Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1995, Vol. 69, No. 4,701-718
The Big Seven Factor Model of Personality Description:
Evidence for Its Cross-Cultural Generality in a Spanish Sample
Veronica Benet and Niels G. Waller
University of California, Davis
The discovery of the Big Seven factor model of natural language personality description (Tellegen,
1993; Tellegen & Waller, 1987; Waller, in press; Waller & Zavala, 1993) challenges the comprehensiveness of the Big Five factor structure. To establish the robustness and cross-cultural generalizability of the seven-factor model, a Big Seven (Tellegen, Grove & Waller, 1991) and a Big Five (John,
Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) questionnaire were administered to 2 samples: (a) a sample of 569
community-dwelling volunteers from the United States and (b) a sample of 435 Spanish native
speakers from Spain. Factor structures from the self- and peer-ratings on the Spanish version of the
Big Seven questionnaire largely replicated the American structure (Waller, in press). Nevertheless,
some psychologically meaningful item-level differences emerged. These differences suggest that
Spaniards attach negative and positive values to self-other perceptions of introversion and unconventionality, respectively. Our findings support the cross-cultural robustness of the Big Seven factors
and the advantages of this structure for studying culturally specific differences in personality traitterm evaluations.
Personologists from many countries have consulted the natural language when developing personality taxonomies (Allport
& Odbert, 1936; Angleitner, Ostendorf, & John, 1990; Brokken,
1978;Cattell, 1945; Goldberg, 1982; Norman, 1967; Tellegen &
Waller, 1987; Wiggins, 1979). An important and robust finding
from this literature (Fiske, 1949; Goldberg, 1990, 1992; John,
Goldberg, & Angleitner, 1984; Norman, 1963) is that a fivefactor structure, the so called Big Five (Goldberg, 1981), or Five
Factor Model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1987), putatively encompasses much of the covariation among self-ascriptions and
peer ratings of personality descriptors. Common labels and Roman numerals for these dimensions are: (I) Extraversion or
Surgency, (II) Agreeableness, (HI) Conscientiousness, (IV)
Emotional Stability or Neuroticism, and (V) Openness to Experience or Intellect (see John, 1990, for a scholarly review of
these dimensions). The replicability and ubiquity of the Big
Five have led many personality psychologists (Digman, 1990;
Goldberg, 1993; John, 1990) to advocate this structure as a basic framework-indeed, as the basic framework-for personality
description and assessment (McCrae & Costa, 1986; McCrae &
John, 1992).
Among the various theoretical and methodological limitations that have been attributed to the Big Five (see Block, 1995;
We would like to thank Catherine Clark for her helpful comments.
Also, we greatly appreciate the help of the psychology faculty at the
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (specially Jordi Bachs, Montse
Goma, Maite Martinez, and Merce Mitjavila), who provided the sample for this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Veronica
Benet who is now at the Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, or Niels G. Waller, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California 95616.
Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to veronica@garnet.
berkeley.edu or to ngwaller@ucdavis.edu.
Briggs, 1992;Loevinger, 1994;McAdams, 1992; Waller &BenPorath, 1987), one in particular questions its adequacy to fully
represent the personality domain (Tellegen, 1993; Waller & Zavala, 1993; Waller, in press). Tellegen and Waller (1987), for
example, noted that the Big Five was originally developed from
a pool of personality descriptors that excluded evaluative terms
and many state descriptors (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Cattell,
1943; Norman, 1967). These banished terms were not considered representative of the so-called biophysical traits that were
advocated by Allport and others (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Pervin, 1990). Yet, as discussed more fully later, many contemporary personologists (Borkenau, 1990; Hogan, 1982) believe that
personality description and measurement are fundamentally
evaluative activities. Recently, this idea has received empirical
support from a reexamination of American-English trait terms.
In thefirstinvestigation of the nonbowdlerized personality lexicon, Tellegen and Waller (1987; Waller, in press) confirmed
that the Big Five taxonomy underrepresents or neglects important dimensions and descriptor classes. Specifically, based on an
empirical analysis of 400 personality indicators from a representative American dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary; 1985), these authors found that at least seven higher order
dimensions are needed in a comprehensive taxonomy of natural
language personality descriptors. Tellegen and Waller labeled
their dimensions the Big Seven in recognition of the fact that
five of their factors were similar to, but not isomorphic with, the
higher order factors of the Big Five. The two remaining dimensions in this structure-labeled Positive and Negative Valenceseemingly tap aspects of self-evaluation that are not measured
by popular lexically informed personality inventories (e.g.,
Costa & McCrae, 1985; Goldberg, 1992; John etal., 1991).
In this article we claim that the Big Seven factor structure
challenges the comprehensiveness of the Big Five. We defend
this position by demonstrating the cross-cultural and cross-language robustness of the Big Seven in Spanish and American
701
702
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
samples. We also provide evidence for the cross-target robustness of the Big Seven using peer- and self-ratings in the Spanish
sample. To further strengthen our claim, we demonstrate that
ourfindingscannot be attributed to unrepresentative sampling
of participants or personality terms by reporting the factor
structure of a recently developed Big Five questionnaire (John
et al., 1991) in both the Spanish and American data sets. Finally, we report the joint factor structure of the Big Seven and
Big Five questionnaires as a means of testing the content overlap
of these competing models of lexically derived personality descriptors. In the sections that follow we (a) discuss issues in the
development of natural language personality taxonomies, (b)
consider why previous lexical studies have failed to uncover the
evaluative dimensions of the Big Seven, and (c) review recent
findings that support the robustness of these evaluative
constructs.
