Alvpgs JRP 2006 PDF

Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875
www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
The HEXACO model of personality structure

and indigenous lexical personality dimensions
in Italian, Dutch, and English
Michael C. Ashton a,, Kibeom Lee b,, Reinout E. de Vries c,
Marco Perugini d, Augusto Gnisci e, Ida Sergi e
a
Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
c
Department of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
d
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, UK
e
Department of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Caserta, Italy
b
Available online 10 February 2006
Abstract
We correlated the scales of the HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI) with adjective scale
markers of personality factors previously obtained in indigenous lexical studies of personality structure
in the Italian, Dutch, and English languages. Self-ratings were obtained from samples of 327 Italian, 161
Dutch, and 214 English-speaking Canadian participants. Results showed that each of the six HEXACO
variablesincluding HonestyHumilitycorrelated strongly with its hypothesized six-factor adjective
scale counterpart in all three languages. In each case, convergent correlations were substantially stronger than discriminant correlations. Because the HEXACO model was developed without prior knowledge of the indigenous Dutch and English lexical factors, the results suggest that the HEXACO model
of personality structure can be extended to the personality lexicons of those languages.
2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Personality structure; Lexical hypothesis; HEXACO
This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grants 410-20030946 and 410-2003-1835. We thank Lewis R. Goldberg for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
*
Corresponding authors. Fax: +1 905 688 6922 (M.C. Ashton).
E-mail addresses: mashton@brocku.ca (M.C. Ashton), kibeom@ucalgary.ca (K. Lee).
0092-6566/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.06.003
852
M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875
1. Introduction
An important task for psychologists is to Wnd a small set of independent major
dimensions that can together summarize human personality variation. In research
to date, the chief strategy for identifying the basic factors of personality has been
the lexical approach to personality structure, which is based on the idea that
important aspects of personality description should be widely represented in each
language. This approach has the advantage that it removes much of the subjectivity
associated with variable selection, because the lexical personality researcher
needs only to identify, in any given language, the set of familiar indigenous terms
usually adjectivesthat primarily describe variation in normal characteristics of
personality. In contrast, approaches based on analyses of questionnaire scales have
the limitation that such scales may over- or under-represent certain aspects of the personality domain, according to the preferences of the researchers who develop such
scales.
1.1. Lexical studies of personality structure in several languages: A six-factor structure?
The lexical strategy for investigating personality structure was Wrst employed in the
English language, in which self-ratings and peer ratings on various sets of personalitydescriptive adjectives eventually produced a Wve-dimensional space known as the Big
Five factor structure. These Wve dimensionsnow generally known as Extraversion (or
Surgency), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (versus Neuroticism),
and Intellect or Imagination (or Openness to Experience)emerged during the 1960s
(Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961, 1992) and were then recovered in subsequent
studies during the following decades (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg,
1990). By the 1990s, the Big Five factor structure was well established in English-language lexical research (but see Block, 1995; Pervin, 1994, for criticisms of the Big Five
and its underlying assumptions). At the same time, this structure was being popularized
via the questionnaire-based Five-Factor Model (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992), which was
derived (both indirectly and directly) from lexical research (see historical overview by
McCrae, 1989). Also starting in the 1970s (Brokken, 1978), but gaining momentum in the
1990s, researchers began to investigate the structure of the personality lexicons of other
languages.
An important aim of lexical studies conducted outside the English language was
to test for the existence of the Big Five factor structure in other language domains,1
and most investigations did recover variants of those Wve factors (but for exceptions see
In addition to lexical studies, many investigations of the cross-language replication of the Five-Factor
Model have been undertaken, using questionnaire measures of the Wve dimensions (see, e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997). Although those studies have produced results consistent with that structure, those results cannot
be interpreted as providing truly independent support for the Five-Factor Model. This is because the variables of those investigationsunlike those of lexical studiesare neither indigenous to the languages in
question nor selected in such a way as to be representative of the personality domain; instead, the variables
have been imported from one culture and have been selected with the express aim of deWning a hypothesized
structure.
853
De Raad & Szirmak, 1994; Di Blas & Forzi, 1998, 1999; Szirmak & De Raad, 1994).
However, most recently, the same data used by investigators to search for the Big Five
have revealed that a common set of six factorsnot just Wvecan be recovered in
several languages. As noted by Ashton and Lee (2001; see also Ashton, Lee, and Son,
2000), the results of several lexical investigations revealed not only variants of the Big
Five factors, but also a sixth factor that they named Honesty (and later, Honesty
Humility2). This six-dimensional structure was derived from the personality lexicons of
such languages as French (Boies, Lee, Ashton, Pascal, & Nicol, 2001), German (Angleitner & Ostendorf, 1989; Ostendorf & Angleitner, 1993), Hungarian (De Raad & Szirmak, 1994; Szirmak & De Raad, 1994), Italian (Caprara & Perugini, 1994; Di Blas &
Forzi, 1998, 1999), Korean (Hahn, Lee, & Ashton, 1999), and Polish (Szarota, 1995,
1996).
In a later review article, Ashton et al. (2004a) summarized the content of the six factors as obtained in each of the above languages and also in Dutch, whose six-factor solution had recently become available. Three of the obtained factors were similar in content
to Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Intellect/Imagination in the classic Big Five
structure (although the latter factor also contained a prominent element of Unconventionality). The remaining three factors contained terms that deWne Big Five Agreeableness and Emotional Stability, but none of the three cross-language factors corresponded
isomorphically to those Big Five dimensions. Instead, one of the three remaining factors,
called Emotionality (a less pejorative term than Neuroticism or Emotional Stability), was
deWned by terms related to vulnerability, sentimentality, and fearfulness versus toughness, unemotionality, and fearlessness, but not by the ill-temper-related terms that usually deWne Neuroticism. Another of the remaining factors, although given the name
Agreeableness, was deWned by terms related to patience, gentleness, and Xexibility versus
ill-temper, quarrelsomeness, and stubbornness, and thus was somewhat diVerent from
the Big Five Agreeableness factor, which usually excludes terms related to ill-temper.
The remaining factor, HonestyHumility, was deWned by terms related to sincerity, unassumingness, and fairness versus slyness/deceit, pretentiousness, and greed. Interestingly,
content related to sympathy and generosity (and hence to the Big Five variant of Agreeableness) tended to shift its location between HonestyHumility and the six-dimensional
variant of Agreeableness described above, deWning one factor or the other across the various studies.
The results of the Ashton et al. (2004a) cross-language comparison thus suggest
some important revisions to the Big Five structure that has been widely accepted as
the optimal structural model of personality characteristics. One obvious change suggested by the results of the various lexical studies is the existence of six factors, including HonestyHumility. However, another important modiWcation involves the
Emotionality and Agreeableness factors, which correspond roughly to rotated
variants of the classic Big Five Emotional Stability and Agreeableness axes. The
widespread emergence of the Emotionality, Agreeableness, and HonestyHumility
factors is also of much theoretical signiWcance, given the relations of these three vec-
This factor might also be meaningfully interpreted as Morality, Sincerity, or Integrity.
854
tors to altruism-related constructsspeciWcally, kin altruism and the forgiving and

