Mapping Big Five Personality Traits Within and Across Domains of Interpersonal Functioning

Abstract

The Big Five and the interpersonal circumplex are among the most extensively used structural frameworks in personality research. Of the five factors, extraversion and agreeableness are theorized to carry the most interpersonal context, however, all five factors are likely to have important interpersonal implications. In the present study, we evaluated the associations between domains of interpersonal functioning and the Big Five domains and facets using the bootstrapped structural summary method. Results suggested that all Big Five traits showed prototypical and specific interpersonal profiles, with variability observed across lower order facets and domains of interpersonal functioning. Several Big Five traits and facets not overtly related to interpersonal behavior nonetheless showed specific, prototypical associations to interpersonal profiles. Findings suggest that Big Five traits and facets are saturated with interpersonal content and even personality characteristics that are not explicitly interpersonal may still have specific interpersonal implications.

Keywords

Big Five interpersonal circumplex structural summary method personality

The Big Five personality traits and interpersonal circumplex (IPC) are two prominent models for personality assessment. Both are associated with a variety of social behaviors and individual differences including decision making (e.g., Byrne et al., 2015; Locke & Adamic, 2012; Shafer, 2000), mental well-being (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2000; Vittersø, 2001; Yalch et al., 2013), and relationship satisfaction (Decuyper et al., 2012; Slatcher & Vazire, 2009; Thomas, 2015). Although the Big Five and the IPC are both widely applied in personality research, their origins differ drastically. The Big Five model is composed of five trait dimensions that emerged empirically based on lexical analysis, with systematic trait research and factorial analyses supporting that variance among personality variables can be sufficiently accounted for by five factors (e.g., Digman, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992; Piedmont & Aycock, 2007). Theoretical supports regarding prototypes and the nomological network of the Big Five were established and matured later as Big Five-based personality assessments developed (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992; John, 1990). In contrast, the IPC is composed of two orthogonal dimensions (agency and communion, see Figure 1) that emerged from interpersonal theory (Sullivan, 1953) and later gained empirical support (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1980). Despite disparate origins, both models are used extensively to study human behaviors and personality dynamics.

Figure 1.

The interpersonal circumplex.

Of the Big Five traits, extraversion and agreeableness are most strongly associated with agency and communion; extraversion is a blend of high agency and high communion and agreeableness is a blend of low agency and high communion (McCrae & Costa, 1989; Pincus, 2002; Wiggins & Pincus, 1994), although extraversion is more closely related to agency whereas agreeableness is more closely related to communion (DeYoung et al., 2013). Even though extraversion and agreeableness have the most salient interpersonal qualities, all five dimensions of the Big Five influence interpersonal relationships, perceptions, and interactions (McCrae & Costa, 1989; Ansell & Pincus, 2004). Previous studies have replicated two higher order factors of the Big Five, with neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness loading on the first factor, often known as stability, and extraversion and openness loading on the second factor, often known as plasticity (DeYoung, 2006; Digman, 1997; Markon et al., 2005). These results illustrate that extraversion and agreeableness, the two most overtly interpersonal traits, are not fully separate from conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness.

Wiggins and Trapnell (1996) described conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness as “dimensions that either facilitate or interfere with the development and maintenance of agentic and communal enterprises within a social group” (p. 134). They hypothesized that agency and communion were socially embedded within all Big Five constructs. Specifically, they argued that conscientiousness carries equally strong communal (manifested in responsibility) and agentic (manifested in competence) qualities, and that neuroticism could be broken down into three facets, anxiety, depression, and anger, with the anxiety and depression facets of neuroticism negatively correlated with interpersonal agency and anger negatively correlated with interpersonal communion. They argued that interpersonal qualities of openness vary across measures—potentially explainable by differences in the conceptualization of the intellect factor of openness, which addresses more agentic elements. Empirical evidence also suggests that neuroticism, openness, and conscientiousness carry interpersonal content (Ansell & Pincus, 2004), with high neuroticism associated with prototypically submissive profiles, openness associated prototypically gregarious profiles, and conscientiousness associated with prototypically assertive profiles.

Previous findings not only showed that all Big Five personality traits, even the ones that are not saliently social, demonstrate interpersonal qualities but also that within the same traits, there are often variations in interpersonal characteristics at the lower order level. DeYoung et al. (2013) tested associations between aspects of agreeableness and extraversion and found that the two aspects of extroversion and agreeableness placed closely but also differently on the IPC: within extraversion, assertiveness showed more dominant features and enthusiasm showed more warm features; within agreeableness, politeness showed more submissive features and compassion showed more warm features. These results highlight nuanced associations between social behaviors and lower order levels of Big Five traits.

Prior studies that examined or discussed the interpersonal aspects of the Big Five have either (1) theorized or implied that all five fundamental personality domains carry interpersonal qualities to certain degree but have not empirically tested it or (2) examined interpersonal qualities in extraversion and agreeableness empirically but not the other three. Furthermore, no one has empirically examined interpersonal aspects of the lower order facets of any of the Big Five traits, which limits researchers’ ability to make more specific conclusions about whether lower order facets of personality contribute to interpersonal patterns differentially in comparison to their broader domains. Thus, using comprehensive measurement and analyses, the current study aims to extend previous findings regarding associations between the Big Five and the IPC. First, we aim to examine interpersonal profiles for all the Big Five traits, not just the two explicitly interpersonal traits (i.e., extraversion and agreeableness). Furthermore, we aim to examine interpersonal profiles of the Big Five at both the domain level and the lower order level by assessing each trait’s respective six facets (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Goldberg, 1999). Analyzing interpersonal characteristics of both higher order factors and lower order facets of the Big Five allows us to examine potential discrepancies in interpersonal qualities within each personality trait and interpret associations between the Big Five traits and interpersonal functioning more systematically.

We also aim to measure interpersonal functioning comprehensively using a multiple surface IPC approach. Previous studies show that assessing multiple interpersonal surfaces (i.e., domains of interpersonal functioning) helps capture dynamics of interpersonal functioning within individuals and across various constructs (Dawood & Pincus, 2016; Pincus & Gurtman, 2003; Wiggins, 2003). For instance, research examining “dark triad” personality traits found that narcissism was associated with problems being overly dominant, valuing dominance in interpersonal situations, sensitivity toward other people’s withdrawing behaviors, and was unrelated to specific interpersonal efficacies (Dowgwillo & Pincus, 2017). These results suggest people high in narcissism do not see themselves as effective in their dominance even though they value and have problems related to dominant behaviors. More broadly, results highlight the usefulness of assessing multiple interpersonal surfaces to understand nuances in how constructs relate to interpersonal functioning.

We hypothesized that of the Big Five traits, extraversion and agreeableness would show the most circular prototypicality (see method section for details) to IPC octants, with extraversion relating most strongly to interpersonal warm-dominance (i.e., high agency and high communion) across all IPC surfaces except for sensitivities, and agreeableness relating most strongly to interpersonal warm-submissiveness (i.e., low agency and high communion) across all IPC surfaces except for sensitivities. Because people tend to dislike or get bothered by behaviors that are the least similar to their own (Hopwood et al., 2011; Montoya & Horton, 2013), we hypothesized that extraversion would be associated with sensitivity to cold-submissiveness and agreeableness would be associated with sensitivity to cold-dominance.

Given the limited number of empirical research on the interpersonal content of neuroticism, openness, and conscientiousness, and that no study have yet examined the interpersonal content of the Big Five using multiple interpersonal surfaces, there was insufficient evidence for us to generate specific predictions for several Big Five traits, as well as how the interpersonal content in Big Five would differ across IPC surfaces. As a result, we wanted to ask two exploratory questions using the current study: (1) To what extent do neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness and their facets associate with agentic and communal qualities? (2) Across multiple interpersonal surfaces, to what extent do Big Five traits and facets differ in their interpersonal profiles?

