Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Big Five Factor Marker Adjectives Are Not Especially Popular Words. Are They Superior Descriptors?

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Vocabularies of natural languages evolve over time. Useful words become more popular and useless concepts disappear. In this study, the frequency of the use of 295 English, 100 German, and 114 French personality adjectives in book texts and Twitter messages as qualifiers of the words person, woman, homme, femme, and Person was studied. Word frequency data were compared to factor loadings from previous factor analytic studies on personality terms. The correlation between the popularity of an adjective and its highest primary loading in five- and six-factor models was low (−0.12 to 0.17). The Big five (six) marker adjectives were not more popular than “blended” adjectives that had moderate loadings on several factors. This finding implies that laymen consider “blended” adjectives as equally useful descriptors compared to adjectives that represent core features of the five (six) factors. These results are compatible with three hypotheses: 1) laymen are not good at describing personality, 2) the five (six) factors are artifacts of research methods, 3) the interaction of the five (six) factors is not well understood

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ames, D. R., & Bianchi, E. C. (2008). The agreeableness asymmetry in first impressions: perceivers’ impulse to (Mis)judge agreeableness and how it is moderated by power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1719–1736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Backström, M., & Björklund, F. (2013). Social desirability in personality inventories: symptoms, diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 152–159.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boies, K., Lee, K., Ashton, M., Pascal, S., & Nicol, A. M. (2001). The structure of the french personality lexicon. European Journal of Personality, 15, 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franic, S., Borsboom, D., Dolan, C. V., & Boomsma, D. I. (2013). The big five personality traits: psychological entities or statistical constructs? Behavior Genetics. doi:10.1007/s10519-013-9625-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the big five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 180–207). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Ashton, M. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1001–1054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leising, D., Scharloth, J., Lohse, O., & Wood, D. (2014). What types of terms do people use when describing an individual’s personality? Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797614541285.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lykken, D. (1971). Multiple factor analysis and personality research. Journal of Experimental Personality Research, 5, 161–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five factor model in personality: a critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paurnonen, S. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO personality inventory: confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five–factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J. B., et al. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331, 176–182.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W.T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: normative operating characteristics for a university population. University of Michigan, Department of psychology.

  • Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Persöhnlichkeitsstruktur. Regensburg: Roderer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2013). On the prediction of academic performance with personality traits: a replication study. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 778–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research (9th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roivainen, E. (2014). Personality adjectives in twitter tweets and in the Google books corpus. An analysis of the openness factor of personality. Current Psychology. doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9274-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roivainen, E. (2013). Frequency of the use of english personality adjectives: implications for personality theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 417–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996a). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 21–50). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. (1996b). Evidence for the big five in analyses of familiar english personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 10, 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2003). Relationships between personality structure, structure of word meaning, and cognitive ability: a study of cultural mechanisms of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 723–735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2010). Quantitative methods in psychology: inevitable and useless. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(29), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topsy (2014). Topsy.com. Twitter search, monitoring & analytics.www.Topsy.com [access 03.04.2014].

  • Uher, J. (2014). Conceiving “personality”: psychologists’ challenges and basic fundamentals of the transdisciplinary philosophy-of-science paradigm for research on individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49.

  • Uher, J. (2014). Developing “personality” taxonomies: metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49.

  • Uher, J. (2014). Interpreting “personality” taxonomies: why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49.

  • Wertheimer, M. (1938). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Verve Rehabilitation, PL 404, 90100, Oulu, Finland

    Eka Roivainen

Authors
  1. Eka Roivainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eka Roivainen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roivainen, E. The Big Five Factor Marker Adjectives Are Not Especially Popular Words. Are They Superior Descriptors?. Integr. psych. behav. 49, 590–599 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9311-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9311-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation