Brand Egan 1

7/30/2019 Brand Egan 1

1/7

Person. diCi. O$ Vol IO. No. II. pp. 1165-1171. 1989Printed in Great Briram All rights reserved 01914869 89 53.00 + 0.00Copyright e 1989 Pergamon Press plc

THE BIG FIVE DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY?EVIDENCE FROM IPSATIVE, ADJECTIVAL

SELF-ATTRIBUTIONSC. R. BRANDand V. EGAN

Department of Psychology. University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ. Scotland(Received 27 September 1988)

Summary-A new ipsative adjective checklist was completed by 160 young adults of above-averageeducational attainment. When 47 principal components having eigenvalues greater than unity wererotated, the first six Varimax factors recovered from the inter-adjectival correlations were interpreted asvariants of the Big Five personality dimensions (ext raversion, autonomy, neurot ic ism, conscient iousnessand render-mindedness) plus intell igence. Visual scree test, however, suggested the extraction of I2components; and Varimax rotation of these yielded possible equivalents of Eysencks Psychoticism,Extraversion and Neuroticism as the three chief factors beyond which factor-definition was markedly lessfeasible. Both the number and the nature of major, recognizable personality dimensions depended in thisstudy on how much specificity was retained for factorial rotation: retaining more specificity seemed tocountenance dimensional differentiation such as that between fluid and crystallized intelligence.

What are the major dimensions of human personality? This question has continued to preoccupydifferential psychologists despite the classic attempts of R. B. Cattell (1946; Cattell, Eber andTatsouka, 1970) and H. J. Eysenck (1947, 1967; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1969) to answer itdefinitively.

Lately, a converging consensus has been claimed among psychometrically oriented psycholo-gists to the effect that five personality dimensions can be recovered with some regularity fromself-report data. McCrae and Costa (1985, 1987) call these dimensions the Big Five. In additionit is generally granted by psychometric investigators that intelligence-at least as conventionallymeasured by IQ-type tests-constitutes a sixth, relatively independent dimension of personality(e.g. Zuckerman, Kuhlman and Camac, 1988, p. 103).

In an attempt to articulate this hypothetical consensus, Table 1 sets out the six largelyindependent dimensions that might be argued, from face inspection of factorial results, to berecognised comparably by a number of trait psychologists in the 1980s-and also to have madetheir appearance earlier in the work of Cattell, Eysenck, J. P. Guilford, E. Howarth, P. Kline, J-P.Rushton and others (see Brand, 1984). The table uses the authors own favoured titles for the sixdimensions; it also provides supplementary information in some cases as to the composition ofauthors dimensions. The following summary titles for the dimensions might be quite widelyacceptable (although McCrae and Costa prefer to rotate II and VI a little):

I extraversion vs introversionII autonomy vs agreeabilityIII neuroticism/emotionality vs stability/equanimity

IV intelligence/educationV conscientiousness vs impulsiveness/casualness/expedienceVI tender-mindedness/openness/culture vs tough-mindedness/practicality/realism.

Whether the 12 six-dimensional schemes listed in Table 1 are truly equivalent requires furtherempirical study; and so does the robustness (or otherwise) of the six dimensions across differenttypes of data. The psychometric nature of Eysencks and Cattells dimensions of Neuroticism/Anxiety and Extraversion/Exvia is overwhelmingly agreed by investigators. Other major dimen-sions, however, if they really exist, currently involve more varied nomenclature, instantiation andperhaps conceptualization. Thus Waller and Ben-Porath (1987) have counselled psychologists torefrain from jumping on to a big five bandwaggon merely because of McCrae and Costas work;