Issues in the Development of Natural Language
Personality Taxonomies
Despite the more than 100 years of the taxonomic tradition
(Galton, 1884), personality psychologists still disagree over
such fundamental topics as the selection, classification, and nature (descriptive vs. explanatory) of the personality terms that
warrant inclusion in a comprehensive lexical taxonomy of personality descriptors. For instance, researchers disagree on such
basic issues as: (a) the domain coverage of the descriptor taxonomy: Should the taxonomy focus on stable traits, or should it
also include state terms and social evaluations? (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Waller & Zavala, 1993); (b) the most suitable linguistic units for a personality taxonomy: Should the taxonomy
focus on descriptive predicates, (i.e., adjectives), or should it
also include nouns, verbs, or phrases? (Buss & Craik, 1983; De
Raad, 1992; De Raad & Hoskens, 1990; De Raad, Mulder,
Kloosterman, & Hofstee, 1988; Hofstee, 1990); and (c) how to
conceptualize the evaluative component in personality descriptors: Does the evaluative component represent substantive variance or individual differences in response-set strength?
(Hofstee, 1990;Peabody, 1967,1987; Saucier, 1994).
To clarify these issues, lexical researchers have recently developed criteria to appraise personality taxonomies. According to
one recent proposal (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988) taxonomies should be evaluated in terms of their generalizability,
comprehensiveness, and external validity. The generalizability
of a personality taxonomy is assessed by the robustness of its
dimensional structure across samples, raters, cultures, and languages. The comprehensiveness of a personality taxonomy refers to its content validity, or its ability to fully represent the
domain of personality description. Finally, the external validity
of a personality taxonomy refers to the network of theoretical
constructs that are predicted by the traits in the taxonomy. In
the next section we briefly review alternative personality taxonomies in light of these criteria.
Lexically Derived Personality Taxonomies
Presently, the Big Five factor structure represents the most
popular lexically derived personality taxonomy. The historical
development of the Big Five has been chronicled in scholarly
reviews by John (1990; John et al., 1988), Goldberg (1993),
and Waller (in press), and thus we do not review this history
in detail. However, several milestones in this history warrant
consideration because they reveal the definitional boundaries of
the Big Five and they elucidate why these boundaries do not
encompass primary dimensions of self-evaluation. One early
milestone that is often not sufficiently acknowledged by advocates of the Big Five is that thefivedimensions were originally
'discovered' from a series of overlapping (Waller & Ben-Porath,
1987) descriptor pools that were assembled by Allport and
Odbert (1936), Cattell (1943), and Norman (1963, 1967).
The Herculean efforts of these investigators were energized by a
desire to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of natural language personality descriptors. A consistent finding from this
work is thatfivebroad dimensions—now called the Big Five—
adequately describe the covariance structure of the trait terms
in these descriptor pools (see Goldberg, 1993, and references
cited therein). On this point there is much agreement. A more
contentious issue is whether thesefivefactors "are both necessary and reasonably sufficient for describing at a global level
the major features of personality" (McCrae & Costa, 1986, p.
1001). As noted by Tellegen and Waller (1987; Tellegen 1993;
Waller, in press; Waller & Zavala, 1993), literally thousands of
personality descriptive terms—such as evaluative and state descriptors—were excluded from consideration in the aforementioned lexical studies. Therefore, considering the banishment of
these potentially informative descriptors, and the methodological truism that "Whether or not a given factor appears in a particular study is a direct function of the selection of variables"
(Gorsuch, 1983, p. 336), one cannot help wondering whether
additional factors would have emerged in these studies if the
original taxonomers had used less restrictive exclusion criteria
when culling candidate trait terms.
Motivated by this question, Tellegen and Waller (1987) conducted the first study of the American-English lexicon to use
purposefully nonrestrictive exclusion criteria when selecting
personality indicators. Stated otherwise, these researchers did
not exclude the so-called evaluative terms or state terms from
their indicator list. Using a stratified sampling method, 400 personality descriptors were chosen nonrestrictively from the
American Heritage Dictionary ofthe English Language (1985).
When self-ratings on these terms were organized by factor analysis, seven broad personality dimensions emerged (see Waller,
in press, for a description and discussion of this work). Tellegen
and Waller christened these dimensions the 'Big Seven' because
five of their dimensions were similar to the Big Five. The two
remaining factors appeared to tap positive and negative aspects
of self-evaluation, and consequently they called these factors
Positive and Negative Valence. Illustrative markers of Positive
Valence include: excellent, special, impressive, skilled, without
equal and matchless, whereas representative markers of Negative Valence include: evil, wicked, awful, disgusting, deserve to
be hated, and immoral. Rather than consider these dimensions
as representing individual differences in response set strength,
these authors argued that Positive and Negative Valence represent enduring self construals of global evaluation. This notion
that evaluative tendencies represent traits or stable self images
is also consistent with recent formulations of the personality
disorders. For instance, the Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.) (American Psychiatric Association,
1994) criteria for borderline personality disorder notes that a
703
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
person diagnosed with borderline personality disorder has "a
self-image that is based on being bad or evil. . . ." (p. 651).
