Meta-analyses of Big Six Interests and Big Five Personality Factors

Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 217–239 (2002)doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1854

Meta-analyses of Big Six Interests and Big FivePersonality Factors

Lisa M. Larson, Patrick J. Rottinghaus, and Fred H. Borgen

Iowa State University

This article presents a series of meta-analyses examining the 24 samples to date thathave revealed the overlap of the three most widely used measures of Holland’s Big Six do-mains of vocational interest, namely the Self-Directed Search (Holland, 1985a), the StrongInterest Inventory (Hansen & Campbell, 1985; Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer,1994), and the Vocational Preference Inventory (Holland, 1985b), with the most widelyaccepted measure of the Big Five personality factors, namely the Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The meta-analyses showed the mean effect sizes foreach of the 30 correlations between the six interest dimensions and the five personal-ity dimensions. Of the 30 correlations, 5 appeared to be substantial for both women andmen and across the interest measures. They are Artistic–Openness (r = .48), Enterprising–Extraversion (r = .41), Social–Extraversion (r = .31), Investigative–Openness (r = .28),and Social–Agreeableness (r = .19). C© 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

Fryer’s (1931) classic book on interest measurement reflects the disagreementwriters have had about the linkage between interests and personality. In the intro-duction to the book, Terman (1931) stated, “For understanding an individual’s totalpersonality, it is absolutely necessary to know something about the kinds and inten-sity of his interests” (p. xvii). But Fryer himself took a contrary position in the textof the book, asserting that interests and motivation are separate phenomena. LikeFryer, some writers have been reluctant to view interests and personality as concep-tually and empirically linked (e.g., Super, 1957; Waller, Lykken, & Tellegen, 1995).

Although prior to 1960 there were no well-developed and widely acceptedmodels of the structure of either interests or personality, a number of empiricalstudies addressed their overlap using a wide assortment of available instruments.For example, in one early study, Tyler (1945) examined the overlap of the StrongVocational Interest Blank with the Minnesota Personality Scale. Even then, sheconcluded that Neuroticism showed little covariation with any interest score. Thatminimal association appears to have withstood the test of time.

For more than 60 years, a number of influential commentators have advocated forthe link between interests and personality. Savickas (1999) masterfully surveyedthe history of thought about the theoretical meaning of interests and personality.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Lisa M. Larson, Department of Psychology, IowaState University, W216 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA 50011-3180. E-mail: [email protected].

2170001-8791/02 $35.00

C© 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)All rights reserved.

218 LARSON, ROTTINGHAUS, AND BORGEN

Berdie (1944) said that studies of interests are actually studies of motivation andthat if we understand the determinants of interests, we will solve the riddles ofpersonality origins. Berdie hinted that interests and personality share similar struc-tures because they arise from similar causal determinants. Darley (1941), who wasto become Holland’s graduate mentor at the University of Minnesota, was oneof the first writers to effectively make the case that interests are an expression ofpersonality, saying that interest development “is an outgrowth or special phase ofpersonality development” (p. 55). Darley and Hagenah (1955) reviewed this topicextensively, placing vocational interest within personality theory. They lamentedthat in 1955 there was no widely accepted model of personality. They could have ex-pressed the same concern about interest measurement. Not long thereafter, Holland(1958) demonstrated that one could use occupational titles in an interest inventoryto measure personality. These were the nascent beginnings of what was to becomethe Big Six model of vocational psychology.

Today it is Holland (1997) who is well-known for the position that interestsare an expression of personality. Holland’s hexagon, the preeminent model in vo-cational psychology, is the icon for an integrative theory describing persons andenvironments and their interaction. Now there are a number of writers suggestingthat the convergence between constructs such as interests and personality may bemuch greater than many of us have thought previously. Several important articlesnow support a more unified view of individuality (e.g., Ackerman & Heggestad,1997; Blake & Sackett, 1999; Borgen, 1986, 1999; Costa, McCrae, & Holland,1984; Holland, 1997, 1999; Prediger, 1999). This view was summed up by Spokaneand Decker (1999), who wrote, “It is increasingly apparent that interests, person-ality, self-efficacy, and other variants of personality and vocational self-conceptmay be facets of a unified set of complex underlying traits” (p. 230).

The Big Five model represents a broad structure of personality traits (Digman,1997). This approach assumes that most of the socially relevant personality char-acteristics have become encoded in our natural language (Norman, 1963). The BigFive comprise Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeable-ness, and Conscientiousness, measured most frequently with the Revised NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These broad dimen-sions or domains subsume a large number of other more distinct and specificcharacteristics. Digman (1990) summarized this body of literature by arguing thatthe Big Five provide a useful categorization of broad dimensions encompassingindividual differences in people.

Holland’s (1973, 1997) model of vocational interests explains the choice of avocation as an expression of personality in that “most persons can be categorizedas one of six personality types arranged on a hexagon: Realistic, Investigative,Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional” (RIASEC) (Holland, 1997, p. 2).For example, Investigative types are characterized as “analytical, cautious, com-plex, critical, curious, independent, intellectual, introspective, pessimistic, precise,radical, rational, reserved, retiring, and unassuming” (p. 23). Holland’s hexagontypically has been measured with the Self-Directed Search (SDS) (Holland,1985a),

BIG SIX AND BIG FIVE 219

the Strong Interest Inventory (SII) (Hansen, 1984; Hansen & Campbell, 1985;Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994), or the Vocational Preference Inven-tory (VPI) (Holland, 1985b).

Expected Relations between the Big Six and the Big Five

Within the past 15 years, there has been growing interest on the part of vocationalpsychologists to examine systematically the overlap of the Big Five factors ofpersonality with Holland’s hexagon of six dimensions of vocational interest. Theauthors of the SDS and the NEO first looked at their convergence in 1984 (Costaet al., 1984) and found substantial overlap. Subsequently, multiple studies haveexamined the overlap and have shown fairly consistent and moderate covariationbetween the two models but also independent variance in each set of scales (e.g.,Tokar, Vaux, & Swanson, 1995).

Vocational interest and personality mutually influence vocational behavior suchas vocational choice, job satisfaction, and career transitions across the life span.Understanding their overlap and distinctness is critical to advancing theory andpractice in vocational psychology. Although each of the individual studies of inter-est and personality has contributed to the literature, the findings have not provideda clear consensus of the magnitude or the nature of the overlap of the Big Six withthe Big Five. A series of meta-analyses examining the correlations of the Big Sixand the Big Five would empirically integrate the findings.

