The Big Five

by David Harris

A REVIEW OF THE USE OF FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS IN RECRUITMENT

SELECTION AS PREDICTORS OF FUTURE WORK PERFORMANCE.
Why Do We Test?
It makes perfect sense; decide what qualities you require in terms of potential employees, design a
test to assess the psychological profile of applicants, and recruit on the basis of the test results. All seems
straightforward, until you realise that over the last thirty years this issue has been the subject of research,
discussion and argument by eminent psychologists and other academics, producing many books and
countless articles, all of which generate more heat than light, and leading to one conclusion: the results are
inconclusive. So why do we pursue a course of action which expert opinion tells us is, at worst, flawed in
its basic application, and at best a poor relation of other instruments of staff selection? The answer could
lie in our basic insecurity when faced with the important task of selecting a new staff member: on the basis
that people may be prepared to tell us whatever we want to hear in order to get a job, how do we find
out what that person is really like, how do they think, how do we get inside their mind. Whilst this
simplistic approach may not drive the research into psychological profiling (PP), it could well explain the
widespread acceptance of it as a recruitment tool despite its apparent lack of validity based on actual
results. Central to the arguments surrounding the use of PP is the concept of the ‘Big Five’ – five traits or
dimensions of personality which are the keys to success at work in terms of performance of specific
duties (task related) and overall work behaviours (contextual) such as attendance and punctuality. This
article attempts to examine this aspect of PP by looking at its origins and reviewing some academic
studies based on theory and on empirical research. If at all possible I hope to be able to form an opinion
based on my research, but at this stage I would rather leave that option open.
Origins and Explanation
Efforts to define basic personality traits date from 1932 when McDougall wrote that, “Personality
may to advantage be broadly analysed into five distinguishable but separate factors, namely intellect,
character, temperament, disposition, and temper…” Over the following thirty years various researchers
studied and developed this theory, and in 1963 W.T.Norman, drawing on research into personality
factors, suggested that all dimensions of personality could be classified as falling into one or other of the
following: Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Culture. These have
been subsequently referred to as “Norman’s Big Five” or simply as the “Big Five” (Barrick and Mount
1991). These dimensions are still used today, although Emotional Stability is sometimes referred to as
Neuroticism, and Culture is now usually called Openness to Experience. Other researchers have
suggested that a field of five dimensions is too broad. A nine-factor system has been proposed (Hough
and Schneider 1996), but most studies argue that the narrower the definition, the less predictable it
becomes in terms of contextual performance. Narrow measures have some validity in specific situations,

Page 1
in customer service situations for example, but due to the complexity of most jobs, global measures are
thought to be more reliable (Borman, Hanson, Hedge, 1997). The 1991 Barrick and Mount
meta-analysis identified the various traits associated with each dimension. Extraversion includes being
sociable, talkative, active and gregarious. Emotional Stability includes being anxious, depressed, angry
and worried. Agreeableness includes being polite, flexible, trusting, and cooperative. Conscientiousness
includes being dependable, thorough, responsible, and organised. Culture, or Openness to Experience,
includes being creative, imaginative, cultured, broad-minded, and intelligent. It must be noted at this stage
that there has been much disagreement over the precise nature of the traits associated with each of the
five dimensions, and the descriptions given above by Barrick and Mount are those which have been
generally agreed upon by most researchers.
Personality Testing
Personality testing, or psychological profiling, consists of questionnaires designed to identify
personality traits which are then matched with desirable profiles for the job position. To have any validity,
the test must be reliable and appropriate for the job, occupation, or organisation in which it is to be used.
To design such a test for an individual situation is complex and expensive, so most organisations rely on
commercially available tests which measure personality in a more general way (Rudman, 1997). The
NEO-PI test, focusing primarily on the Big Five, is in widespread use, but mainly in the USA. This test
grew out of studies of a range of personality tests in the late eighties by researchers who observed that
three broad factors – Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), and Openness to Experience (O) – seemed to
recur in many different questionnaires. When correlated with the Big Five, it was found that the NEO
inventory (as it was then called) was incomplete. Subsequently, in the early nineties scales were added to
measure the remaining dimensions of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (McCrae, Costa, Pilar,
Roland, Parker, 1998), and it is now known as the NEO-PI-R (Revised NEO Personal Inventory). In a
way it can be said that this is the popular version, since questionnaires measuring the Big Five (or
alternately the Five Factor Model – FFM) had previously been in use for some time.
Rating Validity
Of all the literature on PP and the Big Five, by far the greatest amount seems to be concerned with
assessing the validity of the test results in terms of their use in predicting performance of employees. The
generally accepted system of rating validity is by correlating the test score with measurement of actual job
performance. The relationship between predicted and actual performance is represented as a ‘validity
coefficient’, or CV, ranging from zero, where the test score bears no relationship at all to performance, to
1.00, where there is a perfect one-to-one relationship (Taylor and O’Driscoll, 1995). Barrick and Mount
(1991) compiled and analysed the results of 117 validity studies undertaken between 1952 and 1988,
covering a wide range of occupations. The most significant finding in their study was that the
Conscientiousness dimension was found to be a consistently valid predictor for all occupational groups,
although the average CV was only 0.26. Barrick and Mount concluded that this aspect of personality
was important in all work situations, since it covered traits such as a sense of purpose and persistence.
Extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations, managers and sales, where interaction with
others is a major part of the job. However, the average CV for both occupations was less than 0.20. The
Openness to Experience dimension was found to be a valid predictor for training proficiency. Barrick and
Mount thought the possible reason for this was that people who scored high on this aspect were likely to
have positive attitudes towards learning in general. Extraversion was also found to relate well to training.
Barrick and Mount quote a 1976 study by RW Burris which indicated that “learning is more effective
when the learner is active rather than passive”, and it seemed natural to conclude that extraverts who
were open to experience would take an active stance towards learning. The correlations for Emotional
Stability were very low. Barrick and Mount thought that there was not a linear relation between
Emotional Stability and job performance beyond the ‘critically unstable’ level. That is, as long as the
individual had basic emotional stability the predictive value was minimal. Also the results for
Agreeableness were negligible, suggesting that it is not an important factor even in jobs with a large social

