The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research
Open accessAbstract
We review research aimed at the development of a compelling taxonomy of personality‐descriptive terms. We identify five issues central to the construction of personality taxonomies and discuss the advantages and limitations of the lexical approach. Our review of research stimulated by this approach begins with Allport and Odbert's trait names, retraces the procedures that led to Cattell's personality factors, and summarizes contemporary work in English and in Dutch. Taxonomers and lay people alike view stable traits as the most fundamental personality concepts. At the broadest level of abstraction, this domain is often represented by five dimensions related to Power (or Surgency), Love (Agreeableness), Work (Conscientiousness), Affect (Emotional Stability), and Intellect (Culture). However, given that their number and interpretation are still debated, these dimensions should not be considered final but as a heuristically useful framework. Indeed, if the fifth dimension represents Intellect, our review suggests that Culture, Values and even Autonomy‐Conformity might be additional dimensions. Some researchers, such as Goldberg and Wiggins, have constructed more narrow categories to permit a differentiated mapping of trait descriptors. Taxonomies of states, activities, and social roles and effects still need to be developed; a broad conception of personality might also include health, fitness, and physical attractiveness. A comprehensive taxonomy would provide a common framework for research guided by different theoretical orientations and could guide the selection of variables for research. Ultimately, the value of a taxonomy depends on its success in predicting important outcomes in people's lives.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 · Cited by 6,404
Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936) · Psychological Monographs · doi:10.1037/h0093360 · Cited by 2,018
The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters.
Cattell, R. B. (1943) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054116 · Cited by 987
Cited by
(1999) · Cited by 7,995
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835
Self-citationThe development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure
Goldberg, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 · Cited by 5,530
Four ways five factors are basic
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-i · Cited by 3,386
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517
Metadata
- Authors
- John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F.
- Venue
- European Journal of Personality
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1988-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 171-203
- ISSN
- 0890-2070 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0984
- OpenAlex
- W2128517183
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/per.2410020302
- The paper
- John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020302
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.