1165


2/7

TeISxmoaagydndmoop

ythaagyr

(whvynnmauin

pmcsuea

ew

Ah (

H

(1

I

I

I

IV

V

V

SU

-SOALT

-AUM

IN

G

COMT

LKLT

(2RaPw

-SOA

(1

INBTO

(3B

1

E E

O

A

M

-EMOSLT

N

CSM

EMOT

1N

G

IN

G

G INBTO

C

E

C comn

cocuc -mvC comy

ceo

odycmv

comn

C

EON

pov-dav

-ocSCodycvysuuC

EON

wOae

rb-MUVUOAZ

SAOSN

cvyuu

-mo

d

SU S paankcn

C

EON

WLTAE

coep

n

C

EON

dpnp cumn

-he

-C

A

-omn

-cA

O

PAMA

temn

tunuan

ahcneeu

oeao

-T

POS

svy

fmnntemn

-v

-EWd

O imnv

u ineeuL

OSOAZO

loed-

v

O inekacu-A

V

SAO

SN

rbe

-

v

-heC

SM

pcObw

pctoo

pyopo

O C temn

acabbd

-C s -u -oe

WL IN s

ce

dmnrcmbmam

IN dmnimno

imnv

emn

roadce

av-A

(4KuaJ

(1(5NePa

(1

E

O

vum

e

e

- av

E

O

AE

IN

G

IN

G

nocte a

v

dv

N

CSM

(6MCaCa

(1(7LaKg

(1(8BwnaB

(1(9ZmPa

(1

IN

G

E

O

A

M

-d

AE

ING

SU AVT

ege

o

-A q

m

-wm-SOALT

da -v-av

-EMOSLT

N

CSM

AE

ING

IN

G

(O)M

CIu

(1(Dgm(1X

E

O

takom

E

O

PY

CSM

u

v

imeinde

-FE CMA

-A dmnrc-A -wn-mae-gnu

cm

N

CSM

hgysu

som

N

CSM

IQ ING

(1DR

u

(1

E

O

EMOINLT

vne

o

v

lae

C k pooccse

takvf ehac

Ahoweohdmoa

ncaFhcacoydpoinow

eenincesmohseaemnahowwkhacam

bahIOohedmoTpx*ncelhhdmo(oseoemaewd

nvknoOcaepvywhhoh

pavvaohdmothaenhsmcumohae


3/7

The Big Five dimensions of personality? 1167and Zucket-man et al . (1988), while themselves finding five factors (excluding intelligence) aftervisual scree test of their data from 46 questionnaire scales, have noted the theoretical attractivenessof acknowledging just Eysencks three dimensions of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism,plus psychometric intelligence (e.g. Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). (Eysencks Psychoticism dimen-sion would presumably be envisaged as an underlying influence that ramifies variously into suchDimensions as II and (negatively) V and VI.)

The present exploratory study thus reports an attempt to recover psychometric dimensions froma new, short (one-page), adjectival self-report device of the ipsative type. This attempt was madewith three special considerations in mind.

(i) Firstly, adjectival self-ratings allow of brevity in self-assessment while having predictivevalidity greater than that of more behavioural act-descriptive sentences (Smid, Douma,Lenthe and Ranchor, 1988).

(ii) Secondly, the special interest of ipsative self-reports is their likely immunity to gross socialdesirability response-sets, especially when a range of potential descriptors is provided suchthat no markedly linear ranking of their desirability is possible. [The particular ipsativedevice used here minimizes the occasional unacceptability to testees of such forced-choiceassessment by allowing testees to give no response one way or the other to 50% of thepresented adjectives. Ipsative items nevertheless pose problems for correlational andfactorial analysis (Johnson, Wood and Blinkhorn, 1988): some of the (negative) correlationbetween components of ipsative items arises merely because of the choices that Ss have beenobliged to make within each item. However, resulting factors can be examined for excessivedependency on particular forced choices; and scales constructed from a number of ipsativeitems can readily be shown to possess true variance when they correlate substantially withother scales. Thus Johnson et al . themselves note that the ipsative scale titled i@ence onCleavers DISC system (e.g. Oddy, 1985) correlates at +0.70 with Cattells Exvia, and thatthe DISC scale dominance correlates at +0.48 with Cattells Independence.](iii) Lastly, the checklist used here expressly included items that might enable differentiation oftestees on each of the hypothetical Big Six dimensions-in so far as the nature of thesewas understood by the first author.