Figure 1 shows a summary of the major linkages between the Big Six interestsand the Big Five personality dimensions based on individual studies. First, Artisticinterests relate moderately (rs around .40 to .50) to the Openness to Experiencedomain (Costa et al., 1984; De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997; Gottfredson, Jones, &Holland, 1993; Holland, Johnston, & Asama, 1994; Tokar & Swanson, 1995; Tokar

E

Ex Ag

S

A

Op

C

Co

Ne

R I

Big 5Personality

Big 6Interests

FIG. 1. Expected links between Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors.


et al., 1995). Second, Enterprising interests relate .20 to .50 with the Extraversiondomain (Costa et al., 1984; De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997; Holland et al., 1994; Tokar& Swanson, 1995; Tokar et al., 1995). Third, Social interests relate moderately tothe Extraversion domain (rs around .30 to .40) (Costa et al., 1984; De Fruyt &Mervielde, 1997; Holland et al., 1994; Tokar & Swanson, 1995; Tokar et al., 1995).Fourth, Investigative interests overlap .20 to .60 with the Openness to Experiencedomain (Costa et al., 1984; Gottfredson et al., 1993; Holland et al., 1994; Tokar &Swanson, 1995; Tokar et al., 1995). Finally, Social interests correspond modestly(rs around .20) with the Agreeableness domain (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997;Tokar & Swanson, 1995; Tokar et al., 1995). We would expect the meta-analyses todemonstrate these relationships empirically. And finally, more than 55 years sinceTyler’s (1945) early article, there are a sufficient number of studies examining theBig Six and the Big Five to allow us to conduct meta-analyses reported herein.

METHOD

Literature Review

A literature search was conducted to identify published and unpublished studiesthat measured participants’ vocational interests according to Holland’s Big Sixhexagon and measured the Big Five domains of personality. Several strategieswere used to search the relevant literature. First, a computer search was donethrough PsychLit (no time line) databases using the keywords for both vocationalinterest and personality. For vocational interest, we used several search terms incombination with the personality search terms, including “vocational interest,”“Holland,” “hexagon,” “Strong,” “Vocational Preference Inventory,” and “Self-Directed Search.” For the Big Five personality domains, we used the followingsearch terms in combination with the vocational interest search terms above: “BigFive,” “Five-Factor Model,” “NEO,” and “personality.” Second, a manual searchwas conducted that consisted of reviewing the tables of contents of the Journal ofVocational Behavior, the Journal of Career Assessment, the Journal of CounselingPsychology, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, andthe Journal of Psychological Assessment for any overlooked articles. Third, wechecked sources cited in references from articles, chapters, and books. Finally,authors of studies were contacted individually if the studies did not report thecomplete correlation matrix by gender.

Overall, these searches yielded 15 articles, 1 conference paper, and 3 disserta-tions. Of those 19 studies, 7 were eliminated. All but 2 studies measured the BigFive with some form of the NEO. Lippa (1998) used marker scales for measure-ment of both the Big Five and the Big Six and was excluded. Blake and Sackett(1999) used marker scales from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire(Tellegen, 1982) for the Big Five and was also excluded. One dissertation (Ray,1998) did not report the full correlation matrix. Finally, 4 studies had used all orpart of a sample that was already included in the pool (De Fruyt & Mervielde,1997, 1999; Holland, Gottfredson, & Baker, 1990, Tokar & Fischer, 1998). Thus,12 studies were included in this analysis. They are listed in Table 1.


TABLE 1Listing of the Studies Included in the Meta-analyses by Year, Sample Size, Measure

Used, and Population

Interest Form ofAuthor(s) Year N measure NEO Populationa

Costa, McCrae, and Holland 1984 361 SDS NEO AdultsGottfredson, Jones, and Holland 1993 725 VPI NEO-PI Navy recruitsHolland, Johnston, and Asama 1994 226 SDS FFI AdultsTokar and Swanson 1995 359 SDS FFI AdultsTokar, Vaux, and Swanson 1995 193 SDS NEO-PI College studentsGetreu 1997 186 SDS FFI College studentsDe Fruyt and Mervielde 1997 934 SDS NEO-PI-Rb College studentsSchinka, Dye, and Curtiss 1997 1034 SDS NEO-PI-R AdultsCarless 1999 139 SDS NEO AdultsLindley and Borgen 2000 311 SII (94) FFI College studentsRottinghaus, Day, and Borgen, 2001 138 SII (94) FFI College studentsLarsen and Borgen In press 323 SII (85) NEO-PI-R 16- to 17-year olds

a All samples were from the United States except the De Fruyt and Mervielde (1997) and Carless(1999) studies, which were from Belgium and Austria, respectively.

b The NEO-PI-R was translated into Dutch.

When separated by sex, 24 samples were obtained from the 12 studies. Samplesizes ranged from 85 to 645 for women (M = 214.25, SD = 169.08) and from 41to 498 for men (M = 196.5, SD = 164.79), yielding female and male samples of2571 and 2358, respectively. All but 1 of the 12 studies was reported during thepast 9 years. Of the 12 studies, 9 were published, 2 were dissertations, and 1 wasa conference paper.

The studies were categorized by the personality and vocational interest measureused as well as by population type. As can be seen in Table 1, the SDS was themost common vocational interest measure used to operationalize Holland’s Big Six(66%), followed by the SII (25%) and the VPI (9%). The short form of the NEO-PI,labeled the Five-Factor Inventory (FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992), was the mostcommon form of the NEO-PI used (42%), probably because it is only 60 items long.The NEO-PI-R was used in 33% of the studies, the NEO-PI was used in 17% of thestudies, and the NEO was used in the earliest study published in 1984 (Costa et al.,1984). The populations from which these studies were drawn were fairly diverseacross the age span. The adult samples included a broad age range, and the collegestudent samples represented four different campuses. The samples were primarilyfrom the United States, although the Carless (1999) sample was Australian and theDe Fruyt and Mervielde (1997) sample was Dutch. The ethnicity of the U.S. samplewas predominantly Caucasian, but there was insufficient information across the12 studies to report the percentages by ethnic groups.

In all 24 samples (12 female and 12 male), the sample size and Pearson product-moment correlations of each of the six vocational interest scales (the RIASEC)with each of the five personality domains (N, E, O, A, and C) were recorded. None


of the studies reported the correlations of the facet scales of the NEO, NEO-PI,or NEO-PI-R with the Big Six, and therefore they could not be reported. Thestudies were coded for the measures used to operationalize vocational interestand personality, the type of sample (working adults, adolescents, or college stu-dents), and the sample size by sex. Because correlations were not reported byethnicity or age, we were unable to examine ethnic or age differences across thesamples.

Computation of Effect Sizes

A sample size of 12 for both women and men is more than adequate to conductmeta-analyses. Unlike traditional correlational analyses that require a sample sizeof 30 to ensure stable findings, meta-analyses of correlations can be conducted onas few as 2 studies with stable findings (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Rosenthal, 1995;Wang & Bushman, 1999). The danger in meta-analyses of using only significantfindings is minimized in these meta-analyses because we used complete correlationmatrices that included minimal nonsignificant correlations as well as statisticallysignificant correlations.