Page 2
component, such as sales or management. This was in contrast to the results on Extraversion, and it was
concluded that being polite and trusting had less impact on performance than being talkative and
gregarious. A similar meta-analysis, also in 1991 (Tett, Jackson, Rothstein) generally supported these
findings, but was more positive in terms of validity. Based on 97 studies between 1968 and 1990, an
overall relation between personality and job performance was found to be 0.24, and it was also found
that Conscientiousness had the highest rating. This study concluded that personality measures have a
place in personnel selection, provided the relevant traits are determined through a personality-oriented
job analysis, and that greater attention has to be given to designing valid tests to measure these. This is
confirmed by the comments from Rudman (1997), summarised above. A further study in 1994 by
Mount, Barrick and Strauss compared observer ratings (supervisor, co-worker, and customers) with
self-ratings of personality measures, based on a sample of 105 sales representatives. Once again this
confirmed earlier research, in that two of the five dimensions – Conscientiousness and Extraversion –
were found to be valid predictors of job performance, and the CV ratings of the observers were at least
as high as for self rating. Continuing this work in 1998, Mount, Barrick and Stewart carried out a
meta-analysis of 11 studies into the degree to which dimensions of the Big Five are related to
performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions with others. Results again showed that
Conscientiousness was positively related to performance in these situations, and also showed that
Agreeableness and Emotional Stability were related to performance in jobs involving teamwork. Overall,
although these various researchers have similar findings, the CV ratings across all aspects of personality
testing seems low, with the average around 0.20 out of a possible 1.00. Some studies that have focused
on specific occupations have had better results. Fisher and Boyle (1997) quote a 1994 meta-analysis
which suggested that “measures of customer service orientation were significantly related to performance
in service jobs, with a mean correlation of 0.50”. This again would indicate the importance of focusing on
job analysis and specific trait requirements.
Response Distortion
Apart from the low validity rating of personality testing in general, the major concern has been the
potential for applicants to distort their responses to appear better than they actually are. A number of
studies have shown that there are two separate types of response distortion: self-deception, that is, a
tendency to have a higher opinion of one’s abilities than may be the case, and impression management,
which is a deliberate attempt to create a more favourable impression with others (Barrick and Mount,
1996). Research has demonstrated that people can and often do consciously manipulate scores on
personality tests. In one particular study, by Paulhus, Bruce and Trapnell in 1995, 370 subjects were
asked to respond as job applicants to tests that measured the Big Five, and also measured self-deception
and impression management (known as Socially Desirable Responding – SDR). The subjects were
randomly assigned to respond to the tests using one of a variety of strategies, including ‘faking best’,
‘faking good’ without arousing suspicion, being honest, and ‘faking bad’. The results showed a high
correlation in all areas except for results where ‘being honest’ was used. The highest correlation was
between Impression Management and the dimension of Conscientiousness – in other words, the
dimension which validity studies show to be the best predictor of performance is in fact the easiest to
fake (and it could then be argued that the research into predictive validity may be basically flawed).
Overall, the conclusion was that deliberate self-presentation can easily inflate or deflate test scores. This
may not be all bad news for employers. Some researchers have suggested that distortion can be a
positive predictor of job success. The theory is that applicants who are socially aware enough to present
themselves in the best possible way may be better at getting along in the world and may make better
employees, although this theory has not yet been supported by empirical study (Fisher and Boyle, 1997).
Various strategies have been developed to deal with response distortion. One strategy involves
“correcting” an individual’s score based on an Unlikely Virtues (UV) scale. This scale measures
responses in terms of what would normally be expected, with the result that responses which appear to
present the applicant in an overly favourable way are highlighted, and the score can then be
“downgraded”, or the individual can be removed from the applicant pool. Studies of the use of this