Method

Participants

Given that the primary aim of our study is to examine trait-based constructs, which are applicable to the general population, we recruited our participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which provides slightly more diverse sample than typical college samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Our a priori power analysis suggested that to obtain a power of 80% to detect correlations (i.e., the basis of our data analysis) of .15 and higher, we would need at least 343 participants, and given the alarmingly high rate of exclusion for MTurk samples and concerns with MTurk data quality (Chmielewski & Kucker, 2020), we aimed to recruit at least 700 participants to ensure that our study was sufficiently powered after excluding low-quality responses. A total of 783 MTurk workers completed our study in September 2018. We restricted the participation to workers located in the United States and included a multistep screening procedure to maximize the quality of our MTurk data. We also required that MTurk workers who are interested in our study have to have a HIT Approval Rate that is greater than 90% to participate. Being aware of the use of virtual private servers among MTurk workers to get around IP restrictions (Dennis et al., 2018), in addition to excluding responses with duplicated IP addresses, we also excluded responses with the same geographical locations (i.e., same longitude and latitude), which made up 34% of the total sample. To ensure that our workers did not complete the survey using robotic programming and paid adequate attention to the questionnaire, we also included two open-ended questions (e.g., “Describe your favorite interaction in the last month.”) and excluded participants who provided answers that were unrelated to the study or answers that were largely nonsensical or contained massive misuse of English. We also excluded responses that missed 20% or more of the attention checks in the survey, or showed evidence of careless responding, defined by selecting only options 3 (neutral) to 5 (strongly agree) in the Big Five measure, in which 46% of items are reverse-scored. Our final MTurk sample consisted of 447 participants, which provided a power of 89% to detect correlations of .15 and higher (two-tail, α = .05). 45.5% of our participants identified as women, and 77.4% identified as White. The sample age ranged from 20 to 71 (M = 35.72; SD = 10.33). The 43% rate of exclusion is consistent with prior studies that used Mturk samples (Dennis et al., 2018).

Procedure

We provided all participants with a link to complete a single Qualtrics survey containing measures of the Big Five and IPC dimensions. Participants were compensated with money on their valid completion of the survey. We administered two rounds of data collection on MTurk. In the second round (N = 275), we included an additional Big Five measure (i.e., BFI) to test the reliability of our results across measures.

Measures

Big Five

We measured Big Five traits with the International Personality Item Pool NEO-120 (IPIP-NEO-120; Maples et al., 2014), which consists of 120 items that instruct participants to rate how accurately statements such as “get angry easily” and “experience my emotions intensely” describe them on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each facet is measured using four items, with McDonald’s omega for the facets ranging from .72 to .93 (M = .83) and Cronbach’s alpha for the facets ranging from .66 to .92 (M = .80). The median correlation among all domains of the Big Five was .05 (range = −.66 [neuroticism and conscientiousness] to .40 [extraversion and conscientiousness]).

For the second round of data collection, we used the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) in addition to the IPIP-NEO-120 to test the replicability of our results across measures. The BFI consists of 44 items that query how much participants agree with statements such as “I see myself as someone who does things efficiently” on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The neuroticism subscale consists of 8 items (ω = .94; α = .91), the extraversion subscale consists of 8 items (ω = .95; α = .92), the openness subscale consists of 10 items (ω = .89; α = .85), the agreeableness subscale consists of 9 items (ω = .90; α = .87), and the conscientiousness consists of 9 items (ω = .91; α = .88).

Interpersonal Circumplex

We measured IPC dimensions extensively across multiple interpersonal surfaces (see Table 1) to allow for meaningful comparisons across surfaces and to generate distinctive interpersonal profiles for each trait and facet of the Big Five. We assessed traits with IPIP-IPC (Markey & Markey, 2009), a 32-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate) that measures interpersonal behaviors that individuals tend to display on a day-to-day basis. McDonald’s omega for the octants ranged from .52 to .90 (M = .78) and Cronbach’s alpha for the octants ranged from .46 to .87 (M = .73). We assessed interpersonal problems with the IIP-SC (Soldz et al., 1995), a 32-item Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely) that measures interpersonal behaviors that often cause people trouble in social situations. McDonald’s omega for the octants ranged from .81 to .92 (M = .86) and Cronbach’s alpha for the octants ranged from .76 to .91 (M = .85). We assessed interpersonal values with the CSIV (Locke, 2000), a 64-item Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not important to me) to 4 (extremely important to me) that measures interpersonal behaviors that individuals think are important to employ in social situations. McDonald’s omega for the octants ranged from .87 to .91 (M = .90) and Cronbach’s alpha for the octants ranged from .82 to .90 (M = .86). We assessed interpersonal efficacies with the CSIE (Locke & Sadler, 2007), a 64-item Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (I am not at all confident that) to 10 (I am absolutely confident that) that measures interpersonal behaviors that individuals think they are competent at. McDonald’s omega for the octants ranged from .76 to .89 (M = .84) and Cronbach’s alpha for the octants ranged from .65 to .87 (M = .78). We assessed interpersonal sensitivities with the ISC (Hopwood et al., 2011), a 64-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all, never bothers me) to 8 (extremely, always bothers me) that measures interpersonal behaviors that individuals find bothersome in others. McDonald’s omega for the octants ranged from .87 to .94 (M = .91) and Cronbach’s alpha for the octants ranged from .84 to .93 (M = .88)

Table 1.

Summary of Interpersonal Surfaces.

Surface	Focus	Measure	Sample item^a
Traits	Interpersonal behaviors that individuals tend to employ in general	International Personality Item Pool-Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IPC)	[I] let others finish what they are saying.
Problems	Interpersonal behaviors that often cause problems to individuals	Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex (IIP-SC)	It is hard for me to confront people with problems that come up.
Values	Interpersonal behaviors that individuals find important	Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values (CSIV)	When I am with [others], it is [important to me] that I conform to their expectations.
Efficacies	Interpersonal behaviors that individuals find themselves to be competent at	Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy (CSIE)	When I am with others, [I am confident that] I can hide my thoughts and feelings.
Sensitivities	Interpersonal behaviors of others that individuals find bothersome	Interpersonal Sensitivity Circumplex (ISC)	It bothers me when a person doesn’t have a backbone.

We chose items of submissiveness to illustrate differences among the five surfaces in measuring the same interpersonal octant.

Analyses

We used the structural summary method (SSM; Gurtman, 1994) to examine associations between the Big Five and the IPC. The SSM allows us to summarize correlations between external constructs and the eight octants of the IPC, each representing a unique combination of agency and communion (see Figure 1). If a construct carries strong interpersonal qualities, it is expected to show a peak correlation with one specific octant, and proportionally decreased correlations with other octants as their angular distance from the peak increases. The SSM generates four parameters from each circular profile: Elevation indicates the overall endorsement of items and reflects the mean level of the profile (e.g., what is the general severity of interpersonal problems associated with neuroticism?). Amplitude indicates the extent to which a profile is well-differentiated versus diffuse in interpersonal content, and thus reflects specific themes of ratings (e.g., how much does neuroticism relate to specific types of interpersonal problems relative to diffuse interpersonal problems in general?). R², also known as the goodness-of-fit statistic, indicates the extent to which a profile fits into a circular structure (i.e., a cosine curve), and high-goodness-of-fit reflects interpersonal prototypicality of a profile (e.g., if a construct illustrates a prototypically warm trait profile, it would be associated most strongly with the warm octant, then with the warm-dominant and warm-submissive octants, and increasingly less with octants further away from warmth, and thus least strongly associated with the cold octant). Angular displacement indicates the peak area of endorsement, which reflects the primary theme of a profile (e.g., what type of interpersonal problems does neuroticism relate to most strongly?). Elevation and amplitude values greater than .15 are considered notably elevated and differentiated, and R² values greater than .80 are considered to fit an expected circular structure moderately well (Gurtman & Pincus, 2003; Hopwood, Burt, et al., 2013, Wright et al., 2012). Angular displacement is only interpretable when amplitude and R² meet their corresponding thresholds, and amplitude is also only fully interpretable with adequate R². In the present study, we also derive confidence intervals of structural summary parameters using a recently developed bootstrapping method (Zimmermann & Wright, 2017).

Results

Table 2 shows structural summary parameters and their associated 95% confidence intervals for all Big Five traits and facets across interpersonal traits, problems, values, efficacies, and sensitivities. Probability estimates indicate the confidence intervals’ likelihood of accuracy. Table 3 presents parameters and confidence intervals for Big Five traits measured by the BFI across the five interpersonal surfaces. Figure 2 depicts amplitude and angular displacement confidence intervals for higher domain traits across surfaces for visual representation of the placement of Big Five dimensions on the IPC. Elevation for the Big Five across surfaces are plotted separately using a bar plot. To illustrate different interpersonal profiles of facets within the same personality domain, Figure 3 shows amplitude and angular displacement confidence intervals for interpersonal traits across all Big Five facets. We created Figures 2 and 3 using a recently developed R package “circumplex” (Girard et al., 2018)

Table 2.

Structural Summary Parameters, 95% Bootstrap Confidence Intervals, and Probability Estimates for Big Five Personality Domains and Facets (IPIP-NEO-120; N = 447).

