To investigate recent hypotheses of replicable personality types, we examined data from 1540 self‐sorts on the California Adult Q‐Set (CAQ). Conventional factor analysis of the items showed the expected Five‐Factor Model (FFM). Inverse factor analysis across random subsamples showed that none of the previously reported person‐factors were replicated. Only two factors were replicable, and, most importantly, these factors were contaminated by mean level differences in item endorsement. Results were not due to sample size or age heterogeneity. Subsequent inverse factor analysis of standardized items revealed at least three replicable factors; when five person‐factors were extracted, they could be aligned precisely with the dimensions of the FFM. The major factors of person similarity can be accounted for entirely in terms of the FFM, consistent with the hypothesis that there are no replicable personality types in the CAQ. Published in 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsendorpfJ. B. (2003).Head‐to‐head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17,327–346.
2.
AsendorpfJ. B.CaspiA.HofsteeW. K. B. (Eds.). (2002).The puzzle of personality types [special issue]. European Journal of Personality, 16(S1).
3.
AsendorpfJ. B.van AkenM. A. G. (1999).Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and the trait‐type issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,815–832.
4.
BemD. J.FunderD. C. (1978).Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 85,485–501.
5.
BlockJ. (1961). The Q‐sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
6.
BlockJ. H.BlockJ. (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: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology(Vol. 13, pp.39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BlockJ.OzerD. J. (1982).Two types of psychologists: Remarks on the Mendelsohn, Weiss, and Feimer contribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,1171–1181.
8.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959).Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56,81–105.
9.
CaspiA.BlockJ.BlockJ. H.KloppB.LynamD.MoffittT. E.Stouthamer‐LoeblerM. (1992).A ‘common language’ version of the California Child Q‐set for personality assessment. Psychological Assessment, 4,486–498.
10.
CostaP. T.HerbstJ. H.McCraeR. R.SamuelsJ.OzerD. J. (2002).The replicability and utility of three personality types. European Journal of Personality, 16,S73–S87.
11.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992).Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R) and NEO Five‐Factor Inventory (NEO‐FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
12.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1995).Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64,21–50.
13.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R.SieglerI. C. (1999). Continuity and change over the adult life cycle: Personality and personality disorders. In C. R. Cloninger (Ed.), Personality and psychopathology(pp.129–154). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
14.
CotaA. A.LongmanR.StewartR.HoldenR. R.FekkenG. C. (1993).Comparing different methods for implementing parallel analysis: A practical index of accuracy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,865–876.
15.
DigmanJ. M. (1997).Higher‐order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,1246–1256.
16.
EdwardsA. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden.
17.
EverettJ. E. (1983).Factor comparability as a means of determining the number of factors and their rotation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18,197–218.
18.
GramzowR. H.SedikidesC.PanterA. T.SathyV.HarrisJ.InskoC. (2004).Patterns of self‐regulation and the Big Five. European Journal of Personality, 18,367–385.
19.
GuadagnoliE.VelicerW. F. (1988).Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103,265–275.
20.
HartD.HofmannV.EdelsteinW.KellerM. (1997).The relation of childhood personality types to adolescent behavior and development: A longitudinal study of Icelandic children. Developmental Psychology, 33,195–205.
21.
JohnO. P.CaspiA.RobinsR. W.MoffittT. E.Stouthamer‐LoeberM. (1994).The ‘little five’: Exploring the Five‐Factor Model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65,160–178.
22.
JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (1994).Type and traits, dynamics and development: No doors should be closed in the study of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 5,137–142.
23.
KremenA. M.BlockJ. (2002).Absorption: Construct explication by Q‐sort assessments of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,252–259.
24.
LanningK. (1994).Dimensionality of observer ratings on the California Adult Q‐Set. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,151–160.
25.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1989).Rotation to maximize the construct validity of factors in the NEO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24,107–124.
26.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.BuschC. M. (1986).Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q‐Set and the Five‐Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 54,430–446.
27.
McCraeR. R.JohnO. P. (1992).An introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60,175–215.
28.
MyersI. B. (1962). Manual: The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
29.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw‐Hill.
30.
OsgoodC. E. (1976). Focus on meaning, Vol. 1: Explorations in semantic space. The Hague: Mouton.
31.
OzerD. J.GjerdeP. F. (1989).Patterns of personality consistency and change from childhood through adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57,483–507.
32.
PittengerD. J. (2004).The limitations of extracting typologies from trait measures of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,779–787.
33.
RammstedtB.RiemannR.AngleitnerA.BorkenauP. (2004).Resilients, overcontrollers, and undercontrollers: The replicability of the three personality prototypes across informants. European Journal of Personality, 18,1–14.
34.
RobinsR. W.JohnO. P.CaspiA.MoffittT. E.Stouthamer‐LoeberM. (1996).Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,157–171.
35.
SchnabelK.AsendorpfJ. B.OstendorfF. (2002).Replicable types and subtypes of person‐ality: German NEO‐PI‐R versus NEO‐FFI. European Journal of Personality, 16,S7–S24.
36.
ShockN. W.GreulichR. C.AndresR.ArenbergD.CostaP. T.LakattaE. G.TobinJ. D. (1984).Normal human aging: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, (NIH Publication No. 84‐2450). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
37.
StephensonW. (1953). The study of behavior: Q‐Technique and its methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
38.
Van LeeuwenK.De FruytF.MervieldeI. (2004).A longitudinal study of the utility of the resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types as predictors of children's and adolescents' problem behaviour. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 28,210–220.
39.
YorkK. L.JohnO. P. (1992).The four faces of Eve: A typological analysis of women's personality at midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,494–508.
