Lexical hypothesis

Last updated

In personality psychology, the lexical hypothesis [1] (also known as the fundamental lexical hypothesis, [2] lexical approach, [3] or sedimentation hypothesis [4] ) generally includes two postulates:

Contents

1. Those personality characteristics that are important to a group of people will eventually become a part of that group's language. [5]

and that therefore:

2. More important personality characteristics are more likely to be encoded into language as a single word. [6] [7] [8]

With origins during the late 19th century, use of the lexical hypothesis began to flourish in English and German psychology during the early 20th century. [4] The lexical hypothesis is a major basis of the study of the Big Five personality traits, [9] the HEXACO model of personality structure [10] and the 16PF Questionnaire and has been used to study the structure of personality traits in a number of cultural and linguistic settings. [11]

History

Early estimates

Sir Francis Galton. Francis Galton.jpg
Sir Francis Galton.

Sir Francis Galton was one of the first scientists to apply the lexical hypothesis to the study of personality, [4] stating:

I tried to gain an idea of the number of the more conspicuous aspects of the character by counting in an appropriate dictionary the words used to express them... I examined many pages of its index here and there as samples of the whole, and estimated that it contained fully one thousand words expressive of character, each of which has a separate shade of meaning, while each shares a large part of its meaning with some of the rest. [12] : 181 

— Francis Galton, Measurement of Character, 1884

Despite Galton's early ventures into the lexical study of personality, more than two decades passed before English-language scholars continued his work. A 1910 study by George E. Partridge listed approximately 750 English adjectives used to describe mental states, [13] while a 1926 study of Webster's New International Dictionary by M. L. Perkins provided an estimate of 3,000 such terms. [14] These early explorations and estimates were not limited to the English-speaking world, with philosopher and psychologist Ludwig Klages stating in 1929 that the German language contains approximately 4,000 words to describe inner states. [15]

Psycholexical studies

Allport & Odbert

Gordon Allport. Gordon Allport.gif
Gordon Allport.

Nearly half a century after Galton first investigated the lexical hypothesis, Franziska Baumgarten published the first psycholexical classification of personality-descriptive terms. Using dictionaries and characterology publications, Baumgarten identified 1,093 separate terms in the German language used for the description of personality and mental states. [16] Although this number is similar in size to the German and English estimates offered by earlier researchers, Gordon Allport and Henry S. Odbert revealed this to be a severe underestimate in a 1936 study. Similar to the earlier work of M. L. Perkins, they used Webster's New International Dictionary as their source. From this list of approximately 400,000 words, Allport and Odbert identified 17,953 unique terms used to describe personality or behavior. [16]

This is one of the most influential psycholexical studies in the history of trait psychology. [4] Not only was it the longest, most exhaustive list of personality-descriptive words at the time, [4] it was also one of the earliest attempts at classifying English-language terms with the use of psychological principles. Using their list of nearly 18,000 terms, Allport and Odbert separated these into four categories or "columns": [16]

Column I: This group contains 4,504 terms that describe or are related to personality traits. Being the most important of the four columns to Allport and Odbert and future psychologists, [4] its terms most closely relate to those used by modern personality psychologists (e.g., aggressive, introverted, sociable). Allport and Odbert suggested that this column represented a minimum rather than final list of trait terms. Because of this, they recommended that other researchers consult the remaining three columns in their studies. [16]
Column II: In contrast with the more stable dispositions described by terms in Column I, this group includes terms describing present states, attitudes, emotions, and moods (e.g., rejoicing, frantic). As a result of this emphasis of temporary states, present participles represent the majority of the 4,541 terms in Column II.
Column III: The largest of the four groups, Column III contains 5,226 words related to social evaluations of an individual person's character (e.g., worthy, insignificant). Unlike the previous two columns, this group does not refer to internal psychological attributes of a person. As such, Allport and Odbert acknowledged that Column III did not meet their definition of trait-related terms. Predating the person-situation debate by more than 30 years, [17] Allport and Odbert included this group to appease researchers of social psychology, sociology, and ethics. [16]
Column IV: The last of Allport and Odbert's four columns contained 3,682 words. Termed the "miscellaneous column" by the authors, Column IV contains important personality-descriptive terms that did not seem appropriate for the other three columns. Allport and Odbert offered potential subgroups for terms describing behaviors (e.g., pampered, crazed), physical qualities associated with psychological traits (e.g., lean, roly-poly), and talents or abilities (e.g., gifted, prolific). However, they noted that these subdivisions were not necessarily accurate, as: (i) innumerable subgroups were possible, (ii) these subgroups would not incorporate all of the miscellaneous terms, and (iii) further editing might reveal that these terms could be used for the other three columns. [16]

