Tracing Personality Structure in Narratives: A Computational Bottom–Up Approach to Unpack Writers,Characters,and Personality in Historical Context

Abstract

We present a new method for personality assessment at a distance to uncover personality structure in historical texts. We focus on how two 19th century authors understood and described human personality; we apply a new bottom–up computational approach to extract personality dimensions used by Jane Austen and Charles Dickens to describe fictional characters in 21 novels. We matched personality descriptions using three person–description dictionaries marker scales as reference points for interpretation. Factor structures did not show strong convergence with the contemporary Big Five model. Jane Austen described characters in terms of social and emotional richness with greater nuances but using a less extensive vocabulary. Charles Dickens, in contrast, used a rich and diverse personality vocabulary, but those descriptions centred around more restricted dimensions of power and dominance. Although we could identify conceptually similar factors across the two authors, analyses of the overlapping vocabulary between the two authors suggested only moderate convergence. We discuss the utility and potential of automated text analysis and the lexical hypothesis to (i) provide insights into implicit personality models in historical texts and (ii) bridge the divide between idiographic and nomothetic perspectives. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

personality five-factor model idiographic analysis automated text analysis transcendental information cascades

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al Omran

F. N. A.

, & Treude

(2017, May). Choosing an NLP library for analyzing software documentation: A systematic literature review and a series of experiments. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) (pp. 187–197). IEEE.

Allport

, & Odbert

(1936). Trait–names: A psycho–lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360.

Altmann

E. G.

, Pierrehumbert

J. B.

, & Motter

A. E.

(2009). Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls, and scaling in the temporal distributions of words. PLoS ONE, 4. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007678.

Ashton

, Lee

, & Goldberg

(2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality–descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.87.5.707.

Ashton

M. C.

, Lee

, & de Vries

R. E.

(2014). The HEXACO Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838.

Barenbaum

N. B.

, & Winter

D. G.

(2008). History of modern personality theory and research. In John

O. P.

, Robins

R. W.

, & Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 3–23). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Beck

E. D.

, & Jackson

J. J.

(2017). The search for a bridge: Idiographic personality networks. European Journal of Personality, 31, 530–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.

Benoit

, & Matsuo

(2018). Spacyr: Wrapper to the spaCy NLP library. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R–project.org/package=spacyr

Bleidorn

, Hopwood

C. J.

, & Wright

A. G. C.

(2017). Using big data to advance personality theory. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.004.

10.

Bowler

M. C.

, Bowler

J. L.

, & Cope

J. G.

(2012). Further evidence of the impact of cognitive complexity on the five–factor model. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 1083–1098. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.7.1083.

11.

Bowler

M. C.

, Bowler

J. L.

, & Phillips

B. C.

(2009). The Big–5 ± 2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five–factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 979–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.002.

12.

Boyd

R. L.

, & Pennebaker

J. W.

(2017). Language–based personality: A new approach to personality in a digital world. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COBEHA.2017.07.017.

13.

Butler

(1975). Jane Austen and the war of ideas. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

14.

Cheung

, Fan

, & To

(2008). The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory as a culturally relevant personality measure in applied settings. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751–9004.2007.00045.x.

15.

Cheung

F. M.

, Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

, & Leong

F. T. L.

(2011). Toward a new approach to the assessment of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022389.

16.

Chung

C. K.

, & Pennebaker

J. W.

(2008). Revealing dimensions of thinking in open–ended self–descriptions: An automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 96–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006.

17.

Clark

(2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477.

18.

Conner

T. S.

, Tennen

, Fleeson

, & Barrett

L. F.

(2009). Experience sampling methods: A modern idiographic approach to personality research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 292–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751–9004.2009.00170.x.

19.

Costa

P. T.

, & McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five–Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

20.

Cowan

(2001). The magical number 4 in short–term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922.

21.

N. Z.

(2019). The computational case against computational literary studies. Critical Inquiry, 45, 601–639. https://doi.org/10.1086/702594.

22.

Daelemans

, & Hoste

(2002). Evaluation of machine learning methods for natural language processing tasks. In 3rd International conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

23.

De Raad

, Barelds

D. P.

, Levert

, Ostendorf

, Mlačić

, Blas

, … Katigbak

M. S.

(2010). Only three factors of personality description are fully replicable across languages: A comparison of 14 trait taxonomies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017184.

24.

De Raad

, Barelds

D. P.

, Timmerman

M. E.

, Roover

, Mlačić

, & Church

T. A.

(2014). Towards a pan–cultural personality structure: Input from 11 psycholexical studies. European Journal of Personality, 28, 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1953.

25.

De Raad

, & Peabody

(2005). Cross–culturally recurrent personality factors: Analyses of three factors. European Journal of Personality, 19, 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.550.

26.

De Raad

, & Van Oudenhouven

J. P.

(2011). A psycholexical study of virtues in the Dutch language, and relations between virtues and personality. European Journal of Personality, 25, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.777.

27.

Devlin

, Chang

M. W.

, Lee

, & Toutanova

(2018). Bert: Pre–training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.

