MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0" Ta dokument je spletna stran v eni datoteki, poznana tudi kot datoteka spletnega arhiva. Če vidite to sporočilo, potem vaš brskalnik oz. urejevalnik ne podpira datotek spletnega arhiva. Prenesite si brskalnik, ki podpira spletni arhiv, na primer Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Generalfactorofpersonality.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Running head: GOES HERE

 

 

 

Running head: GENERAL FACTOR OF PERSONALITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correspondence concerning the article should be addres= sed to Janek Musek, Department of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva 2, SLOVENIA. Electronic mail may be sent to janek.musek@guest.arnes.si.


Abstract

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using diffe= rent personality measures in three samples confirmed the existence of general fa= ctor of personality (GFP) within the Five Factor Model. GFP is characterized by = high versus low Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Extravers= ion, and Openness, and by high versus low higher-order factors of personality, Stability, and Plasticity. A comprehensive theoretical model of personality structure was therefore proposed with the GFP at the highest level of the hierarchy. GFP was interpreted as a basic personality disposition that integrates the most general non-cognitive dimensions of personality. It is = associated with social desirability, emotionality, motivation, well-being, satisfaction with life, and self-esteem. It also may have deep biological roots, evoluti= onary, genetic, and neurophysiological.

 

Keywords: personality, personality structur= e, Big Five, general factor

 

 

General factor of pers= onality

Hierarchical structure= of psychological constructs has been firmly established in most important doma= ins including human abilities and intelligence (Burt, 1941; Carroll, 1993; Catt= ell, 1971, 1987; Horn, 1988, 1994; Jäger, 1967; Jensen, 1998; Spearman, 190= 4, 1927; Vernon, 1971, 1989), personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Cattell, 1950, 1957, 1965, 1987; Eysenck, 1947, 1952, 1970, 1991; Guilford, 1959; Hampson, 1988; Hampson et al., 1986; John, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae &am= p; Costa, 1998), emotionality (Diener, Smith & Fujita, 1995; Larsen & Diener, 1992; Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1993), motivation (Cattel= l, 1957; Cattell, Radcliffe & Sweney, 1963; Elliot & Thrash, 2002), se= lf-concept (Marsh, 1990; Marsh & Shavelson, 1985; Marsh, Byrne & Shavelson, 19= 88), and values (Musek, 1993a,b; 1998; 2000; Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Bils= ky, 1987, 1990). In the structural analyses in all these domains, hierarchical = models containing several levels of generality have been proposed. The models exte= nd from the numerous specific variables on the bottom of hierarchy to the small number of highest-order variables on the top. Interestingly, only within the ability and self-concept domains, the existence of only one single general = factor on the top of the structural hierarchy has been convincingly confirmed. In = all other domains, the highest-order solutions vary from two or three to five or more basic factors. 

Single-factor and multiple-factor positions in psychological structural hierarchies

Structural hierarchies= have been most thoroughly investigated in the ability and personality domain of interindividual differences. The idea of single general factor of intellige= nce (g-factor) based on the positive manifold of intertest correlations has been promoted already in the beginning of 20th century (Spearman, 190= 4). Later, the idea expanded to the g-factor theory, which retained the leading= position among structural models of cognitive abilities until recent time (Jensen, 1= 998). With the work of Thurstone (1938), however, the rivaling multiple-factor position has been established, and since then, the “literature on the structure of human abilities has been alternating between two main kinds of theories” (Stankov, 2005, p. 279). Moreover, the third kind of theori= es attempted to integrate the g-factor and multiple-factor positions into the unified structural model of intelligence (Burt, 1941; Vernon, 1971; Carroll, 1993). Despite the critique of g-factor and argument between single-factor = and multiple-factor models (see the contributions to the readings edited by Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2002), the impressive amount of empirical evidenc= e in favor of validity of g-factor has been accumulated, especially in multivari= ate and psychometric approaches to cognitive abilities and intelligence (Stanko= v, 2005).

In the contrast, the s= ingle factor position is virtually non-existent in hierarchical structural models= of personality. In several structural models of personality, different numbers= of highest-order dimensions have been proposed. Cattell’s structural taxonomy of personality (Cattell, 1946, 1950, 1957), containing 16 primary factors, could be reasonably reduced to second-order or even third-order factors, yet never resulted in the single general factor solution. Eysenck (1952, 1970, 1986, 1991) developed a model with 3 so-called basic dimension= s of personality, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism. Eysenck’s dimensions are not correlated, leaving thus no further place for more gener= al dimensions. Another line of research lead to the circumplex models of personality structure (Wiggins, 1979) that are by definition incompatible w= ith the single factor position in structural modeling of personality traits. In= the past decades, the structural model of personality that has attracted the mo= st research interest has been the five-factor model (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1= 981, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987, 1998). The model emerged from t= he lexical tradition in personality research (Goldberg, 1981), and proposed fi= ve very broad dimensions of personality, so called Big Five or B5: Extraversio= n, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness (some other lab= els for each factor have been also applied by different authors and some have b= een reversely coded, e.g. Emotional Stability for Neuroticism). In the first ph= ase, the five factors have been interpreted as dimensions of implicit (lay-perso= n) theory of personality (Norman, 1963; Passini & Norman, 1966).  Later, the Big Five have been progressively recognized as basic factors of real interpersonal differences (Goldberg, 1981), and finally, the five-factor model became the leading taxonomy of personality structure (Costa & McCrae, 1992b,c; Digman, 199= 0; Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987, 1998).  Five-factor model resemble other structural models of personality in several ways. For instance, there is a convergence between Eysenck’s and five-factor model of personality. In both models, two dimensions are identical (Extraversion and Neuroticism), a= nd some others are at least partially related (e.g. Psychoticism to Agreeablen= ess and Conscientiousness). One of the essential difference concerns the independence between the basic dimensions in Eysenck’s model in contr= ast to the substantial correlations between Big Five.

Higher-order factors in Big Five research:  Big Two model and metatraits of personality

The first proponents o= f the five-factor model of personality view Big Five as robust, orthogonal and therefore irreducible basic dimensions of personality. The confidence in the independence of Big Five has been further reinforced by the fact that most studies of Big Five performed orthogonal rotation of factors. However, even= if the measures of Big Five have been constructed on the basis of varimax rotated factors, they tend to correlate (Becker, 1999; Costa & McCrae, 1992a,b,= c; Digman, 1997). This fact was also the reason why Eysenck denied the fundamentality of Big Five (Eysenck, 1991, 1992). There is strong evidence = that Big Five are not orthogonal, and the correlations between Big Five increase= to substantial levels if oblique solutions were used in factor-analytic proced= ures (Becker, 1999, 2002; Block, 1995; Digman, 1997; John & Srivastava, 1999; Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1994; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996).=

Digman (1997) performe= d a meta-analysis of Big Five factor correlations from 14 studies and found very clear evidence for two higher-order factors, labeled Alpha and Beta. Superfactor Alpha saturated Big Five dimensions Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability (the reverse of Neuroticism), wh= ile superfactor Beta relates to the dimensions Extraversion and Openness (or In= tellect). The author discussed several possibilities of the psychological interpretat= ion of both higher-order factors, and proposed a close association of Alpha fac= tor with the socialization process and Beta factor with the personal growth. According to Becker (1999), both superfactors of personality or the Big Two= can be conceived as personality metatraits more basic than Big Five. 

DeYoung, Peterson & Higgins (2001) replicated Digman’s two-factor solution of Big Five fa= ctor model and proposed a similar model of higher-order personality dimensions (= Big Two model). The obtained factors have been labeled Stability (loadings on Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and Plasticity (loadings on Surgency or Extraversion, and Intellect or Openness). Accordin= g to the opinion of the authors, the Big Two must represent very basic tendencie= s or dimensions of personality instead of the mere outcomes of the socialization= or personal growth processes. Big Two are based on the correlations of Big Five that are heritable to substantial extent and discernible since very early in the life (Bouchard, 1994; Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; Jang, Livesley & Vernon, 1996; Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998). DeY= oung et al. (2001) further linked both higher-order factors to the neurophysiological functions proposing the ascending rostral serotonergic system as the basis of Stability and the central dopaminergic system as the basis of Plasticity. Finally, the authors stressed the connections between = both factors and conformity: they found that conformity measures are positively related to Stability and negatively related to Plasticity.

General factor in personality domai= n: The Biggest One

The structural debate = in personality domain differs therefore from the similar discussion within the abilities domain. Within the ability domain, the controversy is between the single general-factor solution and multiple-factor solutions. Within the personality domain, the argument is between three-factor, five-factor, and = two-factor solutions, while the general-factor solution has never been systematically developed and explored. Certainly, it is far from obvious that Big Five represent the most basic level of personality description. The Big Five are definitely correlated (Costa & McCrae, 1992c), and the existence of Big= Two is hardly to deny (DeYoung et al., 2001; Digman, 1997). <= /p>

The question is, howev= er, whether the possible existence of the general personality factor can still = be ignored. A positive manifold between Big Five is more the rule than the exception (Saucier & Goldberg, 2003; Stankov, 2005), provided the recod= ing of neuroticism (which negatively correlates with others factors) to emotion= al stability. The average correlation between Big Five across 14 studies revie= wed by Digman (1997) is 0.26 extending from -0.48 to 0.71. Saucier and Goldberg (2003) found convincing evidence for the existence of a single common factor underlying the Big Five. This factor was interpreted as the Evaluation fact= or expressing socially desirable versus undesirable personality characteristic= s. Interestingly, Goldberg (1993) already ten years before suggested that nothing is above Big Five except evaluation. In a joint analysis of personality and ability measures, Stankov (2005) found similar percentages of explained variance for both personality and ability common factors, labeled Personality g, and Cognitive g. The average correlation between Big Five was even higher (0.28) than the average correlation between ability measures (0.23). 

The next reason for the validity of a general personality factor model emerges from the correlation between Big Two. DeYoung et al. (2001) obtained significant positive correl= ations (ranging from 0.18 to 0.28 for respective samples) between Stability and Plasticity weighted factor scores in spite of the use of varimax rotation in the statistical analyses. Both superfactors show still more substantial correlations, provided the oblique method of factor rotation procedure: the obtained correlations range from 0.20 to 0.48 for different samples and personality measures (Musek, 2006).

Thus, even the broad-b= and Big Five factors are not basic in the sense of fundamental, mutually independent dimensions of personality. The accumulating evidence strongly suggests the = existence of the higher-order dimensions in the Big Five personality domain. Accordin= g to my hypothesis, the higher-order dimensions are organized across two levels. First higher-order level consists of two metatraits (Big Two), Stability and Plasticity (or Alpha and Beta in Digman’s terms), while the second, highest-order level comprises general factor of personality (GFP or The Big= gest One).

The rationale and aims of this stud= y

In sum, the general fa= ctor hypothesis seems to be justified also in the hierarchical modeling of personality structure. In this study, I intend to validate the single gener= al factor hypothesis more thoroughly in different empirical contexts varying t= he age of participants (adults versus adolescents) and the methods using for t= he measurement of Big Five factors. In particular, it would be of interest whe= ther the similar general factor emerged in different subsets of population, and = from different instruments measuring the Big Five. If so, the generality and stability of GFP could be reasonably demonstrated. The next assumptions considered in this study are related to the psychological content of the GF= P. Although very general and even abstract, the general factor of personality = must have a definite psychological meaning. Its connection to social desirability and positive regard have been established already (Saucier & Goldberg, 2003; Stankov, 2005), especially when the Alpha factor (Digman, 1997) is co= nsidered as a first approximation of general personality factor. Nevertheless, GFP c= an be conceived also as a combination of Big Two. Additional suggestions concerning the psychological content of GFP could be derived from the connections of the Big Five to the emotionality, motivation, well-being, and self-esteem. Your substantive interpretation of the general factor r= ested largely, if not solely, on its positive correlations with measures of posit= ive emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem, and negative correlation with negative emotionality. However, the same finding would seem likely to occur with a measure of social desirability, and with any other measures of personality traits that also correlated with social desirability= [u1] .  Among the Big Five, the closest substitutes of Big Two are Neuroticism representing Alpha, and Extraversion representing Beta. There is strong evidence that both Neuroticism and Extraversion are closely related to emotionality or activation (e. g. negat= ive and positive affect; Clark & Watson, 1999; Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2= 000; Watson & Clark, 1993), motivation (Carver & White, 1994), self-este= em (Kwan, Bond & Singelis, 1997; Lucas, Diener & Suh, 1996),  and well-being (Costa & McCrae,= 1980; Diener, 1996, 1998; Diener & Lucas, 1999a,b; Schimmack, Oishi, Diener &= amp; Suh, 2000; Schimmack, Oishi, Furr & Funder, 2004).  It seems plausible therefore to as= sume that GFP is substantially related to the basic dimensions of emotionality, personal well-being, and self-esteem. Consequently, the general personality factor hypothesis should be supplemented by the assumption that GFP will covariate with the measures of emotionality, well-being and self-esteem. The expected confirmation of this supposition could essentially contribute to t= he psychological meaning of GFP and would also accentuate the probability of deeper biological (evolutionary, genetic, and neurophysiological) basis of = GFP.

Method

Participant= s and procedure

  The mean age of partic= ipants was 36.95 (SD=3D10.37). The second sample contained 185 participants, 100 f= emales and 85 males with mean age 39.11 (SD=3D13.26). The third sample consisted o= f 285 participants, 165 females and 120 males with mean age 16.37 (SD=3D1.24). The participants in the first sample fulfilled the Slovenian versions of the Big Five Inventory (BFI), Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and Self-Liking and Competence Scale (SLCS) (for more detailed description of the measures see the next part of method section). The participants in the second sample completed the Sloven= ian version of Goldberg IPIP 300 Items Questionnaire, and the participants in t= he third sample fulfilled the Slovenian version of Big Five Questionnaire (BFO). Thus, the three subsets of participants differed in the regard of age (adul= ts in samples 1 and 2 versus adolescents in sample 3) and the instruments used= in the study (three different measures of Big Five factors respectively for ea= ch sample and additional measures of emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem= in the first sample). The data collected from all three samples were analyzed using the statistical program packages SPSS 13.0 (Norusis, 2006) and LISREL= 8.71 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004).

Measures

        &= nbsp;   Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, 1990; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John &a= mp; Srivastava, 1999). Slovenian version of BFI (adopted by translation-= retranslation procedure; Avsec & Sočan, 2006; Musek, 2005) was applied to obtain scores for Big Five dimensions in the first sample. The inventory contains = 44 items that are rated on the 5-point scale ranging from not agree at all<= /i> (1) to absolutely agree (5).  The items are the basis for scoring five BFI scales: Extraversion, A= greeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness. The original version = of BFI has shown good reliability and convergent as well as discriminant valid= ity (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; Costa & McCrae, 1992c; John & Srivastava, 1999; Watson & Hubbard, 1996; Watson, Clark, & Harkness, 1994). In the current sample, Cronbach alpha coefficients range from 0.79 t= o 0.85. Five-factor solution of 44 items yielded latent dimensions that can be clea= rly interpreted as Big Five; the correlations between their factor scores and corresponding subscales of BFI ranged from to 0.95 to 0.96.

Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni= , L. & Perugini, M., 1993; Caprara, Barbaranelli & Borgogni, 1994). Slovenian standardized version of BFQ (Bucik, Boben & Hruševa= r-Bobek, 1995; Bucik, Boben & Krajnc, 1997) was used to obtain scores for Big Fi= ve dimensions in Sample 3. The questionnaire comprises 132 items that are rate= d on the 5-point scale ranging from not agree at all (1) to absolutely agree (5).  Both original = (Italian) and Slovenian versions of BFQ have acceptable psychometric properties (Buci= k, Boben & Hruševar-Bobek, 1995). In the current sample (Sample 3), Cronbach alpha coefficients range from 0.79 to 0.85.

