CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Personality Traits and PsychologyCultural Differences and ValuesCategorization, perception, and language

An alternative multi‐language structure for personality attributes

Saucier, Gerard·2003·European Journal of Personality
DOI 10.1002/per.489
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A scientific taxonomy of human personality attributes should optimally be based on studies from multiple languages and cultures. Study 1 demonstrates convergence between seven‐factor structures found in previous studies of Filipino and Hebrew languages. Study 2 shows that this ‘Multi‐Language Seven’ (ML7) factor model overlaps partially with the Big Five model, but includes four rather than three affective–interpersonal factors, replicates in American English lexical data nearly as well as the Big Five, and has close correspondences to the structure upon which two Italian lexical studies have converged. Correlates were used to clarify interpretation of ML7 factors labelled Gregariousness, Self‐Assurance, Even Temper ‘versus Temperamentalness’, Concern for Others, Conscientiousness, Originality/Virtuosity, and Negative Valence ‘or Social Unacceptability’. These studies indicate the viability of a lexically derived ‘etic’ alternative to the Big Five. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/per.489

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies of more diverse cultures show that Big Six or Multi-Language Seven taxonomies may better represent the personality domain.

    “And, although the Big Five structure appears to replicate across many cultures (McCrae and Costa [1997b]), studies of more diverse cultures show that taxonomies known as the Big Six (Ashton, Lee, Perugini et al. [2004]) or the Multi-Language Seven (ML7; Saucier [2003]), may better represent the personality domain.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Saucier [2003]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Saucier, G.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
Corresponding author
Saucier, Gerard
ORCID
Saucier, Gerard
Venue
European Journal of Personality
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2003-05
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
179-205
ISSN
  • 0890-2070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0984
DOI
10.1002/per.489
OpenAlex
W2131337685
Cited by
69
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
European Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
personality structure, Big Five personality traits, cross-cultural personality, Filipino language, Hebrew language, conscientiousness, originality, negative valence, gregariousness, self-confidence, concern for others

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