Mean effect sizes for correlations were calculated with standard meta-analyticmethods (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Wang & Bushman, 1999). We evaluated 30 effectsizes for the 30 pairwise cross-correlations between six interests and five person-ality dimensions. We also calculated these effect sizes separately for subgroupsof the sample such as sex. Means for correlations required first transforming thecorrelations to a Fisher’s z, then calculating the mean for the zs, and then trans-forming the mean z back to a mean r . In performing these calculations, means wereweighted by the sample size of each study. Thus, results for larger sample sizeswere weighted more than results for smaller samples. A 95% confidence intervalwas also calculated (Hedges & Olkin, 1985, p. 227) for each study and for the finaleffect size.

RESULTS

Primary Meta-analyses

Meta-analyses were conducted to show mean correlations and 95% confidenceintervals for each of the 30 correlations between six interest dimensions and fivepersonality dimensions. Mean correlations and confidence intervals are shown inTable 2 for women and men combined. A correlation effect size in which theconfidence interval does not include zero is in bold. In order of magnitude, 3 ofthe 30 correlations were .30 or larger: Artistic–Openness (r = .48), Enterprising–Extraversion (r = .41), and Social–Extraversion (r = .31). The meta-analytic re-sults are especially helpful in identifying modest but positive relationships be-tween the big dimensions of interests and personality. Thus, three correlationsrange from .22 to .28: Investigative and Openness correlated .28, Conventional andConscientiousness correlated .25, and Enterprising and Conscientiousness correl-ated .22.


TABLE 2Mean Effect Size Estimates and Confidence Intervals for the Correlations between the Big Six

and the Big Five

Women MenAll (n = 2568) (n = 2355)

Interest– Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upperpersonality level C I level C I r (+) level C I level C I r (+) level C I level C I r (+)

RealisticN −.12 −.06 −.09 −.12 −.04 −.08 −.14 −.06 −.10E .02 .07 .04 −.02 .06 .02 .04 .12 .08O .06 .11 .08 .13 .21 .17∗ −.05 .03 −.01∗A −.02 .04 .01 −.07 .01 −.03 .01 .10 .06∗C .04 .10 .07 0 .08 .04 .07 .15 .11

InvestigativeN −.13 −.07 −.10 −.14 −.06 −.10 −.14 −.06 −.10E 0 .05 .03 .01 .09 .05 −.04 .04 <.01O .25 .30 .28 .25 .32 .29 .22 .30 .26A .01 .06 .03 −.02 .06 .02 .01 .09 .05C .06 .12 .09 .08 .16 .12 .01 .09 .05

ArtisticN −.01 .05 .02 −.08 0 −.04∗ .04 .12 .08∗E .09 .14 .11 .10 .17 .13 .05 .13 .09O .46 .50 .48 .45 .51 .48 .45 .51 .48A −.02 .04 .01 −.04 .04 >.01 −.02 .07 .03C −.07 −.02 −.05 −.05 .03 −.01 −.12 −.04 −.08

SocialN −.14 −.09 −.12 −.18 −.11 −.14 −.13 −.05 −.08E .30 .35 .31 .28 .35 .31 .29 .36 .32O .17 .22 .19 .13 .20 .17 .18 .26 .22A .16 .22 .19 .16 .24 .20 .14 .22 .18C .10 .15 .13 .09 .16 .13 .09 .17 .13

EnterprisingN −.21 −.16 −.19 −.23 −.16 −.20 −.22 −.14 −.18E .39 .43 .41 .35 .42 .39 .40 .47 .44O .06 .12 .09 .07 .15 .11 .03 .11 .07A −.10 −.04 −.07 −.11 −.03 −.07 −.12 −.03 −.07C .19 .25 .22 .15 .23 .19 .22 .30 .26

ConventionalN −.12 −.07 −.10 −.11 −.03 −.07 −.16 −.08 −.12E .06 .11 .08 −.03 .05 .01∗ .13 .20 .16∗O −.14 −.08 −.11 −.20 −.12 −.16∗ −.09 −.01 −.05∗A .01 .06 .03 −.01 .07 .03 0 .08 .04C .22 .28 .25 .17 .25 .21∗ .26 .34 .30∗

Note. Correlations in bold indicate those whose CIs do not include 0. The sample sizes for A and Care slightly smaller.

∗ p < .002.


E

Ex Ag

S

A

Op

C

Co

Ne

R I

.48.19.41 .31

. 28

Big 5Personality

Big 6Interests

FIG. 2. Results for links between Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors that wereexpected.

All five of the linkages visually depicted in Fig. 1 were supported by the meta-analyses, namely Artistic–Openness, Enterprising–Extraversion, Social–Extra-version, Investigative–Openness, and Social–Agreeableness. These five meancorrelations are displayed in Fig. 2. With the exception of Social–Agreeableness,these four correlations were the strongest of the correlations, as shown inTable 2.

Table 2 also shows those linkages that were not anticipated by the literaturereview. Four unexpected modest correlations emerged from the analyses, namelySocial with Openness, Enterprising with Conscientiousness, Enterprising withNeuroticism, and Conventional with Conscientiousness, that ranged from ±.19 to.25. All of the other correlations were at or below .12.

Meta-analyses by Sex

To determine whether the correlations differed significantly by sex, two sep-arate sets of meta-analyses were conducted for each sex. The mean effect sizeestimates and the upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals appear inTable 2. As mentioned earlier, the correlations in bold indicate that the confidenceintervals did not include zero. Statistical tests were conducted comparing each ofthe 30 correlations (6 interests × 5 personality dimensions) for women to the 30correlations for men. To control for the number of comparisons, the Bonferonniadjustment was made (.05/30), resulting in a critical p value of .002 to detect sig-nificant differences in the correlations between women and men. These are notedin Table 2 with an asterisk. This difference translates into a difference of at least.09. We judged those differences less than .09 would probably not be meaningfulfor either practice or theory building.


As can be seen in Table 2, there are five significant correlation differences be-tween women and men, four of which may be substantive. The correlation ofRealistic and Openness was slightly positive for women but was minimal for men.Three of the correlation differences involved Conventional interests. For men,Conventional and Extraversion were correlated slightly positively; for women,there was no association. For women, Conventional and Openness were correlatedslightly negatively; for men, the overlap was minimal. Finally, the correlation ofConventional with Conscientiousness for men was slightly more positive than itwas for women. One other correlation differed significantly but hovered aroundzero, namely the covariation between Artistic interests and the Neuroticism do-main.

We examined whether significant sex differences would alter the major findingspresented earlier. It appears that only one linkage would be slightly affected. Thecorrelation between Conventional and Conscientiousness was slightly stronger formen (.30) than for women (.20), as shown in Table 2.