People with Narcissistic personality disorder view themselves as
"superior, special, or unique. . . ." (p. 658). Although these
examples illustrate extreme forms of self-evaluation, in a later
section we demonstrate that Positive and Negative Valence factors also emerge reliably in nonclinical samples from two
cultures.
Labels for the other five dimensions were not adopted uniformly from the Big Five tradition because several of Tellegen
and Waller's factors differed in important aspects from their Big
Five counterparts. For example, in the Big Seven, Extraversion
and Neuroticism are called Positive Emotionality and Negative
Emotionality, respectively, in recognition of the emotional core
of these higher order factors (Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark,
1992). This interpretation of the 'Big Two' is consistent with
recent attempts to acknowledge the affective organization of
personality (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991; Meyer & Shack, 1989;
Tellegen, 1985; Tellegen & Waller, in press; Watson & Clark,
1992). The Big Five Openness to Experience or Intellect factor
is called Conventionality in the Big Seven framework because
of the large number of conventionality-radicalism terms in the
natural language that load on this dimension. Thus, although
supporting evidence for the Big Five has accumulated for some
time, we believe that the Big Seven provides a more accurate
structural representation of natural language personality terms
because this broader model was developed from a nonexpurgated descriptor pool. In the Big Seven, no class of personality
terms was discriminated against, and consequently, the true diversity of the personality lexicon was allowed to define the natural boundaries of this taxonomy.
A fundamental idea in taxonomic personality research, an
idea that has come to be known as the lexical hypothesis, is that
"[t]hose individual differences that are most salient and socially relevant in people's lives will eventually become encoded
into their language. . . ." (Goldberg, 1982, p. 204). Accordingly, personality dimensions that are deemed important for
large classes of humans across different cultures and historical
epochs will be represented by descriptive predicates in many
languages (John et al., 1984).
To date, cross-cultural replications of the Big Five have been
carried out in many languages, including German, Dutch, Japanese, Chinese, and Tagalog (Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi,
1975; Church & Katigbak, 1988; John et al., 1984; Yang &
Bond, 1990). Moreover, dictionary-based personality taxonomies in languages other than English have been developed in
Dutch, German, and Hebrew (Almagor, Tellegen, & Waller,
1993; Angleitner et al., 1990; Brokken, 1978; De Raad &
Hoskens, 1990; De Raad et al., 1988; see also John et al., 1988,
for a review). Generally speaking, this work reveals that at least
four of the Big Five factors—Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability—are cross-culturally
robust (Digman, 1990; John, 1990; Yang & Bond, 1990). Unfortunately, this literature does not speak to the cross-cultural
robustness of the Positive and Negative Valence dimensions of
the Big Seven for reasons that were adumbrated above. Therefore, we wondered whether these additional natural language
dimensions, and the alternative interpretations of the Big Five
that are offered by the Big Seven, will emerge in cross-cultural
personality research that includes representative trait markers
from the Big Seven. With this question in mind, we administered Big Seven and Big Five questionnaires to American and
Spanish samples.
Method
Participants
To study the cross-cultural robustness of the Big Seven and Big Five
factor structures we obtained personality ratings from native residents
of America and Spain. Our American sample included 569 participants
(140 men and 429 women) with a mean age of 37.23 years (SD 15.63). These individuals were drawn from the participant pool of the
California Twin Registry (Waller, in press). One of the strengths of this
registry is that it represents the cultural, educational, demographic, and
economic diversity of one of America's most populated states. Our
Spanish participants were drawn from two large public universities in
Spain: the Universidad Autonoma de Bellaterra and the Universidad de
Barcelona. This sample included 435 participants (83 men and 352
women) with a mean age of 23.71 years (SD = 4.04).
Measures
All participants completed Big Seven and Big Five questionnaires.
The Big Seven questionnaire is called The Inventory of Personal Characteristics (IPC-7; Tellegen et al., 1991). This instrument contains 161
Likert (4-point) scored items that were developed from previous factor
analytic work on American-English, natural language personality descriptors (Tellegen & Waller, 1987). Recent work on the IPC-7 (Waller,
in press) demonstrates that the items of this questionnaire accurately
represent the seven dimensions of the Big Seven. A fuller description of
the psychometric properties of the IPC-7, which reports the item-level
factor structure, scale reliabilities and heritabilities, is available elsewhere (Waller, in press). The seven high-order factors of this questionnaire are called: (a) Positive Valence (PVAL), (b) Negative Valence
(NVAL), (c) Positive Emotionality (PEM), (d) Negative Emotionality
(NEM), (e) Conscientiousness (C), (f) Agreeableness (A), and (g)
Conventionality (CNV). In our cross-cultural comparison of the Big
Seven factor structure, the 10 best markers of each factor from a previous analysis of the IPC-7 (Waller, in press) were selected. This procedure allowed us to work with a 70 item, rather than a 161-item, Big
Seven questionnaire.
The Big Five questionnaire that we used is called the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991). This adjective-based questionnaire was
developed from extensive analyses of the Adjective Check List (ACL;
Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). The 43 adjectives of the BFI have been
shown in previous studies (John, 1989,1990) to be univocal, prototypical markers of the Big Five dimensions: (I) Extraversion (E), (II)
Agreeableness (A), (III) Conscientiousness (C), (IV) Neuroticism
(N), and (V) Openness (O). A description of the psychometric characteristics of the BFI scales is reported in John et al. (1991).
