Ubiquitous Personality–Trait Concepts in 13 Diverse and Isolated Languages: A Cluster

Abstract

There is longstanding interest in the generalizability of personality across diverse cultures. To investigate the generalizability of personality concepts, we examined the English translations of individual–difference entries from the dictionaries of 12 small–scale societies previously studied for ubiquity of individual differences plus the dictionary of an additional society not previously studied in this manner. These 13 societies are highly diverse in geographical location, culture, and language family; their languages developed in isolation from modern–world languages. The goal of our exploratory research was to discover ubiquitous personality concepts in these 13 independent societies and their languages, providing a window into personality concepts across a broad range of cultures and languages. This study used clusters of empirically related terms (e.g. brave, courageous, and daring), based on a taxonomy of English–language personality concepts that consisted of 100 personality–trait clusters. English–language definitions of dictionary entries from the 13 languages were matched to the meanings of the synonym clusters. The cluster–classification method uncovered nine ubiquitous personality concepts, plus six that were present in at least 12 of the 13 languages. The nine ubiquitous personality concepts include some not previously identified and suggest a core of possibly universal concepts. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

personality Big Five lexical study cross-cultural ubiquitous

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport

G. W.

, & Odbert

H. S.

(1936). Trait–names: A psycho–lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, i–171.

Angleitner

, Ostendorf

, & John

O. P.

(1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho–lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 4, 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410040204.

Ashton

M. C.

, Lee

, Perugini

, Szarota

, De Vries

R. E.

, Di Blas

, Boies

, et al. (2004). A six–factor structure of personality–descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.86.2.356.

Benet–Martínez

, & John

O. P.

(1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait–multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.75.3.729.

Block

(1995). A contrarian view of the five–factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.117.2.187.

Bodin

, & Aiban

(2012). Diccionario escolar: Gunagaya–Español [School dictionary: Gunagaya–Spanish]. Fondo Mixto Hispano Panameño de Cooperación.

Boyd

R. A.

(2016). Enga dictionary. Unpublished manuscript.

Breugelmans

S. M.

, & Poortinga

Y. H.

(2006). Emotion without a word: Shame and guilt among Rarámuri Indians and rural Javanese. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1111–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.91.6.1111.

Brown

D. E.

(2000). Human universals and their implications. In Roughley

(Ed.), Being humans: Anthropological universality and particularity in transdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 156–174). Walter de Gruyter.

10.

Cattell

R. B.

(1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.

11.

Chagnon

N. A.

(2012). The Yanomamo (6th ed.). Nelson Education.

12.

Daouk–Öyry

, Zeinoun

, Choueiri

, & van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2016). Integrating global and local perspectives in psycholexical studies: A GloCal approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 62, 19–28.

13.

Fetvadjiev

V. H.

, & van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2017). Cross–cultural research. In Zeigler–Hill

, & Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–12). Springer.

14.

Forsythe

, Horowitz

J. L.

, Savin

N. E.

, & Sefton

(1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.

15.

Gill

, & Gill

(1998). Chimane–English dictionary. New Tribes Mission.

16.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 141–165), 2. Sage.

17.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In Spielberger

C. D.

, & Butcher

J. N.

(Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 203–234), 1. Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big–five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.59.6.1216.

19.

Gurven

, von Rueden

, Massenkoff

, Kaplan

, & Lero Vie

(2013). How universal is the big five? Testing the five–factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030841.

20.

Hoffman

, McCabe

, Shachat

, & Smith

(1994). Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.

21.

John

O. P.

, Angleitner

, & Ostendorf

(1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171–203.

22.

Kajonius

, & Giolla

E. M.

(2017). Personality traits across countries: Support for similarities rather than differences. PLoS ONE, 12, e0179646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179646.

23.

Klages

(1926). The science of character (W. H. Johnston, Trans. 1932). Allen & Unwin http://dispater.atspace.com/.

24.

Leising

, Scharloth

, Lohse

, & Wood

(2014). What types of terms do people use when describing an individual's personality? Psychological Science, 25, 1787–1794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614541285.

25.

Mathew

, & Boyd

(2011). Punishment sustains large–scale cooperation in prestate warfare. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 11375–11380.

26.

McCrae

R. R.

(2004). Human nature and culture: A trait perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 3–14.

27.

Norman

W. T.

(1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291.

28.

Norman

W. T.

(1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology: University of Michigan.

29.

Saucier

(1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.73.6.1296.

30.

Saucier

, & Goldberg

L. R.

(1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five–factor model. In Wiggins

J. S.

(Ed.), The five–factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 21–50). Guilford.

31.

Saucier

, & Goldberg

L. R.

(2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–6494.696167.

32.

Saucier

, Thalmayer

, & Bel–Bahar

(2014). Human attribute concepts: Relative ubiquity across twelve mutually isolated languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036492.

33.

Srivastava

(2010). The five–factor model describes the structure of social perceptions. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 69–75.

34.

Wood

(2015). Testing the lexical hypothesis: Are socially important traits more densely reflected in the English lexicon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038343.

35.

Yallop

(Ed) (2006). Macquarie Australian encyclopedic dictionary. Macquarie Library.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.63 MB

Ubiquitous Personality–Trait Concepts in 13 Diverse and Isolated Languages: A Cluster–Classification Approach

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material