) * 0.867) + 50.00
C Factor= ((((.09Nl + .09N2 + .04N3 + .07N4 .05N5 .02N6
.03El .09E2 + .05E3 + .13E4 .05E5 .02E6
.0801 + .0802 + .0803 .0504 + .0505 .0706
.08Al + .07A2 + .03A3 .04A4 .01A5 .03A6
+ .16Cl + .24C2 + .21C3 + .25C4 + .21C5 + .18C6)
20.50) - 50.00) * 0.948) + 50.00
Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 8),
by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR. Reprinted with permission.

11
NEO-PI-3 norms have been calculated). Because very sim-
ilar factors are found in analyses of Form R data, the same
weights are used to calculate factor scores from Form R
T scores. However, variances are somewhat different in
Form R scales, especially for Agreeableness. The formu-
las presented in Table 4 for calculating Form R factor
scores correct for these differences.
In some cases with unusual configurations of facet
scores, the domain and factor T scores differ appreciably.
However, the domain scale scores are usually a good
approximation to factor scores, and it is probably not worth
the effort to apply these formulas by hand to individual
cases. Researchers who wish for maximum precision and
who are concerned about the orthogonality of scores, how-
ever, may wish to apply these formulas to their data.
Providing Feedback to the Respondent
The NEO-PI-3 is intended as a tool for professionals
trained in the use and interpretation of psychological tests.
Generally, it would not be appropriate to provide respon-
dents with copies of their test scores, profiles, or interpre-
tive reports. Exceptions may include clinical practice
settings where the clinician believes that the client is capa-
ble of understanding and benefiting from detailed feedback
on personality scores and educational settings where the
NEO-PI-3 is part of a course on psychological testing. But
respondents often appreciate feedback, and experience with
the NEO PI-Rand other instruments has shown that most
individuals can benefit from suitably phrased descriptions
of their personality. Your NEO Summary and the NEO
Style Graph Booklet were designed to serve this purpose.
Your NEO Summary
Examine the individual's T score for the N domain or
factor. T scores of 56 or higher are considered high,
T scores ranging from 45 to 55 are considered average, and
Tscores of 44 or lower are considered low. Locate the first
row of descriptions on the Your NEO Summary form. This
row contains descriptions for the Neuroticism domain. If
the individual's score is high, place a check mark in the
left-hand box. If the individual's score is average, place a
check mark in the middle box. If the individual's score is
low, place a check mark in the right-hand box. Use an
analogous procedure to complete the remainder of the
form. The second through fifth rows of descriptions cor-
respond to the E, 0, A, and C domains, respectively.
Figure 1 presents an example of the feedback that
would be provided to an individual with T scores of 48,
58, 33, 50, and 56 on the N, E, 0, A, and C domains,
12
respectively. Because the word "high" may be construed as
"good" by respondents, Your NEO Summary does not
characterize scores as high or low.
Your NEO Summary may be useful in educational set-
tings and in research, where it may be included as part of
the subject's debriefing. In clinical settings, it may serve
as a source of insight as part of what McReynolds (1989)
called "client-centered assessment." For clients who are
administered the NEO-PI-3 via the computerized admin-
istration option in the NEO Software System, an optional
Client Report gives a more detailed lay summary of
results, including facet scores. This option is available
only for Form S, where feedback is based on the client's
own responses.
For some clients, feedback may be inappropriate. It is
the professional' s responsibility to determine whether sim-
ple or detailed feedback is appropriate and to provide the
individual with an opportunity to discuss the results if he
or she desires it.
NEO Style Graph Booklet
For some purposes, professionals may wish to provide
more extensive feedback that takes into account configu-
rations of factors; the NEO Style Graph Booklet provides
such feedback. At the top of each graph, enter the appro-
priate domain or factor T score for the vertical axis and the
appropriate T score for the horizontal axis. Plot these val-
ues on the appropriate axis with Xs and draw vertical and
horizontal lines to find the point of their intersection. Mark
this point with an X. This point identifies the style of the
respondent, and the description associated with that quad-
rant of the graph characterizes his or her style.
Figure 2 shows an example for the Style of Interests.
The individual whose scores are plotted has a low E score
(T = 44) and a high O score (T = 56), and these scores
intersect in the lower right quadrant, labeled Introspectors.
The text in this quadrant describes the interest style of this
individual. Note that some respondents will have near-
average scores on both plotted factors; their scores will
intersect in the shaded central region. These respondents
(about 10% of individuals) are not strongly characterized
by any of the four styles described but share some features
of all of them.
For some applications, only certain styles may be of
interest. For example, in counseling students, the Style of
Leaming may be the most relevant graph; in dealing with
married couples, the Style of Interactions, which is defined
by the two interpersonal dimensions of E and A, may be
most revealing.
 Your

NEO
Summary Paul T. Costa, Jr., PhD and Robert R. McCrae, PhD

The NEO Inventory measures five broad domains, or
dimensions, of personality. Responses describing your
thoughts, feelings, and goals can be compared with those
describing others' to portray your personality.
This summary is intended to give you a general idea of
what your personality is like. It is not a detailed report. If
you completed the inventory again, or if someone else
described you, you might score somewhat differently.
The NEO Inventory measures differences among people
in general. It is not a test of intelligence or ability, and it is
not intended to i:liagnose problems of mental health or
adjustment. It does, however, give you some idea of what
makes you unique in your ways of thinking, feeling, and
interacting with others.

Compared with the responses of other people, your responses suggest that you can be described as:

D Sensitive, emotional, and ~ Generally calm and able to D Secure, hardy, and generally
prone to experience feelings deal with stress, but you relaxed, even under stressful
that are upsetting. sometimes experience conditions.
feelings of guilt, anger, or
sadness.

~ Extraverted, outgoing, D Moderate in activity and D Introverted, reserved, and

active, and high-spirited. enthusiasm. You enjoy the serious. You prefer to be
You prefer to be around company of others, but you alone or with a few close
people most of the time. also value privacy. friends.

D Open to new experiences. D Practical, but willing to ~ Down-to-earth, practical,

You have broad interests and consider new ways of doing traditional, and pretty much
are very imaginative. things. You seek a balance set in your ways.
between the old and the new.

D Compassionate, good- Generally warm, trusting, D Hardheaded, skeptical,

natured, and eager to and agreeable, but you can proud, and competitive. You
cooperate and avoid conflict. sometimes be stubborn and tend to express your anger
competitive. directly.

~ Conscientious and well- D Dependable and moderately D Easygoing, not very well-
organized. You have high well-organized. You organized, and sometimes
standards and always strive generally have clear goals, careless. You prefer not to
to achieve your goals. but are able to set your work make plans.
aside.

mil: 16204 N. Florida Ave. • Lutz, FL 33549 • 1.800.331.8378 • www.parinc.com

Copyright© 1987, 1989, 1991, 2010 by PAR. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form or by any means without written permission of PAR. This
form is printed in burgundy ink on white paper. Any other version is unauthorized.
9 876 543 21 Reorder #R0-6799 Printed in the U.S.A.

WARNING! PHOTOCOPYING OR DUPLICATION OF THIS FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAWS.

Figure 1. Example of a completed Your NEO Summary for a respondent with T scores of 48, 58, 33, 50, and 56 on the N,
E, 0, A, and C domains, respectively.

13
 Style of Interests
Vertical Axis: Extraversion IT= 44 I
Horizontal Axis: Openness IT= 56 I
E+O+
E+O-
Mainstream Consumers Creative lnteractors
The interests of these individuals reflect popular favorites: The interests of these individuals revolve around the new
parties, sports, shopping, blockbuster movies-events and different, and they like to share their discoveries
where they can enjoy themselves with others. They with others. They enjoy public speaking and
are attracted to businesses and jobs that let teaching, and they fit in well in discussion
them work with others on simple projects. groups. They enjoy meeting people from
Possible vocation: Salesperson. + ....... + ....... , 70 •••••••• + ....... + different backgrounds. Possible voca-
tion: Anthropologist.
' :

_·_· _·_·_· ~,._ ._. ·_·_·. . F . .~ .

X
E-0- ••••••-+· •••••••,•••••••,•
,40· • • • • • • • • : • • • , • • • • -+· •••,,• E-0+
Homebodies lntrospectors
The interests of these individuals are The interests of these individuals are
focused on activities they can pursue + ....... + ........ 30 •••••••• + ....... + focused on ideas and activities they can
alone or with a small group. They are pursue alone. Reading, writing, or cre-
unadventurous and may collect stamps or ative hobbies (e.g., painting, music) appeal
coins, watch television, or garden. Their voca- to them. They prefer occupations that provide
tional interests may include mechanical or domestic both challenge and privacy. Possible vocation:
work. Possible vocation: Bookkeeper. Naturalist.

Figure 2. Example of a completed Style of Interests graph from the NEO Style Graph Booklet.

14
 Administration and Scoring of the NEO-FFl-3
The NEO-FFI-3 is a 60-item version of the NEO-PI-3
that provides a brief, comprehensive measure of the five
domains of personality. It consists of five 12-item scales
that measure each domain. Information on specific facets
within each domain is not provided, and the shortened
scales are somewhat less reliable and valid than the full
NEO-PI-3 domain scales. Separate versions are available
for Form S and Form R and for adults and adolescents.
Administration
The NEO-FFI-3 may be administered individually or in
groups. The testing environment should be comfortable
and free of distractions and provide adequate lighting. A
pencil and a flat surface, such as a desk or clipboard on
which the respondent can write, are also needed for admin-
istration. If the respondent uses eyeglasses, the examiner
should be sure that they are being used during testing. The
examiner should engage the respondent in the task of com-
pleting the test to reduce the possibility of response sets or
random responding to the items.
Directions
Provide each respondent with a NEO-FFI-3 Item Book-
let and a pencil. Tell the respondent to read the instruc-
tions for completing the NEO-FFI-3, which are on the first
page. After the instructions have been read and the respon-
dent understands the nature of the task, tell him or her to
tum to the second page of the Item Booklet and to provide
the identifying information requested at the top of that
page. If an identification number is to be used, provide the
respondent with the number so he or she can enter it, or
fill it in yourself.
If Form R is being used, the respondent should provide
the name (or initials) of the person being rated. It is the
examiner's responsibility to ensure that the person being
rated can be correctly identified by name, initials, ID
number, and/or the name of the rater. The examiner is
also responsible for ensuring that all identifying informa-
tion is properly marked on the Item Booklet. Note that
responses to the NEO-FFI-3 are made across the rows of
the response grid.
There is no time limit for the NEO-FFI-3. Most respon-
dents require 5 to 10 minutes to complete the measure, but
older respondents and those with limited reading skills
may take longer. The NEO-PI-3 alternative administration
procedures previously described may also be used with the
NEO-FFI-3.
Scoring
Missing Responses
Once the measure has been completed, examine the
response area of the Item Booklet to be sure that a response
has been given for each item. If unanswered items are
found, the respondent should be asked to complete them.
If a respondent is unsure of the meaning of an item or is
unsure of how to respond, he or she may be told to use
the neutral response option. It is also appropriate to
explain the meaning of words the respondent does not
understand (see chapter 3 of this Professional Manual for
more information).
If the respondent did not provide a response to every
item and the respondent is no longer available to the exam-
iner, the examiner must determine whether the data may be
validly scored and interpreted. If 10 or more items have
been left blank, the test is considered invalid and should
not be formally scored. If nine or fewer items have been
left blank, the blank items should be scored as if the
neutral response option was selected. Any domain for
which there are more than four missing responses should
be interpreted with caution.
Validity Checks
At the bottom of the third page of the NEO-FFI-3 Item
Booklets, three yes-or-no items ask the respondent if he or
she has (a) responded to all of the statements, (b) entered
responses across the rows, and (c) responded accurately
and honestly. In most cases, if the respondent indicated
that responses were not entered in the correct boxes or
were not answered honestly and accurately, the test should
not be scored.
15
Calculating Domain Scores
Open the NEO-FFI-3 Item Booklet, tear off the perfo-
rated stubs on the left- and right-hand sides of the booklet,
and remove the top page. Locate the first column of items
(i.e., Items 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, 51, and 56)
in the answer grid and sum the values of the marked
responses to these 12 items. Enter this sum in the space
labeled N, which is located beneath the column. This num-
ber is the raw score for the N domain. Use an analogous
procedure to calculate the remaining domain raw scores.
Profiling Scores
Profile areas for males or females (depending on which
form is being used) and for a combined-gender group are
provided on the left-hand side of the bottom sheet. Locate
the column labeled N on the appropriate profile. Within
this column, mark an X on the number that corresponds to
the respondent's N domain raw score. Use an analogous
procedure to mark the remaining domain raw scores. The
T scores corresponding to each mark are then read off the
scale in the column marked Tat the left side of the profile.
After all the respondent's scores have been marked, con-
nect the Xs with a line to produce a graph of the respon-
dent's NEO-FFI-3 scores.
Providing Feedback to the Respondent
After scoring and profiling the results of the NEO-FFI-3,
the professional may wish to provide feedback to the
16
individual about his or her scores. Your NEO Summary
was designed to serve this purpose. Examine the respon-
dent's T score for the N domain. T scores of 56 or higher
are considered high, T scores ranging from 45 to 55 are
considered average, and T scores of 44 or lower are con-
sidered low. Locate the first row of descriptions on the
Your NEO Summary form. This row contains descriptions
for the Neuroticism domain. If the individual's score is
high, place a check mark in the left-hand box. If the indi-
vidual's score is average, place a check mark in the mid-
dle box. If the individual's score is low, place a check mark
in the right-hand box. Use an analogous procedure to com-
plete the remainder of the form. The second through fifth
rows of descriptions correspond to the E, 0, A, and C
domains, respectively.
For certain purposes, professionals may wish to provide
more extensive feedback that takes into account configu-
rations of factors; the NEO Style Graph Booklet provides
such feedback. At the top of each graph, enter the appro-
priate domain or factor T score for the vertical axis and the
appropriate T score for the horizontal axis. Plot these val-
ues on the appropriate axis with Xs and draw vertical and
horizontal lines to find the point of their intersection. Mark
this point with an X. This point identifies the style of the
respondent, and the description associated with that quad-
rant of the graph characterizes his or her style.
 Conceptualization and Interpretation
Although some of the items have been replaced, the
NEO-PI-3 measures the same traits as the NEO PI-R, and
the conceptualization of those traits remains the same.
Research since the publication of the NEO PI-R has con-
firmed the original interpretation of the scales and has
shown that the trait concepts of the NEO Inventories are
applicable to adolescents as well as adults and to individ-
uals from cultures around the world. Professionals famil-
iar with the NEO PI-R can transfer their knowledge and
experience directly to the use of the NEO-PI-3.
In order to interpret NEO-PI-3 results, the professional
must be familiar with the basics of psychological testing,
know what the scales measure and their implications for
the psychological functioning of the individual, and be
able to integrate the scale score information into a mean-
ingful profile. This chapter provides the basic information
on the constructs that the NEO-PI-3 measures and suggests
guidelines for interpreting profiles. Professionals may ben-
efit from reading the computer-generated interpretive
reports; some examples of case studies are provided later
in this chapter. In addition, we recommend an interactive
approach to learning the fine points of interpretation in
which the research literature is read in conjunction with
the actual profiles the professional needs to interpret. For
example, the concept of Openness to Experience (0)-
frequently referred to as simply Openness-is treated
extensively in chapters and articles (e.g., McCrae, 1994b;
McCrae & Costa, 1997a; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). It may
be most useful to read these chapters when dealing with
an extremely high or low scorer on the dimension of
Openness. In this way, the respondent can illustrate the lit-
erature, and the literature can illuminate the case.
The Meaning of Scale Scores
The scales of the NEO-PI-3 and the NEO-FFI-3 meas-
ure traits that approximate normal, bell-shaped distribu-
tions. Most individuals will obtain scores near the average
for the scale, with a small percentage scoring at either end.
It is necessary to keep this distribution of scores in mind
when interpreting the meaning of any individual's scores.
Scales are mdst conveniently explained by describing
characteristics of extremely high or extremely low scor-
ers. However, few individuals will obtain these scores or
show all the characteristics described. Instead, individual
scores will usually represent degrees of the personality
trait; more extreme scorers have a higher probability of
showing the distinctive features.
Characteristics are compared across people, rather than
within the individual. Thus, a person who scores at the
75th percentile on the N3: Depression scale and at the 25th
percentile on the E6: Positive Emotions scale is more
likely than most other people to feel depressed and less
likely than most other people to feel happy. But because
happiness is much more common than depression, such an
individual is still likely to be happy more often than he or
she is depressed.
Professionals using the NEO-PI-3 should avoid think-
ing in terms of either types or categories when interpreting
scores (McCrae, Terracciano, Costa, & Ozer, 2006).
Although it is convenient to speak of "introverts" and
"extraverts," the NEO-PI-3 Extraversion (E) scale repre-
sents a continuous dimension. Most individuals are best
described as "ambiverts;" that is, they show a combination
of introverted and extraverted tendencies. The same prin-
ciple applies to all other domains and facets.
In designing the Profile Forms and Interpretive Reports
for the NEO-PI-3, we have found it useful to summarize
results in terms of five levels: Very Low, Low, Average,
High, and Very High Gust as test takers are asked to respond
along a five-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree). Although the percentages vary somewhat with the
exact shape of the distributions (the NEO Inventories do
not use normalized T scores), of all individuals adminis-
tered the NEO-PI-3, approximately 38% score in the
Average range (T= 45 to 55), 24% score in the High range
(T= 56 to 65), 24% score in the Low range (T= 35 to 44),
7% score in the Very High range (T= 66 and higher), and
7% score in the Very Low range (T = 34 and lower). This
system allows for more fine-grained distinctions than sim-
ple dichotomies, but it is not needlessly complex.
17
 Inventories like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1983) are often
interpreted in terms of diagnostic categories. If a scale
exceeds a T score of 70, for example, it may be regarded
as an indication of psychopathology; scores below this cut-
off are considered normal and sometimes given little atten-
tion. In conceptualizing the personality traits measured by
the NEO-PI-3, a different approach should be used. No
single cutoff point separates those who "have" a trait from
those who do not, and being low or average on a scale can
be as informative as being high.
For many applications, decision rules employing cutoff
points are needed, and it is certainly possible empirically
to establish useful cutoffs on one or more NEO-PI-3 scales
(e.g., Costa & McCrae, 2005). Generally, however, the
rules generated will be valid only for the special purpose
for which they were intended and should not replace the
dimensional interpretation of the scales.
Choice of Comparison Group
Raw scores on personality inventories may reflect social
norms or stereotypes, but for personality assessment, they
are usually meaningless-responses take on meaning only
when they are compared to the responses of others.
Published norms are intended to serve as the standard ref-
erence group, but the choice of appropriate norms requires
some thought by the professional. Traditionally, separate
norms have been used for men and women, so that a
T score of 50 means average for a man or for a woman.
For some applications, such as job selection, the user may
want to compare the individual to people in general. For
this reason, combined-sex normative information from
which T scores can be calculated is provided in Appen-
dices B and E. Separate Profile Forms based on combined-
gender norms are available.
Normally it is appropriate to use adolescent norms to
interpret the scores of individuals age 12 to 20 years.
Similarly, it would be possible to plot the scores of ado-
lescents using adult norms to see how they compare to
adults in general. Many adolescents would score quite
high on E5: Excitement-Seeking; this is meaningful
because adolescents are typically higher than adults, in
general, in seeking stimulation. A more detailed discus-
sion of the choice of normative groups is given in
McCrae, Martin, and Costa (2005).
Standard instructions suggest using Profile Forms for
adult norms for interpreting the scores of an individual age
21 to 30 years. However, because these young adults tend
to obtain scores that are intermediate between those
obtained by adolescents and older adults, it may sometimes
be appropriate to use the Adolescent Profile Forms instead.
18
Either choice is appropriate as long as the professional
understands that when the Adult Profile Form is being
used, the individual is being described in comparison with
the average adult; when the Adolescent Profile Form is
used, the individual is being described in comparison with
the average adolescent. Appendices E.1 and E.2 report
separate norms for adults age 21 to 30 years for those who
wish to use the most specific age group, but there are no
published Profile Forms using these norms.
Clinical Profiles
For several reasons, separate Profile Forms have not
been developed for clinical groups. First, patients in psy-
chotherapy generally show the same range of variation in
personality traits as do other adults, differing only in the
mean level of some traits (e.g., elevated N scores). Second,
specific diagnoses may be associated with particular pro-
files, and these profiles can be seen most clearly when they
are plotted against the normal adult profile. Finally, we
believe that the use of nonclinical norms is a valuable
reminder that individuals in psychotherapy are similar in
many respects to normal volunteers.
The Five-Factor Model of Personality
The NEO Inventories were developed to operationalize
the Five-Factor Model of personality, a representation of
the structure of traits that was developed and elaborated
over many years (Digman, 1990; John, Naumann, & Soto,
2008). The five factors represent the most basic dimen-
sions underlying the traits identified in both natural lan-
guages and psychological questionnaires.
One major line of research-the lexical tradition (John,
Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988)-began with an analysis
of trait adjectives found in English and other natural lan-
guages. Words like nervous, energetic, original, accom-
modating, and careful evolved over the course of centuries
to allow individuals to describe themselves and others.
Thousands of such words are found in the dictionary, and
trait theorists like Cattell (1946) and Norman (1963) pro-
posed that this list of terms could be considered an exhaus-
tive enumeration of personality traits. By factor analyzing
ratings on all these adjectives, they argued, one should
uncover the structure of personality traits themselves.
Through a series of studies, this research led to the identi-
fication of the five factors (John et al., 2008).
Although derived from an analysis of lay terms, these
factors were familiar to personality psychologists who had
studied similar traits. Since 1985, research using the NEO
Inventories has demonstrated that the same five factors can
account for the major dimensions in personality question-
naires designed to measure Jungian functions, Murray's
needs, the traits of the Interpersonal Circumplex, and Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth
Edition (DSM-N; American Psychiatric Association, 1994)
personality disorders. It appears that these factors are
indeed comprehensive (McCrae & Costa, 2008a).
Factors are defined by groups of intercorrelated traits.
We refer to these more specific traits as facets, and to each
cluster of facets as a domain. Summing the facet scales
yields the domain score, which can be thought of as an
approximation to the factor score. Factor scores are calcu-
lated directly by the NEO Software System.
By describing the individual's standing on each of the
five factors, the NEO Inventories provide a comprehen-
sive sketch that summarizes an individual's emotional,
interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational
styles. NEO-PI-3 domain scales and factors measure per-
sonality at this level; facet scales offer a more fine-grained
analysis by measuring specific traits within each of the
five domains.
The Five Domains
The first step in interpreting a NEO-PI-3 profile is to
examine the five domain scales to understand personality
at the broadest level. This section describes each of the
domains or factors and presents basic definitions as well as
crucial distinctions.
Neuroticism (N)
The most pervasive domain of personality scales con-
trasts adjustment or emotional stability with maladjust-
ment or Neuroticism (N). Although clinicians distinguish
among many different kinds of emotional distress, from
social phobia to agitated depression to borderline hostil-
ity, innumerable studies have shown that individuals prone
to any one of these emotional states are also likely to expe-
rience others (Costa & McCrae, 1992a). The general ten-
dency to experience negative affects such as fear, sadness,
embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust is the core of the
N domain. However, N includes more than susceptibility
to psychological distress. Perhaps because disruptive emo-
tions interfere with adaptation, men and women high in N
are also prone to have irrational ideas, to be less· able to
control their impulses, and to cope more poorly with stress
than others.
As the name suggests, patients traditionally diagnosed
as suffering from neuroses generally score higher than oth-
ers on measures of N (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964).
But the N scale of the NEO-PI-3, like all NEO-PI-3 scales,
measures a dimension of general personality. High scorers
may be at risk for some kinds of psychiatric problems, but
the N scale should not be viewed as a measure of psy-
chopathology. It is possible to obtain a high score on the N
scale without having any diagnosable psychiatric disorder.
Conversely, not all psychiatric categories imply high lev-
els of N. For example, an individual may have an antiso-
cial personality disorder without having an elevated
N score.
Individuals who score low on N are emotionally stable.
They are usually calm, even-tempered, and relaxed, and
they are able to face stressful situations without becoming
upset or rattled. ,
Extraversion (E)
Extraverts are, of course, sociable, but sociability is
only one of the traits that comprise the domain of
Extraversion (E). In addition to liking people and prefer-
ring large groups and gatherings, extraverts are also
assertive, active, and talkative. They like excitement and
stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition. They are
upbeat, energetic, and optimistic. Salespeople represent
the prototypic extraverts in our culture, and the E domain
scale is strongly correlated with interest in enterprising
occupations (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984; De Fruyt
& Mervielde, 1997).
Although it is easy to convey the characteristics of the
extravert, the introvert is less easy to portray. In some
respects, introversion should be seen as the absence of
Extraversion rather than what might be assumed to be
its opposite. Thus, introverts are reserved rather than
unfriendly, independent rather than followers, and even-
paced rather than sluggish. Introverts may say they are shy
when they mean they prefer to be alone: They do not nec-
essarily suffer from social anxiety. Finally, although they
are not given to the exuberant high spirits of extraverts,
introverts are not unhappy or pessimistic. Curious as some
of these distinctions may seem, they are strongly supported
by research and form one of the most important conceptual
advances of research on the Five-Factor Model (Costa &
McCrae, 1980a; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Breaking the
mental sets that link such pairs as happy/unhappy, friendly/
hostile, and outgoing/shy allows important new insights
into personality.
Users familiar with Jungian psychology should note
that the conceptualization of E embodied in the NEO
Inventories differs in many respects from Jung's (1923/
1971) theory. In particular, introspection or reflection is
not related to either pole of E, but is instead a characteris-
tic of individuals who score high on Openness to
Experience. Further discussion of these points is provided
in McCrae and Costa (1989a).
19
 Openness to Experience (O)
As a major dimension of personality, Openness to
Experience (0) is much less well known than N or E. The
elements of 0-active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity,
attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, intel-
lectual curiosity, and independence of judgment-have
often played a role in theories and measures of personal-
ity, but their coherence into a single broad domain was not
recognized for many years. The O scale of the NEO
Inventories is perhaps the most widely researched meas-
ure of this broad domain (McCrae, 1996; McCrae &
Sutin, 2009).
Open individuals are curious about both inner and outer
worlds, and their lives are experientially richer than those
of closed individuals. They are willing to entertain novel
ideas and unconventional values, and they experience both
positive and negative emotions more keenly than do closed
individuals.
Alternative formulations of the Five-Factor Model often
label this factor Intellect, and O scores are modestly asso-
ciated with both education and measured intelligence.
Openness is especially related to aspects of intelligence-
such as divergent thinking-that contribute to creativity
(McCrae, 1987). But Openness is by no means equivalent
to intelligence. Some very intelligent people are closed to
experience, and some very open people are quite limited in
intellectual capacity. In a factor analytic sense, measures of
cognitive ability form a sixth independent factor that we
regard as being outside the domain of personality proper
(McCrae, 1994b).
Men and women who score low on O tend to be con-
ventional in behavior and conservative in outlook. They
prefer the familiar to the novel, and their emotional
responses are somewhat muted. Although an individual's
level of openness may influence the form of psychological
defense he or she uses (McCrae & Costa, 1997a), there is
no evidence that closedness itself is a generalized defen-
sive reaction. Instead, it seems likely that closed people
simply have a narrower scope and a lower intensity of
interests. Similarly, although they tend to be socially and
politically conservative, closed people should not be
viewed as authoritarians. Closedness does not imply hos-
tile intolerance or authoritarian aggression. These quali-
ties are more likely to be signs of extremely low
Agreeableness.
A related distinction must be made at the open pole.
Open individuals are unconventional, willing to question
authority, and prepared to entertain new ethical, social, and
political ideas. These tendencies, however, do not mean
that they are unprincipled. An open person may apply his
20
or her evolving value system as conscientiously as a
traditionalist does.
Openness may sound healthier or more mature to many
psychologists, but the value of openness or closedness
depends on the requirements of the situation, and both open
and closed individuals perform useful functions in society.
Agreeableness (A)
Like Extraversion, Agreeableness (A) is primarily a
dimension of interpersonal tendencies. The agreeable per-
son is fundam~ntally altruistic. He or she is sympathetic
to others and eager to help them, and believes that others
will be equally helpful in return. By contrast, low scorers
on A, disagreeable or antagonistic people, are egocentric,
skeptical of others' intentions, and competitive rather than
cooperative.
It is tempting to see the agreeable side of this domain as
both socially preferable and psychologically healthier, and
it is certainly the case that agreeable people are more pop-
ular than antagonistic individuals. However, the readiness
to fight for one's own interests is often advantageous, and
Agreeableness is not a virtue on the battlefield or in the
courtroom. Skeptical and critical thinking contributes to
accurate analysis in the sciences.
Just as neither pole of this dimension is intrinsically bet-
ter than the other from society's point of view, neither pole
is necessarily better in terms of the individual's mental
health. Homey (1945) discussed two neurotic tendencies-
moving toward people and moving against people-that
resemble pathological forms of Agreeableness and antag-
onism. Low A is associated with narcissistic, antisocial,
and paranoid personality disorders, whereas high A is
associated with the dependent personality disorder (Costa
& Widiger, 2002).
Conscientiousness (C)
A great deal of personality theory, particularly psycho-
dynamic theory, concerns the control of impulses. During
the course of development, most individuals learn how to
manage their desires, and the inability to resist impulses
and temptations is generally a sign of high N scores among
adults. But self-control also can refer to a more active
process of planning, organizing, and carrying out tasks;
individual differences in this tendency are the basis of
Conscientiousness (C; Costa & McCrae, 1998b; McCrae
& Lockenhoff, 2010).
The conscientious individual is purposeful, strong-
willed, and determined, and probably few people become
great musicians or athletes without a reasonably high level
of this trait. Digman and Takemoto-Chock (1981) referred
to this domain as Will to Achieve. On the positive side,
high C is associated with academic and occupational
achievement; on the negative side, it may lead to annoy-
ing fastidiousness, compulsive neatness, or workaholic
behavior.
Conscientiousness is an aspect of what was once called
character; high C scorers are scrupulous, punctual, and
reliable. Low scorers are not necessarily lacking in moral
principles, but they are less exacting in applying them, just
as they are more lackadaisical in working toward their
goals. There is some evidence that low scorers are more
hedonistic and interested in sex than high scorers (McCrae,
Costa, & Busch, 1986).
The Facet Scales
Each of the five domains of the NEO-PI-3 is repre-
sented by six more specific scales that measure facets of
the domain. There are several advantages to the strategy
of assessing a variety of facets. First, it ensures that the
items used to measure the domain will cover as wide a
range of relevant thoughts, feelings, and actions as possi-
ble. The N scale, for example, must include items
measuring anger, depression, self-consciousness, impul-
siveness, and vulnerability to stress, as well as anxiety.
Domain scores are thus designed to reflect the broadest
possible dimensions of personality.
Second, having several independent facet scales per-
mits internal replication of findings. For example, each of
the six facets of N is significantly related to negative affect
and lower life satisfaction (Costa & McCrae, 1984), which
gives considerable confidence to the claim that N is indeed
related to psychological well-being. Similarly, the clini-
cian who sees that a patient is high in anxiety, hostility,
self-consciousness, and depression can be confident that
he or she has pervasive psychological distress.
A third, and crucial, advantage to the multifaceted
approach to the measurement of the five factors arises from
the fact that meaningful individual differences can be seen
within domains. Openness to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings,
actions, ideas, and values covary to define the Openness
factor, and individuals who score high on one facet are
likely to score high on others. But this is only a statement
of probability. Some individuals, for example, are open to
new ideas but not values, or are open to feelings but not
aesthetics. These individual differences within domains
are stable over time and confirmed by observer ratings
(McCrae & Costa, 1990, 1992), so they must be regarded
as real facts of personality and not merely random scatter.
Analyses of data from twins show that the specific
variance associated with individual facet scales is
substantially heritable (Jang, McCrae, Angleitner,
Riemann, & Livesley, 1998).
Examination of facet scales can provide a more fine-
grained analysis of persons or groups. This can be partic-
ularly illuminating when the overall domain score is in the
average range. For example, an individual whose average
A score includes very low Altruism but very high
Compliance will react quite differently from an individual
with an equal A score but with a pattern of high Altruism
and low Compliance.
Finally, the detailed information available from con-
sideration of facet scores can be useful in interpreting con-
structs and formulating theories. Extraversion is known to
be related to psychological well-being (Costa & McCrae,
1984), but a closer look shows that two of the facets,
Warmth and Positive Emotions, are chiefly responsible for
this association; Excitement-Seeking is not related to well-
being. Such findings have important implications for a
theory of well-being.
Neuroticism Facets
NJ: Anxiety
Anxious individuals are apprehensive, fearful, prone to
worry, nervous, tense, and jittery. The scale does not meas-
ure specific fears or phobias, but high scorers are more
likely to have such fears, as well as free-floating anxiety.
Low scorers are calm and relaxed. They do not dwell on
things that might go wrong.
N2: Angry Hostility
Angry hostility represents the tendency to experience
anger and related states such as frustration and bitterness.
This scale measures the individual's readiness to experi-
ence anger; whether the anger is expressed depends on the
individual's level of Agreeableness. Note, however, that
disagreeable people often score high on this scale. Low
scorers are easy-going and slow to anger.
N3: Depression
This scale measures individual differences in the ten-
dency to experience depressive affect. High scorers are
prone to feelings of guilt, sadness, hopelessness, and lone-
liness. They are easily discouraged and often dejected.
Low scorers rarely experience such emotions, but they are
not necessarily cheerful and lighthearted-characteristics
associated instead with Extraversion.
N4: Self-Consciousness
The emotions of shame and embarrassment form the
core of this facet of N. Self-conscious individuals are
uncomfortable around others, sensitive to ridicule, and
prone to feelings of inferiority. Self-consciousness is akin
to shyness and social anxiety-to Fenigstein, Scheier, and
21
Buss' (1975) public (but not private) self-consciousness.
Low scorers do not necessarily have poise or good social
skills, they are simply less disturbed by awkward social
situations.
NS: Impulsiveness
In the NEO-PI-3, impulsiveness refers to the inability to
control cravings and urges. Desires (e.g., for food, ciga-
rettes, possessions) are perceived as being so strong that
the individual cannot resist them, although he or she may
later regret the behavior. Low scorers find it easier to resist
such temptations and have a high tolerance for frustration.
The term impulsive is used by many theorists to refer to
many different and sometimes unrelated traits (see
Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). The NEO-PI-3 NS: Impul-
siveness facet should not be confused with spontaneity,
risk-taking, or rapid decision time.
N6: Vulnerability
The final facet of N is vulnerability to stress. Indi-
viduals who score high on this scale feel unable to cope
with stress, becoming dependent, hopeless, or panicked
when facing emergency situations. Low scorers perceive
themselves as capable of handling themselves in difficult
situations.
Extroversion Facets
El: Warmth
Warmth is the facet of Extraversion most relevant to
issues of interpersonal intimacy. Warm people are affec-
tionate and friendly. They genuinely like people and eas-
ily form close attachments to others. Low scorers are
neither hostile nor necessarily lacking in compassion, but
they are more formal, reserved, and distant in manner than
high scorers. Warmth is the facet of E that is closest to
Agreeableness in terms of interpersonal space, but it is
distinguished by a cordiality and heartiness that is not part
of A.
E2: Gregariousness
A second aspect of E is gregariousness: the preference
for other people's company. Gregarious people enjoy the
company of others-"the more the merrier." Low scorers
on this scale tend to be loners who do not seek-or who
even actively avoid-social stimulation.
E3: Assertiveness
High scorers on this facet are dominant, forceful, and
socially ascendant. They speak without hesitation and
often become group leaders. Low scorers prefer to keep in
the background and let others do the talking.
E4: Activity
A high Activity score is seen in rapid tempo and vigor-
ous movement, a sense of energy, and a need to keep busy.
22
Active people lead fast-paced lives. Low scorers are more
leisurely and relaxed in tempo, though they are not neces-
sarily sluggish or lazy.
ES: Excitement-Seeking
High scorers on this scale crave excitement and stimu-
lation. They like bright colors and noisy environments.
Excitement-Seeking is akin to some aspects of sensation
seeking (Zuckerman, 1979). Low scorers feel little need
for thrills and prefer a lifestyle that high scorers might
find boring.
E6: Positive Emotions
The last facet of E assesses the tendency to experience
positive emotions such as joy, happiness, love, and excite-
ment. High scorers on the Positive Emotions scale laugh
easily and often. They are cheerful and optimistic. Low
scorers are not necessarily unhappy; they are merely less
exuberant and high-spirited. Research (e.g., Schimmack,
Oishi, Furr, & Funder, 2004; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz,
2008) has shown that happiness and life satisfaction are
related to both N and E, and that Positive Emotions is the
facet of E most relevant to the prediction of happiness.
Openness Facets
By convention, facets of Oare designated by the aspect
or area of experience to which the individual is open. Thus,
a high scorer on the Fantasy scale enjoys rich, varied, and
novel experiences in his or her fantasy life; a high scorer
on the Ideas facet enjoys rich, varied, and novel experi-
ences in his or her intellectual life. In publications, the
implicit "open to ... " is usually expressed. Thus, McCrae
and Costa (1989b) wrote that "the MBTI [Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator] TF [Thinking-Feeling] scale ... was directly
related to Openness [emphasis added] to Feelings" (p. 32).
01: Fantasy
Individuals who are open to fantasy have a vivid imag-
ination and an active fantasy life. They daydream not sim-
ply as an escape, but as a way of creating an interesting
inner world for themselves. They elaborate and develop
their fantasies and believe that imagination contributes to
a rich and creative life. Low scorers are more prosaic and
prefer to keep their minds on the task at hand.
02: Aesthetics
High scorers on this scale have a deep appreciation for
art and beauty. They are moved by poetry, absorbed in
music, intrigued by art, and they often experience a chill in
response to sudden beauty (McCrae, 2007). They need not
have artistic talent, nor even necessarily what most people
would consider good taste, but for many of them, their
interest in the arts will lead them to develop a wider knowl-
edge and appreciation than that of the average individual.
Low scorers are relatively insensitive to and uninterested
in art and beauty.
03: Feelings
Openness to feelings implies receptivity to one's own
inner feelings and emotions and the evaluation of emotion
as an important part of life. High scorers experience deeper
and more differentiated emotional states and feel both hap-
piness and unhappiness more keenly than others do. Low
scorers have somewhat blunted affects and do not believe
that feeling states are of much importance. They may be
characterized by alexithymia.
04: Actions
Openness is seen behaviorally in the willingness to try
different activities, go new places, or eat unusual foods.
High scorers on this scale prefer novelty and variety to
familiarity and routine. Over time, they may engage in a
series of different hobbies. Low scorers find change diffi-
cult and prefer to stick with the tried-and-true.
05: Ideas
Intellectual curiosity is an aspect of Openness that has
long been recognized (Fiske, 1949). This trait is seen not
only in an active pursuit of intellectual interests for their
own sake, but also in open-mindedness and a willingness
to consider new, perhaps unconventional, ideas. High scor-
ers enjoy both philosophical arguments and brain teasers.
Openness to ideas does not necessarily imply high intelli-
gence, though it can contribute to the development of intel-
lectual potential. Low scorers on the scale have limited
curiosity and, if highly intelligent, narrowly focus their
resources on limited topics.
06: Values
Openness to Values assesses the readiness to reexamine
social, political, and religious values. Closed individuals
tend to accept authority and to honor tradition and, as a
consequence, are generally conservative, regardless of
political party affiliation. Openness to Values may be con-
sidered the opposite of dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960).
Agreeableness Facets
Al: Trust
The first facet of Agreeableness is Trust. High scorers
are disposed to believe that others are honest and well-
intentioned. Low scorers on this scale tend to be cynical
and skeptical and to assume that others may be dishonest
or dangerous.
A2: Straightforwardness
Individuals with high scores on this scale are frank, sin-
cere, and ingenuous. Low scorers on this scale are more
willing to manipulate others through flattery, craftiness, or
deception. They view these tactics as necessary social
skills and may regard more straightforward people as
nai've. When interpreting this scale (as well as other A and
C scales), the professional must remember that scores
reflect standing relative to other individuals. A low scorer
on this scale is more likely to stretch the truth or to be
guarded in expressing his or her true feelings, but this
should not be interpreted to mean that he or she is a dis-
honest or manipulative person. In particular, this scale
should not be regarded as a lie scale, either for assessing
the validity of the test itself or for making predictions
about honesty in employment or other settings.
'
A3: Altruism
High scorers on the Altruism scale have an active con-
cern for others' welfare as shown in generosity, consider-
ation of others, and a willingness to assist others in need of
help. Low scorers on this scale are somewhat more self-
centered and are reluctant to get involved in the problems
of others.
A4: Compliance
This facet of A concerns characteristic reactions to
interpersonal conflict. The high scorer tends to defer to
others, to inhibit aggression, and to forgive and forget.
Compliant people are meek and mild. The low scorer is
aggressive, prefers to compete rather than to cooperate,
and has no reluctance to express anger when necessary.
AS: Modesty
High scorers on this scale are humble and self-effacing,
though they are not necessarily lacking in self-confidence
or self-esteem. Low scorers believe they are superior peo-
ple and may be considered conceited or arrogant by others.
A pathological lack of modesty is part of the clinical con-
ception of narcissism.
A6: Tender-Mindedness
This facet scale measures attitudes of sympathy and
concern for others. High scorers are moved by others'
needs and emphasize the human side of social policies.
Low scorers are more hardheaded and less moved by
appeals to pity. They would consider themselves realists
who make rational decisions based on cold logic.
Conscientiousness Facets
C1: Competence
Competence refers to the sense that one is capable, sen-
sible, prudent, and effective. High scorers on this scale feel
well-prepared to deal with life. Low scorers have a lower
opinion of their abilities and admit that they are often
unprepared and inept. Of all the C facet scales, Com-
petence is most highly associated with self-esteem and
internal locus of control (Costa, McCrae, et al., 1991). Not
surprisingly, it is negatively related to N6: Vulnerability.
23
C2: Order
High scorers on this scale are neat, tidy, and well-
organized. They keep things in their proper places. Low
scorers are unable to get organized and describe themselves
as unmethodical. Carried to an extreme, high Order may
contribute to an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.
C3: Dutifulness
In one sense, conscientious means "governed by con-
science," and that aspect of C is assessed as Dutifulness.
High scorers on this scale adhere strictly to their ethical
principles and scrupulously fulfill their moral obligations
as they understand them. Low scorers are more casual
about such matters and may be somewhat undependable
or unreliable.
C4: Achievement Striving
Individuals who score high on this facet have high aspi-
ration levels and work hard to achieve their goals. They
are diligent and purposeful and have a sense of direction in
life. Very high scorers, however, may invest too much in
their careers and become workaholics. Low scorers are
lackadaisical and perhaps even lazy. They are not driven to
succeed. They lack ambition and may seem aimless, but
they are often perfectly content with their low levels of
achievement.
CS: Self-Discipline
By this term, we refer to an individual's ability to begin
tasks and carry them through to completion, despite bore-
dom or other distractions. High scorers can motivate them-
selves to get the job done. Low scorers procrastinate in
beginning chores and are easily discouraged and eager
to quit. Low self-discipline is easily confused with
impulsiveness-both are evidence of poor self-control-
but empirically, they are distinct. People who have high
levels of impulsiveness cannot resist doing what they do
not want themselves to do; people who have low levels of
self-discipline cannot force themselves to do what they
want themselves to do. The former requires an emotional
stability; the latter, a degree of motivation that they do
not possess.
C6: Deliberation
The final facet of C is deliberation-the tendency to
think carefully before acting. High scorers on this facet are
cautious and deliberate. Low scorers are hasty and often
speak or act without considering the consequences. At
best, low scorers are spontaneous and able to make snap
decisions when necessary.
Interpreting Profiles
An individual's set of scores can be plotted on a
Profile Form to see the overall configuration of his or her
24
personality relative to the appropriate normative group.
The most distinctive and salient domains and facets can
then be identified. Familiarity with the correlates of
NEO-PI-3 scales allows the interpreter to make predictions
about important aspects of the individual's life, such as
coping styles, vocational interests, and life satisfaction.
Profile interpretation can.be as simple as noting a few
distinctive traits or as complex as the knowledge, skill, and
interest of the interpreter permit. In clinical use, the
NEO-PI-3 Profile Form should be considered in the con-
text of the client's history, presenting problems, and other
psychological' test data, such as spouse ratings on Form R
of the NEO-PI-3. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
discuss the profile with the client, a process that can help
both client and therapist understand the ways these per-
sonality traits are manifested in the client's life. As with all
psychological test results, NEO-PI-3 profile interpretations
must be considered tentative. Neither self-reports nor
observer ratings (nor, for that matter, clinical judgments)
are infallible. If test results appear inaccurate to the thera-
pist or client, further exploration is indicated.
Making sense of 30 unrelated scales would be extremely
difficult, and thus we have recommended that interpreters
examine the facets domain by domain. However, there are
also other ways of thinking about facet scales that may be
useful, especially for an experienced interpreter. One way
is to consider the relations of facet scales across
domains-an approach that is justified by the secondary
factor loadings of several scales (see Table 7 in chapter 8
of this Professional Manual). For example, antagonistic
people, in addition to scoring low on the six A facets, also
tend to score high on N2: Angry Hostility and to score low
on El: Warmth. In gauging the depth and pervasiveness
of the individual's antagonism, consideration of all these
scales is useful. Similarly, the meaning of a high 01:
Fantasy score may depend on other scores. In an individ-
ual who is otherwise closed to experience, fantasy may be
used as an escape from stress, or as a way of avoiding
unpleasant tasks. High N scores would support the former
interpretation; low C scores would suggest the latter.
Combinations of Traits
It also may be useful to consider pairs of domain or fac-
tor scores in terms of two-dimensional planes, which cor-
respond, in many cases, to particular areas of life. Two of
these combinations have been extensively researched: the
affective plane, defined by N and E, which represents the
individual's basic emotional styles (Costa & McCrae,
1980a; Watson & Tellegen, 1985); and the interpersonal
plane, or circumplex, defined by E and A (McCrae &
Costa, 1989d; Costa & McCrae, in press). E and 0
together are important both for vocational interests (Costa
et al., 1984) and for the selection of optimal forms of ther-
apy (T. Miller, 1991).
The 10 NEO Style Graphs describe all combinations of
pairs of factors: Styles of Well-Being (N and E), Defense
(N and 0), Anger Control (N and A), Impulse Control (N
and C), Interests (E and 0), Interactions (E and A),
Activity (E and C), Attitudes (0 and A), Learning (0 and
C), and Character (A and C). Interpretation of these 10
styles is included in the NEO-PI-3 Software System
Interpretive Report and in the NEO Style Graph Booklet.
More complex combinations of traits also can be con-
sidered. In particular, DSM-IV personality disorders can
be conceptualized in terms of discrete combinations of
traits. For example, the paranoid personality disorder is
associated with the traits of N2: Angry Hostility, low Al:
Trust, low A2: Straightforwardness, and low A4: Com-
pliance. Individuals who show this pattern of traits may
meet the diagnostic criteria for paranoid personality dis-
order. The Clinical Hypotheses section of the computer-
generated interpretive report compares the respondent's
profile to established patterns for each of the personality dis-
orders and indicates which diagnoses are likely or unlikely.
NEO-PI-3 profiles can also be compared to many other
empirically-based profiles (such as those for patients with
Alzheimer's disease [Siegler et al., 1991] or those for proto-
typic psychopaths [Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld,
2001)) to assess similarity of personality patterns.
Combining Self-Reports and Observer Ratings
When both Form S and Form R data are available for an
individual, both the complexities and possibilities of pro-
file interpretation are multiplied. The profiles can be inter-
preted separately to understand personality as it is seen by
the individual and as it is seen by those around him or her.
Alternatively, two (or more) profiles can be plotted on the
same form (using T scores based on relevant norms), and
the interpretations can focus on points of agreement and
disagreement.
The clinical interpretation of joint profiles-particularly
their discrepancies- has been discussed by Muten ( 1991)
and Singer (2005), and an extended case study is provided
by Costa and Piedmont (2003). Formal statistical analyses
indicating the degree of agreement and pointing to specific
scores that require further information gathering have been
developed (McCrae, 1994a) and form the basis of the inter-
pretation of joint profiles in the NEO Software System
Combined Report.
An Example of Profile Interpretation: Case A
To illustrate profile interpretation, Figure 3 presents the
NEO PI-R profile of a 32-year-old married woman
enrolled in a behavioral medicine clinic. (Note that the
interpretation would be identical if she had received the
same T scores on the NEO-PI-3.) Case A came to the clinic
complaining of pain in her upper back and neck, financial
worries, and stress. She was a professional in a high-
technology industry that had recently suffered losses, and she
had reason to believe that she might be laid off from work.
She had some previous experience with psychotherapy.
At the left-hand side of the Profile Form, the five
domain scores are plotted. From these, one can see that
this individual ,views herself as near average on N and E,
and high on 0, A, and C. Moving to the right, the facet
scale scores for each domain are plotted. Note that there is
considerable scatter within the N domain. This woman
considers herself to be very high in Nl: Anxiety and high
in N3: Depression and N6: Vulnerability, but very low in
N5: Impulsiveness-perhaps as a result of her high level of
Conscientiousness. She is average to high in most facets of
E, but clearly low in E6: Positive Emotions. She is average
to high in all facets of 0, A, and C except for O 1: Fantasy
and C4: Achievement Striving, on both of which she
scores very high.
This is the profile of an individual with a good prog-
nosis: moderate levels of N and high levels of C are
associated with good treatment outcomes (Miller, 1991).
Therapy included promoting self-nurturing behaviors (to
increase positive emotions) and learning relaxation skills
(to reduce anxiety). In a series of seven treatment sessions,
she made substantial progress in reducing her back pain
and in making constructive plans for her future that would
allow her to satisfy her needs for achievement without
undue stress.
The NEO-Pl-3 Interpretive Report
Both the NEO Software System and the NEO Profes-
sional Report Service generate reports that can be used to
illustrate profile interpretation. Naturally, these reports
deal only with NEO Inventory data; it remains the respon-
sibility of the professional to integrate this information
with other relevant facts about the client.
The report first gives identifying information about the
client and produces the client's NEO-PI-3 profile. A list-
ing of the raw scores, T scores, and ranges for the factors
and facet scales is then presented. Norms for these scores
are based on the age and sex of the individual and on the
form of the test that was administered. Either within-sex or
combined-sex norms can be chosen.
The program then evaluates the validity of the
responses, taking into account missing item responses,
acquiescence, nay-saying, random responding, and the
answers to the validity check items. If 41 or more item
25
 Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
Paul T. CniJta, Jr., Ph.D. and Robert R, McCrae, Ph.D.
Females- Fottn S (Self-Report)
N E O A C
t/ ti !I ~ ;;
Figure 3. NEO PI-R Form S Profile Form for Case A. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 20), by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R. R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL:
PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR.
responses are missing, no report is generated. Otherwise,
the report is produced along with various cautionary state-
ments derived from the outcome of the validity evaluation.
After reading the Validity Indices section of the report, the
professional must decide whether to obtain more informa-
tion from the respondent, discard the test, or retain the
interpretation with the appropriate cautions.
The Basis of Interpretation section identifies the source
of the NEO-PI-3 data and the normative group selected for
comparison. It also provides information on the five factor
scores that are used as the basis of the global interpreta-
tion of personality.
The interpretive material is divided into three main sec-
tions. The first, Global Description of Personality: The
Five Factors, describes the respondent on each factor,
beginning with the most distinctive factor score (the fur-
thest from average), using decision logic that classifies
scores into five levels of elevation (from Very Low to Very
High). The second section, Detailed Interpretation: Facets of
N, E, 0, A, and C, contains narratives based on facet scores.
The last major section of the basic report, Personality
26
Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A g e ~ l . D , _ _
U 9 1(1
7 ll ? :!,
0-<I 0-fl Q-8 U,$, (H
Correlates: Some Possible Implications, draws on empir-
ical research using the NEO PI-R to broaden the interpre-
tation. Included are statements on coping and defenses,
somatic complaints, psychological well-being, cognitive
processes, interpersonal characteristics, and needs and
motives. Finally, the report can include relevant sections of
the NEO Problems in Living Checklist, based on the
client's NEO scores. This section lists personality-related
difficulties the client may be facing and can serve as a
guide to a focused interview.
There are several optional sections of the report. A
Client Report, Your NEO-PI-3 Summary, is available for
providing detailed feedback based on self-reports. The
NEO Style Graph Booklet can also be generated. For
clients in psychotherapy, an optional Clinical Hypotheses
section addresses possible Axis II diagnoses (for adults)
and lists some treatment implications of the profile. If data
are available from two ratings of the same target, a
Combined Report can be created, based on the adjusted
mean score (see McCrae, Stone, Fagan, & Costa, 1998 for
details on the statistical adjustment).
 Interpretive reports are generated by applying a set of
decision rules to the profile of scores: If the scores exceed
certain cutoff points, statements that summarize the mean-
ing and possible implications of the scores are included in
the report. The statements are based on scale content and
on research findings; the cutoff points were chosen based
on the judgment and experience of the authors. These
interpretive reports should be viewed as a set of proba-
bilistic inferences that an interpreter who is well-versed
in the literature on the NEO Inventories might make given
the observed scores. To document the research basis of
the statements about personality correlates and conse-
quences, references are given in brackets in the case stud-
ies that follow. Note that these references do not appear in
the computer generated reports.
Interpretive reports such as these, which compile a por-
trait through the application of a series of decision rules,
sometimes appear to be incongruous. For example, in the
global description of Case B, it is stated that introverts like
him "avoid large, noisy parties," which is, in general, true.
However, Case B happens to be average on E2: Gregari-
ousness, so the detailed description states that he "some-
times enjoys large and noisy crowds or parties." Apparent
inconsistencies in interpretive reports should not be seen as
errors but as issues that require additional clarification and
further individualized interpretation. If there are discrep-
ancies between the domain and facet interpretations, the
more specific facet interpretations should normally be
given more weight.
Case Studies
Four additional cases studies are presented; all provided
appropriate informed consent. The first (Case B) illustrates
a simple self-report profile for an individual whose most
notable characteristics are a Very High level of Nl:
Anxiety and Very Low levels of ES: Excitement-Seeking
and 04: Openness to Actions. Case B is intended to illus-
trate the basic interpretive report as well as one of the 10
NEO Style Graphs. The second example (Case C) com-
bines information from an autobiography, ratings from two
peers, and a narrative based on one of the peers' ratings. In
addition to the basic report, the Clinical Hypotheses sec-
tion is presented to suggest possible personality disorder
diagnoses that might be considered if Case C were a
patient in psychotherapy. Both of these cases are, in fact,
normal volunteers (McCrae, 1994a). The third case (Case
D) is a patient from a clinician in private practice; this case
study illustrates the joint examination of self-reports and
spouse ratings and the use of NEO PI-R data in clinical
case management. For Case D, we also present Your
NEO PI-R Summary, a Client Report that is more detailed
than Your NEO Summary. It is based on the self-report
only. Finally, Case Eis based on a clinician's NEO-PI-3
rating of a patient in therapy and illustrates the use of the
new NEO Problems in Living Checklist described in chap-
ter 6 of this Professional Manual.
When comparing the profiles presented on the NEO-PI-3
Profile Forms with the text of the interpretive reports, users
must recall that the text is based on factor T scores rather
than on domain T scores. This difference accounts for
apparent inconsistencies between the plotted profiles and
the interpretive text. For example, Case B's domain score
for Openness (T = 55) is in the Average range, but his fac-
tor score (T = 56) is in the High range.
CaseB
Figure 4 shows the NEO PI-R Form S profile for a
79-year-old man. After studying literature in graduate
school, he became a teacher and later a principal. He
retired at age 75.
27.
 Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) Name