Allport and Odbert did not present these four columns as representing orthogonal concepts. Many of their nearly 18,000 terms could have been classified differently or put into multiple categories, particularly those in Columns I and II. Although the authors attempted to remedy this with the aid of three other editors, the average degree of agreement between these independent reviewers was approximately 47%. Noting that each outside reviewer seemed to have a preferred column, the authors decided to present the classifications performed by Odbert. Rather than try to rationalize this decision, Allport and Odbert presented the results of their study as somewhat arbitrary and unfinished. [16]

Warren Norman

Throughout the 1940s, researchers such as Raymond Cattell [5] and Donald Fiske [18] used factor analysis to explore the more general structure of the trait terms in Allport and Odbert's Column I. Rather than rely on the factors obtained by these researchers, [4] Warren Norman performed an independent analysis of Allport and Odbert's terms in 1963. [19] Despite finding a five-factor structure similar to Fiske's, Norman decided to use Allport and Odbert's original list to create a more precise and better-structured taxonomy of terms. [20] Using the 1961 edition of Webster's International Dictionary, Norman added relevant terms and removed those from Allport and Odbert's list that were no longer in use. This resulted in a source list of approximately 40,000 potential trait-descriptive terms. Using this list, Norman then removed terms that were deemed archaic or obsolete, solely evaluative, overly obscure, dialect-specific, loosely related to personality, and purely physical. By doing so, Norman reduced his original list to 2,797 unique trait-descriptive terms. [20] Norman's work would eventually serve as the basis for Dean Peabody and Lewis Goldberg's explorations of the "Big Five" personality traits. [21] [22] [23]

Juri Apresjan and the Moscow Semantic School

During the 1970s, Juri Apresjan, a founder of the Moscow Semantic School, developed the systemic, or systematic, method of lexicography which utilizes the concept of the language picture of the world. This concept is also termed the naive picture of the world in order to stress the non-scientific description of the world which is found in natural language. [24] In his book "Systematic Lexicography", which was published in English in 2000, J.D.Apresjan puts forward the idea of building dictionaries on the basis of "reconstructing the so-called naive picture of the world, or the "world-view", underlying the partly universal and partly language specific pattern of conceptualizations inherent in any natural language". [25] In his opinion, the general world-view can be fragmented into different more local pictures of reality, such as naive geometry, naive physics, naive psychology, and so forth. In particular, one chapter of the book Apresjan allots to the description of lexicographic reconstruction of the language picture of the human being in the Russian language. [26] Later, Apresjan's work was the basis for Sergey Golubkov's further attempts to build "the language personality theory" [27] [28] [29] which would be different from other lexically-based personality theories (e.g. by Allport, Cattell, Eysenck, etc.) due to its meronomic (partonomic) nature versus the taxonomic nature of the previously mentioned personality theories. [30]

Psycholexical studies of values

In addition to research on personality, the psycholexical method has also been applied to the study of values in multiple languages, [31] [32] providing a contrast with theory-driven approaches such as Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values. [33] [34]

Similar concepts

Philosophy

Concepts similar to the lexical hypothesis are basic to ordinary language philosophy. [35] Similar to the use of the lexical hypothesis to understand personality, ordinary language philosophers propose that philosophical problems can be solved or better understood by an examination of everyday language. In his essay "A Plea for Excuses," J. L. Austin cited three main justifications for this method: words are tools, words are not only facts or objects, and commonly used words "embod[y] all the distinctions men have found worth drawing...we are using a sharpened awareness of words to sharpen our perception of, though not as the final arbiter of, the phenomena". [36] : 182 

Criticism

Despite its widespread use for the study of personality, the lexical hypothesis has been challenged for a number of reasons. The following list describes some of the major critiques of the lexical hypothesis and personality models based on psycholexical studies. [8] [6] [35] [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

Personality is any person's collection of interrelated behavioral, cognitive and emotional patterns that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life. These interrelated patterns are relatively stable, but can change over long time periods.

