(a) Conceptual and measurement contributions

Each field needs a taxonomy, or general structural model, of its subject matter. Much of my research has focused on the development of a general taxonomy of personality traits--the Big Five. As I have argued, the field of personality research has for years struggled with the question of what are the most important personality traits to study. I have been centrally involved in the effort that has now led to the tentative, but general, acceptance of the so-called Big Five Model. Previously, the field of personality was fragmented, with no generally accepted paradigm or framework, and even the experts had to follow the hundreds of instruments and concepts competing for research attention. The Big Five taxonomy conceptualizes personality traits as broad and generalized trends in the individual's mental states, affective experience, and behavioral expression, and it offers an initial descriptive taxonomy that defines, at the broadest level of abstraction, five relatively distinct domains of important individual differences. For mnemonic ease, I refer to these five domains by the acronym OCEAN: Openness to new experience; Conscientiousness; Extraversion; Agreeableness; and Neuroticism.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750.

John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford.

(b) Big Five development during childhood and adulthood

In my earlier work, I have focused on the development of the Big Five personality traits in adolescence, using personality ratings of adolescents ages 12 to 16 obtained from their parents (Measelle, John, Ablow, Cowan, & Cowan, 2005). This age range is an important period of development during which major cognitive and ecological changes have been linked to changes in self-representational capacities. Three central questions guided this work. First, do young children show a coherent sense of their own personality, and if so, when? Second, do young children's self-perceptions of their personality show any stability across time? Finally, do self-perceptions of personality in young children show some degree of external validity so that we might conclude that they could have behavioral implications for their lives?

Children's self-reports did show levels of consistency and differentiation that approached those of a college age sample. Children's personality self-reports demonstrated significant temporal stability correlations across the 1- and 2-year longitudinal intervals. Substantial and increasing convergence was found between children's self-reports of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and conceptually relevant behavior ratings provided by mothers, fathers, and teachers. Children's self-reports of Neuroticism were unrelated to adults' reports but did predict sadness and anxious behavior observed in the laboratory. The results provide the beginnings of an account of how the Big Five dimensions begin to be salient and emerge as coherent, stable, and valid self-perceptions in childhood.

Measelle, J. R., John, O. P., Ablow, J. C., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2005). Can children provide coherent, stable, and valid self-reports on the Big Five dimensions? A longitudinal study from ages 5 to 7. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 90-106.

In my other work, I have focused on adult development of personality, taking a life-span perspective. One of the yet unresolved questions in the field is whether personality is fixed and immutable during adulthood or whether it can develop and change as a function of experience, so that changes may occur naturally as the adult life context evolves and take different shapes. Some researchers, like Costa and McCrae, have taken a very strong, seemingly biological, stance, arguing that personality traits are essentially fixed (or "set in plaster") by age 30. Interestingly, most of Costa and McCrae's own data involve only samples of older adults, and our literature review (see below) found that they tend to ignore data collected by others that do not use the NEO-PI-R, their own and thus preferred personality measure. Thus, to our surprise, we found that although relevant data are available, compelling tests of their age-30 hypothesis have yet to be performed.

Indeed, our literature review covered large studies of mean-level change in personality characteristics measured with broadband personality inventories, and includes both cross-sectional and cross-cohort longitudinal research. (Helson, Kwan, John, & Jones, 2002). The results show considerable generalizability across samples, cohorts, and studies. In particular, people score higher with age on characteristics such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and norm-adherence, and they score lower with age on the social vitality facets of Extraversion. These findings provide evidence that personality does change during adulthood and that these changes are non-negligible in size, systematic, not necessarily linear, and theoretically important. To account for these changes, we advance a contextual perspective that emphasizes life changes in roles, tasks, and goals (e.g., from being single in adolescence and early adulthood to child-rearing in middle adulthood).

We followed up this theoretical work and literature review with a large-scale study (Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003) comparing theories that make different predictions about how mean levels of personality traits change in adulthood. We were particularly interested in examining whether change on all of the Big Five dimensions stops or slows in middle adulthood, as predicted by Costa & McCrae's five-factor theory, or whether change is ongoing and differentiated, as predicted by contextualist theories.

As expected, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness increased throughout early and middle adulthood at varying rates; Neuroticism declined among women but did not change among men. Moreover, our comparisons of age differences before and after age 30 provided no support for the view that mean level change is limited to early adulthood (i.e., the pre-30s). Moreover, the variety in patterns of change suggests that the Big Five traits are complex phenomena subject to a variety of developmental influences. Most generally, we find life-long change at least to age 60 and, on average, the direction of change is toward greater maturity. This increasing maturity facilitates the individual mastering and performing effectively normative role expectations of adulthood, such as forming a stable couple bond that permits child-birth and child-rearing, as well as providing resources for one's off-spring—ultimate human life tasks that themselves have an evolutionary basis.