Page 3
strategy show positive results, in that average scores for applicants who are seen to respond honestly
closely match scores from sample groups of incumbent staff, who do not have the same incentive to
distort responses (Hough, 1998). In another study 120 subjects were divided into three groups. One
group was asked to respond honestly to the personality test, and one group was instructed to “fake
good”. The third group was also asked to try to “fake good”, but was warned that faking could be
detected. Analysis of the results showed significant differences between the three groups, and the pattern
of differences suggested that the threat of detection reduced faking (Goffin and Woods, 1995).
Conclusion
Despite low validity ratings and potential distortion of responses, logic would tell us that certain
personality traits are important for success in any job. Aspects such as personal motivation to succeed,
persistence, ability to learn, social awareness, initiative and creativity, are usually highly desirable in most
occupations. If these traits can be revealed in personality tests, then there must always be a place for
such tests in the selection repertoire. The Big Five dimensions encapsulate the major facets of personality,
and thirty years of research continues to support this theory to varying degrees. The caveat must be that
personality tests on their own, quite correctly, have low validity. The test must be related to a detailed
and specific job analysis. There must be adequate safeguards against “faking”. After an applicant has
been accepted and has started work, performance should be evaluated and correlated to the test results,
to ensure the particular test has actually provided the desired outcome. There is a large number of
commercially available tests, and adoption of a particular test should be based on sound research into its
validity. Can a personality test allow us to look inside someone’s mind? Probably not. Can a test give us
just a little more information about an applicant than we would otherwise have? Quite possibly, and for
that reason alone the use of testing or profiling can be justified, provided this cautionary perspective can
be kept in mind. As to the future, during research for this report I came across an article by Judy D.
Olian, from the University of Maryland, entitled ‘Genetic Screening for Employment Purposes’. The
article begins: “ Recently, Congress, corporations and the public have shown interest in a novel form of
employment screening: genetic testing. Due to massive advances in the technology of genetic engineering,
industrial applications of genetic testing may soon be feasible. This suggests that human resource
management specialists would be well advised to acquire some familiarity with the procedure.
References:
McDougall W: Of the Words Character and Personality: Character Personality, 1932, 1 (pp3-16).
A Meta-Analysis. Barrick MR, Mount MK: The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance:
Personnel Psychology 1991, 44, (pp1-26).
Hough LM, Schneider RJ: Personality Traits, Taxonomies, and Applications in Organisations: Individual
Differences and Behaviour in Organisations, 1996 (pp31-87).
Borman WC, Hanson MA, Hedge JW: Personnel Selection: Annual Review of Psychology, 1997, 48
(pp299-337).
McCrae R, Costa P, Pilar G, Rolland J, Parker W: Cross-Cultural Assessment of the Five Factor
Model: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Jan 1998, 29/1 (pp171-188)
Rudman R: Human Resources Management in New Zealand. 1997, pp255, 258.
Taylor PJ, O’Driscoll MP: Structured Employment Interviewing. 1995, pp6-7.
Tett RP, Jackson D, Rothstein M: Personality Measures as Predictors of Job Performance: A
Meta-Analytic Review: Personnel Psychology, 1991,44 (pp 703-742)
Mount MK, Barrick MR, Strauss JP: Validity of Observer Ratings of the Big Five Personality Factors:
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1994, 79(2) (pp272-280).
Mount MK, Barrick MR, Stewart GL: Five Factor Model of Personality and Performance in Jobs
Involving Interpersonal Interactions: Human Performance, 1998, 11(2-3) (pp145-165).
Fisher CD, Boyle GJ: Personality and Employee Selection: Credibility Regained: Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 1997, 35(2) (pp26-39).
Barrick MR, Mount MK: Effects of Impression Management and Self-Deception on the Predictive

Page 4
Validity of Personality Constructs: Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996, 81(3) (pp261-272).
Paulhus DL, Bruce MN, Trapnell PD: Effects of Self-Presentation Strategies on Personality Profiles and
Their Structure: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1995, 21(2) (pp100-108).
Hough LM: Effects of Intentional Distortion in Personality Measurement and Evaluation of Suggested
Palliatives: Human Performance, 1998, 11(2-3), (pp209-244).
Goffin RD, Woods DM: Using Personality Testing for Personnel Selection – Faking and Test-Taking
Inductions: International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1995, 3(4), (pp227-236).

Page 5