This conclusion is neither new nor radical; it is entirely consistent with current FFM theory. McCrae et al. (1996) said that the FFM “does not assume that all personality traits define one and only one factor” (p. 553). They went on to say, “There is no theoretical reason why traits should not have meaningful loadings on three, four, or five factors” (p. 553). Costa and McCrae (1995) also noted that the five domains are not themselves mutually exclusive: Traits appear to relate to two or more of the five broad domains. In fact, they said they assigned facets to one and only one domain to accommodate the need for simplicity (Costa & McCrae, 1995). Hofstee, de Raad, and Goldberg (1992) also identified multiple loadings among traits. Authors have, consistent with this view, referred to the five domains as abstractions (Markon et al., 2005; Saucier, 1998). It seems clear that the traits measured by facet scales are not indicators in the CFA sense; they are not meant to be straightforward expressions of theoretically meaningful constructs (the five factors).