Paul T. Costa, Jr., Ph.O. and .Qobert .R. Mt:Cnw, Ph.D. °""---------Ag,_:l!/__I.D. _ __
Males - Fonn S (Self-Report)

N E 0 A C

:; ~1 ~ ~/ 11
M>

"'29 "
31
~
:,; "'
2$ 19

"
> ,0,
" "
Z<I ;11 it
"
V )<

()..Jl 7
M, "
0-11 ,;..7

Figure 4. NEO PI-R Form S Profile Form for Case B. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 21), by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL:
PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR.

His profile is interpreted as follows:

-Validity Indices-
Validity indices (i.e., A and C questions) are within normal limits.
Because the NEO PI-R™ Scale Raw Score entry option was used, no checks for missing items,
acquiescence, nay-saying, or random responding could be made.

-Basis of Interpretation-
This report compares the respondent to other adult men. It is based on self-reports of the respondent.
At the broadest level, personality can be described in terms of five basic dimensions or factors. NEO PI-R
domain scores provide good estimates of these five factors by summing the six facets in each domain.
Domain scores can be calculated easily by hand and are therefore used on the (hand-scored) Profile Form.
More precise estimates of standing on the five factors, however, are provided by factor scores, which are a
weighted combination of scores on all 30 facets (see Table 4 in the Manual). Factor scores are best
calculated by computer.
Because factor scores have somewhat higher convergent and discriminant validity, they are used as the
basis of this report. In general, domain T scores and factor T scores are very similar; occasionally, however,
they differ. In these cases, the factor T score, which incorporates information from all 30 facets, is usually
a more accurate description of the individual.
Factor scores are used to describe the individual at a global level, based on a composite of facet scale
scores. To the extent that there is wide scatter among facet scores within a domain, interpretation of that
domain and factor becomes more complex. Interpretive statements at the factor level may occasionally
conflict with interpretive statements at the facet level. In these cases, particular attention should be focused
on the facet scales and their interpretations.

28
 -Global Description of Personality: The Five Factors-
The most distinctive feature of this individual's personality is his standing on the factor of Extraversion.
Such people are somewhat introverted, preferring to do many things alone or with a small group of people.
They avoid large, noisy parties and tend to be quiet and reserved in social interactions. Those who know
such people would probably describe them as retiring and serious [McCrae & Costa, 1987]. The fact that
these individuals are introverted does not necessarily mean that they lack social skills-many introverts
function very well in social situations, although they might prefer to avoid them. Note also that introversion
does not imply introspection; these individuals are likely to be thoughtful and reflective only if they are also
high in Openness.
This person is high in Openness. High scorers like him are interested in experience for its own sake. They
enjoy novelty and variety. They are sensitive to their own feelings and have a greater than average ability
to recognize the emotions of others. They have a high appreciation of b~auty in art and nature. They are
willing to consider new ideas and values, and may be somewhat unconventional in their own views. Peers
rate such people as original and curious.
Next, consider the individual's level of Neuroticism. Individuals scoring in this range are average in
terms of their emotional stability. They experience a normal amount of psychological distress and have a
typical balance of satisfactions and dissatisfactions with life. They are neither high nor low in self-esteem.
Their ability to deal with stress is as good as the average person's.
This person is average in Agreeableness. People who score in this range are about as good-natured as the
average person. They can be sympathetic, but can also be firm. They are trusting but not gullible, and ready
to compete as well as to cooperate with others.
Finally, the individual scores in the average range in Conscientiousness. Men who score in this range
have a normal level of need for achievement. They are able to set work aside in pursuit of pleasure or
recreation. They are moderately well organized and fairly reliable, and have an average amount of self-
discipline.

-Detailed Interpretation: Facets of N, E, 0, A, and C-

Each of the five factors encompasses a number of more specific traits, or facets. The NEO PI-R measures
six facets in each of the five factors. An examination of the facet scores provides a more detailed picture of
the distinctive way that these factors are seen in this person.
Neuroticism
This individual is anxious, generally apprehensive, and prone to worry. He sometimes feels frustrated,
irritable, and angry at others and he is prone to feeling sad, lonely, and dejected. Embarrassment or shyness
when dealing with people, especially strangers, is not a problem for him. He reports being poor at
controlling his impulses and desires, but he is able to handle stress as well as most people.
Extra version
This person is very warm and affectionate toward others and he sometimes enjoys large and noisy
crowds or parties. He is as assertive as most men when the circumstances require. The individual has a low
level of energy and prefers a slow and steady pace. Excitement, stimulation, and thrills have little appeal to
him and he is less prone to experience feelings of joy and happiness than most men.
Openness
In experiential style, this individual is generally open. He has an average imagination and only
occasionally daydreams or fantasizes. He is particularly responsive to beauty as found in music, art, poetry,
or nature, and his feelings and emotional reactions are varied and important to him. He seldom enjoys new
and different activities and has a low need for variety in his life. He has only a moderate level of intellectual
curiosity and he is generally middle-of-the-road in his social, political, and moral beliefs.
Agreeableness
This person easily trusts others and usually assumes the best about anyone he meets. He is generally
frank and sincere, but he tends to put his own needs and interests before others'. This individual holds his
own in conflicts with others, but he is also willing to forgive and forget. He is quite proud of himself and
his accomplishments, and happy to take credit for them. Compared to other people, he is hard-headed and
tough-minded, and his social and political attitudes reflect his pragmatic realism.

29
 Conscientiousness
This individual is reasonably efficient and generally sensible and rational in making decisions. He is
moderately neat, punctual, and well organized, and he is reasonably dependable and reliable in meeting his
obligations. He has a moderately high need for achievement, but he can also set work aside for recreation.
He is average in self-discipline and generally finishes the tasks he starts. He is reasonably cautious, and
generally thinks things through before acting.

-Personality Correlates: Some Possible Implications-

Research has shown that the scales of the NEO PI-R™ are related to a wide variety of psychosocial
variables. These correlates suggest possible implications of the personality profile, because individuals who
score high on a trait are also likely to score high on measures of the trait's correlates.
The following information is intended to give a sense of how this individual might function in a number
of areas. It is not, however, a substitute for direct measurement. If, for example, there is a primary interest
in medical complaints, an inventory of medical complaints should be administered in addition to the
NEO PI-R.
Coping and Defenses
In coping with the stresses of everyday life, this individual is not very likely to react with ineffective
responses, such as hostile reactions toward others, self-blame, or escapist fantasies [McCrae & Costa,
1986b]. He is more likely than most adults to use humor and less likely to use faith in responding to threats,
losses, and challenges. In addition, he is somewhat less likely to use positive thinking and direct action in
dealing with problems.
Somatic Complaints
This person likely responds in a normal fashion to physical problems and illness. He is prone neither to
exaggerate nor to minimize physical symptoms and is fairly objective in assessing the seriousness of any
medical problems that he might have [Costa & McCrae, 1980b, 1987a].
Psychological Well-being
Although his mood and satisfaction with various aspects of his life will vary with the circumstances, in
the long run this individual is likely to experience the normal course of positive and negative feelings and
be generally content with life. Because he is open to experience, his moods may be more intense and varied
than those of the average man [Costa & McCrae, 1984; McCrae & Costa, 1991a].
Cognitive Processes
This individual is likely to be more complex and differentiated in his thoughts, values, and moral
judgments than others of his level of intelligence and education [Lonky, Kaus, & Roodin, 1984]. He would
also probably score higher on measures of ego development [McCrae & Costa, 1980]. Because he is open
to experience, this individual is likely to perform better than average on tests of divergent thinking ability;
that is, he can generate fluent, flexible, and original solutions to many problems [McCrae, 1987]. He may
be considered creative in his work or hobbies.
Interpersonal Characteristics
Many theories propose a circular arrangement of interpersonal traits around the axes of Love and Status
[Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979]. Within such systems, this person would likely be described as modest,
submissive, cold, unfeeling, and especially aloof and reserved. His traits are associated with low standing
on the interpersonal dimensions of Love and Status [McCrae & Costa, 1989c; Costa & McCrae, in press].
Needs and Motives
Research in personality has identified a widely used list of psychological needs. Individuals differ in the
degree to which these needs characterize their motivational structure. The respondent is likely to show high
levels of the following needs: affiliation, harm avoidance (avoiding danger), nurturance, and sentience
(enjoyment of sensuous and aesthetic experiences). The respondent is likely to show low levels of the
following needs: abasement, change, and play [Costa & McCrae, 1988a].

-Stability of Profile-
Research suggests that the personality profile of this respondent reflects not only current functioning,
but will also be descriptive through the remainder of the respondent's life. Barring major changes in health

30
 or therapeutic interventions, it is likely to continue to remain an accurate characterization [McCrae &
Costa, 2003].

-Personality Style Graphs-

Broad personality factors are pervasive influences on thoughts, feelings, and actions, and combinations
of factors provide insight into major aspects of people's lives, defining what can be called personality styles.
For example, for many years psychologists have known that interpersonal interactions can be
conceptualized in terms of a circular ordering or circumplex, defined by the two axes of Dominance and
Love, or by the alternative axes of Extraversion and Agreeableness. These two factors define a Style of
Interactions.
The nine other pairs of factors also define styles, and all ten are represented in NEO Style Graphs. An
"X" is placed on each graph to indicate where the respondent falls; the des'cription of that quadrant applies
to the respondent. Descriptions are likely to be most accurate if (1) the "X" is far from the center; (2) the
"X" is near the diagonal passing through the center of the quadrant; and (3) all the facets in each domain
show similar levels. If the "X" is placed in the central circle, then none of the descriptions is especially
relevant. If the "X" is located near the horizontal or vertical axis, then both quadrants on that side of the
circle may be descriptive. If there is marked scatter among the facets in a domain, then interpretation should
focus on these facets rather than the domain and its combinations in Style Graphs.

Style of Well-Being
Vertical Axis: Neuroticism I T= 53 I

Horizontal Axis: Extraversion I T = 44 I

N+E- N+E+
Gloomy Pessimists Strongly Emotional
These individuals face a dark and dreary life. There is These individuals experience both positive and negative
little that cheers them and much that causes anguish and emotions fully and may swing rapidly from one mood to
distress. Especially in stressful circumstances, another. Their interpersonal interactions may be
they experience periods of feeling depressed. tumultuous because they are so easily influ-
Even under normal circumstances, they enced by their feelings. However, they
often find life hard and joyless. may feel that their lives are full of
excitement.

...... ·+- ...... . ........ :......... +·. ..... .

N-E- ······+········ ········:········+······· N-E+

Low-Keyed Upbeat Optimists
Neither good news nor bad has much These individuals are usually cheer-
effect on these individuals; they main- + ··. ····+ ·······.ao. · · · · · · · + ·······+ ful because they are not unduly trou-
tain a stoic indifference to events that : bled by problems and they have a keen
would frighten or delight others. Their inter- : appreciation for life's pleasures. When faced
personal relationships may suffer because others · with frustration or disappointment, they may
find them to be "cold fish." Their emotional experience become angry or sad, but they quickly put these feel-
of life is bland. ings behind them. They prefer to concentrate on the
future, which they view with eager anticipation. They
enjoy life.

31
 CaseC
Case C is a 73-year-old woman who worked until age
60 while raising a family and taking care of her disabled
father-in-law. Since retirement, she has been active as the
leader of several social and civic groups, does volunteer
work, gardens, does housework, and swims.
In describing her life, she frequently points to conflicts
with others. As a young girl, she felt unappreciated at
home. She "got a job as far away from home as possible
and decided to fight for everything" she wanted out of life.
She did not get along with her first employer, but because
jobs were scarce during the Depression, she "fought to
stay." Of her early married life she says, "We had plenty
of battles. . . On occasion I did throw things at my
husband." And although she likes people and has many
friends, she notes that "one doesn't like everybody he
meets ... I also distrust people who are sweet and insin-
cere. Sweet and insincere are synonymous to me."
Figure 5 shows profiles from two peer raters of Case C
plotted on a Form R Profile Form.
Note that although there are some differences, the two
ratings are generally in agreement at both the domain level
and the facet level. The following interpretive report is
based on data from Rater 1 (the solid line). Although Case
C is not a patient in psychotherapy, for illustrative pur-
poses, this report includes the optional Clinical Hypotheses
section that discusses personality disorders for which-if
she were in psychotherapy-she might meet criteria.

Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI"R)

Pat1l '1\ C0!!1f.a, Jr,, Ph.D, and Robert R. McCrae~Ph.D.

Females - Fonn R (Ratings)

N E O A C

I I I I I
u, :I() $!
1$ 29 .w ~ JO
1$ )I

" "

' !
' ' ' jl); 11 U 1S n 14
' ' " 16 IJ
t:$ n
H lL

" ' 7 6
1 ,,
11 f!

m i
" ' " '
'9 4 10
14
tV} (HI fl,.Jl ti,~ 9,S Q-!J 0,1.l 0.6 MS fl-ll

Figure 5. NEO PI-R Form R Profile Form showing ratings from two peers for Case C. From the Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 24), by P. T. Costa, Jr. &
R. R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR.

32
 -Basis of Interpretation-
This report compares this person to other adult women. It is based on observer ratings of the individual.
-Global Description of Personality: The Five Factors-
The most distinctive feature of this individual's personality is her standing on the factor of
Agreeableness. People who score in this range are antagonistic and tend to be brusque or even rude in
dealing with others. They are generally suspicious of other people and skeptical of others' ideas and
opinions. They can be callous in their feelings. Their attitudes are tough-minded in most situations. They
prefer competition to cooperation, and express hostile feelings directly with little hesitation. People might
describe them as relatively stubborn, critical, manipulative, or selfish. (Although antagonistic people are
generally not well-liked by others, they are often respected for their critical independence, and their
emotional toughness and competitiveness can be assets in many social and business roles.)
This person is described as being high in Conscientiousness. Women who score in this range work
toward their goals in a deliberate manner. They have a relatively high need for achievement. They are well
organized and reliable and carry through on their commitments. They have good self-discipline and take
their obligations seriously. Raters describe such people as careful and hardworking.
Next, consider the individual's level of Extraversion. Such people enjoy the company of others and the
stimulation of social interaction. They like parties and may be group leaders. They have a fairly high level
of energy and tend to be cheerful and optimistic. Those who know such people would describe them as
active and sociable.
This person is described as being average in Neuroticism. Individuals scoring in this range are average
in terms of their emotional stability. They experience a normal amount of psychological distress and have
a typical balance of satisfactions and dissatisfactions with life. They are neither high nor low in self-esteem.
Their ability to deal with stress is as good as the average person's.
Finally, the individual is rated in the average range in Openness. Average scorers like her value both the
new and the familiar, and have an average degree of sensitivity to inner feelings. They are willing to
consider new ideas on occasion, but they do not seek out novelty for its own sake.

-Detailed Interpretation: Facets of N, E, 0, A, and C-

Neuroticism
This individual is perceived as being calm, relaxed, and generally free of worry. She often feels
frustrated, irritable, and angry at others, but she has only the occasional periods of unhappiness that most
people experience. Embarrassment or shyness when dealing with people, especially strangers, is not a
problem for her. She is described as being average at controlling her impulses and desires and she is able to
handle stress as well as most people.
Extraversion
This person is rated as being very warm and affectionate toward others and she usually enjoys large and
noisy crowds or parties. She is seen as being forceful and dominant, preferring to be a group leader rather
than a follower. The individual is described as having a high level of energy and likes to keep active and
busy. Excitement, stimulation, and thrills have great appeal to her and she experiences as much joy and
happiness as most women.
Openness
In experiential style, this individual is described as being somewhat open. She considers daydreaming
and fantasy a waste of time, and has a limited imagination. She is like most people in her appreciation of
beauty in music, art, poetry, and nature, and her feelings and emotional reactions are normal in variety and
intensity. She enjoys new and different activities and has a high need for variety in her life. She has only a
moderate level of intellectual curiosity and she is generally middle-of-the-road in her social, political, and
moral beliefs.
Agreeableness
According to the rater, this person tends to be cynical, skeptical, and suspicious, and has a low opinion
of human nature. She is described as being willing at times to flatter or trick people into doing what she
wants, and she tends to put her own needs and interests before others'. This individual can be very
competitive and is ready to fight for her views if necessary. She is described as quite proud of herself and
her accomplishments, and happy to take credit for them. Compared to other people, she is hard-headed and
tough-minded, and her social and political attitudes reflect her pragmatic realism.

33
 Conscientiousness
This individual is perceived as being reasonably efficient and generally sensible and rational in making
decisions. She is described as moderately neat, punctual, and well organized, and she is highly
conscientious, adhering strictly to her ethical principles. She has a high aspiration level and strives for
excellence in whatever she does. She is determined, persistent, and able to force herself to do what is
necessary. She is reasonably cautious, and generally thinks things through before acting.

-Personality Correlates: Some Possible Implications-

Coping and Defenses
In coping with the stresses of everyday life, this individual is described as being not very likely to react
with ineffective responses, such as hostile reactions toward others, self-blame, or escapist fantasies. She is
likely to use both faith and humor in responding to threats, losses, and challenges. In addition, she is
somewhat more likely to use positive thinking and direct action in dealing with problems. She is more likely
to present a defensive facade of superiority than to be self-sacrificing. She may use such defense
mechanisms as acting out and projection [Costa, Zonderman, & McCrae, 1991].
Somatic Complaints
This person likely responds in a normal fashion to physical problems and illness. She is prone neither to
exaggerate nor to minimize physical symptoms and is fairly objective in assessing the seriousness of any
medical problems that she might have.
Psychological Well-being
Although her mood and satisfaction with various aspects of her life will vary with the circumstances, in
the long run this individual is likely to experience the normal course of positive and negative feelings and
generally be happy. Because she is high in Conscientiousness, her accomplishments and achievements may
give her greater satisfaction with life [McCrae & Costa, 1991a].
Cognitive Processes
This individual is likely to be about average in the complexity and differentiation of her thoughts, values,
and moral judgments as compared to others of her level of intelligence and education. She would also
probably score in the average range on measures of ego development.
Interpersonal Characteristics
Many theories propose a circular arrangement of interpersonal traits around the axes of Love and Status.
Within such systems, this person would likely be described as arrogant, calculating, gregarious, sociable,
and especially dominant and assured. Her traits are associated with high standing on the interpersonal
dimension of Status.
Needs and Motives
Research in personality has identified a widely used list of psychological needs. Individuals differ in the
degree to which these needs characterize their motivational structure. This individual is likely to show high
levels of the following needs: achievement, affiliation, aggression, change, dominance, endurance
(persistence), exhibition (attention), nurturance, and order. This individual is likely to show low levels of
the following needs: abasement and harm avoidance (avoiding danger).

-Clinical Hypotheses: Axis II Disorders and Treatment Implications-

The NEO PI-R™ is a measure of personality traits, not psychopathology symptoms, but it is useful in
clinical practice because personality profiles can suggest hypotheses about the disorders to which patients
are prone and their responses to various kinds of therapy. This section of the NEO PI-R™ Interpretive
Report is intended for use in clinical populations only. The hypotheses it offers should be accepted only
when they are supported by other corroborating evidence.
Psychiatric diagnoses occur in men and women with different frequencies, and diagnoses are given
according to uniform criteria. For that reason, information in this section of the Interpretive Report, is based
on Combined Gender norms. Since Same Gender Norms were used for the Interpretive Report, there may
be some apparent inconsistencies in score levels and interpretations.

34
 Axis II Disorders
Personality traits are most directly relevant to the assessment of personality disorders coded on Axis II
of the DSM-IV. A patient may have a personality disorder in addition to an Axis I disorder, and may meet
criteria for more than one personality disorder. Certain diagnoses are more common among individuals with
particular personality profiles; this section calls attention to diagnoses that are likely (or unlikely) to apply.
Borderline Personality Disorder. The most common personality disorder in clinical practice is
Borderline, and the mean NEO PI-R™ profile of a group of patients diagnosed as having Borderline
Personality Disorder [Clarkin, Hull, Cantor, & Sanderson, 1993] provides a basis for evaluating the patient.
Profile agreement between the patient and this mean profile is lower than half the subjects' in the normative
sample, suggesting that the patient is unlikely to have a Borderline Personality Disorder.
Other Personality Disorders. Personality disorders can be conceptually characterized by a prototypic
profile ofNEO PI-R™ facets that are consistent with the definition of the disorder and its associated features
[Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, & Costa, 1994]. The coefficient of profile agreement [McCrae, 1993]
can be used to assess the overall similarity of the patient's personality to other DSM-IV personality disorder
prototypes [McCrae, Yang, et al., 2001].
The patient's scores on N2: Angry Hostility, N4: Self-Consciousness, N6: Vulnerability, El: Warmth,
E2: Gregariousness, E4: Activity, E5: Excitement-Seeking, E6: Positive Emotions, 01: Fantasy, 03:
Feelings, 04: Actions, 05: Ideas, Al: Trust, A2: Straightforwardness, A3: Altruism, Cl: Competence, and
C5: Self-Discipline suggest the possibility of a Histrionic Personality Disorder. [Figure 6 shows the
combined profile of Case C and the Histrionic prototype.] Histrionic personality disorder is relatively
common in clinical practice; the patient's coefficient of profile agreement is higher than 90% of subjects'
in the normative sample.
The patient's scores on N2: Angry Hostility, N3: Depression, N4: Self-Consciousness, El: Warmth, E3:
Assertiveness, E6: Positive Emotions, 03: Feelings, 06: Values, A3: Altruism, A4: Compliance, C2: Order,
C3: Dutifulness, C4: Achievement Striving, and C6: Deliberation suggest the possibility of a Obsessive-
Compulsive Personality Disorder. Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder is relatively common in
clinical practice; the patient's coefficient of profile agreement is higher than 90% of subjects' in the
normative sample.
It is unlikely that the patient has Schizoid Personality Disorder, Schizotypal Personality Disorder,
Avoidant Personality Disorder, or Dependent Personality Disorder because the patient's coefficients of
profile agreement are lower than 50% of the subjects' in the normative sample.
Treatment Implications
This patient scores relatively low in Neuroticism, compared to other psychotherapy patients. Her
problems are likely to be due to a recent stressor or a difficult situation, and treatment may focus on dealing
with those specific issues.
Because she is extraverted, this patient finds it easy to talk about her problems, and enjoys interacting
with others. She is likely to respond well to forms of psychotherapy that emphasize verbal and social
interactions, such as psychoanalysis and group therapy [T. Miller, 1991].
The patient scores low on Agreeableness. She is therefore likely to be skeptical and antagonistic in
psychotherapy, and reluctant to establish a treatment alliance until the therapist has demonstrated his or her
skill and knowledge [McCrae, Harwood, & Griffith, in press]. Individuals with extremely low levels of
Agreeableness are unlikely to seek treatment voluntarily, and may terminate treatment early.
Because the patient is high in Conscientiousness, she is likely to work hard at the task of psychotherapy,
arriving at therapy sessions promptly and carrying out homework assignments dutifully [Muten, 1991].
Some evidence suggests that highly conscientious patients have better treatment outcomes.

35
 i'=" .. lSOT"""~====r======-,======"f='=====---;--=======;;===~==-
_ . _ 0112012009 Case C
-II- Histrionic Pers. Disorder
70
60
50
40
30
Figure 6. Combined NEO PI-R Profile Form for Case C and the Histrionic Personality Disorder prototype.
CaseD
Figure 7 presents the NEO PI-R self-report profile of a
69-year-old man referred to a behavioral medicine clinic
for psychophysiological treatment for chest pains and high
blood pressure. This individual is a self-employed busi-
nessman who had undergone bypass surgery two years ear-
lier and was afraid that he might die, leaving his wife and
business in a vulnerable state. During the intake interview,
he stated that he had a lifelong history of anxiety, espe-
cially in social situations and unfamiliar surroundings. He
is well above average in intelligence.
Also shown in Figure 7 is the patient's NEO PI-R pro-
file of Form R ratings provided by the patient's wife.
Because the Form R Profile Form is used, the wife's Form
R ratings are plotted directly onto the form. T scores for the
patient's Form S data are obtained from the Adult Male
Form S Profile Form and are plotted at the corresponding
T score value on the Form R Profile Form. For example,
the patient's N domain raw score on Form S was 114.
According to the Adult Male Form S Profile Form, this
raw score corresponds to a T score of 69. The patient's N
score is plotted on the Form R Profile Form at a raw score
of 108, which also corresponds to a T score of 69.
36
;?("""'80
70
60
50
40
30
In general, the self-report and observer ratings are quite
consistent at the factor level. Both ratings depict the
patient as being introverted, open to experience, and con-
scientious. The largest discrepancies concern facets of
Neuroticism, especially N4: Self-Consciousness and N6:
Vulnerability. His wife clearly underestimated his standing
on these facets, and discussions with the couple showed
that he had been reluctant to share the extent of his dis-
tress with her. More open communication of his fears
and vulnerabilities became one of the goals of his treat-
ment. The Combined Report gives a more detailed
account of agreement and disagreement, based on profile
agreement statistics.
Because this patient was Very High on Openness to
Experience (0), he was able to benefit from imagery and
self-hypnotic techniques designed to enhance relaxation
and reduce blood pressure (cf. Quails & Sheehan, 1979).
Because he was High in Conscientiousness (C), he prac-
ticed these new skills regularly at home. As a result, at the
end of the tenth session, he had substantially reduced his
mean blood pressure and was able to discontinue therapy.
The Client Report, based on his self-report and used for
feedback, is given here, followed by the Combined Report.
 Revised NEO Personality Inv:entozy (NEO PI·R)
Paul T. Costa, Jr., Pl}.D., a,nd Robert .R. MeCrae:, Ph,O. A l ! < ~ r n . _ __

Males - Form R (Ratings)

N E 0 A C

I I I I I i~n n l-1-n n<1; i1·n aM

'16 21) 3Z
" "
)I

'.ll 31 :.(I

",. .. g
ii)
"'
,;;·
w

11 l1
16 16

J4 J.(

U!: II O !3
1i n
12 H
l(r " n
"' '' "

..' ' U
0-U
5
M il-13
\<
0,-7 o.,6

Figure 7. NEO PI-R Profile Form with self-ratings and spouse ratings for Case D. From the Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 27), by P. T. Costa, Jr. &
R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR.

Your NEO PI-R Summary

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory measures five broad domains or factors of personality, and six
more specific traits or factors within each domain. The responses that you gave to the statements about your
thoughts, feelings, and goals can be compared to those of other adults to give a description of your
personality.
The NEO Personality Inventory measures differences in personality traits. It is not a test of intelligence
or ability, and is not intended to diagnose psychiatric disorders. It does, however, give you some idea about
what makes you unique in your ways of thinking, feeling, and interacting with others.
This summary is intended to give you a general idea of how your personality might be described. If you
completed the inventory again, you might score somewhat differently, and other people might have different
views of what you are like.
If you have any questions or concerns about this summary, please feel free to discuss them with the
professional who administered the inventory.

A Description of Your Personality

TheNDomain
Traits in the N domain reflect different ways of reacting emotionally to distressing circumstances. Low
scorers are resilient, rarely experiencing negative emotions; high scorers often have strong emotional
reactions. Overall, your responses suggest that you are very high on this factor. Specifically, you are
anxious, generally apprehensive, and prone to worry. You often feel frustrated, irritable, and angry at others,
but you have only the occasional periods of unhappiness that most people experience. Embarrassment or
shyness when dealing with people, especially strangers, is often a problem for you. You report being good
at controlling your impulses and desires, but you are unable to handle stress well.

37
 TheEDomain
The E domain measures traits related to energy and enthusiasm, especially when dealing with people.
Low scorers are serious and introverted; high scorers are outgoing extraverts. Your total score puts you in
the very low range on this factor. You are average in your level of warmth toward others, but you rarely
enjoy large and noisy crowds or parties. You are reluctant to assert yourself and prefer to stay in the
background in meetings and group discussions. You have a moderate level of personal energy and an
average activity level. Excitement, stimulation, and thrills have little appeal to you, but you experience as
much joy and happiness as most men.
The0Domain
The facets of this domain measure responses to various kinds of experience. Low scorers are down-to-
earth and conventional; they prefer the familiar and the tried-and-true. High scorers are imaginative and
open-minded. You score in the very high range. Your responses suggest that you are generally open. You
have a vivid imagination and an active fantasy life. You are particularly responsive to beauty as found in
music, art, poetry, or nature, and your feelings and emotional reactions are varied and important to you. You
sometimes enjoy new and different activities and have a moderate need for variety in your life. You are
interested in intellectual challenges and in unusual ideas and perspectives and you are generally liberal in
your social, political, and moral beliefs.
The A Domain
This domain is concerned with styles of interpersonal interaction. Low scorers are hard-headed and
competitive; high scores compassionate and cooperative. Across the six facets in this domain, you describe
yourself as being generally average on this domain. In particular, you tend to be cynical, skeptical, and
suspicious, and have a low opinion of human nature. You are very candid and sincere and would find it
difficult to deceive or manipulate others, and you are reasonably considerate of others and responsive to
requests for help. You hold your own in conflicts with others, but you are also willing to forgive and forget.
You are quite proud of yourself and your accomplishments, and happy to take credit for them. Compared
to other people, you are hard-headed and tough-minded, and your social and political attitudes reflect your
pragmatic realism.
TheCDomain
Traits in this domain describe differences in motivation and persistence. Low scorers are easygoing and
not inclined to make plans or schedules. High scorers are conscientious and well organized. Compared to
other adults your score falls in the very high range on this factor. You are rational, prudent, practical,
resourceful, and well-prepared. You are very neat, punctual, and well organized, and you are highly
conscientious, adhering strictly to your ethical principles. You have a high aspiration level and strive for
excellence in whatever you do. You are determined, persistent, and able to force yourself to do what is
necessary. You are cautious and deliberate and think carefully before acting.

Combined Report
-Basis of Interpretation-
This report compares this person to other adult men. It is based on self-reports and observer ratings of
the individual. .

-Overall Profile Agreement-

The Coefficient of Profile Agreement, based on the factor scores of the individual and the observer, is
0.91. This means that the overall agreement on the individual's personality is very high in comparison with
agreement seen among research volunteer couples.
These two profiles show substantial disagreement on the following:

38
 -Global Description of Personality: The Five Factors-
The most distinctive feature of this individual's personality is his standing on the factor of
Conscientiousness. Men who score in this range lead very well-ordered lives, striving to meet their goals in
a planful and deliberate manner. They have a high need for achievement. They are neat, punctual, and well
organized, and can be relied upon to carry through on their commitments. They take moral, civic, and
personal obligations quite seriously, and put business before pleasure. They have good self-discipline and
have developed a number of competencies. Raters describe such people as careful, reliable, hardworking,
and persevering.

This person is described as being very high in Neuroticism. Individuals scoring in this range are prone
to experience a high level of negative emotion and frequent episodes of psychological distress. They are
moody, overly sensitive, and dissatisfied with many aspects of their lives. They are generally low in self-
esteem and may have unrealistic ideas and expectations. They are worriers who typically feel insecure about
themselves and their plans. Friends and neighbors of such individuals might characterize them as nervous,
self-conscious, high-strung, and vulnerable in comparison with the average person. (It is important to recall
that Neuroticism is a dimension of normal personality, and high Neuroticism scores in themselves do not
imply that the individual is suffering from any psychological disorder.)
Next, consider the individual's level of Openness. Very high scorers like him have a strong interest in
experience for its own sake. They seek out novelty and variety, and have a marked preference for
complexity. They have a heightened awareness of tfieir own feelings and are perceptive in recognizing the
emotions of others. They are very responsive to beauty in art and nature. Their attraction to new ideas and
alternative value systems may make them especially tolerant of others, and may lead them to adopt
unconventional attitudes. Peers rate such people as imaginative, daring, independent, and creative.
This person is described as being very low in Extraversion. Such people are quite introverted, preferring
to do most things alone or with small groups of people. They avoid large, loud parties and do not enjoy
meeting new people. They are usually quiet and unassertive in group interactions. They rarely experience
strong positive feelings like joy or excitement. Those who know such people would probably describe them
as reserved, serious, retiring, and loners. The fact that these individuals are introverted does not necessarily
mean that they lack social skills-many introverts function very well in social situations, although they
might prefer to avoid them. Note also that introversion does not imply introspection; these individuals are
likely to be thoughtful and reflective only if they are also high in Openness.
Finally, the individual is rated in the average range in Agreeableness. People who score in this range are
about as good-natured as the average person. They can be sympathetic, but can also be firm. They are
trusting but not gullible, and ready to compete as well as to cooperate with others.

39
 -Detailed Interpretation: Facets of N, E, 0, A, and C-
Each of the five factors encompasses a number of more specific traits, or facets. The NEO PI-R measures
six facets in each of the five factors. An examination of the facet scores provides a more detailed picture of
the distinctive way that these factors are seen in this person.
Neuroticism
This individual is perceived as being anxious, generally apprehensive, and prone to worry. He often feels
frustrated, irritable, and angry at others, but he has only the occasional periods of unhappiness that most
people experience. Embarrassment or shyness when dealing with people, especially strangers, is often a
problem for him. He is described as being good at controlling his impulses and desires and he is able to
handle stress as well as most people.
Extraversion
This person is rated as being average in his level of warmth toward others, but he rarely enjoys large and
noisy crowds or parties. He is as assertive as most men when the circumstances require. The individual is
described as having a moderate level of personal energy and an average activity level. Excitement,
stimulation, and thrills have little appeal to him, but he experiences as much joy and happiness as most men.
Openness
In experiential style, this individual is described as being generally open. He has a vivid imagination and
an active fantasy life. He is particularly responsive to beauty as found in music, art, poetry, or nature, and
his feelings and emotional reactions are varied and important to him. He .sometimes enjoys new and
different activities and has a moderate need for variety in his life. He is interested in intellectual challenges
and in unusual ideas and perspectives, but he is generally middle-of-the-road in his social, political, and
moral beliefs.
Agreeableness
According to the rater, this person tends to be cynical, skeptical, and suspicious, and has a low opinion
of human nature. He is described as very candid and sincere and would find it difficult to deceive or
manipulate others, and he is reasonably considerate of others and responsive to requests for help. This
individual holds his own in conflicts with others, but he is also willing to forgive and forget. He is described
as quite proud of himself and his accomplishments, and happy to take credit for them. Compared to other
people, he is hard-headed and tough-minded, and his social and political attitudes reflect his pragmatic
realism.
Conscientiousness
This individual is perceived as being rational, prudent, practical, resourceful, and well-prepared. He is
described as very neat, punctual, and well organized, and he is reasonably dependable and reliable in
meeting his obligations. He has a high aspiration level and strives for excellence in whatever he does. He is
determined, persistent, and able to force himself to do what is necessary. He is cautious and deliberate and
thinks carefully before acting.

-Personality Correlates: Some Possible Implications-

Coping and Defenses
In coping with the stresses of everyday life, this individual is described as being likely to react with
ineffective responses, such as hostile reactions toward others, self-blame, or escapist fantasies. He is more
likely than most adults to use humor and less likely to use faith in responding to threats, losses, and
challenges. In addition, he is somewhat less likely to use positive thinking and direct action in dealing with
problems.
Somatic Complaints
This person may be overly sensitive in monitoring and responding to physical problems and illnesses. In
medical evaluations, it may be particularly important to seek objective confirmation of symptom reports
where possible.
Psychological Well-being
Although his mood and satisfaction with various aspects of his life will vary with the circumstances, in
the long run this individual is likely to be more sensitive to life's problems than its rewards, and so be
relatively unhappy. Because he is open to experience, his moods may be more intense and varied than those
of the average man. Because he is high in Conscientiousness, his accomplishments and achievements may
give him greater satisfaction with life.

40
 Cognitive Processes
This individual is likely to be more complex and differentiated in his thoughts, values, and moral
judgments than others of his level of intelligence and education. He would also probably score higher on
measures of ego development. Because he is open to experience, this individual is likely to perform better
than average on tests of divergent thinking ability; that is, he can generate fluent, flexible, and original
solutions to many problems. He may be considered creative in his work or hobbies.
Interpersonal Characteristics
Many theories propose a circular arrangement of interpersonal traits around the axes of Love and Status.
Within such systems, this person would likely be described as modest, submissive, cold, unfeeling, and
especially aloof and reserved. His traits are associated with low standing on the interpersonal dimensions of
Love and Status.
Needs and Motives
Research in personality has identified a widely used list of psychological needs. Individuals differ in the
degree to which these needs characterize their motivational structure. This individual is likely to show high
levels of the following needs: achievement, aggression, cognitive structure, harm avoidance (avoiding
danger), order, sentience (enjoyment of sensuous and aesthetic experiences), and understanding (intellectual
stimulation). This individual is likely to show low levels of the following needs: abasement and impulsivity.

Case E Living Checklist (NEO-PLC) can help to call attention to

The final case study is of a 42-year-old woman who is
described in the third edition of Integrative Assessment of
Adult Personality (Harwood, Beutler, & Groth-Marnat, in
press). She was evaluated by Larry E. Beutler, PhD, who
then completed Form R of the NEO-PI-3. She has a long
history of serious emotional and relationship problems and
was clinically depressed at the time of her assessment. Her
NEO-PI-3 Profile Form, with her scores compared to those
of other adult men and women, is shown in Figure 8.
It should be clear at a glance that Case E is prone to
many forms of psychopathology. The Global Description
given in the NEO Software System Interpretive Report
says, "Individuals scoring in this range [Very High Neuro-
ticism] are prone to experience a high level of negative
emotion and frequent episodes of psychological distress.
They are moody, overly sensitive, and dissatisfied with
many aspects of their lives."
With regard to her Very Low Conscientiousness score,
the report states that "Women who score in this range have
little need for achievement, putting personal interests or
pleasure before business. They prefer not to make sched-
ules, are often late for meetings and appointments, and
have difficulty in finishing tasks. Their work is typically
accomplished in a haphazard and disorganized fashion.
They lack self-discipline, prefer play to work/school, and
may seem aimless in setting goals for their lives." These
statements, though likely correct, do not fully capture the
seriousness of Case E's condition; the NEO Problems in
potential problems that may be clinically significant.
When completing the print version of the NEO-PLC,
clinicians must transcribe T scores from the Profile Form,
circle groups ofrelevant check boxes (e.g., all the boxes in
the left-hand column under Nl: Anxiety, because Case E's
Nl T score is 72), and then determine, through a consid-
eration of case records or subsequent interview or other
assessment, which of the indicated problems is actually a
significant concern for the client. Domains and their asso-
ciated facets are presented in the usual NEO order; facets
follow each domain, so that related topics can be covered
together in follow-up interviews.
The NEO Software System expedites this process. In
order to call attention to the most likely problems, it sorts
domains (and facets within domain) by extremeness of
T score (absolute deviation from T = 50), and it presents
only those problems that are relevant to the client. For
Case E, this means that the clinician will first be alerted
to high Neuroticism-related problems, then to Low
Conscientiousness-related problems, then to Low Extra-
version and High Agreeableness-related problems. Within
Neuroticism facets, problems associated with N6:
Vulnerability, N3: Depression, N4: Self-Consciousness,
Nl: Anxiety, and N5: Impulsiveness are presented in turn.
Because Case E scores in the average range on N2: Angry
Hostility, problems related to that trait are omitted.
The NEO-PLC section of Case E's report begins as
follows:

41
 NEO™ Personality lnventory-3
Paul T. Costa, Jr., PhD and Robert R. McCroe, PhD
Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ •Mii3¥flfiHl4r/l Form R \
OBSERVER RATING PROFILE FORM
Date _ _ _ Ag,_JD# _ __

NEO·PI-3
Domain Facet

32 32 Jo.n n 21.32
31 32 29 32

28 3!
n
"
JO
" '"

27 16 29 25 25 25 145 20 20 8 10 11 11 00 22 19 22 8 12 24 107 12 24 19 21 24 20 120 11 11 12 16 9 12 71 Raw

NI N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 i>ta!!NI El E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Totol!fl 01 02 03 04 05 06 TololfOI Al A2 A3 A4 AS A6 TolollAl Cl C2 C3 C4 CS C6 Tolo!IO

Figure 8. NEO-PI-3 Adult Combined Norms Form R Profile Form with clinician ratings for Case E. Adapted from "The
NEO-PI-3," by R.R. McCrae, T. M. Harwood, & S. Griffeth, in Integrative Assessment ofAdult Personality (3rd ed.), by
T. M. Harwood, L. E. Beutler, & G. Groth-Marnat (Eds.), in press, New York, NY: Guilford Press. Copyright 2010 by
Guilford Press. Adapted with permission.

-NEO Problems in Living Checklist-

Personality traits can contribute to distress and to a variety of impairments, including problems in
emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational functioning. Different traits predispose
individuals to different kinds of problems. This NEO Problems in Living Checklist section provides a
catalogue of potential problems based on NEO-PI-3 factor and facet scores. Factors and their facets are
sorted in order of decreasing salience (as defined by absolute distance from the mean), and a list of problems
relevant to this personality profile is given based on high (T >55) or low (T <45) scores. The clinician must
then determine which, if any, of the suggested problems is clinically significant for this particular client.
Pertinent problems can be checked off for future reference. This section of the Interpretive Report is not a
summary of findings about the client, but a customized guide to further inquiry.

Neuroticism Factor Tscore 78

Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D Chronic negative affects, including anxiety, fearfulness, tension, irritability, anger, dejection,
hopelessness, guilt, and shame.
D Difficulty in inhibiting impulses (e.g., eating, drinking, smoking, spending money).
D Irrational beliefs (e.g., unrealistic expectations, perfectionistic demands on self, unwarranted
pessimism).
D Unfounded somatic complaints.
D Helplessness and dependence on others for emotional support and decision making.