Translation ofMeasures
The conceptual equivalence or meaning symmetry of language-based
psychological measures is an indispensable requirement for valid crosscultural comparisons (Berry, 1980). One-way translation of a personality scale is not sufficient for demonstrating the appropriateness of the
scale for cross-cultural research. Rather, cross-cultural researchers must
engage the help of bilingual assistants to back translate the items into
the original language. Before conceptual equivalence for a questionnaire
can be claimed, the original and back-translated items must be semantically isomorphic.
During the questionnaire translation phase of our study, the backtranslation methods of Brislin (1980) were used. Using standard Span-
704
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
ish-English and English-Spanish dictionaries, the first author (VB)
translated the IPC-7 and BFI items into Spanish. Next, using the same
dictionaries, a bilingual assistant (who holds a Ph.D. in Spanish) independently translated the items into English. When discrepancies occurred, thefirsttranslator reviewed the meaning and psychological implications of the original item with the second translator. This process
of translating, and independently back translating, continued until semantic equivalence for all items was achieved. The translated items
from the two questionnaires were assembled into a single booklet. Fivepoint and six-point rating scales were used for the Big Seven and Big
Five items, respectively. We retained the original response format for
these items so that the results of our study would be directly comparable
to those of previous studies with these measures. The complete list of
IPC-7 items, along with their Spanish translations, is reported in the
Appendix.
Results
To study the cross-cultural and cross-language similarities of
the Big Seven and Big Five factor structures we relied on five
data sets. These samples included: American and Spanish selfratings on the IPC-7 and the BFI, and Spanish peer-ratings on
the IPC-7. Prior to our main analyses the item responses in each
data set were ipsatized (within subject standardized) to minimize a response set bias that can obfuscate the underlying factor
structure of multipoint personality ratings (Hamilton, 1968).
Although ipsatization alters correlations in small item pools,
beyond that associated with the removal of response set variance (see Dunlap & Cornwell, 1994, for a recent review), in
large item pools, such as the IPC-7 and BFI, this is not a problem. In our experience—and the experiences of other investigators in this area (Goldberg, 1992; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989;
Yang & Bond, 1990)—ipsatized personality ratings yield
'cleaner' factor structures than nonipsatized ratings. We also examined the nonipsatized factor structures for analytic completeness and found the results of the latter analyses to be essentially identical to those of the former. Moreover, because our
samples included men and women who were heterogeneous
with respect to age, the linear and quadratic effects of these demographic variables were partialled from the item responses
prior to the structural analyses. Failure to consider these sources
of item covariation can also obfuscate the factor structure of
personality ratings (Waller & Meehl, 1994). In the remainder
of this section we refer to the IPC-7 and BFI as the Big Seven
and Big Five inventories.
In our first analysis we examined the factor structure of the
Big Seven inventory in the American sample. Our goal in this
analysis was to derive a representative, American-based factor
structure that could be compared to the Spanish self- and peerrating solutions for the Big Seven items. We felt confident that
the 70 items that were chosen for this study would yield a robust
seven factor solution because these items were found to be the
most salient Big Seven markers in a previous investigation
(Waller, in press). In the following analyses, however, we allowed the data, rather than our feeling states or theoretical
wishes, to determine the most compelling dimensional representation for these items.
The eigenvalue plot for the reduced Big Seven inventory in
the American sample indicated that seven factors could account
for the primary sources of interitem covariation. The first 10
eigenvalues from the 70 X 70 interitem correlation matrix
(with squared multiple correlations in the diagonal) were: 7.78,
4.67, 3.40, 3.17, 3.14, 2.23, 1.68, 1.06, 0.91, 0.67. Eigenvalue
plots are only suggestive, however, rather than definitive regarding reduced matrix rank, and consequently we also assessed the
psychological meaningfulness of alternative factor solutions
that ranged from five to eight factors. We believe that the varimax-rotated seven-factor solution yields the most compelling
structure for these data and that this solution is easily recognizable as the Big Seven. The factor loadings from this analysis are
reported in Table 1. The factors in this table were constrained
by the rotation method to remain uncorrelated. When the factors were allowed to go oblique, using a Promax rotation, the
highest interfactor correlation was only 0.35 between Conscientiousness and Conventionality, and the mean and median interfactor correlations were 0.135 and 0.13, respectively. Thus,
the orthogonal solution accurately reflects the natural organization of the items and is mathematically easier to interpret.
Having arrived at a representative factor solution for the
American data, we next analyzed the Big Seven item pool in the
Spanish sample. The first 10 eigenvalues from the correlation
matrix (with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal) of
the Spanish self-ratings on the Big Seven were: 6.90, 5.51,4.21,
3.28, 2.60, 1.88, 1.52, 1.18, 0.92, 0.86. These values show a
moderate break after the seventh latent root, suggesting that a
seven-factor solution accounts for the brunt of the matrix covariance. To assess this hypothesis more formally, varimax-rotated factor solutions, with five to eight factors, were carefully
examined. Consistent with our hypothesis, the seven-factor solution provided the most psychologically compelling structure
for these data. This solution is reported in Table 2.
