how to win a career achievement award in five easy … to win a... · (pascal & suttell, 1951)....

Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(6), 506–517, 2009Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00223890903228158

2009 BRUNO KLOPFER DISTINGUISHED CONTRIBUTION AWARD

How to Win a Career Achievement Award in Five Easy LessonsLEWIS R. GOLDBERG

Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, Oregon

This professional autobiography is based on a talk given as the recipient of the 2009 Bruno Klopfer Distinguished Contribution Award. Itincludes a discussion of 5 of my habits that might be useful as a guide for future awardees including 1. send everything that you write to everyoneyou know (and ask for their help); 2. don’t be afraid to pick up what’s been dropped by others; 3. don’t be afraid to go away and then to stayaway a long time; and 4. remember good ideas—they can be useful in the future. For the fifth and most important lesson, one must read thearticle.

LESSON NUMBER 1: SEND EVERYTHING THAT YOUWRITE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW (AND ASK FOR

THEIR HELP)For all of my professional career, I’ve sent preview drafts of

each of my reports to dozens of friends and colleagues, alwaysasking for their help in making them better. Over the years, thisparticular bit of chutzpah has gained me an enormous amountof extraordinarily useful feedback, and my published reportshave all profited from the wisdom of my peers. Exhibit 1 is theAuthor Note from Goldberg (1991), expressing my appreciationfor such help (Figure 1). One might well argue that the reasonthat I have won any career awards is because many of my friendshave taught me to think better and to write better about those

Received June 3, 2009; Revised June 16, 2009.Editor’s Note: This is a version of the award talk given at the 2009 annual

meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment. Articles based on awardaddresses are not sent for peer review, as they reflect the recipient’s perspectiveon their work and the field.

Address correspondence to Lewis R. Goldberg, Oregon Research Institute,1715 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, OR 97403–1983; Email: [email protected]

thoughts. Indeed, I’ve even asked my gang to suggest topicsfor a career achievement address. Virtually everyone argued forsomething autobiographical rather than technical, and I will heretry to oblige.

LESSON NUMBER 2: DON’T BE AFRAID TO PICK UPWHAT’S BEEN DROPPED BY OTHERS

An Example: The Taxonomic Challenge

My very first class as a college freshman at Harvard in 1949was taught by Gordon Allport (Figure 2), who used for a text-book his classic 1937 volume Personality: A Psychological In-terpretation. Chapter 11 in that text, titled “The theory of traits,”concluded with a section entitled “The problem of trait names,”describing the Allport and Odbert (1936) compendium “Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.”

Allport hoped to work with Odbert or others of his studentsto develop a taxonomy of the nearly 18,000 trait names that theyhad culled from the 1925 edition of the unabridged Webster’sNew International Dictionary of the English Language, ratherthan leaving that project with merely those four long alphabeti-cal columns of trait terms. But it was not to be: Allport himselfwas not much of an empirically oriented scientist, and none ofhis students took on this taxonomic challenge.

That remained for Raymond B. Cattell (Figure 3), who sawthe wisdom of combining the personality dictionary provided byAllport and Odbert with the techniques of cluster analysis andfactor analysis of which he was so enamored. Although Cattell(1943, 1945, 1947) had made a heroic beginning, he arrived onthe scene too early in technological history, living still in an agewhen hand calculations reigned and computers were in theirinfancy.

That’s two dropped taxonomy balls, and one to go. Warren T.Norman (Figure 4) had just obtained his PhD from the Universityof Minnesota when he took his first and only faculty position,starting as an instructor in 1957 at the University of Michigan.He wasn’t there more than a few weeks when his departmenthead, E. Lowell Kelly, who had just been elected President ofthe American Psychological Association, asked him to serveon the dissertation committee of a very balding youngster, one

506

Downloaded By: [University of Toledo] At: 18:37 20 November 2009

FIVE EASY LESSONS 507

FIGURE 1.—Author note from Goldberg (1991).

of whose committee members had gone away on leave. Thusbegan a friendship and intellectual collaboration (e.g., Norman& Goldberg, 1966) that lasted until Warren Norman’s early deathin 1998 (see Goldberg, 1998, for an appreciation).

It was Warren Norman who took up the Allportian challenge,intending to finally provide a scientifically compelling taxon-omy of personality characteristics, based on what I later dubbedthe “lexical hypothesis” (Goldberg, 1981). And, it was Norman(1967) who was the first to collect empirical data on a subset ofroughly 2,800 of the 18,000 terms in the Allport-Odbert com-pendium; and it was Norman (1963) who persuaded Goldbergthat the next great challenge of a scientific personality psychol-ogy was to solve the riddle of personality structure. Then, hetoo dropped that ball.

What makes an extraordinarily brilliant young scientist burnout at an early age? If we can answer that question, we maycome to understand how Norman correctly identified a crucialscientific problem, contributed enormously to its solution, butthen stopped in mid tracks. In his explosive burst of brillianceand intellectual exuberance, he infected me, and I came to be-lieve that it was my calling to carry on his vision. I alwaysbelieved that the problem was going to be too difficult for me tosolve, but that it was important enough to devote a lifetime to

FIGURE 2.—Gordon Allport (1897–1967).