42
D Inability to accept criticism.
D Emotional instability; mood swings.
D Unstable relationships.

N3: Depression Tscore 81

Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D Suicidal thoughts.
D Chronic feelings of gloom, hopelessness, and pessimism.
D Sense of worthlessness, helplessness, and excessive guilt.
D Excessive complaints.
D Self-punitive thoughts and behaviors.
D Loneliness; perceived lack of social support.
D Lack of satisfaction or meaning in life.
D Excessive optimism and activity used to mask depression.

N6: Vulnerability Tscore 80

Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D Dissociative, psychotic, anxiety, or mood disorder symptomatology when experiencing stress.
D Inability to cope with stress; responds with panic, helplessness, and dismay to even minor stressors.
D Emotional instability.
D Interpersonal neediness or dependency.
D Psychosomatic complaints.

N4: Self-Consciousness Tscore 76

Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D Intense feelings of chagrin and embarrassment; feeling mortified, humiliated, ashamed, or disgraced
in the presence of others.
D Avoidance of social situations.
D Poor social skills.
D Distorted body image; excessive concerns about body appearance.
D Sense of being an imposter.
D Speech anxiety; stage fright.

Nl: Anxiety Tscore 72

Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D "Nerves": chronically anxious, tense, or jittery.
D Excessive worry, inhibition, and uncertainty.
D Extreme efforts to avoid danger that adversely affect decisions and actions.

NS: Impulsiveness Tscore 68

Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D Excessive eating, drinking, smoking, or spending.
D Susceptibility to cons, tricks, and poor business decisions.
D Poor inhibition of impulse, leading to binge eating, gambling, or excessive use of drugs and alcohol.
D Poor emotional control leading to self-mutilation or suicide attempts.
D Sexual promiscuity.
D Inability to modify behavior regardless of consequences.

43
 Conscientiousness Factor Tscore 32
Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D Underachievement: not fulfilling intellectual or occupational potential.
D Poor academic performance relative to ability.
D Disregard of rules and responsibilities that can lead to trouble with the law.
D Inability to discipline self (e.g., stick to diet or exercise plan) even when required for medical reasons.
D Personal and occupational aimlessness.
D Financial problems.
D Problematic health habits that lead to medical problems.

Cl: Competence Tscore 23

Women scoring in this range may experience the following problems:
D Low self-esteem.
D Inability to enjoy challenges and accomplishments.
D Limited skills and underdeveloped potentials.

C3: Dutifulness Tscore 28

The report continues with numerous other possible
problems: 15 more Conscientiousness-related problems,
16 Extraversion-related problems, 17 Agreeableness-
related problems, and 18 problems related to high or low
facets of Openness. This long list reflects Case E's extreme
standing on many traits, and serves as a warning that she
is likely to be a challenging client.
Of course, even the most difficult patients will rarely
have all the problems listed, and it is the clinician's task to
determine which are applicable and, of those, which merit
attention in treatment. Some of these determinations can be
done on the basis of the clinician's knowledge of the
patient's history. For example, Case E recently attempted
suicide (see McCrae, Harwood, & Griffeth, in press), so,
under N3: Depression problems
could also be checked off. A clinician familiar with Case
E would also be able to rule out a few items immediately,
and they could be crossed off the list-for example:
D B~.eessh e eJ9ti.misffl. aH:El aeti •it) ttseEl te ffl.ask
EleJ9FessieH:.
After this initial review, the clinician should examine
the remaining items and determine (a) which of these
require more information from the patient (or other
informants) and (b) which of these in fact merit additional
assessment. With seriously troubled patients like Case E,
many of the lesser problems-such as the 04: Actions
problem,
D Inability to adapt to change and technological
innovation.

@ Suicidal thoughts. may need to be ignored; however, in a college counseling

@ Self-punitive thoughts and behaviors.
should be checked off. Because Case E has a history of
alcohol abuse, the clinician should check off the NS:
Impulsiveness problem
@ Poor inhibition of impulse, leading to binge eating,
gambling, excessive use of drugs and alcohol.
In addition, Case E's life history reveals that, as an ado-
lescent, she had conflicts with her parents because of their
rigid religious beliefs, so the 06: Values problem
@ Rebellious rejection of conventionality; defiance of
cultural norms.
setting, such problems might be an appropriate focus of
concern. The clinician can indicate with a question mark
on the form which problems should be pursued-for
example:
111 Limited skills and underdeveloped potentials.
The clinician then can use these marked items as a guide
to a subsequent clinical interview. When a final list of
applicable and clinically relevant problems has been iden-
tified, it can serve as a basis for treatment planning and the
periodic evaluation of progress.
A major advantage of using the NEO-PLC is that it may
call attention to underlying or contextual problems that the

44
patient does not volunteer as part of the presenting prob-
lem, and that the clinician may not otherwise happen to
consider. For example, Case E is high on Agreeableness,
which is usually desirable, because it facilitates the thera-
peutic alliance (see T. Miller, 1991). But the NEO-PLC
lists a number of problems associated with high scores on
Agreeableness facets. Case E's high Compliance score
suggests that she might experience
~ Exploitation or victimization due to a failure to
protect or defend self.
In fact, that has been a recurrent feature of her close inter-
personal relationships (McCrae, Harwood, et al., in press).
Reading through the entire list of potential problems asso-
ciated with a NEO-PI-3 profile can give the clinician a
sense of the patient's vulnerabilities and of problems that
may arise in the future.
45
 Applications
Use of Form S and Form R
Both self-reports and observer ratings are venerable tra-
ditions in personality assessment, and both have partisans.
The NEO Inventories accommodate both positions by pro-
viding a set of observer rating scales (Form R) parallel to
a self-report questionnaire (Form S).
Self-reports are the most widely used source of person-
ality data and have much to recommend them. The indi-
vidual has the widest and most extensive opportunity to
observe his or her own behavior and is privy to thoughts,
feelings, and desires that are not publicly expressed. Some
reviews (e.g., Schrauger & Osberg, 1981) have concluded
that self-report measures are superior to observer ratings in
the prediction of independent criteria. The utility of spe-
cific instruments, of course, depends on their validity; evi-
dence on the validity of Form S of the NEO Inventories is
presented in chapter 8 of this Professional Manual.
For many applications, however, observer ratings may
be preferable to self-reports (Kolar, Funder, & Colvin,
1996; McCrae & Weiss, 2007). When the individual is
physically or mentally incapable of completing the inven-
tory or when there is reason to believe that the individual
will be highly motivated to falsify responses, observer rat-
ings may be a useful alternative. Commonly used global
ratings, however, are often highly evaluative and rarely
have established norms or validity. Form R versions of the
NEO Inventories employ detailed questions that combine
to form reliable and well-validated scales, and adult and
adolescent norms are provided.
Data presented in the following sections show cross-
observer validation for Form R scales and demonstrate
the scales' ability to predict such criteria as psychological
well-being and vocational preferences. For use in research
on groups, ratings on Form R may often be successfully
substituted for self-reports on the NEO-PI-3. Indeed,
when the criterion to be predicted is a self-report measure
(e.g., somatic complaints), the use of Form R consider-
ably strengthens the research design by allowing the
investigator to rule out shared method variance as an
explanation for findings.
On the individual level, however, one person's self-
report and another's rating of him or her may show con-
siderable divergence on one or more traits. Thus, the
professional should not assume that observer ratings are
interchangeable with self-reports or that they give fully
accurate accounts of how individuals see themselves. The
causes of these differences are not yet fully understood,
although a number of factors probably contribute
(McCrae et al., 1998). Different raters will interpret items
in somewhat different ways, use somewhat different stan-
dards of comparison when characterizing an individual,
or emphasize different sides of the person. Response
styles and simple unreliability also contribute to differ-
ences. It is so easy to think of reasons why observer rat-
ings of personality and self-reports might diverge that the
remarkable fact is that they agree as well as they do
(Funder, 1989). Perhaps most interesting is the finding
that observers disagree among themselves as much as they
differ from self-reports, so the difference is not chiefly
that of a public versus a private view of personality
(McCrae & Costa, 1989a).
The value of personality ratings depends on how well
the rater understands the person being rated. Large cross-
observer correlations are most often seen when the rater is
a spouse or significant other who has an intimate acquain-
tance with the individual being rated. When friends, neigh-
bors, or classmates are used, it may be wise to average
scores from two or more raters to increase the accuracy of
the ratings.
Although the joint use of self-reports and observer rat-
ings is often valuable in research, its most important func-
tion may prove to be that of helping clinicians and
counselors understand an individual client. Both the
client's perspective and the perspectives of significant oth-
ers may be valuable, and discrepancies can often yield
insights into the bases for interpersonal difficulties. Muten
(1991) described the joint use of self-reports and spouse
ratings in a behavioral medicine practice, and Singer
(2005) illustrated their use in couples counseling.
47
 Uses in Counseling,
Clinical Psychology, and Psychiatry
Personality inventories have long played an important
role in counseling and psychotherapy, and, because of its
comprehensiveness, the Five-Factor Model of personality
may be particularly well-suited for use in these settings
(Costa & McCrae, 2008a; McCrae & Costa, 1986a). Both
research and clinical experience have supported this view
(Piedmont, 1998; Singer, 2005), and a series of publica-
tions have spelled out the ways that the NEO Inventories
might be used in counseling (McCrae & Costa, 1991 b ), in
clinical psychology (Costa, 1991), and in the diagnosis of
personality disorders (Costa & Widiger, 2002; McCrae,
Lockenhoff, & Costa, 2005). This section provides a brief
summary of those publications.
Clinical Applications of the NEO Inventories
The NEO Inventories were developed as measures of
general personality traits through research on volunteer
samples. It is reasonable to ask whether they are appro-
priate for use for clinical purposes in clinical samples.
There is now ample evidence that they are (see Costa &
McCrae, 2009).
Indeed, it might be argued that, in counseling settings,
the NEO-PI-3 is more appropriate than measures of psy-
chopathology. Most clients in counseling are psychiatri-
cally normal individuals who need guidance, information,
or an opportunity for personal growth and development.
NEO-PI-3 results can give the counselor a rapid under-
standing of the client's enduring dispositions and thus
can facilitate the counseling process. Sharing test results
with clients may be an appropriate way to develop self-
understanding.
In clinical psychology and psychiatry, the case is some-
what different. Here, the focus of psychological assessment
has typically been on the identification of psychological
symptoms and the formulation of a psychiatric diagnosis.
Although it was not specifically designed to yield diag-
noses, the NEO-PI-3 can often be useful in suggesting or
ruling them out. It can also have other important roles in
the psychotherapeutic process, aiding in the development
of rapport, the selection of treatment, and the choice of
treatment focus.
However, two cautions must be noted. First, the instru-
ment is unlikely to be useful in all psychiatric patients.
Young children, floridly psychotic patients, and individu-
als in the advanced stages of dementia are not good can-
didates for the use of the NEO-PI-3. However, experience
to date suggests that it can be used successfully among
such diverse groups as intravenous drug users (Carter et al.,
2001), patients with depression (Costa, Bagby, Herbst, &
48
McCrae, 2005) or schizophrenia (Dinzeo & Docherty,
2007), and adolescents with personality disorders (De
Clercq & De Fruyt, 2003).
Second, the NEO-PI-3 will not provide all the informa-
tion needed for a complete psychological evaluation.
Depending on the patient population, life history inter-
views, mental status examinations, measures of cognitive
abilities, or medical laboratory tests also may be needed
to establish appropriate diagnosis and treatment. The
NEO-PI-3 is an aid to psychological assessment, not a sub-
stitute for it (McCrae, Harwood, et al., in press).
There are times when clinicians may be interested in
assessing personality traits, but may doubt that a self-
report will provide valid information. In these cases, we
recommend using knowledgeable informants such as par-
ents or spouses as raters on Form R. However, there is now
considerable data suggesting that, in many clinical settings,
self-reports on Form S are reliable and valid (Bagby et al.,
1999; Costa et al., 2005; Yang et al., 1999).
Although many clinical patients show similarities in
personality-most score high on N and many score low
on A or C-different diagnostic groups show distinct pro-
files (e.g., Morey et al., 2002). For this reason, it makes
sense to plot clinical patients on the same Profile Forms
used for volunteers. By comparing individual patient plots
to characteristic group profiles established by research,
clinicians can gain valuable clues to potential diagnoses.
Ways to Use the NEO-Pl-3
Psychological assessment is often thought of as a step
in determining diagnosis, and test results are often ignored
once a diagnosis has been established. We believe that the
NEO-PI-3 offers information that may be valuable to the
counselor or clinician in many other ways as well.
Clinicians experienced in the use of the NEO Inventories
have found many ways to integrate the information into
their practice of psychotherapy (Miller, 1991; Muten,
1991; Piedmont, 1998; Singer, 2005).
Understanding the Client
The first and most basic contribution of the NEO-PI-3
is to aid in understanding the client. No clinician would
think of beginning therapy without first knowing the
client's sex and age and something about his or her social,
educational, and occupational history. In the same way,
understanding basic emotional, interpersonal, experiential,
attitudinal, and motivational styles would seem to be a pre-
requisite to effective therapy. Many of these characteristics
will become evident during the course of therapy; the
NEO-PI-3 profile can give a systematic assessment early in
the process. Because it operationalizes a comprehensive
model of personality, the NEO-PI-3 points to personal
strengths as well as potential weaknesses and thus com- many clients, sharing the results of the NEO-PI-3 with the
plements the frequent emphasis on psychopathology. client may be a useful first step. Your NEO Summary is
designed to provide nontechnical and nonthreatening feed-
Diagnosis
back of results from the NEO Inventories, and its use may
The NEO-PI-3 was not designed to diagnose psy-
be suitable for some clients. The NEO-PI-3 Profile Forms
chopathology, but, as the DSM-IV makes clear, personal-
and computer-generated Interpretive Report are designed
ity traits are relevant to the diagnosis of many disorders,
for the professional, not for the respondent, but some cli-
and the NEO-PI-3 can provide objective measures of these
nicians find it useful to explain and discuss the profile itself
traits. Widiger and Trull (1992) noted that many Axis I
because it provides more detailed information (Muten,
disorders (such as dysthymia) are, in fact, trait dispositions
1991). When the software system is used to administer or
to experience moods, and that N may be related to a host
score the test, an optional Client Report, which gives more
of Axis I disorders.
detailed feedback in lay terms, is available.
Personality traits are of most obvious relevance to the
When personality ratings obtained from significant oth-
diagnosis of Axis II personality disorders, and links
ers on Form Rare added to self-reports, it may be illumi-
between the Five-Factor Model and the 10 Axis II disor-
nating to plot both ratings on the same Profile Form (after
ders have been documented in several research contexts
converting to Tscores). Sharing such results (with the con-
(Costa & Widiger, 2002; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989). The
sent of both rater and target) can help individuals under-
next section of this chapter considers in detail the diagno-
stand how they are perceived by others. Similarly, in
sis of personality disorders.
treating couples, it may be worthwhile to explore both pro-
NEO profiles for a number of different psychiatric files with the couple as a way of helping them understand
groups have been published (e.g., Camisa et al., 2005; J. D. each other. These may be considered applications of what
Miller et al., 2001; Strauss & Pasupathi, 1994), and clini- McReynolds (1989) called "client-centered assessment."
cians interested in particular diagnoses should consult the
Clinical experience with feedback from the NEO Inven-
relevant literature. (The NEO Inventories bibliography,
tories suggests that most clients are interested in their
available through the publisher's Web site at www.parinc.
results and are not unduly disturbed, even when profiles
corn, has a section titled Counseling, Clinical Psychology,
show high Nor low A or C scores. However, it remains the
and Psychiatry that may be helpful.) The clinician can use
responsibility of the counselor or clinician to judge
NEO-PI-3 data in two ways. First, scores can be used to
whether it is appropriate to share results with the client, to
suggest possible diagnoses that can be further assessed by
provide an opportunity for discussion of the results, and to
other, specialized instruments or by interview. For exam-
explain the results in understandable terms. Indeed, we
ple, high N4: Self-Consciousness scores might suggest a
believe that feedback is most appropriate when it is con-
diagnosis of social phobia; low Conscientiousness might
ceptualized by the clinician as an integral part of the
be an indication of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-
process of therapy.
order (ADHD; Nigg et al., 2002).
Anticipating the Course of Therapy
Second, on a less formal level, knowledge of personal-
The NEO-PI-3 can provide valuable information on the
ity traits can help the clinician to understand and put in
patient's prognosis and on the probable response of the
context the presenting problems of the client. For example,
patient to therapy. T. Miller (1991) has shown that both
anxiety and depression may be a chronic part of life for
low N scores and high C scores are associated with a bet-
the high N scorer, but may indicate specific situational
ter outcome. It has long been known that patients high in
stressors for the low N scorer.
measures of general psychological maladjustment (i.e., N)
Empathy and Rapport respond less well to therapy. The finding that low C is
The NEO-PI-3 can provide the clinician with insight related to a poor outcome appears to be new, but is entirely
into many features of the client's personality, assisting in reasonable. Individuals low in Conscientiousness are often
the rapid development of empathy. A client who perceives unwilling to undertake the work of psychotherapy and may
that he or she is understood is likely to appreciate the skills even be more likely to miss appointments. They also have
of the clinician, and rapport can develop more quickly. a low toleration for frustration, so they find it difficult to
This is particularly important in brief psychotherapy. face their problems squarely. In dealing with low C
patients, clinicians may need to pay particular attention to
Feedback and Insight
motivating the client to work on his or her problems.
One of the goals of counseling and psychotherapy is to
help individuals understand themselves. Some kinds of Agreeableness also appears to have important implica-
insight may require extensive psychotherapy, but, for tions for the course of therapy. High A scorers are trusting

49
and compliant and usually quite willing to accept the clin-
ician's interpretations and suggestions. Low scorers are
skeptical and antagonistic. They expect the clinician to
prove his or her competence and may be openly uncoop-
erative. It seems likely that such individuals may termi-
nate treatment prematurely.
Extreme scorers on either pole of A may pose problems
for the counselor or therapist. High A patients may develop
an unhealthy dependence on the therapist, whereas low A
patients may too readily reject treatment. NEO-PI-3 results
can alert the clinician to these possibilities and allow the
clinician to take steps to prevent these outcomes.
Selecting Optimal Treatment
Most counselors and clinicians employ a variety of
forms of therapy-to varying degrees, they are eclectic in
their approach. Clearly, the nature of the problem dictates
to some extent the best approach, but differences in the
personality of the patient may also have implications for
therapy. For example, Shea (1988) reported that interper-
sonally involved (i.e., high E) depressed patients responded
better to interpersonal therapy than to antidepressant med-
ication; the reverse was true for depressed introverts. In
two studies, introverted clients benefited more from highly
structured psychotherapy groups than from less structured
groups (Bliwise, Friedman, Nekich, & Yesavage, 1995;
Talbot, Duberstein, Butzel, Cox, & Giles, 2003).
T. Miller (1991) has suggested that the domains of E
and Oare of particular importance in determining the opti-
mal form of therapy. Therapies that require spontaneous
speech from the patient or active social participation are
uncongenial to introverts, who may prefer more directed
forms of therapy. With regard to Openness, Miller noted
that unconventional forms of therapy are often welcomed
by high O individuals (Hill, Diemer, & Heaton, 1997), but
that low O individuals prefer emotional support and com-
mon sense advice. There is evidence that behavioral med-
icine patients high in openness to absorbing experience
respond more favorably to imagery techniques, whereas
those low in openness respond better to biofeedback
(Qualls & Sheehan, 1979). McCrae and Sutin (2007) pro-
vided suggestions for further research on the clinical use of
the Five-Factor Model.
Personality Disorders, Problems
in Living, and the NEO-Pl-3
Table 5 lists NEO-PI-3 traits that are conceptually
relevant to each of the DSM personality disorder (PD)
diagnoses. The table (and the NEO Software System Inter-
pretive Report Clinical Hypotheses section for adults) is
based on analyses of criteria from the DSM revised third
edition (DSM-III-R; American Psychiatric Association,
50
1987) and associated features (Widiger, Trull, Clarkin,
Sanderson, & Costa, 1994), but subsequent conceptual
analyses of DSM-IV criteria (Widiger, Trull, Clarkin,
Sanderson, & Costa, 2002) show very similar results.
There is substantial evidence that these conceptual corre-
spondences are empirically supported in research on groups
(e.g., Dyce & O'Connor, 1998); in individual cases, they
should be considered hypotheses to be clinically assessed.
Each individual association of traits with PDs can be
considered a hypothesis; for example, a patient with a very
low score on Al: Trust might perhaps meet criteria for a
paranoid PD. Of course, this is more likely if the patient
also scores low on A2: Straightforwardness and A4: Com-
pliance and high on N2: Angry Hostility. It is the person-
ality profile as a whole that is most informative about
possible diagnoses. The NEO Software System Interpre-
tive Report has an optional section, Clinical Hypotheses,
that compares an adult patient's profile to prototypes based
on Table 5 (graph overlays are also available; see Figure
6 in chapter 5 of this Professional Manual) and suggests
which PD diagnoses are likely and which can probably be
ruled out. Note that these are hypotheses; DSM diagnoses
can be made only by considering each of the criteria listed
in the DSM-IV. NEO-PI-3 profiles call attention to diag-
noses that may be of particular clinical interest.
At the time this manual was printed, it was not yet cer-
tain how PDs would be treated in the forthcoming fifth edi-
tion of the DSM (DSM-V), but one alternative that has been
suggested adopts an entirely new approach. In this view,
PDs are serious problems in living that reflect the individ-
ual's personality traits (Widiger, Costa, & McCrae, 2002).
In the language of Five-Factor Theory (McCrae & Costa,
2008b), PDs are characteristic maladaptations (see
Harkness & McNulty, 2002). Widiger and colleagues have
suggested a four-step process of diagnosing PDs under this
proposed system: (1) assess factors and facets of person-
ality; (2) identify associated problems in living; (3) deter-
mine if the problems cause serious distress or social
impairment; and, optionally, (4) identify the profile of
traits in terms of a PD pattern, such as paranoid, antiso-
cial, or authoritarian. Diagnoses under this system would
be in terms of the personality factor (and perhaps facet)
associated with the problem. For example, an individual
with severe problems with mistrust might warrant the diag-
nosis "Low agreeableness-related personality disorder."
However, the first two steps in this procedure are likely to
prove valuable to clinicians whether or not the approach is
adopted by the DSM-V.
Step 1 would normally be accomplished by obtaining
self-reports on the NEO-PI-3, although informant ratings
may also be used. But personality traits in themselves are
 Table 5
NEO Pl·R Facet Scales Conceptually Related to DSM·/1/·R Personality Disorders
DSM-111-R personality disorder
NEO Pl·R facet PAR SZD SZT ATS BDL HST NAR AVD DEP OBC
Neuroticism:
Nl: Anxiety h h h(L) H H H
N2: Angry Hostility H L H H H H h
N3: Depression h h H h(L) h H h
N4: Self-Consciousness L H (L) (H) H H H h h
NS: Impulsiveness H H
N6: Vulnerability h H h (H) H H

Extraversion:
El: Warmth L L H L(H) (h) L
E2: Gregariousness L L (h) h L
E3: Assertiveness (h) (H) (L) L H
E4: Activity h L
ES: Excitement-Seeking (L) H h L (1)
E6: Positive Emotions L (h) H

Openness:
01: Fantasy H h H
02: Aesthetics
03: Feelings l L L H L
04: Actions (L) h L
05: Ideas H 1
06: Values h L

Agreeableness:
Al: Trust L L h
A2: Straightforwardness L L (L)
A3: Altruism L L L H L
A4: Compliance L h L L H L
AS: Modesty (L) L H
A6: Tender-Mindedness L L (h)

Conscientiousness:
C 1: Competence h (h)
C2: Order H
C3: Dutifulness L H
C4: Achievement Striving L (h) L H
CS: Self-Discipline L L
C6: Deliberation L H
Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FF/) Professional Manual (p. 34),
by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR. Reprinted with permission. Traits related to defining
features are indicated by upper-case "H'' for high scores, "L" for low scores; traits related to associated features are indicated by lower-case
letters. Main entries are based on a conceptual analysis of DSM-III-R descriptions of the personality disorders; entries in parentheses are
based on clinical experience and the literature on personality disorders, when they suggest additional or contradictory characteristics
associated with the disorder. PAR = Paranoid personality disorder; SZD = Schizoid personality disorder; SZT = Schizotypal personality
disorder; ATS = Antisocial personality disorder; BDL = Borderline personality disorder; HST = Histrionic personality disorder; NAR =
Narcissistic personality disorder; AVD = Avoidant personality disorder; DEP = Dependent personality disorder; OBC = Obsessive
compulsive personality disorder.