A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 reveals a noteworthy degree
of cross-cultural and cross-language robustness for the Big
Seven factor structure in the self report domain. Several of the
corresponding factors between the two samples are virtually
identical with one another, although the structures do show several intriguing item-level differences. For example, several ( - )
Conventionality markers in the American sample, such as Unusual and Odd-Peculiar, emigrated to the Positive Valence dimension in the Spanish sample. These evaluative terms have
been interpreted (Waller, in press) as reflecting extreme degrees
of psychological Openness (i.e., Unconventionality, in the Big
Seven perspective) for American participants. Ourfindingssuggest that for Spaniards, they are related to more positively valued self-portrayals. Interestingly, the term Strange, which is also
a ( - ) Conventionality marker in the American data, emigrated
to the negative pole of Positive Emotionality. For Spaniards—at
least as advertised in popular literature—extroverted sociability
is a normatively valued personality trait (Hooper, 1987;
McVeagh, 1990). Highly introverted Spaniards, or Spaniards
with poor social skills, might harbor feelings of uneasiness and
self perceptions of strangeness (see Benet, 1994, for an independent replication and similar interpretation of these results).
Thesefindingsare discussed in more detail in a later section of
the paper. First, we examine the factor structure of the Big
Seven items using peer ratings in the Spanish sample.
In the Spanish peer ratings, the first 10 eigenvalues from the
Big Seven correlation matrix (with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal) were: 7.43,4.39,4.16, 3.48, 3.40,2.41,
1.66, 1.05, 1.04, 0.80. The overall profile of these eigenvalues
is similar to those of the previous analyses and demonstrates
705
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
Table 1
Seven Primary Factors of American Natural Language: American Sample, SelfRatings
Abbreviated items
Outstanding
Impressive
Excellent
Exceptional
Admirable
Important
High ranking
Ordinary
Average
Not exceptional
Wicked
Awful
Deserves to be hated
Cruel
Dangerous
Mentally sick
Disgusting
Vicious
Treacherous
Depraved
Gregarious
Talkative
Animated
Sociable
Peppy
Playful
Impulsive
Not talkative
Loner
Reserved
Quiet
Not frustrated
Not easily upset
Worries aside
Not overworrying
Feels guilty
Sorry for myself
Feelings hurt
Jittery
Nervous
Irritated
Well organized
Tidy
Place for everything
Orderly
Prompt
Consistent
Improvises
Disorganized
Argumentative
Stubborn
Quarrelsome
Strong
Put up fight
Headstrong
Tough
Lenient
Try avoid differences
Dislike argument
Traditional
Strict discipline
No permissive parents
Conventional
Old-fashioned
Cautious
Progressive
Strange
Odd
Unusual
Radical
PVAL
74
72
69
63
55
51
44
-58
-64
-66
06
-03
-04
03
05
04
-10
-01
00
01
08 05
09
01
16
05
05
-14
-16
-06
-09
02
00
-01
-00
-19
-21
-23
-06
-05
-24
02
-04
-09
06
-01
-19
01
-05
-03
-09
-13
17
03
19
04
-12
-12
-13
-11
-01
-04
-24
-12
-17
00
-06
-04
23
06
NVAL
PEM
NEM
C
A
CNV
-01
-01
01
02
-12
-07
-02
-08
-01
-10
76
69
65
55
54
53
06
10
02
08
08
11
13
-05
-13
-12
01
-09
-12
-16
-11
-14
-18
-09
-09
01
06
-01
01
-05
-06
-07
01
-03
09
04
10
-11
04
-06
-12
-15
-14
-11
-03
07
08
-02
-70
-67
-65
-64
49
50
-00
-03
08
-05
03
01
05
10
07
04
-02
-00
-00
01
-06
-17
03
-01
-06
-01
-01
-04
-03
-07
05
-07
-25
02
04
04
07
-07
-04
-11
-15
-02
-05
02
-11
-04
-04
76
74
66
64
44
34
-31
-59
-20
-03
-11
10
00
-02
05
-10
06
11
05
01
-06
11
03
18
-04
-32
-28
-29
-09
-04
-02
02
-03
01
04
-14
13
07
07
01
04
-02
-08
-11
17
-01
-28
13
04
-01
-12
-00
09
08
-05
-05
18
-01
03
21
07
21
-00
-00
07
06
06
02
-04
-17
02
05
03
01
-00
11
-11
-03
-05
-11
-07
08
-02
22
14
06
04
03
-04
-11
-14
-04
-05
-05
-10
-06
06
01
-18
03
-02
-14
-28
-00
-11
05
02
-02
-02
-02
-07
-00
01
-00
02
-02
-01
01
02
11
10
02
19
-20
-18
-04
-00
-04
-15
02
-04
-01
-02
08
13
60
48
46
45
44
24
-39
-42
-43
-45
-53
53
45
44
44
06
09
-02
-02
-11
-04
-08
-10
-04
-13
-15
-05
-07
-03
-02
-01
-00
00
-09
-08
01
-05
-03
-05
-04
-05
-09
-01
-04
06
01
13
-01
-05
12
-03
-02
-00
-03
-11
-04
-07
-09
-15
-09
-05
05
07
-03
09
-00
00
-0
-02
07
01
04
03
14
72
69
64
62
58
47
42
-53
-54
-59
-68
03
07
00
05
-10
-10
-10
-09
-07
-05
-02
00
-03
-15
-04
-21
28
11
03
-06
-02
16
03
13
-02
04
-20
-15
-01
-04
-07
-05
-10
-13
04
-11
-15
-00
-03
56
56
56
57
-04
05
09
06
-06
-12
-16
-09
10
14
04
-18
01
01
03
-16
14
16
-05
04
02
-07
06
10
-10
11
18
-00
-02
00
-00
-57
-54
-53
-49
-45
-44
-43
35
38
50
14
-11
-07
05
08
05
-06
-01
-04
-15
-08
Note. PVAL = Positive Valence; NVAL = Negative Valence; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; C = Conscientiousness; A - Agreeableness; CNV = Conventionality. All loadings multiplied by 100. Loadings a 1301
are in boldface.