fair aspects of reciprocal altruismas described by Ashton and Lee (2001; Lee and
Ashton, 2004).3
1.2. Operationalizing the six-dimensional structure: The HEXACO personality inventory
One consequence of the Wnding of a similar six-factor solution across several languages personality lexicons was the need to operationalize that six-dimensional structure using a common set of marker variables. Thus, in late 2000, Lee and Ashton (2004)
began the construction of a new personality inventory whose scales were intended to
represent the six dimensions that had been recovered in the lexical investigations. Questionnaire items were used instead of simple adjective markers, because item statements
would allow the deWning traits of each factor to be described in terms of various behavior-in-situation contexts, thereby allowing reliable assessment of the main elements of
each factor regardless of the degree of representation of any particular element among
the adjectives of a given language.
At the time of the development of the HEXACO-PI, Lee and Ashton were aware
of the six-factor structures recovered in studies of the French, German,
Hungarian, Italian, Korean, and Polish personality lexicons, and therefore deWned
the six domains in terms of the content of the factors obtained in those
languages. The name of the resulting questionnairethe HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI; Lee & Ashton, 2004)suggests the number of factors and is also
an acronym of the factor names: HonestyHumility (H); Emotionality (E);
eXtraversion (X); Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness
to Experience (O). Thus far, the psychometric properties of the HEXACO-PI, including
its scales score distributions, internal-consistency reliabilities, intercorrelations,
At this point, we should brieXy mention some alternative proposals for personality factor structures. One proposed structure is the Multi-Language Seven (ML7; Saucier, 2003), of which six factors are roughly similar to the
six that we have proposed, except that the ML7 requires a separation of content related to overall altruism and
content related to patience and even-temper, and hence represents a special case of the HEXACO model. (Recall
that in the HEXACO structure, the latter content deWnes an Agreeableness factor separate from HonestyHumility, and terms describing overall altruism tend to shift between those two factors.) The seventh factor of the ML7,
Negative Valence, subsumes a wide variety of highly negatively evaluative terms (e.g., crazy, evil, stupid, good-fornothing). We have argued elsewhere that these terms ought to be excluded from lexical studies of personality
structure (Ashton & Lee, 2001, 2002).
A dimension of religious or spiritual transcendence has also been proposed as a major factor of personality (e.g., Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993; Piedmont, 1999), and in lexical research this dimension sometimes emerges as a factor additional to the six described here (see Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004b). We
agree that religiosity and spirituality represent a major dimension of individual diVerences, but we consider
this variable to be qualitatively diVerent from the personality dimensions considered here. As we have noted
(Ashton et al., 2004b), religiosity/spirituality diVers from the major personality dimensions insofar as it is
deWned by a system of beliefs and is characterized by considerable levels of assortative mating and of common environment inXuence, and by unusual response distributions showing very large standard deviations
(see Ashton et al., 2004b).
In addition, a six-dimensional structure was suggested by Jackson, Paunonen, Fraboni, and GoYn (1996)
on the basis of analyses of the scales of the Personality Research Form. Although this structure does accurately characterize the structure of that inventory, it is not typically recovered in analyses of other variable
sets.
855
and factor structure, have been quite satisfactory (see Lee & Ashton, 2004).4
Moreover, several studies of the criterion validity of the HEXACO-PI scales have also
yielded promising results; in particular, the HonestyHumility scale has been found to
predict decision making in hypothetical moral dilemmas (Perugini & Leone, 2004) as
well as low levels of workplace deviance (Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005), of likelihood to
sexually harass (Lee, Gizzarone, & Ashton, 2003), and of Machiavellianism, Primary
Psychopathy, and Narcissism (Lee & Ashton, 2005).
1.3. Six-factor solutions in the Dutch and English personality lexicons
As noted above, the HEXACO-PI was developed with reference to the six-factor solutions obtained in lexical studies of personality structure in several languages. Subsequent
to the construction of the HEXACO-PI, however, full details of the six-factor solutions
derived from lexical investigations in two other languagesDutch (see Ashton et al.,
2004a) and English (Ashton et al., 2004b)have also become available. In both of these
investigations, the original data collection and analyses had been performed much earlier: the Dutch lexical data were collected and analyzed in two stages, during the 1970s
(Brokken, 1978) and early 1990s (De Raad, 1992; De Raad, Hendriks, & Hofstee, 1992),
and the English lexical data were obtained during the 1970s and reported later by Goldberg (1990). However, in the case of the Dutch data, only a very brief mention of the sixfactor solution was made by De Raad (1992), who did not list the deWning adjectives of
the six factors of that solution. Also, in the case of the English data, analyses of the full
set of (unclustered) adjectives on the full participant sample had not been conducted
until very recently.
Thus, the recent availability of the full six-factor solutions obtained from the Dutch and
the English personality lexicons has allowed further tests of the replicability of the common six-factor structure that had previously been observed in French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, and Polish. These results from Dutch and English investigations are
especially interesting, because in both cases the six-factor results became available only
after the development of the HEXACO model, even though in both cases the variable sets
had been selected many years before the development of that model.
Subjective examination of the Dutch and English six-factor structures does suggest a
strong similarity to the cross-language set of six dimensions. Let us Wrst consider the Dutch
results, which (as reported by Ashton et al., 2004a) were based on self-reports from 400
respondents on a set of 551 personality-descriptive adjectives. As can be seen by inspecting
Tables 16 of Ashton et al. (2004a), the Dutch six-factor solution resembled those of the
other languages: Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors were obtained in something
close to their traditional form; rotated variants of Agreeableness and low Emotional
Stability (i.e., Emotionality) were also observed; a Wfth factor containing Intellect,
4
For readers interested in the AB5C representation of personality traits (Hofstee, De Raad, & Goldberg, 1992),
we have derived the location of HEXACO-PI HonestyHumility within that system by correlating that variable
with orthogonalized marker scales of the English lexical Big Five in Goldbergs EugeneSpringWeld Community
Sample. When calculated with respect to the 20-item scales of the International Personality Item Pool (2001), the
highest projection of HonestyHumility was on the II+I axis, with a value of .40 (N D 449). When calculated
with respect to the 8-item Mini-Marker adjective scales (Saucier, 1994), the highest projection of HonestyHumility was instead on the II+IV+ axis, with a value of .31 (N D 640). Relations of HEXACO-PI HonestyHumility
with markers of the Big Five and Five-Factor Model are discussed in detail in Ashton and Lee (2005).
856
Imagination, and Unconventionality/Autonomy content also emerged; and Wnally, a sixth