=             <= i>Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988)= . The Slovenian version of PANAS (adopted by translation-retranslation proced= ure; Avsec, 2000) was used as a measure of two basic dimensions of trait emotionality, positive affect (PA; 10 items) and negative affect (NA; 10 items). Participants used a 5-point scale (1 =3D very slightly or not at al= l, 5 =3D extremely) to indicate the extent of generally feeling the respective mood state. The original PANAS has acceptable reliability, Cronbach Alpha coefficients in different samples range from 0.90 to 0.96 for PA and from 0= .84 to 0.87 for NA (Watson et al., 1988). For the current sample (Sample 1), th= e coefficients are 0.76 (positive affect) and 0.89 (negative affect). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) confirmed single-factor structure for both Positive affect S= cale (Chi-Square =3D 29.9; p =3D 0.12; RMSEA =3D 0.027), and Negative affect Sca= le (Chi-Square =3D 8.16; p =3D 0.52; RMSEA =3D 0.000). The two-factor solution= of factor analysis for the entire PANAS yielded two dimensions that are equivalent to both subscales (PA and NA); the correlations between the factor scores of obtained latent dimensions and respective subscales are 0.96 (for PA), and = 0.98 (for NA).

=             <= i>Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Slovenian version of SWLS (adopted by translation-retranslation procedure; Avsec, 2000) has been used to assess the cognitive component of subjective well-being. The SWLS consists of 5-items that are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Test-retest correlation coefficient of 0.82 and coefficient alpha of 0.87 h= ave been reported for the original SWLS (Diener et al., 1985). Later, the SWLS = has been widely used and thoroughly validated (Pavot & Diener, 1993). In the current sample (Sample 1), the Cronbach Alpha is 0.86. The single-factor structure of SWLS has been convincingly confirmed by LISREL CFA (Chi-Square= =3D 5.13; p =3D 0.16; RMSEA =3D 0.037).

=             <= i>Self-Liking and Competence Scale (SLCS; Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). Slovenian vers= ion of SLCS (adopted by translation-retranslation procedure; Avsec, 2006) was u= sed to measure global self-esteem. The SLCS contains 20 items (10 for Self-liki= ng and 10 for Self-competence subscale) that are rated on 7-point scales rangi= ng from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scores = for the global self-esteem are computed by averaging across all items after the appropriate coding. In this study, only the scores for global self-esteem h= ave been considered. The original SLCS has acceptable metric characteristics; t= he internal consistency for Self-liking subscale is 0.89 and for Self-competen= ce subscale it is 0.87, while the correlation between the subscales is 0.69 (Tafarodi &= amp; Swann, 1995, 2002). The Slovenian version of the questionnaire has metric characteristics comparable to those reported by Tafarodi and Swann; the internal consistency for Self-liking subscale is 0.86 and for Self-competen= ce subscale it is 0.84 (Avsec, 2006). In another comparable Slovenian sample (= N=3D366), the Cronbach Alpha for the global SLCS was 0.91 (Musek, 2006).

Results

The results of the stu= dy are divided into several parts. First, I examined the correlations between variables and the results of exploratory as well as confirmatory factor analyses. In the next part, the relationships between GFP and components (facets) of Big Five have been analyzed. Finally, the connections between G= FP and the measures of emotionality, well-being and self-esteem have been expl= ored.    

Correlations between variables=

Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables being measured in t= hree samples. In each sample, the Big Five have been measured by different instruments, BFI, IPIP-300, and BFQ, respectively.  First, I will focus on the correla= tions within the Big Five domain leaving the correlations between Big Five and ot= her variables for later description and discussion.

In Samples 1 and 3, all correlations between Big Five scales are significant, and six of ten correlations in Sample 2 are also significant. Some correlations are quite substantial, exceeding values of 0.40 and even 0.50. By the rule, the correlations of Neuroticism (N) with other scales are negative, except for Openness (O) in Sample 2 and Sample 3, and the correlations between other B= ig Five scales are positive, except between Conscientiousness (C) and O in Sam= ple 2.  These results also confirm= ed the expectation that the Big Five are correlated and the Big Five scale interco= rrelations could be therefore used as the basis for further factor analyses. If the co= des for N were reversed, all negative correlations of N would be changed to positive showing thus the positive manifold in the basic correlation matrix= .

______________________= __________

Insert Table 1 about h= ere

______________________= ____________

All Big Five scales ha= ve strong significant correlations with the measures of emotionality, well-bei= ng, and self-esteem. Four Big Five scales (except Neuroticism) are positively related to Positive Affect, Satisfaction with Life, and Self-Esteem, and negatively related to Negative Affect. Neuroticism is positively related to Negative Affect and negatively related to all other variables.

Exploratory factor analyses

Several exploratory fa= ctor analyses have been conducted in order to establish single factor solutions = for different input data. In all three samples, Big Five scale scores were fact= or analyzed using the Principal Components Method. Additionally, the single factor solu= tions have been calculated for item data of BFI in Sample 1, and for facet scale scores of IPIP-300 in Sample 2.  Table 2 presents the correlations of Big Five scales with extracted first factors of respective factor solutions.  In all cases, scree-test convincin= gly demonstrated the appropriateness of one-factor extraction. The first factor, the tentative GFP, exceeded considerably the following factors. It explained 50.20 percent of Big Five scale variance for BFI data (Sample 1), 40.18 per= cent of variance for IPIP-300 data (Sample 2), and 44.84 percent of variance for= BFQ data (Sample 3). The first factor also explained 23.58 percent of variance = in intercorrelation matrix for 44 BFI items, and 25.13 percent of variance in intercorrelation matrix for 30 IPIP-300 facets. As it can be seen from the = last row in Table 2, the factors extracted from different input data are practic= ally identical.

______________________= ____________

Insert Table 2 about h= ere

______________________= ____________

All above mentioned on= e-factor solutions are based on scree-test inspection followed by direct extraction = of one single factor. Nevertheless, the highest-order factor of personality ca= n be obtained also by the higher-order factoring with successive extractions of first-order, second-order, third-order factors etc. This procedure requests oblique rotation of factors since it is necessary to retain correlations between factors if they exist. Stepwise higher-order factor analyses have b= een performed for three classes of data: for Big Five scales in all three sampl= es (BFI, IPIP-300, and BFQ), BFI items in Sample 1, and IPIP-300 facets in Sam= ple 2. Given the insufficient number of participants I omitted the analyses of = item data in Sample 2 and Sample 3. Big Five scale scores were correlated and fa= ctor analyzed by Principal Components Method using Promax rotation. In all cases, two second-order factors have been extracted in order to obtain the factors that will reproduce Big Two report= ed by Digman (1997) and DeYoung et al. (2001). All two-factor solutions of Big Five scales indeed clearly replicated the higher-order factor solutions yie= lded in the analyses of these authors. Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness have highest loadings on the first higher-order factor corresponding to Alpha or Stability, while Extraversion and Openness load on the second factor corresponding to Beta or Plasticity. Moreover, the obtain= ed higher-order factors are clearly correlated. Alpha and Beta (alias Stability and Plasticity) correlate 0.46 for BFI data (Samp= le 1), 0.20 for IPIP-300 data (Sample 2), and 0.40 for BFQ data (Sample 3).

Higher-order factoring= of BFI items (Sample 1) yielded five first-order factors and two second-order fact= ors. First-order factors are almost exact replications of Big Five, their correlations with correspondent Big Five scales range from 0.953 (between b= oth measures for Agreeableness) to 0.963 (for Openness). Two second-order facto= rs based on BFI items also correlate very high with the first-order scale based factors Alpha or Stability (0.99), and Beta or Plasticity (0.97). Similarly, higher-order factoring of IPIP-300 facets (Sample 2) resulted in five first-order factors highly resembling correspondent Big-Five (corresponding correlations range from 0.89 for Agreeableness measures to 0.97 for Openness measures), and two second-order factors, highly resembling Stability and Plasticity again (corresponding correlations 0.82 and 0.88 respectively). <= o:p>

In sum, all higher-ord= er solutions with two extracted factors yielded latent dimensions that are cle= ar replications of Big Two: Alpha and Beta (Digman, 1997), or Stability and Plasticity (DeYoung et al., 2001). Concerning the issue of GFP, it is very important that obtained Big Two correlate indicating thus the viability of further factorization. For all data models (BFI, IPIP-300, and BFQ scales, = BFI items, and IPIP-300 facets), factor analyses of the Big Two scores equivoca= lly yielded one highest-order factor explaining more than 60 percent of source variance (range from 60.19 to 69.79).

The results of higher-= order factor analyses are presented in Table 3. Table displays the correlations of respective Big Five scales with all extracted higher-order factors represen= ting Big Two and the extracted highest-order factors representing GFP.

______________________= ____________

Insert Table 3 about h= ere

______________________= ____________

All highest-order fact= ors are practically identical to corresponding GFPs from previous exploratory factor analyses using direct one-factor solutions. They almost perfectly match each other in the loading profiles of Big Five and in the amounts of explained variance in source correlation matrix. Tab= le 4 is showing the within-sample correlations of ten GFPs derived from all anal= yses including directly extracted factors and factors extracted in successive higher-order factoring. All correlations are exceedingly high, ranging from= 0.81 to 1.00, with mean correlation value of 0.95. This is a clear demonstration= that all variations of GFP represent practically the same dimension irrespective= of the population sample, method of assessment, or special modality of input varia= ble matrix (Big Five scales, scale items or facets). 

______________________= ____________

Insert Table 4 about h= ere

______________________= ____________

Confirmatory factor analyses <= /o:p>

To provide more decisi= ve evidence for the salience of the general factor solution, the confirmatory factor analyses were performed on Big Five scales of respective measures for all three samples using LISREL 8.71 algorithm with maximum likelihood estimation (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984, 2004). In each structural equation model GFP is a latent variable indicated by the shared variance of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness. = Several models have been examined utilizing the modifications provided by the progr= am. The modifications are justified on the basis of assumed covariations between the errors of variances of Big Five. For example, for all models in three samples the correlations of error variances between Extraversion and Openne= ss should be expected. However, the recommended modification was stopped after= the reduction of degrees of freedom to 3, because further modifications brought= no substantial increase of fit indices. Thus, all final models in three samples include two modifications in setting error variance covariation: between Extraversion and Openness in all three models, between Neuroticism and Open= ness for BFI data, between Conscientiousness and Agreeableness for IPIP-300 data, and between Conscientiousness and Neuroticism for BFQ data. In order to save space only final models are reported here. Figure 1 shows the integrated standardized solution diagram for the models in all three samples. All samples fit the model well according to fit indices, lis= ted in Table 5. For all samples, the χ2 is non-significant alth= ough it is sensitive to sample size and can reach the level of significance desp= ite the appropriateness of the model. Among indices, which are rather insensitive to sample size, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1= 990) is well within the range of goodness of fit in Sample 1 and 3, and is approaching good fit in Sample 2. Other indices of fit shown in Table 5 also indicate a good fit: the adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984), the normed and the non-normed fit index (NFI and NNFI; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980). The values of RMSEA less than 0.08 (or, more strictly, 0.06, Hu & Bentler, 1999), and of AGFI, NFI, and NNFI above 0= .90 are in general considered a good fit. 

______________________= ____________

Insert Figure 1 about = here

______________________= ____________

The loadings of the Bi= g Five on the latent variables representing GFP in confirmatory analyses are very similar for Sample 1 and 3 and are also consistent with the corresponding loadings from exploratory analyses (see Tables 2 and 3). The loadings for Sample 2 differ in the values of Openness and Agreeableness which are low indicating that these variables do not contribute essentially to the GFP. In the exploratory analyses for Sample 2, Openness and Agreeableness also show comparatively lower loadings. This discrepancy is due to the lower correlat= ions that Agreeableness and Openness have with other Big Five scales in Sample 2 than in both other samples (Table 2). It is hard to decide, whether the discrepant results of the Sample 2 originated from the different measuring instrument, sample bias, or both. Sample 2 has the smallest number of participants, but the highest number of the items used in the respective Big Five measure (IPIP-300). Nevertheless, the loadings of the remaining Big fi= ve scales, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism for Sample 2 are q= uite consistent with the loadings in other two samples. Besides, there is another indirect proof that the GFP in Sample 2 is essentially similar to the correspondent GFPs of Samples 1 and 3. The GFP extracted as second-order fa= ctor in stepwise higher-order factoring of Big Five scales in Sample 2 has correlations with the Big Five scales that more closely resemble the loadin= gs of the Big Five in both remaining samples and correlates 0.86 with the Big = Five scale based directly extracted GFP (Table 3).  A rather discrepant structure of t= he scale-based GFP in Sample 2 will be further elucidated in the following division after considering GFP correlations with Big Five facets.         =

______________________= ____________

Insert Table 5 about h= ere

______________________= ____________

GFP and Big Five Facets<= /span>

The Big Five measure u= sed in Sample 2 allowed the assessment of 30 facets, 6 for each Big Five scale. Ta= ble 6 depicts the correlations of the facets with four general personality dimensions, scale-based GFP, facet-based GFP, GFP obtained by stepwise hierarchical factoring of Big Five scales, and GFP obtained by hierarchical factoring of Big Five facets (the number of participants was not sufficient= for item factoring).

All facets of Conscientiousness have substantial positive, and all facets of Neuroticism = have substantial negative correlations with GFPs. Five facets of Extraversion al= so share significant positive correlations with GFPs. Interesting, Stimulation Seeking facet scale correlates inconsistently with GFPs: it correlates negatively with scale-based GFP, and positively with GFP derived from hierarchical factoring of Big Five scales. Four facets of Agreeableness have significant positive correlations with GFPs. The facet Sympathy has lower correlations, two of them failing to reach the level of significance. The f= acet Modesty has insignificant correlations with three GFPs and is even negative= ly related to GFP derived from hierarchical factoring of Big Five scales. The facets of Openness are most inconsistently related to the GFPs varying from significant positive to significant negative correlations. This explains why the Openness factor has the lowest loadings on GFPs. 

The correlations betwe= en Big Five facets and GFPs offer some further explanation for the rather discrepa= nt picture of the structure of the GFPs obtained in Sample 2. The main reason = for discrepancy is weaker connectedness of Openness to other Big Five (except Extraversion) in Sample 2 in comparison to both remaining samples. Two of Openness facets, Imagination and Liberalism even tend to be negatively rela= ted with GFPs. The exception is GFP derived from hierarchical factoring of Big = Five scales. As mentioned before, this GFP has the pattern of correlations with = Big Five that mostly resemble the patterns of GFPs in Sample 1 and 3, and correlates high with other GFPs from Sample 2 (Table 3): the conclusion is = that all GFPs obtained in the three samples must have a very essential common ba= se.

______________________= ____________

Insert Table 6 about h= ere

______________________= ____________  

GFP, emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem

The data for Sample 1 = enable us to calculate the associations between GFP and measures of emotionality (positive and negative affect), satisfaction with life, and self-esteem. Ta= ble 7 displays correlations between GFPs (scale-based GFP, item-based GFP, hierarchical factoring-based GFP) and the additional measures (Positive aff= ect, Negative affect, Satisfaction with Life, Self-Esteem) including the squared multiple correlations (R2) that show the shared variance between GFPs as dependents and other variables as predictors entered into regression analyses.  <= /p>

All indices of emotion= ality, well-being, and self-esteem have strong and very consistent correlations wi= th GFPs. Positive Affect, Satisfaction with Life, and Self-Esteem are positive= ly related, and Negative Affect is negatively related to GFPs. Regression anal= yses revealed that indices of emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem are good predictors of GFPs. Squared multiple correlations using these indices as se= t of predictors have almost identical values for GFPs (in the range from 0.58 to 0.60) indicating that approximately 60 percent of the variance in GFP can be explained by predictors. In all cases, Negative Affect is the strongest predictor (the values of Beta coefficients -0.46, -0.46, and -0.43 for GFPs= respectively), following by Positive Affect, and Satisfaction with Life. Obviously, Self-Esteem is so redundantly associated with other indices that it does not contribute to the prediction of GFPs beyond the effect of first three indic= es.