28.

DeYoung

C. G.

(2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2014.07.004.

29.

Duckworth

(1971). The improvement of the estate: A study of Jane Austen's novels. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

30.

Eagleton

(2005). The English novel: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Wiley–Blackwell.

31.

Farrell

(2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509433112.

32.

Ferguson

(2000). Jane Austen, Emma and the impact of form. Modern Language Quarterly, 61, 157–180.

33.

Fischer

(2017). Personality, values, culture: An evolutionary perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Fischer

, & Fontaine

(2010). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In Matsumoto

, & van de Vijver

(Eds.), Cross–cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 179–215). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

35.

Fischer

, & Karl

J. A.

(2019). A primer to (cross–cultural) multi–groupinvariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507.

36.

Frow

(2018). Character. The Cambridge Companion to Narrative Theory.

37.

Garg

, Schiebinger

, Jurafsky

, & Zou

(2018). Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E3635–E3644.

38.

Gerlach

, & Altmann

E. G.

(2013). Stochastic model for the vocabulary growth in natural languages. Physical Review X, 3, 021006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.021006.

39.

Giammarco

(2013). Edgar Allan Poe: A psychological profile. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.027.

40.

Goldberg

L.R.

(1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 141–165.

41.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. Advances in personality assessment, 1, 203–234.

42.

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

43.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992). The development of markers for the Big–Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040–3590.4.1.26.

44.

Goldberg

L.R.

(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003–066x.48.1.26.

45.

Gurven

M. D.

(2018). Broadening horizons: Sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11420–11427. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720433115

46.

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.

47.

Hall

J. A.

, Goh

J. X.

, Mast

M. S.

, & Hagedorn

(2016). Individual differences in accurately judging personality from text. Journal of Personality, 84, 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12170.

48.

Hamilton

(1996). Historicism. London: Routledge.

49.

Hamilton

W. L.

, Leskovec

, & Jurafsky

(2016). Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.09096.

50.

Hirsch

J. B.

, & Peterson

J. B.

(2009). Personality and language use in self–narratives. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 524–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.006.

51.

Honnibal

, & Montani

(2017). SpaCy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212304

52.

John

(2010). Dickens and mass culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Johnson

J. A.

, Carroll

, Gottschall

, & Kruger

(2011). Portrayal of personality in Victorian novels reflects modern research findings but amplifies the significance of agreeableness. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.011.

54.

Kim

, & Klinger

(2018). Who feels what and why? Annotation of a literature corpus with semantic roles of emotions. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 1345–1359).

55.

Lajaaj

, Macours

, Hernandez

D. A. P.

, Arias

, Gosling

, Potter

, Rubio–Codina

, et al. (2019). Challenges to capture the Big Five personality traits in non–WEIRD populations. Science Advances, 5, eeaw5226. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5226.

56.

Luczak–Roesch

(2016). TICJ: An application to generate transcendental information cascades (Version v1.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.165116

57.

Luczak–Roesch

, Grener

, & Fenton

(2018). Not–so–distant reading: A dynamic network approach to literature. it–Information Technology, 60, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/itit–2017–0023.

58.

Luczak–Roesch

, Grener

, Fenton

, & Goldfinch

(2016, November 6). Creating transcendental information cascades from English literature: An intuitive approach in R (version 0.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.164949

59.

Luczak–Roesch

, O'Hara

, Dinneen

J. D.

, & Tinati

(2018). What an entangled web we weave: An information–centric approach to time–evolving socio–technical systems. Minds and Machines, 28, 709–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023–018–9478–1.

60.

Luczak–Roesch

, Tinati

, & Shadbolt

(2015). When resources collide: Towards a theory of coincidence in information spaces. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web (pp. 1137–1142). ACM.

61.

Luczak–Roesch

, Tinati

, Van Kleek

, & Shadbolt

(2015). From coincidence to purposeful flow? Properties of transcendental information cascades. In 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (pp. 633–638). IEEE.

62.

Lukaszewski

A. W.

, Gurven

, von Rueden

C. R.

, & Schmitt

D. P.

(2017). What explains personality covariation? A test of the socioecological complexity hypothesis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 943–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697175.

63.

Mayer

J. D.

, Lin

S. C.

, & Korogodsky

(2011). Exploring the universality of personality judgments: Evidence from the Great Transformation (1000 BCE–200 BCE). Review of General Psychology, 15, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020711.

64.

McAdams

, & Pals

(2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003–066X.61.3.204.

65.

McCrae

R. R.

, & Costa

P. T.

(1999). A five–factor theory of personality. In Pervin

L. A.

, & John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

66.

Miller

G. A.

(1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.

67.

Miller

J. H.

(1965). Charles Dickens: The world of his novels. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

68.

Mischel

, & Shoda

(1995). A cognitive–affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–295x.102.2.246.

69.

Nel

, Valchev

V. H.

, Rothmann

, Van de Vijver

, Meiring

, & De Bruin

(2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa. Journal of Personality, 80, 915–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2011.00751.x.

70.