Traits
Big Five traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	−0.01 [−.05, .02]	0.37 [.30, .44]	202.6 [191.0, 213.8]	.88	1.00
Anxiety	0.01 [−.02, .04]	0.26 [.18, .34]	218.6 [201.4, 233.8]	.82	1.00
Anger	0.01 [−.02, .04]	0.41 [.34, .47]	168.3 [156.8, 179.1]	.96	1.00
Depression	−0.02 [−.05, .01]	0.38 [.31, .45]	212 [200.5, 223.1]	.90	1.00
Self-consciousness	−0.03 [−.07, .01]	0.44 [.38, .50]	236.3 [226.7, 246.0]	.88	1.00
Immoderation	−0.01 [−.04, .02]	0.18 [.11, .26]	152.9 [123.9, 179.9]	.92	.98
Vulnerability	−0.03 [−.06, −.00]	0.28 [.21, .36]	196.6 [180.5, 211.4]	.84	1.00
Extraversion	0.11 [.09, .13]	0.68 [.64, .72]	54.2 [48.1, 60.0]	.94	1.00
Friendliness	0.10 [.08, .13]	0.69 [.65, .74]	41.9 [36.4, 47.4]	.96	1.00
Gregariousness	0.07 [.04, .09]	0.67 [.62, .71]	57 [50.9, 63.3]	.95	1.00
Assertiveness	0.05 [.02, .07]	0.47 [.41, .54]	72.5 [64.2, 81.4]	.92	1.00
Activity-level	0.09 [.06, .12]	0.30 [.23, .38]	56.2 [42.2, 71.0]	.89	1.00
Excitement-seeking	0.09 [.06, .12]	0.40 [.33, .47]	71.1 [60.0, 82.5]	.92	1.00
Cheerfulness	0.10 [.07, .13]	0.53 [.47, .60]	37.2 [29.5, 45.0]	.94	1.00
Openness	−0.02 [−.06, .01]	0.26 [.19, .34]	15.7 [357.0, 32.9]	.97	1.00
Imagination	0.05 [.02, .08]	0.11 [.03, .20]	28.5 [337.0, 73.5]	.83	.71
Artistic interests	0.02 [−.02, .05]	0.28 [.20, .35]	8.9 [351.5, 24.9]	.98	1.00
Emotionality	−0.02 [−.05, .01]	0.18 [.10, .27]	7.9 [336.6, 32.2]	.82	.99
Adventurousness	−0.04 [−.07, −.01]	0.32 [.25, .39]	49.9 [36.0, 63.6]	.94	1.00
Intellect	−0.03 [−.07, .00]	0.25 [.18, .33]	5.1 [345.2, 22.2]	.97	1.00
Liberalism	−0.06 [−.09, −.03]	0.13 [.06, .21]	233.3 [196.0, 265.0]	.77	.84
Agreeableness	−0.04 [−.07, −.01]	0.67 [.63, .71]	329.8 [323.2, 336.3]	.99	1.00
Trust	0.04 [.01, .07]	0.47 [.40, .54]	14.3 [5.4, 22.8]	.97	1.00
Morality	−0.10 [−.14, −.07]	0.49 [.43, .55]	301.3 [292.8, 309.8]	.98	1.00
Altruism	0.06 [.04, .08]	0.65 [.61, .70]	358.6 [352.2, 4.7]	.98	1.00
Cooperation	−0.08 [−.12, −.05]	0.58 [.54, .63]	315.3 [307.8, 322.8]	.99	1.00
Modesty	−0.09 [−.12, −.06]	0.55 [.49, .60]	265.3 [258.2, 272.6]	.94	1.00
Sympathy	0.01 [−.01, .04]	0.52 [.47, .58]	350 [339.7, 359.2]	.97	1.00
Conscientiousness	0.02 [−.02, .05]	0.36 [.29, .43]	353.1 [340.1, 6.2]	.96	1.00
Self-efficacy	0.07 [.04, .10]	0.29 [.23, .36]	15.9 [1.0, 30.4]	.88	1.00
Orderliness	0.02 [−.01, .05]	0.25 [.18, .33]	346.3 [326.2, 4.4]	.96	1.00
Dutifulness	0.01 [−.03, .04]	0.42 [.36, .48]	328.9 [318.2, 339.8]	.99	1.00
Achievement-striving	0.05 [.01, .08]	0.28 [.20, .35]	21.1 [4.7, 36.2]	.91	1.00
Self-discipline	0.02 [−.02, .05]	0.27 [.20, .34]	11.5 [354.1, 27.4]	.88	1.00
Cautiousness	−0.06 [−.10, −.02]	0.28 [.21, .36]	323.9 [306.2, 341.5]	.99	1.00
Problems
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	0.47 [.42, .51]	0.15 [.11, .20]	247.4 [229.8, 266.5]	.89	1.00
Anxiety	0.39 [.34, .44]	0.15 [.10, .20]	277.2 [255.5, 298.1]	.89	1.00
Anger	0.32 [.26, .37]	0.15 [.10, .21]	155.2 [135.2, 174.1]	.85	1.00
Depression	0.45 [.41, .50]	0.18 [.14, .23]	235.2 [218.4, 253.3]	.91	1.00
Self-consciousness	0.41 [.36, .46]	0.30 [.26, .35]	266.2 [256.9, 275.5]	.99	1.00
Immoderation	0.22 [.16, .28]	0.04 [.01, .08]	51.8 [188.0, 168.6]	.00	.15
Vulnerability	0.36 [.31, .42]	0.12 [.07, .17]	257.7 [230.6, 286.6]	.78	.99
Extraversion	−0.32 [−.37, −.27]	0.37 [.33, .42]	52.3 [43.8, 60.3]	.97	1.00
Friendliness	−0.33 [−.38, −.27]	0.39 [.35, .42]	33.7 [25.1, 42.6]	.96	1.00
Gregariousness	−0.21 [−.27, −.15]	0.33 [.29, .38]	46.8 [37.0, 56.2]	.92	1.00
Assertiveness	−0.29 [−.34, −.24]	0.31 [.27, .36]	83.2 [73.1, 92.7]	.99	1.00
Activity-level	−0.16 [−.22, −.09]	0.21 [.16, .26]	70.9 [52.1, 88.5]	.98	1.00
Excitement seeking	−0.11 [−.18, −.04]	0.22 [.18, .27]	65 [47.5, 80.8]	.91	1.00
Cheerfulness	−0.34 [−.39, −.29]	0.28 [.24, .33]	30.9 [18.9, 43.5]	.96	1.00
Problems
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Openness	−0.17 [−.23, −.10]	0.08 [.03, .15]	351.5 [307.1, 41.6]	.72	.87
Imagination	−0.05 [−.12, .01]	0.04 [.01, .10]	28.4 [270.0, 158.4]	.51	.32
Artistic interests	−0.16 [−.23, −.10]	0.12 [.06, .18]	349.8 [318.8, 21.9]	.85	.98
Emotionality	0.03 [−.03, .09]	0.16 [.10, .23]	340.7 [320.3, 1.3]	.90	1.00
Adventurousness	−0.24 [−.30, −.18]	0.11 [.06, .17]	73.3 [43.0, 98.9]	.91	.98
Intellect	−0.24 [−.31, −.18]	0.06 [.02, .12]	347 [290.2, 48.4]	.51	.72
Liberalism	0.06 [−.01, .12]	0.11 [.06, .16]	220.8 [189.6, 253.7]	.87	.91
Agreeableness	−0.21 [−.27, −.15]	0.40 [.35, .45]	310.6 [303.3, 317.5]	.90	1.00
Trust	−0.17 [−.23, −.11]	0.29 [.23, .34]	356.0 [346.1, 6.9]	.94	1.00
Morality	−0.17 [−.25, −.10]	0.26 [.21, .31]	268.8 [256.9, 280.0]	.83	1.00
Altruism	−0.28 [−33, −.23]	0.37 [.31, .43]	339.8 [332.8, 347.0]	.91	1.00
Cooperation	−0.24 [−.31, −.17]	0.33 [.29, .38]	292.2 [282.8, 300.8]	.88	1.00
Modesty	0.12 [.05, .20]	0.32 [.27, .36]	257.6 [247.8, 266.5]	.92	1.00
Sympathy	−0.09 [−.15, −.04]	0.34 [.28, .39]	329.1 [320.2, 337.0]	.90	1.00
Conscientiousness	−0.38 [−.43, −.32]	0.05 [.01, .11]	14.8 [300.7, 124.1]	.20	.48
Self-efficacy	−0.33 [−.39, −.28]	0.10 [.05, .16]	65.6 [35.4, 96.3]	.70	.96
Orderliness	−0.20 [−.27, −.14]	0.06 [.01, .13]	335.9 [248.6, 79.2]	.33	.55
Dutifulness	−0.36 [−.42, −.30]	0.12 [.07, .17]	289.3 [262.2, 315.4]	.54	1.00
Achievement-striving	−0.24 [−.30, −.17]	0.11 [.07, .16]	59.2 [29.8, 88.8]	.86	.97
Self-discipline	−0.32 [−.38, −.27]	0.09 [.04, .14]	64.4 [24.1, 108.1]	.67	.88
Cautiousness	−0.26 [−.32, −.19]	0.09 [.04, .14]	262.8 [221.2, 299.2]	.51	.92
Values
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	0.19 [.12, .26]	0.25 [.19, .30]	223.5 [210.5, 238.0]	.97	1.00
Anxiety	0.24 [.17, .30]	0.18 [.13, .23]	246.8 [228.8, 267.3]	.90	1.00
Anger	0.14 [.07, .21]	0.19 [.13, .26]	170.9 [155.9, 186.3]	.97	1.00
Depression	0.15 [.09, .22]	0.25 [.20, .31]	220.2 [207.6, 235.1]	.97	1.00
Self-consciousness	0.11 [.04, .18]	0.31 [.26, .37]	242.5 [231.7, 254.6]	.97	1.00
Immoderation	0.06 [−.01, .13]	0.12 [.07, .19]	208.8 [183.5, 239.9]	.97	.96
Vulnerability	0.16 [.10, .22]	0.21 [.15, .28]	229.7 [214.8, 247.4]	.98	1.00
Extraversion	0.04 [−.02, .10]	0.31 [.25, .36]	47.9 [36.4, 60.7]	.96	1.00
Friendliness	0.01 [−.06, .08]	0.31 [.26, .37]	28.4 [18.3, 40.0]	.96	1.00
Gregariousness	0.03 [−.04, .10]	0.21 [.15, .26]	43.0 [26.4, 62.0]	.91	1.00
Assertiveness	0.04 [−.03, .10]	0.30 [.25, .35]	70.7 [58.9, 82.8]	.98	1.00
Activity-level	0.06 [−.01, .13]	0.18 [.13, .24]	61.1 [41.8, 82.6]	.99	1.00
Excitement seeking	0.06 [−.01, .13]	0.16 [.11, .22]	72.3 [49.1, 96.3]	.90	1.00
Cheerfulness	−0.02 [−.09, .05]	0.28 [.22, .34]	29.2 [17.9, 42.4]	.97	1.00
Openness	−0.13 [−.20, −.07]	0.18 [.13, .24]	23.1 [7.3, 43.3]	.98	1.00
Imagination	0.02 [−.05, .08]	0.13 [.08, .18]	33.5 [8.6, 66.2]	.96	.96
Artistic interests	−0.04 [−.11, .02]	0.17 [.11, .24]	17.6 [359.7, 38.0]	.98	1.00