METHODTwenty-four items were written, each involving six relatively socially desirable adjectival

descriptors. The adjectives within each item were intended to represent most of the six dimensionsof Table 1. Testees were asked, on each six-choice item, to report those two of the adjectives thatdescribed them most adequately, and the one adjective that fitted them least well. For example,the first item on the checklist required testees to make their selections from: relaxed, well-informed, commanding, compassionate, enthusiastic and hardworking. (The Appendix showsthe full set of 24 items and the 144 adjectives that were involved.) Testees responded by circlingeither M (for most adequately) or L (for least well) beneath the adjectives that they selectedwithin each item.The 144 adjectives, thus arranged, were administered to 52 psychology undergraduates (agedabout 19 yrs, and two-thirds female) and 108 other educated young adults (aged around 21, andone-third female). The psychology undergraduates were in their second or third year of universitystudy and came from the Social Sciences, Science and Arts Faculties of the University ofEdinburgh; they were given the exercise as part of their practical work in differential psychology.The other testees came from a wide variety of academic backgrounds. About half of them had takentertiary level courses in business-related subjects. They were trainee managers, support managersor job applicants for junior managerial positions; and the adjectives were administered to themunder the auspices of Personality Assessment Limited, 39, Waterloo Street, Birmingham.For the purpose of statistical analysis, each of the 144 adjectives was scored, 2, 1 or 0, dependingon whether it had been selected as fitting the testee most (2), least (0), or had not been selected


4/7

1168 C. R. BRANDand V. EGANTable 2. Adjectives loading the first eight Varimax Factors of the present study. [The order of Varimax extraction is indicated m

parentheses ( 11I (6) 113) 111 (4) IV (5) V (2) VI (1) VII (7) VIII (8)

Positice vivacious bohemian commandina auick-witted conscientiousloadings vibrant( > +0.25) noisy

outspokennonconforming defiantrebellious indulgentunusualcolourfulresolutepassionate

Negative imperturbable capable relaxedloadings tranquil bright equable(C -0.25) deliberate sensible tranquil

liivolous high-principled attentivepopular moralcouT1cousthorougheasy-going

iilfulinventiveamusingimaginativehumorous

dependabledutifulattentive

industriouseficienthard-workingprudentexactbusinesslikemeticulousthorough

unshockableplacidaloofacceptingimperturbabledefiant

loving well-informedtender-hearted eruditecompassionate knowledgeablepassionate exactsoft-hearted intelligentexcitablehastyhot-bloodedindulgentI-rivolouscompanionablebenevolentlenientunsentimental enthusiasticdeliberate altruisticcomposed communicativepurposeful easy-goinghardkeensensiblecool-headedbrightproductiveattentivebusinesslikewell-balancedlevel-headed

restrictivealoofsternexacting

lenientwell-balancedcommunicativeeasy-going

(1). These scores for the adjectives were then inter-correlated and submitted to PrincipalComponent analysis followed by Varimax rotation, using the SPSSX statistics package at theEdinburgh Regional Computing Centre. (Because of within-item ipsativity there will be somedistortion of 24 x 5! = 360 of the 143! = 10,296 correlations-i.e. one distortion per 28.6 correla-tions. This will not seriously invalidate the factor analysis any more than would inclusion of twoor three random variables amongst the 144.)

RESULTS

1. Pri ncipal components and vari max rotat ionThe Principal Components analysis extracted 47 components having eigenvalues of unity orgreater. Varimax rotation of the 47 components converged after 255 iterations to show eight factors

that were loaded at 2 + 0.25 or at G - 0.25 by eight or more adjectives. The items thus loadingthese eight chief Varimax factors are shown in Table 2 which arranges the first six of the factorsin correspondence with the six dimensions set out in Table 1. The single adjectives having quitethe highest loadings (20.70) on the eight factors (as ordered in Table 2) were as follows: Ivivacious; II bohemian; III commanding (though it should be noted that indulgent also loadspositively on Factor III); IV quick-witted; V conscientious; VI loving; VII well-informed; VIIIrestrictive.2. Rotated components after scree test

Because of the large number of variables in this study, a scree test was carried out to limit thenumber of factors. Twelve components were thus selected, having eigenvalues ranging from 12.8down to 2.6. Varimax rotation (converging in 40 iterations) yielded three factors that hadrespectively 21, 17 and 15 adjectives loading them at 2 + 0.40 or < - 0.40. (No other factor hadmore than seven such loadings.)

Table 3 displays these three chief factors. The descriptors having the highest loadings (20.55)were as follows:Factor A industrious, conscientious, hard-working, thorough, meticulous;Factor B non-equable, non-tranquil, non-mild;Factor C hasty, compassionate, tender-hearted, loving, excitable, passionate, soft-hearted,sentimental.


