Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Establishing the structure and replicability of personality profiles using the HEXACO-PI-R

  • Article
  • Published:

From Nature Human Behaviour

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

Previous attempts to identify personality profiles in the five-factor and HEXACO models of personality have produced inconsistent results. Here, using data from four independent samples, each with approximately 90,000 international respondents to the 100-item HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-PI-R), we demonstrated that a five-profile solution fit the data well. Exploratory analyses suggested that this solution was also consistent across gender and age groups. The five-profile structure replicated well with larger subsamples, but could not be reproduced consistently with samples of fewer than 500 individuals. However, even with small samples, the five-profile structure could be applied using the parameters obtained with the larger samples. We used HEXACO theory along with agency–communion and attachment theories to offer preliminary explanations and labels for the five profiles. We discuss how these theories, combined with parameter estimates provided by our research, can be used to generate and test hypotheses to validate the five-profile structure and evaluate its utility for personality research and other applications.

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

Fig. 1: Number of profiles suggested by statistical indicators.
Fig. 2: Means of the six HEXACO scales for the five-profile solution.
Fig. 3: Means of the six HEXACO scales for the seven-profile solution.
Fig. 4: Means of the six HEXACO scales for the nine-profile solution.
Fig. 5: Mean absolute values of parameter deviations from the optimal five-profile solution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study were used with permission from K. Lee and M. Ashton56 and are not publicly available. Requests for access to the data should be directed to K. Lee and M. Ashton.

Code availability

Syntax required for the use of the final factor structure and optimal profile solution identified in this research are available in the Supplementary Software for this paper and online in the form of Mplus.inp files (https://osf.io/qdv8z/). Syntax is provided for use in Mplus 7.0 or above and annotations describe the functions of different sections of the code.

References

  1. Ashton, M. C. & Lee, K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11, 150–166 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am. Psychol. 52, 509–516 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L. R. in The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (ed. Wiggins, J. S.) 21–50 (Guilford Press, 1996).

  4. Digman, J. M. Five robust trait dimensions: development, stability, and utility. J. Pers. 57, 195–214 (1989).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Digman, J. M. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41, 417–440 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Digman, J. M. Higher-order factors of the Big Five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 1246–1256 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (eds. Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P.) 139–153 (Elsevier, 1999).

  8. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K. & De Vries, R. E. The HEXACO honesty–humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: a review of research and theory. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18, 139–152 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee, Y., Berry, C. M. & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. The importance of being humble: a meta-analysis and incremental validity analysis of the relationship between honesty–humility and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 1535–1546 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oh, H. L. et al. The incremental validity of honesty–humility over cognitive ability and the big five personality traits. Hum. Perf. 27, 206–224 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F. & Van Aken, M. A. Carving personality description at its joints: confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. Eur. J. Per. 15, 169–198 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Caspi, A. & Silva, P. A. Temperamental qualities at age three predict personality traits in young adulthood: longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Child Dev. 66, 486–498 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: three replicable personality types. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 157–171 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Block, J. Lives Through Time (Bancroft Books, 1971).

  15. Block, J. H. & Block, J. in Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (eds. Collins, W. A.) 39–101 (Erlbaum, 1980).

  16. Daljeet, K. N., Bremner, N. L., Giammarco, E. A., Meyer, J. P. & Paunonen, S. V. Taking a person-centered approach to personality: a latent-profile analysis of the HEXACO model of personality. J. Res. Pers. 70, 241–251 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerlach, M., Farb, B., Revelle, W. & Amaral, L. A. N. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 735–746 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Isler, L., Liu, J. H., Sibley, C. G. & Fletcher, G. J. Self‐regulation and personality profiles: empirical development, longitudinal stability and predictive ability. Eur. J. Pers. 30, 274–287 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Herzberg, P. Y. & Roth, M. Beyond resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers? An extension of personality prototype research. Eur. J. Pers. 20, 5–28 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Morin, A. J. S., Meyer, J. P., Creusier, J. & Biétry, F. Multiple-group analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Organ. Res. Methods 19, 231–254 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Morin, A. J. S., McLarnon, M. J. W. & Litalien, D. in Handbook of Dynamic Organizational Behavior (eds Griep, Y. et al.) (Edward Elgar, in the press).

  22. Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C. & Petrini, L. A new trait on the market: honesty–humility as a unique predictor of job performance ratings. Pers. Individ. Differ. 50, 857–862 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moshagen, M., Thielmann, I., Hilbig, B. E. & Zettler, I. Meta-analytic investigations of the HEXACO Personality Inventory (-revised). Z. f.ür. Psychologie 227, 186–194 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Meyer, J. P. & Morin, A. J. S. A person-centred approach to commitment research: theory, research, and methodology. J. Org. Behav. 36, 584–612 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Morin, A. J. S. & Marsh, H. W. Disentangling shape from level effects in person-centered analyses: an illustration based on university teachers’ multidimensional profiles of effectiveness. Struct. Equ. Model. 22, 39–59 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. O. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 535–569 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schmiege, S. J., Masyn, K. E. & Bryan, A. D. Confirmatory latent class analysis: illustrations of empirically driven and theoretically driven model constraints. Organ. Res. Methods 21, 983–1001 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee, K. & Ashton, M. C. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivar. Behav. Res. 39, 329–358 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marsh, H. W. et al. Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Struct. Equ. Model. 16, 439–476 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen, F. F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 464–504 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U. & Morin, A. J. S. Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Struct. Equ. Model. 16, 191–225 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Muthén, B. O. in New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling (eds. Marcoulides, G. A. & Schumacker R. E.) 1–33 (Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 2001).

