The hierarchical structure of common Turkish person-descriptive adjectives

Abstract

Findings from analyses of self-descriptions by 631 native speakers of Turkish, using 498 familiar Turkish person-descriptive adjectives, are compared to those of Saucier (1997), who analyzed 500 familiar English adjectives. In the total item pools in both studies, variants of the English/German `Big-Five' factors were recovered, along with a broad Attractiveness factor and another factor composed of items of extremely low endorsement rates. Moreover, in both studies when the item pools were restricted to terms that are less pejorative and more clearly related to personality traits, again variants of the Big-Five factors were recovered. These latter ®ndings replicate those from Somer and Goldberg (1999), who analyzed Turkish synonym clusters rather than single person-descriptive adjectives. We discuss some of the pitfalls of comparative studies of personality lexicons, and suggest some procedures for reconciling diverse ®ndings.

Taxonomy and structure of Croatian personality‐descriptive adjectives

“…This finding confirms the reports of other investigators that, even within one language, rotations in the II/IV plane can be frequently observed (e.g. Goldberg & Somer, 2000).…”

“…However, it is important to note that some Emotionality terms such as sentimental and emotional had their highest loading on the Croatian Factor Agreeableness with almost the same loading on the Factor Emotional Instability. Similar findings were reported by Somer (2000) andDe Raad (2000). De Raad ( 2000) reported terms such as emotional as an example of the IVÀIIþ segment, that is, a blend between Emotional Instability and Agreeableness.…”

“…The relatively low percentage of the variance explained is partly due to the ipsatization procedure, which results in some loss of the variance. However, the percentage of explained variance in this research is not much lower, if at all, than in other taxonomies: five factors in the study of Di Blas and Forzi (1998) explained 26.1 per cent in self-ratings and 28.6 per cent in the peer ratings, four factors in the study of Szirmak and De Raad (1994) explained 21.3 per cent of the variance in the self-ratings, five factors in the study of Goldberg and Somer (2000) explained 24 per cent of the total variance in the self-ratings, etc.…”

Taxonomy and structure of Croatian personality‐descriptive adjectives

“…This finding confirms the reports of other investigators that, even within one language, rotations in the II/IV plane can be frequently observed (e.g. Goldberg & Somer, 2000).…”

“…However, it is important to note that some Emotionality terms such as sentimental and emotional had their highest loading on the Croatian Factor Agreeableness with almost the same loading on the Factor Emotional Instability. Similar findings were reported by Somer (2000) andDe Raad (2000). De Raad ( 2000) reported terms such as emotional as an example of the IVÀIIþ segment, that is, a blend between Emotional Instability and Agreeableness.…”

“…The relatively low percentage of the variance explained is partly due to the ipsatization procedure, which results in some loss of the variance. However, the percentage of explained variance in this research is not much lower, if at all, than in other taxonomies: five factors in the study of Di Blas and Forzi (1998) explained 26.1 per cent in self-ratings and 28.6 per cent in the peer ratings, four factors in the study of Szirmak and De Raad (1994) explained 21.3 per cent of the variance in the self-ratings, five factors in the study of Goldberg and Somer (2000) explained 24 per cent of the total variance in the self-ratings, etc.…”

The Factor Structure of Greek Personality Adjectives.

“…The Greek language is part of the Indo-European family, like Germanic and Slavic. However, features of the factor structure found in the present study resemble those found in geographically adjacent nations, in studies of Italian (Di Blas & Forzi, 1998) and Turkish (Goldberg & Somer, 2000). Specifically, in each of these Mediterranean-region languages, if one examines fourand five-factor structures (using ipsatized data), one finds a similar pattern: One factor emphasizes outgoing positive emotions, a second a contrast between peacefulness and combativeness, a third a contrast between fortitude and fear-insecurity, and a fourth is a recognizable Conscientiousness factor.…”

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

“…Two-factor solutions from several lexical studies also suggest a consistent pattern: One factor tends to involve attributes associated with dynamism and individual ascendancy, whereas the other tends to involve attributes associated with socialization, social propriety, solidarity, and community (Di Blas & Forzi, 1999;Digman, 1997;Goldberg & Somer, 2000;Hrebícková et al, 1999;Paulhus & John, 1998;Saucier, 1997Saucier, , 2000aShweder, 1972;White, 1980). The reproducibility of this twofactor solution (and our Rule 2) in diverse languages needs much more attention.…”

Taxonomy and structure of Croatian personality‐descriptive adjectives

“…This finding confirms the reports of other investigators that, even within one language, rotations in the II/IV plane can be frequently observed (e.g. Goldberg & Somer, 2000).…”