______________________= ____________

Insert Table 7 about h= ere

______________________= ____________  

Discussion<= /span>

The results of this study provide some strongly support for the hypothesis that a general factor exists = at the top of the hierarchy of the personality structure. According to the results obtained from the confirmatory analyses the existence of the GFP in the Big Five personality space is beyond doubt. Apart from this, the existence of t= wo higher-order factors of personality, Stability and Plasticity (or Alpha and Beta in Digman’s terms) was also replicated. Thus, not only one but t= wo levels above the level of Big Five exist in the hierarchy of personality traits. I may conclude that the personality structure defined by Big Five m= odel appears to comprise three clearly distinct high-order levels: the level of = Big Five, the level of Big Two, and the level of The Biggest One. Certainly, the entire structure of personality should be completed by adding lower levels = of hierarchy (Big Five facets, items, and specific responses) as displayed in Figure 2. Therefore, a comprehensive theoretical model of the structural hierarchy of personality could be proposed on the basis of available empiri= cal evidence. The model extends from the low-order levels, containing specific = responses, items and facets to the high-order levels, containing Big Five, Big Two, and GFP.

__________________________________

Insert Figure 2 about here

__________________________________

 Resu= lts are consistent across two samples (1 and 3), and also appear similar in Sam= ple 2, although the samples differ in regard of the measures for the assessment= of Big Five and in the characteristics of sampling, for example the age of participants. Therefore, we may be confident in robustness and generalizabi= lity of GFP. 

The presence of general personality factor could be also one of the reasons that in majority of cases confirmatory factor analy= ses testing the two-factor solutions of Big Five higher-order factors should be rejected (Digman, 1997). My confirmatory analyses confirmed both two-factor= and general factor solution, although the fitting was better for general factor solution (Table 3; the results of confirma= tory analyses for two-factor solution are omitted for they are not directly rela= ted to the problem of this study). =

According to the loadings on the Big Five, GFP can= be described as the combination of high versus low Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Openness. It represents= the behavioral characteristics of emotionally stable, agreeable, conscientious, extraverted and intellectually open individuals versus neurotic, disagreeab= le, careless, introverted, and close-minded persons.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  In terms of Big Two, GFP co= uld be characterized as the combination of high versus low Stability and Plasticit= y. The ordering appears important, since Stability component (Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness) overweighs Plasticity (Extraversion and Openness) in GFP. However, the solution, where the Plasticity component wou= ld explain more variance in GFP than Stability component, is fully imaginable.=

Now, facing the undeniable existence of = the single highest-order factor in FFM domain, two questions must be opened. Fi= rst, can the highest-order factor be interpreted as a general factor of personal= ity in technical terms, and, second, what is the psychological meaning of it?  

=
It I would agree, for instance, with the suggestion of 
Reviewer 1 that the size of the factor is perhaps problematic if does inde=
ed 
represent a substantively meaningful factor that pervades across all five =
of 
the Big Five factors. As noted by this reviewer, this is in contrast to th=
e 
situation in the domain of mental abilities. Reviewer 3 raised a number of=
 
concerns and questions regarding specific details of the analytic approach=
.

[u2] What is the psychological content of general personality factor? Being high on g-factor of intelligence is a perfectly conceivable thing, but what means being high on personality? The first plausible answer is that GFP is simply a blend of all aspects of personality dimensions that are positively valued in society= . In this case, the general personality factor may be very close to the social desirability dimension (McCrae & Costa, 1983). Saucier and Goldberg (2003) used the label Evaluation and definitely pointed at bipolar continuum between socially desirable and undesirable components of Big Five. It is noteworthy to say that GFP in this context resemble the evaluative factor of affective meaning reported by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum already in 1957. In our study, GFPs correlate up to 0.93 with alpha factor which has also been interpreted as similar to social desirabil= ity dimension (Digman, 1997). In other side, conformity is obviously not a prop= er explanation for GFP, because GFP is positively associated with Stability and Plasticity, whereas conformity correlates positively with Stability and negatively with Plasticity (DeYoung et al., 2001). More accurately, GFP uni= fies positive aspects of conformity (stability) and non-conformity (plasticity) = within a single superordinated dimension.

The shared variance of Big Five, represented in GF= P, might be labeled social desirability or evaluation, since it probably indic= ates the combination of socially approved traits. On the behavioral level, the G= FP seems to be a unified measure of the positive, socially approved versus negative, socially undesirable ways of behavior characteristic for the peop= le in a long run. This interpretation, howeve= r, specifies an important aspect of GFP, yet does not imply any essential psychological meaning. For the same reason, we cannot be entirely satisfied with interpretations conceiving GFP as the outcome of socialization or pers= onal growth process (Digman, 1997), or even more generally, as the adjustment or adaptation dimension. Logically, we must seek for the interpretation treati= ng GFP as a dimension in the sense of basic personality disposition or tendency (DeYoung et al., 2001). The correlations between = GFPs obtained in this study and some measures of social desirability are surpris= ingly low ( ). Consequently, social desirability probably does not explain the essential amount of the GFP variance and can be dismissed as the core compo= nent of GFP. 

Beyond the Five-factor model, GFP seems to be rela= ted to Eysenck’s basic dimensions of personality, particularly with low Neuroticism, low Psychoticism, and high Extraversion versus the opposite, as well as to similar constructs of Cattell (Exvia - Invia, Integration – Anxiety; Cattell, 1957; Cattell et al., 1970), Wiggins (Love and Status; Wiggins, 1979), Cloninger (Novelty seeking, Harm avoidance, and Reward dependence; Cloninger, 1987;  Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1987), Zuckerman (Sociability, Activity, Sensation seeking, Neuroticism, Hostility; Zuckerman, 1991), and Depue & Collins (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Constraint; Depue & Collins, 1999). Furthermore, GFP probably integrates positive aspects of ma= ny other well-known personality constructs, such as social interest and power strivings (Adler, 1939), extraverted versus introverted type (Jung, 1924), self-actualization (Maslow, 1950), fully-functioning person (Rogers, 1961), union and individuation (Rank, 1945), communion and agency (Bakan, 1966), intimacy and power (McAdams, 1985). Table 8 summarizes theoretical construc= ts that are congruent with GFP. Constructs concern different aspects and level= s of psychological reality, including GFP correlates in domains of personality, = emotionality, motivation, self, well-being, culture, and biology.

______________________= ____________

Insert Table 8 about h= ere

__________________________________  

The results of this st= udy suggest that GFP is substantially related to emotionality (or affect, or activation), satisfaction with life, and self-esteem. These variables accou= nt for more than half of the variance of GFP. According to this, GFP may refle= ct psychobiological disposition that produces the relevant covariations in affective-motivational bases of personality and consequently influences the emotionality, motivation, well-being, satisfaction with life, and self-esteem. High value= s of GFP are associated with high positive and low negative emotionality, high approach and low avoidance motivation, high self-esteem, optimism, and well-being, while low values of GFP relate to the low positive and high negative emotionality, low approach and high avoidance motivation, as well = as low self-esteem, pessimism, and low well-being. <= /span>Particularly, GFP represents a bipolar construct that extends from high positive and low negative emotionality to the opposite. This interpretation of GFP is in acc= ord to the empirical evidence that Neuroticism is associated with higher values= of negative affect and with lower values of positive affect, while others Big = Five dimensions are connected with higher values of positive affect, especially extraversion (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000; Clark & Watson, 1999; Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1993). Further evidence is linked with = the negative correlation between negative and positive affect (Yik & Russel= l, 2001), especially under stress (Reich, Zautra & Davis, 2003). Although = the correlation is usually not high, allowing thus to conceive both affects as relatively independent dimensions (Cacioppo et al., 2000; Diener, Smith &am= p; Fujita, 1995; Watson & Clark, 1992; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1984)= , it is substantial enough to expect that remarkable amount of the shared personality variance could be attributable to the emotionality. If the Big = Two are related to the Negative and Positive Emotionality respectively, as alre= ady Digman (1997) suggests, GFP could integrate both aspects of emotionality. The conclusion that Big Five profile of GFP could be mediated by dimensions of emotionality seems therefore quite convincing. Certainly, I do not suggest = that GFP is identical with dimensions of emotio= nality or affect, but I suggest that they all share essential common denominators.  repre= sents a very essential part of it. Basic dimensions of emotionality are also strongly related to the basic dimensions of motivation (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Davidson, 1995; Depue & Collins, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Gray, 1987a,b; Panksepp, 1999; Pa= uls, Wacker & Crost, 2005), well-being (Diener, Smith & Fujita, 1995; Diener, Suh & Oishi, 1997), and self-esteem (Schimmack & Diener, 20= 03). It is a tempting speculation that GFP reflects a nuclear dimension within t= he personality domain (not including cognition) that strongly corresponds to the basic dimensions of our emotionality and motivation. In that case, we could assum= e a unique superdimension comprising positive versus negative aspects of personality (high versus low GFP), emotionality (high Positive and low Nega= tive Affect versus low Positive and high Negative Affect), and motivation (high Approach/Affiliation/Reward Sensitivity, low Avoidance/Withdrawal/Agency ve= rsus low Approach/Affiliation/Reward Sensitivity, and high Avoidance/Withdrawal/= Agency).

GFP is very likely even deeper embedded in our evolutionary, genetic and neurological endowment. The heritability of GFP remains to be empirically tested but appears extremely probable provided the clear genetic basis of the Big Five. In similar manner, we could speculate about the possible neurophysiological basis of GFP, which might be a biolog= ical mechanism combining low levels of the functioning of the central serotonerg= ic system (Spoont, 1992; Tork, 1990) and higher levels of the functioning of ascending rostral dopaminergic system (Ashby et al., 1999; Davidson, 1995; Depue & Collins, 2000; Panksepp, 1999; Pauls, Wacker & Crost, 2005). This combination is reported as responsible for the higher values of Stabil= ity and Plasticity factors (DeYoung et al., 2001) that, according to our result= s, constitute GFP. Given the heritability of Big Five, it is possible that speculated covariation of dopaminergic and serotonergic system is genetical= ly mediated. Finally, the orchestrated functioning of both systems may have evolutionary origins for it results in socially approved and consequently evolutionary benefited behavior.

I would agree with Reviewer 3 that the discussion section offered

intriguing speculations regarding the substantive nature of this factor, even

to the point of offering its possible neurobiology. However, these

speculations were again based simply on = the fact that it correlated with a few

scales for which others have offered speculations regarding their underlying

neurobiology. It would seem that you cou= ld have included any other set of

external validators with which it might = have also correlated, and then

interpret it in terms of these validator= s.

[u3] In conclusion, analyses in this study and analyses= of other authors (Saucier & Goldberg, 2003; Stankov, 2005) imply the exist= ence of GFP. It is the most general personality dimension accounting for very substantial amounts of the variance shared by Big Five. The question is, however, whether it is important enough to require an essential revision of= the Big Five model. So far, it appears compelling to expand the model by adding higher-order dimensions, while at the same time to insist on the importance, robustness and relative independence of the Big Five. We must not forget th= at only two dimensions of Big Five, Neuroticism and Extraversion, explain abou= t 80 percent of the GFP variance and, in combination, should serve as good approximation of GFP. Big Five remain important, yet their shared variance = is not negligible and higher-order factors are of interest, especially because they are linked with other basic dimensions in theoretically crucial domain= s of human personality and nature. Thus, the recognition of GFP can considerably improve the five-factor model and our entire understanding of personality.<= o:p>

The next question concerns the transcultural stabi= lity and replicability of GFP. These issues have to be clarified in further rese= arch although it is very probable that GFP is cross-culturally stable provided i= ts generality and fundamentality. By the rule, the personality traits on the h= igher levels of structural hierarchy are more interculturally stable than those on the lower levels, especially if they are genetically and evolutionary roote= d. The results obtained from three Slovenian samples in present study are in almost perfect accord to the results from the samples of other nationalities (Sauc= ier & Goldberg, 2003; Stankov, 2005). This supports the assumed intercultur= al generality and consistency of GFP. However, although plausible, all speculations about universality and evolutionary, genetic and neurobiologic= al bases of GFP are supported only by indirect evidence and should be carefully investigated in further research.

How GFP is related to the structural personality theories outside the Big Five model? In the majority of them, the problem of general personality factor has never been seriously challenged. For example, the orthogonality of the basic dimensions in the Eysenck’s model has = been taken for granted instead of being thoroughly examined. Thus, it is possibl= e that GFP could emerge also in other structural models dealing with dimensions comparable to Big Five if the a priori orthogonality assumption would be abandoned.

GFP is a very general, even abstract construct, ye= t it has a recognizable psychological content. GFP is characterized by a clear profile in the terms of Big Five and is connected to the basic dimensions of emotionality, motivation, well-being, and self-esteem. Most probably, GFP represents a biologically rooted basic personality dimension that is also influenced by socialization and personal growth processes shaping the development of the individual person.    

Finally, GFP is appealing, for it could not only associate the Big Five model with important positions in personality theory= as the Big Two do (Digman, 1997), but also provide the integrative tendencies between them. Limited number of basic dimensions has been found in all psychologically important areas of personality. Although being relatively independent, these dimensions substantially correlate and GFP reflects their shared variance. In that sense, the analysis of GFP can be crucial in the integration of theoretical models concerning the personality, emotionality,= and motivation.   

References<= /span>

Adler, A. = (1939). Social interest: A challenge to mankind. New York: Putnam. <= /p>

Ashby, F. = G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 10= 6, 529–550.

Avsec, A. = (2000). Področja samopodobe in njihova povezanost z realno in idealno spolno shemo. Doktorska disertacija. [Facets of self-concept and their relation to real and ideal gender schema. Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.

Avsec, A. = (2006). Gender differences in the structure of self-concept: Are the self-conceptio= ns about physical attractiveness really more important for women's self-esteem= ? Studia Psychologica, 48 (1), 31-44.

Avsec, A.,= & Sočan, G. (2006). Vprašalnik BFI. [Big Five Questionnaire]. In A. Avsec (Ed.), Psihodiagnostika osebnosti I [Psychodiagnostics of personal= ity I]. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. In press.

Bakan, D. = (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Bos= ton: Beacon.

Becker, P.= (1999). Beyond the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 511–530.

Becker, P.= (2002). The four-plus-X factor model as a framework for the description of normal a= nd disordered personality. A pilot study.&nbs= p; Trierer Psychologische Berichte, 29 (2002), 1, 1-45.

Benet-Mart= inez, V., & John, O. P.  (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures= and ethnic groups: Multitrait–multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spa= nish and English.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750.

Bentler, P= . M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Block, J. = (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. <= i>Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Bouchard, = T. J. (1994). Genes, environment, and personality. Science, 264, 1700-1701= .

Bouchard, = T. J., Jr., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Beh= avior Genetics, 31, 243–273.

Bucik, V., Boben, D., & Hruševar-Bobek, B. (1995). Pet velikih faktorjev osebnosti. Psihološka Obzorja, 4, 33-43.

Bucik, V., Boben, D., in Krajnc, I. (1997). Vprašalnik BFQ in ocenjevalna lestvica BFO za merjenje "velikih pet" faktorjev osebnosti: slovenska priredba. Psihološka obzorja, 6 (4), 5-35.

Burt, C. (= 1941). The factors of the mind. New York: Macmillan.

Cacioppo, = J. T., Berntson, G. G., Larsen, J. T., Poehlmann, K. M., & Ito, T. A.  (2000). The psychophysiology of em= otion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions = (2nd ed., pp. 173–191). New York: Guilford Press.

Caprara, G= . V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1994). BFO – Big Five observer. Manuale. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speziali.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. in Perugini, M. (1993). = The "Big Five Questionnaire": A new questionnaire to assess the five factor model. <= i>Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 281-288.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analysis studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carver, C.= S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales.  Journal of Persona= lity and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.  

Carver, C.= S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F.  (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration.  Personality a= nd Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741-751. 

Cattell, R= . B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book.

Cattell, R= . B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical, and factual study. N= ew York: McGraw-Hill.

Cattell, R= . B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New Yo= rk: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Cattell, R= . B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Cattell, R= . B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Reprinted and revised from Abilities: Their structure, growth and action, by R. B. Cattell, 1971.=   Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cattell, R= . B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the 16 personali= ty factor questionnaire. Champaign, IL: IPAT.

Cattell, R= . B., Radcliffe, J. A., Sweney, A. B. (1963). The nature and measurement of components of motivation. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 68, 49-211.=

Clark, L. = A., & Watson, D.  (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology.  In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (= Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 399–423). New York: Guilford Press.

Cloninger,= C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.

Cloninger,= C. R., Svrakic, D. M. & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 30, 975-9= 90.

Costa, P. = T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality = and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.

Costa, P. = T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personali= ty and Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.

Costa, P. = T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 861-865.

Costa, P. = T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992c). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Davidson, = R.J. (1995). Cerebral asymmetry, emotion, and affective style. In R. J. Davidson & K. Hugdahl (Eds.), Brain asymmetry (pp. 361–387). Cambri= dge, MA: MIT Press.

Depue, R. = A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavi= oral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569.

DeYoung, C= . G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2001). Higher-order factors of the b= ig five predict conformity: are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533-552.

Diener, E.= (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough - Lessons from subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389-399.

Diener, E.= (1998). Subjective well-being and personality. In D. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality, (pp. 311-334). New York: Plenum Press.

Diener, E.= , & Lucas, R. E. (1999a). Temperament, personality, and subjective well-being. = In Kahneman, D., Diener, E. & Schwarz, N. (Eds.) Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213-229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Diener, E.= , & Lucas, R. E. (1999b). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman= , E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213-229). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.=

Diener, E., Smith, & Fujita, F. (1995). The personal= ity structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,  1, 130-141. =

Diener, E.= , Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. In= dian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25-41.

Diener,&nb= sp;E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.  (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale.  Journal of Personality Assessment, 4= 9, 71-75.

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

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

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

Elliot, A.= J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 5,  804-818.

Eysenck, H= . J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Pau= l.

Eysenck, H= . J. (1952). The scientific study of personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Eysenck, H= . J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd ed.). London: Methue= n.

Eysenck, H= . J. (1986). Models and paradigms in personality research. In A. Angleitner, A. Furnham, & G. Van Heck (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe: Vol= . 2. Current trends and controversies (pp. 213—223). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Eysenck, H= . J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? - Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790. =

Eysenck, H= . J. (1992). A reply to Costa and McCrae: P or A and C - the role of theory. = Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 867–868.

Gable, S. = L., Reis, H. T.,& Elliot, A. J.  (2000).  Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life.  Journal of Personality and Soci= al Psychology, 78, 1135-1149.

Goldberg, = L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,<= /i> 1216-1229.

Goldberg, = L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

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

Goldberg, = L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring t= he lower-level facets of several five-factor models. V I. Mervielde, I. Deary,= F. De Fruyt, F. Ostendorf (Ur.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. =

Gray, J. A. (1987a). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal = of Research in Personality, 21(4), 493–509.

Gray, J. A. (1987b). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Guilford, = J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hampson, S= . E. (1988). The construction of personality (2nd. ed.). London: Routledg= e.

Hampson, S= . E., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth and hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in judgments of trait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 37&#= 8211;54.

Horn, J. L. (1988). Thinking about human abilities. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 654-685). New York: Plenum.

Horn, J. L. (1994). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The encyclopedia of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 443-451).= New York: Macmillan.

Hu, L., &a= mp; Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struct= ure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equa= tion Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Internatio= nal Personality Item Pool (2001). A Scientific Collaboratory for the Develop= ment of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences= (http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.

Jäger, A. O. (1967). Dimensionen der Intelligenz [Dimension= s of intelligence]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J. & Vernon, P.A. (1996). Heritability of the= Big Five Personality Dimensions and their Facets: A twin Study. Journal of Personality, 64, 576-591

Jang, K. L= ., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support= for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556-1565.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability= . Westport, CT: Praeger.

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= ., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L.  (1991).  The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54  <= /span>(Tech. Rep.). Berkeley: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.

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

Jöres= kog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL-VI user’s guide. Mooresvi= lle, IN: Scientific Software.

Jöres= kog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows. Lincolnwood, I= l.: Scientific Software International, Inc.

Jung, C. G. (1924). Psychological types, or the psychology of individuation (H. = G. Baynes, Trans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Kwan, V. S= . Y., Bond, M. H. & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.

Larsen, R.= J. & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psycholo= gy: Emotion (Vol. 13, pp. 25—59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. =

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E. & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628.=

Marsh, H. = W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. = Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-636.

Marsh, H. = W., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-123. =

Marsh, H. = W., Byrne, B. M. & Shavelson, R. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-conce= pt: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Jou= rnal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366-380.

Maslow, A.= (1950). Self-actualizing people: A study of psychological health. In Personality symposia: Symposium No. 1 on values (pp. I 1 -34). New York: Grune &= amp; Stratton.

McAdams, D= . E ( 1985 ). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Psychological inquiries into identity. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.

McCrae, R.= R., & Costa, P. T. (1983), Social Desirability Scales: More Substance than Style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888. <= o:p>

McCrae, R.= R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personali= ty across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

McCrae, R.= R., & Costa, P. T. (1998). Personality trait structure as a human universal= . American Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 5, 509-516.

Musek, J. = (1993a). The universe of human values: a structural and developmental hierarchy. = Studia Psychologica (Bratislava, Slovakia), 35, 4-5, 321-326.

Musek, J. = (1993b). Osebnost in vrednote [Personality and values]. Ljubljana (Slovenia): Educy.

Musek, J. = (1998). Political and religious adherence in relation to individual values. Stud= ia Psychologica (Bratislava, Slovakia), 1998, 40, 1-2, 47-59.

Musek, J. = (2000). Nova psihološka teorija vrednot [New psychological theory of  values]. Ljubljana (Slovenia): Edu= cy.

Musek, J. = (2005). Generalne dimenzije osebnosti in subjektivno emocionalno blagostanje [Basic personality dimensions and subjective emotional well-being]. Anthropos (Ljubljana, Slovenia), 1-4, 319-338.

Musek, J. = (2006). Higher-order factors of personality. Unpublished manuscript. University of Ljubljana= .

Norman, W.= T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomv of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abno= rmal and Social Psychology, 66, 474- 583.

Norusis, M= . J. (2006). SPSS 13.0 Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Osgood, C.= E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning<= /i>. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Ostendorf,= F. & Angleitner, A. (1994). Psychometric properties of the German translation of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Unpublished manuscript. Landau. University of Landau. =

Panksepp, = J. (1999). Affective neuroscience. Oxford University Press.<= /span>

Passini, F= . T. & Norman, W. T. (1966). A universal conception of personality structure= ? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 44-49.

Pauls, C. = A., Wacker, J., & Crost, N. W. (2005). The Two Components of Social Desirability and their Relations to Resting Frontal Brain Asymmetry. Jou= rnal of Individual Differences, 26(1), 29–42.

Pavot,&nbs= p;W., & Diener, E.  (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Li= fe Scale.  Psychological Assessment, 5, 164-172.

Rank, O. (= 1945). Will therapy and truth and reality. New York: Knopf.

Reich, J. = W., Zautra, A. J. & Davis, M. (2003). Dimensions of Affect Relationships: Models and Their Integrative Implications. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 66-83.

Rogers, C.= R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Saucier, G= ., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 1-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schimmack,= U., & Diener, E. (2003). Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personalit= y, 37, 100-106.

Schimmack,= U., Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (2000). Facets of affective experiences:  A framework for investigations of trait affect.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 655-688.

Schimmack,= U., Oishi, S., Furr, B M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Personality and life satisfaction: A facet level analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062-1075.

Schwartz, = S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: new dimensions of values. In U. = Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitçibasi, S. C. Choi and G. Yoon (Eds.), In= dividualism and collectivism: Theory application and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sag= e.

Schwartz, = S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 3, 550-562= .

Schwartz, = S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and struc= ture of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications.  Journal of Personality and Soci= al Psychology, 58, 878-891.

Spearman, = C. (1904). "General intelligence," objectively determined and measur= ed. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.

Spearman, = C. (1927). The Abilities of Man. London: Macmillan. <= /p>

Spoont, M.= R. (1992). Modulatory role of serotonin in neural information processing, implications for human psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 330–350.

Stankov, L. (2005). g Factor. Issues of design and interpretation. In O. Wilhelm & = R. W.Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 279-293). Thousand Oaks, Ca., London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Steiger, J= . H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.<= /o:p>

Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (Eds.). (2002). General facto= r of intelligence: How genereal is it? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tafarodi, = R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimension= s of global self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personal= ity Assessment, 65, 322-342.

Tafarodi, = R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr (2001). Two-dimensional self-esteem: Theory and measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 653–6= 73.

Tellegen,&= nbsp;A. (1985).  Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report.  In A. H. Tuma &am= p; J. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Th= urstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chica= go Press.

Tork, I. (= 1990). Anatomy of the serotonergic system. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 600, 9–35.

Vernon, P.= A. (1971). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen.

Vernon, P.= A. (1989). The generality of g. Personality and Individual Differences, 10,= 7, 803-804.

Watson, D.= , & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505.

Watson, D.= , & Clark, L. A. (1993). Behavioral disinhibition versus constraint: A dispositional perspective.  In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbo= ok of mental control (pp. 506–527). New York: Prentice Hall.  

Watson, D.= , & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping = in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 73= 7-774.

Watson, D.= , Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 1= 8-31.

Watson, D.= , Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1984). Cross-cultural convergence in the structu= re of mood: A Japanese replication and a comparison with U. S. findings. Jo= urnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 127-144.

Wiggins, J= . S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interperso= nal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412.

Wiggins, J= . S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88-162). New York: Guilford.=

Yik, M. S.= M., & Russell, J. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of Affect from the Big = Five of Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 247–27= 7.

Zuckerman,= M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press. Adle= r, A. (1939). Social interest. New York: Putnam.

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, and interscale correlations for three samples

 

Variables=

 

E<= /p>

A<= /p>

C<= /p>

N<= /p>

O<= /p>

PA=

NA=

SWLS

SLCS

Sample 1a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E

A

C

N

O

-<= /p>

.34**

.34**

-.53**

.44**

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

.31**

-.54**

.29**

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

-.44**

.21**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

-.29**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

 

 

 

 

PA

.57**

.27**

.38**

-.43**

.47**

-<= /p>

-.38**

.43**

.56**

NA

-.53**

-.38**

-.36**

 .74**

-.26**

 

-<= /p>

-.44**

-.53**

SWLS

.39**

.31**

.30**

-.50**

.22**

 

 

-<= /p>

.50**

SLCS

.54**

.20**

.27**

-.48**

.30**

 

 

 

-<= /p>

Means

28.22

33.40

34.60

22.10

36.92

33.78

23.50

21.52

 4.82

(SD)

(6.13)

(5.66)

(5.16)

(5.96)

(6.17)

(5.60)

(7.19)

(5.98)

(1.58)

Sample 2b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E

-<= /p>

=    .07

.28**

-.47**

.42**

 

 

 

 

A

C

N

O

 

-<= /p>

.40**

-.15*

   .09 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

-.52**

  -.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

   .03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

 

 

 

 

Means

(SD)

191.58

225.18

217.58

161.12

199.32

 

 

 

 

(22.81)

(19.13)

(25.24)

(29.58)

(24.9)

 

 

 

 

Sample 3c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E

A

C

N

O

M

(SD)

-<= /p>

.17**

.36**

-.35**

.32**

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

.38**

-.40**

.19**

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

-.37**

.25**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

.29**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

 

 

 

 

37.88

42.47

40.75

37.57

40.54

 

 

 

 

(8.16)

(5.54)

(6.53)

(6.83)

(5.77)

 

 

 

 

Note. All Big Five scales from different measures have been labeled in consistent way: E =3D Extraversion, A =3D Agreeableness, C =3D Conscientiousness, N =3D Neuroticism, O =3D Openness (Intellect); PA =3D Positive Affect, NA =3D Negative Affect (Watson, Clark,= & Tellegen, 1988); SWLS =3D Satisfaction with Life (Diener, Emmons, La= rsen, & Griffin, 1985); SLCS =3D Self-esteem (Tafarodi & Swann, 1995).

*P<0.05, **P<0.01 (two-tailed)<= /o:p>

a N =3D 301; E, A, C, N, O measured by= BFI (John, 1990; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991).      

b N =3D 185; E, A, C, N, O measured by Goldberg IPIP-300 Items Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1999).            

c N =3D 285; E, A, C, N, O measured by= BFQ (Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. & Perugini, M., 1993). = For consistency, BFQ Emotional stability has been reversed and labeled N (Neuroticism).

 

Table 2

Big Five loadings on general factors obtained by direct one-factor extraction

 

Sample 1 =

 

Sample 2 =

 

Sample 3 =

 

GFPs1

GFPi

 

GFPs2

GFPf

 

GFPs3

E

.76

.77

 

.72

.63

 

.66

A

.71

.67

 

.48

.41

 

.63

C

.64

.64

 

.77

.82

 

.72

N a =

-.82

-.81

 

-.79

-.84

 

-.74

O

.60

.61

 

.23

.10

 

.59

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlation between factors<= /o:p>

.99

 

.98

 

-<= /p>

 Note. GFPs1 =3D GFP extracte= d from BFI Big Five scale scores; GFPi =3D GFP extracted from BFI items; GFPs2 =3D GFP extracted from IPIP-300 Big Five scale scores; GFPf =3D GFP extracted f= rom 30 IPIP-300 Big Five facets; GFPs3 =3D GFP extracted from BFQ Big F= ive scale scores. 

a For consistency, BFQ Emotional sta= bility has been reversed and labeled N (Neuroticism).


Table 3

Big Five loadings on factors obtain= ed by successive higher-order factor extraction

 

Sample 1 (BFI)<= /o:p>

Sample 2 (IPIP-300)<= o:p>

Sample 3 (BFQ)<= /o:p>

 

Scale factoring=

Item factoring =

Scale factoring=

Facet factoring=

Scale factoring=

 

α11<= o:p>

β11<= o:p>

GFP12

α12<= o:p>

β 12

GFP13

α21<= o:p>

β21 =

GFP22

α22<= o:p>

β22<= o:p>

GFP23

α31<= o:p>

Β31<= o:p>

GFP32

E

.61

.75

.80

.61

.76

.65

.48

.83

.84

 .60

.77

.89

.35

.80

.69

A

.74

.38

.66

.74

.32

.81

.55

.03

.37

.41

-.16

.16

.85

.13

.58

C

.75

.22

.56

.72

.30

.65

.87

.06

.60

.83

-.12

.46

.70

.48

.71

Na

-.85

-.46

-.76

-.87

-.44

-.80

-.79

-.32

-.71

-.85

-.20

-.68

-.73

-.49

-.73

O

.30

.91

.71

.31

.89

.53

-.09

.84

.48

.03

.80

.54

.26

.79

.63

Note. α11 =3D first-ord= er Alpha or Stability factor extracted from BFI Big Five scales; β11= =3D first-order Beta or Plasticity factor extracted from BFI Big Five scales; GFP12 =3D second-order general factor extracted from first-order factors α11 and β11; α12 =3D second-order Alpha or Stability factor extracted from 5 first-orders based on 44 BFI items; β12 =3D second-order Beta or Plasticity factor extracted from 5 first-orders ba= sed on 44 BFI items; GFP13 =3D third-order general factor extracted fro= m second-order factors α12 and β12; α21 =3D first-order Alpha or Stability factor extracted from IPIP-300 Big Five scal= es; β21 =3D first-order Beta or Plasticity factor extracted from IPIP-300 Big Five scales; GFP22 =3D second-order general factor extracted from first-order factors α21 and β21; α22 =3D second-order Alpha or Stability factor extracted fr= om 5 first-orders based on 30 IPIP-300 facets; β22 =3D second-or= der Beta or Plasticity factor extracted from 5 first-orders based on 30 IPIP-300 facets; GFP23 =3D third-order general factor extracted from second-order factors α22 and β22; α31 =3D first-order Alpha or Stability factor extracted from BFQ Big Five scale= s; β31 =3D first-order Beta or Plasticity factor extracted fro= m BFQ Big Five scales; GFP32 =3D second-order general factor extracted= from first-order factors α31 and β31.  

a For consistency, BFQ Emotional sta= bility has been reversed and labeled N (Neuroticism).  

Table 4

Correlations between highest-order factors within the samples

GFP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1. GFPs1

-<= /p>

.99

.99

.99

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. GFPi

 

-<= /p>

.98

1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. GFP12

 

 

-<= /p>

.98

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. GFP13

 

 

 

-<= /p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. GFPs2

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

.98

.95

.86

 

 

6. GFPf

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

.89

.81

 

 

7. GFP22

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

.96

 

 

8. GFP23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

 

 

9. GFPs3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

1.00

10. GFP3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-<= /p>

Note. GFPs1 =3D GFP extracte= d from BFI Big Five scale scores; GFPi =3D GFP extracted from BFI items; GFPs= 2 =3D GFP extracted from IPIP-300 Big Five scale scores; GFPf =3D GFP extracted f= rom 30 IPIP-300 Big Five facets; GFPs3 =3D GFP extracted from BFQ Big F= ive scale scores; GFP12 =3D second-order general factor extracted fr= om first-order factors α11 and β11; GFP13= =3D third-order general factor extracted from second-order factors α12 and β12; GFP22 =3D second-order general factor extra= cted from first-order factors α21 and β21; GFP23 =3D third-order general factor extracted from second-order factors α22 and β22; GFP32 =3D second-order general factor extra= cted from first-order factors α31 and β31.<= o:p>

Table 5

Fit indices for the structural equa= tion model

 

χ2

d. f.

P<= /p>

RMSEA

AGFI

NNFI

NFI

Sample 1

2.27

3<= /p>

.52

.00

.98

1.01

.99

Sample 2

6.66

3<= /p>

.08

.08

.93

.93

.96

Sample 3

1.40

3<= /p>

.71

.00

.99

1.02

1.00

Note. RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; AGFI, adjusted goodness of fit index; NNFI, non-normed fit index; NFI, normed fit index. Table shows the indices of best fitting model= s.

 

 

Table 6

Correlations of the Big Five facets= with GFPs (Sample 2)

Big Five facets=

GFPs2

GFPf

GFP22

GFP23

 

OPENNESS

 

 

 

 

Imagination

-,316**

-,182*

 ,171*

-,200**

Artistic interests

   ,028

   ,109

,310**

   ,104

Emotionality

  -,075

  -,015

,249**

  -,023

Adventurousness=

   ,176*

,349**

,558**

,330**

Intellect

   ,057

,254**

,495**

,236**

Liberalism

 -,227**

 -,121

=   ,141

  -,136

 

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

 

 

 

 

Self-efficacy

,703**

  ,763**

,629**

,762**

Orderliness

,452**

  ,347**

,251**

,358**

Dutifulness

,667**

  ,581**

,415**

,595**

Achievement striving

,646**

  ,680**

,551**

,683**

Self-discipline=

,775**

  ,760**

,551**

,768**

Cautiousness

,671**

  ,572**

,325**

,589**

 

AGREEABLENESS

 

 

 

 

Trust

,397**

,390**

,442**

,386**

Morality

,572**

,472**

,362**

,486**

Altruism

,586**

,552**

,545**

,558**

Cooperation

,396**

,263**

,183*

,276**

Modesty

   ,086

  -,137

-,264**

  -,116

Sympathy

,152*

   ,120

,260**

   ,120

 

EXTRAVERSION

 

 

 

 

Friendliness

,555**

,644**

,781**

,632**

Gregariousness<= /p>

,240**

,329**

,567**

,312**

Assertiveness

,344**

,513**

,558**

,499**

Activity level<= /p>

,601**

,637**

,498**

,644**

Excitement seeking

-,203**

 -,087

,230**

  -,110

Cheerfulness

,398**

,498**

,672**

,484**

 

NEUROTICISM

 

 

 

 

Anxiety

-,459**

-,524**

-,485**

-,515**

Anger

-,607**

-,605**

-,539**

-,604**

Depression

-,725**

-,783**

-,723**

-,776**

Self-consciousness

-,538**

-,667**

-,657**

-,654**

Vulnerability

-,712**

-,651**

-,378**

-,665**

Immoderation

-,664**

-,730**

-,551**

-,727**

Note. GFPs2 =3D GFP extracte= d from IPIP-300 Big Five scale scores; GFPf =3D GFP extracted from 30 IPIP-300 Big= Five facets; GFP22 =3D second-order general factor extracted from first-order factors α21 and β21; GFP23= =3D third-order general factor extracted from second-order factors α22 and β22.

*P<0.05, **P<0.01 (two-tailed)<= /o:p>

Table 7

Correlations and squared multiple correlations between GFPs and the measures of emotionality, well-being, and self-esteem (Sample 1)

 

PA=

NA=

SWLS

SLCS

R2

GFPs1

.60**

-.66**

.50**

.51**

.59

GFPi

.62**

-.66**

.49**

.54**

.60

GFP12

.62**

-.63**

.48**

.52**

.58

GFP13

.62**

-.64**

.47**

 .54**

.60

Note. GFPs1 =3D GFP extracte= d from BFI Big Five scale scores; GFPi =3D GFP extracted from BFI items; GFP1= 2 =3D second-order general factor extracted from first-order factors α11 and β11; GFP13 =3D third-order general factor extrac= ted from second-order factors α12 and β12.=

*P<0.05, **P<0.01 (two-tailed)<= /o:p>

 

Table 8

Dimensional congruence of GFP corre= lates in domains of personality, emotionality, motivation, self, well-being, cult= ure, and biology

 

High GFP

Low GFP

Big Five

-N, A, C, E, (O)

N, -A, -C, -E, (-O)

Big Two

High Stability, Plasticity (Alpha, Beta)

Low Stability, Plasticity (Alpha,= Beta)

Eysenck (Big Three)

-N, -P, E

N, P, -E

Cattell

Exvia, Integration

Invia, Anxiety<= /p>

Wiggins

Love, Status

Hostility, Submissiveness

Cloninger

Novelty seeking, Reward dependenc= e

Harm avoidance<= /p>

Zuckerman

Sociability, Sensation seeking

Neuroticism, Hostility=

Depue & Collins

Extraversion

Neuroticism

Emotionality

PA

NA

Motivation

High:

Approach motivation,

Behavioral activation (BAS)

Reward sensitivity

Agentic  and Affiliative motivation<= /o:p>

Low:

Approach motivation,

Behavioral activation (BIS)

Reward sensitivity

Agentic  and Affiliative motivation<= /o:p>

Self

High Self-esteem

Self-devaluation

Well-being

Satisfaction with life, Optimism

Life dissatisfaction, Pessimism

Culture

Socialization and personal growth processes

Positive aspects of collectivism and individualism

Socialization failure and personal restraint

Negative aspects of collectivism and individualism

Genetic

Heritability of GFP<= o:p>

Evolutionary

Evolutionary promoti= on of socially desirable personal characteristics

Neurophysiological

Strength of Dopaminergic system

Strength of Serotonergic system

Figure 1.&= nbsp; Integrated confirmatory factor analysis model for Big Five scales showing standardized values for Sample 1 (first coefficient), Sample 2 (sec= ond coefficient), and Sample 3 (third coefficient). Note. e1 – e5, error variances.

 

Figure 2.&= nbsp; Structural hierarchy of personality characteristics from the most specific level (specific responses) to the general factor level (GFP).   

&= nbsp;

 

<= /p>

 

 

 

<= /span>

&nb= sp;[u1]

<= /span>

&nb= sp;[u2]

<= /span>

&nb= sp;[u3]

