Cited by 313Personality Traits and PsychologyCategorization, perception, and languageCultural Differences and Values

Lexical Studies of Indigenous Personality Factors: Premises, Products, and Prospects

Saucier, Gerard, Goldberg, Lewis R.·2001·Journal of Personality

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

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-6494.696167

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • Oregon Research Institute (US)
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