Helson, R., Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., & Jones, C. (2002). The growing evidence for personality change in adulthood: Findings from research with personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 287-306.

John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The "Little Five": Exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160-178.

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718-737.

Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003).Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041-1053.

Broadly speaking, my work here concerns how people differ in the ways they experience, express, and regulate their emotions and how these emotion processes affect their lives, including consequences for affect (e.g., feeling good vs. bad), for relationships and social bonds (e.g., closeness to others, relationship satisfaction), and for adjustment and psychological functioning (e.g., depression, well-being).

(a) Emotion expressive behavior

In a series of earlier papers with James Gross, we initially focused on emotion-expressive behavior. We showed that individuals differ widely in their expressive behavior and that the general domain of expressivity can be represented as a hierarchical model. We also demonstrated the importance of these individual differences (see BEQ) and the structural differences among them for the individual's functioning. For example, we found that although expressivity of positive emotions and expressivity of negative emotions are positively related (i.e., individuals who express more positive emotions were also more likely to express more negative emotions), these two components of expressivity nonetheless had opposite consequences for individuals' social lives: positive expressivity was linked to being better liked by others, whereas negative expressivity was linked to being less well-liked.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1995).Facets of emotional expressivity: Three self-report factors and their correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 555-568.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1997). Revealing feelings: Facets of emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 435-448.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998).Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multi-method evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 170-191.

(b) Emotion Regulation

Individuals differ in their use of emotion regulation strategies such as reappraisal and suppression, and these individual differences have implications for affect, well-being, and social relationships. Are some forms of emotion regulation healthier than others? We have focused on two commonly used emotion regulation strategies: reappraisal (changing the way one thinks about a potentially emotion-eliciting event) and suppression (changing the way one responds behaviorally to an emotion- eliciting event). Experimental findings demonstrate that reappraisal has a healthier profile of short-term affective, cognitive, and social consequences than suppression. Studies using individual-differences measures find that using reappraisal to regulate emotions is associated with healthier patterns of affect, social functioning, and well-being than is using suppression.

James Gross and I developed a measure of the habitual use of reappraisal and suppression, the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ). Using the ERQ, we demonstrated that reappraisers experience and express greater positive emotion and lesser negative emotion, whereas suppressors experience and express lesser positive emotion, yet experience greater negative emotion. Furthermore, using reappraisal as a regulation strategy is associated with better interpersonal functioning and positive well-being, whereas using suppression is associated with worse interpersonal functioning and negative well-being.

Developmentally, we have shown that emotion regulation undergoes important changes even after early adulthood. We have found evidence for a normative shift toward an increasingly healthy emotion regulation profile during adulthood: individuals showed an increase in the use of reappraisal and a decrease in the use of suppression from early adult (the 20s) to late middle adulthood (the 60s).

We have further examined the extent to which emotions and their regulation have direct effects on social relationships in everyday life (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001). We tested the emotional convergence hypothesis; that is, the idea that people in relationships become more emotionally similar over time because this similarity helps coordinate the thoughts and behaviors of the relationship partners, increases their mutual understanding, and fosters their social cohesion. Using laboratory procedures to induce and assess emotional response, we found that dating partners and college roommates became more similar in their emotional responses over the course of a year. Further, relationship partners with less power made more of the change necessary for convergence to occur. Consistent with the proposed benefits of emotional similarity, relationships whose partners had become more emotionally similar were more cohesive and less likely to dissolve. These findings demonstrate that emotional processes and their coordination across interaction partners are of central importance to relationship formation, functioning, and long-term outcomes.

Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. (2001).Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116-132.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2002).Wise emotion regulation. In L. Feldman Barett, & P. Salovey (Eds.), The wisdom of feelings: Psychological processes in emotional intelligence (pp. 297-318). New York: Guilford.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003).Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.

Gross, J. J., John, O. P., & Richards, J. M. (2000).The dissociation of emotion expression from emotion experience: A personality perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 712-726.

Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 13-35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004).Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301-1333.

John, O.P., & Gross, J.J. (2007).Individual differences in emotion regulation strategies: Links to global trait, dynamic, and social cognitive constructs. In J.J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 351-372). New York: Guilford Press.

Tamir, M., John, O.P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J.J. (2007)Implicit theories of emotion: Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 731-744.

