PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

1991.44

THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB

PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS

MURRAY R. BARRICK, MICHAEL K. MOUNT

Department of Management and Organizations
University of Iowa

This study investigated the relation of the Big Five personality di-
mensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Consci-
entiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance
criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for
five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and
skilledhemi-skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of person-
ality, Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job per-
formance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining per-
sonality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by
occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid pre-
dictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and
sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and
Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion
(across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found
to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types,
but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small
( p < .lo). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5-
factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical
findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and
practice in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of person-
nel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.

Introduction

Over the past 25 years, a number of researchers have investigated the

validity of personality measures for personnel selection purposes. The
overall conclusion from these studies is that the validity of personality as
a predictor of job performance is quite low (e.g., Ghiselli, 1973; Guion
& Gottier, 1965; Locke & H u h , 1962; Reilly & Chao, 1982; Schmitt,

Both authors contributed equally to this study. We would Iike to thank Frank Schmidt,
Ralph Alexander, Paul Costa, Mike Judiesch, Wendy Dunn, and Jacob Sines for thoughtful
comments about the article and some of the data analyses. We gratefully acknowledge
the assistance of Mike Judiesch, Wendy Dunn, Eric Neumann, Val Arnold, and Duane
Thompson in categorizing the personality scales.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Murray R. Barrick,
Department of Management and Organizations, College of Business Administration, The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.

COPYRIGHT 01991 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC.

2 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). However, at the time these studies were
conducted, no well-accepted taxonomy existed for classifyingpersonality
traits. Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether there
were consistent, meaningful relationships between particular personality
constructs and performance criteria in different occupations.
In the past 10years, the views of many personality psychologistshave
converged regarding the structure and concepts of personality. Gener-
ally, researchers agree that there are five robust factors of personality
(described below) which can serve as a meaningful taxonomy for classi-
fying personality attributes (Digman, 1990). Our purpose in the present
study is to examine the relationship of these five personality constructs
to job performance measures for different occupations, rather than to
focus on the overall validity of personality as previous researchers have
done.

Emelgence of the 5-Factor Model

Systematic efforts to organize the taxonomy of personality began

shortly after McDougall (1932) wrote that, Personality may to advan-
tage be broadly analyzed into five distinguishable but separate factors,
namely intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper. . .
(p. 15). About 10 years later, Cattell (1943, 1946, 1947, 1948) devel-
oped a relatively complex taxonomy of individual differences that con-
sisted of 16 primary factors and 8 second-order factors. However, re-
peated attempts by researchers to replicate his work were unsuccessful
(Fiske, 1949; Tupes, 1957; Tupes & Christal, 1961) and, in each case,
researchers found that the 5-factor model accounted for the data quite
well. For example, Tupes and Christal(l961) reanalyzed the correlations
reported by Cattell and Fiske and found that there was good support for
five factors: Surgency, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Dependabil-
ity, and Culture. As it would turn out later, these factors (and those of
McDougall35 years before) were remarkably similar to those generally
accepted by researchers today. However, as Digman (1990) points out,
the work of Tupes and Christal had only a minor impact because their
study was published in an obscure Air Force technical report. The 5-
factor model obtained by Fiske (1949) and Tupes and Christal (1961)
was corroborated in four subsequent studies (Borgatta, 1964; Hakel,
1974; Norman, 1963; Smith 1967). Borgattas findings are noteworthy
because he obtained five stable factors across five methods of data gath-
ering. Normans work is especially significant because his labels (Ex-
traversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Culture) are used commonly in the literature and have been referred to,
subsequently, as Normans Big Five or simply as the Big Five.
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 3

During the past decade, an impressive body of literature has accu-

mulated which provides compelling evidence for the robustness of the 5-
factor model: across different theoretical frameworks (Goldberg, 1981);
using different instruments (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988;
Lorr & Youniss, 1973; McCrae, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987,
1989); in different cultures (e.g., Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi, 1975;
Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987); using ratings obtained from different
sources (e.g., Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock,
1981; Fiske, 1949; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963; Norman &
Goldberg, 1966; Watson, 1989); and with a variety of samples (see Dig-
man, 1990, for a more detailed discussion). An important consideration
for the field of personnel psychology is that these dimensions are also rel-
atively independent of measures of cognitive ability (McCrae & Costa,
1987).
It should be pointed out that some researchers have reservations
about the 5-factor model, particularly the imprecise specification of
these dimensions (Briggs, 1989; John, 1989; Livneh & Livneh, 1989;
Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987). Some researchers suggest that more than
five dimensions are needed to encompass the domain of personality. For
example, Hogan (1986) advocates six dimensions (Sociability,Ambition,
Adjustment, Likability, Prudence, and Intellectance). The principle dif-
ference seems to be the splitting of the Extraversion dimension into So-
ciability and Ambition.

Interpretations of the BigFive

While there is general agreement among researchers concerning the

number of factors, there is some disagreement about their precise mean-
ing, particularly Normans Conscientiousness and Culture factors. Of
course, some variation from study to study is to be expected with factors
as broad and inclusive as the 5-factor model. As shown below, however,
there is a great deal of commonality in the traits that define each factor,
even though the name attached to the factor differs.
It is widely agreed that the first dimension is Eysencks Extraver-
sion/Intraversion. Most frequently this dimension has been called Ex-
traversion or Surgency (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Digman & Takemoto-
Chock, 1981; Hakel, 1974; Hogan, 1983; Howarth, 1976; John, 1989;
Krug & Johns, 1986; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Nor-
man, 1963; Smith, 1967). Traits frequently associated with it include be-
ing sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active. As mentioned
above, Hogan (1986) interprets this dimension as consisting of two com-
ponents, Ambition (initiative, surgency, ambition, and impetuous) and
Sociability (sociable, exhibitionist, and expressive).
4 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