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error, also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is a cognitive attribution bias where observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors. In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. Although personality traits and predispositions are considered to be observable facts in psychology, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their effects.

In psychology, trait theory is an approach to the study of human personality. Trait theorists are primarily interested in the measurement of traits, which can be defined as habitual patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion. According to this perspective, traits are aspects of personality that are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals, are relatively consistent over situations, and influence behaviour. Traits are in contrast to states, which are more transitory dispositions.

Trait ascription bias is the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable in their personal traits across different situations. More specifically, it is a tendency to describe one's own behaviour in terms of situational factors while preferring to describe another's behaviour by ascribing fixed dispositions to their personality. This may occur because peoples' own internal states are more readily observable and available to them than those of others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gordon Allport</span> American psychologist (1897–1967)

Gordon Willard Allport was an American psychologist. Allport was one of the first psychologists to focus on the study of the personality, and is often referred to as one of the founding figures of personality psychology. He contributed to the formation of values scales and rejected both a psychoanalytic approach to personality, which he thought often was too deeply interpretive, and a behavioral approach, which he thought did not provide deep enough interpretations from their data. Instead of these popular approaches, he developed an eclectic theory based on traits. He emphasized the uniqueness of each individual, and the importance of the present context, as opposed to history, for understanding the personality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Big Five personality traits</span> Personality model consisting of five broad dimensions

The Big Five personality traits, sometimes known as "the five-factor model of personality" or "OCEAN model", is a grouping of five unique characteristics used to study personality. It has been developed from the 1980s onward in psychological trait theory.

Lewis R. Goldberg is an American personality psychologist and a professor emeritus at the University of Oregon. He is closely associated with the lexical hypothesis that any culturally important personality characteristic will be represented in the language of that culture. This hypothesis led to a five factor structure of personality trait adjectives. When applied to personality items this structure is also known as the five-factor model (FFM) of personality. He is the creator of the International Personality Item Pool(IPIP), a website that provides public-domain personality measures.

Personality development encompasses the dynamic construction and deconstruction of integrative characteristics that distinguish an individual in terms of interpersonal behavioral traits. Personality development is ever-changing and subject to contextual factors and life-altering experiences. Personality development is also dimensional in description and subjective in nature. That is, personality development can be seen as a continuum varying in degrees of intensity and change. It is subjective in nature because its conceptualization is rooted in social norms of expected behavior, self-expression, and personal growth. The dominant viewpoint in personality psychology indicates that personality emerges early and continues to develop across one's lifespan. Adult personality traits are believed to have a basis in infant temperament, meaning that individual differences in disposition and behavior appear early in life, potentially before language of conscious self-representation develop. The Five Factor Model of personality maps onto the dimensions of childhood temperament. This suggests that individual differences in levels of the corresponding personality traits are present from young ages.

Neuroticism is a personality trait associated with negative emotions. It is one of the Big Five traits. Individuals with high scores on neuroticism are more likely than average to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, pessimism, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. Such people are thought to respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations, such as minor frustrations, as appearing hopelessly difficult. Their behavioral responses may include procrastination, substance use, and other maladaptive behaviors, which may aid in relieving negative emotions and generating positive ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agreeableness</span> Personality trait

Agreeableness is a personality trait referring to individuals that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, honest, and considerate. In personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony.

Openness to experience is one of the domains which are used to describe human personality in the Five Factor Model. Openness involves six facets, or dimensions: active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety (adventurousness), intellectual curiosity, and challenging authority. A great deal of psychometric research has demonstrated that these facets or qualities are significantly correlated. Thus, openness can be viewed as a global personality trait consisting of a set of specific traits, habits, and tendencies that cluster together.

The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is a cognitive bias that, even when positive or neutral things of equal intensity occur, things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things. In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk considerations.