“…However, it is important to note that some Emotionality terms such as sentimental and emotional had their highest loading on the Croatian Factor Agreeableness with almost the same loading on the Factor Emotional Instability. Similar findings were reported by Somer (2000) andDe Raad (2000). De Raad ( 2000) reported terms such as emotional as an example of the IVÀIIþ segment, that is, a blend between Emotional Instability and Agreeableness.…”

“…The relatively low percentage of the variance explained is partly due to the ipsatization procedure, which results in some loss of the variance. However, the percentage of explained variance in this research is not much lower, if at all, than in other taxonomies: five factors in the study of Di Blas and Forzi (1998) explained 26.1 per cent in self-ratings and 28.6 per cent in the peer ratings, four factors in the study of Szirmak and De Raad (1994) explained 21.3 per cent of the variance in the self-ratings, five factors in the study of Goldberg and Somer (2000) explained 24 per cent of the total variance in the self-ratings, etc.…”

The Factor Structure of Greek Personality Adjectives.

“…The Greek language is part of the Indo-European family, like Germanic and Slavic. However, features of the factor structure found in the present study resemble those found in geographically adjacent nations, in studies of Italian (Di Blas & Forzi, 1998) and Turkish (Goldberg & Somer, 2000). Specifically, in each of these Mediterranean-region languages, if one examines fourand five-factor structures (using ipsatized data), one finds a similar pattern: One factor emphasizes outgoing positive emotions, a second a contrast between peacefulness and combativeness, a third a contrast between fortitude and fear-insecurity, and a fourth is a recognizable Conscientiousness factor.…”

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

“…Two-factor solutions from several lexical studies also suggest a consistent pattern: One factor tends to involve attributes associated with dynamism and individual ascendancy, whereas the other tends to involve attributes associated with socialization, social propriety, solidarity, and community (Di Blas & Forzi, 1999;Digman, 1997;Goldberg & Somer, 2000;Hrebícková et al, 1999;Paulhus & John, 1998;Saucier, 1997Saucier, , 2000aShweder, 1972;White, 1980). The reproducibility of this twofactor solution (and our Rule 2) in diverse languages needs much more attention.…”

Taxonomy and structure of Croatian personality‐descriptive adjectives

“…This finding confirms the reports of other investigators that, even within one language, rotations in the II/IV plane can be frequently observed (e.g. Goldberg & Somer, 2000).…”

“…However, it is important to note that some Emotionality terms such as sentimental and emotional had their highest loading on the Croatian Factor Agreeableness with almost the same loading on the Factor Emotional Instability. Similar findings were reported by Somer (2000) andDe Raad (2000). De Raad ( 2000) reported terms such as emotional as an example of the IVÀIIþ segment, that is, a blend between Emotional Instability and Agreeableness.…”

“…The relatively low percentage of the variance explained is partly due to the ipsatization procedure, which results in some loss of the variance. However, the percentage of explained variance in this research is not much lower, if at all, than in other taxonomies: five factors in the study of Di Blas and Forzi (1998) explained 26.1 per cent in self-ratings and 28.6 per cent in the peer ratings, four factors in the study of Szirmak and De Raad (1994) explained 21.3 per cent of the variance in the self-ratings, five factors in the study of Goldberg and Somer (2000) explained 24 per cent of the total variance in the self-ratings, etc.…”

The Factor Structure of Greek Personality Adjectives.

“…The Greek language is part of the Indo-European family, like Germanic and Slavic. However, features of the factor structure found in the present study resemble those found in geographically adjacent nations, in studies of Italian (Di Blas & Forzi, 1998) and Turkish (Goldberg & Somer, 2000). Specifically, in each of these Mediterranean-region languages, if one examines fourand five-factor structures (using ipsatized data), one finds a similar pattern: One factor emphasizes outgoing positive emotions, a second a contrast between peacefulness and combativeness, a third a contrast between fortitude and fear-insecurity, and a fourth is a recognizable Conscientiousness factor.…”

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

“…Two-factor solutions from several lexical studies also suggest a consistent pattern: One factor tends to involve attributes associated with dynamism and individual ascendancy, whereas the other tends to involve attributes associated with socialization, social propriety, solidarity, and community (Di Blas & Forzi, 1999;Digman, 1997;Goldberg & Somer, 2000;Hrebícková et al, 1999;Paulhus & John, 1998;Saucier, 1997Saucier, , 2000aShweder, 1972;White, 1980). The reproducibility of this twofactor solution (and our Rule 2) in diverse languages needs much more attention.…”