706
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
Table 2
Seven Primary Factors of American Natural Language: Spanish Sample, Self Ratings
Abbreviated items
PVAL
NVAL
PEM
NEM
Outstanding
Excellent
Exceptional
Admirable
Important
Unusual
Impressive
High ranking
Odd
Ordinary
Not exceptional
Average
Wicked
Vicious
Awful
Cruel
Disgusting
Treacherous
Deserve to be hated
Mentally sick
Depraved
Dangerous
Talkative
Gregarious
Sociable
Animated
Impulsive
Playful
No permissive parent
Strange
Loner
Not talkative
Reserved
Quiet
Jittery
Feels guilty
Feel sorry for self
Feelings hurt
Irritated
Nervous
Strong
Peppy
Not overworrying
Worries out of mind
Not frustrated
Well organized
Orderly
Place for everything
Tidy
Prompt
Headstrong
Cautious
Consistent
Like to improvise
Disorganized
Argumentative
Quarrelsome
Tough
Put up fight
Stubborn
Lenient
Try avoid differences
Not easily upset
Dislike argument
Traditional
Conventional
Old-fashioned
Strict discipline
Radical
Progressive
66
64
62
SO
49
46
45
44
37
-63
-66
-67
00
-07
-02
-00
-16
-02
-01
07
11
07
00
-02
-09
03
06
16
-11
11
-10
-12
-09
-11
-05
-09
-27
-14
-02
-08
18
16
-03
-00
04
00
01
-05
-01
-03
08
-14
-22
-01
02
-07
-08
-09
-13
05
00
05
02
-10
01
-07
70
69
65
59
48
45
38
37
32
32
05
-00
-07
-1
06
-03
-03
07
02
-09
-06
-12
08
-07
-03
-08
-01
05
-07
-08
-02
-03
05
-06
-07
-13
-12
-01
-00
-21
-23
08
02
-06
-04
13
02
09
-04
-00
-02
06
-07
-08
09
-04
00
-10
-00
-01
02
15
14
-03
24
11
-01
06
-02
-06
04
-00
02
-04
03
08
-08
-04
02
-03
78
66
62
59
45
43
-14
-37
-56
-69
-71
-73
-02
-06
-16
01
-10
01
17
40
08
05
11
-02
-11
-00
02
-11
03
-22
00
16
-02
09
09
-20
02
00
28
04
02
-04
03
-13
-16
-08
-05
06
-14
-13
-06
-12
-17
-05
-03
-19
07
-05
05
-03
-09
-02
-05
-03
01
-06
-00
-02
-08
-20
-18
-11
-09
-15
-27
-15
-05
-02
01
-00
-09
07
05
34
06
01
05
-14
-15
-31
-08
-03
-08
19
09
-10
13
01
60
57
53
53
52
50
-38
-41
-47
-62
-62
-09
05
04
-02
-06
-09
-03
-05
-10
-07
02
11
11
09
07
-08
-04
-32
-02
-02
-04
11
-09
02
-03
CNV
05
08
-04
14
02
-05
-08
-00
-21
00
05
01
-06
-01
-04
02
-03
-05
-03
-17
-16
-13
-04
-01
-05
-08
-31
-20
07
-14
-03
-00
-00
04
-07
-10
-10
01
05
-06
08
04
-10
-08
01
75
71
65
65
46
31
28
27
-58
-66
-10
-10
07
-02
-07
-16
-03
-10
03
13
15
02
15
-01
-10
04
05
-02
10
-00
-13
-05
-11
-08
06
07
04
08
00
09
01
13
-07
-14
-00
-06
-17
-11
22
15
15
-03
00
03
-13
-03
27
04
22
-15
-01
-03
04
-22
-26
-24
04
10
11
10
05
03
01
08
-01
-03
16
13
05
-02
-68
-63
-52
-47
-39
37
47
48
49
13
09
04
-06
-06
-10
-00
07
-05
-04
-04
-43
-19
14
-26
20
10
08
04
-11
02
10
-01
-07
09
-07
-01
-10
-08
05
-04
-00
-18
-02
07
-13
-11
05
11
09
-12
00
-07
-06
-05
-10
00
-09
-10
-02
-03
04
08
12
-02
05
-03
20
20
-14
-21
-06
-13
08
-03
-08
10
10
-03
03
66
61
31
29
-52
-61
Note PVAL = Positive Valence; NVAL = Negative Valence; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; C = Conscientiousness; A = Agreeableness; CNV = Conventionality. All loadings multiplied by 100. Loadings a 1301
are in boldface.