FIGURE 3.—Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998). c© Cattell family (Wikimedia-Commons); licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0,http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

working on it (e.g., Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004; Ashton,Lee, Goldberg, & de Vries, 2009; Goldberg, 1982, 1990,1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1995; 2001; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994;McCormick & Goldberg, 1997; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989;Saucier & Goldberg, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003).

It is not yet solved, of course, but we have made some gains.

A Second Example: The Hawaii Cohort

Here is another example of picking up what others have, inthis case inadvertently, dropped. From 1961 to 1965, I workedas a consultant to the U.S. Peace Corps, serving as a FieldSelection Officer, selecting Peace Corps trainees to serve in

FIGURE 4.—Warren T. Norman (1930–1998).


508 GOLDBERG

FIGURE 5.—John M. Digman (1923–1998).

various countries in Southeast Asia, including the Philippines,Thailand, and Malaysia. All of these projects trained on theBig Island in Hawaii, and in my role as a selection officer, Imet with each training group at the beginning, middle, and endof their 3-month training period—virtually always in beautifulHilo, Hawaii.

Being in Hawaii every 6 weeks or so, I met some colleaguesteaching at the University of Hawaii, one of whom, Jack Dig-man (Figure 5), became one of my dearest friends. Unknownto me at the time, during the years from 1959 to 1967, Digmanhad persuaded 88 elementary-school teachers on the islands ofOahu and Kauai to describe each of their students at the veryend of the school years. All of the teachers rank ordered theirstudents on each of about 50 personality traits, originally se-lected by Cattell but later augmented by Digman so as to beas comprehensive as possible. In total, Digman obtained per-sonality descriptions on about 2,400 kids in the first, second,fifth, and sixth grades. By analyzing some subsets of this richdata pool, Digman (1963, 1965, 1989, 1990; Digman & Inouye,1986; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981) discovered five ro-bust factors that generalized across subsamples, thus making animportant contribution to what I later dubbed the “Big-Five”factor representation (Goldberg, 1981).

The years went by. Digman’s wife moved to Lorane, Oregon,where she ran a horse ranch, and Jack followed her. He neededsomething of his own to do, and so elected to work with us atthe Oregon Research Institute (ORI) in Eugene. Our colleague,Sarah Hampson, and others at ORI, kept urging Jack to applyfor funds to study those elementary school children 40 yearslater when they were now adults. It took awhile, but in 1998, hereceived a research grant from the National Institute of MentalHealth (NIMH), entitled “Personality and Health: A Longitu-dinal Study,” to locate as many as possible from that original

child cohort. Within a few months of receiving this grant, Jackdied—suddenly and unexpectedly. We were all devastated.

The research grant needed a Principal Investigator, and al-though I had not been part of this project, I was asked totake over. Now 12 years later, our team, which includes SarahHampson and Joan Dubanoski, has (a) located over 80% ofthe original cohort (Hampson et al., 2001); (b) administereda series of health-related questionnaires to most of them; and(c) recruited many of them to participate in a comprehensivephysical-medical-psychological examination at the Kaiser Per-manente Center for Health Research in Honolulu.

Already, in a project that we hope will follow this cohort tothe end of their lives, we have made some important discoveries:We have found strong links between childhood personality traits(such as Conscientiousness) and adult health-related behaviorssuch as smoking and health outcomes such as obesity (e.g.,Hampson, Goldberg, Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2006, 2007). And, ina first study of personality-trait stability over the 40-year spanbetween elementary school and middle adulthood, we foundsubstantial differences in long-term stability between differenttypes of traits. Traits related to Extraversion and Conscientious-ness seem to have considerable stability, whereas traits related toEmotional Stability (vs. Neuroticism) and Agreeableness seemto have virtually no stability at all (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006).Our research grant is now funded by the National Institute onAging, with Sarah Hampson as its Principal Investigator.

A Third Example: Vocational Choices

As an undergraduate at Harvard, I took no courses in thePsychology Department, which at that time included Skinner,Boring, Stevens, and a host of other such luminaries. Yet as acollege junior faced with a decision about what to do with mylife, I decided to obtain graduate training in psychology—for theobvious reason that psychology would teach me all about people,and knowledge of people would be useful in any professionI might later elect to enter. Oh, sure. Once in the graduateprogram in Clinical Psychology at the University of Michigan,which was highly psychodynamic in orientation, I found myselfskeptical about the scientific status of all that Rorschach-inkblotprognosticating to which I was being exposed.

