In this study we report on two successful replications of a five‐factor personality inventory in two non‐Indo‐European languages, Estonian and Finnish, which both belong to the group of Uralic languages. Costa and McCrae's (1985) NEO Personality Inventory was adapted to these two languages. By all relevant psychometric parameters neither developed construct differs from the original construct: the reliabilities of only 11 per cent for the Estonian and 36 per cent for the Finnish subscale were lower than those of the respective NEO‐PI scales. The factor structure of both Estonian and Finnish inventories was very close to the five‐factor structure of the NEO‐PI, accounting for 71.7 per cent and 67.0 per cent of the variance, respectively. In spite of this generally good agreement, some language‐ or culture‐dependent differences were observed. Both Estonian and Finnish women were more extroverted and conscientious than men, compared with their English‐speaking counterparts. Also, some differences exist in the need for other people's company and excitement seeking. In the Balto‐Fennic culture gregariousness appears to presuppose some emotional stability and openness and excitement seeking is conceptualized more as a tool of rescuing from anxiety, depression, and low self‐esteem. This study is considered as a step towards determination of which parts of the most popular instrument for the measurement of the Big Five personality dimensions are truly universal and which parts of it are specific to a particular language and culture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarbaranelliC. (1993). ‘Il modello dei Cinque Fattori: analisis congiunta delle Comrey Personality Scales, del Questionario dei Cinque Fattori e del NEO Personality Inventory’ [The Five Factor Model: compared analysis of Comrey Personality Scales, Five Factor Questionnaire, and NEO Personality Inventory'], Ricerche di Psicologia, 17:33–51.
2.
BerlinB.KayP. (1969). Basic Color Terms: their Universality and Evolution, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
3.
BondM. H.NakazatoH.ShiraishiD. (1975). ‘Universality and distinctiveness in dimensions of Japanese person perception’, Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 6:346–355.
4.
BorkenauP.OstendorfF. (1989). ‘Untersuchungen zum Fünf‐Faktoren‐Modell der Persönlichkeit und seiner diagnostischen Erfassung’ ['Studies on the Five‐Factor‐Model of personality and its diagnostic assessment'], Zeitschrift für differerttielle und diagnostische Psychologie, 10:239–251.
5.
BorkenauP.OstendorfF. (1990). ‘Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: a study on the 5‐factor model of personality’, Personality and Individual Differences, 11:515–524.
6.
BriggsS. R. (1992). ‘Assessing the five‐factor model of personality description’, Journal of Personality, 60:253–293.
7.
BrownC. H. (1983). ‘Where do cardinal direction terms come from?’, Anthropological Linguistics, 25:121–161.
8.
BrownC. H. (1986). ‘The growth of ethnobiological nomenclature’, Current Anthropology, 27:1–19.
9.
BurrisH. W. , (1979). ‘Geometric figure terms: their universality and growth’, Journal of Anthropology, 1:18–41.
10.
ChurchT. A.KatigbakM. S. (1989). ‘Internal, external, and self‐report structure of personality in a non‐Western culture. An investigation of cross‐language and cross‐cultural generalizability’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57:857–872.
11.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
12.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1988). ‘From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five‐factor model’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55:258–265.
13.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1989). The NEO‐PI/NEO‐FFI Manual Supplement, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
14.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R.DyeD. A. (1991). ‘Facet scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: a revision of the NEO Personality Inventory’, Personality and Individual Differences, 12:887–898.
15.
De RaadB. , (1992). ‘The replicability of the Big Five personality dimensions in three word‐classes of the Dutch language’, European Journal of Personality, 6:15–29.
16.
de RaadB.HendriksA. A.HofsteeW. K. B. (1992). ‘Towards a refined structure of personality traits’, European Journal of Personality, 6:301–319.
17.
DigmanJ. M. (1990). ‘Personality structure: emergence of the five‐factor model’, Annual Review of Psychology, 41:417–440.
18.
EngvikH. (1993) ‘Big Five' pa norsk' [Big Five’ in Norwegian], Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 30:884–896.
19.
EysenckH. J. (1991). ‘Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?—criteria for a taxonomic paradigm’, Personality and Individual Differences, 12:773–790.
20.
EysenckH. J.EysenckS. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory, London University Press, London.
21.
