Lexical Studies of Indigenous Personality Factors: Premises, Products, and Prospects
Abstract
The rationale for lexical studies rests on the assumption that the most meaningful personality attributes tend to become encoded in language as single‐word descriptors. We articulate some key premises of the lexical approach and then review a number of studies that have been conducted examining the factor structure of personality descriptors extracted from dictionaries. We compare lexical studies in English and 12 other languages, with attention to delineating consistencies between the structures found in diverse languages. Our review suggests that the Anglo‐Germanic Big Five is reproduced better in some languages than in others. We propose some organizing rules for lexical factor structures that may be more generalizable than the contemporary Big‐Five model. And, we propose several candidate structural models that should be compared with the Big Five in future studies, including structures with one, two, and three very broad factors, an alternative five‐factor structure identified in Italian and Hungarian studies, and a seven‐factor structure represented in Hebrew and Philippine studies. We recommend that in future studies more attention be paid to middle‐level personality constructs and to examining the effects of methodological variations on the resulting factor structures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The Big Five structure has replicated poorly when lexical analyses are conducted in diverse languages and in several small-scale societies.
“Similarly, although others have not found as overt problems (see ref. 15), the Big Five structure has replicated poorly when lexical analyses are conducted in diverse languages (16) and in several small-scale societies (17–19).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.729 · Cited by 1,996 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Personality Development: Stability and Change
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141913 · Cited by 2,699 · see citing works
Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880 · Cited by 1,920 · see citing works
Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample.
DeYoung, C. G. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138 · Cited by 933 · see citing works
Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and implications
Poropat, A. E. (2014) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.013 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
An alternative multi‐language structure for personality attributes
Saucier, G. (2003) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.489 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citationCircadian Preference and the Big Five: The Role of Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking
Russo, P. M., Leone, L., Penolazzi, B., & Natale, V. (2012) · Chronobiology International · doi:10.3109/07420528.2012.706768 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Implications of an Emerging Integration of Universal and Culturally Specific Psychologies
Smith, G. T., Spillane, N. S., & Annus, A. M. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00013.x · Cited by 35 · see citing works
A psychometric framework for evaluating and shaping personality traits in large language models
Serapio-García, G., Safdari, M., Crepy, C., Sun, L., Fitz, S., Romero, P., Abdulhai, M., Faust, A., & Matarić, M. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01115-6 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Simpson’s gender-equality paradox
Berggren, M., & Bergh, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2422247122 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“15 ), the Big Five structure has replicated poorly when lexical analyses are conducted in diverse languages ( 16 ) and in several small - scale societies ( 17 – 19 ).”
- Authors
- Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Oregon (US)
- Oregon Research Institute (US)
- ORCID
- Saucier, Gerard
- Venue
- Journal of Personality
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 847-879
- ISSN
- 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6494
- OpenAlex
- W2081155303
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 17.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH49227)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Keywords
- personality descriptors, Big Five personality model, cross-linguistic comparison, factor structure, seven-factor model, language and personality
- MeSH terms
- Culture, Humans, Language, Personality, Vocabulary
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