Fritz Ostendorf

Age differences in personality across the adult life span: parallels in five cultures.

Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in the United States have shown consistent changes between college age and middle adulthood. There appear to be declines in 3 of the 5 major factors of personality--Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness--and increases in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. To examine cross-cultural generalizability of these findings, translations of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory were administered to samples in Germany, Italy, Portugal, Croatia, and South Korea (N = 7,363). Similar patterns of age differences were seen in each country, for both men and women. Common trends were also seen for the more specific traits that define the major factors. Because these nations differ substantially in culture and recent history, results suggest the hypothesis that these are universal maturational changes in adult personality.

The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research

We review research aimed at the development of a compelling taxonomy of personality‐descriptive terms. We identify five issues central to the construction of personality taxonomies and discuss the advantages and limitations of the lexical approach. Our review of research stimulated by this approach begins with Allport and Odberts trait names, retraces the procedures that led to Cattells personality factors, and summarizes contemporary work in English and in Dutch. Taxonomers and lay people alike view stable traits as the most fundamental personality concepts. At the broadest level of abstraction, this domain is often represented by five dimensions related to Power (or Surgency), Love (Agreeableness), Work (Conscientiousness), Affect (Emotional Stability), and Intellect (Culture). However, given that their number and interpretation are still debated, these dimensions should not be considered final but as a heuristically useful framework. Indeed, if the fifth dimension represents Intellect, our review suggests that Culture, Values and even Autonomy‐Conformity might be additional dimensions. Some researchers, such as Goldberg and Wiggins, have constructed more narrow categories to permit a differentiated mapping of trait descriptors. Taxonomies of states, activities, and social roles and effects still need to be developed; a broad conception of personality might also include health, fitness, and physical attractiveness. A comprehensive taxonomy would provide a common framework for research guided by different theoretical orientations and could guide the selection of variables for research. Ultimately, the value of a taxonomy depends on its success in predicting important outcomes in peoples lives.

Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia.

This study examined whether universality of the 5-factor model (FFM) of personality operationalized by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory is due to genetic influences that are invariant across diverse nations. Factor analyses were conducted on matrices of phenotypic, genetic, and environmental correlations estimated in a sample of 1,209 monozygotic and 701 dizygotic twin pairs from Canada, Germany, and Japan. Five genetic and environmental factors were extracted for each sample. High congruence coefficients were observed when phenotypic, genetic, and environmental factors were compared in each sample as well as when each factor was compared across samples. These results suggest that the FFM has a solid biological basis and may represent a common heritage of the human species.

Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis : a study on the 5-factor model of personality

Several authors claim that widespread support exists for a 5-factor model of personality ratings. In the present study, structural equation modeling was used to investigate this issue. The subjects (128 males and 128 females) were administered Costa and McCraes NEO Personality Inventory, and they rated themselves, and were rated by three acquaintances, on the 20 adjective scales suggested by Norman as marker variables for the Big Five. Coefficients of factor comparability indicated that a 5-factor model accounted for the data better than any other model. Moreover, the five factors that were obtained matched conventional measures of the Big Five very well. A multitrait-multimethod analysis with five traits and three methods yielded acceptable convergent and discriminant validities, and a model with oblique trait as well as oblique method factors was supported by structural equation models. A confirmatory factor-analytic model, however, that predicted the correlations among 60 variables from five trait factors and three method factors, did not fit the data. It is concluded that this finding reflects a desirable heterogeneity of personality factors as higher-level constructs. The implications for the usefulness of confirmatory factor analysis as well as for the 5-factor model of personality are discussed.

Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: A cross-language replication.

An ideal structural representation of personality attributes would include more than just broad-bandwidth factors. Specific subcomponents help define broad factors while enhancing the fidelity of the representation. There has been no consensus with regard to the necessary specific subcomponents of the Big Five. This problem was addressed by analyzing 2 representative lexical data sets, one involving English adjectives and the other involving German adjectives. Large samples (Ns of 636 and 775) were used in classifying a selection of 500 adjectives in each language by Big Five domains, and within each domain and language, the terms were factor analyzed with promax rotation. Ratings by 22 bilinguals of correspondence between the adjectives in English and German factors indicated 18 distinct content themes common to personality description in the 2 languages. The 18 subcomponents delineate necessary features of a more finely faceted measurement model for the lexical Big Five factors.

Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho‐lexical study

We present two studies aimed at developing a comprehensive taxonomy of German personality‐descriptive terms. In the first study, all personality‐descriptive adjectives (e.g. cynical), type nouns (e.g. cynic), and attribute nouns (e.g. cynicism) were extracted from a German dictionary. We found that almost half of all German adjectives were potentially personality‐relevant, as contrasted with only 8% of the nouns. Moreover, there were more attribute nouns than type nouns, the latter appearing more slangy, metaphorical, concrete, and rich in imagery (e.g. Big‐mouth, Wooden‐head). In the second study, we discuss basic conceptual distinctions among units ofpersonality description, develop a category system basedon a prototype conception, and present a classification of 5092 adjectives into 13 categories. The classifications were generalizable across both judges and a two‐year time interval, and agreed with a priori expert classifications. An analysis of the prototypical category cores suggested that Evaluations, Temperament and character traits, and Experiential states were represented most extensively in German, whereas Social effects, Roles and relationships, and Appearance were rather infrequent. These findings, though generally similar, differ from Normans (1967) American taxonomy in the number of Evaluative terms and of Activity descriptors. Our studies provide comprehensive and representative lists of German words for personality traits, moods and emotions, social roles, effects, evaluations, and physical appearance, and may serve as the basis for taxonomies, dimensional analyses, and assessment instruments. We emphasize the need to standardize procedures in taxonomic research and outline suggestions for future studies of other languages.

Only Three Factors of Personality Description Are Fully Replicable Across Languages : A Comparison of 14 Trait Taxonomies

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.

The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Cross-Cultural Generalizability across 13 Countries

In the present study, we investigated the structural invariance of the Five‐Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI) across a variety of cultures. Self‐report data sets from ten European and three non‐European countries were available, representing the Germanic (Belgium, England, Germany, the Netherlands, USA), Romance (Italy, Spain), and Slavic branches (Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia) of the Indo‐European languages, as well as the Semito‐Hamitic (Israel) and Altaic (Hungary, Japan) language families. Each data set was subjected to principal component analysis, followed by varimax rotation and orthogonal Procrustes rotation to optimal agreement with (i) the Dutch normative structure and (ii) an American large‐sample structure. Three criteria (scree test, internal consistency reliabilities of the varimax‐rotated components, and parallel analysis) were used to establish the number of factors to be retained for rotation. Clear five‐factor structures were found in all samples except in the smallest one (USA, N = 97). Internal consistency reliabilities of the five components were generally good and high congruence was found between each sample structure and both reference structures. More than 80% of the items were equally stable within each country. Based on the results, an international FFPI reference structure is proposed. This reference structure can facilitate standardized communications about Big Five scores across research programmes. Copyright

Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables

This study concerned the effectiveness of social desirability (SD) as a moderator or suppressor variable. Three SD scales were employed: the Edwards SDS, the Marlowe‐Crowne SDS, and a new scale that uses sets of four trait‐descriptive terms such that highly desirable responses are inconsistent at the descriptive level (e.g. firm, lenient, severe, and lax). Moreover, factor‐analytically derived measures of self‐deception and impression management were used. The 300 subjects were administered measures of the five major factors of personality. They were also judged by three peers on these dimensions. To examine moderator effects, the sample of 300 subjects was dichotomized at the median of the SD measures, and self‐peer correlations were calculated for each group separately. Saunders s moderated regression technique was also used. Partial correlations controlling for SD were computed to test for suppressor effects. Moderator effects were present only for Neuroticism, whereas no suppressor effects were found for any of the SD measures. It is argued that researchers and subjects may hold different perspectives on the meaning of responses to SD scales.

Descriptive consistency and social desirability in self-and peer reports

In the present study, 300 subjects were administered 20 sets of four trait‐descriptive terms where aspects of content and evaluation were unconfounded (e.g. firm, severe, lenient, and lax). Each subject was also evaluated by three peers using the same sets of four trait terms. Moreover, the subjects responded to several personality inventories and rating scales, and they were also described on these rating scales by their peers. The results showed that the subjects frequently ascribed to themselves or to their peers two favourable trait terms that were descriptively inconsistent (e.g. firm, lenient). A measure of individual differences in socially desirable responding was constructed by summing all desirable responses. Subjects who described themselves in a socially desirable manner were less neurotic and more conscientious according to self‐reports as well as peer reports. Several implications of the findings are discussed, and the present SD measure is compared with several well‐known desirability scales.