ObjectiveThe extensive use of two diverging personality taxonomies (the Big Five and HEXACO models) in contemporary research creates a need for understanding how traits connect to each other across taxonomies. Previous research has approached this at both a highly general (domain‐) level as well as at a highly specific (facet‐) level. The present report is the first to use the intermediate (aspect‐) level of the Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS) to understand the connections between the two models.MethodWe explored these associations in a meta‐analysis of four samples drawn from three countries (total N = 1,586).ResultsWe observed that each HEXACO domain correlated ≥|0.51| with one or more BFAS aspects. Half of the aspects were more strongly associated with HEXACO facets than with HEXACO domains, sometimes markedly so.ConclusionAlthough many domains, aspects, and facets are similarly represented across the two models, this was not always the case. Researchers seeking to use one model to extend findings built primarily off the other should carefully consider how well represented their traits of interest are in the other assessment. Psychology instructors are encouraged to use the BFAS to illustrate the subtler distinctions between the Big Five and HEXACO models.

Preliminary results were presented by Timothy F. Bainbridge at the European Conference on Personality, the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences Conference, and at the Australian Conference on Personality and Individual Differences.Supplementary documents and materials, including analysis code and data, can be found on the OSF: osf.io/f9hmg.

Pseudo-profound bullshit' (PPBS) is a class of meaningless statements designed to appear profound. Profundity ratings for PPBS have been found to be negatively related to analytical thinking and positively related to epistemically suspect beliefs (e.g. belief in the paranormal). Conceptually similar traits within the Openness/Intellect (O/I) domain form a simplex, whereby traits are arranged along a single dimension from intelligence to apophenia (i.e. observing patterns or causal connections were none exist). Across two studies (total N = 297), we attempted to replicate the O/I simplex and determine how it relates to perceiving PPBS as profound. Participants completed questionnaires measuring traits from the O/I simplex and provided profundity ratings for PPBS. Profundity ratings of PPBS tended to correlate negatively with intelligence and positively with apophenia. The association with intelligence generally reflected a greater ability to discriminate the profound from the pseudo-profound, whereas the association with apophenia reflected poorer discrimination in Study 1, with less conclusive results in Study 2. In both studies, the O/I simplex was closely replicated. The results suggest a link between the O/I domain and perceiving PPBS as profound and tentatively support the theory that intelligence may protect against apophenia.

The Big Five is often represented as an effective taxonomy of psychological traits, yet little research has empirically examined whether stand-alone assessments of psychological traits can be located within the Big Five framework. Meanwhile, construct proliferation has created difficulty navigating the resulting landscape. In the present research, we developed criteria for assessing whether the Big Five provides a comprehensive organizing framework for psychological trait scales, and evaluated this question across three samples (Total N = 1,039). Study 1 revealed that 83% of an author-identified collection of scales (e.g., Self-Esteem, Grit, etc.) were as related to the Big Five as at least 4 of 30 Big Five facets and Study 2 found that 71% of scales selected based on citation counts passed the same criterion. Several scales had strikingly large links at the Big Five facet level, registering correlations with individual Big Five facets exceeding 0.9. We conclude that the Big Five can indeed serve as an organizing framework for a sizable majority of stand-alone psychological trait scales and that many of these scales could reasonably be labeled as facets of the Big Five. We recommend an integrative pluralism approach, where reliable, valid scales, are located within the Big Five and pertinent Big Five research is considered in all research using trait scales readily located within the Big Five. By adopting such an approach, construct proliferation may be abated and it would become easier to integrate findings from disparate fields.