So, I set out to test whether clinical psychologists making pre-dictions from projective protocols were experts or quacks, andthese early excursions into the accuracy of human judgmentsremained a theme of my research for the next two decades(e.g., Goldberg, 1968, 1970, 1991). After a first study examin-ing whether brain-damaged patients could be distinguished frompsychotic ones by their after images from watching a rotatingArchimedes spiral (Goldberg & Smith, 1958), I studied clinicalexpertise in diagnosing brain damage using a popular projec-tive procedure of that era, the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt test(Pascal & Suttell, 1951). In my first contribution to the scientificliterature on clinical judgment (Goldberg, 1959), I showed thatexperienced clinicians, clinical psychology graduate students,and hospital secretaries were all equally valid diagnosticians,but that the secretaries were more confident in their judgmentsthan the other two groups. Thus, I argued, for this task oneshould use one’s secretaries because with no loss in accuracy,they would feel a lot better about what they were doing.

At that time, it was not common for graduate students topublish reports of their research, but before I finished my



FIGURE 6.—Paul J. Hoffman.

degree, I had published two articles (Goldberg, 1959; Gold-berg & Smith, 1958), the one on clinical accuracy being widelyreprinted. Among those who read that article was Paul J. Hoff-man (Figure 6), who was starting to achieve some fame froma classic Psychological Bulletin article entitled “The paramor-phic representation of clinical judgment” in which he arguedthat human judgments could be captured by multiple regressionequations linking the numerical values of the cues that are usedto the numerical values of the predictions from those cues (Hoff-man, 1960). A few years later in my life, I was to join Hoffmanin Eugene, Oregon, where he had just started a new organi-zation called the Oregon Research Institute (ORI; Figure 7).At ORI we were joined by Leonard Rorer (whose 1965 articleon “The Great Response-Style Myth” became a classic of thatperiod), then later by Paul Slovic and Sarah Lichtenstein, andin one of the headiest years of our young lives by Amos Tver-

FIGURE 7.—First ORI building, 1960.

FIGURE 8.—E. Lowell Kelly (1905–1986).

sky and Dan Kahneman who conducted their early studies ofjudgmental heuristics and biases with us at ORI.

Now back to my penchant for picking up stuff dropped byothers. As a graduate student at Michigan, the clinical psychol-ogist who made the most sense to me was the one who becamemy advisor and friend, Lowell Kelly (Figure 8). Kelly, with hisstudent Donald Fiske, had conducted a large-scale study of allincoming graduate students in clinical psychology throughoutthe United States immediately after World War II, and their1951 report (Kelly & Fiske, 1951) of that study entitled “ThePrediction of Performance in Clinical Psychology” became amilestone in the history of psychological assessment. However,despite the title of that classic volume, Kelly and Fiske had ob-tained no information about the actual work “performance” oftheir graduate-student cohort, intending to collect such criterioninformation in the years ahead. Another ball was about to getdropped.

For my doctoral dissertation, I picked up this particular ball,and began a massive detective hunt to find the members of thisgraduate-student cohort 10 years later in their lives. In this, myfirst longitudinal investigation, I managed to locate 95% of theoriginal cohort, and 100% of those who had gone on to ob-tain their PhD degrees in psychology. I showed that the kind ofwork that these individuals ended up doing (clinical practice,academic teaching/research, or administration) was predictablefrom their personality and interests when they first entered grad-uate school (Kelly & Goldberg, 1959). This early research stim-ulated an interest in occupational choices, an interest that laydormant for many decades until recently when I began develop-ing new public-domain measures of vocational and avocationalpreferences (e.g., Goldberg, in press).

LESSON NUMBER 3: DON’T BE AFRAID TO GO AWAYAND THEN TO STAY AWAY A LONG TIME

My first academic job was at Stanford University where thefaculty superstars included Leon Festinger, Richard Sears, JackHilgard, Quinn McNemar, and Alex Bavelas. In the office acrossfrom me was a youngster named Albert Bandura, and a few doors


510 GOLDBERG

FIGURE 9.—Jerry S. Wiggins (1931–2006).

away was an even younger Jerry Wiggins (Figures 9 and 10),with whom I cotaught a graduate assessment course and withwhom I outlined a textbook in assessment that would eventuallybecome that great Wiggins (1973) classic, Personality and Pre-diction: Principles of Personality Assessment. I had been hiredas a temporary 1-year replacement, which then got renewed fora second year. When the time came to take a permanent posi-tion, I joined the faculty at the University of Oregon in Eugene,which has remained my residence for almost 50 years. But, un-like most folks I know, whenever I could take a leave, I stayedaway for a year or more at a time, and these years away fromhome have been the most stimulating ones in my life.

A number of colleagues have remarked to me that my yearsspent away from home have been followed by periods of richscientific productivity, but I have always doubted those obser-vations. It was not until a few days ago that I discovered anyscientific evidence for their conclusions; in a series of exper-imental and naturalistic studies, Maddux and Galinsky (2009)

FIGURE 10.—Jack Digman and Jerry Wiggins.

FIGURE 11.—Adriaan De Groot (1914–2006).

found evidence that long periods spent living in other culturesare associated with increased creativity.

