Filipino Personality Structure and the Big Five Model: A Lexical Approach

Abstract

In lexically based studies, we derived Filipino personality dimensions and related them to the Big Five model. In Study 1, Filipino high-school and college students (N = 629) rated themselves on a near-comprehensive list of 861 Filipino (Tagalog) trait adjectives. In Study 2, Filipino high-school and college students (N = 1,531) rated 280 markers of dimensions identified in Study 1. Some students (n = 473) also completed the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Seven comparable Filipino dimensions were identified in factor analyses in the two studies. We concluded that the dimensions we labeled Concern for Others (vs. Egotism), Conscientiousness, Gregariousness, and Intellect were quite similar to Big Five Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Intellect, respectively. The Filipino Self-Assurance dimension was most similar to Big Five Neuroticism. The Filipino Temperamentalness dimension was more complex in Big Five terms, overlapping Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism. A final Filipino factor resembled a Negative Valence or Infrequency dimension. More than five factors had to be extracted to obtain Philippine dimensions resembling all of the Big Five.

The Factor Structure of Greek Personality Adjectives.

“…Although some recent lexical studies (e.g., Boies et al, 2001;Church et al, 1997) have failed to confirm this structure at the three-factor level, nonetheless by testing the Big-Five markers for the factors with the emic Greek three-factor structure, we tested the hypothesis:…”

Indigenous Measures of Personality Assessment in Asian Countries: A Review.

“…The descriptors were then categorized and rated by nine Filipino judges and a large sample of Filipino college students, generating a list of 1,297 Filipino trait adjectives. Subsets of the list were administered subsequently to three samples of Filipino students (Church et al, 1996;Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997). Church et al (1997) identified seven dimensions that were supposed to be a complete representation of Filipino personality: Conscientiousness, Concern for Others versus Egotism, Religiosity, Temperamentalness, SelfAssurance, Intellect, and Gregariousness.…”

“…Subsets of the list were administered subsequently to three samples of Filipino students (Church et al, 1996;Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997). Church et al (1997) identified seven dimensions that were supposed to be a complete representation of Filipino personality: Conscientiousness, Concern for Others versus Egotism, Religiosity, Temperamentalness, SelfAssurance, Intellect, and Gregariousness. Two additional dimensions, Negative Valence and Positive Valence, were also included in the latest empirical study of the PKP (Katigbak et al, 2002).…”

Lexical studies of Filipino person descriptors: adding personality‐relevant social and physical attributes

“…When conducted in diverse languages, lexical studies can identify cross-cultural universals in personality language, individual-differences dimensions, and person perception categories, but might also reveal how cultural differences in values and experiences influence persondescriptive categories (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996; John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, Address correspondence to: A. Timothy Church, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Cleveland Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2136, church@mail.wsu.edu; Fax: (509) Phone: (509) 1988). In the present study, we extended previous lexical research in the Philippines (e.g., Church et al, 1996;Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997) by examining additional categories of person description-in particular, terms for social roles, statuses and effects, and physical anatomy and appearance-and by relating the derived Filipino dimensions to alternative structural models in the literature. The results are important for (a) indigenous psychology, in further clarifying the structure or dimensionality of person description in a non-Western culture; and (b) cross-cultural personality psychology, by addressing the comparability of such dimensions across cultures.…”

“…One important change was Norman's inclusion of terms for abilities and talents in the stable trait category, rather than a miscellaneous category. This led to the inclusion of ability terms in many subsequent lexical studies, where they helped define the Big Five Intellect dimension (e.g., Church et al, 1997;Ostendorf, 1990;Saucier & Goldberg, 1996). Like Allport and Odbert (1936), however, Norman classified purely evaluative terms (e.g., desirable), as well as physical terms (e.g., good-looking, healthy), into a broad exclusion category, judging that they were less personality-relevant.…”