51
not pathological; it is only when they lead to maladaptive
behaviors, thought patterns, relationships, and so on that
they contribute to a PD. The central issue in diagnosis for
Step 2 is the identification of relevant problems; this
requires that the clinician understand the kinds of prob-
lems in living to which people with specific traits are
liable. The NEO Problems in Living Checklist (NEO-PLC)
provides a catalogue of common problems associated with
high and low levels of each factor and facet (McCrae,
Lockenhoff, et al., 2005; Widiger, Costa, et al., 2002)
based on analyses of problems checklists (Horowitz,
Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000; McCullough, Farrell, &
Longabaugh, 1986; Piedmont & Piedmont, 1996; Schinka,
1985; Shedler & Westen, 1998; Trull & Widiger, 1997).
Like a medical history systems review, this checklist is
intended to cover most personality-related problems. (Note
that it does not include important problems such as hallu-
cinations and mental retardation that are presumably not
personality-related problems. This checklist is not a sub-
stitute for a comprehensive psychological assessment.)
Clinicians cannot assume that patients with a high (or
low) trait score will necessarily have all, or any, of the
associated problems: That must be determined by the clin-
ical interview or other assessments. The NEO-PLC is a
guide. Clinicians should inquire about the indicated prob-
lems to determine which are in fact problematic for the
patient in question. Normally, patients would not have
problems that are inconsistent with their personality traits-
for example, people who are very extraverted are unlikely
to experience "social isolation, interpersonal detachment,
and lack of support networks," but exceptions do occur.
They are probably not personality-related problems, but
environment-related problems; nevertheless, they are prob-
lems to which the clinician should be sensitive.
This approach allows the mental health professional to
understand the client's personality and the particular ways
in which it adversely affects his or her adjustment and
functioning; unlike the categorical diagnoses of the
DSM-N, it points directly to the issues that should be the
central focus of therapy: It is clinically relevant. It may
prove useful to counselors as well as clinical psychologists
and psychiatrists because these problems occur with vary-
ing degrees of severity.
The NEO-PLC is available in a print version and also as
an option when the NEO Software System is used to
administer or score the NEO-PI-3 (or NEO PI-R). Case E,
which is discussed in chapter 5 of this Professional
Manual, illustrates the use of the NEO-PLC.
The personality traits assessed by the NEO-PI-3 are uni-
versal (McCrae, Terracciano, & 78 Members of the
52
Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005a), but the
problems to which they predispose people will likely vary
somewhat across cultures and subcultures. The NEO-PLC
is provisional and may need to be adapted for different set-
tings and uses. Further research on this topic would be of
great value.
It is normally not appropriate to assign PD diagnoses to
adolescents, in part because their personality profiles are
likely to change as they mature. For that reason, the NEO
Software System Clinical Hypotheses section does not
suggest PD ,diagnoses for adolescents. However, person-
ality functions in much the same way in adolescents as it
does in adults, and research on adolescents (e.g., Westen,
Shedler, Durrett, Glass, & Martens, 2003) shows that they
experience most of the same problems and symptoms as
adults. For these reasons, the Clinical Hypotheses section
in interpretive reports for patients age 12 to 20 years dis-
cusses possible treatment implications of the patient's pro-
file, and the NEO Problems in Living Checklist section lists
problems to which they may be susceptible.
Behavioral Medicine
and Health Psychology
The NEO Inventories have been used extensively in
behavioral medicine, with published research on such top-
ics as coronary-prone behavior (Costa, McCrae, &
Dembroski, 1989), Parkinson's disease (Glosser et al.,
1995), and the health of spouse caregivers (Hooker,
Monahan, Shifrin, & Hutchinson, 1992). Interested pro-
fessionals should consult the Health Psychology, Behav-
ioral Medicine, and Biological Psychology section in the
online NEO bibliography, available at www.parinc.com.
Students of behavioral medicine have developed a vari-
ety of scales to measure such constructs as coronary-prone
behavior, health locus of control, and abnormal illness
behavior-scales that address narrow and focused issues in
health psychology. Using the NEO-PI-3 in conjunction
with such specific scales can be useful in two ways. First,
the Five-Factor Model it operationalizes can be used to
understand the diverse but often overlapping constructs of
health psychology (Smith & Williams, 1992). Scales with
quite different labels may, in fact, measure the same traits,
whereas scales with the same labels may measure different
traits. Correlations with NEO-PI-3 scales can provide a
fixed reference point from which to assess such scales.
Second, in interpreting the scores of individuals, the addi-
tional information provided by the NEO-PI-3 can clarify
the meaning of other scale scores.
This second use is seen perhaps most clearly in the case
of measures of perceived health or somatic complaints.
Although there are many other influences on somatic
complaints, the two most prominent determinants are
objective health status and Neuroticism (Costa & McCrae,
1985b, 1987a). Individuals may report symptoms either
because they have medical problems that produce the
symptoms or because they are overly sensitive to minor
physiological sensations or are excessively worried about
their health (in extreme cases, this latter tendency is known
as hypochondriasis). Somatic distress is intimately linked
to psychological distress (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989),
so it is not surprising that N scores are a potent predictor
of somatic complaints. By measuring N, researchers and
practitioners can begin to gauge the likelihood that somatic
complaints are true indicators of disease. Medical com-
plaints are more likely to represent real medical problems
in low N scorers than in high N scorers.
In principle, N scores should be useful in detecting false
positives-individuals who report a symptom but are
objectively free from disease. In practice, this information
must be carefully combined with other diagnostic indica-
tors and base rates and considered in relation to the bene-
fits and risks of false negative and false positive diagnoses.
When the costs and risks are large (e.g., when patients may
be given expensive and invasive tests), even a modest con-
tribution from personality information may be valuable. In
research, it is almost always wise to measure and control
for N in any study that links psychological measures to
health outcomes, including, especially, studies of stress
and its possible influence on health (McCrae, 1990a).
One important area of research using the NEO
Inventories has been the study of patients with human
immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syn-
drome (HIV/AIDS). Trobst, Herbst, Masters, and Costa
(2002) showed that personality traits, especially low
Conscientiousness, were associated with increased health
risk behaviors in a population at risk for HIV infection. In
a related study (Trobst et al., 2000), the role of Openness
was highlighted: People scoring low on this dimension
denied any possibility that they were infected (despite
high-risk behaviors); they seemed unable to imagine con-
tracting the disease. More open individuals had somewhat
more realistic perspectives concerning their risk of
contracting the disease. Ironson, O'Cleirigh, Weiss,
Schneiderman, and Costa (2008) showed that personality
affected disease progression among HIV+ patients: Those
high in Extraversion and Openness showed slower rates of
decline in CD4 cell counts and slower increases in viral
load. High Conscientiousness and its facets of Order and
Achievement Striving also were associated with slower
viral load increase.
In a cross-national study, both Americans and Russians
who were low in Openness and Agreeableness were more
prone to stigmatize people with HIV/AIDS (McCrae et al.,
2007). Nations that are collectively low in Openness, such
as Zimbabwe (McCrae, 2002), have had particular prob-
lems dealing with the HIV epidemic. Nations collectively
high on Agreeableness, such as India, may be able to
appeal to their citizens' sympathetic nature in developing
public health programs.
Health habits and attitudes are another area where per-
sonality variables have been shown to be illuminating.
Individuals high 1n N and low in C are more likely to
smoke and are less likely to quit (Terracciano & Costa,
2004). The NS: Impulsiveness scale was effective in one
study in predicting which postcoronary patients would
relapse 6 months after quitting smoking based on physi-
cian's advice (Baile et al., 1984). There is growing evi-
dence that Conscientiousness is positively related to good
health habits (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1990). Not sur-
prisingly, high Chas also been associated with longer life
(Friedman et al., 1993; Weiss & Costa, 2005). The use of
personality traits to predict health behaviors and compli-
ance with medical instructions is important not only for
understanding these processes, but also because it may
make it possible to identify individuals who are more
likely to benefit from an intervention program or who are
in need of more intensive efforts and attention from the
physician or psychologist.
Vocational Counseling and
Industrial/Organizational Psychology
The NEO Inventories are used widely around the world
for research and applications in industrial/organizational
psychology for such purposes as police selection (Black,
2000) and the study of occupational safety (Cellar, Nelson,
York, & Bauer, 2001), transformational leadership (Judge
& Bono, 2000), and teamwork (LePine, 2003). Profes-
sionals interested in such topics should consult the
Industrial/Organizational and Career Psychology section
of the online NEO bibliography, available through
www.parinc.com.
Vocational interests are strongly related to personality,
particularly to Extraversion and Openness (Costa et al.,
1984; De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997). Although they should
not be used as a substitute for well-validated vocational
interest scales (e.g., Holland, 1985a, 1985b) used in voca-
tional counseling, NEO-PI-3 scales can form a useful com-
plement (Hammond, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1991b).
Open individuals, for example, are more likely to choose
53
artistic and investigative occupations, and several other
features of vocational behavior among men and women
high in O are also known. Open men and women are more
likely to indicate interest in a wide variety of occupations,
including those that closed people prefer; they may be
indecisive because they like to entertain a range of options
(Holland & Nichols, 1964), and they are more likely to
shift careers at some point during midlife (McCrae &
Costa, 1985a). Understanding the client's level of Open-
ness can give the counselor insight into several aspects of
the client's occupational direction.
Results from the NEO-PI-3 may reinforce or modify
interpretation of vocational interest scores. For example,
an individual who scores high on measures of sales inter-
est but low on Extraversion may have been careless in
completing the vocational interest inventory or may not
understand the nature of the work. Although it is possible
to enjoy sales and to be a good salesperson without being
extraverted, it is probably unusual; in such cases, the coun-
selor may want to take special care to be sure that the client
has accurate information on job duties and requirements.
Other scales of the NEO-PI-3 provide information on
aspects of personality not directly related to interests (and,
thus, not measured in interest inventories), but relevant to
occupational performance and adjustment. Neuroticism,
for example, does not systematically influence vocational
preferences, but individuals high in N are likely to be
dissatisfied with whatever job they perform (Perone,
DeWaard, & Baron, 1979). Dye (1991) showed that
Conscientiousness is strongly related to biodata-based
measures of occupational performance. C is also correlated
with the Military Leadership scale (Gough & Heilbrun,
1983), which was empirically developed to discriminate
good military leaders from poor (Piedmont, McCrae, &
Costa, 1991). Jobs that require intense and sustained
efforts and high aspiration levels will probably be more
suited to individuals who score high in C. In their meta-
analysis, Barrick and Mount (1991) found that C was a
consistent predictor of job performance ratings across
occupations.
Relations between personality traits and job perform-
ance are also of potential interest to personnel psycholo-
gists charged with selecting or placing employees (e.g.,
Fumham & Fudge, 2008). Although Conscientiousness is
a plus for almost all jobs, different features of personality
will be relevant to different types of jobs; the personnel
psychologist must determine the optimal configuration of
traits for each position. Because the NEO-PI-3 samples the
full range of personality traits, it is well suited for such
applications.
54
The NEO Job Profiler
Costa, McCrae, and Kay (1995) offered a tool that may
be useful for identifying traits relevant to a particular posi-
tion, called the NEO Job Profiler. This instrument con-
sists of 30 items corresponding to the different facets of
the NEO-PI-3, with each trait described in language
understandable to non-psychologists. To avoid confusion
between general personality traits and psychopathology,
the Neuroticism facets are described in terms of their low
pole, and the items are reverse-keyed.
The NEO)ob Profiler (available from the publisher)
provides a technique for determining which traits are desir-
able for a particular job or organizational role; it yields
weights that can be applied to NEO-PI-3 scores to deter-
mine the relative suitability of individuals for a position. The
NEO Job Profiler should be completed by expert judges-
job analysts, supervisors or employees successful in the role.
These judges would draw on their experience to determine
which traits are desirable and which are undesirable for the
position in question. If multiple judges are used, their ratings
can be averaged to obtain optimal weights; when applied to
a pool of candidates, the interrater reliability of scores can
be estimated (Costa et al., 1995).
On the NEO Job Profiler, items are assigned a numeri-
cal value from -2, for Very Undesirable, to +2, for Very
Desirable, except for the six N facets, which are reversed.
The resulting 30 weights, averaged across judges, are
applied to NEO-PI-3 T scores (i.e., [Nl weight x Nl
T score] + [N2 weight x N2 T score] + ... +[ C6 weight x
C6 T score]) to generate a composite score for each
candidate. Candidates who score higher than others on
traits judged to be desirable for the position and lower on
traits judged to be undesirable receive the highest com-
posite scores.
Note that the NEO Job Profiler is essentially a tool for
quantifying expert hypotheses about traits that contribute
to job success. If it is to be used for selection, the com-
posite score would need to be empirically validated; of
course, each new application of the Job Profiler would
require its own validation. Costa and colleagues (2005)
offered some evidence of the value of this approach in a
police selection context. Ten judges completed the NEO
Job Profiler with respect to traits affecting police per-
formance. There was high interrater agreement. The judges
agreed, for example, that police officers should score low
in N6: Vulnerability and E5: Excitement-Seeking, and
high in E3: Assertiveness and C5: Self-Discipline.
Independent raters interviewed the applicants and recom-
mended 188 of them; compared to 31 candidates who were
not recommended. These recommended applicants, in fact,
scored significantly lower in Vulnerability and Excitement-
Seeking and higher in Self-Discipline. The candidates did
not differ in Assertiveness scores.
Evaluative Bias in 1/0 Applications
One important caution is needed here. The NEO-PI-3
was normed on volunteers who were under no particular
pressure to describe themselves in a socially desirable
manner. However, candidates for a job are likely to exag-
gerate their good qualities and minimize their undesirable
traits; as a consequence, their scores will be distorted if
they are interpreted in terms of standard norms. For exam-
ple, the police applicants in Costa and colleagues' (1995)
study described themselves as considerably lower in
Neuroticism and higher in Conscientiousness than norma-
tive samples. Such scores cannot be taken at face value.
For many years, this phenomenon led industrial and
organizational (1/0) psychologists to distrust self-reports
on personality tests or to use social desirability scales in an
attempt to correct for self-enhancing biases. However,
there is growing evidence that the selection context has
the effect of moving almost everyone's scores in the desir-
able direction (Lonnqvist, Paunonen, Tuulio-Henriksson,
Lonnqvist, & Verkasalo, 2007), preserving the rank order
of scores. The candidate with the highest score is likely to
be the best choice, even if the score itself is exaggerated.
Further, social desirability scales are of little help in cor-
recting scores (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996) and
may, in fact, penalize good candidates who appear to be
socially desirable because, in fact, they are.
From this perspective, self-reports on the NEO-PI-3 are
likely to provide valuable information, provided they are
interpreted in terms of the relative rank of candidates (or
in terms of local norms developed on applicants for a spe-
cific position). It is, however, always possible for poor
candidates to blatantly falsify their self-reports, so job
selection should never be based exclusively on personality
test scores; information on past history, recommendations
from others, and professional judgment should all be con-
sidered in the overall assessment.
Research Applications
·cross-Cultural Research
Some of the most exciting findings about personality in
·the past decade have come from cross-cultural studies
sing the NEO Inventories. These instruments are ideally
ited for such research for two reasons: first, because they
ve been translated into more than 50 different languages
d dialects and, second, because they offer a comprehen-
ve model of personality traits.
Twenty years ago, it was not known whether the NEO
Inventories could be meaningfully translated or whether
the traits they assess were found in other cultures, espe-
cially non-Western cultures. Today, both of those ques-
tions have been fully answered: Skilled translators with a
background in psychology have created effective transla-
tions of the NEO PI-R, and the Five-Factor structure of the
NEO Inventories has been amply demonstrated in dozens
of cultures, from Iceland to Ethiopia, from Israel to Japan
(McCrae & Costa, 1997b; McCrae, Terracciano, et al.,
2005a). Although some researchers argue that there are
also indigenous traits unique to particular cultures (Cheung
& Leung, 1998), there is little doubt that the traits assessed
by the NEO Inventories are universal and can be validly
assessed through both self-reports and observer ratings
(McCrae et al., 2004).
One important finding has been that sex differences in
personality traits, though rather modest in magnitude, are
universal. For example, in almost every culture, women
score higher on Agreeableness than men; this is true in
self-reports and in observer ratings, whether the observer
is male or female (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001;
McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005a). Studies of gender dif-
ferences illustrate the importance of assessing personality
at the facet level: Although men and women are similar in
overall level of Extraversion, women are consistently
higher in El: Warmth, whereas men are higher in E3:
Assertiveness and E5: Excitement-Seeking. Again, men
around the world score higher in 05: Openness to Ideas,
whereas women score higher in 02: Openness to Aesthe-
tics. Studies of gender differences would be misleading if
only the five factors were measured.
In self-report data, there are clear patterns of adult trait
development around the world: Older adults score lower in
N, E, and 0, and higher in A and C than young adults
(McCrae et al., 1999; McCrae & Costa, 2006). When per-
sonality is assessed by college-age raters, there are clear
age differences in E and 0, which decline cross-section-
ally, and in C, which increases, but the pattern is much
weaker for N and A (McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005a).
It remains for future research to determine which of these
methods of assessment-self-reports or observer ratings-
provides the more accurate depiction of personality devel-
opment and to explain why they differ with regard to N
and A.
By averaging scores across a sample of respondents, it
is possible to characterize profiles of personality for entire
cultures-although it must always be kept in mind that
there is wide variation in trait levels among the members
of every culture. This approach to culture-level compar-
isons assumes that raw scores have similar interpretations
55
in different translations, and this assumption is a matter of
great controversy (Heine, Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008;
Poortinga, van de Vijver, & van Hemert, 2002). Never-
theless, NEO data from self-reports and from ratings of
adults (McCrae, Terracciano, & 79 Members of the
Personality Profiles of Culture Project, 2005b) and ado-
lescents (McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2010) show consis-
tent patterns. For example, peoples of European-
especially English-descent (e.g., Americans, Australians,
Canadians) tend to score higher on Extraversion than peo-
ples from Africa or Asia. The origins and significance of
such group-level differences remain to be determined
(Hofstede & McCrae, 2004).
During most of the twentieth century, social scientists
with an interest in comparing different cultures were obliged
to travel to a foreign country and, often, to learn a new lan-
guage; the number of cultures that could be compared was
severely limited by these requirements. Today, trained psy-
chologists with knowledge of English can be found in
almost all countries, and they can be contacted easily via e-
mail. International collaborations thus permit large-scale
cross-cultural studies that would have been impossible just
a few years ago. Researchers around the world who use the
NEO Inventories have shown themselves to be skilled and
generous colleagues, and collaborations among them are
likely to continue to be extremely fruitful.
Behavior and Molecular Genetics
Because the Five-Factor Model is universal and the
NEO-PI-3 is comprehensive, the NEO Inventories have
become standard tools in international studies of both
behavioral and molecular genetics.
Twin studies in Canada, Germany, and Japan have
shown that the traits assessed by the NEO-PI-3 are sub-
stantially heritable (Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996;
Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997; Yamagata, Ando,
et al., 2006). A study using the Canadian and German data
showed that the specific variance in facet scores-what
they measure above and beyond the five factors-is also
heritable (Jang et al., 1998). Additional studies have shown
that the structure of the NEO-PI-3 is replicated at the
genetic level (Pilia et al., 2006; Yamagata, Suzuki, et al.,
2006). This means that the facets that define each domain
covary because they are all attributable in part to the oper-
ation of the same set of genes.
Exactly which genes determine trait levels has been the
subject of intense study in the past decade, but so far
results are unclear; genes that seemed most promising in
early studies have failed to replicate in later studies
(Vandenbergh, Zonderman, Wang, Uhl, & Costa, 1997).
56
It has now become clear to most researchers in this area
that each personality trait is likely to be the result of a very
large number-perhaps hundreds-of different genes,
each of which makes a tiny contribution to the trait. To
detect such small effects, samples of thousands-perhaps
tens of thousands-of individuals are needed, and it is
likely that such samples can be obtained only by pooling
data across many studies. This strategy has been success-
ful in the search for genes related to physical traits
(Frayling et al., 2007).
Such collective studies require that all collaborators
measure the' same genes and the same phenotype. The
widespread use of the NEO Inventories makes them an
obvious choice for the assessment of personality. At least
one meta-analysis (Schinka, Busch, & Robichaux-Keene,
2004) has suggested that the NEO Neuroticism scales may
be superior to other measures of that factor in the discov-
ery of relevant genes.
Although research at the level of the five personality
dimensions is attractive because there are many measures
of the factors and because they are, in some respects, the
most important traits, there is reason to believe that
researchers may have more success in finding genes asso-
ciated with specific facets. Facets are more homogeneous
than global domains and, presumably, are due to a smaller
and more specific set of genes. Ideally, future studies of
the genetic basis of personality will include assessments
of the full range of traits assessed by the NEO-PI-3.
Educational Psychology
The advent of the NEO-PI-3 is likely to have important
consequences for the study of educational psychology
because it offers validated and age-appropriate measures
of a wide array of relevant personality traits.
Two of the NEO-PI-3 domains-Openness and
Conscientiousness-promise to be of particular interest in
the area of educational psychology. Openness is modestly
related to measures of intelligence and somewhat more
strongly related to measures of divergent thinking, an abil-
ity generally thought to contribute to creativity (McCrae,
1987). Noftle and Robins (2007) have demonstrated that
Openness is associated with SAT verbal scores (although
not with SAT math scores). Important questions for edu-
cational research focus on whether open students are more
likely to avail themselves of, and profit from, educational
enrichment opportunities; whether their unconventional-
ity is a source of misunderstanding and frustration in
traditional classrooms; and whether Openness itself can be
increased by education, as the concept of the liberal edu-
cation has traditionally assumed.
 Conscientious students are well-organized, purposeful,
and persistent, and there is some evidence to suggest that
these traits lead to higher academic achievement
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Digman &
Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Noftle & Robins, 2007). Con-
scientious people consider themselves, and are rated by
others, as being more intelligent (McCrae & Costa, 1987),
and scores on this domain scale may be a useful supple-
ment to ability measures as predictors of academic and
later-life success.
One of the NEO Style Graphs combines information on
0 and C to define Styles of Learning. Students high in both
factors are characterized as Good Students; those high in
0, but low in C are considered Dreamers; students high in
C, but low in Oare given the title of By-the-Bookers; and
those low in both factors are called Reluctant Scholars.
Reluctant Scholars may need special incentives to moti-
vate them to study.
However, educational psychology is concerned with
more than just academic achievement. Agreeableness is
likely to be relevant to issues of conduct (such as bully-
ing), and Neuroticism will affect school adjustment. Nigg
and colleagues (2002) have shown strong links between
low C scores and ADHD symptoms in adults, which are
also likely to hold for adolescents. Participation in athlet-
ics and other extracurricular activities is likely to be asso-
ciated with facets of Extraversion.
The NEO Inventories have been used extensively in
college populations (e.g., Kurtz & Sherker, 2003; Robins,
Fraley, Roberts, & Trzesniewski, 2001), and recent
research on the NEO-PI-3 shows that it can be used effec-
tively for both self-reports and observer ratings in middle
school-aged children (Costa, McCrae, & Martin, 2008). In
studies of high school students, NEO-PI-3 scores predicted
grades and subjective well-being (McCrae, Costa, &
Martin, 2005).
Markey, Markey, Tinsley, and Ericksen (2002) have
shown that, with some assistance, children as young as 9
years can provide valid self-reports on the NEO-FFI. The
NEO-FFI-3 should be even more appropriate for use in this
age group; at present, however, the NEO Inventories
should be used in children under age 12 years only for
research purposes.
Other Research
The NEO Inventories have proven their utility in per-
sonality research (McCrae & Costa, 2008a). Because the
NEO-PI-3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the
major dimensions of personality and a broad sample of
more specific traits, it is a useful tool in almost any
research on personality correlates, and the Personality
Correlates section of the online NEO bibliography, avail-
able at www.parinc.com, lists hundreds of studies. In many
cases, it has been possible to make specific hypotheses
about relations between NEO scales and other variables,
including, for example, moral development (Lonky, Kaus,
& Roodin, 1984), ego identity status (Tesch & Cameron,
1987), features of personal projects (Little, Lecci, &
Watkinson, 1992), response to psychotherapy (T. Miller,
1991), coping with military basic training (Vickers, Kolar,
& Hervig, 1989), and memory enhancement in the elderly
(Gratzinger, Sheikh, Friedman, & Yesavage, 1990).
Sometimes, however, researchers do not have clear
hypotheses or may overlook the personality variables that
are, in fact, most strongly related to the variable of inter-
est (cf. Trobst et al., 2000). In these cases, the compre-
hensiveness of the NEO-PI-3 is of particular value: When
all scales are examined, it is unlikely that crucial predictors
will have been omitted. Instead of a fishing expedition,
exploratory research with the NEO PI-R becomes a sys-
tematic sweep with a net that is likely to capture any find-
ings of interest. Even if no correlations are found, the
researcher will have learned something-namely, that per-
sonality traits are probably unrelated to the variable in
question and that future research should focus on other
classes of variables, such as situational factors, demo-
graphic variables, or, perhaps, cognitive abilities.
57
 Rationale and Development
Domains and Facets: A Strategy
For Measuring Personality
In the development of a personality inventory, a variety
of approaches can be adopted. Some inventories were devel-
oped to measure constructs central to a particular theory of
personality; others were created to predict special outcomes,
such as pathology or occupational success. Scales devel-
oped through these approaches are often quite useful for
the applications for which they are intended. Their use for
other purposes, however, may be severely limited.
An alternative strategy is to develop measures of all
major aspects of individual differences to yield a truly mul-
tipurpose personality inventory. Because personality traits
are, by definition, pervasive consistencies in thoughts, feel-
ings, and behaviors, it should be possible to construct a
single instrument useful for understanding and predicting
a wide variety of criteria such as vocational interests,
health and illness behavior, psychological well-being, and
characteristic coping styles. The NEO Inventories have, in
fact, proved useful in all these applications (Costa &
McCrae, 1984; Costa et al., 1989; Costa et al., 1984;
McCrae & Costa, 1986b).
The task of developing a truly comprehensive person-
ality inventory may at first seem hopeless. Thousands of
words have evolved in the English language that describe
individuals, and hundreds of psychological constructs have
been proposed by personality theorists. A single inventory
can hope to encompass this range of traits only because
there is a great deal of redundancy in personality descrip-
tors. Dominant, ascendant, forceful, and assertive all
describe very similar behaviors and persons. Similarly,
scales measuring neuroticism, general anxiety, maladjust-
ment, and ego strength all cover much of the same ground
(Watson & Clark, 1984).
In the 1980s, it became clear to many personality psy-
chologists that the major themes that recur in personality
descriptors in both natural languages and scientific theories
are the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model (Digman,
1990; John, 1990). When we began the research that led to
the NEO-PI-3, however, there was no consensus on the
Five-Factor Model. Instead, there were a variety of com-
peting systems that all claimed to offer the best represen-
tation of personality structure. As we compared the
systems of Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), Guilford
(J. S. Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1976), Cattell
(Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970), Buss and Plomin
(1975), and others, we came to the conclusion that there
was much more agreement on the higher-order factors-
especially Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (E)-than on
the specific traits that defined them. N and E appeared to
be broad clusters, or domains, of traits that could be carved
up in many different ways. The guiding principle behind
our subsequent research was that personality assessment
should begin at the top and work down: We should iden-
tify the broadest possible domains of traits, and then ana-
lyze each domain to identify the most important and useful
traits, or facets, to measure.
This strategy led us, first, to recognize a third domain
alongside N and E that we called Openness to Experience
(O; Costa & McCrae, 1976, 1978); then, to develop scales
to measure facets ofN, E, and O (Costa & McCrae, 1980c);
then, to recognize Agreeableness (A) and Conscientious-
ness (C) as major domains (McCrae & Costa, 1985b); and,
finally, to develop scales to measure facets of A and C
(Costa, McCrae, et al., 1991).
In addition, there is a growing recognition that assess-
ment at the level of the five factors by themselves is inad-
equate for a full and detailed understanding of an
individual's personality (Briggs, 1989). More narrow traits
have predictive utility beyond the broad distinctions of the
five factors (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Reynolds & Clark,
2001). The 30 facet scales of the NEO-PI-3 were chosen to
represent constructs frequently identified in the psycho-
logical literature that embody important distinctions within
each of the five domains. By offering both domain and
facet scores, the NEO-PI-3 facilitates understanding of
personality in individuals and groups. Attention to the
domain scores gives a quick grasp of the major features;
consideration of facet scores allows more detailed analysis
59
of the particular forms in which these major domains
are expressed.
The NEO facets: An Optimal Set?
Although researchers agree that it is wise to measure
specific facets, there are disputes about which facets
should be included (Roberts, Bogg, Walton, Chemyshenko,
& Stark, 2004). The five factors are firmly based in empir-
ical analyses of many different kinds of data: natural lan-
guage adjectives, California Q-set items (McCrae et al.,
2006), and questionnaires (Markon, Krueger, & Watson,
2005). By contrast, there is no consensus on how to divide
domains into facets. For example, Roberts and colleagues
(2004) attempted to identify facets of Conscientiousness
in adjectives, whereas Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, and
Goldberg (2005) looked for facets of C in questionnaire
scales. These two sets of facets showed rather limited
agreement, though both overlapped with the C facets of
the NEO-PI-3 (McCrae & Costa, 2008a). Again, Watson
and Clark (1997) reviewed facets of Extraversion; their
facets generally paralleled those of the NEO-PI-3, but
they combined Warmth and Gregariousness into a single
Sociability facet and included Ambition (related to
NEO-PI-3 C4: Achievement Striving) as a facet of E.
To us, such studies imply that the division of domains
into facets cannot be based solely on empirical criteria, and
the choice of facets must reflect scientific judgment. There
is clear evidence that the facets of the NEO Inventories are
indeed meaningful divisions of the domains. For example,
when the 48 items in each domain are factored, six factors
correspond closely to the a priori facet scales. McCrae and
Costa (2008a) demonstrated this in self-reports from adults
who had completed the NEO-PI-3 (N = 1,135) and in
observer ratings of college age and adult targets from 51
cultures (N = 12,156). Across both samples, convergent
correlations between facets and corresponding item fac-
tors exceeded discriminant correlations for all five
domains; the median convergent correlation was .84.
Similar results were found for NEO-PI-3 Form Sand Form
R data from 12- and 13-year-olds (Costa et al., 2008).
These within-domain distinctions have important con-
sequences. McCrae and Costa (1992) showed that facets
could be identified by their distinctive pattern of correlates,
and other researchers have shown the unique value of indi-
vidual facets (Reynolds & Clark, 2001; Schimmack et al.,
2004). For example, developmental trends differ by facet
within domain, most notably in Extraversion, where ES:
Excitement-Seeking declines rapidly from adolescence on,
whereas E4: Activity shows notable declines only after age
50 years (Terracciano, McCrae, Brant, & Costa, 2005).
60
Researchers who examined only a global Extraversion
scale would miss these important distinctions.
The most statistically elegant way to demonstrate the
unique value of facets is by partialling out the variance
they share with the five factors. What remains is specific
variance, what the scale measures above and beyond what
it shares with the broad factors. In a series of studies with
different samples, researchers have shown that the specific
variance in NEO facets is reliable and heritable (Jang
et al., 1998) and that developmental trends for the specific
variance in facets show similar patterns across cultures
(McCrae et al.: 1999). McCrae and Costa (1992) showed
self/other agreement on the specific variance in NEO PI-R
facets, and Costa and McCrae (2008b) replicated this find-
ing in NEO-PI-3 data: After partialling out the five factors
from Form S and Form R data, cross-observer agreement
(r) on the specific variance in the 30 facets ranged from .18
to .58 (N = 522, p < .001), with a median value of .33.
(Agreement on total facet scores, which include common as
well as specific variance, is of course substantially higher,
rs = .39 to .68, Mdn = .49; McCrae, Martin, et al., 2005).
No set of 30 scales can be exhaustive of the range of
specific personality traits, but the facet scales of the NEO
Inventories appear to cover much of the territory.
Comparisons with other systems of facets, such as the
primary scales of the Sixteen Personality Factor Ques-
tionnaire (Conn & Rieke, 1994) and the Eysenck Person-
ality Profiler (Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson, & Jackson, 1992),
suggest that there are no obvious gaps in coverage
(McCrae, 2009).
As a system of facets, the NEO-PI-3 has one additional
advantage over any other specification of facets currently
available: There is a large body of data on the stability,
developmental course, heritability, universality, cross-
observer validity, and clinical utility of NEO facets. These
data make the continued use of this selection of traits
particularly valuable.
Approach to Scale Construction
The development of the NEO Inventories has always
been guided by both rational and factor analytic strategies.
We began by identifying constructs we wished to meas-
ure, and we created sets of items intended to tap these
constructs, administered the items to large samples, and
factored the item responses. Items were selected on the
basis of their factor loadings as well as on the requirement
that a rough balance of positively and negatively keyed
items was included in each scale. The convergent and
discriminant validity of the resulting scales was then
evaluated with respect to external criteria such as other,
established scales and other methods of measurement. In
some cases, it was necessary to revise our initial con-
structs, which led to a new generation of item develop-
ment, testing, and selection.
The details of the samples used, methods of analysis,
and item factor results have been presented in a series of
publications to which the interested reader can refer (Costa
& McCrae, 1978, 1980c, 1992c; Costa, McCrae, et al.,
1991; Costa et al., 2008; McCrae & Costa, 1983a, 1987;
McCrae, Costa, et al., 2005; McCrae, Martin, et al., 2005).
Six general principles that guided development of the NEO
Inventories are described in the following paragraphs.
Hierarchical Structure
The NEO-PI-3 is based on the idea that traits are
arranged in hierarchies from very broad to very narrow
traits, and that both highly general (i.e., domain) and rela-
tively specific (i.e., facet) traits should be assessed. We
have assigned priority to the domains, on which there is
more nearly universal agreement among personality psy-
chologists, and have selected facets to represent important
and diverse aspects of the domains. In item analyses, we
began by analyzing items at the domain level and then
proceeded to analyze items within each domain to
define facets.
Basis in Psychological Literature
The constructs measured by the NEO-PI-3 were not
intended to be original discoveries. Instead, we carefully
searched the existing psychological literature to identify
the traits and dispositions that have seemed important to
personality theorists, have been represented as trait terms
in the natural language, and have appeared in personality
research literature. Concepts like anxiety, assertiveness,
and trust are easily understood by most test users because
they are familiar with them from both lay and professional
use. Among thousands of constructs that have been pro-
posed to account for individual differences, the traits cho-
sen have recurred, and this recurrence, we believe, is
testimony to their importance.
Rational Scale Construction
The NEO Inventories used a modified rational approach
to scale construction. In essence, we considered the con-
struct we wished to measure and then wrote items that, if
answered in the keyed direction, would suggest the pres-
ence of the underlying trait. Although we do not suppose
that responses are to be regarded as the literal truth, we do
interpret them as evidence of the traits they refer to. This
approach assumes that individuals can and will respond
candidly, a theory of item responding formally known as
self-disclosure (Johnson, 1981). Rational scales appear to
work as well as or better than scales that employ subtle
items or use contrasted group selection methods (Hase &
Goldberg, 1967). Our initial adoption of rational
approaches was based on our experience with item factor
analyses, which almost always yielded rationally inter-
pretable factors and suggested that individuals respond to
the manifest content of the items.
Psychometric Requirements
Although we 'began our item analyses with a pool of
items constructed rationally, the final item selection was
based on extensive item analyses and the application of
basic principles of psychometrics. It seemed axiomatic to
us that scales should contain equal numbers of positively
and negatively keyed items to control for the effects of
acquiescence (McCrae, Herbst, & Costa, 2001) and that
items should be keyed to one and only one scale to avoid
artifactual correlations between scales. We adopted factor
analysis as the basis for item selection because it identi-
fies clusters of items that covary with each other but are
relatively independent of other item clusters-in other
words, items that show convergent validity with respect to
other items in the cluster and divergent validity with
respect to items outside the cluster. However, our use of
factor analysis was not blindly empirical. We guided the
analyses in several ways-for example, by factoring first
to identify domains and then, within domains, to identify
facets, and by using Procrustes methods that let our the-
ory guide factor rotation (Costa, McCrae, et al., 1991;
McCrae & Costa, 1983a; McCrae, Zonderman, Costa,
Bond, & Paunonen, 1996).
Parallel Forms
Early in the development of the NEO Inventories, we
realized that self-reports are not the only, or necessarily
the best, method of personality assessment. Form R was
developed originally to validate Form S, but it quickly
became apparent that it was useful in its own right as a
method of personality assessment, and we have treated it
as an integral part of our system (McCrae & Weiss, 2007).
In our initial research, we hypothesized that the same
approach to scale construction that worked for self-reports
should also work for observer ratings, and we tested this
hypothesis by administering a third-person version of the
inventory to spouses (McCrae, 1982). That study and
numerous subsequent studies of the reliability, stability,
and validity of Form R have strongly supported this
hypothesis (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992c; McCrae &
Costa, 1987, 1989a; McCrae et al., 2004).
61
Construct Validation
Ultimately, the value of a scale lies in its ability to show
meaningful relations to external criteria-relations that
allow psychologists to make valid inferences about scale
scores when they interpret individual cases. We have
devoted most of our research attention to studies of the con-
struct validity of the domain and facet scales. Much of that
research is summarized here, and more is provided in the
online NEO bibliography, available at www.parinc.com.
Construct validation studies influenced the original devel-
opment of scales, but their most important role has been in
the increasingly detailed and refined interpretation of the
scales. For example, when we created our measure of
Openness to Experience, we did not know that it would be
a useful predictor of divergent thinking abilities (McCrae,
1987) or of moral reasoning (Lonky et al., 1984); now
these findings form part of the NEO Interpretive Report.
Validity Checks and Validity Scales:
A Novel Perspective
Data on construct validity show that the scales of the
NEO Inventories are generally successful in measuring the
intended constructs. However, this does not mean that each
and every NEO profile is valid. Some individuals may not
understand their own personality, may deliberately try to
misrepresent themselves, or may respond carelessly to test
items. Ideally, these invalid protocols should be identified
and corrected or discarded, and over the past six decades
psychometricians have offered many ingenious approaches
to this problem. Unfortunately, many of these approaches
have proven to be counterproductive.
The NEO-PI-3 provides some checks that screen out
clearly invalid tests, but it does not include the more elab-
orate validity scales and corrections that many clinical
instruments employ. This was not an oversight: Such
scales were deliberately omitted because the empirical evi-
dence to date provides little support for their use and sug-
gests that, in some cases, they may actually detract from
the validity of the instrument (McCrae et al., 1989;
Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2000).
Our philosophy is that the validity of test responses is
best ensured by proper administration of the instrument
and by judicious interpretation of results (Costa &
McCrae, 1992a, 2008a). In research on volunteer subjects,
explanations of the project and efforts to motivate cooper-
ation will result in valid tests from most subjects. In clin-
ical applications, the administrator must first determine
that the respondent is capable of responding accurately
(e.g., the respondent is not acutely psychotic or demented)
62
and then elicit the respondent's cooperation. If the respon-
dent is unlikely to understand the test or is intensely moti-
vated to present a false picture of him- or herself,
self-report questionnaires are probably not appropriate. In
these cases, the professional should consider administering
Form R to a more capable and cooperative informant, such
as a spouse or other relative.
Data Quality Indicators in the NEO-Pl-3
Validity Checks
Three simple items at the bottom of the Answer Sheet
ask respondents if they have answered honestly and accu-
rately, responded to all items, and marked their responses
in the correct spaces. Negative answers to these straight-
forward items identify a small number of people who
acknowledge that their tests may be invalid. If possible,
the administrator should discuss with the respondent the
reasons for such responses to see if they represent serious
threats to the validity of the test. For example, a highly
conscientious individual may disagree with the statement
"I have tried to answer all of these questions honestly and
accurately" because he or she may have equivocated on
one or two items. In this case, the overall scale scores
would still be valid and the profile should be interpreted.
Of course, in the absence of such information about indi-
vidual cases, a conservative strategy would be to discard
tests that fail these validity checks.
Acquiescence and Nay-Saying
Psychologists discovered long ago that there are con-
sistent differences in the tendency to agree or disagree
with statements, regardless of item content. When all or
most of the items in a scale are keyed in the same direc-
tion, acquiescent or nay-saying biases are confounded
with individual differences in the trait being measured.
For this reason, NEO-PI-3 scales are roughly balanced in
keying. Individuals who have an extreme acquiescent or
nay-saying bias will thus tend to have average scores,
because their endorsement of positively keyed items will
counterbalance their endorsement of negatively keyed
items. Average scores may not accurately characterize the
individual, but they are less misleading than the extreme
scores that acquiescent and nay-saying biases can lead to
in unbalanced scales. It is wise to examine tests for evi-
dence of acquiescence or nay-saying and, when they are
present, to interpret results with caution, but it is probably
not necessary to discard test results solely on this basis.
Random Responding
Occasionally, test takers are uncooperative or respond
in a careless or random fashion. This is most likely to hap-
pen when they are tested as part of a group and the admin-
istrator has not provided a sufficient explanation of the
purpose for testing. Unmotivated test takers may respond
in a haphazard manner simply to complete the assigned
task quickly. Ideally, the administrator will avoid this
problem by ensuring that the NEO-PI-3 is presented in a
way that will engage the respondent. Even with the best
efforts, however, some individuals may respond randomly,
and a way to identify such respondents can be useful.
The most common strategy for identification of these
respondents used in constructing personality tests has been
to include an infrequency scale-a set of items that are
almost never endorsed by cooperative subjects. A high
score on such a scale suggests that the respondent was not
paying attention to the item content. However, infrequency
scales have two shortcomings: They lengthen the test by
adding items that are irrelevant to the scores of the great
majority of respondents, and they may be distracting or
insulting to intelligent and experienced test takers who
realize that highly improbable items are "trick questions."
The spirit of candor and cooperation between test admin-
istrator and respondent can be damaged by the inclusion of
such items. For these reasons, no infrequency scale was
included in the NEO-PI-3.
However, the NEO-PI-3 includes one random respond-
ing check. A common form of random responding is seen
in the use of the same response option over a long series of
items-probably a result of the respondent's desire to
complete the task quickly. Visual inspection of the Answer
Sheet can often spot such a pattern-a long string of dis-
agree responses, for example. Analysis of item response
patterns in a cooperative volunteer sample (Costa &
McCrae, 2008b) suggests that responses of strongly dis-
agree to more than six consecutive items, disagree to more
than nine consecutive items, neutral to more than 10 con-
secutive items, agree to more than 14 consecutive items, or
strongly agree to more than nine consecutive items are
unlikely in valid tests. Tests that show longer strings of
identical responses can be considered invalid. Although
this check will not identify all forms of random respond-
ing (e.g., alternating between agree and disagree response
options), it provides a useful and unobtrusive measure of
one common form.
The Utility and Use of NEO Validity Indicators
Do the checks used in the NEO-PI-3 actually detect
invalid protocols, and should such protocols be discarded?
Such questions are best answered by evaluating data from
real-world applications. In one study, Carter and col-
leagues (2001) examined the 4-month retest stability of
NEO PI-R scales in a drug-abusing population. Many of
these respondents were poorly motivated; in consequence,
a large number of invalid protocols (about a quarter of the
sample) were detected by the NEO validity indicators at
the baseline administration. Four months later, respondents
completed the inventory again. Those with valid protocols
had significantly higher retest correlations for all five fac-
tors and for 18 of the 30 facet scales. Such data suggest
that NEO validity indicators, in fact, identify unreliable
test results. Nevertheless, retest correlations for the 71
"invalid" protocols were still significant for all five factors
(rs=
tt
.38 to .57,p < .001) and for 22 of the 30 facets. Such
data suggest that some valid variance remains in the ques-
tionable protocols.
'
The same conclusion was reached from an analysis of
36 "invalid" NEO-PI-3 protocols from adolescents. These
cases showed lower internal consistency for the five
domains than the valid cases, but the values were still quite
respectable (.80 to .88). Further, these invalid NEO-PI-3
scores were significant predictors of subjective well-being
and self-reported grades (McCrae, Costa, et al., 2005). It
appears that validity is a matter of degree, and the profes-
sional must weigh the cost and benefit of discarding sus-
pect protocols.
Cross-cultural research also supports the qualified use
of NEO validity indicators. For each of 50 cultures, a Data
Quality Index was created based on the averaged validity
indicators from NEO PI-R protocols as well as global indi-
cators of data quality (e.g., whether the test was adminis-
tered in the respondents' first language). Cultures with
lower data quality had poorer internal consistencies and
factor structures-but most still replicated the basic struc-
ture (McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005a). Validity indica-
tors appear to be more useful as guides to the interpretation
of scores than as reasons to discard data completely.
Clinicians and others concerned with the interpretation
of individual NEO scores should examine the validity indi-
cators and treat invalid protocols with caution. Ideally,
results should be discussed with the respondent, who may
explain why problems occurred. The clinician may then
decide to accept results, to ignore them, or to ask the
respondent to complete the test again.
In research contexts, it is advisable to analyze data with
and without invalid cases and briefly report the similari-
ties or differences in findings.
Validity Scales Intentionally
Omitted from the NEO Inventories
Social Desirability
Perhaps the most controversial feature of the NEO-PI-3
is its omission of any scale to measure socially desirable
responding. It is, of course, true that some personality item
responses are generally more desirable than others, and
63
that respondents may, if they choose, select a false
response merely in order to appear in a better light (or
because they have been instructed to do so by an experi-
menter). The NEO Inventories are certainly not immune
to this kind of possible distortion, as researchers have
demonstrated experimentally (Paulhus, Bruce, & Trapnell,
1995). Nevertheless, there are good reasons to think that
(a) most respondents do not markedly bias their responses
in either volunteer or clinical contexts, and (b) scales
intended to assess and correct for social desirability biases
do not work and may, in fact, detract from accurate assess-
ment (McCrae & Costa, 1983b; McCrae et al., 1989;
Piedmont et al., 2000).
This conclusion may seem startling to professionals
trained to guard against distortions in self-reports, but they
are easily explained. Most social desirability scales con-
sist of items that claim good traits or deny undesirable
traits. People who have desirable traits, thus, tend to score
high on social desirability scales. Validity scales simply
cannot distinguish between a person who really has desir-
able traits and one who merely claims that he or she does,
so honest responders are unfairly penalized. If, in fact,
most respondents are honest, then the "cure" offered by
social desirability scales is worse than the disease, and
validity coefficients (when assessed against objective
external criteria) are reduced (McCrae & Costa, 1983b;
Ones et al., 1996).
Because clinicians are often hesitant to accept this con-
clusion (Costa & McCrae, 2008a), Schinka, Kinder, and
Kremer (1997) created validity scales that clinicians could
use from NEO PI-R items. In experimental contexts, where
gross distortions can be produced merely by instructing
subjects how to respond, these scales seemed to work. In
real-life settings, however, they did not. Yang, Bagby, and
Ryder (2000) used a Mandarin Chinese translation of the
NEO PI-R to assess personality, using both self-reports
and spouse ratings, in Chinese psychiatric patients. They
scored Schinka and colleagues' scales for Negative
Presentation Management (malingering) and Positive
Presentation Management (social desirability) in the self-
report data and divided their Chinese patients into "valid"
and "invalid" groups. One would hypothesize that corre-
lations of these self-reports with spouse ratings would be
much lower in the invalid group, but in fact, they were
slightly higher (Mdn = .42 vs . .40).
Inconsistency Scales
Another popular validity scale looks for inconsistency
in responses, usually defined by pairs of items that ask sim-
ilar questions but are answered differently. Random
responding ought to lead to many inconsistencies, so many
inconsistencies may be an indicator of an invalid protocol.
64
Inconsistency scales have the merit of being economical
and unobtrusive, because they are scored from responses
to the standard item pool. Schinka and colleagues (1997)
created an inconsistency scale that could be used for the
NEO PI-R. Unfortunately, this scale was unrelated to the
validity of NEO PI-R scales in a series of studies (Kurtz &
Parrish, 2001; Piedmont et al., 2000; cf. Costa & McCrae,
1997b). Inconsistent responding-or what appears to the
researcher as inconsistent responding-is a topic of sub-
stantive interest to personality psychologists and those who
study the self-concept (Hampson, 1989; Tellegen, 1988),
but it is apparently not a useful way to detect random
responding.
Professionals who are not persuaded by these argu-
ments and data have the option of using the Schinka et al.
(1997) scales or of administering other validity scales
along with the NEO-PI-3. Alternatively, they may wish to
substitute observer ratings in place of self-reports they dis-
trust; Form R NEO-PI-3 scales are useful in this context.
Development of the NEO-Pl-3
The NEO-PI-3 began in 1978 as the NEO Inventory-
a set of three domains and 18 facet scales measuring traits
related to N, E, and 0. In 1983, brief, 18-item domain
scales measuring A and C were added; in 1985, the instru-
ment was published as the NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI). In 1990, facet scales were completed for A and
C and some minor modifications were made in the origi-
nal N, E, and O items, resulting in the NEO PI-R. Subse-
quent research showed that the NEO PI-R could be used in
children and adolescents age 10 years and older (Baker &
Victor, 2003; De Fruyt, Mervielde, Hoekstra, & Rolland,
2000), although some words and items were difficult for
younger respondents to understand. In 2005, 37 of the 240
NEO PI-R items with weak psychometric properties or
words that were unfamiliar to some respondents (e.g., lack-
adaisical, panhandler) were replaced with simplified
items. This modified version is the NEO-PI-3.
The major focus of this Professional Manual is on the
latest versions of the NEO Inventories, the NEOsPI-3 and
the NEO-FFI-3. Here, we summarize the development of
the NEO-PI-3 from the NEO PI-R;professionals who con-
tinue to use the NEO PI-R or who wish to trace the full
history of the development of the NEO-PI-3 should also
consult Appendix D of this Professional Manual. Develop-
ment of the NEO-FFl-3 is discussed further in chapter 8 of
this Professional Manual.
Research Context and Samples
Much of the research using the NEO-PI (Costa &
McCrae, 1985c) and leading to the development of the
NEO PI-R was conducted on two longitudinal samples. A $15 after mailing back a completed questionnaire (Costa
number of other samples were important in scale con- et al., 2008).
struction or the establishment of norms. New samples were
obtained for the development and validation of the Item Selection
NEO-PI-3. Details on the samples used to develop the McCrae and colleagues (2002) administered the NEO
NEO PI-Rare given in Appendix D of this Professional PI-R to a sample of high school students (N = 1,959) and
Manual; this section reviews the samples relevant to the instructed them to leave blank any items they did not
NEO-PI-3 norms. understand. For 210 of the items, at least 98% of the sam-
ple responded; 30 items caused problems for more than
Phase 1 Adolescent Sample
2% of the sample. These items contained words such as
Data for item selection and validation for the NEO-PI-3
fastidious and adhere, and they had been shown to cause
were obtained in three successive phases. In the first phase,
problems in other American (Baker & Victor, 2003) and
the NEO PI-Rand new trial items were administered to
Flemish (De Fruyt et al., 2000) adolescent samples and in
500 individuals age 14 to 20 years; older adolescents were
adult samples with limited literacy (J. 0. Casey, personal
overrepresented because earlier research had shown that
communication, August 5, 1992). In addition to these 30
age changes are more marked after age 18 years.
items with low readability, 24 items that had corrected
Respondents from 26 states were recruited by undergrad-
item/facet correlations less than .30 in both the high school
uate research assistants; those younger than age 18 years
sample and in an adult sample (N = 1,492) were identified.
provided written consent from parents. In general, respon-
Six of these 24 items were among the 30 items with diffi-
dents were high academic achievers; many of the 18- to
cult vocabulary, so a total of 48 items were targeted for
20-year-olds were college students and a majority of the
possible replacement in the NEO-PI-3 (McCrae, Costa,
younger respondents expected to attend college. An attempt
et al., 2005).
was made to recruit sibling pairs who could provide not
only self-reports but also ratings of each other. Additional For each of the 48 items, we wrote two trial alternative
Form R data were obtained by asking other respondents to items and administered these, along with the full NEO
rate an anonymous target of a specified age. Participants PI-R, to the Phase 1 adolescent sample of 500 (McCrae,
completed questionnaires and returned them by mail; they Costa, et al., 2005). Primary item selection was conducted
each were paid $20 (McCrae, Costa, et al., 2005). in this sample to ensure that the NEO-PI-3 would be read-
able by adolescents. All the trial items were keyed in the
Phase 2 Adult Sample
same direction as the original, so keying (and scale bal-
In the second phase, the NEO PI-Rand trial items were
ance) was unchanged. We examined correlations of the
administered to 635 men and women age 21 to 91 years.
original and alternative items with each facet, as well as
Respondents were recruited by research assistants. They
correlations with other domains (to check discriminant
resided in 29 states, 92.6% were White, and most (75.6%)
validity). Response rates and psychometric properties were
had more than a high school education. When possible,
improved for 37 of the 48 items. When we compared the
respondents were recruited in pairs who rated both them-
37 old items to the new items, we found that median
selves and their partner; unpaired respondents rated an
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability had been lowered
anonymous target. Participants completed questionnaires
from 8.3 to 4.4 and that median item/facet correlations had
and returned them by mail; they each were paid $20
increased from .28 to .37 for Form S and from .30 to .42
(McCrae, Martin, et al., 2005).
for Form R. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level readability for
Phase 3 Middle School Sample the full NEO-PI-3 is 5.3.
In the third phase, the NEO-PI-3, as developed in the
Next, the NEO PI-Rand trial items were administered
first two phases, was administered to 424 children age 12
to the Phase 2 adult sample of 635, and both the NEO PI-R
to 13 years. Research assistants identified potential partic-
and NEO-PI-3 were scored (McCrae, Martin, et al., 2005).
ipants and contacted their parents to obtain permission to
Participants were instructed to leave blank any items they
invite the children to participate in the study. All partici-
did not understand, but none of the NEO-PI-3 items was
pants' parents consented to the research, and the children
omitted by as much as 2% of the sample. When we com-
assented. To minimize demand on these younger respon-
pared the 37 old items to the new items, median item/facet
dents, they were asked to complete only one version of the
correlations had increased from .36 to .45 for Form S and
NEO-PI-3-half completed Form S and half completed
from .38 to .48 for Form R.
Form R, rating an anonymous target age 12 or 13 years.
Most children were in Grades 6, 7, or 8, and most reported In Phase 3, either Form Sor Form R of the NEO-PI-3
that they were A or B students. Participants each received was administered to each of 449 boys and girls age 12 to

65
13 years (Costa et al., 2008). Analyses of internal consis-
tency, factor structure, and convergent and discriminant
validity supported the use of the NEO-PI-3 in this age
group. However, even in the simplified NEO-PI-3, a few
words that were difficult for some of the middle school
students remained. Respondents were asked to circle any
words they were unfamiliar with, and 28 words were iden-
tified that were problematic for at least 10 respondents.
Table 3, found in chapter 3 of this Professional Manual,
provides a glossary, developed with the assistance of mid-
dle school faculty, that defines these words; professionals
who administer the NEO-PI-3 can use these definitions to
assist respondents of any age who have questions about
these items.
Equivalence of the
NEO-Pl-3 and NEO PI-R
Most of the evidence for the validity and utility of the
NEO Inventories comes from studies of the NEO PI-R.
These data will apply to the NEO-PI-3 to the extent that the
two inventories are equivalent. Most of the items (213 of
240, 88.8%) and 11 of the facets are identical in the two
inventories, so it is unlikely there will be much difference
between scores. Direct evidence comes from correlations
of the NEO PI-R scales with the NEO-PI-3 scales. In the
Phase 1 sample of 500 adolescents, these equivalence cor-
relations ranged from .98 to .99 for the five domains and
from .83 to .98 for the 19 facets with item changes.
However, the Phase 1 sample was used for item selection,
and equivalence estimates may be somewhat inflated. In
the independent Phase 2 sample of 635 adults, equivalence
correlations ranged from .98 to .99 for the five domains
and from .86 to .99 for the 19 facets. The lowest equiva-
lence coefficients (.83 to .89) were for A6: Tender-
Mindedness, for which half the items were replaced.
Structural Equivalence
Because the NEO-PI-3 is intended to operationalize the
Five-Factor Model in the same way the NEO PI-R does,
the replicability of the original factor structure is crucial.
The adult NEO PI-R factor structure, reproduced in Table
7 in chapter 8 of this Professional Manual, is considered
the "gold standard" because it has been used in dozens of
studies to evaluate structural replicability of the NEO
Inventories in different samples and cultures (e.g., McCrae,
Terracciano, et al., 2005a). Table 6 reports the factor struc-
ture of Form S of the NEO-PI-3 in the Phase 2 adult sam-
ple compared to the adult normative NEO PI-R structure
(Table 7). Factors have been rotated to maximal alignment
(see McCrae et al., 1996). Factor congruence coefficients
(.97 to .99) and variable congruence coefficients (.88 to
.99) all far exceed chance and show that the structure is
66
essentially identical. For Form R data, factor congruence
coefficients were .94 to .98. Similar, though slightly lower,
values were found in the Phase 1 adolescent sample (Form
S coefficients = .94 to .98; Form R coefficients = .92 to
.98) and in the Phase 3 middle school sample (Form S
coefficients= .95 to .99; Form R coefficients= .92 to .96).
We conducted additional analyses for 12-year-olds and 13-
year-olds separately and found factor congruence coeffi-
cients ranging from .88 to ,98. It is remarkable that
observer ratings by and of 12- and 13-year-olds on the
NEO-PI-3 so closely resemble, in structure, self-reports
from adults on the NEO PI-R.
S. R. Baker (personal communication, July 6, 2009)
administered the NEO-PI-3 to 606 incoming freshmen
(474 female) at a historically Black university in Virginia;
the mean age of the sample was 18.9 years. Overall, the
hypothesized factor structure was clearly recovered, with
factor congruence coefficients of .98, .97, .95, .95, and .97
for N, E, 0, A, and C, respectively. One facet-A6:
Tender-Mindedness-had a weak loading (.33) on its
intended factor, but all other facets had strong loadings and
variable congruence coefficients greater than .86 (p < .05).
De Fruyt, De Bolle, McCrae, Terracciano, Costa, &
Collaborators of the Adolescent Personality Profiles of
Cultures Project (2009) examined the structure of Form R
of the NEO-PI-3, using observer ratings of adolescents age
12 to 17 years in 24 cultures (N = 5,109). They worked
with translations of the instrument into more than a dozen
languages, including Thai, Farsi, and Croatian, and clearly
replicated the normative NEO structure in the full group.
When analyzed separately, the factor congruence coeffi-
cients ranged from .95 to .98 in the group of younger tar-
gets (12 to 14 years) and from .96 to .98 in the targets
age 15 to 17 years. When analyzed within cultures, the
total congruence coefficient was greater than .90 in 19 of
the 24 cultures. However, the Openness factor was prob-
lematic in some cultures; the congruence coefficient was
above .85 (Lorenzo-Seva & ten Berge, 2006) in only 17
of the cultures.
Equivalence of Age and Gender Differences
McCrae, Martin, et al. (2005) compared gender differ-
ences found for the NEO-PI-3 with those seen in the
NEO PI-R in the Phase 2 adult sample. Gender differences
on the two instruments were almost identical; the correla-
tion between difference scores across the 30 facets was .96
for Form S and .98 for Form R. The pattern of gender dif-
ferences closely resembled that reported previously for
American and international samples (Costa et al., 2001).
McCrae, Martin, et al. also examined patterns of age dif-
ferences in the combined data from the Phase 1 and Phase
2 samples and found that they mirrored patterns found in
 Table 6
Reliability and Factor Structure of the NEO-Pl-3 Form S for the Phase 2 Adult Sample
Reliability Factor
Domains/Facets a N E 0 A C
Domains
N: Neuroticism .91 .93
E: Extraversion .92 .89
0: Openness to Experience .93 .89
A: Agreeableness .92 .90
C: Conscientiousness .92 .92

Neuroticism (N) facets

Nl: Anxiety .85 .83 .84 .00 -.07 -.03 -.02 .99**
N2: Angry Hostility° .83 .75 .63 -.04 -.09 -.53 -.04 .99**
N3: Depressionc .90 .83 .80 -.11 -.03 -.01 -.27 .99**
N4: Self-Consciousness .79 .77 .74 -.31 -.07 .15 -.14 .98**
N5: Impulsiveness .77 .66 .53 .35 -.02 -.20 -.37 .99**
N6: Vulnerability° .85 .77 .69 -.07 -.11 .03 -.46 .99**

Extraversion (E) facets

El: Warmthc .86 .79 -.13 .74 .11 .43 .06 .99**
E2: Gregariousness° .89 .76 -.12 .72 .04 .06 -.20 .97**
E3: Assertiveness .91 .77 -.27 .46 .15 -.46 .26 .97**
E4: Activity .78 .69 -.04 .53 .10 -.31 .41 .99**
E5: Excitement-Seeking .78 .69 -.04 .50 .22 -.42 -.12 .97**
E6: Positive Emotions .86 .80 -.19 .65 .34 .18 .17 .95**

Openness (0) facets

01: Fantasy° .82 .75 .19 .12 .64 -.10 -.15 .97**
02: Aesthetics .91 .83 .10 .04 .76 .22 .02 .99**
03: Feelingsc .82 .71 .28 .43 .52 .11 .28 .96**
04: Actions .78 .54 -.35 .27 .54 .03 -.13 .97**
05: Ideasc .87 .81 -.12 .00 .79 -.08 .18 .99**
06: Values .80 .70 -.05 .21 .53 .08 .03 .88*

Agreeableness (A) facets

Al: Trust .83 .82 -.28 .29 .06 .65 .00 .98**
A2: Straightforwardness .86 .76 -.03 -.10 -.07 .74 .22 .99**
A3: Altruismc .75 .78 -.04 .44 .04 .64 .28 .98**
A4: Compliance .83 .71 -.22 -.14 -.02 .74 -.08 .99**
A5: Modesty .86 .76 .18 -.18 -.09 .68 -.05 .98**
A6: Tender-Mindedness .70 .69 .18 .31 .16 .56 .08 .97**

Conscientiousness (C) facets

Cl: Competence .80 .75 -.41 .15 .17 .06 .74 .99**
C2: Order .90 .80 .06 .05 -.16 -.06 .64 .98**
C3: Dutifulness .75 .70 -.12 .01 .03 .34 .74 .99**
C4: Achievement Striving .88 .77 -.11 .23 .13 -.17 .76 .99**
C5: Self-Disciplinec .83 .78 -.29 .06 -.01 .05 .79 .99**
C6: Deliberationc .77 .76 -.22 -.29 .02 .24 .61 .99**

Congruencect .98** .98** .98** .99** .97** .98**

Note. N = 635. VC = Variable congruence. Principal components are rotated toward the adult normative structure (Costa & McCrae, 1992b).
Loadings greater than .40 in absolute magnitude are given in boldface.
'Test-retest reliability is estimated from data for the NEO PI-R (N = 132; J.E. Kurtz, personal communication, December 1, 2009). bTotal con-
gruence coefficient appears in the last row. 'Scale unchanged in revision. dCongruence with adult normative NEO PI-R structure.
*Congruence higher than that of 95% of rotations from random data. **Congruence higher than that of 99% of rotations from random data.
Adapted from "Age Trends and Age Norms for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 in Adolescents and Adults," by R.R. McCrae, T. A. Martin, &
P. T. Costa, Jr. (2005), Assessment, 12, 363-373. Adapted with permission.

67
American and international samples using the NEO PI-R
(McCrae & Costa, 2006). Thus, the NEO-PI-3 appears to
preserve the age and gender effects found in the NEO PI-R.
Equivalence of Means and Variances
Because the instruments share so many items, it is rea-
sonable to expect that means and standard deviations for
the NEO-PI-3 scales would closely approximate those of
NEO PI-R scales, and they do. In the Phase 2 sample, the
largest difference between corresponding facets was 1.19
raw score points; most differences were considerably
smaller (McCrae, Martin, et al., 2005). Similar findings
were reported by De Fruyt and colleagues (2009), who
compared observer ratings on NEO PI-Rand NEO-PI-3
scales in 24 cultures and concluded that, even in transla-
tion, the two scales were essentially equivalent in mean
levels. The largest differences were for the facets of 04:
Actions and A6: Tender-Mindedness, which were about
one quarter standard deviation higher in the NEO-PI-3.
NEO-Pl-3 Norms
Because differences between the NEO PI-R and
NEO-PI-3 are quite modest, it would be possible to con-
tinue to use NEO PI-R norms to interpret NEO-PI-3
scores. However, NEO PI-R norms were gathered two
decades ago, and the normative sample included many
members of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
(BLSA), who are, in general, better educated than most
Americans. Further, normative information on Form R is
limited for the NEO PI-R: No norms are available for col-
lege-age respondents. Finally, the NEO-PI-3 is intended
for use by a wider age range than the NEO PI-R. It was,
therefore, determined that NEO-PI-3 norms would be
based on responses from the Phase 1 adolescent sample
and the Phase 2 adult sample. This means that, in general,
individuals who obtain identical raw scores on the
NEO PI-Rand NEO-PI-3 will not have identical T scores.
How do the NEO-PI-3 normative groups differ from
those used for the NEO PI-R? We scored the NEO PI-R in
both Phase 1 and Phase 2 samples, using age- and sex-
appropriate NEO PI-R norms. The Phase 1 adolescents
scored within 3 T-score points of the normative NEO PI-R
mean of 50 for all domains and facets. For the Phase 2
adults, means for both men and women were within the
Average range (T = 45 to 55) for all domains and facets.
The largest deviation from the NEO PI-R norms was for
Phase 2 men, who scored 45 on Openness on average,
probably because the men in the 1992 NEO PI-R norma-
tive group were better educated than most Americans.
68
The implication of these comparisons is that respondents
who are given the NEO-PI-3 will have profiles that closely
resemble those they would have obtained on the NEO PI-R,
though they may score somewhat higher in Openness.
As discussed by McCrae, Martin, et al. (2005), the
choice of a normative group depends on the goals and
experience of the interpreter. Normally, respondents are
compared to others of the same sex and age group.
However, for some purposes (such as job selection), it
may be appropriate to used combined-sex norms, which
compare respondents to all people of the same age
group. Researchers interested in lifespan development
must use the same age norms for all groups in order to
see mean level changes or differences. McCrae, Martin,
et al. used combined adolescent and adult norms to chart
age group differences.
The choice of norms also depends on personal experi-
ence. A clinician who normally treats adults may wish to
use familiar adult norms to understand the occasional ado-
lescent client; results are likely to show that the adolescent
is high in Excitement-Seeking and low in Agreeableness-
simply because these are characteristic of adolescents in
general. Using adult norms would be a way to remind the
interpreter how adolescents differ from adults. What is cru-
cial is that the interpreter recalls that the normed scores
portray the respondent compared to individuals in the nor-
mative group. In some cases, comparing profiles based on
different sets of norms may be instructive: An adolescent
may be high in Excitement-Seeking compared to adults,
but score merely average compared to other adolescents.
Studies of personality development (McCrae & Costa,
2003) show that mean levels change very little in early
adolescence (age 12 to 18 years) and change quite gradu-
ally after age 30 years (Terracciano et ql., 2005). More
marked changes are found between age 18 and age 30.
There is no obvious way to divide up the lifespan to cre-
ate different normative groups. For adults, we have opted
to maintain the system used with the NEO PI-R, with
norms based on respondents (or targets of observer ratings)
age 21 years and older. In place of the college-age norms
used for the NEO PI-R, the NEO-PI-3 has adolescent
norms, based on respondents or targets age 14 to 20 years.
Means and standard deviations for these two groups are
given in Appendix B of this Professional Manual; these
norms form the basis for the Adolescent and Adult
NEO-PI-3 Profile Forms. Research on middle-school stu-
dents suggests that adolescent NEO-PI-3 norms are fully
appropriate for Form S and reasonable for Form R (Costa
et al., 2008).
Supplementary Norms
Appendix E of this Professional Manual provides addi-
tional normative information that may prove useful for
special purposes. These include (a) separate norms for
adults age 21 to 30 years and age 31 years and older, based
on subsets of the NEO-PI-3 Phase 2 sample; (b) interna-
tional norms for Form R of the NEO PI-R for college-age
and adult respondents; and (c) international norms for
Form R of the NEO-PI-3 for adolescents age 12 to 17
years. The former norms may be of particular interest to
researchers concerned with adult development; the latter
may be useful to cross-cultural researchers.
Percentiles
Traditionally, personality scores were often interpreted
in terms of percentile ranks as a way to compare an indi-
vidual's score to the distribution in a normative sample.
Percentiles are purely descriptive, and they are less often
used today; T scores and the associated ranges (Very Low,
Low, Average, High, and Very High) are normally used
for the NEO Inventories. For professionals accustomed to
interpreting scores as percentiles, Appendix F of this
Professional Manual offers a conversion chart: Determine
the individual's T score on a scale, using the appropriate
norms, and the chart provides the corresponding per-
centile. For example, a respondent with a T score of 62 on
N scores at the 88.5th percentile. Appendix F can be used
for any NEO scale expressed as a T score. The conversion
assumes that all NEO traits are normally distributed, which
is approximately true.
Abbreviated Administration
of the NEO-Pl-3
Researchers sometimes face severe time constraints in
administering a battery of tests, or they may deal with pop-
ulations whose capacity or willingness to respond to ques-
tions is limited. The NEO-FFI-3 was designed to provide
a brief measure of the five factors; its 60 items require only
about 5 minutes to complete. However, the NEO-FFI-3
does not provide information on specific facets. If a few
specific facets are hypothesized to be of importance,
researchers can obtain a license from PAR to reproduce
those items, perhaps as a supplement to the NEO-FFI-3.
However, researchers may wish to examine all 30
facets in a limited time. The NEO-PI-3 was designed to
accommodate this need: The first half of the instrument
can be administered to obtain estimates of all 30 facet
scores (cf. Morey, 1991). We strongly advise against this
procedure for routine use because the full instrument,
which can normally be completed in less than 30 minutes,
provides more reliable and valid measures.
McCrae and Costa (2007) conducted item analyses of
the NEO-PI-3 using the Form S data of the Phase 1 ado-
lescent sample. For each facet, multiple regression was
used to select the two positively and two negatively keyed
items that best predicted the full eight-item scale. Item
selection was cross-validated in the adolescent Form R
data and in the Phase 2 adult Form S data. Analyses of
Phase 3 middle school data suggested one change. The 120
items selected in this way are presented as items 1 to 120
in the NEO-PI-3.
Abbreviated administration is straightforward: Respond-
ents are simply instructed to stop after reaching item 120;
their facet raw scores are the sum of each facet's four
items, doubled. Researchers who are administering a bat-
tery of tests may wish to obtain a license from PAR to
reproduce only the first 120 NEO-PI-3 items.
Internal consistency of the four-item scales was pre-
dictably smaller than that of the full scales, particularly in
the middle school sample; the median value across sam-
ples and forms was .63. Equivalence coefficients between
the full and abbreviated administrations ranged from .94 to
.98 for the five domains and from .80 to .96 for the 30
facets (note that these values are inflated by shared error of
measurement because both instruments are scored from
the same set of responses). In the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sam-
ples, cross-observer correlations for the abbreviated
administration (using the full administration of the other
form as the criterion) were all statistically significant and
substantial in magnitude (Mdn = .42 for the 30 facets).
However, a comparison with the cross-observer correla-
tions of the full administration showed that the abbrevi-
ated scales accounted for only about 85% to 90% as much
variance (McCrae & Costa, 2007). Thus, shorter scales
yield reasonable, but not optimal, validity.
An analysis of means showed that standard NEO-PI-3
norms can be used to interpret the (doubled) four-item
scales. The results should be understood as estimates of
the T scores that the respondents would obtain if they com-
pleted the full instrument.
In addition to research contexts with limited time, the
scoring system for the abbreviated administration may be
of use when respondents fail to complete the full inven-
tory. If they have completed at least the first 120 items,
their full scores can be estimated by doubling the sum of
the first four items for each facet.
69
 Validation of the Inventories and Materials
Reliability and Stability
Internal consistency and test-retest reliability are the
most common indices of the reliability of tests and meas-
ures. Of these, internal consistency (coefficient alpha) is
the more commonly reported because it can easily be cal-
culated in any sample (John & Soto, 2007), but test-retest
reliability CNatson, 2004) may be more important (Mccrae,
Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2010).
Internal consistency can be roughly understood as the
degree to which items in a scale measure the same thing.
The implicit theory behind the construction of most scales,
including those of the NEO Inventories, is that individual
items tap some small aspect of the trait the scale is
designed to assess; by summing these items, a broader and
more reliable measure is obtained. If all items do, in fact,
measure the same trait, they should normally all be corre-
lated with each other. The average intercorrelation of
items-together with the number of items-determines
coefficient alpha.
Internal consistency for NEO-PI-3 Form S domains and
facets is given in Table 6, in the second data column (in
chapter 7 of this Professional Manual). These values range
from .89 to .93 for the five domains and from .54 to .83
(Mdn = .76) for the 30 facets. Similar, but slightly higher,
values were found for Form R (McCrae, Martin, et al.,
2005). These values are also somewhat higher than those
reported for the NEO PI-R (see Table 7) because item
replacement in the NEO-PI-3 was guided, in part, by con-
siderations of internal consistency.
One scale-04: Openness to Actions-has an internal
consistency (.54 for the NEO-PI-3, .58 for the NEO PI-R)
that would be considered problematic by conventional
rules of thumb. Yet there is a wealth of data that this scale
is stable (Terracciano, Costa, & McCrae, 2006), heritable
(Jang et al., 1998), and consensually valid (McCrae,
Martin, et al., 2005)-in short, that it shows all the char-
acteristics of a reliable and valid trait measure (see also
Tables 8 and 9, which appear later in this chapter). How
can a scale with low internal consistency be a valid
measure? The an~wer is probably that internal consistency
is determined in large part by redundancy: If many items
ask very similar questions, coefficient alpha will be high,
whether or not the scale is a good indicator of the trait.
Conversely, if a scale (like 04: Actions) includes varied
item content, but all items tap the same trait, it should show
high validity despite low internal consistency.
Test-retest reliability refers to the extent to which indi-
viduals approximate the same scores on two different occa-
sions. Good retest reliability is essential to measures of
personality traits, which are expected to show little change
over short intervals of time. Retest reliability sets an upper
limit to long-term stability because the observed scores at
the end of a longitudinal interval are affected both by retest
unreliability and by real change during the interval. There
is strong evidence that retest reliability also limits other
forms of validity: If scores on a scale change from day to
day, they are unlikely to be accurate indications of true trait
level on any one occasion (McCrae, Kurtz, et al., 2010).
There are no data on the retest reliability of NEO-PI-3
scales, but one study (Kurtz & Parrish, 2001) administered
the NEO PI-R to a sample of 132 students twice over a
1-week interval. The retest coefficients are reported in the
first data column in Tables 6 and 7. (NEO PI-R data are
used to estimate retest reliability for NEO-PI-3 scales
because of their near-equivalence.) These values range
from .91 to .93 for the five domains and from .70 to .91
(Mdn = .83) for the 30 facets. Note that retest reliability
for 04: Actions (rtt = .78) is relatively high. Modified esti-
mates of test-retest reliability for NEO facet scales (rus =
.72 to .89) that may be slightly more accurate are described
in McCrae, Kurtz, et al. (2010).
A number of studies have demonstrated the long-term
stability of NEO Inventory scales (Costa, Herbst, McCrae,
& Siegler, 2000; Costa & McCrae, 1988b). Terracciano
and colleagues (2006) reported 10-year stability coeffi-
cients for NEO PI-R scales in a sample of 676 men and
women initially age 30 to 89 years. Uncorrected retest cor-
relations ranged from .78 to .85 for the five domains and
from .57 to .82 (Mdn = .70) for the 30 facets. These values
71
demonstrate that the traits assessed by the NEO Inven-
tories are indeed enduring dispositions and that they are
likely to be useful predictors of criteria assessed many
years later (Costa & McCrae, 1985a).
There are no reports of short-term retest reliability for
Form R scales, but long-term stability coefficients are sim-
ilar to those found for Form S scales (Costa & McCrae,
1988b; 1992c), so it is reasonable to assume that retest reli-
ability coefficients are also similar.
7 and calculating factor and variable congruence coeffi-
cients. This procedure has been used in dozens of pub-
lished studies and has shown that the Five-Factor Model
structure of NEO Inventories is preserved across genders,
age groups, cultures, and methods of measurement
(e.g., Costa et al., 2008; De Fruyt et al., 2009; McCrae,
Terracciano, et al., 2005a). Appendix H of this Profes-
sional Manual gives SAS and SPSS programs for com-
paring factor structures to the matrix in Table 7.