5/7

The Big Five dimensions of personality? 1169Table 3. Adiectives loadinn the three substantial Variman Factors when selection of factors bv scree test orecedes rotation

Factor APosiricc hard-working dependableloadings sensible efficient( ? +o.w dutiful industriousattentive conscientious

businesslike meticulousthorough

Negoriwloadings( c -0.40)

quick-wittedamusingspontaneousskilfulhumorous

inventiveunshockablerebelliousunusualimaginative

Factor Bambitious vibrantvivacious outspokeninfluential communicativepopular expressivedashing

Factor Ccompassionate tender-heartedwilful excitableloving passionatehot-blooded hastysoft-hearted

restrainedequableplacidserene

tranquilmildlong-sufferingsedate

thick-skinnedcool-headedlevel-headed

composeddeliberateunsentimental

DISCUSSION

The present analysis of a brief, ipsative, adjectival self-report checklist yielded: (1) some eightVarimax factors having sufficient loadings to allow tentative interpretation, bearing in mind thelow ratio of Ss to variables in the study; and (2) three chief Varimax factors after scree test onall the original principal components.I. Varimax factors

The first six of the eight Varimax factors seem to approximate the six dimensions of personalitythat have been claimed to provide a converging consensus for trait psychology in recent years.

Factor I, involving spontaneity and exuberance vs quiet reflection, is not strongly defined; butit is arguably a recognizable and fairly central variant of extrauersion or energy. (Its somewhatunlikely negative loading for frivolity probably reflects the occurrence of a choice betweenoutspokenness and frivolity on the same item of the checklist.)

Factor II contrasts nonconforming qualities with those of a more adaptable, other-oriented andimmediately helpful nature. It is presumably the aut onomy vs agreeabl eness second-order dimensionthat Cattell has often called Independence and (in the past) Promethean Will.Factor II I poses some interpretative problems by conventional standards. It fairly clearly reflectsimpulsive emotionality and commitment as opposed to a lower level of emotional involvement. Itsdrive-like nature may reflect neuroticism; but it is not neuroticism of any noticeably clinical type,and rhathymia (with its connotations of enthusiasm and impulse) may be a more satisfactory title.

Factor IV involves self-rated quick-wittedness, skilfulness and humour as opposed todependability. It is perhaps a factor reflecting fluid intelligence as self-assessed-see also Factorvzz.Factor V is readily identified as one of self-assessed conscientiousness, or obsessionality, as

contrasted with a more laid-back, unshockable, unconcerned, expedient style.Factor VI is the largest Varimax factor and is readily labelled t ender-mi ndedness. It is loadedpositively for self-reported affection and openness to warm emotional experience; and it is loaded

negatively by more tough-minded, cerebral and practical qualities. As such it seems to be arecognizable (if relatively fluid, temperamental) version of Cattells second-order dimension ofPathemi a vs Cortert ia, or of McCrae and Costas Openness.

Factor VZZ, ike Factor IV, appears to involve self-assessed intelligence. However, it is crystallizedintelligence and education (well-informed, erudite) that are involved here, somewhat inopposition to a more extraverted, affiliative style.Factor VIII seems to reflect a disciplinarian as opposed to a more humanitarian style. It has no

clear equivalent among the Big Six dimensions, unless perhaps as a relatively specific version ofFactors II and V.Thus it appears that the medium of a brief, adjectival, ipsative checklist, involving previouslyquite untried items, yields as its first six Varimax factors the Big Five dimensions that can beidentified in other self-report studies, together with a factor that arguably reflects differences inself-assessed fluid intelligence. Provisional summary titles for the six factors might be energy, will,rhathymialneuroticism, fluid intelligence, conscientiousness, and aflection Jtender-mindedness (cf.Brand, 1984).


6/7

1170 C. R. BRANDand V. EGAN2. Vari max fact ors aft er scree test

The above analysis, however, can only evade criticism of over-factoring because of thereasonably conventional nature of its rather thinly defined factors. Selecting only 12 componentsfor rotation yields an equally clear but markedly different result. The three resulting factors to standout may be described as follows.