There is also general agreement about the second dimension. This

factor has been most frequently called Emotional Stability, Stability,
Emotionality, or Neuroticism (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel,
1974; John, 1989; Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller
et al., 1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967). Common traits associated with
this factor include being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emo-
tional, worried, and insecure. These two dimensions (Extraversion and
Emotional Stability) represent the Big nYo described by Eysenck over
40 years ago.
The third dimension has generally been interpreted as Agreeable-
ness or Likability (Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Goldberg, 1981; Hakel,
1974; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al.,
1987; Norman, 1963; Smith, 1967; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Others have
labeled it Friendliness (Guilford & Zimmerman, 1949), Social Confor-
mity (Fiske, 1949), Compliance versus Hostile Non-Compliance (Dig-
man & Takemoto-Chock, 1981), or Love (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989).
Traits associated with this dimension include being courteous, flexible,
trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and toler-
ant.
The fourth dimension has most frequently been called Conscien-
tiousness or Conscience (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Hakel, 1974;John, 1989;
McCrae & Costa, 1985; Noller et al., 1987; Norman, 1963;), although it
has also been called Conformity or Dependability (Fiske, 1949; Hogan,
1983). Because of its relationship to a variety of educational achieve-
ment measures and its association with volition, it has also been called
Will to Achieve or Will (Digman, 1989; Smith, 1967; Wiggins, Black-
burn, & Hackman, 1969), and Work (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). As
the disparity in labels suggests, there is some disagreement regarding the
essence of this dimension. Some writers (Botwin & Buss, 1989; Fiske,
1949; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Noller et al., 1987) have suggested that
Conscientiousness reflects dependability; that is, being careful, thor-
ough, responsible, organized, and planful. Others have suggested that
in addition to these traits, it incorporates volitional variables, such as
hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering. Based on the evi-
dence cited by Digman (1990), the preponderance of evidence supports
the definition of conscientiousness as including these volitional aspects
(Bernstein, Garbin, & McClellan, 1983; Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985;
Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-
Chock, 1981; Howarth, 1976; Krug &Johns, 1986; Lei & Skinner, 1982;
Lorr & Manning, 1978; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989; Norman,
1963; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989; Smith, 1967).
The last dimension has been the most difficult to identify. It has been
interpreted most frequently as Intellect or Intellectence (Borgatta, 1964;
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 5

Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Hogan, 1983; John, 1989; Peabody

and Goldberg, 1989). It has also been called Openness to Experience
(McCrae & Costa, 1985) or Culture (Hakel, 1974; Norman, 1963). Dig-
man (1990) points out that it is most likely all of these. Traits commonly
associated with this dimension include being imaginative, cultured, curi-
ous, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive.
The emergence of the 5-factor model has important implications for
the field of personnel psychology. It illustrates that personality consists
of five relatively independent dimensions which provide a meaningful
taxonomy for studying individual differences. In any field of science, the
availability of such an orderly classification scheme is essential for the
communication and accumulation of empirical findings. For purposes
of this study, we adopted names and definitions similar to those used
by Digman (1990): Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience.

Expected Relations Between Personality Dimensions and Job Performance

In the present study, we investigate the validity of the five dimen-

sions of personality for five occupational groups (professionals, police,
managers, sales, and skilledhemi-skilled) and for three types of job per-
formance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel
data) using meta-analytic methods. We also investigate the validity of
the five personality dimensions for objective versus subjective criteria.
We hypothesize that two of the dimensions of personality, Consci-
entiousness and Emotional Stability, will be valid predictors of all job
performance criteria for all jobs. Conscientiousness is expected to be
related to job performance because it assesses personal characteristics
such as persistent, planful, careful, responsible, and hardworking, which
are important attributes for accomplishingwork tasks in all jobs. There
is some evidence that in educational settings there are consistent cor-
relations between scores on this dimension and educational achieve-
ment (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Smith, 1967). Thus, we ex-
pect that the validity of this dimension will generalize across all occupa-
tional groups and criterion categories. We also expect that the validity
of Emotional Stability will generalize across occupations and criterion
types. Viewing this dimension from its negative pole, we expect that em-
ployees exhibiting neurotic characteristics, such as worry, nervousness,
temperamentalness, high-strungness, and self-pity, will tend to be less
successful than more emotionally stable individuals in all occupations
studied because these traits tend to inhibit rather than facilitate the ac-
complishment of work tasks.
6 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

We expect that other personality dimensions may be related to job

performance, but only for some occupations or some criteria. For ex-
ample, in those occupations that involve frequent interaction or cooper-
ation with others, we expect that two personality dimensions, Extraver-
sion and Agreeableness, will be valid predictors. These two dimensions
should be predictive of performance criteria for occupations such as
management and sales, but would not be expected to be valid predic-
tors for occupations such as production worker or engineer.
In a similar vein, we expect that Openness to Experience will be a
valid predictor of one of the performance criteria, training proficiency.
This dimension is expected to be related to training proficiency because it
assesses personal characteristics such as curious, broadminded, cultured,
and intelligent, which are attributes associated with positive attitudes
toward learning experiences. We believe that such individuals are more
likely to be motivated to learn upon entry into the training program and,
consequently, are more likely to benefit from the training.
Finally, we investigated a research question of general interest to per-
sonnel psychologists for which we are not testing a specific hypothesis.
The question is whether the validity coefficients for the five personality
dimensions differ for two types of criteria, objective and subjective. A
recent meta-analysis by Nathan and Alexander (1988) indicates that, in
general, there is no difference between the magnitude of the validities
for cognitive ability tests obtained for objective and subjective criteria for
clerical jobs. In another study, Schmitt et al. (1984) investigated the va-
lidity of personality measures (across dimensions and occupations) for
different types of criteria, but no definitive conclusions were apparent
from the data. The average validity for the subjective criterion (perfor-
mance ratings) was .206. Validities for three of four objective criteria
were lower (.121 for turnover, .152 for achievement/grades, and .126 for
status change), whereas the validity was higher for wages (.268). Thus,
conclusionsregarding whether the validities for personality measures are
higher for objective, compared to subjective, criteria depend to a large
extent on which objective measures are used. Because our study exam-
ines personality using a 5-factor model, we are able to assess whether
dimensions have differential relationships to various objective and sub-
jective criteria.
In summary, the following hypotheses will be tested in this study.
Of the five dimensions of personality, Conscientiousness and Emotional
Stability are expected to be valid predictors of job performance for all
jobs and all criteria because Conscientiousness measures those personal
characteristics that are important for accomplishing work tasks in all
jobs, while Emotional Stability (when viewed from the negative pole)
measures those characteristics that may hinder successful performance.
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 7

In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate

with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, be-
cause interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants
of success in those occupations. Finally, Openness to Experience is ex-
pected to correlate with one of the criterion types, training proficiency,
because Openness to Experience appears to assess individualsreadiness
to participate in learning experiences. In addition, we investigated the
validity of various objective and subjective criteria for the five personality
dimensions.

Method

Literature Review

A literature search was conducted to identify published and unpub-

lished criterion-related validity studies of personality for selection pur-
poses between 1952 and 1988. Three strategies were used to search
the relevant literature. First, a computer search was done of PsycINFO
(1967-1988) and Dissertation Abstracts (1952-1988) in order to find all
references to personality in occupational selection. Second, a manual
search was conducted that consisted of checking the sources cited in the
reference section of literature reviews, articles, and books on this topic,
as well as personality inventory manuals, Buros Tests in Print (volumes 4-
9,1953-1985), and journals that may have included such articles (includ-
ing the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology,Academy of
Management Journal, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesseslOrganuationa1Behavior and Human Performance,Journal of Man-
agement,Journal of VocationalBehavior,Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,Journal of Personality, and Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology). Finally, personality test publishers and over 60 practition-
ers known to utilize personality inventories in selection contexts were
contacted by letter, requesting their assistance in sending or locating ad-
ditional published or unpublished validation studies.
Overall, these searches yielded 231 criterion-related validity studies,
117 of which were acceptable for inclusion in this analysis. The remain-
ing 114 studies were excluded for several reasons: 44 reported results
for interest and value inventories only and were excluded because they
did not focus on the validity of personality measures; 24 used composite
scores or, conversely, extracted specific items from different scales and
instruments; 19 reported only significant validity coefficients; 15 used
military or laboratory subjects; and 12 either were not selection stud-
ies or provided insufficient information.
8 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