  33. Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. Mplus User’s Guide (Muthén and Muthén, 2012).

  34. Gangestad, S. & Snyder, M. “To carve nature at its joints”: on the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychol. Rev. 92, 317–349 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R. & Klieger, D. M. How much do we really know about employee resilience? Indust. Org. Psychol. 9, 378–404 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gonzales, L. Surviving Survival: The Art and Science of Resilience (W.W. Norton and Company, 2012).

  37. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D. & Becker, B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev. 71, 543–562 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Masten, A. S. Pathways to integrated resilience science. Psychol. Inq. 26, 187–196 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ashton, M. C. & Lee, K. A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. Eur. J. Pers. 15, 327–353 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Balkan, D. The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and Religion (Rand–McNally, 1966).

  41. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wiggins, J. S. in Thinking Clearly About Psychology: Essays in Honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 1. Matters of public interest; Vol. 2. Personality and Psychopathology (eds. Cicchetti, D. & Grove, W. M.) 89–113 (Univ. Minnesota Press, 1991).

  43. Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss (Basic Books, 1969).

  44. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44, 1–26 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rothstein, M. G. & Goffin, R. D. The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 16, 155–180 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 751–765 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Poropat, A. E. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol. Bull. 135, 322–338 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Giluk, T. L. & Postlethwaite, B. E. Big five personality and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic review. Pers. Individ. Differ. 72, 59–67 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Furnham, A. & Brewin, C. R. Personality and happiness. Pers. Individ. Differ. 11, 1093–1096 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Ogunfowora, B., Bourdage, J. S. & Shin, K. H. The personality bases of socio-political attitudes: the role of honesty–humility and openness to experience. J. Res. Pers. 44, 115–119 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E. & Schouten, B. The communication styles inventory (CSI) a six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality. Comm. Res. 40, 506–532 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fairchild, A. J. & MacKinnon, D. P. A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prev. Sci. 10, 87–99 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K. & Goldberg, L. R. The IPIP–HEXACO scales: an alternative, public-domain measure of the personality constructs in the HEXACO model. Pers. Individ. Differ. 42, 1515–1526 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ashton, M. C. & Lee, K. The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. J. Pers. Assess. 91, 340–345 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. de Vries, R. E. The 24-item brief HEXACO inventory (BHI). J. Res. Pers. 47, 871–880 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lee, K. & Ashton, M. C. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment 25, 543–556 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 16, 397–438 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Marsh, H. W. et al. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychol. Assess. 22, 471–491 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Akaïke, H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52, 317–332 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bozdogman, H. Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52, 345–370 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Schwartz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6, 461–464 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sclove, S. L. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems with multivariate analysis. Psychometrika 52, 333–343 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Morin, A. J. S., Maïano, C., Marsh, H. W., Janosz, M. & Nagengast, B. The longitudinal interplay of adolescents’ self-esteem and body image: A conditional autoregressive latent trajectory analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res. 46, 157–201 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Org. Res. Methods 3, 4–70 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank K. Lee and M. Ashton for sharing the data used in this research and for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was supported by funding to J.P.M. from the Social Sciences Faculty Research Development Grant (2018–19) at The University of Western Ontario. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Jose A. Espinoza, Kabir N. Daljeet.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

    Jose A. Espinoza, Kabir N. Daljeet & John P. Meyer

  2. Curtin School of Business, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    John P. Meyer

Authors
  1. Jose A. Espinoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kabir N. Daljeet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John P. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.N.D., J.P.M. and J.A.E. conceptualized the research, interpreted results and wrote the manuscript. J.A.E. and K.N.D. designed the methods and performed the analyses. J.A.E. and K.N.D. contributed equally to this article and both should be considered first authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jose A. Espinoza or Kabir N. Daljeet.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–4, Supplementary Tables 1–8, methods and results.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Software 1

Supplementary_Software_1.inp—Code for Imposing factor structure and extracting factor scores; Supplementary_Software_2.inp—Code for imposing the 5-profile solution and extracting class probabilities; Supplementary_Software_3.xlsx—Information for converting the item names used in the 2 other supplementary software files to other naming conventions in other datasets.

Supplementary Software 2

File with detailed guidelines on using the Supplementary Software files.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Espinoza, J.A., Daljeet, K.N. & Meyer, J.P. Establishing the structure and replicability of personality profiles using the HEXACO-PI-R. Nat Hum Behav 4, 713–724 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0853-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0853-6

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation