Opening up openness: a theoretical sort following critical incidents methodology and a meta-analytic investigation of the trait family measures.

Existing taxonomies of Openness's facet structure have produced widely divergent results, and there is limited comprehensive empirical evidence about how Openness-related scales on existing personality inventories align within the 5-factor framework. In Study 1, we used a critical incidents sorting methodology to identify 11 categories of Openness measures; in Study 2, we meta-analyzed the relationships of these categories with global markers of the Big Five traits (utilizing data from 106 samples with a total sample size of N = 35,886). Our results identified 4 true facets of Openness: aestheticism, openness to sensations, nontraditionalism, and introspection. Measures of these facets were unadulterated by variance from other Big Five traits. Many traits frequently conceptualized as facets of Openness (e.g., innovation/creativity, variety-seeking, and tolerance) emerged as trait compounds that, although related to Openness, are also dependent on other Big Five traits. We discuss how Openness should be conceptualized, measured, and studied in light of the empirically based, refined taxonomy emerging from this research.

Samples in applied psychology: over a decade of research in review.

This study examines sample characteristics of articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) from 1995 to 2008. At the individual level, the overall median sample size over the period examined was approximately 173, which is generally adequate for detecting the average magnitude of effects of primary interest to researchers who publish in JAP. Samples using higher units of analyses (e.g., teams, departments/work units, and organizations) had lower median sample sizes (Mdn ≈ 65), yet were arguably robust given typical multilevel design choices of JAP authors despite the practical constraints of collecting data at higher units of analysis. A substantial proportion of studies used student samples (~40%); surprisingly, median sample sizes for student samples were smaller than working adult samples. Samples were more commonly occupationally homogeneous (~70%) than occupationally heterogeneous. U.S. and English-speaking participants made up the vast majority of samples, whereas Middle Eastern, African, and Latin American samples were largely unrepresented. On the basis of study results, recommendations are provided for authors, editors, and readers, which converge on 3 themes: (a) appropriateness and match between sample characteristics and research questions, (b) careful consideration of statistical power, and (c) the increased popularity of quantitative synthesis. Implications are discussed in terms of theory building, generalizability of research findings, and statistical power to detect effects.