factor was deWned by terms relevant to HonestyHumility (e.g., in English translation, sincere, modest versus boasting, ostentatious, sly, cunning).
Similarly, the recent English-language investigation also produced a six-factor structure
similar to that observed in the lexical studies summarized by Ashton et al. (2004a). As seen
in Tables 2 and 3 of Ashton et al. (2004a), the English six-factor solution also contained
Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors, in addition to Agreeableness and Emotionality factors that resembled the variants obtained in other languages more closely than the
classic English Big Five variants of the factors. A Wfth factor blended Intellect, Imagination, and Unconventionality content, and a sixth factor resembled HonestyHumility,
being deWned by a terms such as undevious and unaVected versus sly and pretentious. (The
interpretation of this sixth factor became clearer after a subsequent rotation of 30 with
respect to the Agreeableness factor.)
We believe that most observers would interpret the content of the Dutch and English
six-factor structures to be strikingly similar to that of the six-factor structures obtained in
other languages listed above (see Ashton et al., 2004a; Ashton et al., 2004b). Nevertheless,
many researchers would likely prefer to see some formal quantitative test of the extent to
which the newly recovered Dutch and English structures correspond to the proposed sixdimensional framework as derived from the results observed in those other languages.
1.4. Purpose of the present studies
In the present investigation, we will attempt to determine the extent of similarity of the sets
of six factors obtained in indigenous lexical studies in the Dutch and in the English languages
to the set of six factors proposed on the basis of results obtained in several languages. Our
method of evaluating this similarity will be to correlate scores obtained on markers of the
indigenous Dutch and English six lexical factors with scores on questionnaire scales that were
developed to operationalize the hypothesized cross-language six factors. This approach has
the advantage that the questionnaire scale markers to be used in this investigation have been
constructed with the express aim of representing the range of content that prototypically
deWnes each factor across various languages; moreover, those questionnaire scale markers
have the beneWt of reWnements based on several rounds of item trials during the development
of those measures. By examining the extent to which markers of the six indigenous factors
obtained in Dutch and in English would correspond isomorphically to the six questionnaire
scale markers of the proposed six-factor structure, we can test the prediction that these six
dimensions underlie the personality lexicons of the Dutch and English languages. To the
extent that this prediction should be supported, it would represent an important development, as it would corroborate the previously unremarked emergence of a conceptually similar
set of sixnot just Wvepersonality-descriptive factors from these languages.
Before examining the similarity of the indigenous Dutch and English lexical factors to
the HEXACO-PI scales, however, it is also worthwhile to verify the construct validity of
the HEXACO-PI scales as measures of the common six-factor solution as obtained in the
languages (i.e., French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, and Polish) whose results
were previously known. Thus far, relations between HEXACO-PI scales and selected
cross-language markers of the six factors have been reported for the French and Korean
translations of the HEXACO-PI scales (Boies, Yoo, Ebacher, Lee, & Ashton, 2005), and
the results indicated a pattern of high convergent and low discriminant correlations. In the
857
present researchprior to testing the interpretation of the newly discovered Dutch and
English lexical six-factor solutionswe Wrst examine the construct validity of the HEXACO-PI by correlating its scales, translated into the Italian language, with adjective markers of the six indigenous lexical factors as obtained in the Italian language. Note that these
analyses, unlike those of the Dutch and English languages as proposed above, will not constitute a test of predictions regarding the recovery of the hypothesized six-factor structure
in a new lexical study. However, the analyses will provide additional information regarding the correspondence of the HEXACO-PI scales to the lexically derived constructs on
which the development of that inventory was based.
2. Study 1: Italian indigenous adjective scales and HEXACO-PI
In the Wrst study, we wanted to establish the extent to which the HEXACO-PI scales corresponded to adjective scale markers of the six factors obtained in indigenous Italian lexical
studies of personality structure. Because the content of these indigenous Italian lexical factors
(along with that of lexical factors from other languages) had helped to guide the conceptualization and construction of the HEXACO-PI scales, we expected that the Italian adjective
scales used here would correlate substantially with their HEXACO-PI counterparts.
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
Participants were 327 Italian undergraduate students at the University of Naples. Ages
ranged from 18 to 53 years with a median of 23. Seventy-three percent of the participants
were women.
2.1.2. Procedure
After providing demographic information, participants completed the HEXACO-PI,
the adjective self-rating form, and additional self-report measures included for the purposes of other research projects.
2.1.3. Materials
2.1.3.1. Adjectives. Because two independent Italian lexical investigations have been conducted, selection of adjective markers of the indigenous lexical factors is less straightforward for the Italian language than for the other languages considered here. Below, we
discuss our method of constructing the Italian adjective marker scales.
The adjective self-rating form contained a total of 101 adjectives, all of which were
administered with a seven-point response scale. Among these 101 were the 50 adjectives of
the Italian Big Five Marker Scales (BFMS; Perugini & Di Blas, 2002), which were included
chieXy for the purpose of other research projects, but also to provide reasonably close
equivalents of the Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors obtained in Italian lexical
studies.5
Included among the remaining variables were adjectives that had loaded highly on the
other four factors of the six-factor solutions obtained in the two independent projects that
5
Di Blas and Perugini (2002) recently reported correlations of .86 and .88 between the BFMS and the joint Roman-Triestean indigenous versions of the Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors, respectively.
858
investigated, in Rome (Caprara & Perugini, 1994) and in Trieste (Di Blas & Forzi, 1998,
1999), the structure of the Italian personality lexicon. These six-factor solutions have
recently been reported in the review by Ashton et al. (2004a), and some joint analyses of
Roman and Triestean variable sets have also been described recently (Di Blas & Perugini,
2002). To represent those remaining four factors, we selected sets of 10 adjectives that were
among the highest-loading terms on the factors of either the Roman six-factor solution
(see Ashton et al., 2004a, Tables 16) or the Triestean six-factor solution (see Ashton et al.,
2004a, Tables 16), with preference given to terms that loaded highly in both solutions,
even if not among the very highest-loading terms in either single study.
The one exception to this selection strategy involved the Wfth factor (i.e., the factor usually known as Intellect/Imagination/Unconventionality); in this case, we favored the
Roman version of the factor, because the Triestean variant tended to be dominated by
terms suggestive of intelligence or intellectual ability, whereas we view this content (unlike
inquisitiveness or intellectual curiosity) as falling outside the domain of personality (see,
e.g., Lee & Ashton, 2004).
The six sets of 10 adjectives selected as markers of the Italian lexical factors are listed
in Appendix A. Inspection of Appendix A, and comparison with the six-factor solutions
of the various Italian studies listed above, suggests that these six adjective scales correspond closely to the common elements of the six-factor solutions obtained in Italian lexical studies. For each participant, raw scores on the items of each adjective scale were
averaged to produce the adjective scale scores; for all adjectives, a seven-point response
scale was used.6
2.1.3.2. HEXACO-PI. The 108-item version of the HEXACO-PI was administered using a
Wve-point response scale. The Italian version of this inventory was translated by Marco
Perugini, and the translated version was examined by Michael Ashton. A few very minor
revisions were then made to the translated items.
2.2. Results
2.2.1. Descriptive statistics and internal-consistency reliabilities
Descriptive statistics and internal-consistency reliabilities of the six Italian adjective
scales and the six HEXACO-PI scales are listed in Table 1; note that scale scores are
calculated as the mean across all items. For the adjective scales, the scale means ranged
from 3.85 (Emotionality) to 5.73 (HonestyHumility) on the 1-to-7 scale, with standard
deviations ranging from 0.71 (HonestyHumility) to 1.21 (Extraversion). Internal-consistency reliabilities were generally high for the adjective scales, ranging from .75
(Openness to Experience) to .91 (Extraversion). For the HEXACO-PI scales, mean
scores ranged from 3.07 (Agreeableness) to 3.51 (Emotionality) on the 1-to-5 scale, and
standard deviations were all slightly above 0.50. Internal-consistency reliabilities of the
6
Note that ipsatized (i.e., within-subject standardized) scores on adjectives are used in lexical studies of personality structure, to prevent the emergence of factors due to individual diVerences in overall elevation of responses
across all adjectives. However, when calculating scale scores across sets of adjectives roughly balanced for direction of keying, individual diVerences in elevation are largely eliminated without ipsatization. In the present research, raw-scored adjective responses were used in all three studies, but results based on ipsatized adjective
responses (available from the authors) were very similar.
859
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and internal-consistency reliabilities of the lexical factor and HEXACO-PI scales in the Italian (N D 327), Dutch (N D 161), and Canadian (N D 214) samples
Mean
SD
Reliability
Italian Dutch Canadian Italian Dutch Canadian Italian Dutch Canadian