(a) Accuracy and Bias in Self Perception

The third aspect of my research program involves self-perception. I have conceptualized self-perception as a special case of social perception where both the perceiver and the target of perception are the same person. In an earlier series of papers (John & Robins, 1993, 1994; Robins & John, 1997a, 1997b; Gosling et al., 1998, reprinted in 2001), I have provided evidence that social perception processes operate differently when the target of perception is not another person but the self. One core issue is whether self-perception is inherently biased and, if so, does this bias promote adjustment? This question has led to a protracted debate between those who believe that psychologically healthy individuals perceive themselves accurately (a position my research findings support) and those who believe that it is more adaptive to have overly positive, self-enhancing illusions (such as Shelly Taylor at UCLA).

Gosling, S. D., John, O. P., Craik, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (1998). Do people know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-line codings by observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1337-1349. Reprinted in Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (Eds.). (2001). Pieces of the personality puzzle: Readings in theory and research (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement: The Big Five, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521-551.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206-219.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994).Trait and types, dynamics and development: No doors should be closed in the study of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 137-142.

Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1996).Toward a broader agenda for research on self and other perception. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 279-287.

Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). Self-perception, visual perspective, and narcissism: Is seeing believing? Psychological Science, 8, 37-42.

Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997).The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on the accuracy of self-perception. In H. Hogan, J. Johnson, and S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 649-679). New York: Academic Press.

(b) Types of Self-Enhancement

I have followed up this work in several new directions. Whereas self-enhancement bias has previously been conceptualized as a single unitary phenomenon, one potential resolution to the continuing debate is that there are multiple ways in which individuals can self enhance. In a recent review of the literature on personality traits and defense mechanisms (Paulhus & John, 1998), we found evidence for individual differences in two distinct self-enhancing tendencies—the "egoistic bias" and "moralistic bias." The two biases are self-deceptive in nature and can be traced to two fundamental values, agency and communion, that impel two corresponding motives. The two sequences of values, motives, and biases form two personality constellations, Alpha and Gamma. The Alpha constellation is an egoistic bias—a self-deceptive tendency to exaggerate one's social and intellectual status. This tendency leads to unrealistically positive self-perceptions on such traits as dominance, fearlessness, emotional stability, intellect, and creativity. Self-perceptions of high Alpha scorers have a narcissistic, "superhero" quality; this is the type of bias my students and I have studied in our previous research and found to be maladjusted, particularly in terms of social and relational adjustment. Associated with the other constellation, Gamma, is a moralistic bias—a self-deceptive tendency to deny socially deviant impulses and to claim sanctimonious "saint-like" attributes. This tendency is played out in overly positive self-perceptions on such traits as agreeableness, dutifulness, and restraint. The Alpha-Gamma conception provides an integrative framework for a number of central issues in personality psychology.

Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998)Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025-1060.

(c) Re-conceptualizing Self-Enhancement

In my most recent work with Virginia Kwan, I have been developing a componential approach for defining and mathematically formalizing the key theoretical terms and components of self-perception. In our 2004 Psychological Review article, we reviewed the existing literature and the seemingly inconsistent findings about self-enhancement: some studies seem to show that individuals who self-enhance are psychology healthy whereas other studies seem to show that self-enhancement is psychologically unhealthy. We noted that self-enhancement bias has been studied from 2 distinct perspectives that trace back conceptually to Festinger's social comparison theory (self-enhancers perceive themselves more positively than they perceive others) and Allport's self-insight theory (self-enhancers perceive themselves more positively than they are perceived by others). We showed that these 2 perspectives are theoretically and empirically distinct and suggest that it is the failure to recognize their differences that has led to the ongoing debate about self-enhancement bias. In fact, we found that Taylor's "I am better than the average person" approach is based on Festinger's social comparison perspective; indeed, most studies adopting a social-comparison design find psychologically healthy correlates of self-enhancement. In contrast, studies adopting designs based on Allport self-insight perspective do not find psychologically healthy correlates.

In our own theoretical formulation, we developed a new interpersonal approach to self-enhancement—self-perception is a special case of social perception where perceiver and the target of perception are the same, and therefore self-perception cannot be analyzed separately from a broader account of social perception. Our approach decomposes self-perception into 3 components: perceiver effect, target effect, and unique self-perception. Our theoretical derivations and an initial study show that the resulting measure of self-enhancement is less confounded by unwanted components of interpersonal perception than the previous measures based on the social comparison and self-insight measures. Our findings further illustrate the distinct implications of all 3 self-perception components (e.g., a high target effect, such as performing well in a social group, is associated with positive psychological outcomes, such as self-esteem), and our conceptualization and proposed integrative paradigm should help organize future research on self-enhancement biases and their adaptive or maladaptive consequences.

Kwan, V. S., John, O. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond, M. H., & Robins, R. W. (2004).Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111, 94-110.

Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Robins, R. W. & Kuang, L. (2008).Conceptualizing and Assessing Self-Enhancement Bias: A Componential Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1062-1077.