Emotionality	0.07 [−.01, .13]	0.17 [.11, .23]	348.8 [328.6, 7.1]	.94	1.00
Adventurousness	−0.21 [−.28, −.14]	0.17 [.12, .23]	58.6 [38.9, 79.8]	.92	1.00
Intellect	−0.18 [−.24, −.11]	0.19 [.13, .25]	33.1 [17.3, 51.8]	1.00	1.00
Liberalism	−0.12 [−.17, −.05]	0.08 [.03, .14]	230.3 [188.7, 277.6]	.95	.66
Agreeableness	−0.13 [−.20, −.06]	0.42 [.36, .47]	330.6 [323.1, 337.6]	.98	1.00
Trust	−0.03 [−.11, .04]	0.25 [.19, .32]	344.6 [332.1, 355.9]	.97	1.00
Morality	−0.18 [−.25, −.11]	0.25 [.19, .31]	328.9 [316.6, 341.2]	.93	1.00
Altruism	−0.02 [−.08, .04]	0.41 [.34, .46]	355.8 [348.5, 2.6]	1.00	1.00
Cooperation	−0.17 [−.23, −.10]	0.31 [.26, .36]	321 [310.7, 330.3]	.94	1.00
Modesty	−0.09 [−.15, −.02]	0.25 [.21, .31]	269.7 [256.0, 283.9]	.93	1.00
Sympathy	−0.04 [−.10, .03]	0.33 [.27, .39]	339.8 [330.7, 348.9]	.99	1.00
Values
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Conscientiousness	−0.07 [−.14, .01]	0.24 [.18, .30]	20.3 [8.2, 34.1]	.98	1.00
Self-efficacy	−0.02 [−.09, .05]	0.24 [.18, .30]	42.2 [29.3, 57.0]	.99	1.00
Orderliness	0.01 [−.05, .08]	0.12 [.06, .19]	8.6 [342.5, 40.2]	.87	.97
Dutifulness	−0.12 [−.18, −.05]	0.27 [.21, .32]	0.5 [350.1, 10.6]	.96	1.00
Achievement-striving	0.02 [−.05, .09]	0.23 [.17, .29]	34.1 [18.9, 49.5]	.99	1.00
Self-discipline	−0.08 [−.15, −.01]	0.17 [.10, .23]	30.1 [10.8, 52.3]	.99	1.00
Cautiousness	−0.11 [−.18, −.03]	0.16 [.10, .23]	359.6 [340.7, 17.7]	.95	1.00
Efficacies
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	−0.24 [−.30, −.18]	0.27 [.22, .32]	235.6 [223.0, 246.3]	.90	1.00
Anxiety	−0.14 [−.20, −.08]	0.25 [.19, .31]	253.2 [239.1, 265.4]	.90	1.00
Anger	−0.14 [−.20, −.08]	0.21 [.16, .26]	164.2 [148.5, 181.9]	.89	1.00
Depression	−0.22 [−.28, −.16]	0.28 [.23, .33]	230.4 [216.6, 242.8]	.86	1.00
Self-consciousness	−0.28 [−.33, −.21]	0.41 [.36, .46]	257.5 [250.7, 263.6]	.87	1.00
Immoderation	−0.13 [−.19, −.06]	0.08 [.03, .14]	214.7 [161.1, 260.3]	.83	.68
Vulnerability	−0.24 [−.30, −.18]	0.22 [.16, .28]	241.2 [225.0, 256.0]	.92	1.00
Extraversion	0.30 [.25, .34]	0.41 [.37, .46]	61.2 [53.2, 68.4]	.89	1.00
Friendliness	0.27 [.22, .33]	0.37 [.33, .41]	40.1 [29.7, 49.3]	.87	1.00
Gregariousness	0.16 [.10, .21]	0.31 [.27, .36]	56.2 [44.2, 66.8]	.86	1.00
Assertiveness	0.26 [.21, .31]	0.47 [.42, .52]	83.1 [76.8, 88.9]	.92	1.00
Activity-level	0.20 [.14, .26]	0.23 [.17, .29]	72.0 [56.7, 85.6]	.88	1.00
Excitement seeking	0.20 [.14, .26]	0.26 [.20, .32]	82.8 [68.9, 94.8]	.89	1.00
Cheerfulness	0.25 [.18, .30]	0.30 [.26, .35]	34.3 [21.7, 47.1]	.89	1.00
Openness	0.09 [.02, .15]	0.13 [.08, .19]	22.2 [349.3, 53.0]	.81	1.00
Imagination	0.16 [.10, .22]	0.07 [.03, .14]	47.5 [347.9, 96.0]	.58	.53
Artistic interests	0.10 [.04, .16]	0.15 [.10, .21]	1.9 [336.9, 28.9]	.88	1.00
Emotionality	−0.06 [−.12, .00]	0.15 [.10, .22]	326.9 [307.5, 353.7]	.89	1.00
Adventurousness	0.10 [.02, .16]	0.22 [.17, .28]	70.8 [54.9, 83.8]	.93	1.00
Intellect	0.09 [.03, .15]	0.12 [.07, .18]	39.4 [6.2, 66.4]	.74	.95
Liberalism	−0.04 [−.11, .02]	0.10 [.05, .16]	231.6 [184.2, 264.9]	.87	.75
Agreeableness	0.02 [−.03, .08]	0.48 [.43, .53]	314.5 [309.4, 320.8]	.93	1.00
Trust	0.12 [.06, .19]	0.29 [.24, .35]	347.5 [335.7, 0.6]	.89	1.00
Morality	−0.05 [−.10, .01]	0.30 [.24, .37]	298.2 [29.3, 307.1]	.91	1.00
Altruism	0.19 [.13, .26]	0.38 [.34, .43]	342.7 [334.3, 351.9]	.90	1.00
Cooperation	−0.03 [−.10, .03]	0.40 [.35, .45]	304.9 [299.1, 311.4]	.90	1.00
Modesty	−0.19 [−.24, −.14]	0.38 [.33, .43]	268.4 [261.0, 275.2]	.91	1.00
Sympathy	0.04 [−.01, .10]	0.34 [.29, .40]	326.2 [317.6, 336.7]	.91	1.00
Conscientiousness	0.25 [.19, .32]	0.18 [.14, .23]	19.4 [357.8, 40.6]	.81	1.00
Self-efficacy	0.30 [.25, .36]	0.20 [.15, .26]	51.7 [33.7, 68.2]	.87	1.00
Orderliness	0.16 [.08, .23]	0.13 [.09, .19]	358.4 [329.6, 31.6]	.80	1.00
Dutifulness	0.23 [.17, .29]	0.20 [.15, .25]	337.7 [322.9, 355.2]	.81	1.00
Achievement-striving	0.24 [.17, .30]	0.19 [.14, .24]	45.6 [23.4, 64.6]	.88	1.00
Self-discipline	0.19 [.12, .24]	0.17 [.12, .23]	43.5 [20.0, 63.4]	.85	1.00
Cautiousness	0.09 [.03, .15]	0.12 [.07, .19]	332.8 [307.1, 4.7]	.75	.99
Sensitivities
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	0.16 [.09, .24]	0.09 [.04, .14]	52.9 [15.6, 90.2]	.60	.85
Anxiety	0.17 [.10, .25]	0.09 [.05, .15]	100.7 [64.8, 130.1]	.87	.97
Anger	0.20 [.12, .27]	0.12 [.07, .18]	344.0 [323.6, 7.1]	.88	1.00
Depression	0.13 [.06, .20]	0.12 [.07, .17]	34.3 [7.4, 66.2]	.76	.96
Self-consciousness	0.02 [−.06, .09]	0.12 [.08, .17]	83.3 [58.8, 105.7]	.72	1.00
Immoderation	0.11 [.03, .19]	0.02 [.01, .08]	36.2 [260.1, 172.8]	.12	.21
Vulnerability	0.12 [.05, .19]	0.05 [.02, .11]	83.0 [16.2, 141.9]	.40	.67
Extraversion	−0.02 [−.10, .05]	0.20 [.16, .25]	228.8 [211.6, 245.6]	.93	1.00
Friendliness	−0.05 [−.13, .03]	0.21 [.16, .26]	204.4 [189.3, 220.5]	.96	1.00
Gregariousness	–0.09 [−.16, −.01]	0.17 [.13, .22]	224.2 [204.3, 244.2]	.93	1.00
Assertiveness	0.05 [−.02, .13]	0.16 [.11, .20]	255.5 [234.1, 274.9]	.86	1.00
Activity-level	0.04 [−.04, .11]	0.11 [.07, .17]	267.6 [237.6, 292.9]	.94	1.00
Excitement seeking	0.02 [−.06, .09]	0.14 [.10, .19]	251.0 [224.2, 271.9]	.87	1.00
Cheerfulness	−0.05 [−.13, .03]	0.19 [.14, .24]	204.6 [187.5, 223.2]	.94	1.00
Openness	−0.07 [−.15, .01]	0.08 [.03, .14]	142.3 [102.3, 183.1]	.60	.76
Imagination	0.04 [−.03, .11]	0.01 [.01, .08]	156.8 [349.9, 326.2]	.05	.15
Artistic interests	−0.04 [−.11, .03]	0.08 [.03, .14]	148.5 [111.3, 192.2]	.66	.85
Emotionality	0.10 [.02, .17]	0.16 [.11, .22]	149.3 [131.7, 167.1]	.96	1.00
Adventurousness	−0.11 [−.19, −.03]	0.07 [.03, .12]	248.4 [195.9, 284.9]	.80	.83
Intellect	−0.13 [−.20, −.06]	0.07 [.02, .12]	131.5 [82.7, 173.2]	.42	.61
Liberalism	−0.10 [−.17, −.03]	0.08 [.04, .12]	42.8 [4.6, 86.5]	.83	.68
Agreeableness	−0.15 [−.23, −.07]	0.34 [.29, .40]	133.8 [126.7, 140.6]	.94	1.00
Trust	−0.12 [−.20, −.04]	0.21 [.16, .27]	175.2 [161.7, 189.4]	.98	1.00
Morality	−0.12 [−.20, −.04]	0.24 [.18, .29]	110.7 [100.0, 120.4]	.83	1.00
Altruism	−0.07 [−.15, .00]	0.31 [.26, .36]	151 [142.5, 159.7]	.93	1.00
Cooperation	−0.19 [−.27, −.11]	0.25 [.21, .30]	122.5 [112.2, 132.1]	.88	1.00
Modesty	−0.05 [−.12, .03]	0.21 [.17, .26]	85.3 [69.1, 99.2]	.96	1.00
Sympathy	−0.05 [−.12, .02]	0.29 [.23, .35]	142.8 [133.7, 152.5]	.98	1.00
Conscientiousness	−0.07 [−.15, .01]	0.08 [.03, .14]	156.6 [121.7, 198.6]	.43	.91
Self-efficacy	0.00 [−.08, .07]	0.05 [.01, .10]	199.6 [130.3, 275.7]	.30	.53
Orderliness	−0.05 [−.12, .02]	0.06 [.02, .12]	156.8 [99.1, 217.8]	.58	.72
Dutifulness	−0.11 [−.17, −.04]	0.17 [.11, .22]	127.3 [112.3, 142.4]	.62	1.00
Achievement-striving	0.05 [−.02, .13]	0.06 [.02, .12]	200.1 [152.6, 266.5]	.49	.69
Self-discipline	−0.09 [−.17, −.02]	0.05 [.02, .10]	238.7 [163.6, 305.5]	.52	.49
Cautiousness	−0.10 [−.16, −.03]	0.11 [.05, .17]	127.2 [99.6, 151.1]	.58	.96