GoldbergL. R. (1971). ‘ A historical survey of personality scales and inventories’. In: McReynolds, P. (Ed), Advances in Psychological Assessment, Vol. 2, pp.293–336, Science and Behavior, Palo Alto, CA.
22.
GoldbergL. R. (1981). ‘ Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality lexicons’. In: Wheeler, L. (Ed), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp.141–165, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
23.
GoldbergL. R. (1990). ‘An alternative “description of personality”: the Big‐Five factor structure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59:1216–1229.
24.
GuthrieG. M.BennettA. B. , (1971). ‘Cultural differences in implicit personality theory’, International Journal of Psychology, 6:305–312.
25.
HayekF. A. (1978). ‘ The primacy of the abstract’. In: Hayek, F. A. (Ed), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, pp.35–49, Routledge and KeganPaul, London.
26.
JohnO. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In: Pervin, L. A. (Ed), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, pp.66–100, The Guilford Press, New York.
27.
JohnO. P.AngleitnerA.OstendorfF. (1988). ‘The lexical approach to personality: a historical review of trait taxonomic research’, European Journal of Personality, 2:171–203.
28.
JohnO. P.GoldbergL. R.AngleitnerA. (1984). ‘ Better than the alphabet: taxonomies of personality‐descriptive terms in English, Dutch, and German’. In: Bonarius, H. , VanHeck, G. L. and Smid, N. (Eds), Personality Psychology in Europe: Theoretical and Empirical Developments, pp.83–100, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse.
29.
KashiwagiS.WadaS.AokiT. (1993). ‘The Big Five and the oblique primary pattern for the items of the ACL, Japanese version’, Japanese Journal of Psychology, 64:153–159(in Japanese).
30.
LippaR. (1991). ‘Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: reliability, validity, consistency across domains, and the relationship to the Big Five’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61:1000–1011.
31.
McCraeR. R. (1990). ‘Traits and trait names: how well is Openness represented in natural languages?’, European Journal of Personality, 4:119–129.
32.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. , (1985). ‘ Openness to experience’. In: Hogan, R. and Jones, W. H. (Eds), Perspectives in Personality, Vol. 1, pp.145–172, JAI, Greenwich, CT
33.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. , (1987). ‘Validation of the five‐factor model of personality across instruments and observers’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:81–90.
34.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.BuschC. M. (1986). ‘Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: the California Q‐Set and the five‐factor model’, Journal of Personality, 54:430–446.
35.
MervieldeI. (1992). ‘The B5BBS‐25: a Flemish set of bipolar markers for the “Big‐Five” personality factors’, Psychologica Belgica, 32:195–210.
36.
OstendorfF. (1990). Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validät des Fünf‐Faktoren‐Modells der Persönlichkeit [Language and Personality Structure: Towards Validity of the Five‐Factor‐Model of Personality], Roderer, Regensburg.
37.
RokeachM. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind, Basic, New York.
38.
RussellJ. A. (1983). ‘Pancultural aspects of the human conceptual organization of emotions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45:1281–1288.
39.
RussellJ. A.LewickaM.NiitT. (1989). ‘A cross‐cultural study of a circumplex model of affect’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57:848–856.
40.
StrømmesF. J. (1973). ‘Semiotic theory of imagery processes with experiments on an Indo‐European and a Ural‐Altaic language: do speakers of different languages experience different cognitive worlds?’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 14:291–304.
41.
StrømnesF. J. (1974). ‘No universality of cognitive structures? Two experiments with almost‐perfect one‐trial learning of translatable operators in an Ural‐Altaic and an Indo‐European language’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 15:300–309.
42.
StumpfH. (1993). “The factor structure of the Personality Research Form: a cross‐national evaluation”, Journal of Personality, 61:27–48.
43.
WigginsJ. S.PincusA. L. (1992). ‘Personality: structure and assessment’, Annual Review of Psychology, 43:473–504.
44.
YangK. S.BondM. H. (1990). ‘Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: the Chinese case’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58:1087–1095.
45.
YikM. S.BondM. H. (1993). ‘Exploring the dimensions of Chinese person perception with indigenous and imported constructs: creating a culturally balanced scale’, International Journal of Psychology, 28:75–95.
46.
ZuckermanM.KuhlmanD. M.JoiremanJ.TetaP.KraftM. (1993). ‘A comparison of three structural models for personality: the Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65:757–768.