707
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
Table 3
Seven Primary Factors of American Natural Language: Spanish Sample, Peer Ratings
Abbreviated items
PVAL
Outstanding
Exceptional
Important
Admirable
Excellent
Impressive
High ranking
Ordinary
Not exceptional
Average
Wicked
Awful
Cruel
Vicious
Mentally sick
Disgusting
Deserve to be hated
Depraved
Treacherous
Dangerous
Quiet
Not talkative
Reserved
Loner
Strange
Strong
Playful
Peppy
Impulsive
Animated
Sociable
68
59
51
50
48
34
27
-62
-64
-68
-00
01
03
00
02
-05
-03
04
-04
-07
-11
-11
-16
02
03
12
08
21
06
-04
-09
-04
01
-04
-03
-08
-07
-10
-13
-03
03
Gregarious
Talkative
Guilty
Jittery
Feel sorry
Nervous
Feelings hurt
Irritated
Not overworrying
Worries out of mind
Not frustrated
Well organized
Tidy
Place for everything
Orderly
Prompt
Headstrong
Cautious
Consistent
Odd
Like improvise
Disorganized
Argumentative
Quarrelsome
Put up fight
Tough
Stubborn
Lenient
Try avoid differences
Dislike argument
Not easily upset
Conventional
Traditional
Strict discipline
No permissive parents
Old-fashioned
Unusual
Radical
Progressive
-05
01
-01
04
-04
-08
02
-03
-21
26
01
-01
-02
-00
-06
-08
-01
-01
-22
-09
10
-23
-18
03
-01
-06
36
07
10
NVAL
PEM
NEM
-02
00
-14
-11
-03
-00
11
-14
03
-02
-00
-01
06
12
-02
07
11
00
-05
-04
03
-16
-06
-07
-03
-15
01
-02
07
-07
78
72
66
63
62
58
57
50
43
36
-13
-05
-04
-07
16
-00
-10
-16
-07
-11
00
-03
08
-09
04
-09
-06
-07
-09
-05
-05
09
-04
-06
-06
-04
00
-06
-11
-09
08
-12
-04
-02
00
-11
13
07
03
-03
-04
-00
-10
-26
-00
03
06
06
06
-05
03
-05
00
00
-02
-07
07
00
05
-00
06
-76
-74
-66
-54
-24
29
30
44
47
49
60
63
74
-11
04
-07
04
-01
-09
-04
-05
02
-02
-02
-08
-11
-07
13
-14
-07
02
13
06
03
05
06
-10
-01
19
-08
-06
-01
-11
-04
-01
-06
-17
-04
00
09
-06
-00
-12
08
-06
-02
-13
03
-05
-03
-06
-09
01
08
-27
-08
-14
00
-11
-04
-03
05
62
61
59
46
46
44
-49
-64
-66
-10
08
-01
-07
-07
-06
-05
-12
08
-11
-06
-02
-01
02
06
04
-15
-00
-04
-24
07
12
-03
02
05
-01
-00
-02
CNV
00
-11
-05
10
-02
-25
-05
-01
01
-04
-02
05
03
-06
-03
02
-02
-13
-02
-14
06
03
01
-02
-18
05
-29
-08
-39
-10
-04
-08
-12
-01
-10
-05
-11
-05
01
-16
-01
08
78
74
73
70
61
48
44
32
-31
-54
-72
-15
-14
-10
12
-08
00
01
06
-05
25
20
-01
00
09
-19
-17
-09
-03
05
-03
06
18
-16
-09
12
02
04
04
12
-12
06
-05
10
-12
-14
00
-31
18
18
01
-02
-13
-26
07
02
-08
08
12
06
-14
08
-17
-00
-22
05
-21
02
09
05
-07
-05
06
-01
09
-04
15
14
-14
00
-01
-69
-64
-64
-47
-46
47
52
57
61
13
11
-05
-08
02
-10
-24
-00
-06
-13
02
-07
-13
-09
11
06
01
04
-01
-00
-09
06
-02
-02
03
-09
05
-05
07
00
06
-10
04
-16
-20
-21
-21
-15
-06
-06
-04
04
-10
05
-06
07
05
00
-05
-03
02
00
05
17
01
-10
10
19
-19
-30
-22
-03
-02
00
-00
-01
07
00
04
-07
63
60
45
41
40
-40
-46
-59
Note. PVAL = Positive Valence; NVAL = Negative Valence; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; C = Conscientiousness; A = Agreeableness; CNV = Conventionality. All loadings multiplied by 100. Loadings 2: 1301
are in boldface.
