Note. The abbrevations of scales are as follows: Formal Characteristics of Behavior—Temperament Inventory (FCB-TI): Briskness (BR), Perseverative (PE), Sensory Sensitivity (SS), Emotional Reactivity (ER), Endurance (EN), Activity (AC); Pavlovian Temperament Survey (PTS): Strength of Excitation (SE), Strength of Inhibition (Si), Mobility of Nervous Processes (MO); EAS Temperament Survey (EAS-TS): Activity (ACT), Sociability (SOC), Emotionality (EMO—combined score of Distress, Fear and Anger); Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey (DOTS-R): Activity-General (A-G), Activity-Sleep (A-S), Approach-Withdrawal (A-W). Flexibility-Rigidity (F-R), Mood Quality (MQ), Rhythmicity-Sleep (R-S), Rhythmicity-Eating (R-E), Rhythmicity-Daily Habits (R-H), Distractibility (DIS), Persistence (PER); Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R): Extraversion (EXT), Neuroticism (NEU), Psychoticism (PSY); NEO Five Factor Inventory (NE-FFI): Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), Openness (O), Agree-ableness (A), Consciensciousness (C). *p. < .01
Psychoticism (L. R. Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; John, 1990) this factor may be identified as Agreeableness, with only moderate, but reasonable, loadings on two temperamental scales: Sensory Sensitivity and Strength of Inhibition.
When only temperamental scales were taken into account the five factors separated at the following points: Factor I, Emotional Stability; Factor II Extraversion; Factor III Rhythmicity; Factor IV, Energeticness/Attentional Focus; and Factor V, Sensory Sensitivity. Taking into account the coefficients of correlation between the NEO-FFI scales and these five temperament factors we see that the Neuroticism and Extraversion scales show correlations with the first two tem perament factors as predicted. The relationships between the three remaining NEO scales and the temperament factors III, IV, and V are much less clear.
The issue of whether the Big Five should be regarded as temperament or as personality factors will remain unresolved until sufficient empirical findings are collected and as long as the domains of temperament and personality are imprecisely delineated. We may say that those of the Big Five which have a biological background, which are present since early childhood, and may be found both in man and animals, fulfill the criteria of temperament. There is ample evidence showing that if factors I and IV (Extraversion and Neuroticism) are understood as they have been conceptualized by H. J. Eysenck (1967, 1970, H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), they should be regarded as dimensions belonging to the domain of temperament. At the same time it seems reasonable to assume that the three remaining factors—Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Intellect or Openness — refer rather to the phenomenon known in psychology as character (Strelau & Zawadzki, 1996). This view seems to be reasonable if we take into account the level of facets that represent Agreeableness and Conscientiousness as described by the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Such facets as trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness (Agreeableness), competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline and deliberation (Conscientiousness) do not reflect the nature of temperament and they may be identified as typical character traits that develop, however, in individuals with a given temperament endowment.
Costa and McCrae (1992a) have proposed four criteria for basic dimensions of personality. In the authors' opinion the Big Five fulfill these criteria. These are as follows: (1) the reality of the factors, expressed in stability, cross-observer validity, and practical utility of the factors; (2) the pervasiveness of the factors, that is, their presence in innumerable forms throughout all personality concepts; (3) the universality of the factors, by which is meant that they are present in both sexes, in various age groups, in all races, and in different cultures; and (4) the biological bases of the factors mainly reduced to heritability scores. Some of these criteria, for example, criteria (l), (3), and (4) seem to be similar to the ones discussed in the context of temperament. Also Zuckerman (1992) has proposed four criteria for a basic trait of personality. They differ to some extent from Costa and McCrae's and are closer to the criteria used for temperament traits. One of the four criteria refers to the identification of similar kinds of behavior traits in nonhuman species. This is a requirement not fulfilled by such factors from the Big Five as II (Agreeable-ness), III (Consciensciousness), and V (Culture).
The similarities and differences between temperament traits and the concept of the Big Five would be clearer if we had evidence throwing more light on the issue of the extent to which the Big Five are present from early infancy and whether they can also be found in animals—two crucial criteria by which temperament traits are distinguished from other personality characteristics.
