Psychological Inquiry, 21: 5056, 2010

Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1047-840X print / 1532-7965 online
DOI: 10.1080/10478401003648740
Jack Block, the Big Five, and Personality From the Standpoints of Actor,
Agent, and Author
Dan P. McAdams and Keegan Walden
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Jack Block died before his target article could be
published. Submitted to Psychological Inquiry by his
son while Jack was in the hospital, the paper shows
many of the earmarks of Jack Blocks long and bril-
liant career as a personality psychologist. Passionate,
contrarian, and doggedly analytical, the papers traits
reect the mans. Jack Block wanted to construct a
scientically rigorous psychology of personality that
fully captures the complexity and coherence of human
lives as they develop over time. To do so was his life-
long professional goal, his most-valued professional
project. Over the past six decades, Jacks storyas
he lived it and wrote itreected the story of per-
sonality psychology itself. In the 1950s and 60s, he
made game-changing contributions to the elds de-
bate over the validity of psychological testing and the
challenge of response sets (J. Block, 1961, 1965). In
the 1970s and 80s, he stood tall against the situation-
ist attack (J. Block, 1977, 1981) while offering his
own comprehensive theory of personality continuity
and change (J. Block, 1971; J. H. Block & Block,
1980). In recent years, he continued to produce in-
uential empirical papers (J. Block & Block, 2006;
Shedler & Block, 1990) and to offer searing critiques
of popular trends (J. Block, 1989, 1995, 2001.) His
was a narrative of the bellicose rebel with a cause, the
iconoclast who fought the status quo every step of the
way.
Analyzing the last musical works of classical com-
posers, Simonton (1989) has shown that swan songs
tend to be somewhat less complex and original than a
composers earlier compositions but also more emo-
tionally moving, and more popular in the long run.
According to Simonton, a composers last piece often
proves to be an elegant reprise of his or her musical
genius. As far as we know, researchers have not ex-
amined the swan songs of psychological scientists. In
the case of Jack Blocks last composition, however,
this journals target article seems to run contrary to Si-
montons trend. Restless and edgy, the article offers a
collection of perambulating and idiosyncratic rumi-
nations regarding the role of the ve-factor model of
personality in psychological science. The paper feels
like a work in progress, uneven and incomplete, with
ashes of new insight punctuating more quotidian pas-
sages where Block recycles old and complicated argu-
ments he has made before. There is nothing elegant or
simple about it. It may be that Jack Block did not have
time to iron out the papers rough edges before his life
was cut off. But more likely, Jacks swan song, like so
many of the inuential articles he wrote in his career,
was always going to be a gritty and restless commu-
niqu e from the battleeld. Jack Block was a ghter. He
fought against the accepted truths and the conventional
fashions of the discipline. Over the past 15 years, he
fought against the Big Five.
In what follows, we rst briey comment on the
main criticisms Block levied against the Big Five in
the target article. Whereas we are sympathetic to his
contrarian approach, we suggest that he overlooked
signicant achievements of the ve-factor approach
to personality while occasionally holding the model
to impossibly stringent standards. Second, we suggest
that, in some ways, Jack Block did not go far enough
in his critique. Our basic thesis is that the Big Five
does what it does quite well: It provides an adequate
and comprehensive perspective on personality from
the standpoint of the social actor. What it does not do,
however, and apparently was never intended to do, is
to provide a way of understanding personality fromthe
equally important standpoints of the motivated agent
and the autobiographical author (McAdams & Olson,
2010). Taking on Jacks contrarian spirit, we suggest
that the contemporary eld of personality psychology
as a whole is constricted and short-sighted in the same
way that the Big Five is. The Big Five does a reasonably
good job of addressing what most personality psychol-
ogists see to be the main concerns of the discipline.
The big problem is that most personality psychologists
set their sights too low.
Blocks Critique of the Big Five
Block enumerated ve broad criticisms of the ve-
factor model of personality. He argued that the model
(a) is lacking in theory, (b) relies too much on factor
analysis, (c) leaves out important traits, (d) fails to
take into consideration critical developments in trait
measurement, and (e) may be superseded by a two-
factor approach.