My first sabbatical was spent at the University of Nijmegenin The Netherlands, where as a Fulbright Professor I got tovisit the five other psychology departments in Holland at thattime and to meet most if not all of their faculty members. Themost famous psychologist of that era was Adriaan De Groot(Figure 11) who pioneered the study of expert decision makingin chess (e.g., De Groot, 1965) and whom I invited to spend ayear with us at ORI, during which time I helped edit his clas-sic volume on Methodology (De Groot, 1969), which he hadtranslated from Dutch to English. But it was a young whip-persnapper at the University of Groningen, Willem Hofstee(Figure 12), who ended up as one of my closest and moststimulating of colleagues. Wim Hofstee visited us at ORI ona number of occasions, along with his students Arend Tomasand Frank Brokken (Figure 13), whose doctoral dissertation(Brokken, 1978) was an early milestone in lexical research;Frank has now visited the United States so frequently that heowns a truck parked in Eugene. It is Wim Hofstee who deservesprimary credit for the development of the Abridged Big-Five di-mensional Circumplex (AB5C) model integrating dimensionaland circular representations of the Big-Five domains (Hofstee,de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992).

By the end of my first European sabbatical, it had becomeobvious to Jerry Wiggins and to me that my heart lay in empiricalanalyses, not in textbook writing, and thus that Jerry shouldcomplete our assessment volume on his own. When that bookfinally came out (Wiggins, 1973), it was dedicated “To ORI:The people and the concept.”

During the 1971–1972 academic year, I got to hang out withRavenna Helson and Harrison Gough (Figure 14) in the Institutefor Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) at the Univer-sity of California in Berkeley, and with Jack Block (Figure 15),usually at his home. Jack and I had met years earlier at a conven-tion in Honolulu, where we spent hours on a beach discussingthe crazy response-set wars of that period, ongoing discussionsthat culminated in Block’s (1965) remarkable critique, “TheChallenge of Response Sets.” While spending a year with Blockin Berkeley, I accompanied him on his weekly excursions to SanFrancisco to pick up, each from a different small specialty shop,his weekly assortments of wines, pastas, cheeses, sausages,



FIGURE 12.—Willem K. B. Hofstee.

bagels, rolls, and bread-sticks. Once through those demandingerrands, it was time for our weekly dim-sum Chinese lunch.

The Netherlands was cool, Berkeley was hot (especially dur-ing these years of frenzied counter-cultural protests), but Turkey

FIGURE 13.—Frank Brokken.

FIGURE 14.—Harrison Gough.

provided the ultimate kind of experience. During a Fulbright-supported year in Istanbul in the mid-1970s, I got to explore acity diametrically opposite of my home in Eugene, Oregon, inso many ways that it could take my breath away. I taught coursesat Istanbul University, the oldest university in the Middle East,and certainly the most entertaining. During the days, I walkedthe streets of this ancient city, and when the sun went down, I sa-vored the sights and sounds along the mighty Bosporus. Roughlyonce a month, I wrote a raki-enfused account of our adventures,and the collection of these unpublished “Letters from Turkey”became something of an underground collector’s item. In mysecond letter, I described a period of “Unmitigated gawking,while walking every side-street, sniffing every smell, visitingevery mosque, riding every ferry, bus, and dolmus I could find.”It was one hell of a ride, and one hell of a year.

Had I not spent that year in Istanbul, would I have stilldevoted so much time to studying the Turkish languageof personality? Strangely, the two periods of my life werenot connected. Two decades after my Istanbul odyssey, ayoung Turkish psychologist, Oya Somer, discovered the lexical

FIGURE 15.—Jack Block.


512 GOLDBERG

FIGURE 16.—Oliver John.

hypothesis, the Big-Five factor structure, and me. She obtainedthe data; I planned the analyses; and together we publishedtwo articles describing our many findings from this ancient Al-taic language (Goldberg & Somer, 2000; Somer & Goldberg,1999).

But, another full year abroad was connected to my earlierDutch sabbatical. Probably because of my friendship with WimHofstee, I was invited to spend a year as a fellow-in-residenceat the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS), inWassenaar, near the Hague in the Netherlands. Frank Brokkenset up a computer connection between my NIAS office andhis Groningen computer center, which had the most advancedacademic computer system in Holland at that time. Where I hadonce learned to program in Fortran II, I could now use SPSSto do it for me, and so again I could function as my own dataanalyst, which I did all day most of the days of that wonderfulyear.

When not computing, I was driving—from Bielefeld in Ger-many to Wassenaar in Holland with stops in Groningen along theway—with my new graduate student, Oliver John (Figure 16).Oliver had been an undergraduate at Bielefeld with Alois An-gleitner, who sent Oliver on a scouting expedition to inter-view Block, Wiggins, Fiske, Jackson, Mischel, and Goldberg insearch of an ideal personality graduate program. Somehow I wonout, and Oliver came to team up with Bill Chaplin (Figure 17)at Oregon, and then returned to Bielefeld during my year atNIAS. Through Angleitner, Oliver and I met Sarah Hampson(Figures 18 and 19), and together John, Hampson, Chaplin,and Goldberg (Figure 20) spent eight heady years studying per-

FIGURE 17.—William F. Chaplin.

sonality traits as semantic categories, eventually discovering abasic level in personality trait hierarchies (e.g., Chaplin, John,& Goldberg, 1988; Hampson, John, & Goldberg, 1986; John,Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991).