A total of 162 samples were obtained from the 117 studies. Sample
sizes ranged from 13 to 1,401 (A4= 148.11;SD = 185.79),yielding a total
sample of 23,994. Thirty-nine samples were reported in the 1950s, 52 in
the 1960s, 33 in the 1970s, and 38 in the 1980s. Fifty samples (31%)were
collected from unpublished sources, most of which were unpublished
dissertations.
The studies were categorized into five major occupational groupings
and three criterion types. The occupational groups were professionals
(5% of the samples), which consisted of engineers, architects, attorneys,
accountants, teachers, doctors, and ministers; police (13% of the sam-
ples); managers (41% of the samples), which ranged from foremen to
top executives; sales (17% of the samples); and skilledlsemi-skilled(24%
of the samples), which consisted of jobs such as clerical, nurses aides,
farmers, flight attendants, medical assistants, orderlies, airline baggage
handlers, assemblers, telephone operators, grocery clerks, truck drivers,
and production workers.
The three criterion types were jobproficiency (included in 68% of the
samples), training proficiency (12% of the samples), and personnel data
(33% of the samples). It should be noted that in 21 samples, data were
available from two of the three criterion categories, which explains why
the total percent of sample for the three criterion types exceeds 100%.
Similarly, the total sample size on which these analyses are based will be
larger than those for analyses by occupation. Job proficiency measures
primarily included performance ratings (approximately 85% of the mea-
sures) as well as productivity data; training proficiency measures con-
sisted mostly of training performance ratings (approximately 90% of the
measures) in addition to productivity data, such as work sample data and
time to complete training results; and personnel data included data from
employee files, such as salary level, turnover, status change, and tenure.
Key variables of interest in this study were the validity coefficients,
sample sizes, range restriction data for those samples, reliability esti-
mates for the predictors and criteria, the personality scales (and the in-
ventories used), and the types of occupations. A subsample of approx-
imately 25% of the studies was selected to assess interrater agreement
on the coding of the key variables of interest. Agreement was 95% for
these variables and disagreement between coders was resolved by refer-
ring back to the original study.
Scales from all the inventories were classified into the five dimensions
defined earlier (i.e., Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) or a sixth Miscella-
neous dimension. The personality scales were categorized into these di-
mensions by six trained raters. Five of these raters had received Ph.D.s in
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 9

psychology (three were practicing consulting psychologists with respon-

sibilities for individual assessment; the other two were professors of psy-
chology and human resources management, respectively, and both had
taught personnel selection courses) and the other taught similar courses
while completing his Ph.D. in human resources management and was
very familiar with the literature on personality. A short training session
was provided to the raters to familiarize them with the rating task and
examples were provided. The description of the five factors provided to
the raters corresponded to those presented by Digman (1990) and as de-
scribed above. Raters were provided a list of the personality scales and
their definitions for each inventory and were instructed to assign each
to the dimension to which it best fit. A sixth category, Miscellaneous,
was used in those cases where the scale could not be assigned clearly
into one of the five categories. If at least five of the six raters agreed
on a dimension, the scale was coded in that dimension. If four of the
six raters agreed and the two authors ratings (completed independently
of the raters) agreed with the raters, the scale was coded into that di-
mension. If three or fewer raters agreed, the scale was coded into the
Miscellaneous dimension. At least five of six raters agreed in 68% of the
cases, four of six raters agreed in 23% of the cases, and three or fewer
raters agreed on 9% of the cases. Of the 191 scales, 39 were categorized
as representing Emotional Stability; 32 as Extraversion; 31 as Openness
to Experience; 29 as Agreeableness; 32 as Conscientiousness; 28 as Mis-
cellaneous. (A list of the inventories, their respective scales, and dimen-
sional category assigned are available from the first author.) It should
be noted that an alternative method for assigning the scales would be to
use empirical data, such as factor analyses of inventories or correlations
among scales from different inventories. However, we were unable to
locate sufficient factor analytic studies or correlational data to allow us
to use these approaches because in both cases data was available for only
about half of the variables.
To arrive at an overall validity coefficient for each scale from an in-
ventory, the following decision rules were applied in situations where
more than one validity coefficient was reported from a sample: (a) If an
overall criterion was provided, that coefficient was used and (b) when
multiple criteria were provided, they were assigned to the appropriate
criterion category (job proficiency, training proficiency, or personnel
data). If there were multiple measures from a criterion category, the
coefficients were averaged. However, because our analyses focused on
personality dimensions rather than individual personality scales (from
various inventories), the following decision rules were applied to estab-
lish the validity coefficientfor each personality dimension from a sample:
(a) If a personality dimension had only one scale categorized into that
10 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

dimension for that sample, the overall validity coefficient from that scale
(calculated as previously explained) was used and (b) if multiple scales
were available for a dimension, the coefficients from each of these scales
from that sample were averaged and the resulting average validity coef-
ficient was used in all analyses.
A number of analyses were conducted. The first was an analysis of
the validities for the five personality dimensions for each occupational
group (across criterion types). The second was an analysis of personality
dimensions for the three criterion types (across occupations). The final
analysis investigated the validity of the dimensions for objective versus
subjective criteria (across occupations and criterion types).
The meta-analytic procedure adopted in this study used the formu-
las available in Hunter and Schmidt (1990)l and corrected the mean and
variance of validity coefficients across studies for artifactual variance due
to sampling error, range restriction, and attenuation due to measure-
ment error. However, because the vast majority of studies did not report
information on range restriction and measurement error, particularly
predictor reliabilities, it was necessary to use artifact distributions to es-
timate artifactually induced variance on the validity coefficients (Hunter
& Schmidt, 1990).
Because reliability coefficients for predictors were only rarely pre-
sented in the validity studies, the distributions were based upon informa-
tion obtained from the inventories' manuals. The mean of the predictor
reliability distribution was .76 (SD = .08). Similarly, because informa-
tion for the criterion reliabilities was available in less than one-third of
the studies, we developed an artifact distribution for criterion reliabili-
ties based on data provided by Hunter, Schmidt, and Judiesch (1990) for
productivity data (with a mean of 32, SD = .05) and Rothstein (1990) for
performance ratings (with a mean of .52, SD = .05). It should be noted,
however, that 30 studies included criteria which were categorized as per-
sonnel data. For these criteria (e.g., turnover, tenure, accidents, wages,
etc.), reliability estimates were unknown because no estimates have been
provided in the literature. Therefore, the artifact distributions for crite-
rion reliabilities did not include reliability estimates for these criteria.
Thus, for the objective versus subjective analysis, the productivity and
performance rating artifact distributions were used in each analysis, re-
spectively, for each personality dimension. For all other analyses, the
two criterion distributions were combined (with a mean value of .56, SD
= .lo). Finally, the artifact distribution for range restriction data was
based upon those studies that reported both restricted and unrestricted

'All analyses were conducted using a microcomputer program developed by Frank

Schmidt and reported in Hunter and Schmidt, 1990.
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 11

standard deviation data (i.e., from accepted and rejected applicants).