50
COMMENTARIES
The Big Five approach emerged not from some
personality theorists brilliant mind but from mindless
number crunching. Because the models origins lie in
statistical analyses of countless responses to adjecti-
val and short-item questions on personality invento-
ries, critics of the Big Five have repeatedly argued that
the ve-factor model is atheoretical (J. Block, 1995;
McAdams, 1992). All it does, they have claimed, is tell
us howadjectival ratings intercorrelate. The ve-factor
model fails to address the big theoretical questions in
the eld of personality psychology: What are the ori-
gins of basic dimensions of personality? How do they
develop? How do they work in everyday behavior and
experience and in human coping and adaptation?
Once upon a time, this criticism made sense. But in
recent years, a number of advocates of the Big Five ap-
proach have developed provocative and sophisticated
theoretical perspectives that attempt to address some
of the big theoretical questions in the eld of person-
ality psychology (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 2008; Shiner,
2006; Wiggins, 1996). One does not have to agree with
every tenet set forth by these theories to appreciate the
fact that the Big Five framework has moved well be-
yond phenotypic trait ratings. Nonetheless, it is true
that some researchers in the Big Five tradition still
conne their inquiry solely to the obsessive scrutiny
of adjectival intercorrelations, rotating and renaming
factors to the point where it seems to be a repetition
compulsion. For these researchers and the approaches
they represent, Blocks critique regarding the atheoret-
ical nature of the Big Five is still dead on.
Block argues that Big Five researchers have substi-
tuted a methodfactor analysisfor a theory. There
is no doubt that the ve-factor model owes its very
existence to the statistical power of factor analysis.
And there is no doubt that factor analysis is a fallible
tool. Block (this issue) writes, Although the method
of factor analysis can be extraordinarily illuminating,
by itself the method alone should not be empowered to
make paramount and controlling decisions regarding
the concepts to be used within the eld of personality
(p. 6).
We could not agree more. If the Big Fives value
for personality psychology were solely limited to the
replication of the ve-factor structure in one factor-
analytic study after another, then the model would be
in trouble. But we believe that this is no longer the
case, and perhaps never was. Over the past 20 years,
researchers have built up impressive nomological net-
works of empirical ndings regarding extraversion,
neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscien-
tiousness. Well-validated measures of these constructs
have been shown to predict robust trends in behavior
and such critical life outcomes as marital well-being
and divorce, job success, mental health, and longevity
(Lodi-Smith &Roberts, 2007; Ozer &Benet-Martinez,
2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg,
2007). The impressive construct validity of the Big Five
traitsmeasured in a range of ways, from adjectival
ratings (e.g., John & Srivastava, 1999) to self-report
inventories such as the NEOPIR (Costa & McCrae,
1992)renders nearly moot the fact that the overall
model had its humble origins in factor analysis.
What about those traits left out of the Big Five?
For example, Ashton and Lee (2007) made a strong
case for a six-factor solution to trait ratings, examin-
ing data from seven different language cultures. Their
HEXACO model looks to us a lot like the Big Five
with an added factor of honesty/humility. It is well
known, furthermore, that researchers working within
the Big Five tradition do not all agree on how each of
the ve trait domains should be named and conceptu-
alized. Is it openness to experience or intellect or
culture? And what should we do about impulsivity?
This pesky and intrepid construct has travelled across
the OCEAN, beginning long ago as a central feature
of extraversion (remember Eysenck, 1973) and now
variously identied as part of neuroticism or perhaps
low conscientiousness/constraint.
Block, therefore, is right to point out that the emer-
gence of the ve-factor model of personality has not
brought a full consensus to the eld of personality
psychology. The Big Five may give short shrift to cer-
tain trait constructs, especially those dealing with low
base-rate behaviors, pathology, and perhaps the ethical
dimensions of life. Furthermore, different ve-factor
approaches conceive of the same ve differently
(Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 2008). Block ob-
serves that nothing is quite settled yet. We observe the
same thing, but it does not bother us very much. Dear
Readers, let us not forget this: It was not very long
ago that many highly respected psychological scien-
tists doubted the very existence and/or utility of per-
sonality traits, writing them off as convenient ctions
in the minds of observers (Mischel, 1968; Shweder,
1975). It should not be surprising, then, that a few
short decades later, personality scientists have not yet
quite reached full consensus on precisely what the ba-
sic traits underlying all the consequential differences
in human behavior and experience are. As we see it, the
disagreements among different research teams regard-
ing different trait models and the uncertainty regarding
certain problematic trait constructs such as humility
and impulsivity illustrate progress and healthy ferment
in a dynamic scientic discipline.