Moderators

The SDS versus the SII. As can be seen in Table 1, the 12 studies varied as towhether Holland’s RIASEC was measured by the SDS, the VPI, or the SII. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine whether the strength of the correlations ofinterest and personality varied as a function of the interest measure used. The VPIwas used in only 1 study and was not compared. The SDS was used in 8 of thestudies (16 samples), and the SII was used in 3 of the studies (6 samples). The totalsample size was higher for the SDS (n = 3429) but was still adequate for the SII(n = 769). None of the individual samples was below 138. Table 3 presents themean effect size estimates and confidence intervals for the correlations betweenthe Big Six and the Big Five by vocational measure. As with Table 2, correlationsin bold represent correlations in which the confidence intervals did not includezero. Each correlation from the SDS and the personality domain was comparedstatistically to the corresponding correlation of the SII and the same personalitydomain. To be conservative, the Bonferonni adjustment (.05/30) was used againto adjust the p value to .002. Those p values of <.002 are marked with an asteriskin the table for easy identification.

There were eight differences by measure that met the conservative p value weset. The major differences were with Enterprising interests. In all three of thesecases, the correlation of Enterprising interests with the Neuroticism, Extraversion,and Conscientiousness domains were stronger with the SDS than with the SII. Thedifferences ranged from ±.19 to ±.28. Clearly, these are meaningful differences.In fact, it appears that the linkage of Enterprising and Neuroticism (SDS = −.24,SII = −.05) and of Enterprising and Conscientiousness (SDS = .29, SII = .05) wastrue only for the SDS and not for the SII. The association of Enterprising interestswith the Extraversion domain was meaningfully stronger for the SDS (r = .50)than for the SII (r = .22). Figure 3 presents the mean correlations for these uniqueSDS linkages with the Big Five.


TABLE 3Mean Effect Size Estimates and Confidence Intervals for the Correlations between the Big Six

and the Big Five by Self-Directed Search and Strong Interest Inventory

Self-directed search Strong interest inventory

Lower Upper Lower UpperInterest–personality level C I level C I r (+) level C I level C I r (+)

RealisticN −.14 −.08 −.11 −.10 .04 −.03E .02 .09 .06 −.07 .07 .00O .05 .12 .09 .10 .24 .17A −.04 .03 .00 −.07 .08 .00C .04 .11 .08 −.06 .08 .01

InvestigativeN −.13 −.07 −.10 −.16 −.02 −.09E −.01 .05 .02 −.03 .11 .04O .24 .31 .27 .24 .37 .30A −.01 .06 .02 −.06 .08 .01C .04 .11 .07 .05 .19 .12

ArtisticN −.01 .05 .02 −.03 .11 .04E .11 .18 .15 −.02 .12 .05O .46 .51 .49∗ .53 .62 .58∗A −.04 .03 .00 −.02 .12 .05C −.09 −.02 −.06 −.12 .02 −.05

SocialN −.16 −.09 −.12 −.18 −.04 −.11E .33 .39 .36 .23 .36 .29O .19 .25 .22∗ .03 .17 .10∗A .16 .23 .19 .20 .33 .27C .10 .17 .14 .04 .18 .11

EnterprisingN −.27 −.21 −.24∗ −.12 .03 −.05∗E .47 .52 .50∗ .15 .28 .22∗O .08 .15 .12 −.05 .09 .02A −.12 −.05 −.09 −.14 .00 −.07C .25 .32 .29∗ −.02 .12 −.05∗

ConventionalN −.15 −.08 −.12∗ −.06 .08 .01∗E .05 .12 .08 .00 .14 .07O −.17 −.11 −.14∗ −.09 .06 −.01∗A .00 .07 .03 −.06 .08 .01C .25 .32 .29∗ .06 .19 .13∗

Note. Correlations whose CIs do not include zero are in bold.∗ p < .002.

The second set of differences was not as striking but still meaningful froma theory-building perspective. However, they might not be as meaningful froma practitioner’s point of view. These differences concern the relation of Con-ventional interests to the personality domains of Neuroticism, Openness, and


E

Ex Ag

S

A

Op

C

Co

Ne

R I

-.24

.29

.29 . 22

Big 5Personality

Big 6Interests

FIG. 3. Additional results for the SDS that were not expected: Links between Big Six interestsand Big Five personality factors.

Conscientiousness. In each case, the association was stronger when vocationalinterests were measured with the SDS rather than with the SII. The differencesranged from ±.10 to .16. Using the SDS, the correlation of Conventional inter-ests with the Neuroticism domain was −.11 and with the Openness domain was−.14. In both cases, when the SII was the measure, there was no overlap (±.01).The correlation of Conventional interests and the Conscientiousness domain wasmoderately positive when the SDS was the measure used (r = .29) but droppedto only slightly positively related when the SII was the measure used (r = .13).These unique linkages of the SDS and the NEO-PI-R are also displayed in Fig. 3.

The final set of differences in Table 3 was with the Openness domain and itslinkage to Artistic and Social interests. (Its relation to Conventional, mentionedabove, differed as well.) These differences were weaker than those shown above,ranging from .09 to .12, and are not displayed in Fig. 3. Regarding the over-lap of the Openness domain with Artistic interests, the correlation was strongerwhen the SII was the vocational measure (.58) than when the SDS was the mea-sure (.49), although the difference was slight. Regarding the link between theOpenness domain and Social interests, the correlation was slightly stronger whenthe SDS was the vocational measure (.22) than when the SII was the vocationalmeasure (.10).

Similar to sex differences, we wanted to examine whether the differences bymeasure would alter the major findings visually depicted in Fig. 2. It seems thereare two general conclusions that can be stated. First, when examining the differ-ences by measure, it appears that the five major findings in the study displayed inFig. 2 held true across both measures. The only modification to the major find-ings is that the overlap between Artistic and Openness was slightly stronger forthe SII, and the link between Enterprising and Extraversion was stronger for the


SDS. The second conclusion is that it appears that there were additional correla-tions between the SDS and the forms of the NEO-PI-R that ranged from ±.22 to±.29. As displayed in Fig. 3, modest links were found between Conventional andConscientiousness (+), between Enterprising and Conscientiousness (+), betweenEnterprising and Neuroticism (−), and between Social and Openness (+). Thesecorrelations were nominal when the SII was the measure used (rs ranged from ±.05to .10).

Examination of Specific Interest Measure by Sex Comparisons

A decision was made early on not to examine interest measure by sex, in partbecause we wanted to limit the number of times 30 meta-analyses would be com-puted on the data. However, two of the significant differences in the strength of themean effect sizes by sex (female vs male) and by measure (SDS vs SII) overlappedand should be examined more closely. Those two correlations were Conventionalinterests with the Openness domain and Conventional interests with the Consci-entiousness domain, as can be seen in Tables 2 and 3.