Validity of the NEO Inventories

The NEO Factor Structure
The term validity refers broadly to the success with
The NEO Inventories are intended to represent the Five-
which a scale measures the construct it purports to. There
Factor Model of personality; one obvious test of their ade-
are many forms of validity. Content validity measures the
quacy is how well the internal structure corresponds to the
extent to which the test samples appropriately from the
predictions of this model. This can be examined on at least
range of characteristics it is intended to represent. In the
two levels. Costa, McCrae, et al. (1991) factored the 240
NEO-PI-3, content validity is addressed by identifying six
NEO PI-R items. When five varimax-rotated principal
distinct facets to sample each domain and by selecting
components were examined, they corresponded clearly to
nonredundant items to measure each facet. Criterion group
the five intended factors. Correlations between the item
validity measures the extent to which identifiable groups of
factor scores and the N, E, 0, A, and C domain scale scores
individuals differ in their mean scores in theoretically pre-
were .91, .89, .95, .95, and .89, respectively. McCrae and
dictable ways. The findings that patients in psychotherapy
Costa (2008a) conducted similar analyses on NEO-PI-3
score high on the Neuroticism domain score (e.g., T. Miller,
Form S data from 1,135 adults and adolescents and on
1991) and that drug abusers score low on the domains of
NEO PI-R Form R data from 12,156 adult and college-age
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Brooner et al.,
targets; they found convergent correlations between item
1991) provide some evidence of this type of validity for
factors and domain scores ranging from .84 to .95, and
NEO Inventory scales.
they found no discriminant correlation above .33.
Validity is not an absolute property of scales; their
Table 7 provides another demonstration of the struc-
validity can change in different samples and when used for
ture. The factor loadings in this table are based on corre-
different purposes. As measures of broad and basic per-
lations among the facets in the NEO PI-R normative
sonality traits, NEO PI-R scales ought to show evidence of
sample of 500 men and 500 women (Appendix Table G.l
validity in many ways and in many different samples; con-
of this Professional Manual gives the correlation matrix).
siderable evidence shows that they do. The most complete
Each facet scale has its highest loading on the intended
source of information on the validity of the NEO
factor, and, where large secondary loadings appear, they
Inventories is available in the online NEO bibliography,
are appropriate and meaningful. For example, N2: Angry
accessible at www.parinc.com, particularly in the Person-
Hostility has a large negative loading on A because hostile
ality Correlates section. In this section, we review some of
people are generally antagonistic. Likewise, A3: Altruism
the basic data providing evidence for the validity of the
has a strong secondary loading on E because it is difficult
NEO PI-R (and, thus, the NEO-PI-3) and some new evi-
for a person to be helpful to others if he or she avoids
dence specifically on the validity of the NEO-PI-3.
social contact. Factor scores calculated by the NEO
Software System Interpretive Report and the Professional Validity of the Five Factors
Report Service are based on the factor matrix in Table 7.
Although factor analyses reproduce the intended struc-
The factor structure in Table 7 has become the "gold ture of the NEO facets, it remains to be shown that these
standard" to which other factor analyses of the NEO factors actually measure the intended constructs. External
Inventories are compared. By comparing each new version evidence of validity is needed. A large number of studies
or translation to this original structure, criterion drift is have been conducted on this question. The Five-Factor
avoided; all versions of the NEO Inventories approximate Model was originally discovered in analyses of natural lan-
the same structure. McCrae and colleagues (1996) argued guage trait adjectives, and a number of adjective-based
that factor replicability is best assessed by rotating the new measures of the five factors have been proposed. Mccrae
structure to maximal alignment with the structure in Table and Costa (1985b, 1987) administered 80 bipolar adjective

72
 Table 7
Reliability and Normative Factor Structure of the NEO PI-R Form S
Reliability Factor0
Domains/Facets r} Cl
C
N E 0 A C
Domains
N: Neuroticism .91 .92
E: Extraversion .92 .89
0: Openness to Experience .93 .87
A: Agreeableness .92 .86
C: Conscientiousness .92 .90

Neuroticism (N) facets

Nl: Anxiety .85 .78 .81 .02 -.01 -.01 -.10
N2: Angry Hostility .83 .75 .63 -.03 .01 -.48 -.08
N3: Depression .90 .81 .80 -.10 .02 -.03 -.26
N4: Self-Consciousness .79 .68 .73 -.18 -.09 .04 -.16
N5: Impulsiveness .77 .70 .49 .35 .02 -.21 -.32
N6: Vulnerability .85 .77 .70 -.15 -.09 .04 -.38

Extraversion (E) facets

El: Warmth .86 .73 -.12 .66 .18 .38 .13
E2: Gregariousness .89 .72 -.18 .66 .04 .07 -.03
E3: Assertiveness .91 .77 -.32 .44 .23 -.32 .32
E4: Activity .78 .63 .04 .54 .16 -.27 .42
E5: Excitement-Seeking .78 .65 .00 .58 .11 -.38 -.06
E6: Positive Emotions .86 .73 -.04 .74 .19 .10 .10
Openness (0) facets
01: Fantasy .82 .76 .18 .18 .58 -.14 -.31
02: Aesthetics .91 .76 .14 .04 .73 .17 .14
03: Feelings .82 .66 .37 .41 .50 -.01 .12
04: Actions .78 .58 -.19 .22 .57 .04 -.04
05: Ideas .87 .80 -.15 -.01 .75 -.09 .16
06: Values .80 .67 -.13 .08 .49 -.07 -.15

Agreeableness (A) facets

Al: Trust .83 .79 -.35 .22 .15 .56 .03
A2: Straightforwardness .86 .71 -.03 -.15 -.11 .68 .24
A3: Altruism .75 .75 -.06 .52 -.05 .55 .27
A4: Compliance .83 .59 -.16 -.08 .00 .77 .01
A5: Modesty .86 .67 .19 -.12 -.18 .59 -.08
A6: Tender-Mindedness .70 .56 .04 .27 .13 .62 .00

Conscientiousness (C) facets

Cl: Competence .80 .67 -.41 .17 .13 .03 .64
C2: Order .90 .66 -.04 .06 -.19 .01 .70
C3: Dutifulness .75 .62 -.20 -.04 .01 .29 .68
C4: Achievement Striving .88 .67 -.09 .23 .15 -.13 .74
C5: Self-Discipline .83 .75 -.33 .17 -.08 .06 .75
C6: Deliberation .77 .71 -.23 -.28 -.04 .22 .57
Note. Adapted from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
Professional Manual (p. 44), by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR and
from J.E. Kurtz (personal communication, December 1, 2009). Adapted with permission.
'N = 1,000 for varimax-rotated principal component loadings. Loadings over .40 in absolute magnitude are given in bold-
face. bN =132. cN = 1,539.

73
scales to BLSA participants and their peer raters. When
factored, the five familiar factors appeared, showing strong
evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of the
NEO-PI factors. John (1989) asked judges to select items
from Gough and Heilbrun's (1983) Adjective Check List
(ACL) that would represent the five factors as they were
described in the literature; McCrae ( 1990b) summed these
adjectives to form five scales and showed convergent and
discriminant validity for both Form Sand Form R NEO-PI
factors. Goldberg (1989) created several alternative sets of
adjective definers of the five factors. In a student sample, all
of these were substantially correlated with the correspon-
ding NEO-PI domain and factor. Trapnell and Wiggins
(1990) expanded their measure of the interpersonal cir-
cumplex to measure the five factors, and showed strong
correlations between their adjective measures and NEO-PI
scales. Finally, Ostendorf (1990) administered a large set
of adjective scales to a German sample, recovered the same
five factors, and showed striking correlations between these
factors and his German translation of the NEO-PI scales in
both self-report and peer rating forms.
One of the most impressive demonstrations of the valid-
ity of the NEO PI-R domain scores as measures of the
Five-Factor Model is given in a meta-analysis of ques-
tionnaire measures by Markon et al. (2005). They com-
piled data on the correlations among scales from several
instruments assessing normal and abnormal personality
traits, including measures by Eysenck, Tellegen, Cloninger,
and Livesley. Their analyses showed that all these scales
could be subsumed by a five-factor structure that corre-
sponded closely to the Five-Factor Model, and NEO
domain scores were among the best definers of each of
these factors.
Convergent and Discriminant
Validity of the Facet Scales
Individual facet scales are intended to tap specific
aspects of the five broad factors. Of course, all the facets
in a domain are likely to share many correlates. For exam-
ple, all six NEO N facets are strongly correlated with the
Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck & Eysenck,
1964) Neuroticism scale, and all six E facets are corre-
lated with the EPI Extraversion scale (Costa & McCrae,
1986). But in order to be truly valuable for understanding
specific traits, each facet scale must also offer something
unique. As noted previously, item factor analyses within
each of the five domains show that the facet scales corre-
spond to distinct item factors (McCrae & Costa, 2008a).
However, they must also show differential relations with
external criteria, a pattern of appropriate and distinctive
correlates that gives evidence of both convergent and dis-
criminant validity.
74
Many publications have reported correlations with indi-
vidual facet scales that support this interpretation. For
example, Costa et al. (1984) showed that investigative
vocational interests were most highly correlated with 05:
Ideas, whereas artistic interests were most highly corre-
lated with 02: Aesthetics. Three studies systematically
examined the convergent and discriminant validity of all
30 NEO PI-R facet scales.
The first of these studies used the longitudinal data
archives of the BLSA and correlated each facet with 116
different scales from 12 different inventories (Costa &
McCrae, 1992:c). To summarize the findings, we identified
the highest correlates for each; five of these are presented
in Table 8 for each facet. These data provide strong evi-
dence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the
facets. Of the 150 correlations, 66 are greater than .50 in
absolute magnitude, despite the fact that the criterion
scales were all administered at a different time than the
NEO PI-R scales.
Evidence of convergent validity is seen in the fact that
NEO PI-R facet scales are correlated with alternative
measures of similar constructs. For example, Nl: Anxiety
is related to anxiety as measured by the State-Trait
Personality Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1979) and ten-
sion as measured by the Profile of Mood States (McNair,
Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971). Al: Trust is positively corre-
lated with the Trusting scale of the Interpersonal Style
Inventory (Lorr, 1986) and negatively correlated with the
Suspicion scale of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory
(Buss & Durkee, 1957). All 30 scales show substantial cor-
relations with appropriate criteria.
Discriminant validity is seen by contrasting the corre-
lates of different facets, particularly within the same
domain. Consider the Personality Research Form (PRF;
Jackson, 1984) correlates of the E facet scales. The PRF
Affiliation scale is related to El: Warmth and E2: Gre-
gariousness, PRF Dominance is related to E3: Assertive-
ness, PRF Harmavoidance is negatively related to E5:
Excitement-Seeking, and PRF Play is related to E6:
Positive Emotions. Table 8 provides further information
on the interpretation ofNEO PI-R facet scales.
A second study examined the 300 items of the ACL
(Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). The seven largest correlates
were identified for each of the 30 NEO PI-R facets (except
06: Values, for which only four large correlates were
found). These are given in Table 9. Once again, these cor-
relates show an appropriate and distinctive pattern that tes-
tifies to the discriminant validity of the facet scales. The
pattern is sufficiently clear so that in most cases, judges
could identify the facet scale solely on the basis of these
ACL correlates (McCrae & Costa, 1992).
 Table 8
Correlates of NEO PI-R Form S Facet Scales
Neuroticism facets Extraversion facets Openness facets Agreeableness facets Conscientiousness facets
Correlate r Correlate r Correlate r Correlate r Correlate r
Nl: Anxiety El: Warmth 01: Fantasy Al: Trust Cl: Competence
ISI Stable -.77 IASR Aloof-Introverted -.68 MBTI Intuition .43 ISI Trusting .68 CPI Ach. via Conformance .56
GZTS Emotional Stability -.60 PRF Affiliation .64 CPI Flexibility .42 CPI Tolerance .48 CPI Independence .49
STPI Anxiety .55 MBTI Introversion -.61 MBTI Perception .38 BDHI Suspicion -.46 ISI Orderly .43
POMS Tension .54 ISI Sociable .57 PRF Sentience .36 ISI Conscientious .40 POMS Depression -.43
MMPI Compulsive .51 GZTS Sociability .54 MMPI Borderline .34 GZTS Personal Relations .39 IASR Assured-Dominant .42
N2: Angry Hostility E2: Gregariousness 02: Aesthetics A2: Straightforwardness C2: Order
BDHI Irritability .65 ISI Sociable .75 SDS Artistic .56 IASR Arrogant-Calculating -.53 PRFOrder .71
ISI Tolerant -.65 MMPI Schizoid -.66 MBTI Intuition .56 CPI Self-Control .46 ISI Orderly .68
PRF Aggression .62 PRF Affiliation .64 PRF Sentience .54 MMPI Antisocial -.44 MBTI Perception -.44
STPI Hostility .60 MBTI Introversion -.59 PRF Understanding .45 PRF Aggression -.41 ISI Persistent .43
MMPI Borderline .47 GZTS Sociability .57 CPI Empathy .36 ISI Conscientious .39 MMPI Passive-Aggressive -.40
N3: Depression E3: Assertiveness 03: Feelings A3: Altruism C3: Dutifulness
STPI Anxiety .68 ISI Directive .73 PRF Sentience .44 IASR Warm-Agreeable .60 CPI Ach. via Conformance .43
ISI Stable -.61 IASR Assured-Dominant .69 CPI Empathy .42 IASR Aloof-Introverted -.48 MMPI Antisocial -.41
POMS Depression .58 CPI Dominance .69 CPI Self-Acceptance .39 ISI Nurturant .42 ISI Approval Seeldng .40
BDHI Irritability .55 PRF Dominance .64 GZTS Ascendance .37 POMS Friendliness .34 CPI Good Impression .39
MMPI Dependent .52 MBTI Introversion -.59 MBTI Feeling .33 CPI Femininity .34 PRF Endurance .37
N4: Self-Consciousness E4: Activity 04: Actions A4: Compliance C4: Achievement Striving
MMPI Avoidant .58 GZTS General Activity .67 PRFChange .56 BDHI Verbal Hostility -.63 PRF Achievement .59
STPI Anxiety .55 MBTI Introversion -.42 MBTI Intuition .53 ISI Tolerant .63 IASR Assured-Dominant .52
CPI Independence -.51 IASR Unassured-Submissive -.41 SSS Experience Seeking .43 PRF Aggression -.60 CPI Ach. via Conformance .49
IASR Assured-Dominant -.50 IASR Gregarious-Extraverted .41 CPI Flexibility .37 GZTS Friendliness .51 GZTS General Activity .47
ISI Stable -.50 CPI Self-Acceptance .39 MMPI Histrionic .37 CPI Self-Control .43 ISI Persistent .47
NS: Impulsiveness ES: Excitement-Seeking 05: Ideas AS: Modesty CS: Self-Discipline
CPI Self-Control -.46 PRF Harmavoidance -.46 PRF Understanding .67 IASR Unassuming-Ingenuous .36 ISI Orderly .58
GZTS Restraint -.43 ISI Deliberate -.43 MBTI Intuition .56 PRF Exhibition -.35 CPI Ach. via Conformance .57
MMPI Borderline .43 CPI Self-Control -.42 GZTS Thoughtfulness .46 ISI Directive -.33 ISI Persistent .51
BDHI Indirect Hostility .43 GZTS General Activity .41 STPI Curiosity .45 PRF Abasement <32 PRFOrder .47
ISI Deliberate -.42 MMPI Antisocial .40 SDS Investigative .43 CPI Social Pressure -.31 MMPI Passive-Aggressive -.44
N6: Vulnerability E6: Positive Emotions 06: Values A6: Tender-Mindedness C6: Deliberation
STPI Anxiety .62 IASR Gregarious-Extraverted .58 SSS Experience Seeking .46 ISI Nurturant .45 ISI Deliberate .64
ISI Stable -.58 MBTI Introversion -.51 ISI Rule Free .46 IASR Cold-hearted -.44 PRF Cognitive Structure .43
MMPI Dependent .52 PRFPlay .50 CPI Ach. via Independence .43 MBTI Feeling .39 ISI Orderly .41
POMS Tension .51 GZTS General Activity .49 CPI Flexibility .41 SDS Social .36 PRF Impulsivity -.41
IASR Assured-Dominant -.50 CPI Sociability .48 MBTI Intuition .39 PRF Nurturance .35 MBTI Perception -.39

Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 47), by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by
PAR. Reprinted with permission. For the PRF and CPI, correlations are given with NEO-PI facets and preliminary Agreeableness and Conscientiousness scales (Costa & McCrae, 1989b). All other correlations are
with NEO PI-R scales. Correlations with the GZTS are for men only; all other correlations are based on combined sex samples. All correlations are significant at p < .001. ISI = Interpersonal Style Inventory (Lorr, 1986),
N = 115. MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator continuous scales (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), N = 268. BDHI = Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957), N = 388. GZTS = Guilford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey (Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1976), N = 131. IASR = Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988), N = 221. SDS = Self-Directed Search (Holland,
1985), N = 208. STPI = State-Trait Personality Inventory (Spielberger, Jacobs, Crane, Russell, Westberry, Barker, et al., 1979), N = 246. MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Personality Disorder
Scales (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983), N = 170. POMS = Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971), "as you felt during the past week," N = 130. PRF = Personality Research Form (Jackson,
-..J 1984), N = 203-296. CPI= Revised California Personality Inventory (Gough, 1987), N = 216-348. SSS = Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1979), N = 217.
V't
 Table 9
Adjective Check List Correlates of NEC PI-R Facet Scales
NEO PI-R facet Adjective Check List items
Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety anxious, fearful, worrying, tense, nervous, -confident, -optimistic
N2: Angry Hostility anxious, irritable, impatient, excitable, moody, -gentle, tense
N3: Depression worrying, -contented, -confident, -self-confident, pessimistic, moody, anxious
N4: Self-Consciousness shy, -self-confident, timid, -confident, defensive, inhibited, anxious
N5: Impulsiveness moody, irritable, sarcastic, self-centered, loud, hasty, excitable
N6: Vulnerability -clear-thinking, -self-confident, -confident, anxious, -efficient, -alert, careless

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth friendly, warm, sociable, cheerful, -aloof, affectionate, outgoing
E2: Gregariousness sociable, outgoing, pleasure-seeking, -aloof, talkative, spontaneous, -withdrawn
E3: Assertiveness aggressive, -shy, assertive, self-confident, forceful, enthusiastic, confident
E4: Activity energetic, hurried, quick, determined, enthusiastic, aggressive, active
E5: Excitement-Seeking pleasure-seeking, daring, adventurous, charming, handsome, spunky, clever
E6: Positive Emotions enthusiastic, humorous, praising, spontaneous, pleasure-seeking, optimistic, jolly
Openness facets
01: Fantasy dreamy, imaginative, humorous, mischievous, idealistic, artistic, complicated
02: Aesthetics imaginative, artistic, original, enthusiastic, inventive, idealistic, versatile
03: Feelings excitable, spontaneous, insightful, imaginative, affectionate, talkative, outgoing
04: Actions interests wide, imaginative, adventurous, optimistic, -mild, talkative, versatile
05: Ideas idealistic, interests wide, inventive, curious, original, imaginative, insightful
06: Values -conservative, unconventi,;mal, -cautious, flirtatious
Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust forgiving, trusting, -suspicious, -wary, -pessimistic, peaceable, -hard-hearted
A2: Straightforwardness -complicated, -demanding, -clever, -flirtatious, -charming, -shrewd, -autocratic
A3: Altruism warm, soft-hearted, gentle, generous, kind, tolerant, -selfish
A4: Compliance -stubborn, -demanding, -headstrong, -impatient, -intolerant, -outspoken, -hard-hearted
A5: Modesty -show-off, -clever, -assertive, -argumentative, -self-confident, -aggressive, -idealistic
A6: Tender-Mindedness friendly, warm, sympathetic, soft-hearted, gentle, -unstable, kind
Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence efficient, self-confident, thorough, resourceful, confident, -confused, intelligent
C2: Order organized, thorough, efficient, precise, methodical, -absent-minded, -careless
C3: Dutifulness -defensive, -distractible, -careless, -lazy, thorough, -absent-minded, -fault-finding
C4: Achievement Striving thorough, ambitious, industrious, enterprising, determined, confident, persistent
C5: Self-Discipline organized, -lazy, efficient, -absent-minded, energetic, thorough, industrious
C6: Deliberation -hasty, -impulsive, -careless, -impatient, -immature, thorough, -moody

Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 49), by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R.
McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR. Reprinted with permission. Adjective Check List items adapted from Adjective Check List (Gough &
Heilbrun, 1983). Correlates are given in descending order of absolute magnitude; all are significant at p < .001, N = 305. Minus signs before adjectives indicate
negative correlations with the facet scale.

A similar design was used in a third study to evaluate
convergent and discriminant validity using the items of the
California Q-set (CQS; Block, 1961) from self-sorts by
380 men and women (Costa & McCrae, 1995). For exam-
ple, among NEO PI-R Conscientiousness facets, C2: Order
was uniquely associated with the CQS item "is fastidious;"
C3: Dutifulness was associated with "genuinely depend-
able, responsible;" and C4: Achievement Striving was
associated with "has high aspiration level." Given only a
list of its five highest CQS correlates, two judges were able
to correctly identify the corresponding NEO PI-R facet in
almost all cases (26 of 30 facets for one judge; 28 of 30
facets for the second).
Convergence with Sentence
Completion Measures
One recurring issue in personality assessment has been the
relative merits of structured instruments (like the NEO-PI-3)
versus less structured instruments (like the Thematic Apper-
ception Test [Murray, 1943] or sentence completion tests).
A study of the spontaneous self-concept offers some
insight into this problem (McCrae & Costa, 1988).

76
 The Twenty Statements Test (TST; Kuhn & McPartland,
1954) asks the respondent to give 20 different answers to
the question, "Who am I?" Responses are scored by con-
tent categories, which can include social roles, physical
characteristics, abilities, traits, life circumstances, and
activities and attitudes. In a study of men and women in the
Augmented Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
(ABLSA; see Appendix D of this Professional Manual),
about one quarter of the responses described personality
traits directly, and many others included trait information
as qualifiers ,of social roles (e.g., a loving mother, a duti-
ful employee).
After all 20 responses were read, global ratings on the
five personality domains were made by two independent
raters, blind to the NEO scores. The two raters agreed with
each other beyond chance (rs = .29 to .55, N = 120, p <
.001), and their combined ratings were significantly cor-
related with self-reports on corresponding NEO-PI factors
(rs = .24 to .40, N = 110, p < .05). Correlations with Form
R peer ratings of E, 0, and A also were significant, though
correlations with N and C were not.
These findings provide evidence for the construct valid-
ity of the NEO Inventories factors for both Form S and
Form R. Perhaps more interestingly, they can also be used
to assess the utility of the TST as an instrument for per-
sonality measurement. Although the open-ended format of
the TST may give greater opportunities to express unique
individual differences, these expressions are useful only
insofar as they communicate information about the self-
concept to others. The modest correlations between raters
suggest that TST responses are often ambiguous, even if
they do convey the gist of all five personality factors.
Although personality traits are reflected in measures of the
spontaneous self-concept, it would appear that more reli-
able and valid assessments are provided by questionnaire
measures like the NEO-PI-3.
An early study (McCrae & Costa, 1980) examined the
expression of Openness in Loevinger and Wessler' s (1970)
Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT).
Data for this study were gathered from male volunteers in
the Normative Aging Study (see Appendix D).
The WUSCT was intended to assess ego development
levels from completions of 20 sentence stems such as "My
main problem is ... " and "A man has a right to ... " Ego
development scored from this test was significantly,
though modestly, correlated with scores on an early ver-
sion of the O domain scale. To explore the expression of
openness more fully, the completions of 45 high O scorers
and 45 low O scorers were examined. Judges, who were
blind to O scores, were able to correctly classify most
cases on the basis of sentence completions, r = .66, N =
90,p < .001.
Some examples of the WUSCT responses illustrate the
construct of Openness. Closed men stated that "Crime and
delinquency could be prevented if... our judges were more
strict" and "Rules are ... there to obey." By contrast, open
men held more flexible views: "Rules are ... necessary,
but civil disobedience is one way to change them for
'progress.' "
Open men indicated an interest in experience through
their responses, wtth such completions as "What gets me
in trouble is ... my imagination" and "Men are lucky
because ... they have variety in their work." They also
showed greater cognitive complexity, with qualified
responses such as "When I am criticized .. .I try to remain
open-minded and not get defensive. It doesn't always
work, however."
These studies illustrate that the constructs measured by
the NEO-PI-3 are not merely responses to a questionnaire
that give an artificial picture of the individual. Instead, they
correspond to basic dispositions that are spontaneously
expressed by the individuals themselves when given the
opportunity.
Consensual Validation of NEO Inventory Traits
The data presented earlier in this chapter show that the
scales of the NEO Inventories correlate well with both
questionnaire and sentence completion measures of related
constructs. As important as this form of validation is, it is
limited in the respect that all the measures are self-reports.
Traditionally, many personality psychologists have dis-
trusted self-reports because they are, at least in principle,
susceptible to distortions from unconscious defenses,
response biases, and self-presentational strategies. Con-
temporary trait theorists are less concerned about the
impact of these potential biases (Nicholson & Hogan,
1990), and the NEO Inventories, in particular, have shown
themselves to be relatively impervious to socially desir-
able responding, at least in cooperative respondents
(McCrae & Costa, 1983b; Piedmont et al., 2000). How-
ever, it is certainly the case that self-reports depend on the
individual's self-concept; to the extent that an individual's
self-concept is distorted or inaccurate, the results of any
self-report questionnaire will be compromised.
For this reason, one of the cornerstones of the validation
program of the NEO Inventories has been a comparison of
self-reports with observer ratings (McCrae, 1982; McCrae
& Costa, 1987; McCrae, Costa, et al., 2005; McCrae,
Martin, & Costa, 2005). Because the observer ratings were
responses to Form R, the same results, viewed from a
77
different perspective, provide data on the validity of Form R
as well as on the validity of Form S.
It is essential to bear in mind the stringency of these
validity tests. When self-reports are correlated with
observer ratings, agreement may be lowered not only by
unreliability and any response biases affecting self-reports,
but also by unreliability and biases, like halo effects, that
influence the observer ratings. Perhaps more important,
personality traits may appear different to the individual,
who has knowledge of his or her own private thoughts,
feelings, and desires, than they appear to the observer
(McCrae, 1994a). For that reason, statistically significant
correlations across different observers are notable even
when quite small, and relatively large correlations-for
example, .50 or larger-are strong evidence of the con-
sensual validity of personality traits and of the utility of
the measures used (cf. Funder, 1989).
Early studies on the NEO-PI and its precursors showed
strong evidence of convergence between self-reports and
spouse ratings (McCrae, 1982) and between self-reports
and mean peer ratings (McCrae & Costa, 1987) in the
ABLSA sample and in smaller samples that were recruited
to study medical stressors and hypertension (McCrae &
Costa, 1985a). Muten (1991) reported correlations between
behavioral medicine patients' self-reports and their
spouses' ratings that ranged from .29 to .71 for the 23
domain and facet scales of the NEO-PI.
The first three columns of Table 10 present correlations
between several different kinds of observers for the five
domain and 30 facet scales of the NEO PI-R (Costa &
McCrae, 1992b; McCrae, 1994a). Agreement is seen
between different peer raters (calculated as an intraclass
correlation), between peer ratings and self-reports, and
between spouse ratings and self-reports. Very few subjects
had both peer and spouse ratings, but significant peer/
spouse correlations were still seen for N, r = .54; 0, r =
.44; and C, r = .35; all N = 37, p < .05.
Note that spouses' ratings tend to agree with self-reports
more strongly than do ratings by peers, perhaps because
spouses disclose more of themselves to each other than
they do to friends and neighbors. Higher correlations can
be obtained with peer ratings if multiple ratings are aggre-
gated. Four raters appears to be the optimal number; there
are diminishing returns from aggregating more raters
(McCrae & Costa, 1989d).
Cross-observer validation was an important considera-
tion in the development of the NEO-PI-3. The last two data
columns of Table 10 show cross-observer correlations for
NEO-PI-3 scales for 90 pairs of adolescent siblings and for
266 pairs of adults (spouses, friends, relatives) who rated
78
each other. All these correlations are significant and most
are substantial (Mdn rs= .44 for adolescents, .51 for adults).
Cross-Observer Discriminant Validity
The data in Table 10 speak only to the convergent valid-
ity of NEO Inventory scales across observers, but studies
also showed discriminant validity of the scales. In the first
study of N, E, and O facet scales, spouse ratings of spe-
cific facets correlated more highly with self-reports of the
same facet than with self-reports on any other facet in 16
of 18 cases (McCrae, 1982).
In a comparison of self-reports to single peer ratings on
all 30 NEO PI-R facet scales, we examined the median
convergent validity coefficients for the facet scales in each
domain (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). These values, which
are summarized from the second column in Table 10, are
.30, .40, .38, .31, and .34 for N, E, 0, A, and C, respec-
tively. Next, we considered what can be called "semi-con-
vergent" correlations-namely, the correlations of each
Form S facet with the Form R scales that represent differ-
ent facets of the same domain. For example, we correlated
peer rated Nl: Anxiety with self-reported N2: Angry
Hostility, N3: Depression, N4: Self-Consciousness, N5:
Impulsiveness, and N6: Vulnerability. For each domain
there are 30 such correlations, and the median values were
.20, .18, .21, .19, and .21 for N, E, 0, A, and C domains,
respectively. As we would expect, these values are smaller
than the true convergent correlations, but they are consis-
tently positive.
Finally, we calculated true discriminant correlations
between self-reports on facet scales in one domain with
peer ratings on facet scales in other domains and vice-
versa. There are 288 such discriminant correlations for
each domain. The median absolute correlations for the five
domains were .07, .10, .08, .09, and .08 (for N, E, 0, A,
and C, respectively). These correlations, which are close to
zero, provide clear evidence of the discriminant validity
of individual NEO facet scales.
Construct Validity: Predicting Other Criteria
Construct validity refers to the entire pattern of evi-
dence that a scale measures the construct it is intended to,
especially evidence of theoretically predictable correla-
tions with variables outside the domain it directly meas-
ures (in this case, personality traits). In this section, we
describe several studies that originally demonstrated the
theoretically appropriate predictive power of NEO PI-R
scales with respect to a variety of external criteria, includ-
ing psychological well-being, coping and defenses, needs
and motivation, Jungian types, interpersonal traits, and cre-
ativity and divergent thinking. These studies are included
 Table 10
Cross-Observer Correlations for the NEO Inventories
NEO PI-R NEO-Pl-3
Peer/ Peer/ Spouse/ Sibling/ Other/
Domains/Facets Peer0 Selfb Selfe Selfd Self•
Domains
N: Neuroticism .43*** .36*** .60*** .38*** .55***
E: Extraversion .42*** .44*** .73*** .60*** .65***
0: Openness to Experience .45*** .53*** .65*** .55*** .57***
A: Agreeableness .49*** .41 *** .62*** .47*** .58***
C: Conscientiousness .22** .40*** .34** .53*** .52***
Neuroticism (N) facets
Nl: Anxiety .30*** .35*** .66*** .40*** .51 ***
N2: Angry Hostility .42*** .34*** .61 *** .35*** .53***
N3: Depression .38*** .34*** .50*** .36*** .51 ***
N4: Self-Consciousness .27*** .26*** .32** .39*** .43***
N5: Impulsiveness .33*** .26*** .45*** .21 ** .42***
N6: Vulnerability .19** .25*** .34** .30*** .49***
Extraversion (E) facets
El: Warmth .37*** .33*** .58*** .44*** .58***
E2: Gregariousness .31 *** .33*** .67*** .51 *** .61 ***
E3: Assertiveness .40*** .50*** .57*** .44*** .56***
E4: Activity .41 *** .47*** .61 *** .51 *** .53***
E5: Excitement-Seeking .48*** .48*** .49*** .54*** .68***
E6: Positive Emotions .39*** .28*** .58*** .49*** .45***
Openness (0) facets
01: Fantasy .35*** .43*** .30* .34*** .40***
02: Aesthetics .45*** .52*** .60*** .59*** .57***
03: Feelings .15* .37*** .56*** .46*** .44***
04: Actions .36*** .36*** .56*** .29*** .42***
05: Ideas .37*** .38*** .53*** .47*** .59***
06: Values .48*** .35*** .74*** .44*** .51 ***
Agreeableness (A) facets
Al: Trust .43*** .16* .49*** .26*** .44***
A2: Straightforwardness .43*** .33*** .58*** .22** .39***
A3: Altruism .36*** .33*** .57*** .34*** .53***
A4: Compliance .54*** .47*** .59*** .51 *** .56***
A5: Modesty .21 ** .28*** .38*** .38*** .48***
A6: Tender-Mindedness .27*** .25*** .54*** .23** .48***
Conscientiousness (C) facets
Cl: Competence .25*** .26*** .28** .35*** .43***
C2: Order .19** .36*** .48*** .46*** .65***
C3: Dutifulness .20** .28*** .23 .46*** .44***
C4: Achievement Striving .33*** .42*** .44*** .43*** .48***
C5: Self-Discipline .12 .33*** .23 .43*** .46***
C6: Deliberation .20** .35*** .10 .52*** .44***
Note. Adapted from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO Pl-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
Professional Manual (p. 49), by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R. R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR.
Adapted from "The Counterpoint of Personality Assessment: Self-Reports and Observer Ratings," by R. R. McCrae,
1994a, Assessment, I, p. 159-173. Copyright 2004 by Sage. Adapted from "The NEO-PI-3: A More Readable Revised
NEO Personality Inventory," by R.R. McCrae, P. T. Costa, & T. A. Martin, 2005, Journal of Personality Assessment, 84,
p. 261-270. Copyright 2005 by Routledge. Adapted from "Age Trends and Age Norms for the NEO Personality Inventory-
3 in Adolescents and Adults," by R. R. McCrae, T. A. Martin, & P. T. Costa, Jr., 2005, Assessment, 12, p. 363-373.
Copyright 2005 by Sage. Adapted with permission.
•N = 193; correlations are intraclass correlations. bN = 250. 'N = 68. dN = 180. eN = 512.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

79
because they form an important basis of the current NEO
Interpretive Report.
Since the publication of the NEO PI-R, hundreds of
studies that offer additional evidence of construct validity
have been conducted (see the online NEO bibliography,
available at www.parinc.com). Neuroticism has been
shown to be a predictor of acculturative stress in Mexican
Americans (Mangold, Veraza, Kinkier, & Kinney, 2007).
Extraversion affects brain activation in response to happy
faces (Canli, Sivers, Whitfield, Gotlib, & Gabrieli, 2002).
Low Openness to Experience were found to be a powerful
determinant of racial and other forms of prejudice
(Ekehammar & Akrami, 2007). Agreeableness is, not
surprisingly, related to forgiveness (Ross, Cooper, Matters,
Wrobel, & Rye, 2004). Low Conscientiousness scores are
strongly related to adult ADHD (Nigg et al., 2002). Such
findings confirm and extend the original interpretation of
NEO scales.
Validity of the NEO·Pl-3
Because it was only recently developed, the NEO-PI-3
has fewer data that provide direct evidence on its construct
validity, but the available data are entirely consistent with
the view that the NEO-PI-3 maintains the validity of the
NEO PI-R. In the Phase 1 adolescent sample, we assessed
subjective well-being (SWB) and found it was predicted
(as hypothesized) by E, A, and C scores and low N scores
(rs = .17 to -.53, ps < .001); academic grades were pre-
dicted by C scores (r = .33, p < .001; cf. Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). Most of these correlations
remained significant when analyses were restricted to ado-
lescents age 14 to 17 years and to those who reported rel-
atively poorer grade-point averages (McCrae, Costa, et al.,
2005). In the Phase 3 middle school sample, SWB was
again related to E, A, C, and low N, in both Form S and
Form R data (absolute rs= .31 to .57, ps < .001; Costa
et al., 2008).
Basic Studies on the NEO PI-R
Psychological Well-Being
Researchers concerned with an empirical analysis of
human happiness have worked for a number of years with
a group of very similar constructs: morale, life satisfac-
tion, and subjective or psychological well-being. Using
measures of these constructs, it has been repeatedly shown
that happiness is not, in general, a direct result of the qual-
ity of life (Lawton, 1983). Instead, happiness seems to
reflect the individual's perception and evaluation of his or
her life situation. It is also clear from many studies that
positive feelings (e.g., joy, excitement, pride) are inde-
pendent of-rather than opposite of-negative feelings
(e.g., sadness, fear, resentment), and that global happiness
80
is related to the relative balance of these two classes of
feelings (Bradburn, 1969).
In 1980, we proposed a model of psychological well-
being that posited that positive affects were related to E,
that negative affects were related to N, and that happiness
was related to standing on both these traits (Costa &
McCrae, 1980a). Individuals high on both N and E are
highly emotional, experiencing both joy and despair,
whereas those who score low on both N and E are unemo-
tional. The happiest individuals are high on E and low on
N; the most unhappy individuals are those who are low on
E and high oii N-a pattern that characterizes some groups
of clinically depressed patients (e.g., Costa et al., 2005).
These predictions were confirmed using both self-reports
and spouse ratings on the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae,
1984). In addition, that study suggested that individuals
with high O scores tend to experience both more positive
and more negative affect; they were open to a wide range
of feelings. Similarly, in middle school children, the
NEO-PI-3 Openness to Feelings facet was positively asso-
ciated with both positive and negative affect scales (Costa
et al., 2008).
Another study replicated these findings and extended
them to include A and C (McCrae & Costa, 1991a).
Individuals with high A scores showed greater levels of
happiness and life satisfaction, perhaps because their gen-
erosity, love, and altruism led to more satisfying interper-
sonal relationships. Individuals with high C scores were
also happier, perhaps because their diligence and organi-
zation led to the achievement of their goals. The traits meas-
ured by the NEO Inventories (both Form S and Form R)
are relevant to the prediction of well-being in several dif-
ferent and complementary ways.
A recent meta-analysis based on scores of studies and
thousands of respondents has convincingly shown that
these findings are both strong and reliable (Steel et al.,
2008), particularly when personality is assessed by the
NEO Inventories.
Coping and Defenses
In the 1980s, coping processes were the focus of intense
research. Older conceptualizations often equated person-
ality with coping styles and left the impression that indi-
viduals relied exclusively on one characteristic strategy
(such as denial, positive thinking, or direct action) in cop-
ing with all stresses. Lazarus and colleagues (e.g., Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984) made it clear that all people use a wide
range of coping strategies, and that the particular coping
mechanisms chosen in a given instance depend on a vari-
ety of factors, especially on the demands and opportunities
of the situation (McCrae, 1984).
 But although coping is not determined solely by per-
sonality, it is certainly influenced by traits. In a study of
coping in the ABLSA, 27 coping mechanisms were corre-
lated with N, E, and O scales in two separate subsamples
(Mccrae & Costa, 1986b). A pattern ofreplicatedresults
showed some of the effects of personality on coping
processes. Most striking was the finding that many theo-
retically immature or neurotic coping mechanisms (includ-
ing escapist fantasy, indecisiveness, sedation, self-blame,
and hostile reactions) were significantly related to NEO-PI
N scores; it would appear that poor coping is intimately
tied to this domain.
Significant replicated effects were also seen for E and
0. Extraversion was related to the use of positive think-
ing, rational action, and restraint. Open men and women
more often used humor in facing their problems; closed
subjects relied on faith. Both humor and faith are consid-
ered to be relatively mature and healthy ways of dealing
with stress, so it would appear that differences in openness
lead to different, but equally effective, ways of coping.
Another study of ABLSA participants (Costa, Zonderman,
& McCrae, 1991) examined relations between all five
domains and three sets of measures of defense mechanisms
(Bond, Gardner, Christian, & Sigal, 1983; Haan, 1965;
Ihilevich & Gleser, 1986). Among other findings, N was
related to measures of regression, displacement, doubt, and
maladaptive action patterns, confirming the association of
N with poor coping styles. E was positively related to
denial and negatively related to doubt, reflecting the self-
assurance of extraverts. 0 was positively related to adap-
tive defenses, whereas A was negatively related to
image-distorting defenses (or superiority) and positively
related to self-sacrificing defenses. Finally, C was posi-
tively related to principalization and negatively related to
regression and maladaptive action pattern, suggesting a
mature style of coping that has also been reported by
Vickers et al. (1989). Most of these correlations were repli-
cated when personality was measured by Form R NEO-PI
ratings from either spouse or peers. These data show that
individuals' characteristic ways of dealing with stress and
conflict are consistent with their enduring personality traits
as measured by the NEO Inventories.
A subsequent analysis of individual coping items
showed expected patterns (Costa, Somerfield, & McCrae,
1996). For example, individuals high in O were likely to
report that they had been "inspired to do something cre-
ative" or "saw the humor" in a stressful situation; those
low in A "got mad at people who caused the problem."
Costa and colleagues created indices by summing the cop-
ing responses related to specific factors; spouse ratings of
N, 0, A, and C were significantly related to the corre-
sponding coping indices based on self-reports.
Needs and Motivation
Henry Murray's (1938) alphabetical list of needs has
formed the basis for a number of projective and objective
personality measures, including Jackson's PRF (1984), the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS; Edwards,
1959), and Gough and Heilbrun's ACL (1983) scales. In
three separate studies, the NEO-PI was administered to
college and adult samples that were also given one of these
inventories of needs (Costa & Mccrae, 1988a; Piedmont
et al., 1991; Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1992).
In a joint factor analysis of NEO-PI factors and PRF
scales (Costa & McCrae, 1988a), five factors were found
that were clearly identifiable as N, E, 0, A, and C. Each of
the PRF needs had at least one substantial loading, and
each one of the factors was marked by at least three PRF
scales (as well as the NEO-PI factor). Thus, the NEO-PI
traits and the PRF needs appear to tap a similar range and
scope of individual differences.
Substantively, the correlations made theoretical sense.
Individuals high in N worry about others' opinions of them
(i.e., PRF Social Recognition scale), are defensive and
guarded (PRF Defendence scale), and want care and sym-
pathy (PRF Succorance scale). Those who score high on E
have needs for social contact (PRF Affiliation), attention
(PRF Exhibition), and fun (PRF Play). Open individuals
appreciate variety (PRF Change), intellectual stimulation
(PRF Understanding), and aesthetic experiences (PRF
Sentience), and are adventurous (low on PRF Harm-
avoidance) and unconventional (PRF Autonomy). Indi-
viduals who score high on the NEO-PI A scale are not
domineering (PRF Dominance) or argumentative (PRF
Aggression); instead, they enjoy helping people (PRF
Nurturance) and tend to be self-effacing and apologetic
(PRF Abasement). Finally, high C scorers value organiza-
tion (PRF Order) and accomplishments (PRF Achieve-
ment) and are persistent (PRF Endurance), careful (low on
PRF Impulsivity), and deliberate (PRF Cognitive Structure).
Most of these findings have been replicated in a German
sample using translations of the NEO-PI and the PRF
(Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1989). Although Edwards (1959)
and Gough and Heilbrun (1983) conceptualized Murray's
needs somewhat differently, the same general pattern of
relations between NEO-PI traits and Murray's needs was
also seen when the EPPS and ACL were examined
(Piedmont et al., 1991, 1992).
Jungian Types
Jung's (1923/1971) Psychological Types was a land-
mark book that offered a way to integrate the insights of
depth psychology with the psychometric methods of dif-
ferential psychology. Jung described introversion and
extraversion, and personality psychologists soon began to
81
develop scales to measure these constructs (J.P. Guilford
& Guilford, 1934). Jung also pointed to individual differ-
ences in the use of thinking versus feeling and sensation
versus intuition.
The instrument most closely associated with these
Jungian types is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI;
Myers & Mccaulley, 1985). Although theorists (e.g.,
Coan, 1978) and psychometricians (e.g., Stricker & Ross,
1964) have sometimes been critical of the instrument, it
has become popular in many applied settings. Jungian type
codes are often reported and explained to the respondent,
and these descriptions of personality seem to be widely
accepted by respondents as being meaningful and valid.
In 1989, we argued that the MBTI may not accurately
represent Jungian theory, but that it does successfully
describe important aspects of personality (McCrae &
Costa, 1989b). As Dachowski (1987) noted, there are con-
ceptual similarities between the MBTI scales and four of
the five NEO-PI dimensions. Extraversion is similar in
both systems. Openness corresponds to the MBTI's scale
of Intuition (vs. Sensing). Agreeableness is akin to MBTI
Feeling (vs. Thinking), and Conscientiousness resembles
MBTI Judging (vs. Perceiving). Analyses of ABLSA data
confirmed these hypotheses in both men and women, using
both Form S and Form R versions of the NEO-PI. Note
that the MBTI system does not provide any measure
of neuroticism.
A major difference between the approaches of the
MBTI and the NEO Inventories is that, for the MBTI, peo-
ple are best understood in terms of discrete types (e.g.,
INTJ), whereas the NEO Inventories describe people in
terms of continuous dimensions. The issue of the relative
merits of traits versus types has received renewed atten-
tion (Asendorpf, Caspi, & Hofstee, 2002) with mixed
results (see McCrae et al., 2006). Everyone now admits
the utility of continuous trait models (Asendorpf, 2003),
though some also claim that type models offer a useful
supplementary perspective. Contemporary type models are
now based on and understood in terms of the dimensions
of the Five-Factor Model (e.g., Robins, John, Caspi,
Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996).
The NEO Style Graph Booklet provides a typological
approach to personality profile interpretation. See the
Utility and Use of the NEO Style Graphs section later in
this chapter for a discussion of this approach.
Interpersonal Traits
Since the 1950s, when it was popularized by Leary
(1957), the interpersonal circle, or circumplex, has been a
recurrent theme in psychiatry, social psychology, and per-
sonality assessment (Benjamin, 1974; Lorr & McNair,
82
1965; Wiggins, 1979). Many variations exist, but all fun-
damentally agree in arguing that the two axes of Love (or
affiliation) and Status (or dominance) define an interper-
sonal plane, and that complementary (e.g., leading and fol-
lowing) or opposing (e.g., loving and hating) social
behaviors can all be arranged in a consistent circular order
on this plane.
Social psychologists (e.g., Strong et al., 1988) are
directly concerned with these behaviors and the reactions
they elicit from others. Personality psychologists are pri-
marily interested in characterizing individuals with regard
to their pr~ferred form of social interaction. For example,
people who are often group leaders, who do not hesitate
to express their views, and who enjoy being the center of
attention can be described as "dominant" people.
Perhaps the best measure of the interpersonal circum-
plex is Wiggins' Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS;
Wiggins, 1995). Comparison of IAS scores and NEO-PI
or NEO PI-R scores in a sample of ABLSA subjects
showed a clear alignment of the interpersonal circle with
the Five-Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, in press; McCrae
& Costa, 1989d). The plane of the interpersonal circle is
defined by the two dimensions of Extraversion and
Agreeableness, though this identification is not immedi-
ately obvious because the E and A axes are located
between the Love and Status axes. That is, extraverts are
high on both Love and Status-both warm and assertive-
whereas agreeable people are high on Love but low on
Status-compassionate but modest.
Links with the IAS show that it is possible to estimate
location on the interpersonal circumplex from scores on
the E and A domain scales. In addition, facets of A and E,
such as Warmth, Assertiveness, Altruism, and Compli-
ance, provide direct measures of important interpersonal
traits. Costa and McCrae (in press) discuss the interper-
sonal implications of all five factors.
Openness, Creativity, and Divergent Thinking
People who are open to experience are imaginative,
unconventional, and curious-all traits associated with
creativity. But do they excel in the cognitive abilities that
distinguish creative thinking? This question was consid-
ered in a study of 268 men from the ABLSA sample who,
between 1959 and 1972, were given a series of measures
of divergent thinking abilities (McCrae, 1987). In contrast
to most ability tests, which require the respondent to pro-
vide a single, correct answer, divergent thinking tests ask
for a variety of possible responses, which are scored for
fluency, flexibility, and originality (J.P. Guilford, 1967).
Despite the lapse of many years between the measure-
ment of divergent thinking and personality, significant
correlations were seen between total divergent thinking
and NEO-PI O scores in self-reports (r = .39, N = 250,p <
.001), peer ratings (r = .41, N = 105,p < .001), and spouse
ratings (r = .29, N = 104,p < .01). Divergent thinking was
significantly associated with all six facets of O (rs = .17 to
.31) and remained significantly related to total Openness
even after controlling for age, Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (WAIS; Wechsler, 1955) vocabuiary score, and
years of education. In contrast, none of the other NEO-PI
domai~s was significantly related to divergent thinking.
Openness was also correlated with Gough's (1979)
Creative Personality Scale, a set of adjectives that had been
shown to characterize individuals judged to be creative in
their own fields. This association was replicated in women
from the ABLSA sample. Together, these findings support
the hypothesis that creativity is uniquely related to the
domain of Openness and provide construct validity for the
Openness scales of the NEO Inventories.
Develo(?ment and
Validation of the NEO-FFl-3
The NEO-FFI-R
The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1989) was developed
as a short version of the original NEO-PI, so item selection
was limited to a pool of 180 items. Parker and Stumpf
(1998) argued that the instrument might be improved if all
240 NEO PI-R items were considered for inclusion, and
Egan, Deary, and Austin (2000) criticized the itemetrics
of the instrument based on results from a British sample.
In response, we developed the Revised NEO-FFI
(NEO-FFI-R; McCrae & Costa, 2004).
To identify problematic items, we consulted eight pub-
lished item factor analyses, which included both self-report
and observer rating data, data from children and adults,
and translations of the NEO-FFI into German, Polish,
Czechoslovakian, and Slovak. Across these studies, seven
items consistently showed low loadings on their intended
factor. Two additional items from the A scale (which was
the weakest of the five) had relatively low loadings and
also were chosen for replacement. Five additional items
were targeted because they contained words that were dif-
ficult for adolescents (McCrae et al., 2002).
We selected replacements for these items from among
the 180 NEO PI-R items not already included in the NEO-
FFI. Twenty-five of the 180 items were eliminated because
they contained difficult words. Three criteria were used to
select replacements from the remaining pool of 155 items:
(a) replacement items were to be strongly correlated with
the appropriate NEO PI-R factor in each of two samples:
1,959 high school students and 1,492 adults; (b) no more
than eight items in each new NEO-FFI-R scale were to be
scored in the same direction; and (c), where possible,
facets underrepresented in the NEO-FFI were preferred to
diversify content. Of the 30 facets, 28 are represented in
the NEO-FFI-R (McCrae & Costa, 2004) .
Item factor analyses in the combined adolescent and
adult sample showed that the new items were indeed supe-
rior to the items they replaced in terms of factor loadings.
The old and new scales were essentially equivalent, with
correlations ranging from .87 (for A, where five of the 12
items were repla~ed) to .99. Internal consistency was
slightly improved for the E, 0, and A scales, especially for
high school respondents. Cross-observer and cross-instru-
ment validity coefficients were, on balance, unchanged;
both the NEO-FFI and the NEO-FFI-R demonstrated con-
struct validity.
The NEO-f Fl-3
One of the items in the NEO-FFI-R was dropped from
the NEO-PI-3, so a replacement item from the new
NEO-PI-3 was substituted to create the NEO-FFI-3. Some
of the items in the NEO-FFI-3 are keyed differently from
the items they replaced in the NEO-FFI, so scoring sheets
and programs designed for the NEO-FFI cannot be
applied to the NEO-FFI-3. The new instrument was scored
in Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 samples, and its psycho-
metric properties were analyzed in each separately. These
are summarized in Table 11.
As Table 11 shows, internal consistency estimates
ranged from .66 (in observer ratings of Openness in mid-
dle school children) to .88. Item factor analyses were con-
ducted separately for each sample and form, and factor
scores were calculated. Table 11 shows that these varimax-
rotated item factors corresponded closely to the domain
scores for adolescents and adults and reasonably well for
middle school students. Cross-observer correlations were
calculated for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 samples; the crite-
ria were the full, 48-item NEO-PI-3 domain scales for the
opposite form. These values ranged from .34 to .60. A
comparison of these values with those given in Table 10
for the full NEO-PI-3 scales shows that NEO-FFI-3 scales
have slightly lower consensual validity; they explain about
90% as much variance as the full scales. This is, of course,
understandable given their reduced length.
Equivalence coefficients given in Table 11 are the cor-
relations between the brief NEO-FFI-3 scales and the cor-
responding full NEO-PI-3 scales (i.e., using the same
form, the same respondents, and the same administration).
These range from .87 to .95 and show that the NEO-FFI-3
scales are good approximations of the full domain scales.
Validity evidence accumulated for NEO Inventory domain
83
 Table 11
Psychometric Characteristics of the NEO-FFl-3 in Three Samples
Form S Domain Form RDomain
Sample N E 0 A C N E 0 A C
Adolescent"
Coefficient alpha .82 .80 .78 .72 .83 .81 .79 .78 .82 .88
Factor/Scale correlation .96 .96 .95 .94 .97 .96 .96 .96 .94 .97
Cross-observer correlation .39 .57 .52 .45 .47 .34 .56 .49 .41 .50
Equivalence coefficient .91 .92 .93 .89 .92 .91 .92 .91 .92 .94