Block takes the ve-factor model to task for failing
to incorporate nontraditional measurement models.
Citing Loevingers (1957) classic paper on psycholog-
ical constructs and their measurement, Block correctly
identies the logic behind the Big Five as reective of
a cumulative measurement scale, whereby the higher
the score obtained, the higher the rating on the given
trait. Block suggests that an alternative differential
model of traits might be better. A differential model
51
COMMENTARIES
is nonmonotonic, he argues, leaving room for the
possibility that ideal scores on a given dimension
may be found in the middle rather than at the high end
of the scale. Blocks observation is both confusing
and insightful, in our view. It is confusing in that the
Big Five framework appears to be agnostic regard-
ing whether a high score (on, say, extraversion) is
ideal or good or bad or whatever. It appears to us that
a cumulative logic could still produce nonmonotonic
or curvilinear results, in that medium-level scores on
a given trait might prove to be the best predictor of a
given valued outcome. As we read him, Block seems
to have muddled the distinction here between a high
score and an ideal score on a trait, and relatedly the
second distinction between a trait score itself and the
score on some behavior or outcome to which the trait
score may be empirically related.
Nonetheless, Blocks comments on this issue do re-
veal an interesting limitation of the Big Five approach.
Take extraversion, for example. One would think that
at some point on the scale, high extraversion becomes
too high, in the sense that an extremely high score
might show an especially negative correlatesuch as
mania, being overly frenetic, or socially dominant to a
fault. Yet empirical ndings generally paint an increas-
ingly rosy picture for extraversion as scores go higher
and higher. There seems to be virtually no downside to
the high end. Although it may simply be true that high
extraversion is simply wonderful for most people most
of the time, another possibility is that the scales used
to assess extraversion are not sensitive enough to cap-
ture extreme expressions. The same could be said for
agreeableness and conscientiousness, and perhaps for
the low end of neuroticism (i.e., emotional stability).
Recognizing Blocks good point on scaling, we
should be fair and point out that this problem may go
well beyond the Big Five itself and may indeed apply to
nearly all self-report scales of dispositional traits. The
same may be the case for other measurement-based
criticisms that Block levies against the Big Five, such
as problems of faking and the desire of researchers to
develop the quickest, simplest, and most easily admin-
istered personality scales. To the extent that the Big
Five relies on self-report scales, the long litany of lim-
itations regarding self-report may be invoked. But the
same limitations apply to most personality research,
given the elds strong reliance on self-report. In this
regard, Block tends to hold the Big Five up to a high
standard against which most of the rest of the eld
of personality psychology also falls short. Although
the critique, therefore, may be unfair, it also puts in
bold and impressive relief the value of Blocks own
alternative to self-report methodology in personality
sciencethe Q-sort.
Finally, we are somewhat less enthusiastic than is
Block about recent efforts to reduce the Big Five to
two supertendencies. Efforts to detect a Big Two un-
derneath the not perfectly orthogonal Big Five are not
new. Digman (1997) factor-analyzed intercorrelations
from 14 studies to arrive at two very general factors.
Capturing high agreeableness and conscientiousness
and low neuroticism, Digman labeled the rst factor
socialization. Society most values people who are nice,
hard-working, and emotionally stable. Capturing high
extraversion and openness, the second factor generally
encompasses self-growth, the more surgent and seek-
ing features of personality, Digman concluded. Picking
up the same idea with new and more sophisticated sta-
tistical procedures, DeYoung (2006) speculated that
Digmans rst factor expresses variation in tendencies
mediated by serotonin. Similarly, the second captures
differences in dopamine activity.
Future research in neuroscience will surely spell out
how serotonin and dopamine functioning relate to the
Big Two. Research already shows that extraversion it-
self, along with approach-motive behavior, seems to
be linked up with dopaminergic activity, though the
relations appear to be complex (e.g., Depue & Collins,
1999; Wacker, Chavanon, & Stemmler, 2006). Given
that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors help to alle-
viate depression and may lower levels of trait neuroti-
cism, it is clear that serotonin is deeply implicated in
personality traits. But it seems very unlikely that any
simple neurotransmitter-by-trait relationship is going
to appear. Imagining, furthermore, that such a neat
correspondence might be the case for two fundamental
supertraits underlying all of personality seems to beg
credulity, though of course scientists can always hope.