Note. IPIP-NEO-120 = Big Five traits with the International Personality Item Pool NEO-120. Elevation ≥.15 (threshold for adequate elevation) are boldfaced; amplitude ≥.15 (threshold for adequate specificity of interpersonal profile) are boldfaced; R² = goodness-of-fit, and values ≥.8 (threshold for prototypical fit) are boldfaced; angle = angular displacement, and interpretable displacements (i.e., when goodness-of-fit and amplitude are adequate) are boldfaced. Numbers in brackets represent the 95% confidence interval for the structural summary parameters.

Table 3.

Structural Summary Parameters, 95% Bootstrap Confidence Intervals, and Probability Estimates for Big Five Personality Domains (N = 275).

Traits
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	−0.01 [−.04, .03]	0.33 [.24, .43]	223.4 [207.2, 240.6]	.84	1.00
Extraversion	0.06 [.03, .09]	0.76 [.72, .80]	61.5 [54.9, 68.4]	.95	1.00
Openness	0.04 [.01, .07]	0.28 [.19, .37]	36.5 [14.2, 54.2]	.92	1.00
Agreeableness	0.02 [−.01, .06]	0.59 [.52, .66]	346.7 [335.3, 357.1]	.98	1.00
Conscientiousnes s	0.03 [−.01, .07]	0.25 [.17, .34]	8.6 [345.3, 30.3]	.93	1.00
Problems
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	0.40 [.33, .47]	0.18 [.12, .25]	261.4 [236.3, 282.5]	.92	1.00
Extraversion	−0.33 [–.40, −.27]	0.39 [.35, .45]	60.5 [50.5, 71.1]	.97	1.00
Openness	−0.22 [−.29, −.14]	0.09 [.03, .16]	56.2 [351.0, 111.0]	.85	.55
Agreeableness	−0.21 [−.29, −.14]	0.37 [.30, .44]	335.2 [325.1, 345.4]	.91	1.00
Conscientiousness	−0.32 [−.40, −.24]	0.08 [.02, .16]	66.5 [354.3, 123.2]	.70	.59
Values
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	0.18 [.10, .26]	0.19 [.13, .26]	248.1 [224.1, 272.0]	.86	1.00
Extraversion	0.03 [−.04, .11]	0.33 [.27, .39]	55.2 [40.1, 69.8]	.93	1.00
Openness	−0.04 [−.12, .04]	0.22 [.16, .28]	49.2 [28.1, 71.9]	.99	1.00
Agreeableness	0.03 [−.06, .11]	0.33 [.26, .41]	339.6 [326.9, 352.2]	.98	1.00
Conscientiousness	−0.02 [−.09, .06]	0.19 [.13, .27]	40.6 [20.9, 65.3]	.99	.97
Efficacies
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	−0.18 [−.25, −.11]	0.29 [.22, .37]	250.7 [234.5, 264.1]	.94	1.00
Extraversion	0.24 [.17, .29]	0.47 [.41, .53]	67.0 [58.2, 74.7]	.88	1.00
Openness	0.23 [.16, .29]	0.19 [.12, .27]	57.3 [30.6, 77.3]	.88	.98
Agreeableness	0.12 [.04, .19]	0.38 [.32, .45]	330.4 [320.0, 342.9]	.89	1.00
Conscientiousness	0.20 [.13, .27]	0.17 [.12, .24]	42.1 [10.2, 64.8]	.82	.99
Sensitivities
Big Five Traits	Elevation	Amplitude	Angle	R ²	Probability
Neuroticism	0.17 [.08, .24]	0.13 [.08, .19]	79.5 [46.1, 106.4]	.95	.99
Extraversion	0.04 [−.04, .13]	0.23 [.17, .29]	235.9 [218.2, 254.0]	.92	1.00
Openness	0.01 [−.08, .09]	0.04 [.01, .11]	218 [117.1, 313.5]	.28	.22
Agreeableness	−0.06 [−.16, .03]	0.25 [.19, .31]	162 [148.8, 176.9]	.98	1.00
Conscientiousness	−0.08 [−.16, .01]	0.09 [.04, .16]	201.9 [162.1, 247.4]	.63	.82

Note. Elevation with the absolute value of estimates ≥.15 (threshold for adequate elevation) without .15 being contained in the confidence intervals are boldfaced; amplitude with the absolute value of estimates ≥.15 (threshold for adequate specificity of interpersonal profile) without .15 being contained in the confidence intervals are boldfaced; R² = goodness-of-fit, and values ≥.8 (threshold for prototypical fit) are boldfaced; angle = angular displacement, and interpretable displacements (i.e., when goodness-of-fit and amplitude are adequate) are boldfaced. Numbers in brackets represent the 95% confidence interval for the structural summary parameters.