Meta-analyses were conducted for these two correlations for women and menseparately, as can be seen in Table 4. Also in Table 4 are the tests of significancecomparing within-sex correlations by measure. To correct for an inflated alpha,the Bonferonni adjustment was used again (.05/4) and the p value was adjustedto .01. In both comparisons, the women differed significantly from each other(p < .01), depending on the measure they completed. This was not true for themen. It appears that for the covariation of Conventional interests and the Opennessdomain, the slightly negative correlation exists only for women when measured bythe SDS (r = −.19). The correlation was minimal for either sex when measuredby the SII and was minimal for men when measured by the SDS (the confidenceinterval ranged from −.13 to −.03). When examining the overlap of Conven-tional interests with the Conscientiousness domain, the modest positive correla-tion (.23 to .33) was present for all groups except for women who completed theSII (.07).

Forms of the NEO-PI-R. Of the 12 studies, 1 study (2 samples) used the NEO,2 studies used the NEO-PI (4 samples), 4 studies used the NEO-PI-R (8 samples),and 5 studies used the FFI (10 samples). The NEO-PI-R manual presents theforms of the NEO-PI as compatible (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The correlations ofthe NEO-FFI and the NEO-PI ranged from .75 for Conscientiousness to .89 forNeuroticism. The correlations of the NEO-FFI and the NEO-PI-R ranged from .77for Agreeableness to .92 for Neuroticism. No information was available comparingthe NEO to the other measures. A decision was made to treat the forms of theNEO-PI as compatible based on the recommendation of the authors of the NEO-PI. Similar to the treatment of the 1985 SII and the 1994 SII, the measures weretreated as being the same measure for the purposes of these analyses. Moreover,we wanted to limit the number of meta-analyses conducted on the data. About180 more meta-analyses would have been required to compare all forms of theNEO-PI-R.


TAB

LE

4M

ean

Eff

ectS

izes

bySD

San

dSI

Iby

Sex

for

Sele

cted

Rel

atio

nshi

ps

Wom

enM

en

SDS

SII

SDS

SII

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

Low

erU

pper

Inte

rest

–per

sona

lity

leve

lCI

leve

lCI

r(+

)le

velC

Ile

velC

Ir

(+)

leve

lCI

leve

lCI

r(+

)le

velC

Ile

velC

Ir

(+)

Con

vent

iona

lO

−.24

−.15

−.19

∗−.

14.0

4−.

05∗

−.13

−.03

−.08

−.07

.17

.05

C.2

1.3

0.2

5∗∗

−.02

.15

.07∗

∗.2

8.3

7.3

3.1

2.3

4.2

3

Not

e.SD

S,Se

lf-D

irec

ted

Sear

ch;

SII,

Stro

ngIn

tere

stIn

vent

ory.

Cor

rela

tions

inbo

ldin

dica

teth

ose

who

seC

Isdo

not

incl

ude

0.T

hesa

mpl

esi

zefo

rth

eSI

Iw

as50

2fo

rw

omen

and

270

for

men

.T

hesa

mpl

esi

zefo

rth

eSD

Sw

ashi

gher

for

the

Con

vent

iona

l–O

penn

ess

met

a-an

alys

is(w

omen

=18

23,

men

=16

09)

than

for

the

Con

vent

iona

l–C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

met

a-an

alys

is(w

omen

=16

79,m

en=

1392

)be

caus

eon

est

udy

did

not

incl

ude

Con

scie

ntio

usne

ssan

dA

ggre

eabl

enes

sin

itsm

easu

reof

pers

onal

ity.

∗ p<

.01.

∗∗p

<.0

1.


DISCUSSION

While the Big Five model of personality has recently burst into salience inpsychology, the Big Six model of interests, created by Holland, has a longer, albeitquieter, history. The Big Five personality consensus is just a decade old, solidifiedduring the early 1990s with the reviews by Digman (1990) and Goldberg (1993)and with the publication of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Recognitionof Holland’s model as the preeminent model of vocational interests can be datedback three decades to the 1971 publication of the discovery of the hexagon (Cole,Whitney, & Holland, 1971). Another benchmark soon thereafter was the first articleon the incorporation of Holland’s system as the central organizing principle of thevenerable SII (Campbell & Holland, 1972). Empirical studies of the magnitudeof the overlap between the Big Six and Big Five models began with the study byCosta, McCrae, and Holland (1984). At that time, the Big Five was just the BigThree, and the NEO-PI-R was just the NEO. Now, a total of 12 studies using well-established measures have examined the relationships of these dominant interestand personality models. This article presents the first meta-analytic summary ofthese studies.

Interest and Personality Convergence: The Glass Is Half Full

These meta-analyses establish what empirical studies have shown individually.Clearly, there are several strong relationships between some vocational interestsand some domains of personality. As can be seen by Fig. 2, at least five meaningfullinks stand out. Artistic interests and the Openness domain are the most stronglyrelated (.48). They share about one-fourth of their variance. This overlap has stoodout in multiple studies, starting with the early study by Costa and colleagues (1984)and continuing to the most recent studies (e.g., Larson & Borgen, in press). Theimplication that Artistic interests coincide with Openness to novel experiences isnot new. Holland (1985a) described Artistic types as intellectual, imaginative, andverbal.

The next evidence of convergence between interest and personality is with theExtraversion domain of personality. It appears that people who report more ex-traversion also tend to endorse more Enterprising and Social interests. The Ex-traversion domain overlapped 17% with the Enterprising interests domain and10% with Social interests. These links were also noted as early as 1984 and havecontinued to be reported in the literature (e.g., Costa et al., 1984; Tokar et al., 1995).Some of the overlap was reflected in descriptions of Extraversion in the NEO-PI-Rmanual. Costa and McCrae (1992) described extraverts as forceful and domi-nant with a high level of energy. Furthermore, it appears that people who expressInvestigative interests also tend to be more open to new experiences. Investigativeinterests overlapped about 8% with the Openness domain. The curiosity and in-quisitiveness of the Investigative type described by Holland (1985a) as intellectual,scholarly, and curious may represent that overlap.

Finally, there seems to be some overlap between people who express Socialinterests and those who are more Agreeable in general. This overlap is the weakest


of the five correlations in that the overlap is around 4% but is consistent across theinterest measures. In Holland’s theory, this represents the altruism and nurturanceof Social interests.

Theoretical Perspectives

Figure 2 shows how Big Six interests and Big Five personality dimensions havemuch in common. The links are clarified by reordering the NEOAC personalitydimensions to create the strongest direct links with RIASEC interests. When thepersonality dimensions are arranged as NOAEC, Extraversion and Agreeablenessmatch up with Enterprising and Social interests, and Openness matches up withArtistic interests. The Holland (1997) calculus of interests has derived essentialtheoretical and practical implications from the RIASEC hexagonal structure. Sim-ilar structural models have not been emphasized for Big Five personality, but ourdata and Fig. 2 suggest the promise of this approach with the Big Five. Digman(1997) has begun this restructuring of the Big Five. We have let our data guideus empirically to this ordering of the NOAEC dimensions, but there are severaltheoretical and conceptual reasons that would suggest this structure.