Beyond the neuroscience, it is not clear to us just
what the two purported superfactors buy the eld of
personality psychology when it comes to description
and explanation. Lumping extraversion and openness
together, for example, glances over what we see to be
basic differences in behavioral style. Being socially
dominant (a feature of extraversion) on one hand and
expressing curiosity about newideas (a feature of open-
ness) on the other may share some supercial variance,
but these two features of personality seem fundamen-
tally very different to us. Of course, the same might be
said for facets within each of the Big Five factors. After
all, different facets of agreeableness (e.g., altruism and
straightforwardness) may also seem very different.
We nd it ironic, therefore, that whereas Block (as
well as others) has criticized the Big Five for being
overly general and failing to capture the nuances of
human behavior and experience, he should not levy
the same criticism against an even more general and
less nuanced two-factor approach. One reason for his
reluctance to do so may be some surface similarity he
observed between the two factors identied by Dig-
man (1997) and DeYoung (2006) on one hand and
Blocks long-cherished distinction, traced back to Pi-
aget (1970), between fundamental processes of assim-
ilation and accommodation on the other. It may be that
52
COMMENTARIES
Block saw in DeYoungs new packaging of alpha and
beta supertraits (socialization and self-growth)with
the alluring imprimatur of neurosciencea clever way
of capturing what he long believed to be two basic pro-
cesses in personality. We, however, see the connection
as a stretch.
Actors, Agents, and Authors
All in all, then, we believe that Jack Block may have
gone a bit too hard on the Big Five. First, we believe
that the ve-factor model has indeed generated impor-
tant theoretical contributions in recent years. Second,
we are not as concerned as Block was about the models
origins in factor analysis, given demonstrated construct
validity of the factors. Third, we nd the lack of full
consensus regarding the names of the basic traits, and
even their precise number, to be a sign of scientic dy-
namism rather than confusion. Fourth, we agree with
Block that measurement models for the ve factors are
limited, but the criticism applies to the entire eld of
personality psychology. Fifth, we are much less im-
pressed than was Block with efforts to reduce the Big
Five to a Bigger Two, feeling more skepticism than
excitement about neat linkages between two purported
super traits on one hand and corresponding differences
in the working of serotonin and dopamine on the other.
When it comes to the Big Five, then, we believe that,
in one sense, Jack Block may have taken the contrarian
line too far. In a second sense, however, he may not
have taken it far enough. Despite our reservations about
Blocks critique in the target article, we admire and
identity strongly with his contrarian spirit. Whereas
we do not share the specic concerns Block expressed
regarding limitations of the Big Five, we do share a
very strong contrarian feeling regarding the Big Fives
adequacy as a model for all of personality psychology.
Boiled down to the basics, our argument is simple, and
it is not new: The Big Five is ne for traits; but there
is more to personality than traits (McAdams, 1992,
1994, 1995; McAdams & Pals, 2006; Mischel, 2004;
Sheldon, 2004; Singer, 2005). Even prominent Big Five
enthusiasts (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 2008) concede that
our argument is right. But being contrarian ourselves,
we do not believe that most personality psychologists
appreciate the full extent of the critique. As we briey
show next, it is more sweeping and more contrarian
than many think.
In the target article, Block suggests that the Big Five
taxonomy may leave out critical features of personality.
He points to traits such as honesty/humility (Ashton &
Lee, 2007) and sensuality/sexuality and bodily features
such as physical attractiveness. Whether or not Block
is correct about these kinds of traits, it is clear to us
that the Big Five leaves out much more, for it leaves
out all those features of personality that are not well
captured under the hegemonic label of trait. What
might these be? A common answer (McAdams, 1992)
is this: The Big Five leaves out those contextualized
and personalized features of personality that do not
conformto broad and generalized trait attributions. But
this answer is vague and misleading, for it implies that
personality psychologists need simply to nd all those
little traits out there that apply in very specic settings.
As McCrae and Costa (2008) have shown, the Big
Five lends itself to a hierarchical structure, whereby a
few factors may subsume a larger number of smaller
facets, which in principle might subsume even smaller
and more circumscribed personality traits. As you go
from broad factors to narrow facets to even (in theory)
narrower subfacets for the Big Five hierarchy, it is still
traits all the way down.
What Big Five enthusiasts, Jack Block, and the ma-
jority of personality psychologists in the world all have
in common is their acceptance of trait discourse as
the primary way to think and talk about personality.