Figure 2.

Amplitude and angular displacement confidence intervals (circumplex plots) and elevations (bar chart) for Big Five traits across interpersonal problems, traits, sensitivities, and values (N = 447).

Figure 3.

Amplitude and angular displacement confidence intervals for Big Five facets measured by IPIP-NEO-120 and interpersonal traits measured by IPIP-IPC (N = 447).

Broadly speaking, all Big Five traits and most of their associated facets demonstrated prototypical and specific interpersonal profiles on at least two of the five interpersonal surfaces. Consistent with previous research, extraversion and agreeableness showed the most consistent circular prototypicality to IPC octants in predicted directions: extraversion related to warm-dominant traits, problems, values, and efficacies, and sensitivity to cold-submissiveness; agreeableness related to warm-submissive traits, problems, values, and efficacies, and sensitivity to cold-dominance. Neuroticism demonstrated rich interpersonal content with a cold-submissive theme across all interpersonal surfaces except sensitivities. Openness and conscientiousness both demonstrated a general theme of interpersonal warmth, with more nuanced interpersonal qualities and inter-facet variations. Parameters generated using the BFI were highly consistent with those generated using the IPIP-NEO-120, which supports the generalizability of our results across two Big Five personality measures. We describe these results in greater depth below and have detailed them in Tables 2 and 3.

Neuroticism

Traits

At the domain level, neuroticism was specifically and prototypically associated with an interpersonal profile that was characterized primarily by indifferent and slightly aloof traits (angle = 203°). Five out of six facets showed specific and prototypical interpersonal trait profiles, with anger and vulnerability associated with cold, indifferent traits, and anxiety, depression, and self-conscientiousness associated with cold-submissive, aloof traits. Relative to other facets, anger and self-consciousness showed higher interpersonal specificity (i.e., higher amplitudes), indicating that these facets are distinctively cold and cold-submissive, respectively.

Problems

The neuroticism domain and all facets demonstrated high elevations, indicating that neurotic individuals tend to have high levels of interpersonal problems overall. Among all facets, self-consciousness showed a particularly specific and prototypical profile associated with nonassertive problems, suggesting that individuals who are sensitive to social stimuli (e.g., easily embarrassed) tend to encounter problems being too submissive in interpersonal situations.

Values

The neuroticism domain was associated with prototypical and specific values of cold-submissiveness (angle = 224°). Consistent with the domain, depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability demonstrated cold-submissive values. The profile of anxiety was highly elevated, indicating that people who are anxious are more demanding of themselves in terms how they want to be seen in social situations.

Efficacies

Like the interpersonal value surface, the neuroticism domain demonstrated a prototypical and specific profile of cold-submissive efficacies (angle = 235.6°). At the facet level, vulnerability was associated with efficacies of maintaining personal space from others (i.e., cold-submissiveness), and depression and self-consciousness were associated with efficacies of following others (i.e., submissiveness). Self-consciousness demonstrated the highest specificity on the efficacies surface. Elevation results indicate that individuals who are generally neurotic, especially those who are overly self-conscious, depressed, and vulnerable, tend to have trouble performing well in all types of social situations.

Sensitivities

Neuroticism did not show a specific or prototypical sensitivities profile at the domain or the facet level.

Extraversion

As predicted, at the domain level, extraversion showed specific and prototypical warm-dominant profiles (angle = 22.5° to 67.5°) across traits, problems, values, and efficacies, meaning that highly extraverted individuals tend to be gregarious in general, have problems being intrusive, think it is important to be seen as competent and caring by others, and are good at leading and connecting with others. On the interpersonal sensitivities surface, extraversion demonstrated highly prototypical and specific sensitivities toward cold-submissiveness, which is consistent with our hypothesis that people are likely to find behaviors that are opposite to their own (i.e., 180° from their own style on the IPC) the most bothersome.

Facets of extraversion were mostly consistent with the warm-dominant theme of the domain. Assertiveness, excitement-seeking, and activity level generally demonstrated more dominant themes. Friendliness and cheerfulness demonstrated more warm themes. For interpersonal sensitivities, four out of six facets demonstrated specific and prototypical profiles. Facet-level profiles for interpersonal sensitivities were less differentiated than on the other interpersonal surfaces, however, friendliness showed a particularly specific profile of being bothered by other people’s withdrawn behaviors. The extraversion domain and most of its facets had low elevations of interpersonal problems and high elevations of interpersonal efficacies, suggesting that extraverted individuals tend to encounter fewer interpersonal problems overall and report more competence in various types of interpersonal behaviors.

Openness

At the domain level, openness was associated specifically and prototypically with warm traits (angle = 16°). Within the domain, the artistic interest facet and the intellect facet demonstrated profiles of warm traits, and the adventurous facet demonstrated profiles of gregarious traits. The adventurousness facet was also prototypically associated with efficacies being assertive. In addition, adventurousness and intellect showed negatively elevated interpersonal problems, indicating that these two facets of openness tend to be associated with adaptive interpersonal patterns (i.e., negatively associated with interpersonal problems).

Agreeableness

Consistent with our predictions, at the domain level, agreeableness showed specific and prototypical profiles of warm-submissiveness (angles = 292.5° to 337.5°) across traits, problems, values, and efficacies. Findings indicate that individuals who are highly agreeable tend to be nice and trusting in general, have problems being too exploitable, think it is important to be seen as trusting, and are good at being cooperative and “going with the flow.” Agreeableness also demonstrated highly prototypical and specific sensitivity to others’ antagonistic behaviors, which is consistent with our hypothesis that people are likely to find behaviors that are opposite to their own the most bothersome.

Mostly consistent with the domain theme, agreeableness facets showed specific and prototypical interpersonal profiles across all interpersonal surfaces, although the degree of warmth and submissiveness varied across facets. In particular, modesty demonstrated submissive themes on all within-person interpersonal surfaces as well as sensitivity to others’ domineering behaviors. Trust, sympathy, and altruism tended to display warmer interpersonal profiles, and on the interpersonal sensitivities domain, trust was particularly associated with being bothered the most by other people’s cold behaviors. Furthermore, the agreeableness domain and four of its facets (trust, morality, altruism, and cooperation) were negatively elevated across interpersonal problems in general, indicating that most facets of agreeableness tend to be associated with adaptive interpersonal functioning (i.e., negatively associated with interpersonal problems).

Conscientiousness

Traits

At the domain level, conscientiousness was specifically and prototypically associated with warm traits (angle = 353°). All the facets also showed prototypical and specific profiles, with dutifulness and cautiousness associating with warm-submissive general behavioral patterns, and the other four facets demonstrating warm traits like the domain.

Problems

Conscientiousness was not specifically associated with any particular type of interpersonal problem at the domain or facet level. However, the conscientiousness domain and five out of the six facets were negatively elevated, indicating that conscientiousness is generally associated with a pattern of reporting few interpersonal problems overall (i.e., negatively associated with interpersonal problems).

Values

At the domain level, conscientiousness was associated with values of being seen as warm (angle = 20°). At the facet level, dutifulness was associated with warm values, and self-efficacy and achievement striving were associated with warm-dominant values.

Efficacies

Similar to interpersonal values, conscientiousness showed a prototypical and specific warm profile (angle = 19°) at the domain level, indicating that conscientious individuals tend to be good at being warm and nurturant. Themes of interpersonal efficacies varied slightly across facets, with dutifulness demonstrating a profile of being good at trusting others, and self-efficacy demonstrating a profile of being good at gregariousness. The conscientiousness domain and self-efficacy, dutifulness, and achievement-driving were highly and positively elevated, indicating that these three facets of efficacies are associated with greater efficacy across various types of interpersonal behaviors.