Pagel

, Beaumont

, Meade

, Verkerk

, & Calude

(2019). Dominant words rise to the top by positive frequency–dependent selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 7397–7402. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816994116.

71.

Parker

, Karl

J. A.

, Fischer

, Luczak–Roesch

, & Grener

(2019, July 24). Allport's trait–word list digitized. Doi:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K6RWJ

72.

Passakos

C. G.

, & De Raad

(2009). Ancient personality: Trait attributions to characters in Homer's Iliad. Ancient Narrative, 7, 75–95.

73.

Peng

, Khashabi

, Roth

(2015) Solving hard coreference problems. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 809–819

74.

Pennebaker

J. W.

, Booth

R. J.

, Boyd

R. L.

, & Francis

M. E.

(2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net).

75.

Pennebaker

J. W.

, & King

L. A.

(1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.77.6.1296.

76.

Phelan

(1989). Reading people, reading plots: character, progression, and the interpretation of narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

77.

Premack

, & Woodruff

(1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512.

78.

Revelle

(2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

79.

Ritzler

, & Singer

(1998). MMPI–2 by proxy and the Rorschach: A demonstration assessment of the commandant of Auschwitz. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71, 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_9.

80.

Roberts

M. E.

, Stewart

B. M.

, Tingley

, Lucas

, Leder–Luis

, Gadarian

S. K.

, Albertson

, et al. (2014). Structural topic models for open–ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 1064–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12103.

81.

Robinson

J. M.

(1985). Style and personality in the literary work. The Philosophical Review, 94, 227–247.

82.

Rosenberg

, & Jones

(1972). A method for investigating and representing a person's implicit theory of personality: Theodore Dreiser's view of people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 372–386.

83.

Rosenberg

, & Sedlak

(1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology 6. New York: Academic Press.

84.

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/10.1037/0022–3514.73.6.1296.

85.

Saucier

, Thalmayer

, Payne

, Carlson

, Sanogo

, Ole–Kotikash

, … Zhou

(2014). A basic bivariate structure of personality attributes evident across nine languages. Journal of Personality, 82, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12028.

86.

Saucier

, Thalmayer

A. G.

, & Bel–Bahar

T. S.

(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.

87.

Schmitt

D. P.

, Long

A. E.

, McPhearson

, O'Brien

, Remmert

, & Shah

S. H.

(2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 52, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12265.

88.

Schwartz

H. A.

, Eichstaedt

J. C.

, Kern

M. L.

, Dziurzynski

, Ramones

S. M.

, Agrawal

, … Ungar

L. H.

(2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open–vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE, 8, e73791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073791.

89.

Singh

J. K.

, Misra

, & De Raad

D. B.

(2013). Personality structure in the trait lexicon of Hindi, a major language spoken in India. European Journal of Personality, 27, 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1940.

90.

Spacy (2019). Facts and figures. Retrieved July 30, 2019 from https://spacy.io/usage/facts–figures.

91.

Srivastava

, Guglielmo

, & Beer

J. S.

(2010). Perceiving others’ personalities: Examining the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and stability of perceiver effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017057.

92.

Tahmasebi

, Niklas

, Theuerkauf

, & Risse

(2010, June). Using word sense discrimination on historic document collections. In Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 89–98). ACM.

93.

Tausczik

Y. R.

, & Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676.

94.

Tvinnereim

, & Fløttum

K. F.

(2015). Explaining topic prevalence in answers to open–ended survey questions about climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5, 744–747. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2663.

95.

Uher

, & Visalberghi

(2016). Observations versus assessments of personality: A five–method multi–species study reveals numerous biases in ratings and methodological limitations of standardised assessments. Journal of Research in Personality, 61, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.003.

96.

Valchev

V. H.

, Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

, Nel

J. A.

, Rothmann

, & Meiring

(2013). The use of traits and contextual information in free personality descriptions across ethnocultural groups in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 1077–1091. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032276.

97.

Van De Vijver

F. J. R.

, & Leung

(1997). Methods and data analysis for cross–cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

98.

Vaswani

, Shazeer

, Parmar

, Uszkoreit

, Jones

, Gomez

A. N.

, … & Polosukhin

(2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 5998–6008).

99.

Velicer

W. F.

(1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.

100.

Vermeule

(2010). Why do we care about literary characters? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

101.

Watzlawick

, Beavin

J. H.

, & Jackson

D. D.

(1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

102.

Williams

(1973). The country and the city. London, UK: Chatto & Windus.

103.

Woloch

(2003). The one vs. the many: Minor characters and the space of the protagonist in the novel. NJ: Princeton UP.

104.

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.

105.

Wood

, Harms

, & Vazire

(2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019390.

106.

Yang

, & Eisenstein

(2016). Part–of–speech tagging for historical English. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03144.

107.

Yarkoni

(2010). Personality in 100,000 words: A large–scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.04.001.

108.

Zhang

, Han

, Liu

, Jiang

, Sun

, & Liu

(2019). ERNIE: Enhanced language representation with informative entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07129.

109.

Zunshine

(2006). Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.