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is a self-report. personality test developed over several decades of empirical research by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber. The 16PF provides a measure of personality and can also be used by psychologists, and other mental health professionals, as a clinical instrument to help diagnose psychiatric disorders, and help with prognosis and therapy planning. The 16PF can also provide information relevant to the clinical and counseling process, such as an individual's capacity for insight, self-esteem, cognitive style, internalization of standards, openness to change, capacity for empathy, level of interpersonal trust, quality of attachments, interpersonal needs, attitude toward authority, reaction toward dynamics of power, frustration tolerance, and coping style. Thus, the 16PF instrument provides clinicians with a normal-range measurement of anxiety, adjustment, emotional stability and behavioral problems. Clinicians can use 16PF results to identify effective strategies for establishing a working alliance, to develop a therapeutic plan, and to select effective therapeutic interventions or modes of treatment. It can also be used within other areas of psychology, such as career and occupational selection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extraversion and introversion</span> Personality trait

Extraversion and introversion are a central trait dimension in human personality theory. The terms were introduced into psychology by Carl Jung, though both the popular understanding and current psychological usage are not the same as Jung's original concept. Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reflective and reserved behavior. Jung defined introversion as an "attitude-type characterised by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents", and extraversion as "an attitude-type characterised by concentration of interest on the external object".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HEXACO model of personality structure</span> Six-dimensional model of human personality

The HEXACO model of personality structure is a six-dimensional model of human personality that was created by Ashton and Lee and explained in their book, The H Factor of Personality, based on findings from a series of lexical studies involving several European and Asian languages. The six factors, or dimensions, include honesty-humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O). Each factor is composed of traits with characteristics indicating high and low levels of the factor. The HEXACO model was developed through similar methods as other trait taxonomies and builds on the work of Costa and McCrae and Goldberg. The model, therefore, shares several common elements with other trait models. However, the HEXACO model is unique mainly due to the addition of the honesty-humility dimension.

Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) proposes three brain-behavioral systems that underlie individual differences in sensitivity to reward, punishment, and motivation. While not originally defined as a theory of personality, the RST has been used to study and predict anxiety, impulsivity, and extraversion. The theory evolved from Gray's biopsychological theory of personality to incorporate findings from a number of areas in psychology and neuroscience, culminating in a major revision in 2000. The revised theory distinguishes between fear and anxiety and proposes functionally related subsystems. Measures of RST have not been widely adapted to reflect the revised theory due to disagreement over related versus independent subsystems. Despite this controversy, RST informed the study of anxiety disorders in clinical settings and continues to be used today to study and predict work performance. RST, built upon Gray's behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) understanding, also may help to suggest predispositions to and predict alcohol and drug abuse. RST, a continuously evolving paradigm, is the subject of multiple areas of contemporary psychological enquiry.

Within personality psychology, it has become common practice to use factor analysis to derive personality traits. The Big Five model proposes that there are five basic personality traits. These traits were derived in accordance with the lexical hypothesis. These five personality traits: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience have garnered widespread support.

The person–situation debate in personality psychology refers to the controversy concerning whether the person or the situation is more influential in determining a person's behavior. Personality trait psychologists believe that a person's personality is relatively consistent across situations. Situationists, opponents of the trait approach, argue that people are not consistent enough from situation to situation to be characterized by broad personality traits. The debate is also an important discussion when studying social psychology, as both topics address the various ways a person could react to a given situation.

The Big Five personality traits are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The Big Five Personality is a test that people can take to learn more about their personality in relation to the five personality traits. Cross-cultural psychology as a discipline examines the way that human behavior is different and/or similar across different cultures. One important and widely studied area in this subfield of psychology is personality, particularly the study of Big Five. The Big Five model of personality has become the most extensively studied model of personality and has broad support, starting in the United States and later in many different cultures. The Big Five model of personality started in the United States, and through the years has been translated into many different languages and has been used in many countries. Some researchers were attempting to determine the differences in how other cultures perceive this model. Some research shows that the Big Five holds up across cultures even with its origin in the English language. However, there is also some evidence which suggests that the Big Five traits may not be sufficient to completely explain personality in other cultures. In countries such as South America and East Asia, the results weren't as accurate because they weren't as open as some people in other countries are.

In psychology, a facet is a specific and unique aspect of a broader personality trait. Both the concept and the term "facet" were introduced by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae in the first edition of the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) Manual. Facets were originally elaborated only for the neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion traits; Costa and McCrae introduced facet scales for the agreeableness and conscientiousness traits in the Revised NEO-PI. Each of the Big Five personality traits in the five factor model contains six facets, each of which is measured with a separate scale. The use of facets and facet scales has since expanded beyond the NEO PI-R, with alternative facet and domain structures derived from other models of personality. Examples include the HEXACO model of personality structure, psycholexical studies, circumplex models, the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), and the California Psychological Inventory.