Adultb
Coefficient alpha .86 .79 .78 .79 .82 .86 .80 .77 .84 .88
Factor/Scale correlation .96 .95 .97 .95 .94 .95 .96 .94 .95 .96
Cross-observer correlation .52 .60 .50 .55 .49 .54 .60 .55 .52 .49
Equivalence coefficient .93 .90 .91 .91 .90 .93 .91 .90 .93 .93

Middle schoolc
Coefficient alpha .79 .76 .71 .76 .87 .75 .76 .66 .78 .87
Factor/Scale correlation .94 .91 .95 .83 .94 .81 .94 .89 .91 .90
Equivalence coefficient .92 .90 .88 .92 .94 .88 .90 .87 .91 .95
Note. Cross-observer correlations are between NEO-FFI-3 scales and corresponding NEO-PI-3 domains of the other form, Ns = 180 adolescents and 532 adults. All
correlations are significant at p < .001. Adapted from "Brief Versions of the NEO-PI-3," by R. R. McCrae & P. T. Costa, Jr., 2007, Journal of Individual Differences,
28, p. 118. Copyright 2007 by Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Adapted with permission.
"N =500. bN =635. cN =202 for Form S, N =222 for Form R.

scales (especially for the NEO-FFI scales) is likely to be
fully applicable to NEO-FFI-3 scales.
Short-term retest reliability has not been studied in the
NEO-FFI-3, but three studies examined the NEO-FFI.
Robins et al. (2001) reported 2-week test-retest correla-
tions of .89, .86, .88, .86, and .90 for N, E, 0, A, and C,
respectively, in a sample of 107 college students.
G. Murray, Rawlings, Allen, and Trinder (2003) reported
corresponding 6-month test-retest reliabilities of .80, .86,
.87, .80, and .85 in a sample of 462 Australian adults. A
subset (n = 208) of the college students who provided nor-
mative data on the NEO PI-R had completed the NEO-FFI
about 3 months previously. By scoring the NEO-FFI scales
from the NEO PI-R data, it was possible to estimate the
3-month test-retest reliability of NEO-FFI scales in a col-
lege sample. Coefficients were found to be .79, .79, .80,
.75, and .83 for N, E, 0, A, and C, respectively, p < .001
(Costa & McCrae, 1992b). These slightly lower values
reflect the fact that detectable true personality changes
occur during the college years.
Norms for the NEO-FFI-3 (see Appendix B of this
Professional Manual) are taken from the Phase 1 adoles-
cent and Phase 2 adult samples (McCrae & Costa, 2007);
the adolescent norms are applicable to respondents age 12
to 20 years. Additional norms for special groups (i.e.,
younger and older adults, all subjects, children age 12 to 13
years) are presented in McCrae and Costa (2007).
Validity of the Translated NEO Inventories
The NEO Inventories have been translated into more
than 50 languages and have been used extensively in
multi-national studies (e.g., McCrae, Terracciano, et al.,
2005a, 2005b). As shown in Table 2, several of these trans-
lations have been published, and evidence of the validity
of these versions is documented in their published manu-
als. In addition, however, there are many studies that pro-
vide evidence for the validity of unpublished translations .
Using the Italian version of the NEO PI-R, Sutin and col-
leagues (2009) showed that high N scores and low C
scores are associated with markers of inflammation. Allik,
Realo, Mottus, and Kuppens (2010) used an Estonian
translation of the NEO PI-R to examine self/other agree-
ment. Lodhi and Deo (2009) replicated age differences in
personality trait levels in a Marathi-speaking Indian sam-
ple. Such studies attest to both the universality of person-
ality and the validity of the NEO Inventories.
Evaluation of Your NEO Summary
When Your NEO Summary was introduced in 1989
(Costa & McCrae), the idea of giving personality feedback
to volunteers, especially to psychotherapy patients, was
controversial; many were worried that some respondents
would find the information disturbing. For that reason, we
conducted small-scale studies to evaluate the impact of

84
feedback; as detailed in the following section, they showed
no cause for concern. Since then, Your NEO Summary has
been given to tens of thousands of respondents, and, to the
best of our knowledge, there have never been serious
adverse consequences. Nevertheless, clinicians who use
Your NEO Summary or the Client Report provided by the
NEO Software System need to be ready to provide guid-
ance and support to clients who receive feedback.
Your NEO Summary was evaluated by 44 college stu-
dents who had taken the NEO-PI as part of a course on
personality theory (Costa & McCrae, 2008b). All the stu-
dents felt that the sheet was easy to understand. They
believed that the personality descriptions were "very accu-
rate" (48%) or "fairly accurate" (52%); none of the stu-
dents thought that the descriptions were "not very
accurate" or "inaccurate." For most students (61 %), Your
NEO Summary confirmed their self-image; the rest (39%)
believed they had learned something new about them-
selves. All of the students enjoyed receiving the feedback;
none felt it was disturbing. Two students indicated they
would like to discuss the results with a professional.
Your NEO Summary was also favorably received by
subjects in a large study conducted at Duke University.
Feedback to subjects also appeared to provide an incen-
tive to continued participation in the research project.
Critics (e.g., Dolliver, 1991) have pointed out that,
because of the "Barnum Effect," even meaningless feed-
back may seem appropriate to test takers if it is phrased
correctly. A validation study (Costa & McCrae, 2008b)
suggested that the information provided in Your NEO
Summary is, indeed, meaningful. A group of 77 college
students were given a blank Your NEO Summary sheet
and asked to select the description that should be given to
them for each factor. These 3-point ratings were then cor-
related with their actual scores on the NEO-PI. Correla-
tions between the expected and received descriptions
ranged from .24 to .60, all p < .05, These values are high
enough to demonstrate validity for the feedback informa-
tion, but low enough to show that global self-ratings would
be a poor substitute for NEO-PI-3 scales.
Utility and Use of the NEO Style Graphs
NEO Style Graphs were introduced in 1998 as a method
of providing feedback to respondents in industrial/organi-
zational contexts (Costa & McCrae, 1998a); only four fac-
tors (and thus six styles) were considered. Subsequently,
four more styles involving Neuroticism were defined and
became an optional part of the NEO Software System
Interpretive Report. Costa and Piedmont (2003) illustrated
the interpretation of all 10 styles in their case study of
Madeline G.
Styles are defined as combinations of pairs of factors.
For example, A and C define a Style of Character: People
who show the combination of high A and high C (A+, C+)
are called Effective Altruists, whereas those with the com-
bination of high A and low C (A+, C-) are considered
Well-Intentioned. Personality styles and the NEO Style
Graph Booklet call attention to particular aspects of life to
which two different factors are both relevant (as both
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are relevant to char-
acter). The other styles-Well-Being, Defense, Anger
Control, Impulse Control, Interests, Interactions, Activity,
Attitudes, and Learning-also clearly represent broad and
important areas of social and psychological functioning.
The original intention of the NEO Style Graph Booklet
was to provide feedback to supplement the simple infor-
mation provided by Your NEO Summary, so the style
labels and descriptions are phrased in lay terms. However,
styles have other uses as well. Clinicians or other profes-
sionals called on to understand or describe an individual
case may find attention to the NEO Style Graph Booklet
helpful (cf. Costa & Piedmont, 2003), as may researchers
conceptualizing group differences.
Styles also can be helpful in tailoring interventions to
specific personality profiles. An ingenious application of
this idea was provided by Kolanowski, Buettner, Costa,
and Litaker (2001), who used the NEO Style of Interests to
design recreational interventions for patients with demen-
tia. Personality was assessed using an adaptation of the
NEO-FFI for informants (typically caregivers) who
described the premorbid personality of the patient 10 years
prior to the onset of dementia. Ten patients were classified
as Mainstream Consumers (E+, 0-), Creative Interactors
(E+, O+), Introspectors (E-, O+), or Homebodies (E-, 0-
). In a treatment condition, patients were assigned an activ-
ity consistent with their style. For example, Creative
Interactors were asked to bring a photo and talk about it
with other patients; Homebodies made applesauce. In a
control condition, the same patients were assigned to an
activity inconsistent with their style (e.g., Homebodies
were asked to talk about photos). On each of 12 days,
patients were randomly assigned to treatment or control
conditions. Analyses showed that patients were more
engaged, displayed more positive affect, and showed
fewer dementia behaviors (e.g., aggression, agitation) on
treatment days when their activities matched their
personality style.
Styles can be considered types, but only in a purely
descriptive sense (Block & Ozer, 1982). We do not claim,
for example, that Effective Altruists and the Well-
Intentioned are qualitatively distinct groups of people. In
the original presentation of the NEO Style Graphs, we took
85
pains to point out that the boundaries between adjacent
types are blurred: "If respondents are located very close to
the horizontal or vertical axis, the descriptions for both
quadrants in their half of the circumplex may be reason-
ably accurate" (Costa & McCrae, 1998a, p. 6).
NEO styles can serve two functions for researchers.
First, they call attention to the possibility that there may
be statistical interactions between pairs of factors; this pos-
sibility should be routinely examined. Second, styles can
be used to interpret pairs of significant main effects, even
when there is no significant interaction.
Terracciano and Costa (2004) provided evidence of
true statistical interaction. They studied histories of ciga-
rette smoking in a sample of 1,638 adults and found sig-
nificant effects for N, A, and C: Individuals scoring high
in Neuroticism or low in Agreeableness or Conscien-
tiousness were more likely to smoke and less likely to
have quit. Next, they conducted discriminant analyses
(contrasting smokers, former smokers, and those who had
never smoked) that considered both main effects and
interactions among the five factors. In addition to the three
main effects, they found that smoking was associated with
the interaction of N and C, which they interpreted in terms
of the Style of Impulse Control: People with an Under-
controlled style (N+, C-) were especially likely to
be smokers.
A more subtle kind of interaction was reported by
Weiss and colleagues (2009). They looked at personality
traits and styles as predictors of the development of depres-
sion in 512 Medicare patients who had completed the
86
NEO-FFI. Only two factors-high N and low C-were
significant predictors in univariate analyses. But when the
10 styles were examined, certain combinations of Nor C
with other factors were also significant. For example,
patients high in both N and O (i.e., Hypersensitive) were
more likely to develop major depression, whereas those
low in N and high in A (i.e., Easy-Going) were least likely
to become depressed.
Because styles are not true types that identify qualita-
tively different groups of people, there is no reason to
expect that they will always yield statistically significant
interactions. However, when two main effects are identi-
fied, their interpretation may be clarified by considering
the style they jointly define. For example, Ironson and col-
leagues (2008) examined HIV disease progression in 104
patients who had completed the NEO PI-R. They analyzed
changes in CD4 count and viral load as a function of fac-
tors, facets, and NEO styles. High 0, E, and C were asso-
ciated with slower disease progression, as were several
styles: Creative Interactors, Upbeat Optimists, Welcomers,
Go-Getters, and Directed patients had better outcomes.
Homebodies had more rapid disease progression.
In that study, E and C were each predictors of slower
disease progression, so it is not surprising that Go-Getters,
who are defined by the combination of high E and high C,
also show a better prognosis. But the label "Go-Getters"
calls attention to the fact that these individuals are proac-
tive, efficient, and likely to take full advantage of social
and medical supports. The style may help explain the
mechanism by which E and C lead to better health.
 .9.
Directions for Future Research
The NEO Inventories have been the subject of exten-
sive research, as shown by the online NEO bibliography,
available at www.parinc.com, and by a special issue of the
journal Assessment (Costa & McCrae, 2000). However,
there is always more to be learned about an instrument and
its applications. Professionals who conduct studies with
the NEO-PI-3 or NEO-FFI-3 are encouraged to commu-
nicate with the authors. Informal comments on experience
with these instruments are also welcome.
McCrae and Sutin (2007) reviewed areas in which new
research is needed on the Five-Factor Model. Such research
also could speak to the validity and utility of the NEO
Inventories. They raised questions in a number of areas,
including psychotherapy research (e.g., Are there Trait x
Treatment interactions that make some therapies optimal
for clients with particular personality traits?), cross-cul-
tural research (e.g., How does acculturation affect the per-
sonality profiles of groups?), studies of the self (e.g., Do
traits moderate self-enhancement or self-verification
processes?), and studies of dyads and groups (e.g., How
do spouses with contrasting traits negotiate a marriage?).
They also noted possibilities for expanding the study of
personality and neuroimaging, examining the effects of
physician personality on medical treatment, and conduct-
ing analyses of literature and drama informed by the Five-
Factor Model. For example, would Shakespearean scholars
agree on their NEO-PI-3 ratings of Hamlet or King Lear,
and how might these personality profiles help explain the
actions of the characters?
There are currently no data on the short-term test-retest
reliability of either the NEO-PI-3 or the NEO-FFI-3,
although there is every reason to expect they will be com-
parable to their earlier versions. Short-term reliabilities
over a range of intervals (e.g., 1 day, 1 week, 1 month,
6 months) are likely to be very informative (Watson,
2004). In addition, retest reliabilities need to be docu-
mented for different age groups. Traits are less stable for
college students than for adults (Robins et al., 2001), but
are they also less reliable?
For a variety of purposes, practitioners may wish to
develop cutoff scores, weighted combinations of scales, or
profile configurations that can be used to select or screen
individuals or make specific predictions (e.g., J. D. Miller,
Bagby, Pilkonis, Reynolds, & Lynam, 2005). In a sense,
each of these applications of the NEO-PI-3 is like the cre-
ation of a new test, one that must itself be validated. By
beginning with the scales of the NEO-PI-3, however, the
likelihood of success is increased. These scales repre-
sent clearly conceived and reliably measured traits that
collectively sample the full range of human personality
and should facilitate the development of many fruitful
applications.
Psychopathology, Personality
Disorders, and Problems in Living
At the time of this Professional Manual's publication,
the newest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders-the DSM-V-was sched-
uled to be issued in 2013. One of the challenges faced by
the DSM-V concerns the personality disorders: Should the
current categorical diagnoses be retained, perhaps with
revision, or should a new, dimensional alternative replace
them? If so, how would its dimensions be used for
diagnosis?
Widiger and Trull (2007) have argued for the adoption
of a four-step process in which the first step would be per-
sonality assessment in terms of the Five-Factor Model and
its facets. A second step would identify problems in liv-
ing associated with salient personality traits. A third step
would determine whether the problems are sufficiently
severe to merit the diagnosis of a personality disorder, and
an optional fourth step would identify personality profile
patterns that may characterize the individual (e.g., histri-
onic, psychopathic).
We have reported an analysis of problems in living
associated with traits (McCrae, Lockenhoff, et al., 2005)
that forms the basis of the personality-related NEO
87
Problems in Living Checklist, and Mullins-Sweatt and
Widiger (2008) have shown that a subset of these prob-
lems are, in fact, related as hypothesized to specified
personality traits. Additional research examining the asso-
ciation of all the problems listed with their designated per-
sonality factors and facets would be helpful. Data on the
frequency of problems in clinical practice and their per-
ceived and judged severity would also contribute to more
focused problem assessment. Of course, research on the
most effective therapies for each problem or group of
problems is a continuing need in psychotherapy. Optimal
therapy is likely to be a complex function of the specific
problem, the personality profile of the client, and even the
personality of the therapist.
Research on the clinical utility and use of the four step
personality-traits-and-problems-in-living model may, if
conducted soon, contribute to decisions about how the
88
DSM-V will be structured. If a dimensional model akin to
that proposed by Widiger and Trull (2007) is adopted, such
research will be at the top of psychotherapy's research
agenda. If, however, the categorical model of personality
disorders is retained through another edition of the DSM,
this line of research will still be important to pursue. Most
individuals who seek help from psychiatrists, clinical psy-
chologists, counselors, and other mental health profes-
sionals do not have a clear personality disorder, but all of
them have personalities and problems in living. Person-
ality profiles obtained from the NEO-PI-3 are likely to
provide important information on the client's characteris-
tic ways of thinking and behavior, the problems to which
he or she is most susceptible, and the most compatible
forms of intervention. Research showing how to use this
information most effectively should prove useful for all
mental health professionals.
 References
Allik, J., Realo, A., Mottus, R., & Kuppens, P. (2010). General-
izability of self-other agreement from one personality trait
to another. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,
128-132.
American Educational Research Association, Amercian Psycho-
logical Association, & National Council on Measurement in
Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psycho-
logical testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Asendorpf, J. B. (2003). Head-to-head comparison of the pre-
dictive validity of personality types and dimensions. European
Journal of Personality, 17, 327-346.
Asendorpf, J.B., Caspi, A., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (Eds.). (2002).
Special issue: The puzzle of personality types. European
Journal of Personality, 16, [Special issue].
Association of Chief Psychologists with Ontario School Boards
(ACPOSB). Conversion table for derived scores. Retrieved
from http://www.acposb.on.ca/conversion.htm
Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., Livesley, W. J.,
Kennedy, S. H., Levitan, R. D., ... Young, L. T. (1999).
Replicating the five-factor model of personality in a psychi-
atric sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27,
1135-1139.
Baile, W. F., Bigelow, G., Burling, T., Rand, C., Gottlieb, S.,
Jerome, A., & Kolodner, K. (1984). Predictors of smoking
status six months after myocardial infarction (MI). Psycho-
somatic Medicine, 46, 285.
Baker, S. R., & Victor, J. B. (2003, August). Adolescent self-
reports ofpersonality and temperament: NEO PI-Rand TPQ.
Paper presented at the Xlth European Conference on
Developmental Psychology, Milan, Italy.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personal-
ity dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Bell, B., Rose, C. L., & Damon, A. (1972). The Normative
Aging Study: An interdisciplinary and longitudinal study of
health and aging. International Journal ofAging and Human
Development, 3, 5-17.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior.
Psychological Review, 81, 392-425.
Black, J. (2000). Personality testing and police selection: Utility
of the 'Big Five.' New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 29,
2-9.
Bliwise, D. L., Friedman, L., Nekich, J. C., & Yesavage, J. A.
(1995). Predictien of outcome in behaviorally-based insom-
nia treatments. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experi-
mental Psychiatry, 26, 17-23.
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment
and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Block, J., & Ozer, D. J. (1982). Two types of psychologists:
Remarks on the Mendelsohn, Weiss, and Feimer contribu-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,
1171-1181.
Bond, M., Gardner, S. T., Christian, J., & Sigal, J. J. (1983).
Empirical study of self-rated defense styles. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 40, 333-338.
Booth-Kewley, S., & Vickers, R.R., Jr. (1990). Personality and
health behavior: A lifestyle approach. Unpublished manu-
script, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center,
San Diego, CA.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1989). Untersuchungen zum
Ftinf-Factoren-Modell der persi:inlichkeit und seiner diagnos-
tishen Erfassung [Investigations of the Five-Factor Model of
personality and its assessment]. Zeitschrift fiir Differentielle
und Diagnostische Psychologie, 10, 239-251.
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-
being. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Briggs, S. R. (1989). The optimal level of measurement for per-
sonality constructs. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.),
Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging direc-
tions (pp. 246-260). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Brooner, R. K., Costa, P. T., Jr., Felch, L. J., Rousar, E. E.,
Bigelow, G. E., & Schmidt, C. W. (1991). The personality
dimensions of male and female drug abusers with and with-
out antisocial personality disorder. In L. S. Harris (Ed.),
Problems of drug dependence: Proceeding of the 53rd Annual
Scientific Meeting, Committee on Problems of Drug Depend-
ence. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Buss, A.H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing
different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
21, 343-349.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of
personality development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Camisa, K. M., Brockbrader, M. A., Lysaker, P., Rae, L. L.,
Brenner, C. A., & O'Donnell, B. F. (2005). Personality traits
in schizophrenia and related personality disorders. Psychiatry
Research, 133, 23-33.
89
Canli, T., Sivers, H., Whitfield, S. L., Gotlib, I. H., & Gabrieli,
J. D. E. (2002). Amygdala response to happy faces as a func-
tion ofExtraversion. Science, 296, 2191.
Carter, J. A., Herbst, J. H., Stoller, K. B., King, V. L., Kidorf,
M. S., Costa, P. T., Jr. ... Brooner, R. K. (2001). Short-term
stability of NEO-PI-R personality trait scores in opioid-
dependent outpatients. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
15, 255-260.
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of per-
sonality. Yonkers, NY: World Book.
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). The
handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cellar, D. F., Nelson, Z. C., York, C. M., & Bauer, C. (2001).
The Five-Factor Model and safety in the workplace:
Investigating the relationships between personality and acci-
dent involvement. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in
the Community, 22, 43-52.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality pre-
dicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudi-
nal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality,
37, 319-338.
Cheung, F. M., & Leung, K. (1998). Indigenous personality
measures: Chinese examples. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 233-248.
Clarkin, J. F., Hull, J. W., Cantor, J., & Sanderson, C. (1993).
Borderline personality disorder and personality traits: A com-
parison of SCID-11 BPD and NEO-PI. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 472-476.
Coan, R. W. (1978). [Review of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator].
In 0. K. Buros (Ed.), The eighth mental measurements year-
book (Vol. 1, pp. 973-975). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon
Press.
Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (Eds.). (1994). 16PF Fifth Edition
technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing.
Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Clinical use of the Five-Factor Model:
An introduction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57,
393-398.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Bagby, R. M., Herbst, J. H., & McCrae, R.R.
(2005). Personality self-reports are concurrently reliable and
valid during acute depressive episodes. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 89, 45-55.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Siegler, I. C.
(2000). Personality at midlife: Stability, intrinsic maturation,
and response to life events. Assessment, 7, 365-378.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1976). Age differences in
personality structure: A cluster analytic approach. Journal of
Gerontology, 31, 564-570.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1978). Objective personality
assessment. In M. Storandt, I. C. Siegler, & M. F. Elias
(Eds.), The clinical psychology of aging (pp. 119-143). New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
90
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1980a). Influence of Extra-
version and Neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy
and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 668-678.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1980b). Somatic complaints
in males as a function of age and Neuroticism: A longitudi-
nal analysis. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 3, 245-257.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1980c). Still stable after all
these years: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood
and old age. In P. B. Baltes & 0. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life
span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 65-102). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1984). Personality as a life-
long determinant of well-being. In C. Malatesta & C. Izard
(Eds.), Affective processes in adult development and aging
(pp. 141-157). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985a). Concurrent validation
after 20 years: Implications of personality stability for its
assessment. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.),
Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 31-54).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985b). Hypochondriasis,
neuroticism, and aging: When are somatic complaints
unfounded? American Psychologist, 40, 19-28.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985c). The NEO Personality
Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1986). Major contributions to
personality psychology. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.),
Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy (pp. 63-72, 86,
87). Philadelphia, PA: Palmer.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1987a). Neuroticism, somatic
complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite?
Journal of Personality, 55, 299-316.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1988a). From catalog to clas-
sification: Murray's needs and the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1988b). Personality in adult-
hood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse
ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PII
NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: PAR.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1990). Personality disorders
and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 4, 362-371.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992a). Normal personality
assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inven-
tory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13, 20-22.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
PAR.
Costa, P. T., Jr., &McCrae, R.R. (1992c). Trait psychology
comes of age. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska sympo-
sium on motivation: Psychology and aging (pp. 169-204).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1995). Domains and facets:
Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64,
21-50.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1997a). Longitudinal stabil-
ity of adult personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R.
Briggs (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality psychology (pp. 269-
290). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1997b). Stability and change
in personality assessment: The Revised NEO Personality
Inventory in the Year 2000. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 68, 86-94.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1998a). Manual supplement
for the NEO 4. Odessa, FL: PAR.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1998b). Six approaches to
the explication of facet-level traits: Examples from Conscien-
tiousness. European Journal of Personality, 12, 117-134.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Innovations in assess-
ment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Assessment, 7, 325-327.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2005). A Five-Factor Model
perspective on personality disorders. In S. Strack (Ed.),
Handbook of personology and psychopathology (pp. 257-
270). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2008a). The NEO
Inventories. In R. P. Archer & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Personality
assessment (pp. 213-246). New York, NY: Routledge/faylor
& Francis.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (2008b). The Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). In G. J. Boyle,
G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Sage handbook ofper-
sonality theory and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 179-198). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2009). The Five-Factor
Model and the NEO Inventories. In J. M. Butcher (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of personality and clinical assessment
(pp. 299-322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (in press). The Five-Factor
Model, Five-Factor Theory, and interpersonal psychology.
In S. Strack & L. M. Horowitz (Eds.), Handbook of inter-
personal psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dembroski, T. M. (1989).
Agreeableness vs. antagonism: Explication of a potential risk
factor for CHD. In A. W. Siegman & T. M. Dembroski
(Eds.), In search of coronary-prone behavior: Beyond Type
A (pp. 41-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet
scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A revision
of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 887-898.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984).
Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390-400.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R.R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons,
places, and personality: Career assessment using the Revised
NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3,
123-139.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Martin, T. A. (2008).
Incipient adult personality: The NEO-PI-3 in middle school-
aged children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
26, 71-89.
Costa, P. T., Jr., i'v;l;cCrae, R.R., Zonderman, A. B., Barbano,
H. E., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. M. (1986). Cross-sectional
studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stability of
Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness. Psychology and
Aging, I, 144-149.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & Piedmont, R. L. (2003). Multivariate assess-
ment: NEO PI-R profiles of Madeline G. In J. S. Wiggins
(Ed.), Paradigms of personality assessment (pp. 262-280).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (1996).
Personality and coping: A reconceptualization. In M. Zeidner
& N. M. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping (pp. 44-61). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001).
Gender differences in personality traits across cultures:
Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds.). (2002). Personality
disorders and the Five-Factor Model ofpersonality (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Zonderman, A. B., & McCrae, R. R. (1991).
Personality, defense, coping, and adaptation in older adult-
hood. In E. M. Cummings, A. L. Greene, & K. H. Karraker
(Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Perspectives on
stress and coping (pp. 277-293). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dachowski, M. M. (1987). A convergence of the tender-minded
and the tough-minded? American Psychologist, 42, 886-887.
De Clercq, B., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). Personality disorder symp-
toms in adolescence: A Five-Factor Model perspective.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 269-292.
De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A.,
Costa, P. T., Jr., & Collaborators of the Adolescent Person-
ality Profiles of Cultures Project (2009). Assessing the uni-
versal structure of personality in early adolescence: The
NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24 cultures. Assessment, 16,
301-311.
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1997). The Five-Factor Model of
personality and Holland's RIASEC interest types. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 23, 87-103.
De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Hoekstra, H. A., & Rolland, J.-P.
(2000). Assessing adolescents' personality with the NEO PI-R.
Assessment, 7, 329-345.
91
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the
Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417-440.
Digman, J.M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the
natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and
interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 16, 149-170.
Dinzeo, T. J., & Docherty, N. M. (2007). Normal personality
characteristics in schizophrenia: A review of the literature
involving the FFM. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
195, 421-429.
Dolliver, R.H. (1991). "I am from Missouri: You have got to
show me": A response to McCrae and Costa. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 69, 373-374.
Dyce, J. A., & O'Connor, B. P. (1998). Personality disorders
and the Five-Factor Model: A test of facet-level predictions.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 31-45.
Dye, D. A. (1991 ). Construct validity of the Individual Achieve-
ment Record: Phase II-A clarification of the underlying fac-
tors (Technical Report PRD-91-04). Washington, DC: Office
of Personnel Management.
Edwards, A. L. (1959). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
manual. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.
Egan, V., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: Emerg-
ing British norms and an item-level analysis suggest N, A,
and C are more reliable than O and E. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 907-920.
Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2007). Personality and preju-
dice: From Big Five personality factors to facets. Journal of
Personality, 75, 899-925.
Eysenck, H.J., Barrett, P., Wilson, G.D., & Jackson, C. (1992).
Primary trait measurement of the 21 components of the
P-E-N system. European Journal of Personality Assessment,
8, 109-117.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the
Eysenck Personality Inventory. London, England: University
of London Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London, England: Hodder
and Stoughton.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A.H. (1975). Public and
private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-528.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of
personality ratings from different sources. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Frayling, T. M., Timpson, J. J., Weedon, M. N., Zeggini, E.,
Freathy, R. M., Lindgren, C. M .... McCarthy, M. I. (2007).
A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body
mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity.
Science, 316, 889-894.
92
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz,
J. E., Wingard, D. L., & Criqui, M. H. (1993). Does child-
hood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65, 176-185.
Funder, D. C. (1989). Accuracy in personality judgment and the
dancing bear. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality
psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 210-
223). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Fumham, A., & Fudge, C. (2008). The Five-Factor Model of
personality and sales performance. Journal of Individual
Differences, 29, 11-26.
Glosser, G., Clark, C., Freundlich, B., Kliner-Krenzel, L.,
Flaherty, P\ & Stem, M. (1995). A controlled investigation
of current and premorbid personality: Characteristics of
Parkinson's disease patients. Movement Disorders, IO,
201-206.
Goldberg, L. R. (1989, June). Standard markers of the Big Five
factor structure. Paper presented at the First International
Workshop on Personality Language, Groningen, The
Netherlands.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the
Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 1398-1405.
Gough, H. G. (1987). CPI administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1983). Adjective Check
List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gratzinger, P., Sheikh, J. I., Friedman, L., & Yesavage, J. A.
(1990). Cognitive interventions to improve face-name recall:
The role of personality trait differences. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 889-893.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J.P., & Guilford, R. B. (1934). An analysis of the fac-
tors in a typical test of introversion-extroversion. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 377-399.
Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilford, J.P. (1976). The
Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Handbook:
Twenty-five years of research and application. San Diego,
CA: EdITS.
Haan, N. (1965). Coping and defense mechanisms related to per-
sonality inventories. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29,
373-378.
Hammond, M. S. (2001). The use of the Five-Factor Model as a
tool in career counseling. Journal of Career Development,
27, 153-165.
Hampson, S. E. (1989, June). Reconciling inconsistent informa-
tion: Impressions ofpersonality from combinations of traits.
Paper presented at the First International Workshop on
Personality Language, University of Groningen, Groningen,
The Netherlands.
Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (2002). Implications of per-
sonality individual differences science for clinical work on
personality disorders. In P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger
(Eds.), Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model of
personality (2nd ed., pp. 391-403). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Harwood, T. M., Beutler, L. E., & Groth-Marnat, G. (in press).
Integrative assessment of adult personality (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hase, H. D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1967). The comparative valid-
ity of different strategies of deriving personality inventory
scales. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 231-248.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J.C. (1983). Manual for admin-
istering and scoring of the Minnesota Multiphasic Person-
ality Inventory (MMPI). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems.
Heine, S. J., Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do
cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us?: The
case of Conscientiousness. Psychological Science, 19,
309-313.
Hill, C. E., Diemer, R. A., & Heaton, K. J. (1997). Dream inter-
pretation sessions: Who volunteers, who benefits, and what
volunteer clients view as most and least helpful. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 44, 53-62.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R.R. (2004). Personality and culture
revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-
Cultural Research, 38, 52-88.
Holland, J. L. (1985a). Making vocational choices: A theory of
vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.).
Odessa, FL: PAR.
Holland, J. L. (1985b). Self-Directed Search 1985 edition.
Odessa, FL: PAR.
Holland, J. L., & Nichols, R. C. (1964). The development and
validation of an Indecision scale: The natural history of a
problem in basic research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
11, 27-34.
Hooker, K., Monahan, D., Shifrin, K., & Hutchinson, C. (1992).
Mental and physical health of spouse caregivers: The role of
personality. Psychology and Aging, 7, 367-375.
Homey, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of
neurosis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L.
(2000). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64/IIP-32)
professional manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Ihilevich, D., & Gleser, G. C. (1986). Defense mechanisms:
Their classification, correlates, and measurement with the
Defense Mechanism Inventory. Owosso, MI: DMI Associates.
Ironson, G. H., O'Cleirigh, C., Weiss, A., Schneiderman, N., &
Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). Personality and HIV disease pro-
gression: Role of NEO PI-R Openness, Extraversion, and
profiles of engagement. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70,
245-253.
Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd
ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.
Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P.A. (1996). Heritability
of the Big Five personality dimensions and their facets: A
twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 575-59I.
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.
John, 0. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descrip-
tors. In D. M. ~uss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychol-
ogy: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261-271).
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
John, 0. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimen-
sions of personality in the natural language and in question-
naires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory
and research (pp. 66-100). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
John, 0. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical
approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxo-
nomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171-203.
John, 0. P., Naumann, L., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift
to the integrative Big Five taxonomy: Discovery, measure-
ment, and conceptual issues. In 0. P. John, R. W. Robins &
L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (3rd ed., pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
John, 0. P., & Soto, C. J. (2007). The importance of being valid:
Reliability and the process of construct validation. In R. W.
Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of
research methods in personality psychology (pp. 461-494).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Johnson, J. A. (1981). The "self-disclosure" and "self-presenta-
tion" views of item response dynamics and personality scale
validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
761-769.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of per-
sonality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 751-765.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (H. G. Baynes, Trans.,
rev. by R. F. C. Hull). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. (Original work published 1923)
Kolanowski, A. M., Buettner, L., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Litaker,
M. S. (2001). Capturing interests: Therapeutic recreation
activities for persons with dementia. Therapeutic Recreation
Journal, 35, 220-235.
Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C.R. (1996). Comparing
the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowl-
edgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64, 311-337.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical inves-
tigation of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19,
68-76.
93
Kurtz, J.E., & Parrish, C. L. (2001). Semantic response consis-
tency and protocol validity in structured personality assess-
ment: The case of the NEO PI-R. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 76, 315-332.
Kurtz, J. E., & Sherker, J. L. (2003). Relationship quality, trait
similarity, and self-other agreement on personality traits in
college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71, 21-48.
Lawton, M. P. (1983). The varieties of well-being. Experimental
Aging Research, 9, 65-72.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New
York, NY: Ronald Press.
LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange perform-
ance: Effects of team composition in terms of members' cog-
nitive ability and personality. Journal ofApplied Psychology,
88, 27-39.
Little, B. R., Lecci, L., & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and
personal projects: Linking Big Five and PAC unity of analy-
sis. Journal of Personality, 60, 501-525.
Lodhi, P.H., & Deo, S. (2009). Personality of the aged persons:
Some lessons from research on adults. In F. M. Sahoo (Ed.),
Behavioural issues in ageing: Care, concern and commit-
ment (pp. 129-140). New Delhi, India: Concept.
Loevinger, J., &Wessler, K. (1970). Measuring ego development
I: Construction and use of a sentence completion test. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lonky, E., Kaus, C.R., & Roodin, P.A. (1984). Life experience
and mode of coping: Relation to moral judgment in adult-
hood. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1159-1167.
Lonnqvist, J.-E., Paunonen, S. V., Tuulio-Henriksson, A.,
Lonnqvist, J., & Verkasalo, M. (2007). Substance and style
in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality, 75,
291-322.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & ten Berge, J.M. F. (2006). Tucker's con-
gruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similar-
ity. Methodology, 2, 57-64.
Lorr, M. (1986). Interpersonal Style Inventory (ISi) manual. Los
Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1965). Expansion of the interper-
sonal behavior circle. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 2, 823-830.
Mangold, D. L., Veraza, R., Kinkler, L., & Kinney, N. A. (2007).
Neuroticism predicts acculturative stress in Mexican
American college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 29, 366-382.
Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., Tinsley, B. J., & Ericksen, A. J.
(2002). A preliminary validation of preadolescents' self-
reports using the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal
of Research in Personality, 36, 173-181.
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating
the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An inte-
grative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 139-157.
94
McCrae, R. R. (1982). Consensual validation of personality
traits: Evidence from self-reports and ratings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 293-303.
McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping
responses: Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46, 919-928.
McCrae, R.R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and Open-
ness to Experience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 1258-1265.
McCrae, R.R. (1990a). Controlling Neuroticism in the meas-
urement of stress. Stress Medicine, 6, 237-241.
McCrae, R. R-. (1990b). Traits and trait names: How well is
Openness represented in natural languages? European
Journal of Personality, 4, 119-129.
McCrae, R. R. (1993). Agreement of personality profiles across
observers. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 13-28.
McCrae, R.R. (1994a). The counterpoint of personality assess-
ment: Self-reports and observer ratings. Assessment, 1,
159-172.
McCrae, R.R. (1994b). Openness to Experience: Expanding the
boundaries of Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8,
251-272.
McCrae, R.R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential open-
ness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323-337.
McCrae, R.R. (2002). NEO PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further
intercultural comparisons. In R.R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.),
The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures
(pp. 105-125). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
McCrae, R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of
Openness to Experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 5-11.
McCrae, R. R. (2009). The Five-Factor Model of personality
traits: Consensus and controversy. In P. Corr & G. Matthews
(Eds.), The Cambridge University Press handbook of per-
sonality (pp. 148-161). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1980). Openness to
Experience and ego level in Loevinger' s sentence comple-
tion test: Dispositional contributions to developmental
models of personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 1179-1190.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983a). Joint factors in self-
reports and ratings: Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness
to Experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 4,
245-255.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983b). Social desirability
scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985a). Openness to Experi-
ence. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in per-
sonality (Vol. 1, pp. 145-172). Greenwich, CT: JAi Press.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985b). Updating Norman's
"adequate taxonomy:" Intelligence and personality dimen-
sions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986a). Clinical assessment
can benefit from recent advances in personality psychology.
American Psychologist, 41, 1001-1010.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986b). Personality, coping,
and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of
Personality, 54, 385-405.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-
Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1988). Age, personality, and
the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Gerontology: Social
Sciences, 43, S177-S185.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989a). Different points of
view: Self-reports and ratings in the assessment of personal-
ity. In J.P. Forgas & M. J. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in
social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 429-439).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989b). Reinterpreting the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the
Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57,
17-40.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989c). Rotation to maxi-
mize the construct validity of factors in the NEO Personality
Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 107-124.
Mccrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989d). The structure of inter-
personal traits: Wiggins' circumplex and the Five-Factor
Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
586-595.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adult-
hood. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991a). Adding Liebe und
Arbeit: The full Five-Factor Model and well-being. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991b). The NEO Personality
Inventory: Using the Five-Factor Model in counseling.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 367-372,
375-376.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1992). Discriminant validity
of NEO PI-R facet scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 52, 229-237.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997a). Conceptions and cor-
relates of Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A.
Johnson & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality psy-
chology (pp. 825-847). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997b). Personality trait
structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52,
509-516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adult-
hood: A Five-Factor Theory perspective (2nd. ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). A contemplated revi-
sion of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 587-596.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2006). Cross-cultural
perspectives on adult personality trait development. In
D. Mroczek & T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality
development (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2007). Brief versions of the
NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 116-128.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008a). Empirical and theo-
retical status of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits. In
G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Sage hand-
book of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 273-
294). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
McCrae, R. R., &, Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008b ). The Five-Factor
Theory of personality. In 0. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L.A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 159-181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Busch, C. M. (1986).
Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The
California Q-Set and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of
Personality, 54, 430-446.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Dahlstrom, W. G., Barefoot,
J.C., Siegler, I. C., & Williams, R. B., Jr. (1989). A caution
on the use of the MMPI K-correction in research on psycho-
somatic medicine. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 58-65.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Lima, M. P., Simoes, A.,
Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., ... Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Age
differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels
in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466-477.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The
NEO-PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality
Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261-270.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E.,
Rukavishnikov, A. A., Serrin, I. G .... Urbanek, T. (2004).
Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures.
Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 179-201.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E.,
Serrin, I. G., & O'Cleirigh, C. (2007). Personality correlates
of HIV stigmatization in Russia and the United States.
Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 190-196.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D.,
Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality
trait development from 12 to 18: Longitudinal, cross-
sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 1456-1468.
McCrae, R. R., Harwood, T. M., & Griffeth, S. (in press). The
NEO-PI-3. In T. M. Harwood, L. E. Beutler & G. Groth-
Marnat (Eds.), Integrative assessment of adult personality
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R.R., Herbst, J. H., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2001). Effects
of acquiescence on personality factor structures. In R. Riemann,
F. Ostendorf & F. Spinath (Eds.), Personality and tempera-
ment: Genetics, evolution, and structure (pp. 217-231). Berlin,
Germany: Pabst Science.
95
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A.
(2010). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their impli-
cations for personality scale validity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/
1088868310366253
McCrae, R.R., & Lockenhoff, C. E. (2010). Self-regulation and
the Five-Factor Model of personality traits. In R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), The handbook of self-regulation and personality (pp.
145-168). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
McCrae, R. R., Lockenhoff, C. E., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). A
step towards DSM-V: Cataloging personality-related prob-
lems in living. European Journal of Personality, 19, 269-270.
McCrae, R. R., Martin, T. A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Age
trends and age norms for the NEO Personality Inventory-3
in adolescents and adults. Assessment, 12, 363-373.
McCrae, R. R., Stone, S. V., Fagan, P. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr.
(1998). Identifying causes of disagreement between self-
reports and spouse ratings of personality. Journal of
Personality, 66, 285-313.
McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2007). New frontiers for the
Five-Factor Model: A preview of the literature. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 423-440.
McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to Experience.
In M. R. Leary & R.H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individ-
ual differences in social behavior (pp. 257-273). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the
Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005a). Universal
features of personality traits from the observer's perspective:
Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 547-561.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the
Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005b ). Personality
profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407-425.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Ozer, D. J.
(2006). Person-factors in the California Adult Q-Set: Closing
the door on personality trait types? European Journal of
Personality, 20, 29-44.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M.,
Gelfand, M. J., Costa, P. T., Jr., & 42 Collaborators of the
Adolescent Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2010).
The validity and structure of culture-level personality scores:
Data from ratings of young adolescents. Journal of
Personality, 78, 815-838.
McCrae, R. R., & Weiss, A. (2007). Observer ratings of per-
sonality. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley & R. F. Krueger
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psy-
chology (pp. 259-272). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R.R., Yamagata, S., Jang, K. L., Riemann, R., Ando,
J., Ono, Y., ... Spinath, F. M. (2008). Substance and artifact
in the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 442-455.
96
McCrae, R. R., Yang, J., Costa, P. T., Jr., Dai, X., Yao, S.,
Cai, T., & Gao, B. (2001). Personality profiles and the pre-
diction of categorical personality disorders. Journal of
Personality, 69, 155-174.
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., Bond,
M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of
factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirma-
tory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566.
McCullough, L., Farrell, A. D., & Longabaugh, R. (1986). The
development of a microcomputer-based mental health infor-
mation system: A potential tool for bridging the scientist-
practitioner gap. American Psychologist, 41, 207-214.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). EdITS
manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego, CA:
EdlTS.
McReynolds, P. (1989). Diagnosis and clinical assessment:
Current status and major issues. Annual Review of Psychology,
40, 83-108.
Miller, J. D., Bagby, R. M., Pilkonis, P.A., Reynolds, S. K., &
Lynam, D. R. (2005). A simplified technique for scoring
DSM-IV personality disorders with the Five-Factor Model.
Assessment, 12, 404-415.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C.
(2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common
personality dimensions: Can the Five-Factor Model ade-
quately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69,
253-276.
Miller, T. (1991). The psychotherapeutic utility of the Five-
Factor Model of personality: A clinician's experience. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 57, 415-433.
Morey, L. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Profes-
sional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.
Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J., Quigley, B. D., Shea, M. T.,
Skodol, A. E., McGlashan, T. H., ... Zanarini, M. C. (2002).
The representation of Borderline, A voidant, Obsessive-
Compulsive, and Schizotypal personality disorders by the
Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 16, 215-234.
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). Comparative
validity of the Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure-
200. Psychological Assessment, 20, 183-188.
Murray, G., Rawlings, D., Allen, N. B., & Trinder, J. (2003).
NEO Five-Factor Inventory scores: Psychometric properties
in a community sample. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 36, 140-149.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Muten, E. ( 1991 ). Self-reports, spouse ratings, and psychophys-
iological assessment in a behavioral medicine program: An
application of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 57, 449-464.
Myers, I. B., & Mccaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to
the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nicholson, R. A., & Hogan, R. (1990). The construct validity of
social desirability. American Psychologist, 45, 290-292.
Nigg, J. T., John, 0. P., Blaskey, L. G., Huang-Pollock, C. L.,
Willcutt, E.G., Hinshaw, S. P., & Pennington, B.(2002). Big
Five dimensions and ADHD symptoms: Links between per-
sonality traits and clinical symptoms. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 451-469.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of
academic outcomes: Big Five correlates of GPA and SAT
scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
116-130.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of per-
sonality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomi-
nation personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of
social desirability in personality testing for personnel selec-
tion: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
660-679.
Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und personlichkeitsstruktur: Zur
Validitiit des Funf-Faktoren-Modells der personlichkeit
[Language and personality structure: Toward the validation
of the Five-Factor Model of personality]. Regensburg:
S. RodererVerlag.
Parker, W., & Stumpf, H. (1998). A validation of the Five-Factor
Model of personality in academically talented youth across
observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 25, 1005-1025.
Paulhus, D. L., Bruce, M. N., & Trapnell, P. D. (1995). Effects
of self-presentation strategies on personality profiles and their
structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,
100-108.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and
facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.
Perone, M., DeWaard, R. J., & Baron, A. (1979). Satisfaction
with real and simulated jobs in relation to personality vari-
ables and drug use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,
660-668.
Piedmont, R. L. (1998). The Revised NEO Personality Inven-
tory: Clinical and research applications. New York, NY:
Plenum.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991).
Adjective Check List scales and the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1992). An
assessment of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 58, 67-78.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A.
(2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from
self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.
Piedmont, R. L., & Piedmont, R. I. (1996). Couples Critical
Incidents Check List, manual. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Pilia, G., Chen, W.-M., Scuteri, A., Omi, M., Albai, G., Dei, M.,
... Schlessinger, D. (2006). Heritability of cardiovascular and
personality traits in 6,148 Sardinians. PLoS Genetics, 2,
1207-1223.
Poortinga, Y. H., van de Vijver, F., & van Hemert, D. A. (2002).
Cross-cultural eguivalence of the Big Five: A tentative inter-
pretation of the evidence. In R.R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.),
The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures
(pp. 273-294). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Qualls, P. J., & Sheehan, P. W. (1979). Capacity for absorption
and relaxation during electromyograph biofeedback and no
feedback conditions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88,
652-662.
Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L.A. (2001). Predicting dimensions
of personality disorder from domains and facets of the Five-
Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199-222.
Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and
environmental influences on personality: A study of twins
reared together using the self and peer report NEO-FFI
scales. Journal of Personality, 65, 449-475.
Roberts, B., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Chemyshenko, 0. S., &
Stark, S. E. (2004). A lexical investigation of the lower-order
structure of Conscientiousness. Journal of Research in
Personality, 38, 164-178.
Roberts, B. W., Chemyshenko, 0. S., Stark, S. E., & Goldberg,
L. R. (2005). The structure of Conscientiousness: An empir-
ical investigation based on seven major personality ques-
tionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139.
Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski,
K. H. (2001). A longitudinal study of personality change in
young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 69, 617-640.
Robins, R. W., John, 0. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., &
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and
undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157-171.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Ross, S. R., Cooper, A. C., Matters, K. G., Wrobel, T. A., &
Rye, M. S. (2004). A personological examination of self- and
other-forgiveness in the Five-Factor Model. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 82, 207-214.
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004).
Personality and life satisfaction: A facet-level analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062-1075.
Schinka, J. A. (1985). Personal Problems Checklist for Adults.
Odessa, FL: PAR.
97
Schinka, J. A., Busch, R. M., & Robichaux-Keene, N. (2004). A
meta-analysis of the association between the serotonin trans-
porter gene polymorphism (5HTTLPR) and anxiety-related
personality traits. Molecular Psychiatry, 9, 197-202.
Schinka, J., Kinder, B., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity
scales for the NEO PI-R: Development and initial validation.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127-138.
Schrauger, J. S., & Osberg, T. M. (1981). The relative accuracy
of self-predictions and judgments by others in psychological
assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 322-351.
Shea, M. T. (1988, August). Interpersonal styles and short-term
psychotherapy for depression. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Shedler, J., & Westen, D. (1998). Refining the measurement of
Axis II: A Q-sort procedure for assessing personality pathol-
ogy. Assessment, 5, 333-353.
Shock, N. W., Greulich, R. C., Andres, R., Arenberg, D., Costa,
P. T., Jr., Lakatta, E. G., & Tobin, J. D. (1984). Normal
human aging: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
(NIH Publication No. 84-2450). Bethesda, MD: National
Institutes of Health.
Siegler, I. C., Welsh, K. A., Dawson, D. V., Fillenbaum, G. G.,
Earl, N. L., Kaplan, E. B., ... Clark, C. M. (1991). Ratings of
personality change in patients being evaluated for memory
disorders. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 5,
240-250.
Singer, J. A. (2005). Personality and psychotherapy: Treating
the whole person. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Smith, T. W., & Williams, P. G. (1992). Personality and health:
Advantages and limitations of the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality, 60, 395-423.
Spielberger, C. C., Jacobs, G., Crane, R., Russell, S., Westberry,
L., Barker, L., ... Marks, E. (1979). Preliminary manual for
the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). Tampa, FL:
University of South Florida, Human Resources Institute.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relation-
ship between personality and subjective well-being.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138-161.
Strauss, M. E., & Pasupathi, M. (1994). Primary caregivers'
descriptions of Alzheimer patients' personality traits:
Temporal stability and sensitivity to change. Alzheimer
Disease & Associated Disorders, 8, 166-176.
Stricker, L. J., & Ross, J. (1964). An assessment of some struc-
tural properties of the Jungian personality typology. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 62-71.
Strong, S. R., Hills, H. I., Kilmartin, C. T., De Vries, H., Lanier,
K., Nelson, B. N., ... Meyers, C. W., III. (1988).The dynamic
relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of comple-
mentarity and anticomplementarity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 798-810.
98
Sutin, A. R., Terracciano, A., Deiana, B., Naitza, S., Ferrucci, L.,
Uda, M., ... Costa, P.T., Jr. (2009). High Neuroticism and
low Conscientiousness are associated with interleukin-6.
Psychosomatic Medicine. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1017/S0033291709992029
Talbot, N. L., Duberstein, P. R., Butzel, J. S., Cox, C., & Giles,
D. E. (2003). Personality traits and symptom reduction in a
group treatment for women with histories of childhood sex-
ual abuse. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 44, 448-453.
Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality
assessment. Journal of Personality, 56, 621-663.
Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). Smoking and the
Five-Factor Model of personality. Addiction, 99, 472-481.
Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2006).
Personality plasticity after age 30. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 999-1009.
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr.
(2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of NEO PI-R
scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.
Psychology and Aging, 20, 493-506.
Tesch, S. A., & Cameron, K. A. (1987). Openness to Experience
and the development of adult identity. Journal of Personality,
55, 615-630.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the
Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimen-
sions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 781-790.
Trobst, K. K., Herbst, J. H., Masters, H. L., III, & Costa, P. T.,
Jr. (2002). Personality pathways to unsafe sex: Personality,
condom use, and HIV risk behaviors. Journal of Research in
Personality, 36, 117-133.
Trobst, K. K., Wiggins, J. S., Costa, P. T., Jr., Herbst, J. H.,
McCrae, R.R., & Masters, H. L., III. (2000). Personality psy-
chology and problem behaviors: HIV risk and the Five-Factor
Model. Journal of Personality, 68, 1233-1252.
Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (1997). Structured Interview for the
Five-Factor Model of Personality (SIFFM): Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.
U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce. (1984). Projec-
tions of the population of the United States, by age, sex, and
race: 1983 to 2080 (Series P-25, No. 952). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vandenbergh, D. J., Zonderman, A. B., Wang, J., Uhl, G. R., &
Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). No association between Novelty
Seeking and dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III seven
repeat alleles in Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging par-
ticipants. Molecular Psychiatry, 2, 417-419.
Vickers, R. R., Jr., Kolar, D. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1989).
Personality correlates of coping with military basic training
(Report No. 89-3). San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research
Center.
Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus change, dependability ver-
sus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time.
Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 319-350.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The
disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive
emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints,
stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative
affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-254.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual struc-
ture of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.
Weiss, A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Personality predictors of
cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Psychoso-
matic Medicine, 67, 715-723.
Weiss, A., Sutin, A. R., Duberstein, P.R., Friedman, B., Bagby,
R. M., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2009). The personality domains
and styles of the Five-Factor Model are related to incident
depression in Medicare recipients aged 65 to 100. American
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 591-601.
Westen, D., Shedler, J., Durrett, C., Glass, S., & Martens, A.
(2003). Personality diagnoses in adolescence: DSM-IV Axis
II diagnoses and an empirically derived alternative. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 952-966.
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. (2001). The Five-Factor Model
and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality
to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 669-689.
Widiger, T. A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Mccrae, R.R. (2002). A pro-
posal for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the
Five-Factor Model. In P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model ofperson-
ality (2nd ed., pp. 431-456). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1992). Personality and psy-
chopathology: An application of the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality, 60, 363-393.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the clas-
sification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional
model. American Psychologist, 62, 71-83.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., &
Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). A description of the DSM-111-R and
DSM-IV personality disorders with the Five-Factor Model of
personality. In P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the Five-Factor Model ofperson-
ality (pp. 41-56). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., &
Costa, P. T., Jr. (2002). A description of the DSM-IV per-
sonality disorders with the Five-Factor Model of personality.
In P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disor-
ders and the Five-Factor Model of personality (2nd ed.,
pp. 89-99). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. '
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-
descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions of person-
ality disorders and dimensions of personality. Psychological
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1, 305-316.
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric
and geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal
Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research,
23, 119-134.
Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales. Lutz, FL:
PAR.
Yamagata, S., Ando, J., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R.,
Spinath, F., et al. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in heri-
tability of personality traits: Using behavioral genetics to
study culture. Paper presented at the 4th CEFOM/21
International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan.
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N.,
Yoshimura, K., .. .Jang, K. L. (2006). Is the genetic structure
of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study
from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 90, 987-998.
Yang, J., Bagby, R. M., & Ryder, A.G. (2000). Response style
and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Validity scales
and spousal ratings in a Chinese psychiatric sample.
Assessment, 7, 389-402.
Yang, J., McCrae, R.R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Dai, X., Yao, S., Cai, T.,
" Gao, B. (1999). Cross-cultural personality assessment in psy-
chiatric populations: The NEO PI-R in the People's Republic
of China. Psychological Assessment, 11, 359-368.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal
level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
99
Appendix A
Items