Orientation toward people has long had a central role in vocational psychology.An early proponent was Roe (1956), who applied her training in clinical psychol-ogy to intensively study selected occupational groups and eventually to developa structure of occupations. Roe’s occupational classification includes a dimensionof orientation toward persons versus not toward persons. Prediger’s (1982) voca-tional model also uses orientation to people as a central organizing principle. InHolland’s hexagon, orientation toward people is reflected in the contiguous Enter-prising and Social dimensions. Of the Big Five personality dimensions, two relateto orientation toward people: Extraversion and Agreeableness. Thus, they shouldbe expected to be adjacent on a structural model of personality.

There are conceptual and theoretical reasons to expect substantial linkage be-tween Artistic interests and Openness. It is useful to recall that Holland’s broadArtistic theme goes beyond the narrow inclusion or artistic activities to encompassinterests in writing, music, and dramatics. Both Artistic interests and Openness areviewed as reflecting a variety of general cultural orientations (Costa & McCrae,1992; Holland, 1997). Both are expected to relate to higher levels of education.In addition, in Costa and McCrae’s (1992) NEO-PI-R, one of the six facets of theOpenness domain is Aesthetics, which is conceptually very similar to an artisticinterests measure (cf. Larson & Borgen, in press).

Genetics of interests. The finding that genetics plays a role in vocational inter-est development now seems to be well-established (e.g., Betsworth et al., 1994;Gottfredson, 1999; Swanson, 1999). Betsworth et al. (1994) concluded that, onaverage, the variance in a wide range of vocational interests can be attributed to36% genetic variance. Swanson (1999) cautioned that we should be alert to dif-ferential hereditability of specific interests rather than concluding that all interestsare equally influenced by heredity. Gottfredson (1999), taking as a given the in-fusion of personality in Holland’s hexagon, suggested that future genetic analysis


will help to identify the common causal factors between interests and personality.Our results clarify the nodes of connection between the Big Six and the Big Five,and they suggest some potential loci for the common genetic pathways for theconvergence of interests and personality. The four strongest of the links in ourmeta-analysis are with two personality dimensions: Extraversion (with Enterpris-ing and Social interests) and Openness (with Artistic and Investigative interests).These are essentially the same dimensions that Swanson (1999) identified as thelikely candidates for a genetic core underlying personality and interests. In termsof the SII (Hansen & Campbell, 1985), Swanson identified these dimensions asIntroversion–Extraversion and Academic Comfort.

Modifications to the Major Findings Dependingon the Vocational Interest Measure

The meta-analyses revealed two unanticipated modifications to the major find-ings depending on whether the SII or the SDS operationalized the Big Six. First,Enterprising interests were more strongly related to Extraversion when measuredby the SDS (.50) than by the SII (.20). Second, Artistic interests were more stronglyrelated to Openness when measured by the SII (.58) than by the SDS (.49).

Unexpected Additional Findings Depending on the VocationalInterest Measure and Sex

The meta-analyses also uncovered four additional linkages that the authors didnot expect. It appears that the extent of the overlap sometimes depends on whethervocational interest is measured using the SDS or the SII and whether the personis female or male.

In general, additional unexpected covariation of certain vocational interests andcertain personality domains was apparent only when the SDS measured vocationalinterest. The first two findings concern Enterprising interests. People with Enter-prising interests, as defined by the SDS only, expressed a tendency to be moreConscientious and less Neurotic. These relationships accounted for 8% and 6%of the shared variance, respectively. The third finding concerned Social interests,namely that people with Social interests were more likely to endorse Opennessonly when the SDS was the measure of choice. This association accounted for 5%of the shared variance. The fourth finding concerns the interaction of the interestmeasure and sex.

In general, we did not find the link between vocational interest type and per-sonality domain to differ meaningfully by sex. Six differences emerged that werediscussed in the results; however, in five of the six differences, the correlationbetween interest and personality was marginal (at or below .17) and did not alterthe major findings. One difference did emerge that alters the larger picture andwas unexpected by the authors of the study: People with Conventional interests doseem to endorse more Conscientiousness except for women who took the SII. Theshared variance ranges from 5% to 11% for all groups except for women who tookthe SII; then the variance drops to 0%. It is not clear how to interpret these findings.


In all cases but one, the SDS overlapped more with the forms of the NEO-PI than did the SII. One explanation for the differences by measure may bethe different ways in which the SDS and SII are measured. The SDS includesa section in which participants assess their abilities organized by interest type.There is no such section in the SII. The inclusion of self-ratings of competen-cies in the SDS appears to increase its correlations with personality. Gottfredson(2001) presented the case that the SDS incorporates goals and self-ratings of com-petencies and skills in addition to interests. These results support Gottfredson’scontention.

Distinctiveness of Interest and Personality: The Glass Is Half-Empty

Although the meta-analyses revealed meaningful overlap between particularinterest types and particular domains of personality, they also provide compellingevidence that most vocational interests are distinct from personality. First, nocorrelation was higher than .58, meaning that no more than 34% of the variancein any of the six vocational interest types was explained by personality. Second,21 of the 30 measures of covariation overlapped less than 4%. Clearly, the writerswho have argued for the distinctiveness of vocational interest and personality (e.g.,Super, 1957; Waller et al., 1995) would see these meta-analyses as providing themwith additional evidence.

It may be that, instead of general statements, the field needs to be specific aboutwhich interest types share the least convergence with personality. As can be seenclearly in Fig. 2, Realistic types do not tend to represent more or less of anyparticular personality domain operationalized by forms of the NEO-PI.

When focusing exclusively on the SII, it also appears that the degree to whichsomeone has a tendency to be Neurotic relates minimally to the extent to which heor she endorses any particular vocational interest. This view, expressed by Tylermore than 55 years ago, is borne out by the SII. It is interesting to note that Tyler’svocational measure, the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, was the precursor of theSII. Finally, it appears that the degree to which women who took the SII expressconventional interests has no relation to them endorsing any particular personalitydisposition.

The Intersection of Interest and Personality

Scale developers in both interest measurement and personality measurementhave begun to intentionally include aspects of the other construct in the develop-ment of each construct. The 1994 revision of the SII, with the introduction of fourPersonal Style scales, is an excellent example of this (Borgen & Harmon, 1996;Hansen, 2000; Harmon et al., 1994). These Personal Style scales demonstrate thatpersonality type scales are readily derivable from what are ostensibly interest items.Many SII items have direct personality implications. Examples on the LeadershipPersonal Style scale are saying “like” to “meeting and directing people” and to“making a speech.” These are important work activities and interests, but they arealso indicators of extraversion. Also, indicators of Leadership Style (and probably


Extraversion) are liking specific occupations, such as advertising executive andgovernor of a state.