Sensitivities

Conscientiousness was unrelated to specific types of sensitivities to others’ interpersonal behavior across the domain and facet levels.

Post hoc analysis

To unpack the level of concordance of the interpersonal qualities of the Big Five across different domains of interpersonal functioning, we conducted a post-hoc analysis that examined the profile similarity for each domain of the Big Five, calculated as double-entry correlations of the SSM parameters from the five interpersonal surfaces (see Table 4). In general, there was a strong and negative correlation between elevation scores for problems and efficacies (r = −.85), indicating that people who report more overall problems also generally report fewer efficacies. This “negative manifold” pattern reflects a tendency to endorse bad items and not endorse good items, or vice versa (people who report being good in several interpersonal roles also report fewer interpersonal problems). We also found a high and positive correlation between the elevation parameters for sensitivities and values (r = .89), indicating that people who describe themselves as especially sensitive to others’ behaviors also typically care a great deal about how they behave and how others perceive them. Perhaps people who are easily bothered try especially hard to not be bothersome. It is important to note here that elevations of traits tended to be close to zero (i.e., lack of variation), as a result, though we observed some high correlations between elevations of traits and elevations of the other interpersonal domains, these high correlations are hard to interpret.

Table 4.

Correlations of Structural Summary Parameters Across Interpersonal Surfaces for the Big Five Facets (N = 447).

All Big Five facets
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Elevation
Traits	—
Problems	−.20	—
Values	.28	.44	—
Efficacies	.34	−.85	−.36	—
Sensitivities	.13	.44	.89	−.42	—
Amplitude
Traits	—
Problems	.25	—
Values	.16	.67	—
Efficacies	.45	.81	.78	—
Sensitivities	−.15	.69	.35	.30	—
Angular displacement
Traits	—
Problems	.37	—
Values	.52	.52	—
Efficacies	.70	.66	.79	—
Sensitivities	−.39	−.44	−.39	−.43	—
Neuroticism
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Elevation
Traits	—
Problems	−.93	—
Values	−.77	−.59	—
Efficacies	−.77	−.98	−.91	—
Sensitivities	−.66	−.77	.46	−.84	—
Amplitude
Traits	—
Problems	−.14	—
Values	.08	.53	—
Efficacies	.42	.51	.78	—
Sensitivities	−.63	.29	−.42	−.34	—
Angular displacement
Traits	—
Problems	.54	—
Values	.48	.36	—
Efficacies	.37	.41	.93	—
Sensitivities	−.40	−.38	−.58	−.66	—
Extraversion
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Elevation
Traits	—
Problems	−.89	—
Values	−.69	−.76	—
Efficacies	−.77	−.97	−.91	—
Sensitivities	−.72	−.67	.14	−.86	—
Extraversion
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Amplitude
Traits	—
Problems	−.20	—
Values	−.46	.54	—
Efficacies	−.19	.60	.31	—
Sensitivities	−.66	−.36	−.01	−.52	—
Angular displacement
Traits	—
Problems	.82	—
Values	.84	.91	—
Efficacies	.84	.88	.81	—
Sensitivities	−.93	−.90	−.91	−.90	—
Openness
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Elevation
Traits	—
Problems	−.25	—
Values	.12	.63	—
Efficacies	.03	−.79	−.55	—
Sensitivities	.32	−.39	.84	−.48	—
Amplitude
Traits	—
Problems	−.45	—
Values	.21	−.38	—
Efficacies	−.16	.28	.38	—
Sensitivities	−.53	.77	−.39	−.02	—
Angular displacement
Traits	—
Problems	−.57	—
Values	.24	−.10	—
Efficacies	.27	−.17	.99	—
Sensitivities	−.74	−.41	−.30	−.31	—
Agreeableness
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Elevation
Traits	—
Problems	−.50	—
Values	.46	−.01	—
Efficacies	.65	−.83	.11	—
Sensitivities	.13	.33	.62	−.33	—
Amplitude
Traits	—
Problems	−.63	—
Values	−.53	.81	—
Efficacies	−.41	.62	.50	—
Sensitivities	−.76	.20	.57	−.14	—
Agreeableness
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Angular displacement
Traits	—
Problems	−.23	—
Values	−.10	.61	—
Efficacies	−.17	.90	.81	—
Sensitivities	−.56	−.79	−.87	−.85	—
Conscientiousness
	Traits	Problems	Values	Efficacies	Sensitivities
Elevation
Traits	—
Problems	−.92	—
Values	.00	−.72	—
Efficacies	−.59	−.97	−.78	—
Sensitivities	.05	−.75	.87	−.75	—
Amplitude
Traits	—
Problems	−.84	—
Values	−.08	−.57	—
Efficacies	−.56	−.55	.53	—
Sensitivities	−.72	.33	−.50	−.57	—
Angular displacement
Traits	—
Problems	.57	—
Values	.00	.13	—
Efficacies	.66	.97	.19	—
Sensitivities	−.42	−.39	−.42	−.36	—

Similarities for amplitude and angular displacement across all interpersonal domains showed that problems, values, and efficacies are particularly highly concordant, indicating that individuals who tend to encounter specific types of interpersonal problems also tend to display similarly specific themes in the types of social behaviors that they think are important and the types of social behaviors they think they are good at. In addition, the angular displacements for sensitivities correlated negatively and moderately with displacements of the other interpersonal domains. Such contrast is particularly observable for Extraversion and Agreeableness, the two Big Five domains that were theorized to carry the most interpersonal qualities. Thus, for instance, agreeableness is highly associated with traits, problems, values, and efficacies related to cold-submissiveness, and with sensitivities to opposing cold-dominant behaviors.

Discussion

Overall, results indicated that all Big Five traits are saturated with interpersonal content, with extraversion and agreeableness demonstrating the most consistent and specific interpersonal characteristics. Across domains of interpersonal functioning, extraversion was consistently associated with a blend of dominance and warmth, and agreeableness was consistently associated with a blend of submissiveness and warmth, with minor within-domain variations across facets within each of the Big Five personality domains. For example, within agreeableness, trust related the most strongly to warmth across all facets.

Although neuroticism, openness, and conscientiousness are less specifically and prototypically related to interpersonal behaviors in our results and prior studies (e.g., DeYoung et al., 2013), they nonetheless displayed some nuanced and prototypical associations with interpersonal behaviors in our study. Neuroticism was generally associated with cold-submissiveness across domains of interpersonal functioning, but discrepancies emerged across facets. For example, anxiety and self-consciousness were associated with problems being overly obedient and nonassertive, anger was associated with problems being too cold-hearted and vindictive, and depression was associated with problems being too socially avoidant. Such discrepancies demonstrate that neuroticism has unique and distinct interpersonal themes across facets, and that knowing neuroticism domain scores is less informative for understanding social behaviors than knowing scores across its facets. Openness and conscientiousness also demonstrated specific associations with interpersonal functioning. Individuals who score higher in these traits also reported generally warm behavior and thought it was important for others to see them as kind. Like our results for neuroticism, facets of openness and conscientiousness differed from one another within each domain in their associations with interpersonal behaviors. For example, within the openness domain, people who are highly adventurous reported being particularly good at asserting themselves in interpersonal interactions; among conscientiousness facets, self-efficacy was the most strongly related to agentic qualities, whereas dutifulness was associated with less agentic, warm-submissive themes.

We also found that the severity of interpersonal functioning is influenced more by some Big Five traits than others. Specifically, extraversion and conscientiousness were associated with fewer interpersonal problems overall, suggesting that these traits have protective features. Neuroticism, on the other hand, was associated with high levels of interpersonal problems and values in general, suggesting that highly neurotic individuals are likely to encounter various types of interpersonal difficulties in general, and tend to place more demands on themselves with regard to how they want to be perceived by others, which may feed into a tendency for people high in neuroticism to frequently worry about others’ perceptions of them.

The post-hoc analyses that examined the profile similarity across the five domains of interpersonal functioning showed that information yielded from some of the interpersonal domains are less distinctive than others, and efficacies, problems, and values tend to yield similar results. The profile themes across the Big Five domains tended to be particularly concordant on interpersonal efficacies and interpersonal values, suggesting that the types of interpersonal behaviors that people considered important also tend to be behaviors that individuals think they are good at. Overall, the highly overlapped results across interpersonal surfaces suggest that the interpersonal content of the Big Five tend to hold consistent across different domains of interpersonal functioning. Such finding is consistent with and provided empirical support for the contemporary integrative interpersonal theory (Pincus & Ansell, 2013), which conceptualizes personality as consistent patterns of interpersonal functioning. At the same time, results from the current study also suggest nuanced differences across some of the interpersonal surfaces. For example, conscientiousness showed a warm profile on the traits surface but on the values surface, it carried dominant content in addition to warmth, indicating that individuals who are conscientious tend to behave warmly in general, but they consider both dominance and warmth as important.