From this widely shared perspective, personality com-
prises broad individual differences in social behavior
(socio-emotional functioning) that express themselves
in more-or-less consistent ways across different situ-
ations and over time. In that human beings evolved
as social animals that live in complex groups, person-
ality traits capture those widely observed differences
that individuals show with respect to their social per-
formances (Goffman, 1959; Hogan, 1982). These dif-
ferences begin to appear very early in life, as expres-
sions of temperament. Over time and with extensive
environmental input, fundamental temperament dispo-
sitions evolve into readily discernible and measurable
dispositional traits. This is what the Big Five and all
other trait paradigms in personality psychology are per-
fectly positioned to assessthe dispositional traits ob-
served and inferred (by self and others) in the social
performances of actors. From birth onward, the rst
and foundational layer of personality is dispositional
traitspersonality from the standpoint of the social
actor (McAdams & Olson, 2010).
As children grow and develop, their basic dispo-
sitional traits continue to evolve. But in the middle
or late childhood years, a second layer of personality
begins to form. Research in developmental and cogni-
tive psychology shows that as children develop a clear
and self-conscious understanding of themselves as
purposive and goal-directed agents in the world, they
begin to formulate personal goals, strivings, projects,
plans, and the like for their own lives (Mroczek &
Little, 2006). Little goals at rstto win Jessicas
friendship, or to get an A in my social studies class.
Bigger goals later on. Goals are about what motivated
agents want and value and what they strive to obtain
in particular domains and contexts of life. The entire
psychology of goalsthe planful and teleological
nature of goal striving, the particularity of goals,
the accompanying values and strategies that form a
53
COMMENTARIES
psychological superstructure around goals, the fact
that goals are exquisitely sensitive to temporal and
developmental contexts, ebbing and owing and con-
stantly changing over timeis fundamentally different
from, and therefore not reducible to, the psychology of
traits (Freund & Riediger, 2006; Little, 1999; Roberts,
ODonnell, & Robins, 2004). Like any trait scheme,
the Big Five is not epistemologically equipped to take
on goals and their vicissitudes. Traits may shed some
light on howactors behave in their pursuit of goals. For
example, individuals high in conscientiousness may
pursue their goals in a more systematic and dutiful
manner. But traits are agnostic on what the goals are;
on what, in particular, agents want and value; how
those wants and values apply to some domains but not
others; and how what agents want and the plans and
strategies they articulate to get what they want, and
avoid what they do not want, change and develop over
time in response to developmental demands, cultural
imperatives, and changing environments.
Goals and their psychological accoutrements begin
to layer over dispositional traits as individuals move
through childhood and into adolescence. This second
layer of personality takes up more and more psycho-
logical space as people grow older. If you want to
understand the personality of a 5-year-old, then you
can settle on assessing traits, for that is all there is.
With respect to personality, a 5-year-old is a social ac-
tor only, not yet a full-edged motivated agent whose
goals and values dene who he or she is. (This is not
to say that 5-year-olds do not behave in a goal-directed
manner; it is only to suggest that they do not yet have
full-edged, self-consciously articulated goals that ex-
plicitly guide their behavior from day to day and de-
ne who they are for themselves and others.) But by
the time a person has moved into his or her teenaged
years, self-dening goals and their accompanying fea-
tures have emerged as a second layer of personality,
expressing a second perspective from which to under-
stand the person. Personality is no longer only about
consistent individual differences in actors social per-
formances. It is nowalso about consequential variation
in how motivated agents understand and pursue their
own particular goals and values, situated in time and
social context.
What does 20-year-old Laura want? Try to answer
that question with a trait statement. Uh, well, she wants
to be extraverted. Or, she wants to be high on agreeable-
ness. Or, well, you know, I dont really know what she
wants, but I bet that she will have a hard time getting
it, whatever it is, because she is high on neuroticism.
These responses are psychologically lame because the
language of traits is not well suited for answering ques-
tions of human motivation and value. The Big Five has
virtually nothing to say about this second layer of per-
sonality. But it is not the Big Fives fault! And it is not
the fault of traits. Traits are great when you want to ac-
count for broad differences in the social performances
of actors. Traits, however, dont do motivated agents.
Traits are like a hammer when you need a screwdriver.