Factor A involves features of exactness, propriety and conscientiousness as opposed to moreliberal, casual, non-conforming, self-indulgent, humorous and perhaps creative self-attributions.It might be considered a relatively value-free version of Eysencks Psychoticism dimension(reversed); or, as Eysenck has sometimes written of P (reversed), it might be a superego factor, orone of convergent vs divergent (creative) thinking. Scrupulosity vs Spontaneity might serve as atitle.

Factor B contrasts an expressive, engaging and dynamic style with one of greater restraint,placidity and tolerance. It may be closest to Eysencks Extraversion, while particularly reflectingindividual differences in assertiveness. Surgency vs Stoicism might provide a title.

Factor C contrasts emotionality, passion and excitability with composure, deliberation andunsentimentality. It is presumably a factor of Neuroticism vs ego defence, though without built-inclinical connotations, and with a special overtone of idealism and affection for others. [LestNeuroticism seem too daring a title in the circumstances, it may be remarked that Eysencks hhas been reported to correlate at +0.58 ith manic love (involving the experience of intenseemotion, excitement and romantic preoccupation) (Lester and Philbrick, 1988).] The main contrast(reversed) is apparently one of Sense vs Sensibility.Which of the two Varimax solutions is to be preferred? Evidently much depends on the criteriafor factor extraction and rotation (cf. Brand, 1972). It is not that the Big Five (or Six) dimensionsemerge here as involving just one or two additions to Eysencks scheme: the two solutions differqualitatively as well as quantitatively.What needs to be resolved is the optimum specificity that should be retained for the purposesof rotation. By discarding specific factors one may lose sight of ways in which more general.perhaps more fluid personality features (arguably represented by Eysencks smaller number ofdimensions) have differentiated and achieved crystallized expression during development: forexample, the non-scree-tested solution recognized plausible self-report variants of both gj and g,.Yet to discard specificity may be positively helpful if it displays the temperamental bases ofpersonality more clearly.The problem could presumably be resolved by psychogenetic and experimental work that tookseriously the occasional distinction between fluid and crystallized personality features-as iscommonly done in the study of intelligence. Meanwhile, however, it should be helpful for researchpurposes that relatively value-free estimation of both the Big Five (or Six) and of Eysencks BigThree (or Four-including Intelligence) dimensions can apparently be obtained from a one-pageadjective checklist. It would seem that further empirical work with ipsative items would offer anovel, practical, and relatively desirability-free way of assessing peoples self-images in accordancewith the converging consensus as to what are the major independent dimensions of humanpersonality-no matter on what precise number the consensus converges.Acknow ledgemenrs-We are grateful to John Digman, Maurice Lorr and Gregory Boyle for assistance in our attempt toreview the relevant literature on the Big Five dimensions.

REFERENCESBotwin M. and Buss D. M. (1987) The structure of act report data. (Obtainable from the authors at Department ofPsychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.)Brand C. R. (1972) Relations between emotional and social behaviour: a questionnaire study of individual differences. Er. 1.sot. clin. Pswhol. 11, 10-19.Brand C. R. (1984) Personality dimensions: an overview of modern trait psychology. In Psychology Survey 5 (Edited by

Nicholson J. and Beloff H.). British Psychological Society, Leicester.Cattell R. B. (1946) The Descri pri on and M easurement of Personali ty . Harrap, London.Cattell R. B.. Eber H. W. and Tatsouka M. M. (1970) Handbook for th e Sixteen Personalit Facto r Quest ionnai re (16PFI.Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, III.De Raad B.. Mulder E.. Kloosterman K. and Hofstee W. K. B. (1988) Personality-descriptive verbs. Eur. J. Person. 2,81-96.