One has to be very careful, however, in formulating statements that say that temperament traits may be reduced to the Big Five or that the Big Five factors describe the whole ofpersonality, including temperament. One may also inquire about the explanatory power or predictive value of a procedure that leads to classifying a given set of temperament traits within the five factor taxonomy ofpersonality. We know from biology (e.g., biological species), chemistry (chemical elements), and many other sciences, that taxonomies are very useful tools in explaining and predicting given phenomena (see, e.g., Meehl, 1992). The theoretical backgrounds of the Big Five taxonomy are trivial, ifthey exist at all. The most thorough and detailed critique ofthe big-five approach conducted by Block (1995) led him to the conclusion that "The Big Five factors, as they have evolved and become differently understood which remaining similarly labelled by different Big Fivers, represent striking instances of the jingle fallacy" (p. 209). The five-factor model of personality is a purely empirical outcome, and recent findings force us to reflect on the relationship between some of the Big Five factors and temperament traits.
To exemplify this need for reflection it must be stated that Factor V, known under the labels Openness (to Experience), Intelligence, Intellect, or Culture (see Digman, 1990), has little in common with temperament characteristics, although this factor in Angleitner and Ostendorf s (1994) study correlated positively with strength ofexcitation and mobility. Costa and McCrae (1992a, p. 654) included the following facets in the Openness scale of the NEO PI: fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. One may assume, as Angleitner and Ostendorf did, that the only domain that refers to temperament is the preference for experience, expressed in actions. But a conclusion based on a correlation between openness and strength of excitation that this Pavlovian NS property is related to aesthetics, ideas, and values of which openness is composed leads to nonsense. The impression that Factor V, when its content characteristics are taken into account, is far removed from temperament traits, is expressed even more clearly when the Factor V content characteristics are described by means of adjectives. Ostendorf and Angleitner (1992) have shown that Factor V (Culture, Intellect, Openness) had the highest loadings on the following adjectives: artistically sensitive-artistically insensitive, intellectual-unreflective (narrow), creative-uncreative, broad interests-narrow interests, intelligent-unintelligent, imaginative-unimaginative. It is obvious that all these adjective descriptions are far removed from the temperament area. Thus the inclusion of several temperament traits in Factor V of the Big Five reduces the specificity of temperament characteristics, that is, ascribes them a meaning that they do not have, and may lead to many misunderstandings.
Why then, in spite of the spectacular differences between the content characteristics of several factors ofthe Big Five (V, II and III and temperament, do some temperament scales have loadings on those factors? A satisfactory explanation can be given only when more empirical evidence is collected. Some speculations on this matter may be offered: (a) Temperament traits are present from the very onset of the human life and therefore they contribute to the development of all other personality characteristics; (b) all Big Five factors have several elements that may be more or less directly attributed to temperament (e.g., preference for variety in Factor V, good-natured-irritable in Factor II or hardworking-lazy in Factor III);
(c) questionnaires aimed at measuring the Big Five include items formulated in the same way or very similarly to those present in temperament questionnaires;
(d) when we factor analyze the many scales of inventories, which differ in their contents, the common denominator to which they refer when reduced to a small number of factors (e.g., the Big Five) consists mainly of certain formal characteristics of behavior rather than of the specific content by means of which the separate scales are described. The closer we are to grasping the formal characteristics common to the separate scales, the closer we come to the temperament domain.
We are still far from a satisfactory answer to the question regarding the relationship between temperament and personality, including the big-five approach. More empirical research is needed that goes beyond the psychometric and lexical approach (see Kagan, 1994) and that takes into account the developmental specificity (Kohnstamm et al., 1989), the cardinal influence ofthe environment (Wachs, 1992, 1994), and genetic contribution (Goldsmith, Losoya, Bradshaw, & Campos, 1994) in grasping the relationship between temperament and personality and in the process of molding the structure of personality based on temperament endowment.
Was this article helpful?