------=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Generalfactorofpersonality_datoteke/image001.gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/gif R0lGODlhcQLEAXcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALA0AAgBh Ar8BgAAAAAAAAAL/hI+py+0PTZi02ouz3rz7DwbRSJbmiabqyrbuC8fyTNc2It76Pub8DwwKh8Si 8Yhk+ZLM1LIJjUqn1KqV+rxas9qu9wsOi5HcMdmMTqvXbHW5DXzD5/S6/Y6S42f6vf8PGOjVJ7hC WIiYqLgoc8jY8xgpOUkJ4Vi5cIm5ydmZpukJ6jlKWgolyolqusraaqP62iEF61pre0tCS+Mxi+v7 C6yiyzccF3yMLDbRVRyzDNacLD3dGF1j7fL8hU3d7Z1LwTylPfhtfq5jIT7L/ZrOEJ4QL/HAdZF5 oNdnj4PubzkvXw5yVdoZ4jDuRhkfSxj2gwfRAbk3+7IQNPivVAZ4/xjzKOiYB2Evdx/l0XsIgGJE iA0b6Etp8gnIjJ0mLpxZIiDOnDuzKcQHNJ/QlSiBtiRaEuZQmTSbEkxpr2cEdUqjPL1icCHUo0NP msxUISnTpC69FjXb9NwGsOBCuBVpVaoSkh8douV6tmvVqmO/ruTnN61aDWzjhpULMAzhFlof9t2r V6LZx5GLAs4ruNtVjuy0Ia732cnWsIyRDgx8uR5kymgjp26dmdrmwqdYJ5mNZTTunKbvYj4kYmNl yALvBYYde5rNqOsMr7UqgXTpoCcfv3ZNnbj27K1DJw8kvG7z2nCbMJRuqOxk7GTJNh4OnLv37+DR y5s/9dh5gdMnP/8NuN1eDc2G13HXrUZfgtDoZxktxajkE1LpKUghVgxKpMqD6vXX3lwVfphQMIRk yCF3J7xUIogqniFiD/itCOOFwFyyW4w2rvjiGprUeGOPCuboRkg+DomjjCbwSGSS/wD5yUFKPhkb k2joIiWUVvpR5RjDIHlll7hkqQwMXHpJ5ipgKubMmWWuWU6L1bAJZy1qbrPLnHHeeZuRb+LJ5yZv /QlooIIKqpCdfR6KKDiJLsqolo0+CukWhkZKKZ5jVoppptlMqmmnVl7qaaiiusTpqKbGCOqpqoZa 6qquJpjqq7JCGuustiJa6626Wtrqrr5q1uuvwiaT67DGPhnsscr/2lLsss6imuyz0oYS7bTWYtLs tdpmlu223tLU7bfimhPuuObKVu256tqR7rrutlHuu/LK2e689kJT7736ahHvvv5W0u+/AkcS8MAG J5LvwQoPUfDCDuPR8MMSwxHxxBa7kfDFGjOW8cYeO9HxxyLnMnLJiFRscspMoKxyy0Sw7HLMcYQs s8kw14zzNTTn/PHNPP+8KdBCM7Pz0BP7bHTSLirN9MpFN60w0lBPHR3VVgch9dU/DMp1115zjczT U4vNA9lbm5002j9Jk7XWu+ipn9o/y32NN227/QLdb9utd8x9NzIY3o66qZbgaBIeuOHj+fL3y417 /HjeTkV+8ZwA/440ueK5YXV3foJ1rrmJtUG1RXKghz7c6KdvyC3ljBpXekHLXG7eO2C9FyByd1GF omTR8c4Z0OFtjsV+xO/tnniY6U768hBiSBRFrvM64JnWGx9i3R22ZJvuwR2Xeu4w4S7H6tf+Z73s 9x3Ph+hKdb/daeE/b1R2FY1sX/B5gm+eTFlmxZLNWMR9eqHKb1SjnQGCBnIYWKDTCjQ6HPyvONm6 CXw6xLz1sId/XVEgB5VnMZtAr3/x+N9znGPACW0Pgwf6oIDcB8EW0uZh6CPVVL72luItBjoNTJFv wCfD8L0Qgz88IE8kdsL1kSccVaId7Y4wENgJozdAJCDzIBi/Hv9e8EQ03GFxOmOXuNgQOr8LzhM9 t8IqEhE1bFxjGt3owIPx6IxGuMg4pIe5rUgQVM+7ThCLaJv4OM9JBquR+dDYvziujIN0pE71qOhI FtoRkmf54w3l+MiqLUiMI6wdTwTpwwySTEJTDJrAwpPEPDIOZL3zkBVH+UpYcqyQ6EklGWekBAKF UoiQ8J0rxTQ9awWzlBwbpjFQp8JfWKORwEKmaBCXJmOmQ5rDouaRpmlNYjiTN9CMRTbTtE1ErhJr h4TYN2d1TnHOLJ2EDGcsTTEfZjKOnaeipy/JUM455PNocMOnPRXlTlGaSXb/TExAC/rOOu7zEwiN VENdaJiwPbT/URPl5R0rqknUYVR8kqroQv2Fw5CKdKT5U8ZHB7HRgDL0oSlV6UpvcVKXLimmxZNp puQJsJba9KWsoOlO/YFTgun0pzwlhU+JCtSj1hGpngoqwobK1KL6CapRnZJSZ1ZVVl21bFTNqlWn t1WvosOpewirWAcTObOeFa1CXeuoyEoHtbqVXHLN5VxNBVc21PWu38grQ/laz70eqauA1ZFgl1bY wJLtsInlm9gY21hgFQ2ykZWsOSu7Kr9yDrOu0qz6OJtZylIWtI6lGGFJa9p6nRa1qTUsa2Xl2dus 9rXwkutoadtXtd4Wt6VVzGx521p8AddWscXqcIl71N0eN7d2/zopSZc7z5iuTovVKCl0jVrcWJAz hUKg7nWptdCIcfeiyv3upvZZLuuitLzmPUg5m5Vd57R3qofkY3w591uvqre7wOnbfeer1/+CDEOU Yy+AT3S6GtL3wDn1zjMEXAcDM/iTCnWFhCfcFnJ+Kb9rhbASlcnhDgdMpwUmqYlPTKi13Sd/WHQe +lo8vxcvbxHxvTB/CdZPMZGSPzN+D1dg3EeUwJgRnj2tjRNqVBV/8Hs9th8gWVdJDQqUxpc6MhRp nGPJuVF+8xNdX+gX5facU54h1ttGAXg7ARJRKzppowvDKEGINhjKQEVYlkOJRQ+6uINunvHv6qJn M03ygdaVRf8ZpVgEuZ2ZLgjMSwvHYh0CwjnMzJodCYd3aC0aeqmCWLT2LMFCL38l0ltmpJ8HSugV +++SM0x0p+/8y3t2R9SO6XOXB2nRJD9wjDxW5Ic5/QdPI89AoV4jpG3tvVEjuxVA2o0IDdpqVwcb 1sn0ix9hWMAN+jmMnpFzKMgzWFZHW9plxa+HI/RpAam5yQWUMbvbbZFBMyuCR4Q2CPcHMYJ6d5GM rvapZentXs6b3m0ZngCZ9DQTxltKGNHQjrn4cIjLiR1p1kkSN+3JOzTx4KpsX6zhKPCIA5zZFAd0 LUfkxVOUu+T64/fCNm7vOZbKEePNXiIP9/KLKlLmOAdNzW//efNN5vyOO0d5mHz+xdgRvE0BFxeY 6PhsXy+u1fUFOcNa5b8Qa6SjCx+QuOlURnv78983xvnP3aWm8mS0k3TCdJyXyOWgtx3R8zIU3dfO 67m/fcUFR/G+8Sl1KPp98IQvvOEP/ycfXe7F9f074PO+v7u/S+vCsGXSZVtCnY/7yhQEqeIt3+ux 5/rqC++4lW1EeVYiOOOjJ73jOR+1z5cv3krX4bl3ua/Ue2Q5fw69zcc5dNTrxuKSZz3wYy98Cna9 udS+l+65ya7mOx9VK8clDamf727KsUjVV2YIVZRw6evr+XSOsPjHX6HFnh/9sALP+p1P/inr9f2T f7DpCiFs/0wGOiOKpr/TcUN5dJN/44ckZaYIAygvcHV65HYy/ucssWVkf4N4Ezh49dcMC1g2GCYJ 50Zi8edSt+d7MOWBB4U0GGhKGngynWOCA4aC+JdgZgRPI+hM+3U2fJcKMqhRIAhQLfcIOtiCqSZ3 pOJfKzhfNFh2FAYIPviD/gRzlXdbRriEGBNe0QCF+haFweZcWVGFgkeEB6aElbddXyiEW3iFUlVT THh7r1eG7JJcT/dca/hUk9KFcIiFM4eDdBhNJoWHcCKG4LSHZNKHfviHVxKIgDOInyJYc3iIZlCI 2rSIRNKIdfKIsqdPdziJHNExiniJBMWGmwh+5WWJnhiJXP/liRQyiqRYivRBhowYioe4iqyYilFy ihoWi5NjZZpYi+tkZ7k4U2bWims4i4n2i1cYjBXGi71FZMPYgsX4eMdILJqIi85YTNiijF4Yjc0j jdF1g9mojTVRjd/FjETHjRZ2jfc2jtg1Zt84XOG4Wec4CuzYju54g/+kjq8Fj0Qjj9SIUOU4jve4 DfVoixQokCFlWPyIWIqDgP9okDuIkA4ojAvJkJqTkJzokEYzkRElUe50kZjHNgDZftoneh35gRWZ h+hiUxt5NoQFkZ1Fkk5IV0SFknUyWx7JfZy0ecC2A/4YYTRZk+B2kwyoM/m1krqycVeRT1qIcqXH S/2llBn/lJR7JB2iMJRESV4/+TLEwGSN9mPvppVCxpUbgjsctXdZBXMKpnJ5MxGgVmteKXI/9GXl R2xvJHZV1YQXwXDTaHXHxpaxpJfY1miz5m1T2ZPs4zR4d5Qu2ZZesZVGhEYOsXjvNGmwoQ88mVP8 Io7YiJkul2F/iXQ2yJg35HVFRHa9Z2o8qDE62XrGpUd4h2/ewyWgtJhb1JjaZkmKaWxW2UXvBT/G mFGHGYIKKE5xN0QB15dSRnaUEZaZOTCFBoNLlJo1+Ha+ORqkKXEspmyWERQlVZzDKWSPSWmoQZku SHezg3Dq0IQ85ptqGHJQJpx5tp7t+Zns+W6CaTqhiZ5M/zmBl8kfh1l81zSbfBafvhSbkilw8NOc DmOWnlGemcdyUAlGZ+efjuRutxY9E5psFbp/9ECf3/EcUbdrz4mKqtYL6jly6GZ1z4Rk9XY0iwF6 DHOiR+iZxmeIM/qiElejKrqiBEaiOBmEY6mZw2aiKapOTQeaGzMmNBWT4BKelMB7uMki1gcrS8qk r4ekLSkiUkpfAGg5Vgpi0JWkuQWOXDpwYQqSiWNeX/qMXiimMchgaDojWOpQa0otGuimIriMcoot S1inzAanmrKnbEqMeNqDfdpUgnqAhKpVA6moX5OR+XgsG+qo74iokeo4lFpNk2qpMJqptwKpm1qZ nkqUmP8KqjkpqqOqXaZKXKiKXKoKW6XKqnvyqqrSqbGagrQqq65qq7iXq5Uyq7uKJbjqqywYrJ3S q8OqccBqrBGZrJSCrMv6dc5KK80KrWw3rRQlrdXqpNjKh9eqrT7arYdSrN+qJdwqruEqrr51roti rumKUuyKK+TarevqrpY5r3wir/V6hvgaJ/eqrzbZr2vCr/9amAILsAQLsPCqrQFrsIK3sF6isA1b qRCLiBI7hotqsYBiOxQrpDVxqhq7sakgiR4LlxMHqyL7sX4iiCabmPAETCrLmV9ygi47shY2SzL7 sjDVTjYrazArJDo7pGOKoz67s3D3UTuCsGNjezvaXUH/K7Q3y4QiCnTUup5iBjxDC2hXu21CGD3t xXAE8l7POrW/lpy5BmeTNra2+WtiiVpdG3g8ao7Qhw8tBmZOhiCpQz4xQaSctaCdqZm7+bPvQ6F5 eZ07NiJrCaKVVZ5gC2wK+nGGO161eWxOdKJGeaMpo7RA2YxSu7iv6Jd88Z1kO2qRmaF7JCFHO6gQ 2pqypbjShrolyp3LVriGK5pTdm0WeT15O02re5X9CbfaBrvBObujKx+VWzJZ2G1LZ5pLdblD63bG 2UHeuRRxOZrEIbwiw2LXcxgYqbWX1rp/u5fOK1DbyRpgtn+me6xSRJ4FKJANmq1b029bO7u0m22A 2WORu0m9LhN1KceF9qe9WCujzhCfADK38Oa/dgueYWm+nahEdpkjbQZGUHuW6eZvh/uzF4i/+uut mKtwzfukQEpMxBu2auu9RorBIRjB5KWTHUElTjvBFIy7CAoKzmWopailb3vCxxerTWpxFlKmpmpw y+uiPYyqj8u5SyvETdvCJIvEHgelSwzAR+zENorDUayrPUXFT9zEV9y4QKvFSUyzXVzFqAbGXkxy Y0zGVmzGHzzFadx3F+vGIZCrBQAAOw== ------=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Generalfactorofpersonality_datoteke/image002.emz Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/x-emz H4sIAAAAAAACC+1dC3RU1bneczIzmUcmk0weJgEjeRI0QoJxQLDNEDKQCEJGAiYpbcqVBtvSlCuN ZfUBItwrrsrDFq2rj1yNtmsuXGpFXaWWKzYidlVWLoKFVkQM7Vpldd0uQOm9d3Gh9v/PPq/MnJnM nDNJ9uDOWjv75OwzZ/bZ33e+/9/nkc9CCFkLpQrKeSjbCwmZkkNImYWQDishK7oJ8SyAdcG74beF fJBhId+2EyKQkT9P+QjpLyHkt7A8xTKyrSIvg7zVYyWwA1KL7VBgd7dYAhYyGZbh64iQ89pp3LZD oAW3XQmlTdq2PGAlWdL+SgNOZbkS9iEv1wUEcV9W8a+HGssCmUqbNUCUZdx3DRT87oXNrfPxWOZD sUO/vwrH/52c2NvhOids1xuxXT4Uh7RdRozP9sJGr3sIeRjrbPWzYSg/ko7zZuhnJSwXSceAv2hR lx0BIsyWxlIet6eU0X5ynoTNPKJph5+PHQFLhjz+uF7GcO/BZ4PksS8HyRvPBpf/bmWQWCybC2Bc 1bEEPkjH90+EjiNCXCkV6NKnVbTVZdw/0IfMlrafLa2frWxgIYuI/k+V5nvkZRvs/F7pO9fCGA7C WG6RxhK/60xoeM5wqGGWvH0mbC8vY8c0/Q1o+hvQ9rdG873l0vLH8LNAwjJHwimST4ngf9ZL8b/s NYu/YBD/DH38d2wU8V/xbxtl/C0FgQwFf2FU/IkGf5IU/k8axP99L8VfHkv8ruZNg32LN63pHR1/ OjYkYnms8W9zU/y/4DaLv9Ug/jZd/Mlzt4v4733pds35b1PwtzKI/1I3xb/HreI/1DXYd6qLXfx/ baf4/85uFn+7QfwzdfFfHvpDM+K/54E/NKv4Zyr42xnE/5Cd4n/SruIf8g/2dfrZxb8efh2BPi8Q zOLvMIi/Ux//l7NF/Mn/ZTfv/R8Zf6eCv4NB/Otg54c1Y4nfdSJ3sO907gZm8cf8z+am+V9mlhn8 XQbxd8fO/442ivkfuVwn4e9W8Hcxmv9Z3TT/w7Gk+d+lGcOhubWs5n+YsyD+H3lH4v+SxIHE8c8S GqT9y/ju0uCvj70n4048b6T1Vm3uB9hjLUyeGyQb1VriAuSCHoULWTG4MEdadqSCF+XGeIHc3g1j +ysg7J3Q4bYs2ueBxkszBhrfmN4vltTxQz5m1xjlisgVzBXNaUW2Qa3wxs4VkS+QK6pa4VX4kc1o roha0eNWtWKo61z3qa4HO1jOFRF/zBXN4Z9jEP/c2Lki4I+5oop/roJ/DqO5IuJ/0q7iH/Kf6+70 s4s/5opON81vzOHvM4h/XuxcEXMFyBVJdb2Ef56Cv4/RXDFTM5Y0VzzXfTp3ZwfLueLdDpor3uU0 g3++QfwLYuaKy/8/j+aKPTYJ/wIF/3xGc8VFDpor4ljSXPFa5XCoo4zlXBHxx1xRi3/yuWKhgVzx Bt1cEXNCEXuoly7yijmjXEtcgFzxBoULhWmQK2Y4aK74PSftc3/jtcr+xrcrBsSSOn6Mda6IXMFc 0ZxWFBnUiuKYuSLyRcwVFa0oVvhRxGiuiFrR41a1YqjrSuupruebWI0Vr9kp/u/YzWpFiQGtmKSr FZgnIvZYo0aQOrVWtWKSwoWSpLTCIC/KjfECuf0g3vOETpRmqloR8l9pDfkHFraIJXX8GEutwLwS uYK5kDmtmGxQK26MmVeKsQXzSkUrblT4MZnRvHKRZixpXnml9XQuu1pRDQn6djiIzbDxdrsZrSg1 oBU36V+Dwpxy+bFmrL/xtyPN5OHHlZqc399MteImhQuljOcV7+USMh9WvJVP55xWMd90lpwJnSk6 1ILlM4XpkFdgXNkJx7HabZYrUwxwpUw/B8WcAriCdQtyBOKJXO+5+UWJK2UKV6akQVwJwop9bpUr