FIGURE 18.—Sarah E. Hampson.



FIGURE 19.—Chaplin and Hampson.

LESSON NUMBER 4: REMEMBER GOOD IDEAS—THEYCAN BE USEFUL IN THE FUTURE

Back when I was an undergraduate at Harvard, I read HenryMurray et al.’s (1938) classic volume, Explorations in Personal-ity: A Clinical and Experimental Study of Fifty Men of CollegeAge. Perhaps I didn’t get much past the Preface of that longtome, at least at that early stage of my life, but it was in thatshort preface that Murray raved about the advantages of us-ing the same sample of research participants to study manydifferent topics. He argued that if different investigators col-lected data from the same sample, the resulting data pool wouldbe rich enough so that one could check on possible alternativeexplanations for one’s findings using data obtained by others.

FIGURE 20.—John, Chaplin, and Goldberg.

FIGURE 21.—Gerard Saucier.

Murray implemented this plan with Harvard undergraduates, al-though that kind of sample has a shelf-life of only 4 years. But,the general idea is a winner.

More than 40 years after I first came across that idea, Ger-ard Saucier (Figures 21–23) and I obtained an NIMH grant,“Mapping Personality Trait Structure,” which had elicited a highenough priority score to win a Merit Award, thus doubling thelength of our grant. Now with eight years of guaranteed funding,the time seemed right to solicit our own pet sample. We neededto find individuals who would be living stably in the communityfor at least the next 10 years, and therefore university studentsand other transients were out. Instead, we solicited participantsfrom lists of home owners, asking folks if they wanted to help

FIGURE 22.—Saucier and Goldberg jam.


514 GOLDBERG

FIGURE 23.—Chaplin, Saucier, Goldberg, and John.

science and get paid (at least modestly) for their time. Roughly500 men and 500 women between the ages of 18 and 85 ini-tially expressed an interest in the project and completed a mini-inventory of 360 trait-descriptive adjectives, and around 850 ofthem then completed our first real inventory, a set of 858 itemsthat became the kernel of the International Personality Item Pool(IPIP; Goldberg, 1999).

Thus was born the Eugene-Springfield Community Sample(ESCS), a loyal stable of research participants who have nowcompleted by mail over 30 questionnaires covering an enormousrange of topics, including personality traits, values and atti-tudes, vocational and avocational interests, possessions, currentand past activities, aspects of psychopathology and of physicalhealth, talents and skills, and exposure to potentially traumaticevents both in childhood and adulthood. Remarkably, over thedecade between 1994 and 2004, virtually all participant attritionwas due to death or disability. In addition to the extraordinarycollection of self-report measures we have obtained, participantswrote projective stories to TAT pictures, and most of them havebeen described by two or three individuals who knew them well.

Over the years, members of this sample have completed awide array of current personality inventories, including theNEO PI–R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), California Psychologi-cal Inventory (Gough & Bradley, 2002), Sixteen PersonalityFactor questionnaire (Conn & Rieke, 1994), Hogan Personal-ity Inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 1995), Multidimensional Per-sonality Questionnaire (Tellegen, in press), Jackson Personal-ity Inventory (Jackson, 1994), Temperament and Character In-ventory (Cloninger, Przybeck, Svrakic, & Wetzel, 1994), andHEXACO–PI–R (Lee & Ashton, 2004). The availability of somany instruments, all developed to provide broad bandwidthassessments of normal personality functioning, suggested thepossibility of a comparative-validity horse race. In a study con-ducted with Rick Grucza of Washington University medicalschool in St. Louis, we used multiple regression analyses andbootstrap resampling procedures to provide cross-validity coef-ficients for 11 inventories predicting each of three kinds of cri-teria: (a) the frequencies of occurrence of diverse activities, (b)personality descriptions by knowledgeable informants, and (c)clinical indicators known to be associated with various kinds ofemotional disorders. Perhaps the most remarkable of our manyfindings is that interinventory differences across the entire rangeof criteria were quite small, suggesting some sort of common

core of personality-trait variance measured by these seeminglyquite diverse inventories (Grucza & Goldberg, 2007).

Data from our community sample have been provided freelyto a host of investigators throughout the world. Yet, the manywho have used ESCS data are but a tiny fraction of those whohave used the public-domain measures available at the IPIPWeb site (Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006). The same re-search grant that funded our community sample supported thisinternational collaboratory, which now includes around 2,500personality items and around 250 personality scales. EnglishIPIP items have now been translated into more than 30 otherlanguages, and the IPIP Web site already lists over 300 publica-tions that have used IPIP scales.

