We tested the hypothesis that only 3 factors of personality description are replicable across many different languages if they are independently derived by a psycholexical approach. Our test was based on 14 trait taxonomies from 12 different languages. Factors were compared at each level of factor extraction with solutions with 1 to 6 factors. The 294 factors in the comparisons were identified using sets of markers of the 6-factor model by correlating the marker scales with the factors. The factor structures were pairwise compared in each case on the basis of the common variables that define the 2 sets of factors. Congruence coefficients were calculated between the varimax rotated structures after Procrustes rotation, where each structure in turn served as a target to which all other structures were rotated. On the basis of average congruence coefficients of all 91 comparisons, we conclude that factor solutions with 3 factors on average are replicable across languages; solutions with more factors are not.

Here, two studies seek to characterize a parsimonious common‐denominator personality structure with optimal cross‐cultural replicability. Personality differences are observed in all human populations and cultures, but lexicons for personality attributes contain so many distinctions that parsimony is lacking. Models stipulating the most important attributes have been formulated by experts or by empirical studies drawing on experience in a very limited range of cultures. Factor analyses of personality lexicons of nine languages of diverse provenance (Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Turkish, Greek, Polish, Hungarian, Maasai, and Senoufo) were examined, and their common structure was compared to that of several prominent models in psychology. A parsimonious bivariate model showed evidence of substantial convergence and ubiquity across cultures. Analyses involving key markers of these dimensions in English indicate that they are broad dimensions involving the overlapping content of the interpersonal circumplex, models of communion and agency, and morality/warmth and competence. These “Big Two” dimensions—Social Self‐Regulation and Dynamism—provide a common‐denominator model involving the two most crucial axes of personality variation, ubiquitous across cultures. The Big Two might serve as an umbrella model serving to link diverse theoretical models and associated research literatures.

This study reports on the application of the principles of the lexical approach to a non‐Indo‐European language, namely Hungarian. This language is a Uralic island surrounded on all sides by Indo‐European languages. In addition, the Hungarians are, in terms of cultural features, Europeans. These conditions provide a great opportunity for a crucial test case of the lexical approach to personality. Study 1 reports on the different phases of the selection of the trait terms from the Hungarian lexicon, a categorization into kinds of personality‐relevant terms, a comparison of the category findings with those of other languages, and on indices of relevance of the personality terms. Of the total number of 8738 personality‐relevant terms, 3914 adjectives were used for Study 2. In that study, personality descriptiveness ratings were obtained from a group of judges (N = 5). On the basis of these ratings, a manageable set of 624 adjectives was selected for a rating task. Four hundred subjects provided self‐ratings on the 624 adjectives. On the basis of the means and standard deviations of the ratings, the set of 624 was further reduced to 561 adjectives. On ipsatized data, principal components analyses were performed. Both a four‐factor solution and a five‐factor solution, which were Varimax‐rotated, are presented. The correspondence of these factors to the traditional Big Five factors is discussed.

No abstract

Data sets from five original trait taxonomies from different languages, Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, American English, and German, are used for a cross-cultural study. Factor structures, presumably Big-Five structures, within these languages, based on ratings from about 400±800 subjects on approximately 500 trait variables per language, are used for comparison. The five five-factor structures are pairwise compared. To enable these comparisons, the best one-to-one translations of trait terms between the languages are used. These translations yielded subsets of the data for direct comparisons. Congruence coefficients were calculated for the corresponding factors in the different languages, based on their independent positions, on their positions after target rotations, and on their positions after simultaneous rotations. The congruences show replicability of the first three factors of the Big Five across the five languages, and replicability of the fourth factor among Dutch, Italian, and Hungarian. Relatively high congruences between all five factors were found between Italian and Dutch.