In developing the Personal Style scales, Harmon et al. (1994) anticipated thatthese interests would show up most within occupations and that the between-occupation differences would be greater for traditional interest measures such asthe GOTs and BISs. In fact, the Personal Style scales separate occupations nearly asdistinctly as do the Holland interest scales (Borgen, 1999; Donnay & Borgen, 1996;Harmon et al., 1994). Lindley and Borgen (2000) found that the Personal Stylescales were related substantially to the Big Five personality measures. For example,Leadership Style correlated with Extraversion, and Learning Environment Stylecorrelated with both Extraversion and Openness.

It is important to note that the scale developers of the NEO-PI-R have recentlyintroduced a vocational-like measure intended to mimic the Big Five, labeled theNEO Job Profiler, which is a tool for quantifying the match between the person anda specific position (Costa, McCrae, & Kay, 1995). It seems that test developers,like researchers, are working toward the integration of personality and vocationalinterest to provide a more holistic and accurate picture of the person.

Limitations

Although the number of studies did not affect the stability of the meta-analyses(see Rosenthal, 1995), the modest number did preclude the examination of somemoderator variables (e.g., population) and the examination of some interactions(e.g., Sample by Type of Measure). The correlations also were not reported byethnicity, and some studies did not report ethnicity. We can say that these findingsrelate at least to Caucasians, although the age range is broad and two internationalsamples were included.

Future Research

This study summarizes empirically the overlap of the Big Six vocational interestswith the Big Five personality domains as defined by the NEO-PI. Personality hasbeen conceptualized in a multitude of measures. Although the NEO-PI-R is apredominant operational definition of personality, it is important to recognize othermodels, such as Tellegen’s Big Three and Jung’s four types. Future researchersshould continue to attempt to synthesize the body of research examining the overlapof interest and personality by examining measures of personality beyond the NEO-PI-R. In this way, theorists of personality and interests can use the empirical reviewsto modify current conceptualizations of how we currently envision the overlap.

At the same time, researchers need to continue to examine more specific asso-ciations between vocational interests and personality. The Big Six and Big Fivemodels paint with a broad brush. It is likely that there are specific facets of interestsand personality that will be even more highly related than these results. For exam-ple, Larson and Borgen (in press) studied the overlap of the Strong Basic Interestscales with the facet scales of the NEO-PI-R. They found that specific Basic Inter-est scales could be predicted best from specific facet scales of the NEO-PI-R. For


example, Public Speaking interests were most related to the Assertiveness facet ofthe Extraversion domain, Science interests were most related to the Ideas facet ofthe Openness domain, and Office Practices interests were most related to the Orderfacet of the Conscientiousness domain. Note that this latter relationship betweenOffice Practices and Order occurred even though our meta-analysis revealed onlya mild association between the broad domains of Conventional interests and Con-scientiousness. More studies of this kind need to be done to explicate the linksbetween interests and personality. Studies at this level of specificity may well lo-cate important interest-personality linkages that are obscured in the more generalBig Six and Big Five models.

Implications for Practitioners

Our results for interest-personality correspondence show potential for strength-ening counseling practice. In particular, the substantial shared variance amongmany of Holland’s Big Six and the Big Five personality traits provides syn-ergy to enhance the meaning of traditional assessment in counseling. However,as Gottfredson et al. (1993) concluded, the overlap of interests with personalitytraits is not strong enough to suggest that they can be substituted for one another.Therefore, it is important to consider both the additive and redundant informationprovided by these measures of individuality. Several additional key points warrantfurther discussion.

First, our meta-analytic results reveal that the link between these two domainsis more direct for certain interest-personality pairs than for others. Given that only6 of 30 effect sizes exceed a shared variance of 4%, this caveat addresses concernsabout overinterpretation in applied settings. For instance, Realistic interests showminimal overlap with any Big Five domain and thus cannot be interpreted beyondHolland’s theory. This is also true of the Neuroticism domain, although a veryslight negative trend with interests is evident. Many other studies have reportedthat Neuroticism relates to career indecision (e.g., Tokar, Fischer, & Subich, 1998),but Neuroticism appears to be largely independent of vocational interests.

Second, it seems apparent that moderate correlations between Artistic and Open-ness (r = .48) and between Enterprising and Extraversion (r = .41) must be con-sidered. Clients scoring high on Artistic and Enterprising interest scales are morelikely to demonstrate characteristics of those high in Openness and Extraversion,respectively. For example, a study by Caldwell and Burger (1998) showed that highlevels of Extraversion and Openness (in addition to Agreeableness and EmotionalStability) are predictive of the number of job offers received in a job search. Inaddition, a recent review of the literature on personality and vocational behaviorby Tokar et al. (1998) reported that “greater extraversion is also linked to higherfrequency and quality of job search activities” (p. 144) as well as job satisfactionand change. These findings bring new life to the meaning ascribed to inventoriedArtistic and Enterprising interests.

The Big Six and the Big Five are indeed related to one another in importantways applicable to counseling, but not universally. There are substantial linkages


between Artistic and Openness and between Enterprising and Extraversion. Thereare less strong relationships between Investigative and Openness and betweenSocial and Extraversion. Sizable independent variance is also present, which ad-dresses the importance of the joint assessment of these domains. Both the scientistand the practitioner alike could gain important insights by contemplating aspectsof each model that do not overlap. However, considering the overlap among cer-tain relationships can improve our knowledge of the connection between theseindividual differences and vocational behavior. Additional research is needed tostrengthen our understanding of potential implications for practitioners. Futurestudies could address the meaning of clients who receive high scores on Artisticand/or Investigative scales but receive relatively low scores on Openness.

CONCLUSION

Now the challenge is to consider the implications of these results. Clearly, thereis a link between interests and personality, and that link occurs at specified nodes ofthe two domains. That is, some interests and personality dimensions are substan-tially related, whereas others are related little if at all. For the counselor, this meansthat different Holland interest codes will have different personality implications.A person with a clear Enterprising-type interest code may tend to be extraverted. Aperson with a clear Artistic-type code may be more likely to be open to new expe-riences. However, a client with a clear Realistic-type or Conventional-type interestprofile is not as likely to have a distinctive personality profile. For the researcher,the implications of these meta-analytic results may suggest new conceptualiza-tions of our understanding of both personality and interest. Can the theoreticalconvergence be pushed further? For example, the hexagonal calculus of interestspredicts how interests are similar and different. Does this have implications for theinterest-personality linkages? Does it suggest that the calculus principles mightbe applied to the Big Five personality dimensions? Can we actually say that someof the Big Five dimensions—especially Openness and Extraversion—are perhapsinterest dimensions? Does personality precede vocational interests, as espousedby the social cognitive model of career development (Lent, Brown, & Hackett,1994), or are both present at birth, as some genetic studies seem to suggest (e.g.,Betsworth et al., 1994), with the expression of both determined by life experiences?

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence foroverlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.

Berdie, R. F. (1944). Factors related to vocational interests. Psychological Bulletin, 41, 137–157.Betsworth, D. G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., Hansen, J. C., Scarr, S., &

Weinberg, R. A. (1994). Genetic and environmental influences on vocational interests assessedusing adoptive and biological families and twins reared apart and together. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 44, 263–278.