The effects on the mean validities due to range restriction were relatively
small because the mean range restriction was .94 (SD = .05).
As previously stated, the Schmidt-Hunter non-interactive validity
generalization procedure (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) was applied to the
data for assumed (predictors and criteria) and sample-based artifact dis-
tributions (range restriction). (These distributions are available from the
first author.) However, because the purpose of our study is to enhance
theoretical understanding of the five personality constructs, we present
fully corrected correlations that correct for unreliability in the predictor
as well as the criterion.
Finally, there has been some confusion regarding the use and inter-
pretation of confidenceand credibilityvalues in meta-analysis (Whitener,
1990). The confidence interval is centered around the sample-size
weighted mean effects sizes (F,before being corrected for measurement
error or range restriction) and is used to assess the influence of sampling
error on the uncorrected estimate. In contrast, the credibility value is
centered around the estimated true score correlations (generated from
the corrected standard deviation) and is used to assess the influence of
moderators. Our purpose in the present study is to understand the true
score correlations between the personality dimensions and job perfor-
mance criteria for different occupations and to assess the presence of
moderators. Therefore, the focus in this study is on p and the corre-
sponding credibility values.

Results

Analysis by Occupational Group

The number of correlations upon which the meta-analysis is based is

shown in Table 1 for the five personality dimensions, five occupational
types, and three criterion types. It can be seen that the frequencies differ
substantially from cell to cell. For example, the number of correlations
for the job proficiency criterion is generally larger for all personality
dimensions and occupations than for the other criterion types. It can also
be seen that the number of correlations for the management occupation
is greater than for the other occupations. The table also shows that
for some cells there are two or fewer correlations for professionals and
sales for the training proficiency criterion, and for professionals and
police for the personnel data criterion. Consequently,we were unable to
12 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1
Call Frequencies of Correlationsfor Personality Dimensions,
Occupational Groups, and Criterion ljpes
Personality dimensions
Emotional Agree- Conscien- Openness to
Occupationalgroup Extraversion stability ableness tiousness experience
Job proficiency
Professionals 4 5 7 6 4
Police 10 12 8 12 8
Managers 29 26 25 25 19
Sales 16 14 11 17 8
Skilleasemi-skilled 16 15 17 16 10
Training proficiency
Professionals 0 0 0 0 0
Police 6 6 6 5 5
Managers 9 10 9 10 7
Sales 1 1 1 1 1
Skilled/Semi-skilled 3 4 4 3 1
Personnel data
Professionals 0 0 0 0 0
Police 0 0 0 2 0
Managers 21 19 13 17 11
Sales 5 4 4 3 3
Skilled/Semi-skilled 4 7 5 6 5

analyze the data using the 3-way categorization (personality dimension

by occupational type by criterion type).
Table 2 presents the results of the meta-analysis for the five person-
ality dimensions across the occupational groups (professionals, police,
managers, sales, and skilled/semi-skilled labor). The first six columns
of the table contain, respectively, the total sample size, the number of
correlation coefficients on which each distribution was based, the un-
corrected (i.e., observed) mean validity, the estimated true correlation
( p ) , the estimated true residual standard deviation (SD,), and the lower
bound of the 90% credibilityvalue for each distribution, based on its true
correlation and SD, estimates. The true SD, is the square root of the
variance that was not attributed to the four artifacts (i.e., sampling error
and between-study differences in test unreliability, criterion unreliabil-
ity, and degree of range restriction), after correcting for those artifacts.
The last column in Table 2 reports the percentage of observed variance
that was accounted for by the four artifacts.
As shown in Table 2, the correlations for the occupational categories
differed across the five personality dimensions. Consistent with our hy-
pothesis, the Conscientiousness dimension was a valid predictor for ail
occupational groupings. It can be seen that the estimated true score cor-
relations are noticeably larger for Conscientiousness compared to the
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 13

TABLE 2
Meta-AnalysisResultsfor Personality Dimension-Occupation
Combinations (all Criterion Types Included)

Number Obs 90% %Variance

Occupationalgroup Total N of rs 7 SD, C.V. accounted
Extraversion
Professionals 476 4 -.05 -.09 .05 -.03 92
Police 1,496 16 .05 .09 .OO .09 127
Managers 11,335 59 .ll .18 .13 .01 48
Sales 2,316 22 .09 .15 .16 -.05 54
SkilledKemi-Skilled 3,888 23 .01 .01 .08 -.I0 72
Mean (across occupations) .08 .13 .ll -.01 69a
Emotional stability
Professionals 518 5 -.07 -.13 .04 -.07 92
Police 1,697 18 .06 .10 .OO .10 138
Managers 10,324 55 .05 .08 .09 -.04 65
Sales 2,486 19 .04 .07 .19 -.18 38
Skilled/ Semi-Skilled 3,694 26 .05 .12 .10 -.06 50
Mean (across occupations) .05 .08 .10 -.05 63a
Agreeableness
Professionals 557 7 .01 .02 0 .02 158
Police 1,437 14 .06 .10 0 .10 121
Managers 8,597 47 .05 .10 .03 .06 94
Sales 2,344 16 .OO .OO .24 -.31 25
SkillediSemi-Skilled 4,585 28 .04 .06 .17 -.16 37
Mean (across occupations) .04 .07 .09 -.05 54a
Conscientiousness
Professionals 767 6 .ll .20 .oo .20 106
Police 2,045 19 .13 .22 .20 -.03 40
Managers 10,058 52 .13 .22 .10 .09 64
Sales 2,263 21 .09 .23 .OO .23 150
Skilled/Semi-Skilled 4,588 25 .12 .21 .09 .09 67
Mean (across occupations) .13 .22 .09 .10 70a
Openness to experience
Professionals 476 4 -.05 -.08 .04 -.03 94
Police 1,364 13 .oo .oo .oo .oo 181
Managers 7,611 37 .05 .08 .16 -.12 37
Sales 1,566 12 -.01 -.02 .16 .18 46
Skilled/Semi-Skilled 3,219 16 .01 .01 .12 -.15 49
Mean (across occupations) .03 .04 .I3 .13 59a
a An unbiased estimate of mean percentage of variance accounted for across meta-
analyses, calculated by taking the reciprocal of the average of reciprocals of individual
predicted to observed variance ratios (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).

other personality dimensions and are remarkably consistent across the

five occupational groups ( p ranges from .20 to .23).
14 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Very little support was found for the hypothesis regarding Emotional
Stability. Compared to the Conscientiousness dimension, the correla-
tions for Emotional Stability are lower ( p ranges from -.13 to .12). In
fact, for professionals the relationship was in the opposite direction pre-
dicted ( p = -.13).
It was also hypothesized that Extraversion and Agreeableness would
be valid predictors for the two occupations involving interpersonal skills,
managers and sales representatives. This hypothesis was supported for
Extraversion for both occupations ( p = .18 and .15, respectively). How-
ever, very little support was obtained for Agreeableness, as p = .10 for
managers and .OO for sales. With respect to the other dimensions, the
remaining true score correlations reported in the table were quite low
(i.e., p = .10 or less).