References

  1. ↑ Crowne, D. P. (2007). Personality Theory. Don Mills, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-542218-4.
  2. ↑ Goldberg, L. R. (December 1990). "An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59 (6): 1216–1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. PMID   2283588. S2CID   9034636.
  3. ↑ Carducci, B. J. (2009). The Psychology of Personality: Second Edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN   978-1-4051-3635-8.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Caprara, G. V.; Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: Determinants, Dynamics, and Potentials. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-58310-7.
  5. 1 2 Cattell, R.B. (1943). "The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 38 (4): 476–506. doi:10.1037/h0054116.
  6. 1 2 3 4 John, O. P.; Angleitner, A.; Ostendorf, F. (1988). "The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research". European Journal of Personality. 2 (3): 171–203. doi:10.1002/per.2410020302. S2CID   15299845. Archived from the original on 26 October 2014.
  7. ↑ Miller, George A (1996). The science of words . New York: Scientific American Library. ISBN   978-0-7167-5027-7.
  8. 1 2 Ashton, M. C.; Lee, K. (2004). "A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure" (PDF). European Journal of Personality. 19: 5–24. doi:10.1002/per.541. S2CID   145576560. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 March 2012.
  9. ↑ Goldberg, Lewis (1993). "The structure of phenotypic personality traits". American Psychologist. 48 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.1.26. PMID   8427480. S2CID   20595956.
  10. ↑ Ashton, Michael C.; Lee, Kibeom; Perugini, Marco; Szarota, Piotr; de Vries, Reinout E.; Di Blas, Lisa; Boies, Kathleen; De Raad, Boele (2004). "A Six-Factor Structure of Personality-Descriptive Adjectives: Solutions From Psycholexical Studies in Seven Languages". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (2): 356–366. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356. ISSN   0022-3514. PMID   14769090.
  11. ↑ John, O. P.; Robins, R. W.; Pervin, L. A. (2008). Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Third Edition. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 114–158. ISBN   978-1-59385-836-0.
  12. ↑ Galton, F. (1884). "Measurement of Character" (PDF). Fortnightly Review. 36: 179–185.
  13. ↑ Partridge, G. E. (1910). An Outline of Individual Study. New York: Sturgis & Walton. pp. 106–111.
  14. ↑ Perkins, M. L. (1926). "The teaching of ideals and the development of the traits of character and personality" (PDF). Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science. 6 (2): 344–347. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
  15. ↑ Klages, L. (1929). The Science of Character. London: George Allen & Unwin.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allport, G. W.; Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Albany, NY: Psychological Review Company.
  17. ↑ Epstein, S.; O'Brien, E. J. (November 1985). "The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective". Psychological Bulletin. 98 (3): 513–537. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.3.513. PMID   4080897.
  18. ↑ Fiske, D. W. (July 1949). "Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 44 (3): 329–344. doi:10.1037/h0057198. PMID   18146776.
  19. ↑ Norman, W. T. (June 1963). "Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66 (6): 574–583. doi:10.1037/h0040291. PMID   13938947.
  20. 1 2 Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Dept. of Psychology.
  21. ↑ Fiske, D. W. (1981). Problems with Language Imprecision: New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 43–65.
  22. ↑ Peabody, D.; Goldberg, L. R. (September 1989). "Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (3): 552–567. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.552. PMID   2778639. S2CID   19459419.
  23. ↑ Goldberg, L. R. (December 1990). "An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59 (6): 1216–1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216. PMID   2283588. S2CID   9034636.
  24. ↑ Apresi͡an, I͡Uriĭ Derenikovich (2000). Systematic Lexicography. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-823780-8.
  25. ↑ "Apresjan J. (1992). Systemic Lexicography. In Euralex-92 Proceedings (part 1). p.4" (PDF). Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  26. ↑ Apresi͡an, I͡Uriĭ Derenikovich (2000). "The Picture of Man as Reconstructed from Linguistic Data: An Attempt at a Systematic Description". Systematic Lexicography. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–143. ISBN   978-0-19-823780-8.
  27. ↑ "Golubkov's Language Personality Theory". webspace.ship.edu.