Indigenous adjective scales
Extraversion
4.67
Agreeableness
4.80
Conscientiousness
4.64
Emotionality
3.85
Openness to Experience 4.53
HonestyHumility
5.73
4.86
4.75
4.55
3.61
5.01
5.01
4.84
4.87
4.95
3.90
4.96
4.04
1.21
0.94
1.01
0.92
0.90
0.71
0.72
0.58
0.69
0.70
0.46
0.63
0.97
0.79
0.66
1.11
0.62
0.62
.91
.84
.84
.80
.75
.81
.93
.87
.90
.90
.80
.91
.93
.88
.84
.93
.83
.76
HEXACO-PI scales
HonestyHumility
Emotionality
eXtraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness to Experience
3.25
3.26
3.48
3.12
3.17
3.41
3.27
3.25
3.49
3.03
3.25
3.36
0.51
0.53
0.54
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.48
0.55
0.53
0.46
0.54
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.57
0.54
0.53
0.61
.79
.82
.84
.82
.81
.81
.79
.85
.86
.79
.84
.84
.90
.91
.92
.91
.89
.92
3.49
3.51
3.49
3.07
3.37
3.37
Note. Names of indigenous adjective scales are given to match their hypothesized HEXACO counterparts, and
diVer in some cases from the names given in the original lexical studies. Adjective scales contained 10 items in
Italian, 30 in Dutch, and 18 in English. Each of the HEXACO-PI scales contained 18 items in Dutch and Italian,
and 32 in English.
HEXACO-PI scales were all similar, ranging from .79 (HonestyHumility) to .84
(Extraversion).
2.2.2. Correlations among Italian adjective scales and HEXACO-PI scales
As shown in Table 2, correlations among the six Italian adjective marker scales were
generally quite low, but two had absolute values exceeding .30: Emotionality correlated
.34 with Extraversion and .33 with Openness to Experience. Correlations among the six
HEXACO-PI scales (see Table 2) were also small, with only one correlation having an
absolute value above .30: Openness to Experience correlated .32 with Extraversion.
Also shown in Table 2 are the correlations of the HEXACO-PI scales with the adjective
scale markers of the Italian lexical factors. The convergent correlations were particularly
high for Conscientiousness (.79) and Extraversion (.76), somewhat lower for Agreeableness
(.68), Emotionality (.62), and HonestyHumility (.51), and moderately high for Openness
to Experience (.42). For each HEXACO-PI scale and each adjective scale, these convergent
correlations were the strongest correlations involving the respective variables; however, the
two discriminant correlations involving Emotionality and Openness to Experience
(rs D .31 and .33) were almost as strong as the convergent correlation for Openness to
Experience. Most discriminant correlations were quite small, but one noteworthy exception was the .45 correlation between HEXACO-PI Extraversion and the adjective Emotionality scale. Although this value was less than the convergent correlations for
Emotionality and for Extraversion (r D .62 and r D .76, respectively), it did exceed the convergent correlation for Openness to Experience. Overall, however, the pattern of correlations indicates that the HEXACO-PI scales do correspond reasonably closely to the
factors derived from indigenous Italian lexical investigations of personality structure.
860
1
Italian adjective scales
1. Extraversion
2. Agreeableness
.17 (.20)
3. Conscientiousness .22 (.25)
4. Emotionality
.34 (.40)
5. Openness to
.28 (.33)
Experience
6. Honesty
.08 (.09)
Humility
HEXACO-PI scales
7. Honesty
Humility
8. Emotionality
9. eXtraversion
10. Agreeableness
11. Conscientiousness
12. Openness to
Experience
.10 (.12)
.10 (.12)
.76 (.87)
.10 (.11)
.09 (.10)
.19 (.22)
.27 (.33)
.08 (.10)
.23 (.29)
.12 (.15)
.25 (.32)
.33 (.42)
.29 (.35)
.22 (.27)
.09 (.11)
.15 (.19)
.27 (.33)
.19 (.24)
.02 (.02)
.08 (.10)
.51 (.63)
.62 (.76)
.45 (.54)
.12 (.15)
.24 (.30)
.33 (.41)
.31 (.40)
.27 (.34)
.17 (.21)
.12 (.15)
.42 (.54)
.21 (.26)
.13 (.15)
.15 (.19)
.17 (.21)
.03 (.04)
.06 (.07)
.08 (.10)
.04 (.05) .10 (.12)
.68 (.82)
.15 (.18)
.19 (.23)
.79 (.95)
.05 (.06)
.02 (.02)
10
11
.17 (.21)
.05 (.06)
.20 (.25)
.20 (.25)
.08 (.10)
.16 (.20)
.10 (.12)
.02 (.03)
.25 (.31)
.01 (.01)
.03 (.03)
.11 (.14)
.32 (.38)
.15 (.19) .13 (.16)
Note. N D 327. Correlations with absolute values exceeding .11 are signiWcant at p < .05. Correlations in parentheses are corrected for unreliability in both scales.
Convergent correlations are given in bold type.
Table 2
Correlations of Italian indigenous adjective scales based on six-factor solution with HEXACO-PI scales
861
An interesting feature of the results shown in Table 2 is that the convergent correlations are generally higher for the four factors that are usually the largest dimensions
obtained in lexical studies of personality structure than for the two factors that are typically smaller in size. In particular, the convergent correlation for Openness to Experience
was rather modest, and this might reXect the somewhat narrower range of content on the
Italian lexical factor, in comparison to that of some other languages. Interestingly, the
BFMS Creativity scale, whose adjectives were all administered in this study, correlated
.54 with HEXACO-PI Openness to Experience, and this value might more accurately
reXect the relation between the HEXACO-PI variable and its lexical counterpart as it
has typically emerged in various languages other than Italian.7
3. Study 2: Dutch indigenous adjective scales and HEXACO-PI
In the second study, we wanted to establish the extent to which the HEXACO-PI scales
corresponded to adjective scale markers of the six factors obtained in indigenous Dutch
lexical studies of personality structure. Because the content of the Dutch factors of the sixfactor solution was not known until after the HEXACO-PI was constructed and translated
into Dutch, the results of this investigation should be especially interesting. How closely
would these indigenous (not imported) Dutch personality factor markers correspond to
the imported markers of the set of six factors that has been hypothesized to characterize
the human personality lexicon across languages?
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
A sample of 161 Dutch undergraduate students from the University of Amsterdam participated in this study in exchange for payment. The ages of the participants ranged from
18 to 44 years with a median of 21; 51% of the participants were women.
3.1.2. Procedure
The participants Wrst provided self-reports on the HEXACO-PI. They then completed
another brief personality inventory for purposes of another project, followed by the adjective self-rating inventory.
3.1.3. Materials
3.1.3.1. Adjectives. We constructed six 30-item scales by selecting the 30 adjectives with the
highest primary loadings on the factors of the Dutch six-factor solution based on self-ratings
of 400 respondents on a set of 551 personality-descriptive adjectives (see Ashton et al., 2004a;
De Raad et al., 1992). We named these scales according to their hypothesized counterparts in
the HEXACO model; note however that De Raad (1992) referred to the Dutch Wfth and sixth
7
In addition, BFMS Creativity also correlated .40 with HEXACO-PI Extraversion and .20 with HEXACOPI Emotionality. Recall also that the BFMS Agreeableness and Emotional Stability scales were administered in
this variable set. Both of these scales showed absolute correlations of .20 or higher with several HEXACO-PI
scales, as follows. BFMS Agreeableness correlated .48 with HonestyHumility, .37 with Agreeableness, and .24
with Emotionality. BFMS Emotional Stability correlated .58 with Emotionality, .41 with Agreeableness, .32
with Extraversion, and .28 with Openness to Experience.
862
factors as Intellect and as Sincerity versus Boastfulness, respectively. The 180 adjectives are
listed in Appendix A, sorted according to the factor scale to which they belonged. These adjectives were administered within an inventory containing a total of 210 adjectives, arranged
alphabetically. A Wve-point response scale was used for all adjectives, but for the sake of comparability with the Italian and English results we transformed each participants scale score by
multiplying his or her deviation from the scale midpoint (i.e., 3) by 1.5, and then adding 4 to
the result. For each participant, raw scores on the items of each adjective scale were averaged
to produce the adjective scale scores that were transformed as described above.
3.1.3.2. HEXACO-PI. We used the 108-item version of the HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI; Lee & Ashton, 2004), which for the purpose of this study was translated and back-translated by independent translators, both of whom are Xuent in Dutch
and English. The few minor diVerences between the original English items and the backtranslated items were discussed until consensus was reached about the Wnal translation. All
HEXACO-PI items used a Wve-point response scale format.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Descriptive statistics and internal-consistency reliabilities of the scales
The means, standard deviations, and internal-consistency reliabilities of the lexical and
questionnaire scales are listed in Table 1; note that scale scores were calculated as the mean
across all items. The scale means were generally close to the theoretical midpoints, and the
standard deviations indicated wide variability in scale scores.8 Internal-consistency reliabilities (coeYcient ) were all reasonably high. For the Dutch lexical scales, the reliability values ranged from .80 (Openness to Experience) to .93 (Extraversion). For the HEXACO-PI
scales, the reliabilities ranged from .79 (both HonestyHumility and Agreeableness) to .86
(Extraversion).
3.2.2. Correlations among Dutch adjective scales and HEXACO-PI scales
As shown in Table 3, correlations among the Dutch adjective factor scales were generally small, with only two absolute values exceeding .30: HonestyHumility correlated .44
with Agreeableness, and Extraversion correlated .35 with Openness to Experience. Correlations among the HEXACO-PI scales (see Table 3) were uniformly small, with none of the
correlations even reaching an absolute value of .20.
The Wrst four of the Dutch adjective scales showed strong convergent correlations with
the HEXACO-PI scales (see Table 3): .80 (Extraversion), .79 (Agreeableness), .75 (Conscientiousness), and .68 (Emotionality). But in addition, the Wfth and sixth Dutch adjective scales
also showed strong convergent correlations with their HEXACO-PI counterparts, with values of .53 (Openness to Experience) and .61 (HonestyHumility). Thus, as in the Italian
study, the four larger factors yielded higher convergent correlations than did the two smaller
factors. With regard to discriminant correlations, adjective Openness to Experience also correlated .42 with HEXACO-PI Extraversion, and adjective HonestyHumility correlated .37
8
Standard deviations of the scale scores were lower for the Dutch adjective scales than for those in Italian,
above, but this largely reXects the fact that the Dutch scale scores were calculated (as item means) across a larger
number of adjectives than were those in Italian (i.e., 30 versus 10).
Dutch adjective scales