Analysis by Criteria v p e

Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients for the five personality di-
mensions for the three criterion types. Consistent with our hypothe-
sis, Conscientiousness is a valid predictor for each of the three crite-
rion types. As was the case with the occupational analysis in Table 2,
the results for Conscientiousness are quite consistent across the crite-
rion types ( p ranges from .20 to .23). As reported, the correlations are
generally higher than for the other personality dimensions. Also consis-
tent with our hypothesis, Openness to Experience predicted the training
proficiency criterion relatively well ( p = .25). Interestingly, Extraversion
was also a significant predictor of training proficiency ( p = .26). Most
of the remaining correlations for the three criterion types are relatively
small (i.e., p = .10 or less).

Analysis by Objective and Subjective Criteria

Table 4 shows the validity of the five personality dimensions for cri-
teria categorized as objective and subjective. It should be noted that this
analysis is different from that reported in Table 3 because two of the three
criterion types contain some objective and subjective measures. First, it
can be seen that the subjective criteria are used about twice as frequently
as objective criteria. Second, the estimated true score correlations are
generally higher for subjective, compared to objective, criteria. In fact,
only one objective criterion, status change, has true score correlations
equal to or larger than the subjective ratings for four of the personal-
ity dimensions. For the fifth personality dimension, Conscientiousness,
the estimated true correlations for the subjective criteria are higher ( p
= .23) than for all objective criteria ( p ranges from .12 to .17).
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 15

TABLE 3
Meta-AnalysisResults for Personality Dimension and Criteria
(PooledAcross Occupational Groups)

Number Obs 90% % Variance

Criterion type Total N of& 7 6 SDp C.V. accounted

Extraversion
Job proficiency 12,396 89 .06 .10 .lo -.03 69
Training proficiency 3,101 17 .15 .26 .14 .08 49
Personnel data 6,477 33 .06 .ll .18 -.12 33
Mean (across criteria) 08 .13 .13 -.01 47a
Emotional stability
Job proficiency 11,635 87 .04 .07 .ll -.07 64
Training proficiency 3,283 19 .04 .07 0 .07 120
Personnel data 5,644 29 .05 .09 .16 -.11 38
Mean (across criteria) .05 .08 .10 -.05 60a
Agreeableness
Job proficiency 11,526 80 .04 .06 .14 -.12 49
Training proficiency 3,685 19 .06 .I0 0 .10 134
Personnel data 4,474 26 .08 .14 .ll .OO 59
Mean (across criteria) .04 .07 .lo -.05 6ga
Conscientiousness
Job proficiency 12,893 92 .13 .23 .10 .10 70
Training proficiency 3,585 17 .13 .23 .15 .04 41
Personnel data 6,175 32 .ll .20 .10 .07 71
Mean (across criteria) .13 .22 .10 .08 57a
Openness to experience
Job proficiency 9,454 55 -.02 -.03 .04 .OO 93
Training proficiency 2,700 14 .14 .25 .16 .05 40
Personnel data 3,785 22 .01 .01 .15 -.18 44
Mean (across criteria) .03 .04 .09 -.02 51a
a An unbiased estimate of mean percentage of variance accounted for across meta-
analyses, calculated by taking the reciprocal of the average of reciprocals of individual
predicted to observed variance ratios (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).

We conducted additional analyses of the correlation coefficients by

personality dimensions, criterion types, and occupational subgroups.
Data from these analyses are not reported here (though available upon
request) because for many of the subgroup categories there were too few
validity studies. Overall, however, the results for those subcategories
where data were available do not alter the conclusions reported above.
A key outcome in any meta-analysis of selection studies is the amount
of variation in the validities that is attributed to different situations. For
a majority of the analyses reported in Tables 2,3, and 4, the percentage
of variance accounted for by the four statistical artifacts (i.e., sampling
16 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 4
Meta-AnalysisResultsfor Personality Dimensions and Objective
and Subjective Criteria (PooledAcross Occupational Groups)

Number Obs 90% % Variance

Criterion type Total N ofr's F 6 SDp C.V. accounted
~~ ~~ ~

Extraversion
Productivity data 1,774 12 .07 .I0 .03 .06 95
Turnovernenure 1,437 13 -.03 -.03 .12 .12 52
Status change 4,374 15 .10 .14 .16 -.06 31
Salary 666 4 .04 .06 .08 -.04 68
Objective mean (across criteria) .07 .10 .ll -.04 52a
Subjective ratings 12,943 93 .08 .14 .I4 -.05 52
Emotional stability
Productivity data 1,436 11 -.03 -.04 .14 -.14 45
Turnovermenure 1,495 13 .01 .02 .I7 -.20 37
Status change 3,483 12 .08 .11 .ll -.03 38
Salary 666 4 -.01 -.01 0 -.01 181
Objective mean (across criteria) .04 .05 .12 -.lo 49a
Subjective ratings 12,739 95 .05 .09 .07 .OO 83
Agreeableness
Productivity data 2,082 15 -.03 -.05 .23 .24 28
Turnoverrnenure 1,838 15 .06 .09 0 .09 129
Status change 2,515 9 .09 .13 .13 -.04 30
Salary 121 2 -.01 -.02 0 -.02 143
Objective mean (across criteria) .04 .05 .14 -.13 4Sa
Subjective ratings 12,467 83 .05 .09 .08 -.01 76
Conscientiousness
Productivity data 1,639 14 .10 .17 0 .I7 176
Turnovermenure 2,759 19 .09 .12 .08 .02 47
Status change 2,698 8 .ll .15 .04 .10 88
Salary 718 5 .13 .17 .02 .14 97
Objective mean (across criteria) .10 .14 .03 .10 82a
Subjective ratings 14,059 94 .15 .26 .12 .ll 60
Openness to experience
Productivity data 1,060 9 .OO .01 0 .01 161
Turnover/Tenure 1,628 12 -.08 -.11 .06 -.03 80
Status change 1,766 5 .09 .12 0 .12 119
Salary 121 2 .04 .05 0 .05 120
Objective mean (across criteria) .01 .02 .09 -.lo 113a
Subjective ratings 10,639 62 .02 .04 .16 -.16 42
a An unbiased estimate of mean percentage of variance accounted for across meta-
analyses, calculated by taking the reciprocal of the average of reciprocals of individual
predicted to observed variance ratios (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).