  28. ↑ Golubkov S.V. (2002). "The language personality theory: An integrative approach to personality on the basis of its language phenomenology". Social Behavior and Personality. 30 (6): 571–578. doi:10.2224/sbp.2002.30.6.571.
  29. ↑ "PsychNews 5(1)". userpage.fu-berlin.de.
  30. ↑ Golubkov S.V. (2002). "The language personality theory: An integrative approach to personalityon the basis of its language phenomenology". Social Behavior and Personality. 30 (6): 573. doi:10.2224/sbp.2002.30.6.571.
  31. ↑ De Raad, Boele; Van Oudenhoven, Jan Pieter (January 2011). "A psycholexical study of virtues in the Dutch language, and relations between virtues and personality". European Journal of Personality. 25 (1): 43–52. doi:10.1002/per.777. S2CID   227275239.
  32. ↑ De Raad, Boele; Morales-Vives, Fabia; Barelds, Dick P. H.; Van Oudenhoven, Jan Pieter; Renner, Walter; Timmerman, Marieke E. (28 July 2016). "Values in a Cross-Cultural Triangle" (PDF). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 47 (8): 1053–1075. doi:10.1177/0022022116659698. S2CID   151792686.
  33. ↑ Schwartz, Shalom H. (15 March 2017). "Theory-Driven Versus Lexical Approaches to Value Structures". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 48 (3): 439–443. doi:10.1177/0022022117690452. S2CID   151514308.
  34. ↑ De Raad, Boele; Timmerman, Marieke E.; Morales-Vives, Fabia; Renner, Walter; Barelds, Dick P. H.; Pieter Van Oudenhoven, Jan (15 March 2017). "The Psycho-Lexical Approach in Exploring the Field of Values". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 48 (3): 444–451. doi: 10.1177/0022022117692677 . PMC   5414899 . PMID   28502995.
  35. 1 2 3 De Raad, B. (June 1998). "Five big, Big Five issues: Rationale, content, structure, status, and crosscultural assessment". European Psychologist. 3 (2): 113–124. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.3.2.113.
  36. ↑ Austin, J. L. (1970). Philosophical Papers. London: Oxford University Press. pp. 175–204.
  37. 1 2 Dumont, F. (2010). A History of Personality Psychology: Theory, Science, and Research from Hellenism to the Twenty-first Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 149–182. ISBN   978-0-521-11632-9.
  38. 1 2 Trofimova, I. N. (2014). "Observer bias: an interaction of temperament traits with biases in the semantic perception of lexical material". PLOS ONE. 9 (1): e85677. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...985677T. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085677 . PMC   3903487 . PMID   24475048.
  39. ↑ Trofimova, I.; Robbins, TW; W., Sulis; J., Uher (2018). "Taxonomies of psychological individual differences: biological perspectives on millennia-long challenges". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences. 373 (1744). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0152 . PMC   5832678 . PMID   29483338.
  40. ↑ Trofimova, I; et al. (2022). "What's next for the neurobiology of temperament, personality and psychopathology?". Current Opinions in Behavioral Sciences. 45: 101143. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101143. S2CID   248817462.
  41. ↑ Block, J. (March 1995). "A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (2): 187–215. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.187. PMID   7724687.
  42. ↑ McCrae, R. R. (November 1994). "Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of Factor V". European Journal of Personality. 8 (4): 251–272. doi:10.1002/per.2410080404. S2CID   144576220.
  43. 1 2 3 Westen, D. (September 1996). "A model and a method for uncovering the nomothetic from the idiographic: An alternative to the Five-Factor Model" (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality. 30 (3): 400–413. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.523.5477 . doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0028. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 May 2012.
  44. ↑ Bromley, D. B. (1977). Personality Description in Ordinary Language . London: Wiley. ISBN   978-0-471-99443-5.
  45. ↑ Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ISBN   978-0-534-00910-6.
  46. ↑ Shadel, W. G.; Cervone, D. (December 1993). "The Big Five versus nobody?". American Psychologist. 48 (12): 1300–1302. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.12.1300.
  47. ↑ De Raad, B.; Mulder, E.; Kloosterman, K.; Hofstee, W. K. B. (June 1988). "Personality-descriptive verbs". European Journal of Personality. 2 (2): 81–96. doi:10.1002/per.2410020204. S2CID   146758458.
  48. ↑ Eysenck, Hans Jurgen (1993). "The structure of phenoytypic personality traits: Comment". The American Psychologist. 48 (12): 1299–1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.12.1299.b.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.