1. Extraversion
2. Agreeableness
4. Emotionality
5. Openness to
Experience
6. HonestyHumility
.08 (.09)
.05 (.05)
.19 (.21)
.25 (.27)
.04 (.04)
.22 (.24)
.35 (.41)
.10 (.12) .12 (.15) .21 (.25)
HEXACO-PI scales
7. HonestyHumility
8. Emotionality
9. eXtraversion
10. Agreeableness
12. Openness to
Experience
.02 (.02)
.23 (.28)
.05 (.06)
.10 (.12)
.03 (.04)
.00 (.01)
.00 (.00)
.68 (.77)
.80 (.90)
.06 (.07) .06 (.07) .20 (.23)
.07 (.09)
.79 (.95)
.12 (.15)
.02 (.02)
.05 (.05)
.07 (.08)
.75 (.86)
.16 (.18)
.04 (.04)
.08 (.09)
.11 (.13)
.08 (.09)
.09 (.09)
.44 (.50)
.26 (.29)
.01 (.01)
10
11
.06 (.06)
.07 (.09)
.61 (.72)
.09 (.11)
.10 (.11)
.04 (.05)
.42 (.51)
.05 (.05) .09 (.11)
.00 (.00)
.10 (.13)
.37 (.43)
.18 (.23)
.06 (.07) .01 (.01)
.04 (.05)
.14 (.16)
.02 (.02)
.04 (.05)
.03 (.04)
.07 (.08)
.53 (.65)
.14 (.16)
.01 (.01)
.04 (.05)
.15 (.18)
.08 (.09) .01 (.01)
Note. N D 161. Correlations with absolute values exceeding .15 are signiWcant at p < .05. Correlations in parentheses are corrected for unreliability in both scales. Convergent correlations are given in bold type.
Table 3
Correlations of Dutch indigenous adjective scales based on six-factor solution with HEXACO-PI scales
863
864
with HEXACO-PI Agreeableness, but none of the other discriminant correlations reached
an absolute value of .25.
4. Study 3: English indigenous adjective scales and HEXACO-PI
The third study was analogous to the second: in this last study, we wanted to establish
the extent to which the HEXACO-PI scales corresponded to adjective scale markers of the
six factors obtained in an indigenous English lexical study of personality structure (Ashton
et al., 2004b). Because the content of the English factors of the six-factor solution was not
known until after the HEXACO-PI was constructed, the results of this investigation
should be especially interesting. How closely would these indigenous (not imported)
English personality factor markers correspond to the imported markers of the set of six
factors that have been hypothesized to characterize the human personality lexicon across
languages? (Recall that, although the HEXACO-PI was constructed in the English language, it was developed in such a way as to represent the six factors obtained in lexical
studies of personality structure in several other languages, excluding English.)
Of particular interest for the English-language investigation was the English sixth factor
as reported by Ashton et al. (2004b). Although the deWning content of this factor was, for
the most part, clearly relevant to HonestyHumility (e.g., undevious, unassuming versus sly,
pretentious), there was a somewhat narrower range of content on this factor than on its
counterparts in other languages. Therefore, it is of some interest to investigate the extent to
which the various aspects of HonestyHumility, as operationalized by the HEXACO-PI,
are related to the English sixth factor.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
Participants in this study were 214 Canadian undergraduate students at the University
of Calgary and at Brock University. Women constituted 51% of the sample; the median
age was 19 years, with a range from 17 to 54.
4.1.2. Procedure
Participants Wrst completed the HEXACO-PI, then completed a series of questionnaire
measures for purposes unrelated to the present investigation, and then completed the
adjective self-rating form.
4.1.3. Materials
4.1.3.1. Adjectives. The adjective self-rating form included the 18 highest-loading adjectives
on each of the second, third, fourth, and Wfth factors reported in Table 2 of Ashton et al.
(2004b), and on each of the re-rotated Wrst and sixth factors reported in Table 3 of that article. An additional 71 terms were included for the purpose of testing hypotheses additional to
those discussed here. The six sets of English indigenous marker adjectives are all listed in
Appendix A. Raw-score responses on these adjectives, based on a seven-point response scale,
were averaged to produce six adjective scales corresponding to the English lexical factors.
4.1.3.2. HEXACO-PI. In this study we used the English-language 192-item version of the
HEXACO-PI (Lee & Ashton, 2004), which contains six domain-level (i.e., factor-level)
865
scales each containing four facet-level scales of eight items each. A Wve-point response scale
was used for all HEXACO-PI items.
The facets of the HEXACO-PI are described elsewhere (Lee & Ashton, 2004), but we
will brieXy mention the content of the four HonestyHumility facetsSincerity, Fairness,
Greed-Avoidance, and Modestygiven their relevance for the interpretation of the small
English sixth factor. Sincerity assesses genuineness as opposed to manipulation or Xattery
in interpersonal relations. Fairness assesses moral integrity as opposed to corruption and
fraudulence. Modesty assesses the lack of a sense of entitlement and of superiority. GreedAvoidance assesses a lack of interest in social status, luxury, and wealth. Thus, the content
of the Sincerity and Fairness facets chieXy corresponds to the Honesty aspects of the factor, whereas the content of the Modesty and Greed-Avoidance facets chieXy corresponds
to the Humility aspects.
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Descriptive statistics and internal-consistency reliabilities
Scale scores for the adjective and HEXACO-PI scales were calculated as means across all
items. As seen in Table 1, mean scores on the adjective scales were generally close to the scale
midpoints, and mean scores on the HEXACO-PI scales were close to the normative values
(Lee & Ashton, 2004). The internal-consistency reliabilities of the scales are also provided in
Table 1. For the adjective scales, reliabilities ranged from .76 (HonestyHumility) to .93 (Emotionality and Extraversion); for the HEXACO-PI domain-level scales, reliabilities ranged from
.89 (Conscientiousness) to .92 (Extraversion and Openness to Experience).
4.2.2. Correlations among English adjective scales and HEXACO-PI scales
As shown in Table 4, correlations among the indigenous English adjective scales were
very low, but one correlation exceeded an absolute value of .30 (r D .34 between Agreeableness and HonestyHumility). Also, correlations among the HEXACO-PI scales (see Table
4) were similarly low; the only correlation whose absolute value exceeded .20 was the .25
correlation between Agreeableness and HonestyHumility. This value is similar to those
from the normative sample (r D .21, N D 691) and in the Eugene-SpringWeld (Oregon) community sample (r D .37, N D 734).
All convergent correlations of HEXACO-PI domain-level scales with the English
adjective scales exceeded all discriminant correlations (see Table 4). Convergent correlations were extremely high for Extraversion (.87), Emotionality (.80), Conscientiousness
(.78), and Agreeableness (.78), and very high for Openness to Experience (.65) and HonestyHumility (.58). Thus, the four larger factors again showed higher convergent correlations than did the two smaller factors. None of the discriminant correlations reached
an absolute value of .40.9
9
To test the consistency of the pattern of the results across the three diVerent countries, we computed alerting
coeYcients as described in Westen and Rosenthal (2003). SpeciWcally, an alerting coeYcient was obtained by Wnding a simple correlation between (a) the vector of (Fishers z-transformed) correlations of an adjective marker
scale with the six HEXACO-PI scales in one sample and (b) the vector of the corresponding correlations obtained
in the other sample. Eighteen alerting coeYcients computed in this way ranged from .81 to .99 (median
ralerting D .96), which suggests that indigenous adjective marker variables in each country showed a consistent pattern of relations with imported marker scales from the HEXACO factor space.
866
English adjective scales