Blake, R. J., & Sackett, S. A. (1999). Holland’s typology and the five-factor model: A rational-empiricalanalysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 249–279.


Borgen, F. H. (1986). New approaches to the assessment of interests. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow(Eds.), Advances in vocational psychology, Vol. 1: The assessment of interests (pp. 83–125).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Borgen, F. H. (1999). New horizons in interest theory and measurement: Toward expanded meaning.In M. Savickas & A. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and usein counseling (pp. 383–411). Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

Borgen, F. H., & Harmon, L. W. (1996). Linking interest assessment and personality theory: An exampleof convergence between practice and theory. In M. L. Savickas & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbookof career counseling theory and practice (pp. 251–266). Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success inscreening interviews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 119–136.

Campbell, D. P., & Holland, J. L. (1972). A merger in vocational interest research: Applying Holland’stheory to Strong’s data. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2, 353–376.

*Carless, S. A. (1999). Career assessment: Holland’s vocational interests, personality characteristics,and abilities. Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 125–144.

Cole, N. S., Whitney, D. R., & Holland, J. L. (1971). A spatial configuration of occupations. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 1, 1–9.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEOFive Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.

*Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adultsample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390–400.

Costa, P. T, McCrae, R. R., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Persons, places, and personality: Career assessmentusing the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 123–139.

Darley, J. G. (1941). Clinical aspects and interpretation of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank.New York: Psychological Corporation.

Darley, J. G., & Hagenah, T. (1955). Vocational interest measurement: Theory and practice.Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.

*De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and Holland’s RIASECinterest types. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 87–103.

De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employmentstatus and nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52, 701–727.

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

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 73, 1246–1256.

Donnay, D. A. C., & Borgen, F. H. (1996). Validity, structure, and content of the 1994 Strong InterestInventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 275–291.

Fryer, D. (1931). The measurement of interests in relation to human adjustment. New York: HenryHolt.

*Getreu, M. (1997). Structural interrelationships between vocational interests and personality traitsin those who are male sex-typed, female sex-typed, and androgynous. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Hofstra University.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48,26–34.

Gottfredson, G. D. (2001, August). Interests, aspirations, self-estimates, and the Self-Directed Search.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

*Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M., & Holland, J. L. (1993). Personality and vocational interests: Therelation of Holland’s six interest dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 40, 518–524.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1999). The nature and nurture of vocational interests. In M. Savickas & A. Spokane(Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 57–85).Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.


Hansen, J. C. (1984). The measurement of vocational interests: Issues and future directions. In S. D.Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 99–136). New York: Wiley.

Hansen, J. C. (2000). Interpretation of the Strong Interest Inventory. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., & V. L.Campbell (Eds.), Testing and assessment in counseling practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hansen, J. C., & Campbell, D. P. (1985). Manual for the SVIB-SCII (4th ed.). Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. Press.

Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory:Applications and technical guide. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.Holland, J. L. (1958). A personality inventory employing occupational titles. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 42, 336–342.Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Holland, J. L. (1985a). Self-Directed Search. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Holland, J. L. (1985b). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory. Odessa FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work

environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Holland, J. L. (1999). Why interest inventories are also personality inventories. In M. Savickas &

A. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling(pp. 87–101). Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, G. D., & Baker, H. G. (1990). Vocational aspirations and interest inventories:Extended, replicated, and reinterpreted. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 337–342.

*Holland, J. L., Johnston, J. A., & Asama, N. F. (1994). More evidence for the relationship betweenHolland’s personality types and personality variables. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 331–340.

*Larson, L., & Borgen, F. (in press). Convergence of vocational interests and personality: Examplesin an adolescent gifted sample. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of careerand academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

Lindley, L. D., & Borgen, F. H. (2000). Personal style scales of the Strong Interest Inventory: Linkingpersonality and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 22–41.

*Lindley, L., & Borgen, F. H. (2001). Human adaptability; An investigation of theoretically relevantconstructs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University.

Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: Theimportance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,996–1009.

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

Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests andoccupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259–287.

Prediger, D. J. (1999). Integrating interests and abilities for career exploration: General considerations.In M. Savickas & A. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and usein counseling (pp. 295–325). Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

Ray, C. L. (1998). The influence of time of assessment and personality on the working alliance in careercounseling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron.

Roe, A. (1956). The psychology of occupations. New York: Wiley.Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 188, 183–192.*Rottinghaus, P. J., Day, S. X., & Borgen, F. H. (2000, August). The Career Futures Inventory: A

measure of adaptability and optimism. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, Washington, DC.

Savickas, M. L. (1999). The psychology of interests. In M. Savickas & A. Spokane (Eds.), Voca-tional interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 19–56). Palo Alto, CA:Davies–Black.


*Schinka, J. A., Dye, D. A., & Curtiss, G. (1997). Correspondence between five-factor and RIASECmodels of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 355–368.

Spokane, A. R., & Decker, A. R. (1999). Expressed and measured interests. In M. Savickas &A. Spokane (Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling(pp. 211–233). Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers: An introduction to vocational development. New York:Harper.

Swanson, J. L. (1999). Stability and change in vocational interests. In M. Savickas & A. Spokane(Eds.), Vocational interests: Their meaning, measurement, and use in counseling (pp. 135–158).Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

Tellegen, A. (1982). Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.Terman, L. M. (1931). Introduction. In D. Fryer (Ed.), The measurement of interests in relation to

human adjustment (pp. xvii–xix). New York: Henry Holt.Tokar, D. M., & Fischer, A. R. (1998). More on RIASEC and the five-factor model of personality:

Direct assessment of Prediger’s (1982) and Hogan’s (1983) dimensions. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 52, 246–259.

Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R., & Subich, L. M. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A selectivereview of the literature, 1993–1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115–153.

*Tokar, D. M., & Swanson, J. L. (1995). Evaluation of the correspondence between Holland’s vocationalpersonality typology and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46,89–108.

*Tokar, D. M., Vaux, A., & Swanson, J. L. (1995). Dimensions relating Holland’s vocational personalitytypology and the five-factor model. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 57–74.

Tyler, L. E. (1945). Relationships between Strong Vocational Interest scores and other attitude andpersonality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 58–67.

Waller, N. G., Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1995). Occupational interests, leisure time interests,and personality. In D. Lubinski & R. V. Dawis (Eds.), Assessing individual differences in humanbehavior: New concepts, methods, and findings (pp. 233–259). Palo Alto, CA: Davies–Black.

Wang, M. C., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Integrating results through meta-analytic review using SASsoftware. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Note. Studies preceded by an asterisk were included in the meta-analyses.

Received July 12, 2001

Meta-analyses of Big Six Interests and Big Five Personality Factors

Documents

Transcript of Meta-analyses of Big Six Interests and Big Five Personality Factors