Abstract:Up until now it has been assumed that the German language comprises far more personality descriptive adjectives (e.g. cynical) than type nouns (e.g. cynic); cf. the article by Angleitner, Ostendorf and John (1990). The present paper shows that this conclusion is unwarranted. Firstly, it is demonstrated that the German taxonomers considered only a small fraction of the relevant type nouns. Then follows a discussion of why the German language contains a huge number of personality type nouns. Finally, some pitfal… Show more
“…Such comparisons are inherently risky: apparent differences in the sizes of personality lexicons may be due, in part, to the dictionaries selected or to differences in the domain definitions and instructions given to dictionary cullers in different studies. For example, Henss (1995) has recently argued that the German taxonomy team (Angleitner et al, 1990) underestimated the number of personality relevant terms in the German language as a result of their dictionary selection. Our domain definition was probably most similar to that used initially by the Dutch team (i.e.…”
“…Such comparisons are inherently risky: apparent differences in the sizes of personality lexicons may be due, in part, to the dictionaries selected or to differences in the domain definitions and instructions given to dictionary cullers in different studies. For example, Henss (1995) has recently argued that the German taxonomy team (Angleitner et al, 1990) underestimated the number of personality relevant terms in the German language as a result of their dictionary selection. Our domain definition was probably most similar to that used initially by the Dutch team (i.e.…”
“…Angleitner, Ostendorf and John (1990) reported this number to be subjected to 'the same intense research attention that so far has been limited to the adjective class ' (p. 113). Henss (1995) anticipates the results by criticizing this starting number as hopelessly incomplete, a result of an untoward choice of dictionary.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Combined with the Bielefeld list, the total set of more than 5700 terms outnumbered the list of 51 60 personality-relevant adjectives published by Angleitner et al (1990). Later, Henss (1995) was surprised to learn that even the Bielefeld list of adjectives could be easily enlarged by using a combination of methods. In particular, a systematical check of Duden's Vol I from letter 'A' to letter 'F' yielded 1349 additional personality adjectives.…”
Section: The Distinction Between Lexicon and Dictionarymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The psycholexical approach in the tradition of Allport and Odbert (1936) uses the dictionary as the tangible sediment of the lexicon. For purposes of comparison, methods should not be combined, as was done by Henss (1995). The different numbers of type nouns that Henss mentioned at subsequent points in time from the moment he turned to the dictionary should therefore be reduced by at least 1500, which is the number of type nouns he was able to generate using the method of free association.…”
Section: The Distinction Between Lexicon and Dictionarymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To demonstrate that the German language does not contain more personality adjectives than type nouns, Henss (1995) enlarged the Bielefeld list of nouns (Angleitner et al, 1990) by both free association and dictionary search with more than 3500 additional type nouns. Combined with the Bielefeld list, the total set of more than 5700 terms outnumbered the list of 51 60 personality-relevant adjectives published by Angleitner et al (1990).…”
Section: The Distinction Between Lexicon and Dictionarymentioning
De Raad and Ostendorf (1996) sharply criticize a paper of mine (Henss, 1995). However, their critique is seriously flawed. In this paper, I discuss some of the most important shortcomings of De Raad and Ostendorf s article.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.