101
 Items of the NEO Inventories, Form S
The items of the NEO Inventories are reproduced here by facet scale for the benefit of professionals who wish to famil-
iarize themselves with item content to understand better the constructs the scales measure.
It is contrary to both law and professional ethics to use any of these items or scales without the authorization of the pub-
lisher, PAR. Individuals who wish to use NEO items or scales in some form other than the published products are referred
to the section on NEO-PI-3 and NEO-FFI-3 licensing agreements presented in chapter 2 of this Professional Manual.
Items marked (R) are reverse-keyed. Items presented in italics are NEO PI-R items that have been replaced in the
NEO-PI-3 with the item immediately preceding it. The item order presented here follows the NEO-PI-3; it is different
from that of the NEO PI-R. Items included in the NEO-FFI-3 are indicated by an asterisk.

Neuroticism (N) Facets

Nl: Anxiety
* I am not a worrier. (R)
I am easily frightened.
* I rarely feel fearful or anxious. (R)
I often worry about things that might go wrong.
I seldom feel nervous. (R)
I'm seldom apprehensive about the future. (R)
* I often feel tense and jittery.
I have fewer fears than most people. (R)
Frightening thoughts sometimes come into my head.
N2: Angry Hostility
* I often get angry at the way people treat me.
I'm an even tempered person. (R)
I am known as hot-blooded and quick tempered.
It takes a lot to get me mad. (R)
I often get disgusted with people I have to deal with.
I am not considered a touchy or temperamental person. (R)
* At times I have felt bitter and resentful.
Even minor annoyances can be frustrating to me.
N3: Depression
* I rarely feel lonely or blue. (R)
* Sometimes I feel completely worthless.
* I am seldom sad or depressed. (R)
* Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up.
I tend to blame myself when anything goes wrong.
I have a low opinion of myself.
Sometimes things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me.
I have sometimes experienced a deep sense of guilt or sinfulness.
N4: Self-Consciousness
When I'm around people, I worry that I'll make a fool of myself.
In dealing with other people, I always dread making a social blunder.
I feel comfortable in the presence of my teachers or bosses. (R)
I often feel that I am not as good as others.
I often feel inferior to others.

102
 It doesn't embarrass me too much if people ridicule and tease me. (R)
* At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide.
I seldom feel self conscious when I'm around people. (R)
If I have said or done the wrong thing to someone, I can hardly bear to face them again.
I feel awkward around people.
When people I know do foolish things, I get embarrassed for them.
NS: Impulsiveness
I seldom give in to my impulses. (R)
I have trouble resisting my cravings.
I'm always in control of myself. (R)
I have little difficulty resisting temptation. (R)
I sometimes eat myself sick.
It doesn't bother me too much if I can't get what I want. (R)
I rarely overindulge in anything. (R)
When I am having my favorite foods, I tend to eat too much.
Sometimes I do things on impulse that I later regret.
I am always able to keep my feelings under control. (R)
N6: Vulnerability
* I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems.
I'm pretty stable emotionally. (R)
* When I'm under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I'm going to pieces.
I keep a cool head in emergencies. (R)
It's often hard for me to make up my mind.
I can handle myself pretty well in a crisis. (R)
When everything seems to be going wrong, I can still make good decisions. (R)
I feel I am capable of coping with most of my problems. (R)

Extroversion (E) Facets

El: Warmth
I find it easy to smile and be outgoing with strangers.
* I don't get much pleasure from chatting with people. (R)
I have strong emotional attachments to my friends.
Many people think of me as somewhat cold and distant. (R)
* I really enjoy talking to people.
I really like most people I meet.
I'm known as a warm and friendly person.
I take a personal interest in the people I work with.
E2: Gregariousness
* I prefer jobs that let me work alone without being bothered by other people. (R)
* I like to have a lot of people around me.
I usually prefer to do things alone. (R)
I enjoy parties with lots of people.
* I shy away from crowds of people. (R)
I'd rather vacation at a popular beach than an isolated cabin in the woods.

103
 Social gatherings are usually boring to me. (R)
I really feel the need for other people if I am by myself for long.
E3: Assertiveness
I am dominant, forceful, and assertive.
I don't find it easy to take charge of a situation. (R)
I have often been a leader of groups I have belonged to.
In meetings, I usually let others do the talking. (R)
Other people often look to me to make decisions.
* I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others. (R)
In conversations, I tend to do most of the talking.
Sometimes I don't stand up for my rights like I should. (R)
I sometimes fail to assert myself as much as I should. (R)
E4: Activity
I have a laid-back style in work and play. (R)
I have a leisurely style in work and play. (R)
* My life is fast-paced.
I'm not as quick and lively as other people. (R)
* I am a very active person.
My work is likely to be slow but steady. (R)
I usually seem to be in a hurry.
I act forcefully and energetically.
When I do things, I do them vigorously.
* I often feel as if I'm bursting with energy.
ES: Excitement-Seeking
* I like to be where the action is.
I wouldn't enjoy vacationing in Las Vegas. (R)
I love the excitement of roller coasters.
I tend to avoid movies that are shocking or scary. (R)
I often crave excitement.
I have sometimes done things just for "kicks" or "thrills."
I like loud music.
I'm attracted to bright colors and.flashy styles.
I like being part of the crowd at sporting events.
E6: Positive Emotions
I have never literally jumped for joy. (R)
I have felt overpowering joy.
I have sometimes experienced intense joy or ecstasy.
I rarely use words like "fantastic!" or "sensational!" to describe my experiences. (R)
* I am a cheerful, high spirited person.
I'm not happy-go-lucky. (R)
I don't consider myself especially "light-hearted." (R)
Sometimes I bubble with happiness.
I am not a cheerful optimist. (R)
* I laugh easily.

104
Openness (O) Facets
01: Fantasy
I have a very active imagination.
I try to keep all my thoughts directed along realistic lines and avoid flights of fancy. (R)
* I enjoy concentrating on a fantasy or daydream and exploring all its possibilities, letting it grow and develop.
* I would have difficulty just letting my mind wander without control or guidance. (R)
I have an active fantasy life.
If I feel my mind starting to drift off into daydreams, I usually get busy and start concentrating on some work or
activity instead. (R)
As a child I rarely enjoyed games of make believe. (R)
I don't like to waste my time daydreaming. (R)
02: Aesthetics
I'm not really interested in the arts. (R)
Aesthetic and artistic concerns aren't very important to me. (R)
I am sometimes completely absorbed in music I am listening to.
* Poetry has little or no effect on me. (R)
* Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a chill or wave of excitement.
Watching ballet or modern dance bores me. (R)
Certain kinds of music have an endless fascination for me.
* I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature.
I enjoy reading poetry that emphasizes feelings and images more than story lines.
03: Feelings
* I experience a wide range of emotions or feelings.
I rarely experience strong emotions. (R)
Odd things-like certain scents or the names of distant places-can evoke strong moods in me.
I seldom pay much attention to my feelings of the moment. (R)
Without strong emotions, life would be uninteresting to me.
* I seldom notice the moods or feelings that different environments produce. (R)
I find it easy to empathize-to feel myself what others are feeling.
How I feel about things is important to me.
04: Actions
I'm pretty set in my ways. (R)
I believe variety is the spice of life.
Sometimes I make changes around the house just to try something different.
On a vacation, I prefer going back to a tried and true spot. (R)
I often try new and foreign foods.
I prefer to spend my time in familiar surroundings. (R)
* I think it's interesting to learn and develop new hobbies.
I like the old-fashioned methods I'm used to. (R)
Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it. (R)
I follow the same route when I go someplace. (R)
05: Ideas
* I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas.
I find philosophical arguments boring. (R)
I enjoy working on "mind-twister" -type puzzles.

105
* I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human condition. (R)
I enjoy solving problems or puzzles.
I sometimes lose interest when people talk about very abstract, theoretical matters. (R)
* I have a lot of intellectual curiosity.
I have a wide range of intellectual interests.
06: Values
I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. (R)
I believe that laws and social policies should change to reflect the needs of a changing world.
I think that if people don't know what they believe in by the time they're 25, there's something
wrong with them. (R)
I consider myself broad-minded and tolerant of other people's lifestyles.··
I believe that it's better to stick to your own principles than to be open-minded. (R)
I believe that loyalty to one's ideals and principles is more important than "open-mindedness." (R)
Our ideas of right and wrong may not be right for everyone in the world.
I believe that the different ideas of right and wrong that people in other societies have may be valid for them.
* I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead them. (R)
People should honor traditional values, not question them. (R)
I believe that the "new morality" of permissiveness is no morality at all. (R)

Agreeableness (A) Facets

Al: Trust
Often, people aren't as nice as they seem to be. (R)
I tend to be cynical and skeptical of others' intentions. (R)
I believe that most people are basically well-intentioned.
I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them. (R)
* I tend to assume the best about people.
I'm suspicious when someone does something nice for me. (R)
My first reaction is to trust people.
I think most of the people I deal with are honest and trustworthy.
I have a good deal of faith in human nature.
A2: Straightforwardness
I'm not crafty or sly.
* If necessary, I am willing to manipulate people to get what I want. (R)
I couldn't deceive anyone even if I wanted to.
* At times I bully or flatter people into doing what I want them to. (R)
I would hate to be thought of as a hypocrite.
Sometimes I trick people into doing what I want. (R)
Being perfectly honest is a bad way to do business. (R)
I'm pretty slick when it comes to dealing with people. (R)
I pride myself on my shrewdness in handling people. (R)
A3: Altruism
I'm not known for my generosity. (R)
I go out of my way to help others if I can.
* Some people think of me as cold and calculating. (R)
* I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate.

106
* Some people think I'm selfish and egotistical. (R)
Most people I know like me.
I think of myself as a charitable person.
* I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.
A4: Compliance
* When I've been insulted, I just try to forgive and forget.
* If someone starts a fight, I'm ready to fight back. (R)
I hesitate to express my anger even when it's justified.
I'm hard headed and stubborn. (R)
I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them.
I can be sarcastic and cutting when I need to be. (R)
* If I don't like people, I let them know it. (R)
I sometimes get into arguments. (R)
I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers. (R)
AS: Modesty
I don't mind bragging about my talents and accomplishments. (R)
I'd rather not talk about myself and my achievements.
I have a very high opinion of myself. (R)
I feel that I am no better than others, no matter what their condition.
* I'm better than most people, and I know it. (R)
I'm not a show-off.
I try to be humble.
I would rather praise others than be praised myself.
I'm a superior person. (R)
A6: Tender-Mindedness
When making laws and social policies, we need to think about who might be hurt.
Political leaders need to be more aware of the human side of their policies.
* I have no sympathy for beggars. (R)
I have no sympathy for panhandlers. (R)
We can never do too much for the poor and elderly.
I don't worry much about the homeless. (R)
I'm hard-headed and tough-minded in my attitudes. (R)
Human need is more important than economics.
Human need should always take priority over economic considerations.
I believe all human beings are worthy of respect.
I have sympathy for others less fortunate than me.
I would rather be known as "merciful" than as "just."

Conscientiousness (C) Facets

Cl: Competence
I am efficient and effective at my work.
I sometimes act thoughtlessly. (R)
I don't take civic duties like voting very seriously. (R)
I keep myself informed and usually make intelligent decisions.
I don't seem to be completely successful at anything. (R)

107
 I have good judgment.
I pride myself on my sound judgment.
* I often come into situations without being fully prepared. (R)
I have many skills.
I'm a very competent person.
I'm known for my common sense.
I'm known for my prudence and common sense.
C2: Order
I don't mind a little clutter in my room. (R)
I would rather keep my options open than plan everything in advance. (R)
* I keep my belongings neat and clean '

I'm not a very orderly or methodical person. (R)

I'm not a very methodical person. (R)
I like to keep everything in its place so I know just where it is.
* I never seem to be able to get organized. (R)
I'm picky about how jobs should be done.
I tend to be somewhat fastidious or exacting.
I'm not compulsive about cleaning. (R)
I spend a lot of time looking for things I've misplaced. (R)
C3: Dutifulness
I try to go to work or school even when I'm not feeling well.
I'd really have to be sick before I'd miss a day of work.
* Sometimes I'm not as dependable or reliable as I should be. (R)
I pay my debts promptly and in full.
I ignore a lot of silly little rules. (R)
Sometimes I cheat when I play solitaire. (R)
* When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through.
I follow my ethical principles strictly.
I adhere strictly to my ethical principles.
I try to do jobs carefully, so they won't have to be done again.
* I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously.
C4: Achievement Striving
I don't feel like I'm driven to get ahead. (R)
I strive to achieve all I can.
When I start a self improvement program, I usually let it slide after a few days. (R)
* I work hard to accomplish my goals.
I'm not very ambitious. (R)
I am easy-going and lackadaisical. (R)
* I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion.
* I strive for excellence in everything I do.
I'm something of a "workaholic."
CS: Self-Discipline
* I'm pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time.
I have trouble making myself do what I should. (R)
Once I start a project, I almost always finish it.

108
 There are so many little jobs that need to be done that I sometimes just ignore them all. (R)
* I am a productive person who always gets the job done.
When a project gets too difficult, I'm inclined to start a new one. (R)
* I waste a lot of time before settling down to work. (R)
I have a lot of self-discipline.
C6: Deliberation
Over the years I've done some pretty stupid things. (R)
I rarely make hasty decisions.
I often do things on the spur of the moment. (R)
I always consider the consequences before I take action.
Occasionally I act first and think later. (R)
I think things through before coming to a decision.
I plan ahead carefully when I go on a trip.
I think twice before I answer a question.

109
 Appendix B
Normative Data for the NEO-PI-3, the NEO PI-R, and the NEO-FFI-3

111
 Table B.1
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO-Pl-3 Form S (Self-Report) Scales in Adolescents
Male0 Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 89.3 20.3 94.9 21.2 92.2 20.9
E: Extraversion 116.5 18.8 125.5 18.6 121.2 19.2
0: Openness to Experience• 112.7 19.4 122.2 18.4 117.6 19.5
A: Agreeableness 105.1 17.0 111.7 16.0 108.5 16.8
C: Conscientiousness 107.3 19.9 111.4 21.8 109.5 21.0
Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 15.8 4.7 18.1 4.9 17.0 4.9
N2: Angry Hostility 15.6 4.5 15.6 4.6 15.6 4.5
N3: Depression 15.0 5.0 15.2 5.2 15.1 5.1
N4: Self-Consciousness 13.9 4.8 14.6 5.1 14.3 5.0
N5: Impulsiveness 16.8 4.0 17.7 4.5 17.3 4.3
N6: Vulnerability 12.2 4.3 13.8 4.1 13.0 4.3
Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 21.2 4.5 23.3 3.9 22.3 4.3
E2: Gregariousness 18.4 5.0 20.4 5.1 19.4 5.1
E3: Assertiveness 17.1 4.3 17.1 5.1 17.1 4.7
E4: Activity 17.7 3.5 19.1 3.9 18.4 3.8
E5: Excitement-Seeking 22.6 4.3 22.8 4.2 22.7 4.3
E6: Positive Emotions 19.5 4.9 22.8 4.1 21.2 4.8
Openness facets
01: Fantasy 19.3 4.8 21.0 4.9 20.2 5.0
02: Aesthetics 17.3 5.7 20.6 5.7 19.0 5.9
03: Feelings 20.3 4.4 22.6 4.3 21.5 4.5
04: Actions 16.3 3.3 17.4 3.4 16.8 3.4
05: Ideas 19.5 5.4 19.3 5.1 19.4 5.2
06: Values 20.1 3.9 21.3 3.9 20.7 3.9
Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 16.6 4.7 17.8 4.5 17.2 4.6
A2: Straightforwardness 16.0 4.2 18.0 4.3 17.1 4.3
A3: Altruism 21.7 3.9 22.9 3.7 22.3 3.9
A4: Compliance 14.6 4.2 14.4 4.5 14.5 4.4
A5: Modesty 16.4 4.7 17.8 4.8 17.1 4.8
A6: Tender-Mindedness 19.7 4.0 20.8 3.7 20.3 3.9
Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 19.3 3.7 19.8 4.0 19.5 3.9
C2: Order 16.9 5.0 17.0 5.5 16.9 5.2
C3: Dutifulness 19.3 4.0 20.4 4.1 19.8 4.1
C4: Achievement Striving 19.1 4.8 20.2 4.6 19.7 4.7
C5: Self-Discipline 17.8 4.7 18.2 5.2 18.0 4.9
C6: Deliberation 15.0 4.4 15.9 4.8 15.5 4.6
Note. Norms are based on a sample of adolescents age 14 to 20 years but are applicable to respondents age 12 to 20 years. See McCrae, Costa,
& Martin (2005).
'n = 242. bn = 258. 'N = 500.

112
 Table 8.2
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO·Pl-3 Form R (Observer Rating) Scales in Adolescents
Male0 Femaleb Combinecl 0
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 88.7 18.4 97.9 22.1 93.7 21.0
E: Extraversion 111.8 17.6 119.3 21.6 115.9 20.2
0: Openness to Experience 102.2 16.9 107.8 18.5 105.2 18.0
A: Agreeableness 101.9 19.3 106.1 20.8 104.2 20.2
C: Conscientiousness 99.2 24.1 103.9 25.8 101.7 25.1

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 14.5 4.8 17.6 5.2 16.2 5.2
N2: Angry Hostility 16.7 5.4 17.8 5.2 17.3 5.3
N3: Depression 14.4 4.3 15.4 5.1 14.9 4.8
N4: Self-Consciousness 13.6 4.5 15.0 5.4 14.4 5.0
NS: Impulsiveness 16.6 4.1 17.6 4.7 17.1 4.4
N6: Vulnerability 13.0 3.7 14.4 4.6 13.8 4.3

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 20.2 4.7 22.3 4.4 21.3 4.7
E2: Gregariousness 18.7 4.8 20.4 5.2 19.6 5.1
E3: Assertiveness 16.2 4.6 16.5 5.0 16.4 4.8
E4: Activity 16.8 3.5 18.2 4.1 17.5 3.9
ES: Excitement-Seeking 21.5 4.6 21.0 5.1 21.2 4.9
E6: Positive Emotions 18.5 4.4 21.0 4.9 19.9 4.8

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 18.1 4.7 18.5 4.7 18.3 4.7
02: Aesthetics 15.0 5.3 17.4 5.7 16.3 5.6
03: Feelings 18.2 3.8 21.0 3.9 19.7 4.1
04: Actions 15.5 3.5 15.4 3.9 15.4 3.7
05: Ideas 17.1 5.8 16.6 5.3 16.8 5.5
06: Values 18.3 3.6 18.9 3.4 18.6 3.5

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 17.5 4.3 18.2 5.0 17.9 4.7
A2: Straightforwardness 16.l 4.7 16.6 4.9 16.4 4.8
A3: Altruism 20.0 5.0 20.8 4.8 20.4 4.9
A4: Compliance 13.7 4.6 13.9 5.0 13.8 4.8
AS: Modesty 16.1 5.2 16.9 5.6 16.5 5.4
A6: Tender-Mindedness 18.5 3.9 19.6 3.9 19.1 3.9

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 18.5 4.5 19.2 4.9 18.9 4.7
C2: Order 14.7 5.6 15.4 6.1 15.1 5.9
C3: Dutifulness 17.1 4.7 18.0 5.2 17.6 5.0
C4: Achievement Striving 18.3 5.0 18.9 4.9 18.6 4.9
CS: Self-Discipline 16.2 5.1 17.5 5.7 16.9 5.5
C6: Deliberation 14.4 4.8 15.0 5.1 14.7 4.9

Note. Norms are based on a sample of adolescents age 14 to 20 years but are applicable to respondents age 12 to 20 years. See McCrae, Costa,
& Martin (2005).
'n =211. bn =254. N =465.
0

113
 Table B.3
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO-Pl-3 Form S (Self-Report) Scales in Adults
Male0 Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 77.2 20.3 87.1 22.9 82.7 22.3
E: Extraversion 107.4 19.1 112.8 19.1 110.4 19.3
0: Openness to Experience 103.5 18.8 111.0 17.8 107.7 18.6
A: Agreeableness 113.2 17.8 123.8 17.1 119.1 18.2
C: Conscientiousness 121.6 19.0 120.6 20.6 121.1 19.9

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 13.7 4.8 17.2 5.7 15.7 5.6
N2: Angry Hostility 13.6 4.5 13.6 4.8 13.6 4.7
N3: Depression 12.6 5.2 13.8 5.7 13.3 5.5
N4: Self-Consciousness 12.5 4.4 14.1 5.3 13.4 5.0
NS: Impulsiveness 14.9 4.1 16.3 4.1 15.7 4.2
N6: Vulnerability 9.8 4.0 12.1 4.3 11.1 4.3

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 20.8 4.3 23.4 4.1 22.3 4.4
E2: Gregariousness 15.7 4.9 18.1 5.0 17.1 5.1
E3: Assertiveness 16.7 4.7 15.6 5.0 16.1 4.9
E4: Activity 17.5 4.1 17.8 4.5 17.7 4.3
ES: Excitement-Seeking 18.0 5.0 16.5 5.2 17.2 5.1
I

E6: Positive Emotions 18.7 4.6 21.4 4.8 20.2 4.9

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 16.7 4.3 17.5 4.8 17.1 4.6
02: Aesthetics 14.9 5.4 17.7 5.6 16.4 5.7
03: Feelings 18.8 3.9 21.6 3.8 20.4 4.1
04: Actions 15.8 3.8 16.0 3.4 15.9 3.6
05: Ideas 18.0 5.7 17.6 5.1 17.8 5.4
06: Values 19.3 4.3 20.7 4.1 20.1 4.2

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 18.7 4.5 20.1 4.4 19.5 4.5
A2: Straightforwardness 19.3 4.7 21.2 4.6 20.3 4.7
A3: Altruism 22.1 3.9 24.4 3.7 23.4 3.9
A4: Compliance 15.7 4.3 17.0 4.5 16.4 4.5
AS: Modesty 18.3 4.5 19.8 4.3 19.1 4.4
A6: Tender-Mindedness 19.2 4.1 21.4 3.4 20.4 3.9

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 21.7 3.8 21.2 3.9 21.4 3.8
C2: Order 19.1 4.6 19.5 5.4 19.3 5.0
C3: Dutifulness 21.9 3.9 22.7 4.0 22.3 4.0
C4: Achievement Striving 20.0 4.4 19.3 4.6 19.6 4.5
CS: Self-Discipline 20.8 4.4 20.2 4.8 20.5 4.6
C6: Deliberation 18.1 4.3 17.8 4.6 17.9 4.5

Note. Norms are based on a sample of adults age 21 to 91 years. See McCrae, Costa, & Martin (2005).
an= 279. bn = 356. 'N = 635.

114
 Table 8.4
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO·Pl-3 Form R(Observer Rating) Scales in Adults
0
Male Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 75.1 22.7 86.3 22.2 81.1 23.1
E: Extraversion 107.1 21.6 112.2 18.3 109.8 20.1
0: Openness to Experience 96.6 19.7 102.0 16.6 99.5 18.3
A: Agreeableness 113.0 22.4 120.5 20.4 117.1 21.7
C: Conscientiousness 121.1 23.7 122.0 22.5 121.6 23.1

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 12.7 5.2 16.6 5.1 14.8 5.5
N2: Angry Hostility 14.4 6.2 15.0 5.4 14.7 5.8
N3: Depression 11.9 5.1 13.6 5.3 12.8 5.2
N4: Self-Consciousness 11.4 4.5 13.9 4.7 12.7 4.8
N5: Impulsiveness 14.9 4.7 14.9 4.5 14.9 4.6
N6: Vulnerability 9.9 4.2 12.3 4.6 11.2 4.6

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 21.3 5.1 23.2 4.3 22.3 4.8
E2: Gregariousness 16.1 5.9 18.7 4.7 17.5 5.5
E3: Assertiveness 17.3 4.9 16.5 5.0 16.9 5.0
E4: Activity 16.5 4.9 17.8 4.4 17.2 4.7
E5: Excitement-Seeking 18.2 5.1 16.1 5.0 17.1 5.2
E6: Positive Emotions 17.7 5.3 19.9 4.4 18.8 4.9

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 15.4 4.8 15.8 4.4 15.6 4.6
02: Aesthetics 13.0 5.8 16.6 5.5 14.9 5.9
03: Feelings 17.8 4.4 20.4 3.7 19.2 4.2
04: Actions 14.7 4.2 14.4 3.7 14.6 3.9
05: Ideas 17.4 6.2 16.6 5.0 17.0 5.6
06: Values 18.2 4.2 18.2 3.8 18.2 4.0

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 18.9 5.3 20.0 4.5 19.5 4.9
A2: Straightforwardness 19.7 5.2 20.3 5.0 20.0 5.1
A3: Altruism 22.2 4.8 23.6 4.2 23.0 4.5
A4: Compliance 15.7 5.4 16.1 5.3 15.9 5.4
A5: Modesty 18.5 5.3 20.2 4.7 19.4 5.1
A6: Tender-Mindedness 18.1 4.2 20.4 4.0 19.3 4.3

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 22.7 4.5 22.2 4.1 22.4 4.3
C2: Order 17.4 5.9 18.7 6.0 18.1 6.0
C3: Dutifulness 21.6 4.6 22.1 4.2 21.9 4.4
C4: Achievement Striving 20.6 5.0 20.1 4.6 20.3 4.8
C5: Self-Discipline 20.5 5.4 20.6 5.2 20.6 5.3
C6: Deliberation 18.3 5.1 18.3 4.7 18.3 4.9

Note. Norms are based on a sample of adults age 21 to 90 years. See McCrae, Martin, & Costa (2005).
=
·n=301. bn 348. cN 649. =

115
 Table 8.5
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO Pl·R Form S (Self-Report) Scales in College-Age Individuals
Male 0
Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 90.5 22.1 99.8 20.9 96.3 21.9
E: Extraversion 116.7 18.3 123.9 17.7 121.2 18.2
0: Openness 113.9 18.5 118.6 17.1 116.8 17.8
A: Agreeableness 107.4 16.2 117.2 15.7 113.5 16.6
C: Conscientiousness 113.5 22.0 115.1 20.6 114.5 21.1

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 15.5 5.0 18.7 4.7 17.5 5.0
N2: Angry Hostility 15.9 5.1 16.0 5.0 16.0 5.1
N3: Depression 14.3 6.0 15.9 5.4 15.3 5.7
N4: Self-Consciousness 15.9 4.9 16.7 4.7 16.4 4.7
N5: Impulsiveness 17.4 4.0 19.0 4.3 18.4 4.3
N6: Vulnerability 11.6 4.3 13.6 4.2 12.8 4.4

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 21.9 4.3 24.0 4.1 23.2 4.3
E2: Gregariousness 18.2 5.1 19.8 5.0 19.2 5.1
E3: Assertiveness 16.7 4.7 17.3 5.3 17.0 5.1
E4: Activity 18.2 3.8 19.1 3.8 18.8 3.8
E5: Excitement-Seeking 21.5 3.9 21.5 4.1 21.5 4.0
E6: Positive Emotions 20.2 4.4 22.3 3.7 21.5 4.1

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 20.1 5.0 20.0 4.8 20.1 4.8
02: Aesthetics 17.7 5.8 19.2 5.4 18.6 5.6
03: Feelings 20.8 4.2 23.4 4.0 22.4 4.3
04: Actions 15.4 3.6 16.0 3.4 15.8 3.5
05: Ideas 19.5 5.3 18.8 4.8 19.1 5.0
06: Values 20.3 3.8 21.l 3.6 20.8 3.7

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 17.9 4.2 19.1 4.5 18.7 4.4
A2: Straightforwardness 16.6 4.9 19.4 4.5 18.3 4.8
A3: Altruism 22.0 3.7 23.8 3.3 23.2 3.6
A4: Compliance 15.1 4.1 15.8 4.6 15.6 4.4
AS: Modesty 16.8 4.9 18.7 4.2 18.0 4.5
A6: Tender-Mindedness 19.0 3.5 20.3 3.1 19.8 3.3

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 21.2 4.3 21.1 3.8 21.l 4.0
C2: Order 17.7 4.9 17.9 4.9 17.8 4.9
C3: Dutifulness 20.8 4.2 21.4 4.0 21.2 4.1
C4: Achievement Striving 18.7 4.8 19.0 5.0 18.9 4.9
CS: Self-Discipline 18.7 5.1 19.0 5.2 18.9 5.1
C6: Deliberation 16.4 4.6 16.7 4.5 16.6 4.5

Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 77), by
P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR. Reprinted with permission.
'n = 148. bn = 241. 'N = 389.

116
 Table 8.6
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO Pl·R Form S (Self-Report) Scales in Adults
Male0 Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 75.2 19.9 83.1 21.7 79.1 21.2
E: Extraversion 108.5 18.5 110.3 18.4 109.4 18.4
0: Openness 110.1 17.5 111.0 17.2 110.6 17.3
A: Agreeableness 120.1 16.1 128.5 14.4 124.3 15.8
C: Conscientiousness 123.6 17.4 122.7 17.8 123.1 17.6

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 13.3 4.9 15.4 5.4 14.3 5.3
N2: Angry Hostility 12.2 4.5 12.6 4.8 12.4 4.6
N3: Depression 11.6 5.2 12.9 5.6 12.3 5.4
N4: Self-Consciousness 13.7 4.3 15.0 4.5 14.3 4.4
NS: Impulsiveness 15.3 4.2 16.3 4.6 15.8 4.4
N6: Vulnerability 9.2 3.7 10.9 4.0 10.0 3.9

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 22.3 4.0 23.6 3.8 22.9 4.0
E2: Gregariousness 16.0 4.9 17.0 4.7 16.5 4.8
E3: Assertiveness 16.3 4.7 15.4 4.8 15.8 4.7
E4: Activity 17.3 4.3 17.8 4.4 17.6 4.4
ES: Excitement-Seeking 17.2 4.7 15.7 5.1 16.4 4.9
E6: Positive Emotions 19.5 4.3 20.8 4.5 20.2 4.5

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 17.0 4.7 16.2 5.0 16.6 4.9
02: Aesthetics 16.7 5.4 18.5 5.1 17.6 5.3
03: Feelings 19.7 3.8 20.8 4.1 20.3 4.0
04: Actions 16.1 3.8 16.8 3.6 16.4 3.7
05: Ideas 19.8 5.0 18.2 5.0 19.0 5.0
06: Values 20.8 4.5 20.5 3.8 20.7 4.1

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 20.9 4.3 21.7 4.0 21.3 4.2
A2: Straightforwardness 20.3 4.3 22.2 4.3 21.2 4.4
A3: Altruism 22.8 3.6 24.3 3.2 23.6 3.5
A4: Compliance 18.1 3.7 19.6 4.1 18.9 4.0
AS: Modesty 18.1 4.4 19.7 3.8 18.9 4.2
A6: Tender-Mindedness 19.9 3.8 21.0 3.1 20.5 3.5

Conscientiousness facets
C 1: Competence 22.5 3.5 21.8 3.5 22.2 3.5
C2: Order 18.9 4.1 19.1 4.2 19.0 4.2
C3: Dutifulness 23.2 3.9 23.2 3.8 23.2 3.9
C4: Achievement Striving 19.3 4.1 19.6 3.9 19.5 4.0
CS: Self-Discipline 21.8 4.2 21.7 4.4 21.8 4.3
C6: Deliberation 17.8 4.0 17.3 4.3 17.5 4.1

Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 75), by
P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR. Reprinted with pennission.
•n =500. bn =500. cN = 1,000.

117
 Table 8.7
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO PI-R Form R (Observer Rating) Scales in Adults
Male0 Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 70.0 20.4 73.7 24.0 71.7 22.2
E: Extraversion 106.0 22.6 112.8 18.7 109.2 21.1
0: Openness 104.3 18.5 106.7 18.4 105.4 18.5
A: Agreeableness 123.3 25.1 129.9 21.2 126.4 23.6
C: Conscientiousness 133.4 21.6 134.5 18.8 133.9 20.3

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 13.0 5.1 '
14.2 5.4 13.5 5.3
N2: Angry Hostility 13.1 6.3 12.4 6.3 12.8 6.3
N3: Depression 10.8 4.4 11.3 4.9 11.0 4.6
N4: Self-Consciousness 11.6 3.4 12.8 4.4 12.2 4.0
NS: Impulsiveness 12.9 4.6 13.3 4.8 13.l 4.7
N6: Vulnerability 8.7 4.1 9.7 4.1 9.2 4.1

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 22.8 5.9 24.7 4.0 23.7 5.2
E2: Gregariousness 16.4 6.0 19.2 5.2 17.7 5.8
E3: Assertiveness 18.5 4.9 17.9 5.1 18.2 5.0
E4: Activity 16.7 5.2 17.9 4.6 17.3 5.0
ES: Excitement-Seeking 14.3 4.7 13.9 4.5 14.1 4.6
E6: Positive Emotions 17.3 5.3 19.1 4.8 18.2 5.1

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 14.5 4.5 15.0 4.2 14.7 4.3
02: Aesthetics 16.3 5.3 18.2 4.5 17.2 5.0
03: Feelings 18.4 4.0 20.2 4.1 19.2 4.1
04: Actions 15.0 4.4 16.1 3.9 15.5 4.2
05: Ideas 20.5 5.6 17.7 5.9 19.2 5.9
06: Values 19.6 4.1 19.5 4.3 19.6 4.2

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 21.6 5.3 22.8 4.5 22.2 5.0
A2: Straightforwardness 22.3 5.5 23.0 5.0 22.6 5.3
A3: Altruism 23.2 4.6 24.7 3.7 23.9 4.3
A4: Compliance 18.3 5.5 18.8 5.3 18.5 5.4
AS: Modesty 18.7 5.9 20.1 5.1 19.4 5.6
A6: Tender-Mindedness 19.2 3.8 20.5 3.7 19.8 3.8

Conscientiousness facets
C 1: Competence 24.8 4.1 25.2 3.8 25.0 4.0
C2: Order 19.1 4.8 19.8 4.5 19.4 4.7
C3: Dutifulness 25.1 3.9 25.1 3.2 25.1 3.6
C4: Achievement Striving 20.7 4.4 20.7 4.0 20.7 4.2
CS: Self-Discipline 22.4 5.6 23.4 4.7 22.9 5.2
C6: Deliberation 21.4 4.5 20.3 4.6 20.8 4.6

Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 76), by
P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright 1992 by PAR. Reprinted with permission. See Appendix D for Ns.