Q12+hqGuV+pb/FjerE2HuCJzBXMQLVeSjyvlBuNKhX4OCrxAvmAeIvED4kqFwo/y0eern9Kch59K Jq7UWozFlVdh/HbY6LW/7dKzVrvWVtz/zNodnQnohoYLD41bXMFnWzCuzPGZ1YpKA1pRFfPehhhX oI4dV6oULlQyHlee8NK4ssWnasVAo7NkoDG94sp6+MBxgXLl7QwzXKk2wJWp+nEFOLF3zz+L3Nj7 l881k6GFau2bJXFlqsKVasa5Mg1WPCpQrpRYaZ8PtRR7D7X81fNhPZZ17nTgCs5XMK6csJvVlRoD XJmmP7fFuQrGFKhj5yDTFK7UJMcVY/Gm3Fi8Qa782UJzkMmZqq78tKLi/p9WrL9v11osqYs7Y52D oK48kmVWV242wJVb9HUFOCHqCtYxdeUWhSs3p0G+ug2+4FiWqist/pmlLf53J/3xPixnC9MhX93q os97fy2bkA8E9bOvSXxJnCu1Agpjg4YPJ5VD+01AIMqz8nLuGsGbW/U15ts1QXJs63ysRZ5kr1Fq XE/z2FsV3tSOB2+mWMjMJHmzQupbj4u+X/BdGO9rAu3z3PZWx9z2s4Vb1mNpdbDGm3ugrLPQfX4T Pq893oMymAHsyAPki2SV+B6F/CNL8acjNPne6Sfq/rQzLPbZQqLfo5D3e/XpMLly38W6ozvCpHJ3 mLzzQp64/fln6Wcn788jV79wEWkjrrv647D4uf+962JdhmZc5PUE9oXasuFn4RHfKS8fHQiTncGL eElLHKuWF/NEjC6dsNQd/EWeuM3WbWFy30JXXaUV+gTll7DcJraER3zXSuybtCzvP3vpxTpch38f gPYwlHo4oP/4bpisflAc9hEcKpSWi6R7yvL6IpUXQjv8+jyUj2DuvAcaMzyENAl0u+6jjwQaA48E sK0K1uGYLI4Y64+lH9zPQmAAHssavK4LpVPTB23fgL4Pabmmpy3HYeBehy/8NRzVj21mtGW6SW2Z oR+Tfv4DGpOwxnzl9+6gUuN6UVtmKNoynXFteQk6+RMY7/ehI6/YaJ/D1TNLw9Vv1p4PYplZyrK2 fMegtmwWxl9bpFsG4rFotaVKR1sccbTFlYC2dEra4oihLY4IbXFotGWNYF5btuK1K+DTNCDU34A4 P7OO1BZsewLWOeNoC+rTMtIOODaRVtiqFZbxuJZg3iTxoF06vxZq6iUJ6k8qeGQ3yCPc73Mv5yn7 PSIcEfo029UM7HNNxf4BvxBn3JcnxzKcaD9H9lkQuQEwkG17KSenAM5fg++P5FERlMpHw+Rfn6Y8 we2JhkPrJJ6T74fJBtgGeYs87zt3vE7W1KNPhknB42FyKQUxagOUd4ErLwNXfgEHMMc2kkfYVmYT tSkmj1aKOjQP2tuAN/PINEmX7tHwZYX091QTsQvfg9wEOX499LXLYSZ21ZmMXfX61/T2bG8Sr+lB jfcJl//yX5rlWrwvIMaueiV21TEeu3DdKhjvpdDZrzton28TfA23Cc83fbkMi6+B5di126DmfJ/E 15yMBGLXQ5rYlfNcdOzCddrYJWj6oI1dFTqxyxIndmUkELuWSLHLohO78jX7l2OXRRO7HifmNQeL BTpdD6SpxFiYOVJzsO0JaV0szcF8+FaJY8nGorHlRfKYvvcCxeo3tse/9fOCYnGcQ7DckllAvgJ1 yONadQDWYxkNUxIHUy0vMAYhpnhPKhLTSF5s24+fKSCLN5eI4xsoKxLPVKx/tN8i6sJ/wzEc9ZYd NMuLKokXD+jwoipBXixJIkfRizN35NA5Ug0M3A9NzZFmmowzt+nPkc5tpnMhqMV7ReXPKLU6R7pN iTMzx+N+AMSZYoNxpiSHzpGCMN4HpDnShUCx90LgM4U727AUe1m7H5CK3Pa/JmCO5JL25UxgjuSM E2fcScyRnDHmSM6IOOPUxJn9KZgjbUNtBUBrgFBboJv7IuZI2LbbSrkQb47UBq3zxJlSK+SgdJak nSMt0cyP2idonvSCZWzmSU//JPXzJLxVtjXBedJWaZ601cQ86ekUzJPWQflSLr2e8xFseEfEPAnb ptjo++ixuNQhalETCYpz7mniXKg9Yr5tZn50yUPnR2dzzc6PGkzGrdv150dLuukzD1CLz1Ge3aHU 6vzodiVuNTAet0546PzoWq46Pzo+y1lyfFZHWe9CLM4SluOW0Tx4LRn/uKWVt9HmRyRO3BISiFvB OLm09keOW0QTt+5P0fzosJfmwe6c6DwY2xLJg4OSrpi5V4B6gvcKzOmJ36SezIp5r0DUDahFHfm9 OyjXqp7MUvTEnwb3ClBP8F6BrCfhal9DuPr5pvNBLNfn9Zb117mezDehJ70p0pMBO9WTC/ZoPcG2 RPRkvsl59Son1ZOQx6yezDapJ3fo5ydNhTQ/gRp1ZMWJdqVW9eQORU9mM64nTU6qJ70eVU9KF/ka Shc939TzJSxcT9JRT+YxoCcz3VRPNrqj9QTbEtETPI67TejJJh/VE/y/mOb0ZI5JPZmr/5xU/m5R N7BGHdmz8kWlVvVkrqIncxif76zyUT3B/8Mq64nzLmeJ866Osn2dWK7P+c6q61xP6kzoyWdTpCcd +VRPvpcfrSfYloie4HHcaUJPcF0jxMwZQOw8tzFO7bIkxqljSV6vk/drhlPSI+p4To/KKVscTmUm wKllEqdsMThli+CUTcOp/0zR9brV0HAR8MwG0Na4RnIK20Ku0a/XLQAU54tX7JaRJmk+LV+vm29y fn3SSvn2KhxlDudb2vPtMuz0AuDZn0mfKdbyDdvaJphvq52Ub0s8nG/XA9/wPQHk2/SsaL5h20Tz 7SMP5duZXM6364FvPi/l28GcaL5h20Tz7WEf5Rv6H3C+pT/fBvIo3xYXRPMN2yaab7juqpvOF455 xpZv6yaAbzLG1gT4Zo3DN3sSfLPG4Js1gm9WDd9WpYBvOOa7oWEfrHwfOl/pGck3bMv2UN7H4xs+ HRIkdxM8nlINxzrFNnNzBeQazhWGONfSnmuVeB8GVvaCGFdEcA3bPBPINZwnINdwnsC5lv5ce8lF ufZ3dzTXsG0iuXbZQ7mGcwTOtfTnWpOXcu2xnGiuYdtEcg3/3why7SuFnGvXA9eO51GuTS6I5hq2 TSTXcN2BbDo3iOfFlwqu3SAY45res7/a/Z/373NV6jz7m2g/9Z79xWN/LMFnf7dJz/4+ZuLZXyEF z5F/C48FGqaCfs0E0Pq9I7mGbdu8FNd470guI23ANXyCfIH4JHmLxDV5Tor8a5JqI8+OG+XPYWH8 tSrWu9p6WmX2XW1Zq4y8qx1O0bvaf4Hy78CRRzOoh6mWP9jmyhn9Xe17gD3IoaXAjmXisnotQy7t OuvMzDlRw3DOma4a9lot1zBZw962UQ0bzIzWMGzjGsY1LJ6GfcNGNazYEa1h2MaihuG1DNQwvJaR rhp2+FauYbKGdbuohqF/WqSGYRvXMK5h8TTM6aIaFs6K1jBsY1HD8BoZahheI0tXDTswg2uYrGEX sqmGfZATrWHYxjWMa1g8DXsqm2rYrNxoDcM2FjUMr72ihuG113TVsKs1XMNkDduYRzXsqwXRGoZt XMO4hsXTsKl5VMOOFERrGLaxqGG4zmmhz5fF07BYnpmve6hnJnrCy59tlt7NSfRdpYKARXlfiBA2 /SwHPdTPEo+T+lkOzxkONcxi1c8S/UEQm8tes9hkKNgIhD1PMPTtHNQcJ35X86bBvsWb1vSy6gmG /pGIDfpHmsPGpmBjJWx6OyI2PW4Vm6Guwb5TXexigz7giA16AZnDJlPBxk7Y9OhGbE7aVWxC/sG+ Tj+72KA3yREP9f8zh41TwcZB2PQ5PKw5TupzONh3OndDL8v+2TY3zQW0/unJY+NWsHExmgugt/2W fNXb/Ezo0ozh0Nxalr2tERv0tjaHjUfBJouw7zX9Kxf1msbr6tS769KMgcY3pveLJXV4jbXXNGKH uYI57LwKdtmM5gp4XvW41fNqqOtc96muBztYzhUQG8wVzGGTq2CTw2iuYJX8MmVsQv5z3Z1+drHB XMHppjHUHDZ5CjY+RnOFTM1x0lzhXPfp3J0dLOcK6ImNuYLWEzt5bAoUbPIZzRXQr3pLvupXfSZ0 rXI41FHGcq6A2GCuYA6bGxRsCtMgV8hw0FxB9prvb7xW2d/4dsWAWFKH11jnCogd5grmsCtWsCti NFfA86rHrZ5XQ11XWk91sesDj16JiA36NZvDZpKCTQlh37tQgE6UZqrnVch/pTXkH1jYIpbU4TXW nqiIHcZYc9jdqGA3mdFcYpHmOGkucaX1dC6751W1j/pgb84f6VebPDY3KdiUMh6v3sulvtRv5av+ sWdCzpIzofTypZY97Fe7zWJXpmA3JQ00Eb1/97lV7Ia6fA1DXa/Ut/ixvFmbDpooY/eO3Sx2FQp2 5aPn8Ma8mgVjXs34na/Cse2w0Tk+Hid+1661Ffc/k0KP5rG494eaiH7v5rCpUrCpZFwTn/BSTcRn cuTzaqDRWTLQmF6auD6LemojdlpP7eSxm6pgV804dtNgxaMCxU72uD7UUuw91PJXz4f1WNa50wE7 zBNRE0+Y1kTuZT8R8UzPyz557Li3/HhjF8tbPnnsuL/7WGLH/d25v3sq/d2TP7+5x/p4nd/cY517 rHOPdcI91gm7HuvJxw/ucz5e8YP7nHOf8+vE5/xDFnzOmz836RPtc5681nOvcdbnCtxrfKTWc69x 7jUeOV/gXuPmvcaTjx3c75v1eQL3+x4ZOwj5ZPl9J39Oc89t1s9p7rkd+5z+JHhuJ39Oc99rfk5z 32uWfa+TP6e59zTr5zT3no59TnPvae5dyL2nufc05xv3nuZ8497T3Huae09z72nON+49zb0Mufc0 957mXOPe05xr3Huae09z72nuPc25xr2nufc0957mXjvce5p7T4+HhnHvae49zTWMe09z72nuPc01 jGsY957m3tMTrWHce5prmBkN497T3Ht6ojWMe09zDTOjYengPd0g6Vii7/LovbuD/V9N6P9vvITH Dl/+22z173vh73chv5tG9miOUtynzrL+T7z3YwTN+zHZkt4SqR2X/wFwTNiZ4AMBAA== ------=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Generalfactorofpersonality_datoteke/image003.gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/gif R0lGODlhMQM6AncAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAw AyUCgwAAAAAAAAsJCgcGBwUEBAMDAwgHBwwKCwoICQsKCgkHCAYFBQcGBgkICAECAwECAwT/EMhJ q7046827/2AojmRpnmiqqgHQvm4Mz3JN33aO73rP/74gsLUqGo/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq0iA9isdsvt er/gsHhMLpu/1rR6zW673/C4fE7HEOt41D3P7/v/gIGCg4Qne4WEh4iLjI2Oj5CRhYqSdZSVmJma m5ydmliecpehpKWmp6ipLKpro6yvsLGys4iutFe3ubq7vL1Ptr6GwcPExcbDoMeryszNzs+VwNAa 0tPW19jZv9og1dzf4OHiF97c5ePo6erMyesT5+7x8vOs8Nj29Pn6+5H41v78AgocmAcgNIMEEypc OKVdPIQMI0qcmAJiM4sUM2rcSC4fRo4g/0NG/HiMpMiTKPU5dGcypcuX6FoSkwmzps1/Hm/q3MmP ZjCfPIMKvbVyHdChSJOiOsqLqdKnUDM5FSFgAAEsBQYIeIfGBRcCBg7EmRq1rNlacgx4MSABTFsv BcS+IXu2rl0+RdWo/YLAq5e3a+HQvUu4sJvBGwRkGZBAgoACWAj4zZCFggKsgg1r3vwJzt4BFQQQ UNC4sp2Vpg9zXs26EWINVwM0pvwXsGXMc1vr3g0or5XUp7twDZybt/HjogQ75OKXOWAuC8Yin05d zesMsWc3BwW8QpcFbKVXH0/eyXUMn4dX7k6BffLy8OMX8V1FMRbGEg7Yf0HfvXj5AAYowv95GFz2 RXT+TVaQgAw2uAGB6HmhgG3B4eXghRi2NYcABsQ2mlwKkkNfcRmWGOCI4kBo4oopqZiKiyzGyBGM p9Ao440S2ViKjjj2SBCK4fDo45D7COmJkUQm+VBOSjZpF5KcQOnklN8ACY6UVGZ5DZZSaenlUFxi EuaXZBYzpiRnlqlmU2k+0uaacM7ypiNzxmmnKnUykuedfJKyJ1p9BjrSn4kIaqhChBZ66KIBJTqI o4xG+iiTklbKEqS9WaqpOphmuumnQVIK6qj3iErqqc9YWSWqrKZqaquwInPGrLTWauutuGoR667G DCHEr74Gux2wxAprbA+8JhtUgso2S6T/rs5G2ySz0la7IrTWZisjtdp2KyC23obrILfillsduOam Wx656rbbGrruxssbu/LWexe89uZrGL369qsUvv4GHBW/Ahd8E8AGJ8wTwQo3LBLCDkfcoqoSV6wR xBaPmuvGHHfs8ccghyzyyCSXbLLIGS9y8sost+zyyzDHLPPMwqU8Cc0456zzzjz37PMZNt/cadAc MEx0G0YfLbTSgSTNdNNOP01F1FL7QXXVUFyNtSVab81E116LQnHYU49Ndh8Yn/2b2WoXxHa+x8Zd 7Nzr0W233ECcivfdfO+g696A923nz4STrHfhiH+85ts46f2ql0OjHTlhk7u9eOV4YP7k/+Naak4H 44PTA3qMo7vquOhwej5H6YuLrnpIrF+E6uvvqUm7cqfLE3uJuytzO1S/k1hm8EgTj5TxrSCfo/Jp ML8s51k6X0XvX0pf9uWo56576q5rfyn281ivk/gNcR8++TWhn7X6jZIkAANY4fecc28VYMFXDbR3 h2/JhGF/BZDRTkVmZ4gtECB/bylaAP5HgffFbzZu8UoD4bfAsHBlflxg4AQCqAfzqQABGYRgVwAA QixsRX9cQKAEEygiDGqhAQEIjwTUokIWsM8lBvECAlFUwgCcUAI9zEIBStOVdhhIC0NkIRhgKEMA 0FAPNyzSR66iALEcAH6g8Q4lBhDDAP9k8YITACED28E/RazkKidUjGSMEMUWFfA2a0QRF9XyRQBQ 0YpY1OL9iGAfBApgAQGIzgr1VwE0OiYAa+xg61aABe0coCh5WSAAIKNHQrJwkJW05ATUKAFDsrGN J8nhIfpnC0lSkiuORI0ZiUBHCiSAASeE5CE4aUcfVgSU3VsBF2P4wxZWAIRsUUtfwCgBGApykGXc owUu0wAYTugIuHzYGydwmTi6AphODMAwAbBLA/Qyk2D0pC81Sc0ANDMAzxzgIlcASKxYUJkVgN9W FFNHL2yTjJeQ5QUIUIACJPKT3htQF4Y5InkCgJ4UaGcFQURMMI5Inxbgpz8ZGU3dmQT/Abs0ITwn 8EgGXgWFW0giMvO5ygvY55uMJKAJuADLhlagoxP4KAUwqoVvQvShJbXASefjwSM48J+XBOJAXXoZ QeLzNBsFJ0BJJUraZCCIWdjmBBGp1BVCBqUuxSQ5oQg+FUCGoRCdgEK1cMyb7o+kSd0qTwMagv6M YqxZEORXtwrROU4wljlNqyJtVwS1LEAu1UwqTCkwV63C0JpZDapiE2tDtnZjFL4Z7AYDIBa/Apaq ak1GHx1zFQYsNpkU7WoKDgCZLaDUIdi8DUHtecnahLWqKXXsB9zqnNSWsy+k5YJN87oXJIpQr4sV xjpVcAADlLalSQXkNxMQSBcu4J5n/3XOa9UaWqZOU0TOUW4FmCvI4h73tHklIQUL8E6tmje4JaDe hdRrJpWGr6ffs+75RMsS925vuPHVWC6HV1Fo2ndJ+DVKfzcy4PkUmFMHXoZ83xtgBMt2HOxtUIRN GgDP6k+D6MVfVmWJYYNu48FLUIyFNayeLWzHxBeOpy1/A18leFioGqXuibGww/CSMAu9FPH6QOzi FeuwxH8b4Y1jfEgLX892THkkUOfoRdhiMrDmXQmT61hLhi4hwRRBjJIbKkbGynjKhaQsixt8BBCm