error and between-study differences in test unreliability, criterion unre-

liability, and degree of range restriction) failed to exceed the 75% rule
(Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). This suggests that differences in correlations
may exist across subpopulations.
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 17

Discussion

This study differs from previous studies by using an accepted taxon-

omy to study the relation of personality to job performance criteria. The
results illustrate the benefits of using this classification scheme to com-
municate and accumulate empirical findings. Using this taxonomy, we
were able to show that there are differential relations between the per-
sonality dimensions and occupations and performance criteria.
Before discussing the substantive findings, a comment is in order
regarding the relatively small observed and true score correlations ob-
tained in this study. We would like to re-emphasize that our purpose
was not to determine the overall validity of personality; in fact, we ques-
tion whether such an analysis is meaningful. Rather, the purpose was to
increase our understanding of the way the Big Five personality dimen-
sions relate to selected occupational groups and criterion types.
It is likely that the purpose and methodology used in the present
study, both of which differ from other reviews, may have contributed
to the lower correlations. For example, in the present study, only those
samples that reported zero-order correlations for all scales from an in-
ventory were included in the analysis. Studies were excluded if they re-
ported composite validities or reported only those scales with significant
correlations. Thus, the results for each of the five dimensions are based
on the average of the correlations between personality scales and job
performance criteria. Further, for those studies reporting multiple mea-
sures for each dimension, an average correlation was used in the meta-
analysis, rather than a composite score correlation (which adjusts the
average correlation by the sum of the covariances among the measures
incorporated in the average estimate). Use of the composite score cor-
relation aZways results in a mean validity estimate larger in size than that
resulting from the average correlation (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). How-
ever, because intercorrelations among personality scales or dimensions
were generally not reported (even inventory manuals report only a few
intercorrelations), it was not possible to use the composite score corre-
lation in this analysis. A better estimate of the validity of a personality
dimension would be provided by combining all scales measuring a sin-
gle dimension into a predictor composite. Doing this would provide a
better measure of the predictive validity of the construct in question.
Therefore, in interpreting the results of this study, the reader should fo-
cus on understanding which dimensions are the best predictors for spe-
cific occupations and criterion types rather than on the magnitude of the
validities because they are underestimates.
The most significant finding in the study relates to the Conscientious-
ness dimension. It was found to be a consistently valid predictor for all
18 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

occupational groups studied and for all criterion types. Thus, this as-
pect of personality appears to tap traits which are important to the ac-
complishment of work tasks in all jobs. That is, those individuals who
exhibit traits associated with a strong sense of purpose, obligation, and
persistence generally perform better than those who do not. Similar find-
ings have been reported in educational settings where correlations be-
tween scores on this dimension and educational achievement (Digman &
Takemoto-Chock, 1981;Smith, 1967) and vocational achievement (Take-
moto, 1979) have consistently been reported in the range of .50 to .60.
Further evidence that this dimension is a valid predictor of job per-
formance is found in two studies conducted as part of the U.S. Army Se-
lection and Classification Study (Project A) (Hough, Hanser, & Eaton
1988; McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990). Two of
the personality constructs, Achievement Orientation and Dependability,
were found to be valid predictors of job performance measures in both
studies. Although the relationship of the personality constructs investi-
gated by the researchers to the 5-factor taxonomy was not specified, it
appears that these two constructs (Achievement/Achievement Orienta-
tion and Dependability) are aspects of the Conscientiousness dimension
as defined earlier. Achievement taps traits such as planful, organized,
persistent, and hardworking, whereas Dependability assesses traits such
as careful, thorough, and responsible.
An important area of future research suggested by these results is
to further delineate the boundaries of the Conscientiousness dimension.
There is some disagreement among researchers about the precise mean-
ing of this construct. Some define it in terms of responsibility or de-
pendability (e.g., Hogan, 1986), whereas others view it as also including
volitional aspects, such as hardworking, persistent, and achievement-
oriented (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & In-
ouye, 1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Krug & Johns, 1986;
McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1987, 1989). It is not likely that there will ever
be complete agreement among researchers regarding the content of this
or any of the other dimensions. However, results of recent studies by
researchers in the field of personality psychology, in which scales from
personality inventories are factor analyzed and assessed via the 5-factor
model, may yield valuable insight into the content of the Conscientious-
ness dimension (and the four others as well) (McCrae, 1989).
Another area of research suggested by these results is to investigate
whether measures of Conscientiousness should be incorporated into the-
ories which attempt to account for work performance. For example,
Hunter (1983) has shown that cognitive ability has an indirect effect on
supervisory ratings of performance through its effects on the acquisition
of job knowledge, which in turn impacts work sample performance. In
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 19

view of the relatively low correlation between Conscientiousness and

cognitive ability (McCrae, 1989), it seems plausible that this aspect of
personality may account for unique variance in the acquisition of job
knowledge and (therefore) in job performance. Of course, an important
issue is whether the effects of Conscientiousness on job performance are
direct or indirect, or both, and whether the resulting model would gen-
eralize to different occupations. We believe that this is a fertile area for
future research.
Consistent with our hypotheses, Extraversion was a valid predictor
(across the criterion types) for two occupations, managers and sales. For
both types of jobs, interaction with others is a significant portion of the
job. Thus traits such as sociable, gregarious, talkative, assertive, and
active would lead to effective performance in these jobs, whereas these
traits would be less important in jobs such as skilledhemi-skilled (e.g.,
secretaries, orderlies, assemblers, accountants, production workers) and
professionals (e.g., engineers, architects). In both of these cases, how-
ever, the estimated true score correlations are less than .20.
The results with respect to Openness to Experience suggest some
fruitful areas for future research. This personality construct was found
to be a valid predictor of one of the criterion categories, training pro-
ficiency, but not for the other two, job proficiency or personnel data.
One possible explanation of these findings is that individuals who score
high on this dimension (e.g., intelligent, curious, broad-minded, and cul-
tured) are more likely to have positive attitudes toward learning experi-
ences in general. Several researchers have shown that a key component
in the success of training programs is the attitude of the individualwhen
s h e enters the training program. As Goldstein (1986) states, .. .it is
aIso clear that individuals who are motivated upon entry into the train-
ing program have an advantage from the very beginning (p. 70). Re-
search by Ryman and Biersner (1975) supports this, as they found that
scores on a scale designed to measure attitudes of trainees prior to the
training (e.g., If I have trouble during training I will try harder; I will
get more from this training than most people) predicted eventual grad-
uation from a Navy School for Divers. Similarly, Sanders and Vanouzas
(1983) have shown that the attitudes and expectations of the trainees
influence whether or not learning is likely to occur. That is, trainees
who accepted personal responsibility for the learning process and were
willing to participate in discussions, engage in self assessment, and so
forth, were more likely to benefit from the training. Thus, measures
of Openness to Experience may identify which individuals are training
ready--those who are most willing to engage in learning experiences-
and, consequently, may be useful in identifyingthose who are most likely
to benefit from training programs. As a final comment, it should also be
20 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