118
 Table B.8
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO·Ffl-3 Scales
Male Female Combined
Form/Scale M SD M SD M SD
Adolescents
FormS"
N: Neuroticism 23.3 7.3 24.9 7.0 24.1 7.2
E: Extraversion 29.7 6.3 32.4 6.2 31.1 6.4
0: Openness to Experience 29.1 6.8 31.9 6.1 30.6 6.6
A: Agreeableness 28.2 5.8 30.3 5.6 29.3 5.8
C: Conscientiousness 27.9 6.8 29.5 7.1 28.7 7.0
Form Rb
N: Neuroticism 22.8 6.3 25.5 7.2 24.3 6.9
E: Extraversion 28.3 5.6 30.6 6.9 29.6 6.4
0: Openness to Experience 25.5 6.2 27.3 6.3 26.5 6.3
A: Agreeableness 26.6 6.8 27.4 7.2 27.0 7.1
C: Conscientiousness 25.6 8.0 27.5 8.3 26.6 8.2

Adults 21 + years
Form Sc
N: Neuroticism 19.1 7.1 22.2 7.9 20.8 7.7
E: Extraversion 27.2 6.1 29.0 6.2 28.2 6.2
0: Openness to Experience 27.3 6.3 29.3 6.2 28.4 6.3
A: Agreeableness 30.0 5.7 33.7 5.7 32.1 6.0
C: Conscientiousness 32.2 6.0 32.8 6.5 32.5 6.3
Form Rd
N: Neuroticism 18.8 7.5 22.5 7.2 20.8 7.6
E: Extraversion 26.8 7.2 28.7 5.8 27.9 6.6
0: Openness to Experience 24.7 6.6 26.4 5.7 25.6 6.2
A: Agreeableness 30.0 7.3 31.4 6.6 30.8 6.9
C: Conscientiousness 32.4 7.6 32.9 7.1 32.6 7.3

"Male N = 242, Female N = 258, Combined N =500. bMale N = 211, Female N =254, Combined N = 465. cMale N = 279, Female N =356,
Combined N = 635. dMale N = 301, Female N =348, Combined N =649.

119
 Appendix C
Information for Translators and Adaptors

121
 Information for Translators and Adaptors
The NEO-PI-3 is a 240-item instrument that measures six facets of each of the five basic factors of person-
ality. The NEO-FFI-3 is a 60-item instrument that provides global measures of these five factors. All items in
the NEO-FFI-3 are included in the NEO-PI-3, and it is recommended that the full NEO-PI-3 be translated.
After validating the NEO-PI-3 in translation, the NEO-FFI-3 items can be used separately if a shorter ques-
tionnaire is required.
The authors encourage translations and adaptations (e.g., to a particular dialect) of the NEO-PI-3 and
NEO-FFI-3 to make them available to more users and to facilitate cross-cultural research on the Five-Factor
Model of personality. At the same time, it is of utmost importance that the quality of the instruments is pro-
tected in translation. For this purpose, we ask that the following steps be taken:
1. Obtain a Translation Agreement from the publisher, PAR. The copyright to the instrument is owned by
the publisher, and a signed agreement from PAR is needed prior to the initiation of any translation or
research activities. This agreement authorizes the translation and use of the translator's research (but not
for use by others). In return, PAR claims rights to the translation and the normative information for
future licensing or publication. The translator(s) will, of course, be given credit for the translation.
2. Peiform an initial translation of the items. In preparing a translation of the NEO-PI-3, the authors sug-
gest that the translator consider one facet at a time, studying the definition of the facet given in the
Professional Manual and translating all eight items of each facet as a set. (The items for each facet are
listed in Appendix A of this Professional Manual.) In this way, subtle nuances in wording may become
apparent; literal, word-for-word translation is not as important as retaining the psychological sense of
each item.
3. Submit a back-translation for approval. After the items are translated, they should be reassembled in the
order given in the item booklet. The investigator should then find a second individual, unfamiliar with
the NEO-PI-3, who will provide a back-translation into English. Copies of this independent back-
translation should be sent to PAR and to the authors, who will review it and suggest possible revisions;
this process will be repeated as necessary. Data should not be collected until a mutually satisfactory
authorized version is completed.
4. Collect reliability data on the translated instrument. A useful (but not essential) intermediate step is a
check on the internal consistency of the translated items. The translation can be administered to a group
of about 100 individuals and item-total correlations can be calculated for each facet. Any items that do
not correlate significantly in the keyed direction with the facet to which they are assigned should be
carefully reexamined, and the translation may need to be revised.
5. Collect validity data for the translated version. The translation must then be validated on a sufficiently
large sample to provide normative data (minimum N = 100 males, 100 females) in an adult or adoles-
cent sample. Validity information might include (a) correlations with established local instruments or
previously validated translations of other instruments; (b) correlations with observer ratings on a third-
person version of the translation (i.e., a Form R translation); (c) if the individuals in the sample are bilin-
gual, correlations can be made between individuals given the English and the translated versions a
week or more apart; or (d) other forms of construct validation. Obviously, the more information
obtained, the better.
6. Submit the final version to the publisher. The investigator should send the final version of the instrument,
a description of the validation research (including sample characteristics, means, standard deviations,
internal consistencies, and intercorrelations for all scales), and validity data to PAR. If the instrument
appears to be reliable and valid, it will be considered a validated version. Depending on the availabil-
ity of a qualified foreign publisher and market considerations, it could then be made available, either by
license from PAR or in a published version. (Publishing the instrument requires a separate agreement
with PAR; translators should not write a Professional Manual or make any other preparations for
publication until and/or unless this arrangement is made.)

The investigator is free to publish any findings based on the final, mutually agreed-upon translation. All
research conducted with the NEO Inventories must comply with the American Psychological Association's
standards for the ethical treatment of human individuals (including obtaining informed consent to participate
and maintaining confidentiality of data obtained). Researchers interested in undertaking a translation under
these conditions should contact PAR, 16204 N. Florida Avenue, Lutz, FL 33549, USA to initiate the process.
E-mail may be sent to PAR's Customer Support department at custsup@parinc.com.

122
 Appendix D
Development of the NEO PI-R

123
 Development of the NEO PI-R
The NEO PI-R was published in 1992, after several years of development. It superseded the 1985 NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), which was an elaboration of an earlier three-factor NEO Inventory (Costa &
McCrae, 1980c). Chapter 7 of this Professional Manual details changes made to the NEO PI-R in developing
the NEO-PI-3; this appendix provides information on the earlier development of the NEO PI-R.

Samples
The Normative Aging Study (NAS)
The original three-factor NEO model was developed on the basis of research conducted on participants in
the Veterans Administration's Normative Aging Study (NAS) in Boston, MA (Bell, Rose, & Damon, 1972).
The pool of volunteers consisted of more than 2,000 mostly White male veterans who completed a variety of
psychological measures. All but the lowest socioeconomic statuses were well represented. The volunteers were
recruited on the basis of good physical and mental health and geographic stability, an asset needed to ensure
that they would be able to return for periodic examinations. In general, these men could be considered broadly
representative of adult males.
The Augmented Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (ABLSA)
The NEO Inventory, the three-factor precursor to the NEO-PI, was introduced into the longitudinal test bat-
tery of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), a research program conducted by the National
Institute on Aging (Shock et al., 1984), in 1980. Participants in the BLSA were recruited by a "snowball" tech-
nique in which volunteers already enrolled in the program recruited their friends and family. The resulting
sample consisted largely of individuals working in or retired from professional, managerial, or scientific occu-
pations and was considerably better educated than the population in general. Some evidence, however, suggests
that the BLSA sample did not differ greatly from national samples in the distribution of personality disposi-
tions (Costa et al., 1986).
Like the NAS, the BLSA originally examined only men, but in 1978, it was expanded to include women.
Because only a small number of women had joined the study when the personality assessment program began,
the spouses-mostly wives-of BLSA participants were invited to join the project. A group of approximately
400 men and 300 women made up the resulting Augmented BLSA, or ABLSA, sample. In 1986, as part of a
6-year longitudinal study, an additional group of participants, who had joined the BLSA since 1978, were
added to this pool (Costa & McCrae, 1988b).
The Peer Sample
In 1983, the authors asked members of the ABLSA to nominate friends or neighbors who could provide peer
ratings. These ratings were used for the 1989 Form R norms. In 1990, to conduct a longitudinal study of rated
personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992c), the authors recontacted some of these raters. At the same time, they
asked the more recent participants in the BLSA to nominate raters. These two groups of raters were similar to
each other and to the targets they rated-that is, they were mostly White and well educated, and they tended
to be of the same age and sex as the targets they rated. Data from nearly 300 raters were collected and included
in the normative data for Form R of the NEO PI-R.
The Employment Sample
As part of the research leading to the development of facet scales for Agreeableness (A) and Conscien-
tiousness (C), the NEO-PI and a supplementary set of items were administered to more than 1,800 men and
women employed by a large national organization (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). This sample differed in sev-
eral respects from the BLSA samples on which the NEO PI-R was originally developed: (a) the participants
were considerably younger in age, with several hundred participants in their twenties; (b) although virtually all
participants were high school graduates, a much smaller proportion had advanced degrees; and, finally, (c) this
sample had a much higher proportion of non-White participants: 21 % were Black; 10% were Hispanic, Asian,
or another ethnicity/race. Although these participants completed the NEO PI-R as part of research on job per-
formance, they were volunteers and were explicitly told that the data would not be used for their performance
evaluation.

124
 Revisions to NEO-PI Scales
The NEO PI-R differs from the original NEO-PI in the addition of facet scales for the A and C domains and
also in minor changes in some of the items in the N, E, and O scales. These changes were made to improve the
internal consistency and validity of several of the facet scales. An examination of the correlations between
individual items and the facet and domain scales suggested that several items might be improved. New trial
items were administered to 394 BLSA participants who formed part of the new normative sample (Costa,
Mccrae, et al., 1991).
Because the NEO-PI facet scales had already been extensively validated, the approach to changing them was
very conservative. The NEO-PI had been administered to this sample in 1986; the new trial items were admin-
istered in 1990. Both the items to be replaced and the replacement items were correlated with the domain and
facet scales as measured in 1986. New items were adopted if, and only if,'they correlated more highly than the
original items did with the appropriate domain and facet scales, despite the passage of 4 years and the fact that
the original items were part of the criterion scales (Costa, McCrae, et al., 1991).
By these criteria, 10 items were replaced, two each for the Angry Hostility, Gregariousness, and
Assertiveness facet scales, and one each for the Activity, Excitement-Seeking, Openness to Feelings, and
Openness to Actions facet scales. These changes resulted in a somewhat clearer factor structure for the facet
scales and necessitated new normative data, but they do not appear to have altered the validity of the original
scales. Correlations between the original and revised scales ranged from .93 to .95.
In expanding the original 18-item A and C domain scales to develop facet scales, the original items were
distributed among the new facets. All of the items in the old C scale were retained, but three of the A scale items
were discarded because better replacements were found.

NEO PI-R Norms

The normative sample on which the NEO PI-R Adult Form S Profile Forms are based is a composite of
three subsamples: (a) a group of 405 men and women in ABLSA who were part of the 1989 normative sam-
ple and, in addition, who completed the new items of the NEO PI-R in 1990; (b) 329 ABLSA participants who
completed the NEO PI-R by computer administration between 1989 and 1991; and (c) 1,539 men and women
who participated in a national study of job performance. Individuals in this latter subsample of participants were
volunteers whose responses were not used for job selection or rating. Details of the subsamples are given in
Costa and McCrae (1992b) and in Costa, McCrae, et al. (1991).
Despite the differences in their sources and in the times and conditions of their administration, the three
subsamples were generally comparable in personality scores. Men in the job performance study were just over
one half a standard deviation higher than the original ABLSA sample in Extraversion scores, but none of the
other comparisons across samples for any of the five domain scores showed marked differences.
To obtain a reasonably diverse normative sample, 500 men and 500 women were selected from these groups.
They were first screened for validity checks and random responding and then selected to match U.S. Census pro-
jections for 1995 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1984) in the distribution of age and ethnic/racial groups. Although most
of these respondents had at least a high school education, by selecting less well-educated participants from the
three samples, the educational level of the group as a whole was not much higher than that of the population in
general. For men, the average number of years of formal education was 15. 7; for women, it was 13.6. These indi-
viduals ranged in age from 21 to 96 years. Means and standard deviations for NEO PI-R scales for these respon-
dents are given in Appendix B, Table B.6 of this Professional Manual.
In the 1985 edition of the NEO-PI, Form R norms were based on spouse ratings for N, E, and O scales and
on peer ratings for A and C scales. In the 1989 norms (Costa & McCrae, 1989), peer ratings were used for all
scales. Although the two kinds of ratings do not differ much (except in that peers see the individuals they rate
as somewhat more extraverted than the individuals see themselves and than their spouses see them; McCrae,
1994a), NEO PI-R Form R norms seek to minimize any differences by combining the two. In a peer ratings
study of ABLSA participants, one to four raters provided data (Costa & McCrae, 1992c). NEO PI-R Form R

125
 data were obtained from 143 ratings of 73 men and 134 ratings of 69 women. The individuals who were rated
ranged in age from 29 to 93 years. In a spouse ratings study, data were obtained for 50 men (age 39 to 86
years) and 41 women (age 33 to 76 years) in the ABLSA (McCrae, 1994a). Because there were only about one
third as many spouse ratings as peer ratings, spouse ratings were weighted by a factor of 3 (i.e., entered as
three separate cases) for the calculation of means, standard deviations, and percentiles. Means and standard
deviations are given in Appendix B, Table B. 7 of this Professional Manual.
Although levels of personality traits are generally stable in adulthood, there are notable changes between ado-
lescence and early adulthood. Recognition of this fact led to the development of college student norms and
Profile Forms in 1989. With the revision of the NEO-PI, new norms were needed, and they were provided by
two college samples, one from Canada (N = 40 males and 90 females) and one from the southeastern U.S.
(N = 108 males and 151 females). The distributions of scores in the two samples were very similar, suggest-
ing that these results should be generalizable to other settings. Means and 'standard deviations are given for male
and female college students in Appendix B, Table B.5 of this Professional Manual. These normative data were
collected on college students, but comparisons with a sample of military recruits of the same age show strik-
ing parallels (Costa & McCrae, 1997a) and suggest that the college-age norms are appropriate for individuals
age 17 through 20 years, whether they attend college or not.

126
 Appendix E
Supplemental Norms for Special Purposes

127
 Table E. l
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO-Pl-3 Form S
(Self-Report) Scales in Young Adults Age 21-30 Years
0
Male Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 79.3 20.9 92.4 22.3 86.6 22.6
E: Extraversion 114.0 17.2 120.0 19.2 117.3 18.5
0: Openness to Experience 106.6 21.2 116.2 17.2 111.9 19.6
A: Agreeableness 105.7 17.2 115.9 17.9 111.3 18.3
C: Conscientiousness 118.2 20.9 119.0 22.2 118.6 21.6

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 14.1 4.8 18.7 5.2 16.7 5.5
N2: Angry Hostility 13.9 3.9 14.8 4.7 14.4 4.4
N3: Depression 13.2 5.2 14.4 5.9 13.9 5.6
N4: Self-Consciousness 12.4 4.3 14.3 5.8 13.4 5.3
N5: Impulsiveness 15.1 4.5 17.0 3.8 16.2 4.2
N6: Vulnerability 10.6 4.3 13.1 4.5 12.0 4.6

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 21.0 4.1 23.2 4.6 22.2 4.5
E2: Gregariousness 17.5 4.5 19.2 5.1 18.5 4.9
E3: Assertiveness 17.4 4.3 17.0 4.9 17.1 4.7
E4: Activity 17.8 3.6 18.3 4.2 18.1 4.0
E5: Excitement-Seeking 20.8 4.3 20.0 4.5 20.3 4.4
E6: Positive Emotions 19.5 4.2 22.3 4.7 21.1 4.7

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 17.7 5.0 19.2 4.7 18.5 4.9
02: Aesthetics 15.3 5.9 18.2 6.1 16.9 6.2
03: Feelings 19.4 4.3 22.7 4.0 21.2 4.5
04: Actions 16.1 3.9 16.0 3.5 16.0 3.7
05: Ideas 19.0 5.7 18.6 4.8 18.8 5.2
06: Values 19.2 4.3 21.5 4.4 20.5 4.5

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 17.4 4.5 18.5 4.8 18.0 4.7
A2: Straightforwardness 16.9 4.2 19.3 4.6 18.2 4.6
A3: Altruism 21.2 4.3 24.0 4.5 22.7 4.6
A4: Compliance 14.9 4.1 14.9 4.1 14.9 4.1
A5: Modesty 16.7 4.3 18.2 4.5 17.5 4.4
A6: Tender-Mindedness 18.7 4.4 20.9 3.6 19.9 4.1

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 21.2 4.1 20.7 4.2 20.9 4.2
C2: Order 18.5 4.5 19.7 5.4 19.2 5.0
C3: Dutifulness 20.3 4.4 21.5 4.3 21.0 4.4
C4: Achievement Striving 20.6 4.5 20.1 4.7 20.3 4.6
C5: Self-Discipline 20.3 4.7 19.4 5.0 19.8 4.9
C6: Deliberation 17.3 4.7 17.6 4.6 17.5 4.6

Note. See McCrae, Martin, & Costa (2005).

"n = 97. bn = 121. cN = 218.

128
 Table E.2
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO-Pl-3 Form R
(Observer Rating) Scales in Young Adults Age 21-30 Years
Male0 Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 78.7 21.4 90.5 21.5 84.9 22.2
E: Extraversion 115.4 19.3 116.6 18.2 116.0 18.7
0: Openness to Experience 101.9 18.0 106.5 16.7 104.3 17.4
A: Agreeableness 109.0 18.6 113.6 20.5 111.4 19.7
C: Conscientiousness 114.3 24.3 118.3 22.3 116.4 23.3
Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 13.5 5.0 17.0 5.2 15.3 5.4
N2: Angry Hostility 14.1 5.2 15.9 5.2 15.0 5.2
N3: Depression 12.4 5.0 13.9 5.4 13.2 5.3
N4: Self-Consciousness 11.6 4.5 14.6 5.0 13.2 5.0
N5: Impulsiveness 15.9 4.3 15.9 4.4 15.9 4.3
N6: Vulnerability 11.1 4.7 13.3 4.4 12.2 4.7
Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 21.8 4.6 22.9 4.4 22.4 4.5
E2: Gregariousness 18.5 5.2 19.5 4.6 19.0 4.9
E3: Assertiveness 17.3 4.4 16.5 4.9 16.9 4.7
E4: Activity 16.9 4.7 17.9 4.4 17.4 4.6
E5: Excitement-Seeking 21.2 4.4 19.l 4.4 20.l 4.5
E6: Positive Emotions 19.6 4.6 20.8 4.0 20.2 4.3

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 17.6 4.2 17.3 4.7 17.5 4.5
02: Aesthetics 13.7 5.5 17.2 5.7 15.6 5.9
03: Feelings 18.6 4.4 21.0 3.8 19.9 4.3
04: Actions 15.4 4.1 14.9 3.9 15.1 4.0
05: Ideas 17.7 6.1 17.4 4.9 17.6 5.5
06: Values 18.9 4.1 18.6 3.8 18.7 3.9
Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 18.9 4.4 18.6 4.8 18.8 4.6
A2: Straightforwardness 18.1 4.8 18.7 4.7 18.4 4.7
A3: Altruism 21.8 4.8 22.8 4.7 22.3 4.7
A4: Compliance 15.5 4.6 15.3 5.1 15.4 4.9
A5: Modesty 17.0 4.9 18.6 4.8 17.8 4.9
A6: Tender-Mindedness 17.7 3.7 19.6 4.2 18.7 4.1
Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 21.4 4.7 21.4 4.4 21.4 4.6
C2: Order 16.5 5.8 18.7 5.9 17.6 6.0
C3: Dutifulness 20.1 4.3 20.9 4.2 20.5 4.2
C4: Achievement Striving 20.5 5.2 20.2 4.8 20.4 5.0
C5: Self-Discipline 19.2 5.7 19.8 5.4 19.5 5.5
C6: Deliberation 16.6 5.2 17.3 4.4 17.0 4.8
Note. See McCrae, Martin, & Costa (2005).
•n = 112. bn = 122. cN = 234.

129
 Table E.3
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO-Pl-3 Form S
(Self-Report) Scales in Adults Age 31 + Years
0
Male Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 76.0 19.9 84.4 22.7 80.7 21.9
E: Extraversion 103.8 19.1 109.1 18.0 106.8 18.7
0: Openness to Experience 101.9 17.2 108.3 17.6 105.5 17.7
A: Agreeableness 117.2 16.8 127.9 15.1 123.2 16.7
C: Conscientiousness 123.4 17.7 121.5 19.7 122.3 18.8

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 13.6 4.8 16.4 5.8 15.2 5.5
N2: Angry Hostility 13.5 4.8 12.9 4.7 13.2 4.7
N3: Depression 12.3 5.1 13.5 5.7 13.0 5.5
N4: Self-Consciousness 12.6 4.4 14.1 5.0 13.4 4.8
N5: Impulsiveness 14.7 3.9 16.0 4.2 15.4 4.1
N6: Vulnerability 9.4 3.8 11.5 4.1 10.6 4.1

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 20.7 4.4 23.5 3.9 22.3 4.3
E2: Gregariousness 14.8 4.9 17.5 4.9 16.3 5.1
E3: Assertiveness 16.4 4.8 14.9 4.9 15.5 4.9
E4: Activity 17.3 4.4 17.5 4.6 17.4 4.5
E5: Excitement-Seeking 16.5 4.7 14.8 4.5 15.5 4.7
E6: Positive Emotions 18.2 4.7 20.9 4.7 19.7 4.9

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 16.2 3.9 16.6 4.7 16.4 4.3
02: Aesthetics 14.6 5.2 17.4 5.4 16.2 5.5
03: Feelings 18.6 3.6 21.0 3.6 20.0 3.8
04: Actions 15.6 3.7 16.0 3.4 15.8 3.6
05: Ideas 17.5 5.6 17.1 5.2 17.2 5.4
06: Values 19.4 4.4 20.2 3.8 19.9 4.1

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 19.4 4.3 20.9 4.0 20.3 4.2
A2: Straightforwardness 20.5 4.4 22.1 4.3 21.4 4.4
A3: Altruism 22.5 3.6 24.7 3.1 23.7 3.5
A4: Compliance 16.1 4.4 18.0 4.3 17.2 4.4
A5: Modesty 19.2 4.4 20.6 3.9 20.0 4.2
A6: Tender-Mindedness 19.5 3.9 21.6 3.2 20.7 3.7

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 21.9 3.5 21.5 3.7 21.7 3.6
C2: Order 19.4 4.6 19.4 5.4 19.4 5.1
C3: Dutifulness 22.7 3.4 23.3 3.6 23.0 3.5
C4: Achievement Striving 19.8 4.3 18.8 4.4 19.2 4.4
C5: Self-Discipline 21.1 4.1 20.7 4.7 20.9 4.5
C6: Deliberation 18.5 4.1 17.9 4.6 18.2 4.4

Note. See McCrae, Martin, & Costa (2005).

'n = 182. bn =235. 'N =417.

130
 Table E.4
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO·Pl-3 Form R
(Observer Rating) Scales in Adults Age 31 + Years
Male0 Femaleb Combinedc
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 73.0 23.3 84.0 22.2 79.0 23.3
E: Extraversion 102.2 21.4 109.8 18.0 106.3 20.0
0: Openness to Experience 93.4 20.0 99.6 16.0 96.8 18.2
A: Agreeableness 115.4 24.1 124.3 19.4 120.3 22.1
C: Conscientiousness 125.1 22.5 124.1 22.4 124.6 22.4

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 12.3 5.4 16.4 5.0 14.5 5.6
N2: Angry Hostility 14.5 6.8 14.6 5.4 14.5 6.1
N3: Depression 11.5 5.1 13.4 5.2 12.5 5.2
N4: Self-Consciousness 11.2 4.5 13.5 4.5 12.5 4.6
N5: Impulsiveness 14.3 4.9 14.4 4.5 14.3 4.7
N6: Vulnerability 9.2 3.8 11.8 4.6 10.6 4.4

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 21.0 5.4 23.4 4.3 22.3 5.0
E2: Gregariousness 14.7 5.9 18.3 4.7 16.6 5.6
E3: Assertiveness 17.3 5.1 16.5 5.1 16.9 5.1
E4: Activity 16.2 5.0 17.7 4.4 17.0 4.8
E5: Excitement-Seeking 16.4 4.7 14.5 4.6 15.4 4.7
E6: Positive Emotions 16.5 5.3 19.4 4.5 18.0 5.1

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 14.1 4.7 15.0 4.0 14.6 4.4
02: Aesthetics 12.6 6.0 16.2 5.3 14.6 5.9
03: Feelings 17.3 4.2 20.1 3.6 18.8 4.1
04: Actions 14.3 4.3 14.2 3.5 14.2 3.9
05: Ideas 17.2 6.3 16.2 5.1 16.6 5.7
06: Values 17.8 4.2 17.9 3.8 17.9 4.0

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 18.9 5.7 20.7 4.2 19.9 5.0
A2: Straightforwardness 20.6 5.2 21.1 4.9 20.9 5.1
A3: Altruism 22.5 4.7 24.0 3.8 23.3 4.3
A4: Compliance 15.8 5.9 16.6 5.3 16.2 5.6
A5: Modesty 19.4 5.3 21.1 4.4 20.3 4.9
A6: Tender-Mindedness 18.3 4.5 20.8 3.9 19.6 4.4

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 23.4 4.1 22.7 3.9 23.0 4.0
C2: Order 18.0 5.9 18.8 6.1 18.4 6.0
C3: Dutifulness 22.5 4.5 22.7 4.1 22.6 4.3
C4: Achievement Striving 20.6 4.9 20.0 4.6 20.3 4.7
C5: Self-Discipline 21.3 5.1 21.1 5.1 21.2 5.1
C6: Deliberation 19.4 4.8 18.8 4.8 19.1 4.8

Note. See McCrae, Martin, & Costa (2005).

'n = 189. bn =226. 'N =415.

131
 Table E.5
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO PI-R Form R (Observer Ratings) in an International Sample
College Age Adult
Male 0
Femali Malec Femali
Domains/Facets M SD M SD M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 88.36 21.14 95.43 21.29 84.75 20.94 91.12 21.50
E: Extraversion 115.10 21.35 116.04 21.33 106.02 21.77 108.78 19.65
0: Openness to Experience 106.29 18.95 108.52 18.13 96.60 20.15 100.90 18.88
A: Agreeableness 106.35 23.49 109.64 22.37 108.04 23.33 115.96 22.37
C: Conscientiousness 107.17 26.32 111.31 25.14 123.54 24.93 125.00 22.56

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 15.02 4.94 17.20 5.10 15.14 4.87 17.92 5.21
N2: Angry Hostility 14.65 5.79 15.59 5.53 15.59 5.90 15.42 5.50
N3: Depression 14.47 5.20 15.50 5.33 13.36 4.87 14.74 5.15
N4: Self-Consciousness 14.38 4.61 15.78 4.54 13.73 4.18 15.09 4.28
NS: Impulsiveness 17.06 4.49 17.05 4.59 15.53 4.68 14.92 4.66
N6: Vulnerability 12.78 4.92 14.31 4.97 11.40 5.06 13.02 5.17

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 21.53 5.20 22.07 4.94 20.47 5.49 22.18 4.91
E2: Gregariousness 19.14 5.65 19.91 5.48 16.59 5.59 18.10 5.19
E3: Assertiveness 16.54 5.06 16.12 5.20 18.26 5.11 17.08 5.01
E4: Activity 17.58 4.49 17.94 4.57 17.45 4.72 18.26 4.53
ES: Excitement-Seeking 19.74 4.70 18.64 4.97 15.34 4.88 13.79 5.09
E6: Positive Emotions 20.56 5.07 21.36 5.14 17.91 5.49 19.38 5.10

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 18.09 5.01 18.35 4.86 14.86 4.74 15.40 4.53
02: Aesthetics 17.04 5.82 18.71 5.43 15.22 6.10 17.23 5.66
03: Feelings 19.14 4.36 20.35 4.26 17.51 4.24 19.55 4.18
04: Actions 15.02 3.91 15.30 3.81 13.23 4.33 14.19 4.16
05: Ideas 18.37 6.27 17.27 5.80 18.12 6.10 16.42 5.76
06: Values 18.63 3.76 18.54 3.63 17.67 3.89 18.10 4.07

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 17.80 5.22 18.22 5.09 17.22 5.39 18.15 5.22
A2: Straightforwardness 17.86 5.55 18.32 5.32 19.01 5.52 20.04 5.37
A3: Altruism 20.76 5.35 21.24 5.02 21.07 5.35 22.90 5.03
A4: Compliance 15.48 5.35 15.51 5.45 15.70 5.38 16.67 5.41
AS: Modesty 15.91 5.61 16.99 5.35 16.60 5.53 18.07 5.13
A6: Tender-Mindedness 18.54 4.21 19.37 3.96 18.44 4.14 20.13 3.97

Conscientiousness facets
CI: Competence 19.72 4.69 19.65 4.61 21.91 4.62 21.34 4.45
C2: Order 16.08 5.40 17.26 5.34 18.41 5.43 19.86 5.07
C3: Dutifulness 19.17 5.46 20.03 5.05 22.47 5.11 23.16 4.74
C4: Achievement Striving 18.44 5.41 19.11 5.10 20.55 4.99 20.02 4.60
CS: Self-Discipline 17.64 5.73 18.56 5.58 21.11 5.51 21.54 5.08
C6: Deliberation 16.12 5.81 16.70 5.59 19.10 5.52 19.08 5.16

Note. See McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005a.

an= 2,780. bn = 2,922. 'n = 3,072. an= 3,382.

132
 Table E.6
Means and Standard Deviations for NEO-Pl-3 Form R (Observer Ratings)
in an International Sample of Adolescents Age 12-17 Years
0
Males Femalesb
Domains/Facets M SD M SD
Domains
N: Neuroticism 93.99 21.87 97.84 22.03
E: Extraversion 115.14 21.98 117.93 21.58
0: Openness to Experience 102.47 17.15 106.86 16.17
A: Agreeableness 100.96 21.40 103.80 21.59
C: Conscientiousness 92.98 28.12 100.33 28.02

Neuroticism facets
Nl: Anxiety 15.55 5.02 16.96 5.06
N2: Angry Hostility 15.84 5.63 16.47 5.73
N3: Depression 14.59 5.06 15.34 5.10
N4: Self-Consciousness 15.15 4.63 15.59 4.66
N5: Impulsiveness 18.00 4.62 17.90 4.68
N6: Vulnerability 14.86 4.91 15.57 4.93

Extraversion facets
El: Warmth 20.80 5.08 21.62 4.93
E2: Gregariousness 19.16 5.41 20.55 5.21
E3: Assertiveness 15.96 5.06 16.45 4.95
E4: Activity 17.74 4.65 18.07 4.55
ES: Excitement-Seeking 21.02 4.82 19.82 4.93
E6: Positive Emotions 20.47 5.00 21.43 4.92

Openness facets
01: Fantasy 19.15 4.69 19.38 4.56
02: Aesthetics 15.19 5.49 17.90 5.18
03: Feelings 18.46 4.02 19.90 3.91
04: Actions 15.46 3.79 15.87 3.74
05: Ideas 16.44 6.05 16.02 5.51
06: Values 17.77 3.18 17.79 3.13

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust 17.62 4.68 18.04 4.66
A2: Straightforwardness 16.60 5.21 16.95 5.26
A3: Altruism 19.61 5.28 20.08 5.25
A4: Compliance 14.05 5.17 14.06 5.44
A5: Modesty 15.03 5.47 15.56 5.29
A6: Tender-Mindedness 18.05 4.23 19.11 4.17

Conscientiousness facets
Cl: Competence 17.23 5.05 17.72 5.01
C2: Order 14.02 5.85 15.85 5.91
C3: Dutifulness 16.20 5.39 17.67 5.40
C4: Achievement Striving 16.83 5.59 18.05 5.45
C5: Self-Discipline 15.03 5.92 16.39 5.86
C6: Deliberation 13.66 5.54 14.66 5.68

Note. See De Fruyt et al. (2009). Used by permission of Filip De Fruyt.

•n = 2,526. bn = 2,583.

133
 Appendix F
T-Score to Percentile Rank Conversions
for the NEO-Pl-3 and the NEO-FFI-3

135
 Table F. l
T-Score to Percentile Rank Conversions
Tscore %ile
80 99.9
79 99.8
78 99.7
77 99.6
76 99.5
75 99.4
74 99.2
73 98.9
72 98.6
71 98.2
70 97.7 ,
69 97.1
68 96.4
67 95.5
66 94.5
65 93.3
64 91.9
63 90.3
62 88.5
61 86.4
60 84.1
59 81.6
58 78.8
57 75.8
56 72.6
55 69.2
54 65.5
53 61.8
52 57.9
51 54.0
50 50.0
49 46.0
48 42.1
47 38.2
46 34.5
45 30.8
44 27.4
43 24.2
42 21.2
41 18.4
40 15.9
39 13.6
38 11.5
37 9.7
36 8.1
35 6.7
34 5.5
33 4.5
32 3.6
31 2.9
30 2.3
29 1.8
28 1.4
27 1.1
26 0.8
25 0.6
24 0.5
23 0.4
22 0.3
21 0.2
20 0.1
Note. Adapted from the Conversion Table for Derived Scores by the Associa-
tion of Chief Psychologists with Ontario School Boards (ACPOSB). Retrieved
from http://www.acposb.on.ca/conversion.htm.

136
 Appendix G
lntercorrelations of NEO PI-R Form S Scales
in the Adult Normative Sample

137
.....
w
00
Table G.l
lntercorrelations Among Adult Form S NEO PI-R Scales
NEO PI-R domain/facet E 0 A C Nl N2 NJ N4 N5 N6 El E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Neuroticism N -.21 .02 -.25 -.53 .81 .71 .85 .74 .61 .78 -.22 -.16 -.33 -.08 .04 -.13
Extraversion E .40 .04 .27 -.12 -.09 -.24 -.31 .12 -.31 .65 .70 .66 .68 .63 .73
Openness 0 -.02 -.02 .04 .05 .03 -.08 .14 -.08 .29 .19 .27 .27 .27 .34
Agreeableness A .24 -.11 -.47 -.14 -.09 -.21 -.12 .40 .12 -.15 -.08 -.24 .18
Conscientiousness C -.31 -.33 -.48 -.36 -.41 -.54 .24 .11 .34 .33 -.03 .15
Anxiety Nl .47 .64 .54 .34 .60 -.08 -.06 -.24 -.04 .01 -.07
Angry Hostility N2 .52 .37 .40 .43 -.27 -.15 -.06 .08 .12 -.12
Depression N3 .60 .38 .63 -.20 -.18 -.32 -.12 .00 -.17
Self-Consciousness N4 .31 .56 -.23 -.23 -.42 -.14 -.09 -.16
Impulsiveness NS .35 .00 .03 -.04 .06 .25 .16
Vulnerability N6 -.21 -.11 -.42 -.22 -.08 -.21
Warmth El .49 .32 .24 .16 .52
Gregariousness E2 .35 .27 .34 .35
Assertiveness E3 .44 .23 .31
Activity E4 .38 .45
Excitement-Seeking E5 .37
Positive Emotions E6
Fantasy 01
Aesthetics 02
Feelings 03
Actions 04
Ideas 05
Values 06
Trust Al
Straightforwardness A2
Altruism A3
Compliance A4
Modesty AS
Tender-Mindedness A6
Competence Cl
Order C2
Dutifulness C3
Achievement Striving C4
Self-Discipline cs
Deliberation C6
(continued)
 Table G.1 (continued}
lntercorrelations Among Adult Form S NEC PI-R Scales
NEO PI-R domain/facet 01 02 03 04 05 06 Al A2 A3 A4 AS A6 Cl C2 CJ C4 cs C6
Neuroticism N .23 .01 .23 -.17 -.18 -.04 -.37 -.18 -.23 -.24 .07 -.07 -.54 -.25 -.40 -.28 -.52 -.38
Extraversion E .18 .22 .40 .35 .26 .17 .21 -.16 .38 -.11 -.23 .15 .32 .16 .11 .41 .30 -.08
Openness 0 .65 .71 .62 .60 .70 .52 .13 -.15 .05 -.06 -.17 .15 .12 -.13 -.04 .16 -.04 -.13
Agreeableness A -.17 .12 -.01 .07 -.05 -.05 .65 .72 .64 .73 .59 .64 .17 .11 .34 .03 .21 .21
Conscientiousness C -.29 .07 .01 .04 .15 -.06 .21 .26 .34 .15 -.08 .09 .76 .71 .74 .71 .84 .66
Anxiety Nl .19 .00 .22 -.11 -.14 -.02 -.27 -.09 -.07 -.11 .09 .01 -.36 -.13 -.25 -.16 -.32 -.18
Angry Hostility N2 .16 -.01 .21 -.12 -.09 .03 -.42 -.29 -.34 -.49 -.12 -.24 -.31 -.14 -.31 -.08 -.32 -.31
Depression N3 .20 .03 .18 -.14 -.13 -.04 -.30 -.11 -.18 -.13 .15 .00 -.51 -.24 -.33 -.28 -.47 -.31
Self-Consciousness N4 .08 -.03 .07 -.20 -.18 -.08 -.26 -.04 -.16 -.04 .17 -.04 -.40 -.16 -.24 -.23 -.37 -.22
Impulsiveness NS .28 .04 .28 -.03 -.05 .03 -.17 -.23 -.04 -.29 -.07 -.02 -.27 -.20 -.33 -.15 -.37 -.46
Vulnerability N6 .13 .00 .05 -.17 -.23 -.09 -.24 -.04 -.25 -.05 .11 -.03 -.58 -.27 -.37 -.37 -.53 -.28
Warmth El .08 .23 .34 .22 .16 .12 .41 .11 .56 .20 .03 .34 .26 .10 .23 .23 .20 .05
Gregariousness E2 .06 .12 .20 .27 .04 .07 .22 -.05 .24 .08 -.13 .18 .13 .05 .06 .14 .13 -.03
Assertiveness E3 .08 .13 .21 .24 .29 .10 .11 -.20 .15 -.24 -.34 -.03 .39 .16 .19 .44 .30 .05
Activity E4 .06 .15 .27 .24 .19 .13 .05 -.11 .19 -.18 -.22 -.01 .28 .22 .14 .51 .35 -.06
Excitement-Seeking ES .25 .05 .22 .20 .19 .14 -.11 -.31 .03 -.30 -.22 -.03 .03 .02 -.18 .13 .07 -.22
Positive Emotions E6 .19 .22 .39 .24 .16 .13 .21 -.03 .44 .04 -.07 .20 .23 .08 .04 .23 .19 -.10
Fantasy 01 .28 .39 .24 .30 .24 -.02 -.28 -.07 -.14 -.18 .04 -.11 -.27 -.25 -.12 -.24 -.27
Aesthetics 02 .39 .34 .46 .13 .14 .06 .06 .08 -.01 .18 .06 .02 .07 .19 .00 .00
Feelings 03 .23 .25 .17 .02 -.14 .18 -.14 -.05 .14 .10 -.03 .00 .15 -.03 -.11
Actions 04 .31 .28 .13 -.01 .08 .06 -.06 .09 .09 -.06 -.01 .16 .10 -.08
Ideas 05 .25 .09 -.10 .01 -.04 -.20 .05 .23 -.02 .10 .24 .08 .04
Values 06 .13 -.12 -.03 -.05 -.15 .05 .09 -.13 -.08 .00 -.04 -.09
Trust Al .34 .37 .39 .14 .34 .26 .04 .29 .10 .19 .10
Straightforwardness A2 .34 .47 .38 .28 .15 .17 .34 .04 .20 .24
Altruism A3 .35 .16 .45 .34 .18 .32 .21 .32 .17
Compliance A4 .36 .34 .06 .06 .22 -.03 .11 .22
Modesty AS .26 -.21 -.02 .05 -.17 -.05 .01
Tender-Mindedness A6 .10 .01 .12 -.01 .08 .09
Competence Cl .38 .51 .48 .61 .44
Order C2 .37 .40 .56 .37
Dutifulness C3 .43 .53 .45
Achievement Striving C4 .58 .25
Self-Discipline cs .39
Deliberation C6

Note. From the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO Pl-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (p. 100-101), by P. T. Costa, Jr. & R.R. McCrae, 1992, Odessa, FL: PAR. Copyright© 1992 by
,-.... PAR. Reprinted with permission. N = 1,000.
u-)
\0
 Appendix H
SAS and SPSS Programs for Targeted
Rotation to the NEO Normative Structure

141
 SAS and SPSS Programs for Targeted Rotation
to the NEO Normative Structure
These programs perform an orthogonal Procrustes rotation of a 30 x 5 matrix of principal component
factor loadings (rotated or unrotated) for NEO-PI-3 or NEO PI-R facet scales. In the SAS program, the
data are entered between the braces for the matrix LOADINGS, with commas at the end of each line
except the last. The program prints a 31 x 6 matrix in which the sixth column gives variable congruences
and the 31st row gives factor and total congruences. Significance levels are indicated by asterisks (see
McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996).
An SPSS version follows: It does not indicate significance levels, which can be obtained from McCrae
et al. (1996). This version was programmed by Ralph L. Piedmont. In the SPSS program, the data are
entered between the braces for the matrix LOADINGS, with semicolons at the end of each line except
the last. Future changes to SAS or SPSS languages may make these programs obsolete. If so, users are
advised to discuss the problem with SAS or SPSS, or to consult statisticians who can assist in develop-
ing a new program that yields equivalent results.
Regardless of statistical significance, factor, congruence coefficients need to exceed .85 (Lorenzo-
Seva & ten Berge, 2006) before factors can be considered clearly replicated.

SAS Program
PROCIML;
LOADINGS= {

};
NORM= {
0.81 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.10,
0.63 -0.03 0.01 -0.48 -0.08,
0.80 -0.10 0.02 -0.03 -0.26,
0.73 -0.18 -0.09 0.04 -0.16,
0.49 0.35 0.02 -0.21 -0.32,
0.70 -0.15 -0.09 0.04 -0.38,
-0.12 0.66 0.18 0.38 0.13,
-0.18 0.66 0.04 0.07 -0.03,
-0.32 0.44 0.23 -0.32 0.32,
0.04 0.54 0.16 -0.27 0.42,
0.00 0.58 0.11 -0.38 -0.06,
-0.04 0.74 0.19 0.10 0.10,
0.18 0.18 0.58 -0.14 -0.31,
0.14 0.04 0.73 0.17 0.14,
0.37 0.41 0.50 -0.01 0.12,
-0.19 0.22 0.57 0.04 -0.04,
-0.15 -0.01 0.75 -0.09 0.16,
-0.13 0.08 0.49 -0.07 -0.15,
-0.35 0.22 0.15 0.56 0.03,
-0.03 -0.15 -0.11 0.68 0.24,
-0.06 0.52 -0.05 0.55 0.27,
-0.16 -0.08 -0.00 0.77 0.01,
0.19 -0.12 -0.18 0.59 -0.08,
0.04 0.27 0.13 0.62 0.00,
-0.41 0.17 0.13 0.03 0.64,
-0.04 0.06 -0.19 0.01 0.70,
-0.20 -0.04 0.01 0.29 0.68,

142
 -0.09 0.23 0.15 -0.13 0.74,
-0.33 0.17 -0.08 0.06 0.75,
-0.23 -0.28 -0.04 0.22 0.57};
S = LOADINGS'*NORM;
W = EIGVEC(S*S');
V = EIGVEC(S'*S);
0 = W'*S*V;
K = DIAG(SIGN(O));
WW=W*K;
T=WW*V';
PROCRUST = LOADINGS*T;
LABELS= {'Nl','N2','N3','N4','N5','N6','El','E2'~E3',
'E4','E5', 'E6','0l','02','03','04','05','06','Al','A2','A3',
'A4','A5','A6',
'Cl','C2','C3','C4','C5','C6','FACTCONG'};
NAMES={' N',' E',' O',' A',' C','Cong'};
ROWP = {"p"};
A= (VECDIAG(NORM'*NORM))##{.5};
B = (VECDIAG(PROCRUST'*PROCRUST))##{.5};
C = VECDIAG((NORM'*PROCRUST)/(A*B'));
D = (VECDIAG(NORM*NORM'))##{.5};
E = (VECDIAG(PROCRUST*PROCRUST'))##{ .5};
F = VECDIAG((NORM*PROCRUST')/(D*E'));
G = (SUM(NORM#PROCRUST))/((SSQ(NORM))#
(SSQ(PROCRUST)))##{.5};
PROCCONG = (PROCRUSTIIF)//(C'IIG);
p5=F>.86; pl=F>.94;
y5=G>.42; yl=g>.46; p=char((p5+pl)//(y5+yl));
z5=C>.55; zl=C>.65; z=char((z5+zl)');
call change(p," 2","**",0);
call change(p," l ","*",0); call change(p,"O"," ",O);
call change(z,'' 2",''**",0); call change(z," 1","*",0);
call change(z,"0"," ",0);
reset linesize=78 noname;
print "Procrustes Rotation with Congruence Coefficients" ;
PRINT PROCCONG [COLNAME = NAMES]
[ROWNAME = LABELS] [FORMAT= 8.2] p;
print z
[rowname = ROWP] [format=$char8.2];
print
"*Congruence higher than that of 95% of rotations from random data.
* *Congruence higher than that of 99% of rotations from random data.";

SPSS Procrustes Program

matrix.
compute LOADINGS={

}.
compute NORMS={
.81, .02, -.01, -.01, -.10;
.63, -.03, .01, -.48, -.08;
.80, -.10, .02, -.03, -.26;

143
 .73, -.18, -.09, .04, -.16;
.49, .35, .02, -.21, -.32;
.70, -.15, -.09, .04, -.38;
-.12, .66, .18, .38, .13;
-.18, .66, .04, .07, -.03;
-.32, .44, .23, -.32, .32;
.04, .54, .16, -.27, .42;
.00, .58, .11, -.38, -.06;
-.04, .74, .19, .10, .10;
.18, .18, .58, -.14, -.31;
.14, .04, .73, .17, .14;
.37, .41, .50, -.01, .12;'
-.19, .22, .57, .04, -.04;
-.15, -.01, .75, -.09, .16;
-.13, .08, .49, -.07, -.15;
-.35, .22, .15, .56, .03;
-.03, -.15, -.11, .68, .24;
-.06, .52, -.05, .55, .27;
-.16, -.08, -.00, .77, .01;
.19, -.12, -.18, .59, -.08;
.04, .27, .13, .62, .00;
-.41, .17, .13, .03, .64;
-.04, .06, -.19, .01, .70;
-.20, -.04, .01, .29, .68;
-.09, .23, .15, -.13, .74;
-.33, .17, -.08, .06, .75;
-.23, -.28, -.04, .22, .57}.
compute s=t(loadings)*nonns.
compute wl=s*t(s).
compute vl=t(s)*s.
call eigen (wl,w,evalwl).
call eigen (vl,v,evalvl).
compute o=t(w)*s*v.
compute xl=diag(o).
compute ql=xl&/abs(xl).
compute k=mdiag(ql).
compute ww=w*k.
compute tl=ww*t(v).
compute procrust=loadings*tl.
compute cmlm2=t(procrust)*nonns.
compute ca=diag(cmlm2).
compute csum2ml=cssq(procrust).
compute csum2m2=cssq(nonns).
compute csqrtll=sqrt(csum2ml).
compute csqrtl2=sqrt(csum2m2).
compute cb=t(csqrtll)*csqrtl2.
compute cc=diag(cb).
compute cd=ca&/cc.
compute faccongc=t(cd).
compute nnlm2=procrust*t(nonns).
compute ra=diag(nnlm2).
compute rsum2ml=rssq(procrust).
compute rsum2m2=rssq(nonns ).

144
compute rsqrtll=sqrt(rsum2ml).
compute rsqrtl2=sqrt(rsum2m2).
compute rb=rsqrtll *t(rsqrtl2).
compute rc=diag(rb ).

compute faccongr=ra&/rc.
compute gl=procrust&*norms.
compute gl l=msum(gl).
compute g2=mssq(procrust).
compute g3=mssq(norms).
compute g=gl 1/(sqrt(g2*g3)).
compute procrust= {procrust, faccongr; faccongc,g} .,

print procrust /title= "FACTOR CONGRUENCE COEFFICIENTS"

/format f5.2/ clabels= "N" "E" "O" "A" "C" "ITEMCONG"
/rlabels= "Nl" "N2" "N3" "N4" "N5" "N6" "El" "E2"
"E3" "E4" "E5" "E6" "01" "02" "03" "04" "05" "06"
"Al" "A2" "A3" "A4" "A5" "A6" "Cl" "C2" "C3" "C4" "C5"
"C6" "FACTCONG"
/space=newpage.
end matrix.
Note. Adapted from "Evaluating Replicability of Factors in the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Versus Procrustes
Rotation," by R.R. McCrae, A. B. Zonderman, P. T. Costa, Jr., M. H. Bond,
& S. V. Paunonen, 1996, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
p. 552-566. Copyright 1996 by the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 227-228. Adapted from The Revised NEO Personality Inventory:
Clinical and Research Applications (p. 227-228), by R. L. Piedmont, 1998,
New York, NY: Plenum. Copyright 1998 by Plenum. Adapted with permission.

145