sy32OyVjVfnZUab5EJeR6pWxnCMqmNmlR31QPt9cgThPj84pYgoXe4lNYcrYIVB+bf+htdnAJpvn v08YdEON6eXELlqqCJ1ei5FwFYYaNNMZHuqMgfNpR+cHs02Y8JQQ02kgYwG6NUtsqeu45SPz1zx7 kKxMQ60F5I66HboepVMAPRJbj1qkQjZvsJ38aDIvFcZbgC5Sp61JqL5axtAk9kIQsxw4N/e8VbU2 oys9Z/omwSFwxUJZ0UptYqb72+j1L4+vsAezKtAC7z4muJvN1yYAcjaSlUBhQTtOMAZ8kmIGwCP1 Xe4FR+HfLj1svF168MIu/M/mRoKkb9xEAPh51PGGqG0l8HFQfw3STtj4r1cba8WO3OPjNrkUtH0l J9wZANp15bddC9mc5nwC3CX5uFP/TfOEIObmM36uq9mc0BUD/dsfb0jRtaFqCtQaD63mt36ncPU0 ZH1qm0bCizdkaqLPW+xOr0/ZZz71bFS90Uaew9hPfnafVlgNc5952GPSdoH0fbZ//0fgOzD4IkGP SoXXc92pnnhnvL0pKOfU3iHceAZbNOPpqLzl79vvyzs8v2R6/C40z/nSh36/oCI9cKOneu9EPvOT D/Ti3d56M9X+Ha+PSeyDdHvdzxfJ2ft8fS+XuOLn6nDGT36t4hS45veNO4JzvtzaBlLqzwVs1reO 6LPvAexzv2zb/76eez+78IufNuRnqvfP39b1s/8X5n+/FtOvMffLn/Dxvz8U6Y9k//5/Km3690n5 F4DpNYD3Z38EKID+F3oGmIDtt4DV04AO2H0IOIHqYYFcA4GQI4EYSA0V2IEf2IEFqIGdw4EiiF0k iHgheIIClYIq6IKMAoAs+IAwGIMmKH4rOIMUeIMLo3w++INAGIRi8DBCWIQj4zpGmIRKuIQ7AztM +ITLh4RQOIVUWIUbQ4RWmIW1YVE1OH5Y6IRdiH4ewYMlQYa2Z4YzgYZpSH45yHhhKIYg0Yb3oIZ+ Qoc/YYe9IIdz+IYVcj58iF1fGId4yCbpp4dbMoijh4iJ+Id7xIaKqAuGKHiMiEJgOIaTSImCeInD EYiTEH2eiDfQJ32fSCwdJIqmKP8EoTiKp8gDpaiKrvgDqbiKr1gDKzWLsngDf2OLuggRt7iLMhCL vniKv6aFPlNAxFh8K3WMyJiMyog4zNiMhLNvsleAwUcChShcmzcCjniNtfh71siG1wV6AiWF3qiN 4NiN2Tggh0d4SLiORYN645iO7VeO8bg9jxgNAHGP0YCNpqeO1aiN7fiP/uh53yiQ80iQ5kiOCFmP AJZe7vggD0kNCtmPbQWPB0mRj0WPF7kk+tgP+XiODmmQ3RCRlBGQ8jiSGpmRJwl4KcmSfth7o9OR /cCPDWmNJGkHJomRs2WRKqmTFNiSP/leMukmHymSO2mU3XeTHeGHSnk/POmSPon/f0AplS85lfe2 kkmJlOyole9YlVi5lQu5kcNHjWHZkxwJk0X5lV2plhDJlW3JhU3pelapeGzpgXNpl175EGkZlWvJ l2/plxLJlG4ZmGUJlTWZkIUZlPaIlsk4mCXpmDgJmUsJl5LplHfpVHWJmXrZmHkpjmJpFDQ5ljZZ mXLJhSA5molJlYCpmZ5plvU1lHSyl4c5kKsZmZlpm3rJjSGZmldZmwUnYJxpmpfZbqIJkKTZHnGJ nIIpCNdGbv+BmoDQAO2kFY8im37wSFhgZZ5Cln+whd1pnX0gGoiEVVYjjVyjQR0Zk23SWzjGnKHZ Bz0kZ9sJnVbTct35nniwH0QG/zVzshjOmRno6AditBUHAEhAJTnB+QdclEeKwp31qSfgmQdqEUwx lAiReEselp4RigcvdkXkmTn46TbY2YkB+qB6EqJ00Gpd1xsXCkXMhVj3WaJ4QSjqGQgIxUXyWZ4J Kjn08507OqP/uTrm+TktwExDen0/ajknKqN8YGgvF6O7+Z09CqX0CaQTlzkayh1E0GkymUNQ4xob WgelJUQNWpAsCqFJiqVBKjb6GGRFpqFpWgcd6mtUapx/wFy6NSlMqqQqg6JzoKKoxp8WOgEUdCZe CggDqnCAxHAI6qB8AEPb9KRoE46NWgthSgcTmk0dd5+wOUi5NSY1GgjsuZ86Gv+lffBztNQ0fro6 9lmqVZoH+pl2LNqfewBDhrqqc9AAsUGdzHmpcYCdqSQb7hmnRDqllYqYgCCeBPChM9qpaOqooLmn sCetvmeqAuasS2qtDgatkkesvOetoYKtlgquNUetEIar5aqtmSeufWqu38qt0wqvlEeuVdKi9eCr oeKu+aqu8fqq66qb/sp39GoOlLqtZrqYw/mb0cqv1RqwDWunuZmcuJewq/ewDAmc8kp57DqoGZsi 6Loq+pquDhtoG1umENuahlmcF2uwyHqWFMts5xqyIMuwMUuzvAewJ4uxBzubn7muA+uGjNmx+zqy HiuzBGu0tIeztImyismzrsn/sisreSXbqz/rdh97tDY7tDmLYEpbkS+LbTW7szrbspcytV8qtCK7 td2atWm7tNd6mmorsGg7s2ILtT0Le2Z7pnOLtUSrtW67sH1br12LkrxJl75ZsdNYt1wbtIrbr3Fr sV57m5MZscc5sYWLl4cLs+/auLqXtz66t1R3taGLtFZLuoc4uEd5uaypsnc7r6CbtIxLtoD7uGFL u0XLtuZgr/UgunNYtaXiu4IHvDjhuSbKubX7t2sbuHRru1cCjYljjM5bjCMYvT0DvdTbhNN7vU3Y i9w7Gd3bi634va8IjOLrfLVYvuNbN+griucbjLaYi+s7iu0bv80Hv+4rjBaq/4kUMiO6yw7E2wn9 +yL/GyUDvAkBXIb6e8BLUcCfwMBS4cD4qL8hQrmZyIkEBsFogsHFasEXo8BnyMHXCsIZ4cFrWIk5 ecESTMKyksIazKYinGUtTJQJHMNjQcOxOcM2DKEsvI0vPBEqfIc4bIk9vDxBbMKUWcFGjMJJTMH8 i8NFjMRH3MRDzBA/7AtVfCQ5rMNTvG1ZrDJdnDw7vMWI8sX5K8RLPMJXTIhiLLhrbHRkXJ1PHMVK fMYwHMbLKcV07MNv3KuFuMd8DIZxPMdy3MF2jMeGPMhozMJt/CN+DH6LPBBpvIh5/K+P3D6FfMhl W8mWPMmD0seXfMGa3BONLP91n0zInEzFo0zKoawSkQyJqVyfPHzKqBzIiWzGUMy/q8zKsXzLgtzL pjyGRBhKpVzLOljMxnzMyJzMyrzMzNzMzvzM0BzN0jzN1FzN1nzN2JzN2rzN3NzN3vzN4BzO4jzO 5FzO5nzO6JzO6rzO7NzO7vzO8BzP8jzP9FzP9nzP+JzP+rzPgMwePddt0rWFMvgKrfrP9SYcQjbQ 94pilouCIBVkLafQAszQDT1/Bx3QsSbRE40urgAuf5HQrbxWJRle+wOWDY1LpRQD4FTSf3nSPyGR lLAcFT25Lp2HEEnSM03TKq0hVgzTBcfShKmcPB0lN22ZyikNo2TUo1fUpTn/scBgRkoNiT4d1Sr9 1FTdRikN1XKJ1E091Es90jpNBFbd1TvdGVOd02jd1QeW1WQt1I/p1jNx1mld1rjp1cjA1HPN1XB9 12Dd1nNt13QdCh1d03Vd1xqNJ4RZb0Fd2If9Im+d1G8d2c8R14+915Yd1Y29FJV92YB91SGtgKhB 2CgIL/8MxN0B1IH90KftgShN0aid2kvn1/u7iKvt1R1d0HCYh65d0bc9pb19JJL92rLN2X8NC5BV moPd0oVNFIZN3GOt3LRw3EKd3NA93LGQT01N3ZK93GiCftii3dtN1cwdHN+92Dp93tFN3sAB3uht 3QTt3anB3u1d3O892jId/97uDdsz2dwzLdYmHdigJN2izdPP3d89TdOQfdR9CdhYHdx77d8LrtWQ h+BkDeHmLeFmLd5nNd3/fd82fd4bbrkFHlQoDeLkJNyeTdzXvdwhPtR63VAlruEnXtw4DcAsbtGq DUkO/dImXn2xfdmZvSM97uMulOA4fuAyTuQg19ZB7idDfoE/jtZNzs9UXuVWfuVYnuVavuVc3uVe /uVgHuZiPuZkXuZmfuZonuZqvuZs3uZu/uZwHudyPud0Xud2fud4nud6vud83ud+/ueAHuiCPuiE rryIghISLEXDXMeyPMaenMsT6cu/jMiM3uhuTMshbOmXrumMvMuYPOmSXv/pdxzqevzKzQrpjmfq p87pfqfqWProrN7qmC7qTEzqpR7rogzrvJzIs37row7qtt7JuH66qP7rtB7sJFvslE7Ewy6Jyl62 vc7sxn7swE7Mn57pu27tyD7LJ1zt2u7tvj7t4Y7C0S7s4i7t2T7u4E7Jza7L7W7Ltb7u6L7tjg7v 9H7p5c7t527u6T7v8q6xz860/v7vNxvw2H7vnW7vBO/o+c7Fno7wCd/v/L7sA4/GBs+13f7tC7/p Eg/w777v+t7xBf/xIF/vIj/yJz/GF8/uFD/xEC/rJH8Rrv7qwRzz8V7oOJ/zOr/zPN/zPv/zQB/0 Qj/0RF/0Rn/0SJ/0Sr//9Ezf9E7/9FAf9VI/9VRf9VZ/9Vif9Vq/9Vzf9V7/9WAf9mLP89HFHAKN 4J+to0VUMzHdiFMn1jwnXWGd9hbya0Xe2as08/649nLv2anc9s4tbG5ddBje2YoV2vTN1w++uohv +CVx1Yxv5IQP+cTZ+PpdIxQe+QY+DYWv30zH4I2z+JWv2PmN5Jv/mx6e+KYP+qMv+sad+ThZ0ige +qfvlLKv4o5H+R1x+6rfK7pv+7hH+nzL+rsf/LiP2Jh91jAw2aXr+sCvIRfdd51/3LzP/Fvy+65X /c0xus6f/cYP5emN2Rm908s/f9df4WxP/rBN9wuC/nKv/Zh4EH6PYuVf//7mT/sMnv7wv4myAPh5 Df0QAECQ1c6b9ebdfzAUQeoqrTMrqdVLRziWZ3p7MZNr2+6uf2CwdiPqJKyjS7hkNkkqqC3JMzqt 12gO1Zsmq1hwWFbUanber1i9TqMrPi8S12bX1+StFEPV2/33rLcqOTjBv8MPn5dCHELDPMRIJ7zH KMdKN0lNIMrMvEtPxs3RpzLMz0bIU1LWkM45y9RT0VYxRdOsE90U2lrf2cAyXRTeX2MlXFjhyoDi 4+fk18fhN2foa+XsQmrYZlXssFviZnJu7iNycOzX8nK0c3RvdWj2dnlzlfT543r791l9+4z1a/cv VECBCRUuZNjQ4UOIEf8lTqRY0eJFjBk1buTY0eNHkCFFjiRZ0uRJlClVrmTZ0uVLmDFlzqRZ0+ZN nDl17uTZ0+dPoEGFDiVa1OhRpEmVLmXa1OlTqFGlTqVa1epVrFm1buXa1etXsGHFjiVb1uxZtGnV rmXb1u1buHHlzqVb1+5dvHn17uXb1+9fwIEFDyZc2PBhxIkVL2bc2PFjyJElT6Zc2fJlzJk1b+bc 2fNn0KFFjyYdWQ5ahGZTk109tnXT12Jjg3WHWp7tXkZn0759drfX312DHx3OtfjW41mTK+/9dDnW 51ejV51OtbrP61OzR63tu3nZ7TrDQx3v/Lvr87LTMy3vtD3s9bxzG4//n/Q9+/pf7yvdbz8/0v78 m0+r7lT7T7gDiwoQwASRa5C5ASG07kEJ01pQNwqhyxCoCzGMsELvPpRuQw5JpM5E7TokSsUVUeSJ xaFgFErGEkW0ikaVcPxJR+xc5M7HH23cEUjyiDRPyAmRTFHJnnhs0kj4oMSPSamcLMnKnbAUT8ql tMTJS5HAvElMm8ikycwzuUyTyiDVQlOmN2OKc6M5YarTpQLBU5O/PeHsk0E2iwzUvT89TNLNQjFE dFBCGS0zUQUhbdHRLiWd0VKW7sQT0xoX9bRKTju1MNQeKeXT1DU/tU3VEJdk1UBUAR01Vj9pJY7U J3F9UdddbX1J05aA/82U1y19nfTQWRF9VU9jgyW22GXRa/bSaYetNihhc3w2p2y1vbY0cMMVd1xy yzX3XHTTVXdddtt1911445V3XnrrtfdefPPVd19++/X3X4ADFnhgggs2+GCEE1Z4YYYbdvhhiCOW eGKKK7b4YozXXMSfeAoaZ5FqPFakWzUKtIeXk01ACGWR89m2FZM5niBllXvbxWNtSLYlNZpnlrlj VWge+WVSYsb5ZCJWDrm7pIlewhptPCEm6FWUsTkla/Bg5Go34ED5myshIUMUrufYZuqqQ4J67B6y BjuTsk1yWwuy586GGagd0joWOvAxI5qT2F6m7677iDpwvlHhgu608/++G6S9GSe8G8MPD1tyxSeH h+pkFto68WByMfxbcM4e/O80vE4b8cplaV3sL0hfZ/HMQ+c8ENmvMb1226eJPaM8Q5F6eN9RJ17u 1SI3fnnVj0f+O8FfL9743OlpLfreC2f+1+RBz97s3zlaWWaknb85IMedPX98jj9f+rbNN10f/p7d 91lp51Fin2mhab8f/rdZ6330Ix/tfhY/4DWODqczRfX2wYfs2e9xCPwV8SQouj44cB4U3N32PHgm C/oPg9SDnAKlN70Glul4HcRdBscUwgWikIFwMuHyWvjBmUAwgCusoQbDMcLvKa95wJCb9zpHxPRR 7oglxNz3DsdBsPn/UBPKCyLohii8IjZxiViEIhEfEjcWqux2V5zZDj9StguKEYVXjNuV7OZENNaw jKvzCBhjiA7YVW1jZqzjG7c4R4M8rhtJZEiettEzoOXRdsFzYxtrhrNEai90jGwkIcv3SEVOUmfh 4JkOEHm/23WOkiMxmSd/FknwtW6UGWNlK135SljGUpazpGUtbXlLXOZSl7vkZS/fdcn/7e+Ryesk LgyJyFU+sH7I3N/1ivkNo0ESlF9c5imjSczmEORj0YwIMIE5zQE2DWTG5BkznTaEakrzmtDrHjlt Zk4prkKHodTa1/BITzMS8oGok+Dm7HlPQEoylan7Ij+REchp/DOb/ynkIR3VIY5+RrEaaAuoEgV6 w4ZA9KADTShFK7q21enzDxpVpRf35keOAk5vBi2p5Sx3mpS6zoaCfChLW0rFf4BUixJdqRFNCsSc ZhKhKi2kTWeqQ39uAaXzxOIoSDpTnjYPphQUZDyb8NQIAtUQU5WjExWC1azuNA4WreodM2rULWIP FSjdoVWfhtYlqtV3bIXhQOC6tKMOjwfmuJ4p3cqJu6KyqVINZPC2tskFMlWwT9QDFVgmjcWe1aeR letYB8rIQ57zB2DFpEqH6Fi8xvVN3vykz7YJQJbGr5nYhAhpT2najuGPb6oloDTjQU3ylRa2wUTg XvVYW8Nqdgautf/tantr2bsZt2m4PZpu0VdAEsZ0t9+8LSvyNqAuJk6x0jVrTTGB3YZqt6ER+msM rgsDxRIWuY0dQXnNC832dnWr8w2fK3oKN/TW9XTb3a5X6zDO/Ak1gHyAqVZF+FWG2pem6u3CIPIr WWY8OIzrLfBkT7jBBJeirEatsIAPLBAA0zSwE4yw+8BbtAwTNY3nOA1OeQrhi0Z1owhtsYVdiuBQ TjK8ayTreola1By/eMUl/mlLgRxhzR0YpEndMB/t4OKJItkGClVjQC0pUu96GKDcjTJA97hlqjoy IVDuMpetDI93atnKrTUwmPNJZYraccpOnt0Mq2zmNH93F2oWcyRAIArPP4KzqYL9ZjIxbAlAO1TQ N15nNhG7yNiWs88f+zEqC/1oSPP2sYE2ZDCOeUBMv20FnyylC9oJTeVSmgkRAAA7 ------=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Generalfactorofpersonality_datoteke/header.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

General personality factor

 

1

 

 

------=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A247B2F9/Generalfactorofpersonality_datoteke/filelist.xml Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" ------=_NextPart_01C70E18.23123BF0--