Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 560

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 access
John, Oliver P., Angleitner, Alois, Ostendorf, Fritz·1988·European Journal of Personality

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/per.2410020302

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 560

Metadata

Authors
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F.
Venue
European Journal of Personality
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.