recognized that this dimension has the highest correlation (uncorrected,

T = .20 to .30) of any of the personality dimensions with measures of
cognitive ability (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Therefore, it is possible that
Openness to Experience is actually measuring ability to learn as well as
motivation to learn.
Similarly, Extraversion was found to predict the training proficiency
criterion relatively well. Although the relationship with Extraversion was
not hypothesized, in retrospect the findings are not surprising, especially
in light of the types of training programs that were used in these studies.
Most required a high energy level among participants and were highly
interactive, such as assessment centers, police academy training, on-the-
job training for sales and flight attendants, and so forth. Because Ex-
traversion assesses traits associated with general activity level (talkative,
active, assertive) and sociability, these relationships would be expected.
As Burris (1976) indicates, based on his review of the literature, research
and experience suggest overwhelmingly that learning is more effective
when the learner is active rather than passive. However, it seems logi-
cal that these relations would not exist in training programs that do not
involve social interaction (e.g., lectures, computer assisted instruction,
videotapes). The results for Openness to Experience and Extraversion
suggest that the relation of personality measures to training proficiency
is an important area for future research.
Most of the correlations for Emotional Stability were relatively low.
These findings may be due to a type of range restriction, based on
a selecting-out process, which was not accounted for in the present
study. At the extreme, those individualswho are highly neurotic are un-
able to function effectively on their own and, as a result, are not likely
to be in the labor force. More generally, individuals may have self-
selected out based on their own interests or perceptions of their emo-
tional stability. Another explanation is that there may not be a linear
relation between Emotional Stability and job performance beyond the
critically unstable range. That is, as long as an individual possesses
enough Emotional Stability, the predictive value of any differences are
minimized.
Finally, it was interesting to observe that the coefficient for profes-
sionals for this dimension was in a negative direction, suggesting that
individuals who are worrying, nervous, emotional, and high-strung are
better performers in these jobs. It is difficult to explain these results, al-
though it is possible that the causal direction may be such that in some
professional jobs pressures related to high performance cause the indi-
viduals to display neurotic traits. Given that these results are based on
only five samples, however, they should be interpreted cautiously.
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 21

The results for Agreeableness suggest that it is not an important pre-

dictor of job performance, even in those jobs containing a large social
component (e.g., sales or management). Such results are in contrast with
the other sociallybased personality dimension, Extraversion. Thus, it ap-
pears that being courteous, trusting, straight forward, and soft-hearted
has a smaller impact on job performance than being talkative, active, and
assertive.
An issue of general interest to many personnel psychologists is
whether objective measures of job performance result in different va-
lidity results than subjective criteria, particularly because objective and
subjective measures often cannot be treated as substitutes for one an-
other (Heneman, 1986). In general, for the five personality dimensions,
the true score correlations for subjective criteria were larger than for ob-
jective criteria. However, for one objective measure, status change, the
correlations were equal to or larger than subjective measures for four of
the five personality dimensions.
However, for one dimension, Conscientiousness, the correlations for
all objective criteria were smaller than for the subjective ratings. This re-
sult is particularly intriguing because this dimension was found to be the
most predictive personality dimension in this study. A possible explana-
tion for the lower correlations is that the objective criteria are contami-
nated or deficient, or both. An alternative explanation is that the subjec-
tive measures may be susceptible to bias resulting from the individuals
personality. For example, Hogan (in press) suggests that one meaning
of personality refers to a persons social reputation; that is to the man-
ner in which he or she is perceived by friends, co-workers, and super-
visors. Viewed in this way, personality concerns the amount of esteem,
regard, and status accorded by his or her social groups. Thus, according
to Hogan, reputations summarize what individuals say about a persons
past behaviors and may be used to forecast future performance or, at
least, what others are likely to say about a persons future behavior. The
higher correlations for the subjectivecriteria in the present study suggest
that ones reputation may influence judgments of performance.
The results of the present study have implications for both research
and practice in personnel selection. From a practitioners standpoint,
the results suggest that if the purpose is to predict job performance based
on an individuals personality, then those measures associated with Con-
scientiousness are most likely to be valid predictors for all jobs. In fact,
it is difficult to conceive of a job in which the traits associated with the
22 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Conscientiousness dimension would not contribute to job success. In-

terestingly, this dimension, which measures traits such as planful, orga-
nized, hardworking, persistent, and achievement oriented, has been la-
beled Work by Peabody and Goldberg (1989) in recognition that these
personality traits are closely related to the performance of work tasks.
Of course this does not preclude the possibility that some measures
from other personality dimensions may predict job performance. For ex-
ample, Hogan and Hogan (1989) developed and validated a personality
instrument called Employee Reliability, which was composed of relevant
measures from the five personality dimensions studied in this analysis.
A large component of this instrument was associated with dependability
and carefulness, traits which are representative of the Conscientiousness
dimension in the present study. Thus, their finding that the Employee
Reliability instrument was a valid predictor of job performance crite-
ria (in addition to counterproductive work behaviors) is consistent with
the results of the present study. Taken together, these results further
strengthen the conclusion that the most predictive measures of personal-
ity are those that emphasize traits associated with the Conscientiousness
dimension. (For another example, the reader is directed to the Work
Orientation Scale developed by Gough (1989, based on items from mul-
tiple scales of the CPI).
In retrospect, it is not surprising that the overall validity of person-
ality measures has been found to be relatively low. As one example, the
MMPI is often seen as the prototypical personality inventory. However,
a fact that cannot be overlooked is that the MMPI was not designed to
predict job performance in normal populations. Thus, findings that the
MMPI is a relatively poor predictor of job performance would be ex-
pected, based on the results of this study, because most scales on the
MMPI measure Emotional Stability and none measure Conscientious-
ness directly (based on the classifications made by the raters in this study
and based on factor analyses of the MMPI by Johnson, Null, Butcher, &
Johnson, 1984). Thus, the results of the present study are also useful in
explaining why some personality inventories are likely to be better pre-
dictors of job performance than others.
Of interest to those in the training and development field are the
findings that two of the personality dimensions, Openness to Experience
and Extraversion, are related to performance in training programs. Very
little research has investigated the relation of individualmeasures of per-
sonality to measures of training readiness and training success. Perhaps
future research and practice in the training and development field will
be stimulated by the availability of a classification scheme for organizing
individual differences in personality.
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 23

In summary, in order for any field of science to advance, it is nec-

essary to have an accepted classification scheme for accumulating and
categorizing empirical findings. We believe that the robustness of the
5-factor model provides a meaningful framework for formulating and
testing hypotheses relating individual differences in personality to a wide
range of criteria in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of
personnel selection, performance appraisal, and training and develop-
ment.