Overall, results from our study illustrate that all Big Five traits are interpersonally embedded, and that Big Five traits are consistently associated with certain features of interpersonal functioning and in maintaining the agentic and communal goals of social situations. In addition to examining the connections between the IPC and the Big Five, by exploring the interpersonal content of Big Five domains and facets comprehensively, we also hope to extend the clinical and organizational use of these personality models. Personality measures based on the Big Five are often used in evaluating difficulties or strengths in social functioning (e.g., NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 2008). By presenting facet-level profiles of the Big Five across domains of interpersonal functioning, we hope to facilitate integrative interpretations of facet-level scores in individuals’ personality profiles that take into account the social aspects of personality. For example, a combination of high anxiety, high self-consciousness, and low anger within the neuroticism domain would suggest a consistent interpersonal theme of low agency, which may be targeted by clinicians, used for vocational development, or used in a variety of other contexts.

There are several limitations to our study. First, we relied on convenience sampling. Although the MTurk worker population is more diverse than college participants in terms of age, job, social economic status, and ethnic background (Buhrmester et al., 2011), it may still not sufficiently represent the general population, and thus the generalizability of our results is limited. Second, our study is limited in its exclusive use of self-report measures. Future studies should incorporate multimethod assessments of personality and interpersonal constructs (e.g., observer report, experience sampling methods) to ensure that our findings are consistent across methods. Third, the current study is limited in that it did not take into account the potential influence of social desirability in the associations between general personality traits and interpersonal behaviors. For example, people tend to think of conscientiousness as a desirable characteristic (Soubelet & Salthouse, 2011), and it is possible that the shared positive public perception of conscientiousness and communion contributed to their association. Despite these limitations, our findings underscore the interpersonal nature of personality traits and lay the groundwork for future research on the associations between different structural frameworks of personality.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tianwei V. Du

References

Ackerman

Zuroff

D. C.

Moskowitz

D. S.

(2000). Generativity in midlife and young adults: Links to agency, communion, and subjective well-being. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 50(1), 17-41. https://doi.org/10.2190/9F51-LR6T-JHRJ-2QW6

Ansell

E. B.

Pincus

A. L.

(2004). Interpersonal perceptions of the five-factor model of personality: An examination using the structural summary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 167-201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_3

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1037/e527772014-223

Byrne

K. A.

Silasi-Mansat

C. D.

Worthy

D. A.

(2015, February). Who chokes under pressure? The Big Five personality traits and decision-making under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.009

Chmielewski

Kucker

S. C.

(2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1985). The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(2008). The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). In Boyle

G. J.

Matthews

Saklofske

D. H.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2: Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179-198). Sage.

Dawood

Pincus

A. L.

(2016). Multisurface interpersonal assessment in a cognitive-behavioral therapy context. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1159215

10.

Decuyper

De Bolle

De Fruyt

(2012). Personality similarity, perceptual accuracy, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships, 19(1), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01344.x

11.

Dennis

S. A.

Goodson

B. M.

Pearson

(2018). MTurk workers’ use of low-cost “virtual private servers” to circumvent screening methods: A research note. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3233954

12.

DeYoung

C. G.

(2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138-1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138

13.

DeYoung

C. G.

Weisberg

Y. J.

Quilty

L. C.

Peterson

J. B.

(2013). Unifying the aspects of the Big Five, the interpersonal circumplex, and trait affiliation. Journal of Personality, 81(5), 465-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12020

14.

Digman

J. M.

(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221

15.

Digman

J. M.

(1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246-1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246

16.

Dowgwillo

E. A.

Pincus

A. L.

(2017). Differentiating dark triad traits within and across interpersonal circumplex surfaces. Assessment, 24(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116643161

17.

Girard

J. M.

Zimmermann

Wright

A. G.

(2018). Circumplex: Analysis and visualization of circular data. CRAN.R-project.org. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=circumplex

18.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde

Deary

De Fruyt

Ostendorf

(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg University Press.

19.

Gurtman

M. B.

(1994). The circumplex as a tool for studying normal and abnormal personality: A methodological primer. In Strack

Lorr

(Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 243-263). Springer.

20.

Gurtman

M. B.

Pincus

A. L.

(2003). The circumplex model: Methods and research applications. In Schinka

J. A.

Velicer

W. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 2. Research methods in psychology (pp. 407-428). Wiley.

21.

Hopwood

C. J.

Ansell

E. B.

Pincus

A. L.

Wright

A. G.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

Roche

M. J.

(2011). The circumplex structure of interpersonal sensitivities. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 707-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00696.x

22.

Hopwood

C. J.

Burt

S. A.

Keel

P. K.

Neale

M. C.

Boker

S. M.

Klump

K. L.

(2013). Interpersonal problems associated with Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire traits in women during the transition to adulthood. Assessment, 20(1), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111425854

23.

John

O. P

(1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In Pervin

L. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 66-100). Guilford Press.

24.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). Guilford Press.

25.

Leary

(1957). The interpersonal theory of personality. Ronald Press.

26.

Locke

K. D.

(2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(2), 249-267. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7502_6

27.

Locke

K. D.

Adamic

E. J.

(2012). Interpersonal circumplex vector length and interpersonal decision making. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(6), 764-769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.001

28.

Locke

K. D.

Sadler

(2007). Self-efficacy, values, and complementarity in dyadic interactions: Integrating interpersonal and social-cognitive theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206293375

29.

Maples

J. L.

Guan

Carter

N. T.

Miller

J. D.

(2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1070-1084. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000004

30.

Markey

P. M.

Markey

C. N.

(2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16(4), 352-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109340382

31.

Markon

K. E.

Krueger

R. F.

Watson

(2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 139-157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.139

32.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586-595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586

33.

McCrae

R. R.

John

O. P.

(1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

34.

Montoya

R. M.

Horton

R. S.

(2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 64-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512452989

35.

Piedmont

R. L.

Aycock

(2007). An historical analysis of the lexical emergence of the Big Five personality adjective descriptors. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 1059-1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.015

36.

Pincus

A. L.

(2002). Constellations of dependency within the five-factor model of personality. In Costa

P. T.

Widiger

T. A.

(Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 203-214). American Psychological Association.

37.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

(2013). Interpersonal theory of personality. In Suls

Tennen

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 141-159). Wiley.

38.

Pincus

A. L.

Gurtman

M. B.

(2003). Interpersonal assessment. In Wiggins

J. S.

(Ed.), Paradigms of personality assessment (pp. 246-261). Guilford Press.

39.

Shafer

A. B.

(2000). Mediation of the Big Five’s effect on career decision making by life task dimensions and on money attitudes by materialism. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(1), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00084-7

40.

Slatcher

R. B.

Vazire

(2009). Effects of global and contextualized personality on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 624-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.012

41.

Soldz

Budman

Demby

Merry

(1995). A short form of the inventory of interpersonal problems circumplex scales. Assessment, 2(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191195002001006

42.

Soubelet

Salthouse

T. A.

(2011). Influence of social desirability on age differences in self-reports of mood and personality. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 741-762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00700.x

43.

Sullivan

H. S.

(1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. Norton.

44.

Thomas

K. M.

(2015). Understanding the interpersonal processes associated with marital satisfaction [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.

45.

Vittersø

(2001). Personality traits and subjective well-being: Emotional stability, not extraversion, is probably the important predictor. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 903-914. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00192-6

46.

Wiggins

J. S.

(1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In Wheeler

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 265-294). Sage.

47.

Wiggins

J. S.

(2003). Paradigms of personality assessment. Guilford Press.

48.

Wiggins

J. S.

Pincus

A. L.

(1994). Personality structure and the structure of personality disorders. In Costa

P. T.

Widiger

T. A.

(Eds.), Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality (pp. 73-93). American Psychological Association.

49.

Wiggins

J. S.

Trapnell

P. D.

(1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor Model. In Wiggins

J. S.

(Eds.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88-150). Guilford Press.

50.

Wright

A. G.

Pincus

A. L.

Hopwood

C. J.

Thomas

K. M.

Markon

K. E.

Krueger

R. F.

(2012). An interpersonal analysis of pathological personality traits in DSM-5. Assessment, 19(3), 263-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112446657

51.

Yalch

M. M.

Lannert

B. K.

Hopwood

C. J.

Levendosky

A. A.

(2013). Interpersonal style moderates the effect of dating violence on symptoms of anxiety and depression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3171-3185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513496901

52.

Zimmermann

Wright

A. G.

(2017). Beyond description in interpersonal construct validation: Methodological advances in the circumplex structural summary approach. Assessment, 24(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621795