7/7

The Big Five dimensions of personality? 1171Digman J. M. (1988) Eysenck, Guilford and Cattell and the Big Five factors of personality. (Obtainable from the author

at Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii.)Eysenck H. J. (1947) Dimensions of Personality. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Eysenck H. J. (1967) The Biol ogical Basis of Personality. Thomas, Springfield, III.Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1969) Personali t y Sfrucrure and Measurement. Knapp, San Diego, Calif.Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck M. W. (1985) Personalit y and Indi vi dual Di fferences: A Nat ural Science Approach. Plenum Press,New York.Hogan R. (1983) Socioanalytic theory of personality. In 1982 Nebrusku Symposium on M oriv arion: Personoliry- Current

Theory nnd Research (Edited by Page M. M.), pp. 58-89. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Johnson C. E., Wood R. and Blinkhom S. F. (1988) Spuriouser and spuriouser: the use of ipsative personality tests.J. occup. Psycho!. 61, 153-162.Krug S. E. and Johns E. F. (1986) A large-scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF.Psychol. Rep. 59, 683-693.Lester D. and Philbrick J. (1988) Correlates of styles of love. Person. i ndi vi d. 013 9. 689690.Lorr M. and Knight Luanne A. (1987) Higher-order factors assessed by the IS1 and PRF. J. cl i n. Psychol. 43, 9699.McCrae R. R. and Costa P. T. Jr (1985) Updating Normans adequate taxonomy: intelligence and personality dimensionsin natural language and in questionnaires. J. Person. sot . Psychol . 449, 710-721.McCrae R. R. and Costa P. T. Jr (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.J. Person. sot. Psychol. 52, 81-90.Meyer Joanne M., Heath A. C., Eaves L. J., Mosteller M. and Schieken R. M. (1988) The predictive power of Cattellspersonality questionnaires: an eighteen-month prospective study. Person. indi vi d. D@ 9, 203-212.Noller Patricia, Law H. and Comrey A. L. (1987) Cattell. Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: moreevidence for the five robust factors? J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 53, 755-782.

Oddy K. (1985) PAL Personalit y Profi l e System (PPS) M unual. Personality Assessment Limited, Birmingham.Royce J. R. and Powell S. (1983) Theory of Personali ty and Indi vi dual Di fferences: Facto rs. Systems and Processes.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Smid N., Douma Marian. Van Lenthe Jelle and Ranchor Adelita (1988) The predictive validity of three different types ofpersonality assessment instruments. Eur. J. Person. 2, 143-154.Wailer N. G. and Ben-porath Y. S. (1987) Correspondence. Am. Psycho/. 42, 887-889.Zuckerman M.. Kuhlman M. and Camac C. (1988) What lies beyond N and E? Factor analyses of scales believed to measurebasic dimensions of personality. J. P erson. sot . Psy chol. 54, 96107.

APPENDIXThe 24 Items (144 Adjectives) Used in the Present Study

(I) Relaxed(2) Quick-witted(3) Amusing(4) Frank(5) Companionable(6) Exact(7) Magnanimous(8) Efficient(9) Vibrant

(IO) Phlegmatic(I I) Frivolous(12) Sophisticated(13) Stem(14) Rebellious(I 5) High-principled(16) Unusual(17) Placid( 18) Observant(19) Humorous(20) Accomplished(21) Affable(22) Expressive(23) Soft-hearted(24) Cultivated

Well-informedDependableRestrainedAltruisticFirmSkilfulEquableForgivingInventiveIndividualisticAttentiveMildPassionateSteadyCool-headedDeliberateBusinesslikeAloofThoroughHopefulShrewdMercifulDefiantEasy-to-please

CommandingAmiableAcuteScrupulousImperturbableKeenProgressiveSelf-possessedPurposefulHelpfulOutspokenUnshockableDiscreetInfluentialPopularcourteousEngagingWell-balancedInquisitiveTenaciouscorrectPainstakingSedateMoral

CompassionateActiveObjectiveSpontaneousPrudentResoluteNoisySubtleTranquilInterestingAmicableOfficiousWiseIdealisticBohemianAstuteObligingGenialEasy-goingLevel-headedUnsentimentalImaginativeColourfulSingle-minded

EnthusiasticWilfulAmbitiousSensibleVivaciousDown-to-earthCapableExcitableDutifulCunningReasonableCommunicativeBenevolentIntelligentRefinedStoicalReformingMeticulousLong-sufferingRestrictiveAutonomousSereneHonestWilling

Hard-workingThick-skinnedAcceptingKnowledgeableEtTectiveTender-heartedProductiveHardLovingIndustriousResourcefulConscientiousComposedForesightfulIndulgentHot-bloodedEruditeHeartyNon-conformingLenientHastyExactingBrightDashing

Brand Egan 1

Documents

Transcript of Brand Egan 1