It was Willem Hofstee of the University of Groningen in theNetherlands who called attention to the fact that those singletrait-descriptive adjectives used in lexical studies of personalitystructure are not ideal items to include in personality inventoriesbecause they are too broad and abstract in their nature, and per-haps because of this, it is often difficult to find exact one-to-onetranslations across languages; in many cases, terms that seemdescriptively identical differ in their evaluations. Hofstee and hisstudents (e.g., Hendriks, Hofstee, & de Raad, 1999) pioneeredthe use of short verbal phrases, which are more contextualizedthan single adjectives but still more compact than many items in-cluded in popular inventories, and these verbal phrases are usedfor all IPIP items. Examples include: “Believe in an eye for aneye.” “Can read people like a book.” “Dislike being the center ofattention.” “Enjoy the beauty of nature.” “Forget appointments.”“Get upset easily.” “Have gotten better with age.”

By far my favorite IPIP item is “Am able to disregard rules,”because I like both the structure and the content of that IPIPitem: Note that it describes an ability (“am able to”), not a fail-ing (“can’t help”) nor a propensity (“tend to”); and it concerns“rules” rather than “laws.” Breaking rules can be good for you,if the rule-breaking hurts no one else and if one knows what oneis doing and why one is doing it. If you are the kind of personwho is not able to disregard rules, perhaps you might give it atry.

Actually, rule-bound conformity is better than taking oneselftoo seriously. What I really believe is that in the battle betweenfrivolity and ponderousness, it is better to veer to the light-hearted (Figure 24).

My final lesson for winning a career achievement award is byfar the most important.

LESSON NUMBER 5: SHAVE YOUR HEAD, STAYHEALTHY, AND OUTLIVE THE COMPETITION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is a modified version of my address acceptingthe 2009 Bruno Klopfer Career Achievement Award from theSociety for Personality Assessment (SPA) at the SPA annualmeeting in Chicago on March 5, 2009. That address in turnwas shamelessly cribbed from previous versions used to ac-knowledge the Jack Block Career Achievement Award fromthe Society of Personality and Social Psychology (January 25,2007, in Memphis, TN) and the Saul Sells Career AchievementAward from the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychol-ogy (October 20, 2007, in Chapel Hill, NC). Given its starklyautobiographical nature, it might also be considered as an entry



FIGURE 24.—Goldberg as Godfather.

in the Journal of Personality Assessment special series on per-sonality autobiographies. Funds for my work on this article havebeen provided by Grant AG20048 from the National Instituteon Aging, National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Public HealthService. Among the many who have helped me over the years,I want to publically thank some of those whose impact on mywork has been especially important, including Bob Altemeyer,Chris Arthun, Michael C. Ashton, Peter Bentler, Jack Block,Frank Brokken, Matthias Burisch, David P. Campbell, WilliamF. Chaplin, Jacob Cohen, Adriaan De Groot, John M. Digman,Joan P. Dubanoski, Herbert W. Eber, Richard F. Farmer, Jen-nifer J. Freyd, Janice C. Goldberg, Harrison G. Gough, RichardA. Grucza, Sarah E. Hampson, Paul J. Hoffman, Willem K. B.Hofstee, Robert Hogan, Oliver P. John, John A. Johnson, HenryKaiser, E. Lowell Kelly, Daniel Levitin, William McConochie,Clarence C. McCormick, Robert E. McGrath, Paul E. Meehl,Lawrence R. Moran, Warren T. Norman, Gerald Patterson, DeanPeabody, Peter J. Rentfrow, William Revelle, Brent W. Roberts,Leonard G. Rorer, Myron Rothbart, James A. Russell, GerardSaucier, Paul Slovic, Oya Somer, Dennis Sweeney, MarjorieTaylor, Auke Tellegen, Tina Rosolack Traxler, Amos Tversky,Erika Westling, and Jerry S. Wiggins. Color versions of most ofthe pictures sprinkled throughout this article are available fromthe author ([email protected]).

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York:Holt.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.Psychological Monographs, 47(1, Whole No. 211).

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 87, 707–721.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Goldberg, L. R., & de Vries, R. E. (2009). Higher-orderfactors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 13, 79–91.

Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding meaning,acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Brokken, F. B. (1978). The language of personality. Meppel, Netherlands: Krips.Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into

clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in

a factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90.Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality

factors. Psychometrika, 12, 197–220.Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states and

traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 54, 541–557.

Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). TheTemperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development anduse. St. Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of Personality, WashingtonUniversity.

Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF technical manual (5th ed.).Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inven-tory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FF) Professionalmanual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

De Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands:Mouton.

De Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology: Foundations of inference and researchin the behavioral sciences. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Digman, J. M. (1963). Principal dimensions of child personality as inferredfrom teachers’ judgments. Child Development, 34, 43–60.

Digman, J. M. (1965). Further evidence for a multiple-factor model of childpersonality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 787–799.

Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, andutility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robustfactors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,116–123.

Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural lan-guage of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six majorstudies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149–170.

Goldberg, L. R. (1959). The effectiveness of clinicians’ judgments: The di-agnosis of organic brain damage from the Bender–Gestalt test. Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 23, 25–33.

Goldberg, L. R. (1968). Simple models or simple processes? Some research onclinical judgments. American Psychologist, 23, 483–496.