1. Extraversion
2. Agreeableness
.08 (.08)
.23 (.27)
4. Emotionality
.14 (.15)
.04 (.04)
5. Openness to
.11 (.13)
.03 (.03)
Experience
6. HonestyHumility
.04 (.05)
.34 (.42)
HEXACO-PI scales
7. HonestyHumility .01 (.01)
8. Emotionality
.19 (.20)
9. eXtraversion
.87 (.95)
10. Agreeableness
.04 (.05)
12. Openness to
.01 (.01)
Experience
.32 (.36)
.01 (.01)
.07 (.08)
.78 (.88)
.16 (.18)
.10 (.12)
.09 (.10)
.07 (.09)
.19 (.22)
.05 (.06)
.26 (.31)
10
11
.20 (.25)
.11 (.13)
.21 (.23)
.01 (.01)
.58 (.70)
.07 (.08)
.80 (.87)
.15 (.18)
.30 (.37)
.17 (.43)
.05 (.05)
.06 (.06)
.25 (.28)
.08 (.10) .05 (.06)
.11 (.12)
.06 (.07)
.06 (.06) .08 (.09)
.24 (.29)
.25 (.28)
.13 (.14)
.07 (.08)
.78 (.90)
.10 (.11)
.01 (.02)
.09 (.11)
.18 (.20)
.08 (.09)
.12 (.13) .02 (.03)
.04 (.04) .11 (.11)
.65 (.74)
.06 (.07)
.13 (.14)
.10 (.11)
.17 (.19)
.14 (.15) .02 (.02)
Note. N D 214. Correlations with absolute values exceeding .13 are signiWcant at p < .05. Correlations in parentheses are corrected for unreliability in both scales. Convergent correlations are given in bold type.
Table 4
Correlations of English indigenous adjective scales based on six-factor solution with HEXACO-PI scales
867
Convergent correlations of the HEXACO-PI facet scales within each factor domain
with the English adjective factor scales were generally high, exceeding their discriminant
correlations with the other adjective scales. Interestingly, the correlations of the four HEXACO-PI HonestyHumility facet scales with the corresponding adjective scale were all
roughly similar in size (.39 for Sincerity, .48 for Fairness, .41 for Greed Avoidance, and .45
for Modesty). In particular, the Modesty and Greed-Avoidance facets (whose content represents the Humility aspects of the factor) showed convergent correlations approximately
as strong as those of the Sincerity and Fairness facets (whose content represents the
Honesty aspects). Thus, although the English sixth factor contained few terms overtly
suggestive of Humility (e.g., unpretentious), it nevertheless did show moderately strong relations with outside indicators of that construct.
5. General discussion
5.1. Convergence between indigenous and hypothesized factors
The results of the three studies reported here were very consistent: in all three languages,
adjective marker scales constructed to represent the indigenous lexical factors obtained in
those respective languages showed strong convergent and weak discriminant correlations
with imported questionnaire scale markers of the six HEXACO factors that are hypothesized to represent the basic dimensions of personality variation. In the case of the Italian
adjective factors, these results are perhaps unsurprising, given that the Italian language was
one of those whose lexical personality factors were the basis for the conceptualization of
the HEXACO model of personality structure; that is, the Italian factors were among those
that provided the cross-language prototype on which the six hypothesized factors were
based.
However, in the cases of both the Dutch and the English adjective factors, the results
provide a clear conWrmation of predictions regarding the nature of the major dimensions of
personality, because the content of the dimensions of the Dutch and English six-factor
solutions was not known at the time of the development of the HEXACO-PI. There is no a
priori reason why independent, indigenous investigations of the Dutch and English personality lexiconsinvestigations in which variable selection and data collection occurred long
before the present study was conductedshould produce six-factor solutions in which the
obtained dimensions correspond almost isomorphically to the six hypothesized factors of
the HEXACO model. The Wnding of such strong convergent and weak discriminant correlations between markers of the indigenous and the hypothesized factors is therefore consistent with the suggestion that this six-factor solution does characterize the structure of
human personality variation.
Note that in contrast, the suggestion that the Dutch and English six-factor solutions should
correspond so closely to the hypothesized structure simply by chance is extremely implausible.
That is, rather than deWning the HEXACO structure as we had proposed it, the Dutch and
English six-factor structures could have produced solutions containing the classic Big Five factors plus some entirely diVerent factors, such as sensation-seeking, energy level, or self-consciousness. Alternatively, there might have emerged solutions in which one of the Big Five
factors had divided into two equal parts (such as Conscientiousness dividing into methodicalness and industriousness factors). Had any of these various results occurred, the near-isomorphisms between the lexical and HEXACO-PI variables would not have been found for the
868
English or Dutch languages; instead, one or more of the convergent correlations would have
been close to zero, and one or more of the discriminant correlations might have been much
larger. But the six-factor solutions of both English and Dutch did in fact resemble the HEXACO structure, with its separate axes for Emotionality, HonestyHumility, and Agreeableness
(i.e., the variant of Agreeableness deWned by patience versus ill-temper).
5.2. Larger factors show higher convergent correlations
One noteworthy result of these investigations is that, in all three languages, the four
factors that are usually the largest dimensions in lexical studies of personality structure
speciWcally, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotionalityshowed
the highest convergent correlations between adjective marker scales and the HEXACO-PI
scales. In contrast, the two typically smaller factorsOpenness to Experience (i.e., Intellect/Imagination/Unconventionality) and HonestyHumilityshowed somewhat weaker
relations. The larger factors, which are associated with more adjectives, are likely to be
found robustly despite variations in methods adopted by individual studies, such as diVerences in the size and characteristics of the participant sample, in the deWnition of the universe of personality traits, and in the representativeness of the adjective set (see Saucier,
Hampson, & Goldberg, 2000). The smaller factors, usually Openness to Experience and
HonestyHumility, are more susceptible to such method eVects, which contributes to the
divergence of the deWning content of these factors across diVerent studies. Despite the
somewhat varied features of the smaller factors, however, it is important to note that
these dimensions are, in fact, large enough to emerge in similar form within most lexical
studies that include personality-descriptive terms only. The sizable convergent correlations
involving the Wfth and sixth factors observed in this study support this interpretation.
An interesting question for future research will be to examine whether or not the convergent correlations for Openness to Experience and for HonestyHumility will become
higher in cases in which the indigenous lexical versions of these factors are larger than in
the studies considered here. Perhaps if these dimensions were among the four largest factors obtained in a given study, the marker scales derived from those dimensions would
show stronger correlations with the corresponding HEXACO-PI variables.
5.3. The nature of the Wfth factor
A particularly interesting result of the present investigations is the relatively close correspondence between the HEXACO-PI Openness to Experience factor and the Dutch and
English versions of the Wfth factor. With regard to the Dutch case, recall that the indigenous Dutch lexical Wfth factor of the Wve-factor solutionthat is, the factor interpreted as
Intellect by De Raad (1992; De Raad et al., 1992)was somewhat lacking in content
related to Intellect, Imagination, and Unconventionality. However, the Dutch lexical Wfth
factor of the six-factor solutionthat is, the factor recently summarized by Ashton et al.
(2004a)contained many additional adjectives that were strongly suggestive of those constructs (e.g., artistic, creative, ironic, inventive, original, philosophical, sharp, witty versus conservative, conventional, docile, narrow-minded, unimaginative). As would be expected on the
basis of this content, the Dutch adjective marker scale for the Wfth factor of the six-factor
solution was strongly correlated with HEXACO-PI Openness to Experience. The content
and correlates of this Dutch lexical factor suggest a somewhat unexpected advantage of the
869
six-factor solution over the Wve-factor solution: the six-factor solution produces a variant
of the Wfth factor that is more closely aligned with the variants obtained in other languages,
and one that converges with questionnaire markers of Openness to Experience.
Similarly, in the English language (see Ashton et al., 2004b), the Wve-factor solution produced a somewhat ambiguous Wfth factor, which lacked imagination-related terms but
contained many submissiveness-related terms; in contrast, the six-factor solution revealed
a Wfth factor that possessed a variety of terms related to imagination as well as intellect and
unconventionality, but not submissiveness. In the present investigation, the adjective
marker scale of the Wfth factor as obtained in the six-factor solution was rather strongly
correlated with the HEXACO-PI Openness to Experience factor scale and all of its constituent facet scales. As in the Dutch case, this suggests that the identity of the Wfth factor as
an expression of Openness to Experience (or of Intellect/Imagination/Unconventionality)
is clariWed by the extraction and rotation of the sixth factor.
The nature of the Italian Wfth factor, as obtained in six-factor solutions, has diVered
substantially between the investigations conducted in Rome and in Trieste. As reported in
the review by Ashton et al. (2004a), the Roman projects (e.g., Caprara & Perugini, 1994)
revealed a factor deWned by terms related to unconventionality and imagination, whereas
the Triestean projects (e.g., Di Blas & Forzi, 1998, 1999) revealed a factor deWned heavily
by adjectives related to intellectual ability. In the present investigation, we excluded intellectual ability-related terms as markers of the Wfth factor,10 and therefore the adjective
marker scale more closely resembled the Roman than the Triestean version of the factor.
But despite the exclusion of intellectual ability-related content, the Italian adjective marker
scale for the Wfth factor was still only modestly correlated with HEXACO-PI Openness to
Experience, with a value of .42 (.54 after correction for unreliability). Although this convergent correlation exceeded (modestly) all of the discriminant correlations involving either of
these variables, it was nevertheless the smallest of the convergent correlations in the three
studies reported here. Thus, the recovery of an Openness to Experience factor from the
Italian lexical data is less clear than is that of the other factors in the Italian language or
that of any factors in the other languages discussed here.
One reason for the somewhat weaker convergence involving Openness to Experience in
Italian may be the prominence of religiosity-related adjectives (e.g., devout, puritan, and
religious) on the low pole of the Italian (Roman) Wfth factor. Among the Openness to
Experience marker adjectives, these terms showed the weakest correlations with HEXACO-PI Openness to Experience. This is not surprising, given that religiosity-related content had been excluded from the HEXACO-PI, on the grounds that religiosity was not
itself a personality characteristic (see Ashton et al., 2004b; Lee & Ashton, 2004). Interestingly, the Creativity factor of the Italian BFMS correlated somewhat more strongly
(r D .54; r D .68 corrected for unreliability) with HEXACO-PI Openness to Experience than
did the indigenous marker scale, thus suggesting that an Italian lexical Wfth factor could
10
As two of us have explained elsewhere (Lee & Ashton, 2004), content related to intellect, in the sense of intellectual ability, has been intentionally omitted from the HEXACO-PI, in spite of the obvious and widespread recurrence of Intellect factors in those lexical studies that have included such content. Our reason for the omission
of any facet scale to assess (self-reported) intelligence is that we consider intelligence to fall outside the domain of
personality in the sense of typical behavioral tendency. We have, however, included within the HEXACO-PI a
facet scale to assess intellectual curiosity (i.e., Inquisitiveness). We suggest that future lexical studies of personality
structure should follow the precedent set by the Dutch and Italian (Rome) studies, and exclude adjectives describing intellectual ability (e.g., smart, intelligent, and gifted).
870
potentially be strongly associated with Openness to Experience. It would be interesting to