REFERENCES

Bernstein IH, Garbin CP, McClellan PG. (1983). A confirmatory factoring of the California
Psychological Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement,43,687-691.
Bond MH, Nakazato HS, Shiraishi D. (1975). Universality and distinctiveness in dimen-
sions of Japanese person perception. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 6,346-
355.
Borgatta EE (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 12,
8-17.
Botwin MD, Buss DM. (1989). Structure of act-report data: Is the five-factor model of
personality recaptured? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56,988-1001.
Brigs SR. (1989). The optimal level of measurement for personality constructs. In Buss
DM, Cantor N (Eds.), Personality Psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions.
New York Springer-Verlag.
Burris RW. (1976). Human Learning. In Dunnette MD. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. Chicago, Rand McNally.
Cattell RB. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal ofAbnomal Social Psychology, 38,476-506.
Cattell RB. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY: World
Book.
Cattell RB. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psy-
chomem'ka,12,197-220.
Cattell RB. (1948). The primary personality factors in women compared with those in
men. British Journal of Psychology, I , 114130.
Conley JJ. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multimethod-
multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 1266-1282.
Costa PT Jr., McCrae RR. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 55,258-265.
Digman JM. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility.
Journal of Personality, 57,195-214.
Digman JM. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41,417440.
Digman JM, Inouye J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50,116-123.
Digman JM, Takemoto-Chock NK. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personal-
ity: Re-Analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, I6,149-170.
Fiske DW. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from dif-
ferent sources. Journal ofAbnoma1 Social Psychology, 44,329-344.
Ghiselli EE. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 26,461477.
24 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Goldberg LR. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in
personality lexicons. In Wheeler L. (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy (Vol. 2, pp. 141-166). Beverly Hills, C A Sage Publications.
Goldstein IL. (1986). Tmining in Organizations:Nee& Assessment, Development, and Eval-
uation. Monterey, C A BrooksICole.
Gough HG. (1985). A work orientation scale for the California Psychological Inventoiy.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,505-513.
Guilford JP, Zimmerman WS. (1949). The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply.
Guion RM, Gottier RE (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 18,135-164.
Hake1 MD. (1974). Normative personality factors recovered from ratings of personality
descriptors: The beholders eye. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 27,409-421.
Heneman RL. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented
measures of performance: A meta-analysis. PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY,39,811-826.
Hogan R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Page MM. (Ed.), Personality-
current theory& research: Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, N E Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press.
Hogan R. (1986). Manual for the Hogan Personality inventory. Minneapolis: National
Computer Systems.
Hogan R. (In press). Personality and personality measurement. In Dunnette MD. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
PsychologistsPress.
Hogan J, Hogan R. (1989). How to measure reliability. Journal ofAppZied Psychology, 74,
273-279.
Hough LM, Hanser LM, Eaton NK (1988). Literature review: Utility of temperament,
biodata, and interest assessmentforpredicting jobperformance. Alexandria, VA: US.
Army, Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI research
note 88-02).
Howarth E. (1976). Were Cattells personality sphere factors correctly identified in the
first instance? British Journal of Psychology, 67,213-230.
Hunter JE. (1983). A causal analysisof cognitive ability,job knowledge, job performance,
and supervisory ratings. In Landy F, Zedeck S, Cleveland J (Eds.), Performance
Measurement and Theory (pp. 257-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. (1990). Methodr of meta-analysis: correcting emor and bias in
research findings. Newbury Park, C A Sage Publications.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Judiesch MK. (1990). Individual differences in output as a func-
tion of job complexity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75,28-42.
John OF! (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In Buss DM, Cantor
N (Eds.), Personality psychology; Recent rrends and emerging directions. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Johnson JH, Null C, Butcher JN, Johnson KN. (1984). Replicated item level factor analysis
of the full MMPI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 105-1 14.
Krug SE, Johns E F (1986). A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality
structure defined by the 16PF Psychological Reporis, 59,683-693.
Lei H, Skinner HA. (1982). What difference does language make? Structural analysis of
the personality research form. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17,3346.
Livneh H, Livneh C. (1989). The five-factormodel of personality: Is evidence for its cross-
media premature? Personality and Individual Differences,10,75-80.
Locke EA, H u h CL. (1962). A review and evaluation of the validity studies of activity
Vector analysis. PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY, 15,2542.
 BARRICK AND MOUNT 25

Lorr M, Manning T T (1978). Higher-order personality factors of the ISI. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 13,3-7.
Lorr M, Youniss RP. (1973). An inventory of interpersonal style. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 37, 165-173.
McCrae RR. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint factor analyses of the
NEO-PI with other instruments. In Buss DM, Cantor N (Eds.), Personalitypsychol-
ogy: Recent trends and emerging directions. New York Springer-Verlag.
McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. (1985). Updating Normans adequate taxonomy: Intelligence
and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 49,710-721.
McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52,81-90.
McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins cir-
cumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56,
586595.
McDougall W. (1932). Of the words character and personality. Character Personality, I ,
3-16.
McHenry JJ, Hough LM, Toquam JL, Hanson MA, Ashworth S. (1990). Project A validity
results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 43,335-367.
Nathan BR, Alexander RA. (1988). A comparison of criteria for test validation: A meta-
analytic investigation. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 41,517-535.
Noller P, Law H, Comrey AL. (1987). Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors
compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53,775-782.
Norman W. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated
factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal &
Social Psychology, 66,576583.
Norman WT, Goldberg LR. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality struc-
ture. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 4,681491.
Peabody D, Goldberg LR. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-
trait descriptors. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57,552-567.
Reilly RR, Chao GT. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection
procedures. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY,3 5 , 1 4 2 .
Ryman DH, Biersner RJ. (1975). Attitudes predictive of training success. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 28,181-188.
Sanders P, Vanouzas JN. (1983). Socialization to learning. Training and Development
Journal, 37,1621.
Schmitt N, Gooding RZ, Noe RA, Kmch M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies
published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 37,407-422.
Smith GM. (1967). Usefulness of peer ratings of personality in educational research.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27,967-984.
Takemoto NK. (1979). Theprediction of occupational choicefrom childhood and adolescent
antecedents. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Tupes EC. (1957). Personality traits related to effectiveness of junior and senior Air Force
officers (USAF Personnel Training Research, No. 57-125). Lackland Airforce Base,
TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory.
Tupes EC, Christal RE. (1961, May). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings
(ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division,
Personnel Laboratory.
26 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Waller NG, Ben-Porath YS. (1987). Is it time for clinical psychology to embrace the five-
factor model of personality? American Psychologist, 42,887-889.
Watson D. (1989). Strangers ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a
surprising convergence withself-report. Journal of Personaliv & Social Psychology,
57,12@128.
Whitener EM. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychologv, 75,315-321.
Wiggins N, Blackburn M, Hackman JR. (1969). The prediction of first-year success in
psychology: Peer ratings. Journal of Educational Research, 63,81-85.