When their birthdays come around next year, most per-
sonality psychologists should ask for a bigger toolbox.
While were at it, let us mention that 20-year-old
Laura has probably already begun to experience the
emergence of a third layer of personalityif, that is,
Laura lives in a cultural context that resembles modern
societies (Giddens, 1991), wherein people of Lauras
age are challenged to develop what Erikson (1963)
long ago described as an identity. Identity means many
things in adolescence and adulthood, but a primary
feature of the identity challengeand one that has
profound implications for personality structure and
functionis to develop and internalize an evolving,
self-dening life story, which explains how the person
came to be and where his or her life may be going in
the future (Hammack, 2008; McAdams, 2006, 2008;
McLean, Pasupathi, & Pals, 2007). To their psycho-
logical repertoire of social actor and motivated agent,
young adults living in modern societies typically add
the perspective of the autobiographical author. Begin-
ning in the third decade of life and continuing forever
after, most people present a personality that has three
layersan internalized life story layered over person-
alized goals layered over dispositional traits. Psycho-
logically speaking, they now continue to perform as
actors on the social stage, striving to achieve their most
cherished and valued goals as motivated agents, while
making sense of it all through the stories of their lives
that they author in their heads (McAdams & Olson,
2010).
Empirically speaking, measures of different layers
of personality can showpsychologically interesting re-
lations to each other. For example, studies have shown
that certain dispositional traits captured in the Big
Five scheme are related to particular content themes
and structural features in life stories (McAdams et al.,
2004). Similarly, motivational goals and associated val-
ues are often reected in broader life-narrative themes
(McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 2008; McAdams,
Hoffman, Manseld, & Day, 1996).
Recent years have witnessed an upsurge of research
interest in life stories (now often referred to as narra-
tive identity) in the elds of personality, developmental,
life-span, social, cognitive, and cultural psychology,
and in a number of disciplines outside of psychology
proper. Personality researchers have developed reli-
able methods to analyze life-narrative accounts for fea-
tures of content, structure, and process, translating rich,
idiographic stories into scores and scales amenable
to nomothetic research (for a review see McAdams,
2008). There is a growing appreciation of the relevance
of life stories for personality, and budding recognition
that internalized life stories themselves may be integral
parts of personalitya third layer, as we have argued
54
COMMENTARIES
here. Nonetheless, too many personality psychologists
still dismiss life stories as peripheral to the main stuff of
personality, which they nearly always suggest is traits.
In a similar manner, the study of goals, values, and
those features of personality that spring from the per-
spective of the person as a motivated agentwhat we
characterize as the second layertends not to enjoy the
attention it deserves among contemporary personality
researchers.
In sum, we take issue with the particulars of Jack
Blocks critique of the Big Five. But we deeply admire
and identify with his contrarian spirit. As we see it, the
main problem with the Big Five is not the Big Five
itself but personality psychologys embrace of the Big
Five as a comprehensive model for the entire eld. If
we see human beings as solely actors on a social stage,
then the ve-factor model is good enough. But if we
wish to consider personality in a broader and deeper
manner, from the standpoints of the person as moti-
vated agent and autobiographical author, then the Big
Five falls short. Fromour own contrarian point of view,
a full accounting of personality requires analysis from
the standpoints of actor, agent, and author. By focusing
most of their attention on the rst of these three, per-
sonality psychologists continue to shrink away from
the elds historical mandate to study the full gamut of
human personality, in all of its richness and complexity.
Acknowledgments
The production of the article was aided by a grant
to the rst author from the Foley Family Foundation
to establish the Foley Center for the Study of Lives at
Northwestern University.
Note
Address correspondence to Dan P. McAdams, De-
partment of Psychology, Northwestern University,
2120 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208. E-mail:
dmca@northwestern.edu
References
Ashton, M. C., &Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical
advantages to the HEXACO model of personality structure.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150166.
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and
psychiatric research. Springeld, IL: Thomas.
Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding
meaning, acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft.
Block, J. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradig-
matic shift or improving the quality of research? In D. Magnus-
son & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Cur-
rent issues in interactional psychology (pp. 3763). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, J. (1981). Some enduring and consequential structures of
personality. In A. I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A. M. Barclay, & R. A.
Zucker (Eds.), Further explorations in personality (pp. 2743).
New York: Wiley.
Block, J. (1989). Critique of the act-frequency approach to personal-
ity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 234245.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ve-factor approach to
personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187215.
Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism. Journal of Research in
Personality, 35, 98107.
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Nursery school personality and
political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in
Personality, 40, 734749.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego control and ego
resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins
(Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations
(pp. 39101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R: Pro-
fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure
of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation,
and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491569.
DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in
a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 11381151.
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 12461256.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York:
Norton.
Eysenck, H. J. (1973). Eysenck on extraversion. New York: Wiley.
Freund, A., & Riediger, M. (2006). Goals as building blocks of
personality and development in adulthood. In D. K. Mroczek
& T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp.
353372). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in
the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
American Psychologist, 48, 2634.
Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of
identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 222
247.
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page
(Ed.), Nebraska symposiumon motivation (pp. 5589). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (2nd ed., pp. 102138). New York: Guilford.
Little, B. R. (1999). Personality and motivation: Personal action and
the conative evolution. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.
501524). New York: Guilford.
Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Social investment and
personality: A meta-analysis of the relationship of personality
traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 6886.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objectives tests as instruments of psychological
theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635694.
McAdams, D. P. (1982). Experiences of intimacy and power: Rela-
tionships between social motives and autobiographical memory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 292302.
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The ve-factor model in personality: A
critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329361.
McAdams, D. P. (1994). Can personality change? Levels of sta-
bility and growth in personality across the life span. In T. F.
55
COMMENTARIES
Heatherton &J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change?
(pp. 299313). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-
sociation Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we knowwhen we knowa person?
Journal of Personality, 63, 365396.
McAdams, D. P. (2006). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live
by. New York: Oxford University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (2008). Personal narratives and the life story. In
O. P. John, L. A. Pervin, & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 241261). New
York: Guilford.
McAdams, D. P., Albaugh, M., Farber, E., Daniels, J., Logan, R. L.,
& Olson, B. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions:
How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 978990.
McAdams, D. P., Anyidoho, N. A., Brown, C., Huang, Y. T., Kaplan,
B., &Machado, M. A. (2004). Traits and stories: Links between
dispositional and narrative features of personality. Journal of
Personality, 72, 761784.
McAdams, D. P., Hoffman, B. J., Manseld, E. D., &Day, R. (1996).
Themes of agency and communion in signicant autobiograph-
ical scenes. Journal of Personality, 64, 339378.
McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. J. (2010). Personality development:
Continuity and change over the life course. In S. Fiske, D.
Schacter, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Annual review of psychology
(Vol. 61, pp. 517542). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental
principles for an integrative science of personality. American
Psychologist, 61, 204217.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The ve-factor theory
of personality. In O. P. John , R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.,
pp. 159181). New York: Guilford.
McLean, K. C., Pasupathi, M., & Pals, J. L. (2007). Selves creating
stories creating selves: A process model of self-development.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 262278.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person.
In S. T. Fiske, A. E. Kazdin, & D. L. Schacter (Eds.), Annual
reviewof psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 122). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews, Inc.
Mroczek, D. K., &Little, T. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of personality
development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the pre-
diction of consequential outcomes. In S. T. Fiske, A. E. Kazdin,
and D. L. Schacter (Eds.), Annal Review of Psychology (Vol.
57, pp. 401421). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg,
L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative va-
lidity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive
ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives in
Psychological Science, 2, 313345.
Roberts, B. W., ODonnell, M., & Robins, R. (2004). Goal
and personality trait development in emerging adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 541
550.
Shedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psycholog-
ical health. American Psychologist, 45, 612630.
Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Optimal human being: An integrated, multi-
level perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shiner, R. L. (2006). Temperament and personality in childhood.
In D. K. Mroczek & T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality
development (pp. 213230). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shweder, R. (1975). How relevant is an individual difference theory
of personality? Journal of Personality, 43, 455484.
Simonton, D. K. (1989). The swan song phenomenon: Last-works
effects of 172 classical composers. Psychology and Aging, 4,
4247.
Singer, J. A. (2005). Personality and psychotherapy: Treating the
whole person. New York: Guilford.
Wacker, J. Chavanon, M. L., & Stemmler, G. (2006). Investigating
the dopaminergic basis of extraversion in humans: A multilevel
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
171187.
Wiggins, J. S. (Ed.). (1996). The ve-factor model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.
56
Copyright of Psychological Inquiry is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.