see the results of a large-scale Italian lexical study of personality structure in which adjectives describing intellectual ability and religiosity were excluded, but in which adjectives
describing intellectual interests, imagination, and unconventionality were all included. We
expect that such an investigation would reveal an Italian variant of the Wfth factor similar
to that obtained in other languages, and similar also to Openness to Experience.
5.4. Expressions of the sixth factor
Another interesting result of the present investigation is the Wnding that the HEXACO-PI
HonestyHumility scale was associated with the sixth factor (not always the sixth-largest
factor) in all three languages: Italian, Dutch, and English. Given that the content of each variant of this factor seems subjectively to be highly relevant to HonestyHumility, this result is
not surprising. But this result is of particular interest given the rather diVerent expressions of
the HonestyHumility factor that were observed in the three languages considered here.
The indigenous Dutch sixth factor was the most central or prototypical of the three, containing a wide variety of adjectives that are similar to those of the other languages as summarized by Ashton et al. (2004a). In contrast, the indigenous Italian sixth factorlike that of the
Polish language (see Ashton et al., 2004a, Table 5)was rather broad in its deWning content,
including adjectives suggesting generosity among its highest-loading terms, in addition to
terms suggesting honesty and humility. The English sixth factor, on the other hand, was
deWned (at the negative pole) by a somewhat narrow collection of adjectives suggesting slyness and, to a lesser extent, pretentiousness. In fact, although both the Italian and English
sixth factors shared several adjectives that (in translation) were also found on the Dutch sixth
factor, there was almost no overlap among the highest-loading terms of the Italian and
English variants of that factor.11 But the fact that both the Italian and English versions of the
factor possessed many adjectives in common with the variants of HonestyHumility
obtained in other languages (of which Dutch is an excellent example) suggests that each is a
manifestation of this common underlying dimension. This was conWrmed in the present study
by the strong relations of both the Italian and English versions of the factor with HEXACOPI HonestyHumility. In the English case, it is particularly interesting that all four Honesty
Humility facets correlated substantially with the adjective marker scale of the sixth factor, in
spite of the apparently narrow content of that lexical dimension.
With regard to the relative narrowness of the English HonestyHumility dimension,
as noted above, it is worth noting that this version of the factor nevertheless subsumes
some conceptually distinct clusters of traits. The low pole of the English Honesty
Humility factor was deWned both by terms describing slyness and deviousness (i.e., low
honesty) and also by terms describing pretentiousness and ostentatiousness (i.e., low
humility). Moreover, as noted in Section 4.2, the adjective marker scale for the English
11
In addition to the issue of breadth of content, one interesting diVerence between the Italian and English
variants of the HonestyHumility factor involves the mean scores on this factor, which showed much greater between-language variation than did scores on the other factors. As reported in Table 1, the Italian and the Englishspeaking Canadian participants had roughly similar mean scores on the HEXACO-PI HonestyHumility factor,
but the Italian participants had much higher mean scores on the Italian lexical HonestyHumility factor than did
the Canadian participants on the English lexical HonestyHumility factor. This highlights the fact that the Italian
lexical factor was deWned by terms (e.g., at the low pole, lying, hypocritical) that were more extreme in social desirability than those of the English lexical factor (e.g., at the low pole, sly, sneaky, tricky).
871
HonestyHumility factor was correlated substantially with all four of the HEXACO-PI
HonestyHumility facet scalesSincerity, Fairness, Greed-Avoidance, and Modesty
which represent a rather diverse collection of moderately correlated traits. Still, the variant of HonestyHumility observed in the English language is narrower than that
observed in most other languages (cf. Table 5 of Ashton et al., 2004a). This is especially
true of those variants of HonestyHumility that have absorbed terms describing overall
altruism content, such as sympathy, soft-heartedness, and generosity. As noted in Section 1, such content tends to shift its location between HonestyHumility and the sixfactor variant of Agreeableness (i.e., the factor deWned by patience versus ill-temper, not
to be confused with Big Five Agreeableness).
In light of the above discussion regarding the varying breadth of the sixth factor, a
recent Croatian lexical study of personality structure (Mlacic & Ostendorf, 2005; see
also Ostendorf, Mlacic, Hrebickova, & Szarota, 2004) is particularly interesting. The
Croatian six-factor solutions from self- and peer ratings revealed separate factors for the
new six-factor variant of Agreeableness (e.g., at the low pole, quick-tempered, stubborn,
irritable, harsh), for Emotionality (e.g., at the low pole, unemotional, insensitive), and for
HonestyHumility (e.g., at the low pole, hypocritical, greedy, conceited, perWdious), along
with the other three factors easily interpreted as Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and
Intellect/Imagination. As such, the Croatian six-factor solutions appear to be very similar to those that have been found in other languages. Interestingly, the behavior of generosity-related terms in the Croatian case was reminiscent of the Polish and Italian
results, insofar as those terms loaded on HonestyHumility rather than on the six-factor
variant of Agreeableness (see Ashton et al., 2004a).12
5.5. Limitations
Before concluding, we should note some limitations in the data reported in the present
article, and suggest some further methods for establishing the generalizability of these results.
First, the responses obtained were exclusively self-reports; the inclusion of peer reports would
add further information regarding the relations between the indigenous and imported variables. Second, the respondents were all university students; the inclusion of adult participants
12
Two other interesting aspects of Ostendorf et al.s (2004) report involved descriptions of aspects of the sixfactor structures obtained in German and in Czech. Ostendorf et al. reported that one of the German factors of
the self-rating solution was deWned most strongly by terms such as gentle and patient versus obstinate, stubborn,
short-tempered, and hot-headed. In the same solution, another factor was deWned strongly both by terms such
as honest versus greedy, ostentatious, and swanky (i.e., pretentious) and also by terms such as helpful and
warm-hearted. Thus, the German six-factor self-rating solution contained separate factors for the six-factor
variant of Agreeableness and for HonestyHumility, with overall altruism terms joining the HonestyHumility factor. In the German six-factor peer rating solution as reported by Ostendorf et al., terms such as helpful and warm-hearted instead deWned the Agreeableness factor, leaving a narrower version of Honesty
Humility.
With regard to the Czech six-factor solution, Ostendorf et al. listed the terms deWning the sixth factor, whose 15
highest-loading terms describe motor skill and manual dexterity (e.g., nimble, agile, dexterous versus clumsy) rather than any dimension of personality. Interestingly, Hrebickova (1995, Table 8) described the Czech seventh factor
from the same data set as calm, composed, harmonious versus easily excitable, irritable, angry, contentious, which
chieXy corresponds to HEXACO Agreeableness. This raises the possibility that the Czech seven-factor solution
would resemble the six-factor structures described here, but with an additional non-personality dimension of motor skills or manual dexterity.
872
of various ages would add to the generalizability of the Wndings. Third, the data were crosssectional; the inclusion of longitudinal data would allow an examination of the stability of
individual diVerences in these personality variables and also of relations between indigenous
and imported variables. And fourth, the responses were obtained using marker adjectives
selected on the basis of prior results; the inclusion of the full adjective sets from the original
lexical investigations might yield results slightly diVerent from those reported here, although
this would no longer represent a parallel comparison between indigenous and imported factor
markers.
6. Conclusion
The results of this investigation support the convergent and discriminant validity of the
HEXACO-PI in the Italian, Dutch, and English languages, and are consistent with the proposal of a six-dimensional representation of personality structure. The results are especially notable because the proposed six-dimensional model was developed, and the
HEXACO-PI was constructed, before the Dutch and English six-factor solutions of personality adjectives were known. Although further research is warranted, the HEXACO
model of personality and its operationalization, the HEXACO-PI, appear to oVer a useful
framework for summarizing human personality variation.
Appendix A
Adjective markers of indigenous lexical personality factors in Italian, Dutch, and English
Indigenous Lexical
Factor Scale
Italian adjectives
Dutch adjectives
English adjectives
Extraversion
extraverted exuberant
expansive open vivacious
reserved shy silent introverted closed
cheerful enthusiastic extroverted exuberant frank

jovial joyful (2) lively merry
open optimistic sociable
spontaneous sprightly temperamental dejected
detached introverted melancholic pessimistic reclusive
reserved restrained silent
somber surly unapproachable uncommunicative withdrawn
bubbly conversational outgoing peppy talkative introverted inward overquiet quiet

quiet-spoken silent uncheerful uncheery uncommunicative unmerry untalkative
withdrawing withdrawn
Agreeableness
peaceful calm mild patient

tranquil irritable choleric
aggressive litigious irascible
benign calm compliant

extremely-kind-hearted
gentle good-natured (3)
kind-hearted lenient mild
patient peaceful pliable
quiet soft-hearted tolerant
willing aggressive
authoritarian bossy
explosive Werce hot-headed
hot-tempered mutinous
quick-tempered shorttempered stubborn
unreasonable
gentle gentle-hearted goodhearted good-natured goodtempered nonexplosive