Goldberg, L. R. (1970). Man vs. model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence,for a method of improving on clinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 73,422–432.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search foruniversals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personalityand social psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the languageof personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in per-sonality assessment: Vol. 1 (pp. 203–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “Description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1991). Human mind versus regression equation: Five contrasts.In D. Cicchetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology:Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl: Vol. 1. Matters of public interest (pp.173–184). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factorstructure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.


516 GOLDBERG

Goldberg, L. R. (1993a). The structure of personality traits: Vertical and hor-izontal aspects. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K.Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development(pp. 169–188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993b). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Ameri-can Psychologist, 48, 26–34.

Goldberg, L. R. (1995). What the hell took so long? Donald Fiske and theBig-Five factor structure. In P. E. Shrout & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Personalityresearch, methods, and theory: A Festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp.29–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldberg, L. R. (1998). Warren T. Norman (1930–1998): An appreciation.Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 391–396.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality in-ventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I.Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychol-ogy in Europe: Vol. 7 (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg UniversityPress.

Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Analyses of Digman’s child-personality data: Derivationof Big-Five factor scores from each of six samples. Journal of Personality,69, 709–743.

Goldberg, L. R. (in press). Personality, demographics, and self-reported behav-ioral acts: The development of avocational interest scales from estimates ofthe amount of time spent in interest-related activities. In C. R. Agnew, D.E. Carlston, W. G. Graziano, & J. R. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs:Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research. New York:Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International PersonalityItem Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 40, 84–96.

Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure asan integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s P-E-Nmodel. In C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.),The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy toadulthood (pp. 7–35). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldberg, L. R., & Smith, P. A. (1958). The clinical usefulness of theArchimedes spiral in the diagnosis of organic brain damage. Journal of Con-sulting Psychology, 22, 153–157.

Goldberg, L. R., & Somer, O. (2000). The hierarchical structure of commonTurkish person-descriptive adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 14,497–531.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (2002). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modernpersonality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, andclinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 167–187.

Hampson, S. E., Dubanoski, J. P., Hamada, W., Marsella, A. J., Matsukawa, J.,Suarez, E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Where are they now? Locating formerelementary-school students after nearly 40 years for a longitudinal study ofpersonality and health. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 375–387.

Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large-cohort study of person-ality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 763–779.

Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M., & Dubanoski, J. P. (2006). Fortyyears on: Teachers’ assessments of children’s personality traits predict self-reported health behaviors and outcomes at midlife. Health Psychology, 25,57–64.

Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M., & Dubanoski, J. P. (2007).Mechanisms by which childhood personality traits influence adult healthstatus: Educational attainment and healthy behaviors. Health Psychology, 26,121–125.

Hampson, S. E., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth andhierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in judgments oftrait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 37–54.

Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & de Raad, B. (1999). The Five-FactorPersonality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27,307–325.

Hoffman, P. J. (1960). The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment.Psychological Bulletin, 57, 116–131.

Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of theBig-Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory manual (2nd ed.).Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory—Revised manual. PortHuron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.

John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). The basic level inpersonality-trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in differentcontexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 348–361.

Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The prediction of performance in clinicalpsychology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Kelly, E. L., & Goldberg, L. R. (1959). Correlates of later performance andspecialization in psychology. Psychological Monographs, 73(12, Whole No.482).

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACOPersonality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.

Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers:The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 96, 1047–1061.

McCormick, C., & Goldberg, L. R. (1997). Two at a time is better than one at atime: Exploiting the horizontal aspects of factor representations. In R. Plutchik& H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp.103–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Murray, H. A., et al. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and ex-perimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583.

Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operat-ing characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness inpersonality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681–691.

Pascal, G. R., & Suttell, B. J. (1951). The Bender-Gestalt Test. New York: Grune& Stratton.

Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor struc-tures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57, 552–567.

Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response-style myth. Psychological Bulletin, 63,129–150.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996a). Evidence for the Big Five in analysesof familiar English personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality,10, 61–77.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996b). The language of personality: Lexicalperspectives on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factormodel of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 21–50). New York: Guil-ford.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journalof Personality, 66, 495–524.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personalityfactors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847–879.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the Big Five: Applicationsof 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. In B. deRaad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 29–58). Goettingen,Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. InM. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering therole of personality in organizations (pp. 1–29). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Somer, O., & Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The structure of Turkish trait-descriptiveadjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 431–450.



Tellegen, A. (in press). MPQ (Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire):Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: Uni-versity of Minnesota Press.

Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personalityassessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

SELECTED ADDITIONAL CITATIONS BEYOND THOSEREFERENCED IN THE TEXT (COPIES OF THESE ANDOTHER PUBLICATIONS ARE FREELY AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.ORI.ORG/LRG/)Ashton, S. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1973). In response to Jackson’s challenge:

The comparative validity of personality scales constructed by the external(empirical) strategy and scales developed intuitively by experts, novices, andlaymen. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 1–20.

Chaplin, W. F., & Goldberg, L. R. (1984). A failure to replicate the Bem andAllen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1074–1090.

Goldberg, L. R. (1963). A model of item ambiguity in personality assessment.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 467–492.

Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs: The diagnosis ofpsychosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI. Psychological Monographs, 79 (9,Whole No. 602).

Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Grades as motivants. Psychology in the Schools, 2,17–24.

Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Reliability of Peace Corps selection boards: A study ofinterjudge agreement before and after board discussions. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 50, 400–408.

Goldberg, L. R. (1969). The search for configural relationships in personalityassessment: The diagnosis of psychosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI. Multi-variate Behavioral Research, 4, 523–536.

Goldberg, L. R. (1971). A historical survey of personality scales and inventories.In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment: Vol. 2 (pp.293–336). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Man versus mean: The exploitation of group profilesfor the construction of diagnostic classification systems. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 79, 121–131.

Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Parameters of personality inventory construction andutilization: A comparison of prediction strategies and tactics. MultivariateBehavioral Research Monographs, 7, 72–2.

Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Some recent trends in personality assessment. Journalof Personality Assessment, 36, 547–560.

Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Student personality characteristics and optimal collegelearning conditions: An extensive search for trait-by-treatment interactioneffects. Instructional Science, 1, 153–210.

Goldberg, L. R. (1974). Objective diagnostic tests and measures. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 25, 343–366.

Goldberg, L. R. (1977). Admission to the PhD program in the Department ofPsychology at the University of Oregon. American Psychologist, 32, 663–668.

Goldberg, L. R. (1977). What if we administered the wrong inventory? Theprediction of scores on Personality Research Form scales from those on theCalifornia Psychological Inventory, and vice versa. Applied PsychologicalMeasurement, 1, 339–354.

Goldberg, L. R. (1978). The differential attribution of trait-descriptive terms tooneself as compared to well-liked, neutral, and disliked others: A psychome-tric analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1012–1028.

Goldberg, L. R. (1978). The reliability of reliability: The generality and cor-relates of intra-individual consistency in responses to structured personalityinventories. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 269–291.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Unconfounding situational attributions from uncertain,neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of descriptions of one-

self and various types of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41, 517–552.

Goldberg, L. R. (1986). The validity of rating procedures to index the hierar-chical level of categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 323–347.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The social psychology of personality. PsychologicalInquiry, 3, 89–94.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The Curious Experiences Survey, a revised version ofthe Dissociative Experiences Scale: Factor structure, reliability, and relationsto demographic and personality variables. Psychological Assessment, 11,134–145.

Goldberg, L. R. (2006). Doing it all bass-ackwards: The development of hierar-chical factor structures from the top down. Journal of Research in Personality,40, 347–358.

Goldberg, L. R., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Self-reports of potentially traumaticexperiences in an adult community sample: Gender differences and test-retest stabilities of the items in a Brief Betrayal-Trauma Survey. Journal ofTrauma and Dissociation, 7(3), 39–63.

Goldberg, L. R., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1985). The prediction of semantic con-sistency in self-descriptions: Characteristics of persons and of terms thataffect the consistency of responses to synonym and antonym pairs. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 82–98.

Goldberg, L. R., Norman, W. T., & Schwartz, E. (1980). The comparative valid-ity of questionnaire data (16PF scales) and objective test data (O-A Battery)in predicting five peer-rating criteria. Applied Psychological Measurement,4, 183–194.

Goldberg, L. R., & Rorer, L. G. (1966). The use of two different response modesand repeated testings to predict social conformity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 3, 28–37.

Goldberg, L. R., & Slovic, P. (1967). The importance of test item content: Ananalysis of a corollary of the deviation hypothesis. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 14, 462–472.

Goldberg, L. R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P. F., & Hughes, J. E., Jr. (1996). TheBig-Five factor structure as an integrative framework: An analysis of Clarke’sAVA model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 441–471.

Goldberg, L. R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P. F., & Hughes, J. E., Jr. (1998). Demo-graphic variables and personality: The effects of gender, age, education, andethnic/racial status on self-descriptions of personality attributes. Personalityand Individual Differences, 24, 393–403.

Goldberg, L. R., & Velicer, W. F. (2006). Principles of exploratory factor analy-sis. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (2nded., pp. 209–237). New York: Springer.

Goldberg, L. R., & Werts, C. E. (1966). The reliability of clinicians’ judgments:A multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30,199–206.

Hase, H. D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1967). The comparative validity of differentstrategies of constructing personality inventory scales. Psychological Bul-letin, 67, 231–248.

Kelly, E. L., Goldberg, L. R., Fiske, D. W., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1978). Twenty-five years later: A follow-up of the graduate students in clinical psychologyassessed in the VA Selection Research Project. American Psychologist, 33,746–755.

Perkins, J., & Goldberg, L. R. (1964). Contextual effects on the MMPI. Journalof Consulting Psychology, 28, 133–140.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007).The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits,socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life out-comes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.

Rorer, L. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Acquiescence in the MMPI? Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 25, 801–817.

Rorer, L. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Acquiescence and the vanishing variancecomponent. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 422–430.


how to win a career achievement award in five easy … to win a... · (pascal & suttell, 1951)....

Documents