nonhostile patient serene
undemanding
argumentative bossy grumpy
hostile hot-tempered
quarrelsome quick-tempered
sharp-tongued
873
Appendix A (continued)
Indigenous Lexical
Factor Scale
Italian adjectives
Dutch adjectives
English adjectives
Conscientiousness
precise orderly diligent

methodical conscientious
untidy inconstant imprecise
careless rash
accurate careful
conscientious diligent
dutiful industrious lawabiding meticulous orderly
perfectionistic precise
prompt punctual selfdisciplined serious thorough
careless frivolous indolent
irresponsible lax lazy
licentious mindless
nonchalant rash rebellious
reckless thoughtless wishywashy
constant eYcient orderly

organized proper
purposeful responsible
thorough thorough-going
disorganized haphazard
inexact irresponsible
undisciplined undutiful
unreliable unsystematic
unthorough
Emotionality
emotional vulnerable
anxious fragile fearful
secure decisive strong
courageous independent
anxious dependent dreamy

emotional hypersensitive
indecisive independent
insecure jumpy nervous (2)
oversensitive panicky
sentimental unstable (3)
vulnerable worrying coolheaded decisive determined
hard imperturbable resolute
self-assured sober stable
steady
emotional fearful feminine

girlish hypersensitive
ladylike overemotional
oversensitive sensitive
supersensitive unmasculine
weepy worrying masculine
unemotional unfearing
unfeeling unfeminine
Openness to
Experience
progressive eclectic
innovative ironic original
devout traditionalist puritan
servile religious
artistic creative critical deep

inventive ironic original
philosophical (2) reWned
sharp versatile witty
bourgeois characterless
conservative conventional
docile extremely-shy humble
meek narrow-minded prudish
superWcial submissive timid
uncritical unimaginative
complex ingenious
penetrative philosophical
rebellious sharp-witted
narrow traditional
unimaginative uningenious
uninquisitive unintelligent
unintrospective uninventive
unperceptive unphilosophical
unquestioning unsearching
HonestyHumility
sincere loyal generous

altruistic honest egoistic
hypocritical lying
presumptuous haughty
faithful helpful honest

reliable sincere totally
honest arrogant (2)
avaricious boasting (3)
complacent conceited
cunning (2) deceitful devious
greedy haughty (2)
ostentatious pedantic
skeptical sly smug snobbish
swaggering (2) underhanded
uncalculating uncrafty
uncunning undeceptive
undevious unfeigning
unpretentious unsly
unvindictive unwily crafty
cunning pretentious slick sly
sneaky surly tricky
Note. Numbers in parentheses refer to two or more Dutch adjectives with similar English translation. Italics indicate negatively-keyed adjectives.
874
References
Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1989). Personality factors via self- and peer-ratings based on a representative sample of German trait descriptive terms. Paper prepared for the First European Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 327353.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2002). Six independent factors of personality variation: A response to Saucier. European
Journal of Personality, 16, 6375.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). HonestyHumility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 73, 13211353.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., et al. (2004a). A six-factor structure of
personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356366.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004b). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive
adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707721.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, Primary Psychopathy, and Social Adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359368.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the Wve-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin,
117, 187215.
Boies, K., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pascal, S., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2001). The structure of the French personality lexicon. European Journal of Personality, 15, 277295.
Boies, K., Yoo, T.-Y., Ebacher, A., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychometric properties of scores on French and
Korean versions of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 8198.
Brokken, F. B. (1978). The language of personality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen,
The Netherlands.
Caprara, G. V., & Perugini, M. (1994). Personality described by adjectives: Generalizability of the Big Five to the
Italian lexical context. European Journal of Personality, 8, 357369.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975990.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality InventoryRevised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Raad, B. (1992). The replicability of the Big Five personality dimensions in three word-classes of the Dutch
language. European Journal of Personality, 6, 1529.
De Raad, B., Hendriks, A. A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1992). Towards a reWned structure of personality traits.
European Journal of Personality, 6, 301319.
De Raad, B., & Szirmak, Z. (1994). The search for the Big Five in a non-Indo-European language: The Hungarian
trait structure and its relationship to the EPQ and the PTS. European Review of Applied Psychology, 44, 1724.
Di Blas, L., & Forzi, M. (1998). An alternative taxonomic study of personality-descriptive adjectives in the Italian
language. European Journal of Personality, 12, 75101.
Di Blas, L., & Forzi, M. (1999). ReWning a descriptive structure of personality attributes in the Italian language.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 451481.
Di Blas, L., & Perugini, M. (2002). Lapproccio psicolessicale nella lingua italiana: Due studi tassonomici a confronto. [The psycholexical approach in the Italian language: A comparison of two taxonomic studies.]. Giornale
Italiano di Psicologia, 29, 6793. (In Italian.)
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis and
comparison of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149170.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 12161229.
Hahn, D.-W., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (1999). A factor analysis of the most frequently used Korean personality
trait adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 13, 261282.
Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches
to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146163.
Hrebickova, M. (1995). The structural model of personality based on the lexical analysis: A Czech replication study
of the Wve-factor model based on a comprehensive taxonomy of personality-descriptive adjectives. Unpublished
manuscript, Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic: Brno.
875
International Personality Item Pool (2001). A scientiWc collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of
personality traits and other individual diVerences (http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.
Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Fraboni, M., & GoYn, R. D. (1996). A Wve-factor versus a six-factor model of
personality structure. Personality and Individual DiVerences, 20, 3345.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 39, 329358.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor model and
the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual DiVerences, 38, 15711582.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179197.
Lee, K., Gizzarone, M., & Ashton, M. C. (2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually harass. Sex Roles, 49,
5969.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the Wve-factor model: Joint analyses of the NEO-PI with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp.
237245). New York: Springer.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52,
509516.
Mlacic, B., & Ostendorf, F. (2005). Taxonomy and structure of Croatian personality-descriptive adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 19, 117152.
Norman, W. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer
nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574583.
Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A., (1993, July). A German replication study of the Five-Factor Model based on a comprehensive taxonomy of personality-descriptive adjectives. Paper presented at the Sixth Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual DiVerences, Baltimore, MD.
Ostendorf, F., Mlacic, B., Hrebickova, M., & Szarota, P. (2004, July). In search of the sixth big factor of personality
in four European languages. Paper presented at the Twelfth European Conference on Personality, Groningen,
The Netherlands.
Perugini, M., & Di Blas, L. (2002). The Big Five Marker Scales (BFMS) and the Italian AB5C taxonomy: Analyses from an etic-emic perspective. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five Assessment (pp. 281304).
Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Perugini, M, & Leone, L. (2004). Individual diVerences in moral decision making: Validation of an implicit measure
of morality. Unpublished manuscript.
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103113.
Piedmont, R. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the
Wve-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67, 9851013.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldbergs unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63, 506516.
Saucier, G. (2003). An alternative multi-language structure for personality attributes. European Journal of Personality, 17, 179205.
Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2000). Cross-language studies of lexical personality factors. In S.
E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in Personality Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 136). London: Routledge.
Szarota, P. (1995). Taxonomy and structure of Polish personality-relevant adjectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Warsaw.
Szarota, P. (1996). Taxonomy of the Polish personality-descriptive adjectives of the highest frequency of use. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27, 343351.
Szirmak, Z., & De Raad, B. (1994). Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits. European Journal of
Personality, 8, 95117.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. (USAF Tech. Rep. No.
61-97). U.S. Air Force: Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality,
60, 225251.
Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: Two simple measures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 608618.

Alvpgs JRP 2006 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Alvpgs JRP 2006 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

The HEXACO model of personality structure

Available online 10 February 2006

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

This factor might also be meaningfully interpreted as Morality, Sincerity, or Integrity.

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

tors to altruism-related constructsspeciWcally, kin altruism and the forgiving and

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

Imagination, and Unconventionality/Autonomy content also emerged; and Wnally, a sixth

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

Italian Dutch Canadian Italian Dutch Canadian Italian Dutch Canadian

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

Dutch adjective scales

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

English adjective scales

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

potentially be strongly associated with Openness to Experience. It would be interesting to

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

cheerful enthusiastic extroverted exuberant frank

bubbly conversational outgoing peppy talkative introverted inward overquiet quiet

peaceful calm mild patient

benign calm compliant

gentle gentle-hearted goodhearted good-natured goodtempered nonexplosive

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

precise orderly diligent

constant eYcient orderly

anxious dependent dreamy

emotional fearful feminine

artistic creative critical deep

sincere loyal generous

faithful helpful honest

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

M.C. Ashton et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 851875

Вам также может понравиться