708
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
Table 4
Five Big Factors of American Natural Language:
American Sample, SelfRatings
Abbreviated
items
Quiet
Reserved
Shy
Energetic
Enthusiastic
Assertive
Talkative
Sociable
Kind
Cooperative
Forgiving
Helpful
Trusting
Quarrelsome
Fault-finding
Cold
Rude
Worrying
Nervous
Tense
Depressed
Moody
Stable
Calm
Relaxed
Thorough
Efficient
Perservering
Planful
Distractible
Careless
Disorganized
Original
Inventive
Sophisticated
Artistic
Imaginative
Reflective
Ingenious
Curious
Simple
Reliable
Not artistic
E
A
-79
07
-69
-67
40
53
59
65
11
08
21
14
-23
05
16
68
56
45
37
35
-40
-43
-51
-58
70
-07
-02
02
03
06
22
03
-25
11
-14
-22
-08
-29
-19
-09
07
-24
-27
-31
26
05
17
-04
-02
00
10
00
-16
05
-04
-01
01
-01
00
05
00
-06
07
-08
12
-06
09
-07
00
-04
14
00
-01
07
06
16
-06
00
-20
-02
-04
-04
21
04
-13
-02
N
C
O
-06
04
13
-19
-13
-10
03
-12
-08
-06
-10
-06
-05
14
14
01
06
67
03
10
-07
20
07
09
-02
-05
-02
00
-07
10
01
-07
-14
-11
-08
04
10
08
-02
-06
-16
-15
-05
-12
-13
-18
-16
-15
-13
65
63
37
35
-59
-59
-75
02
-09
-02
-09
27
-01
-03
-08
-04
00
09
-00
-05
00
-16
18
-00
-01
00
-04
-10
05
-03
00
-13
-12
17
07
02
58
53
49
41
-43
-44
-61
02
06
-02
-10
-09
00
15
-08
-11
28
08
-06
-09
-10
-18
-12
-01
00
-03
-20
-21
-01
-01
-13
-05
-04
56
54
51
50
48
46
40
36
-37
-39
-60
Note. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism; C =
Conscientiousness; O = Openness. All loadings multiplied by 100.
Loadings a: 1301 are in boldface.
dimensional robustness across cultures and targets for the
seven-factor model. However, dimensional robustness and factorial robustness are not equivalent concepts. Consequently, we
also inspected varimax-rotated factor structures for these data
and found that the seven-factor solution was easily recognizable
as the Big Seven structure. This factor pattern is reported in
Table 3. Notice the similarity between the factor loadings in
Table 3 with those of Table 2. Table 3 offers the first evidence
that the Big Seven factor structure is not unique to the selfrating domain, and that at least for Spaniards, it also accounts
for the primary sources of variance in personality peer ratings.
However there are a few minor differences between the structures that warrant comment. For instance, in the peer rating
solution the items Unusual and Odd are no longer primary
markers of Positive Valence, though they do show sizable secondary loadings on this dimension. This suggests that the emigration of these markers from ( - ) Conventionality to Positive
Valence is not aflukeof our self-rating data, but that these quantitative differences between the American and Spanish factor
structures reflect qualitative cultural differences in views of the
self and others.
We believe that the aforementioned analyses support the validity of the Big Seven factor structure in American and Spanish
cultures, and in the self and observer domains. Other researchers might claim that our iconoclastic conclusions—that is, that
the Big Five are not Big enough!—reflects unpropitious sampling of items and participants, and that if we had included
more representative Big Five markers in our analyses the Positive and Negative Valence factors of the Big Seven structure
would have been subsumed by more familiar dimensions. The
soundness of this alternative interpretation of our findings can
be tested in at least two ways. First, because both the American
and Spanish participants in our study completed a well-validated Big Five questionnaire (John et al., 1991) we were able to
test the "poor subject-sampling" hypothesis directly. For instance, if our analyses failed to uncover a Big Five factor structure for the BFI in the American sample we would suspect the
integrity of our data. However, we note that because our study
is the first to assess the Big Five model in a Spanish sample, a
failure to corroborate the Big Five in the Spanish data would be
epistemically ambiguous. We suspected that the probability of
such a failure was low because the Big Five factor structure has
been replicated in several Western European languages and cultures (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, Perugini, 1993; John et
al., 1984). Nevertheless, it was important to test directly this
hypothesis.
Table 4 reports the varimax-rotated factor structure for the
Big Five inventory in the American sample. The first 10 eigenvalues of the correlation matrix (with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal) were: 4.98, 3.60,2.69,2.06, 1.67,0.88,
0.63, 0.49, 0.45, 0.40. As predicted, a noticeable break occurs
after the fifth eigenvalue, a finding that supports afivedimensional structure for this questionnaire. When factor solutions
that ranged from four to six factors were carefully examined,
the varimax-rotatedfive-factorsolution made the most psychological sense. As reported in Table 4, the 43 items of the BFI
provide a well-defined, simple-structure representation of the
Big Five factor model. Only one item, Reliable, failed to load on
its targeted dimension (Conscientiousness); and thus 98% of
the predicted loadings were realized. We conclude from this result that the individuals in our American sample are sufficiently
diverse with respect to the Big Five dimensions to ensure that a
robust Big Five factor structure could emerge in item pools with
sufficient item coverage. Of course, a Big Seven Factor structure
could also emerge given sufficient representation of the Positive
and Negative Valence dimensions. A logical conclusion, then, is
that our previously reported seven dimensional solution for the
American self-rating data on the Big Seven questionnaire cannot be attributed to quirky sampling characteristics of our participant pool.
Having satisfied ourselves that the Big Five questionnaire
provides a compelling Big Five structure in our American sample, we next tested whether a similar structure would emerge
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
Table 5
Five Big Factors of American Natural Language:
Spanish Sample, SelfRatings
Abbreviated
items
Sociable
Talkative
Enthusiastic
Energetic
Curious
Shy
Reserved
Quiet
Kind
Trusting
Helpful
Cooperative
Forgiving
Fault-finding
Cold
Quarrelsome
Rude
Thorough
Planful
Persevering
Efficient
Reliable
Distractible
Careless
Disorganized
Nervous
Moody
Depressed
Worrying
Tense
Assertive
Calm
Relaxed
Stable
Inventive
Imaginative
Original
Artistic
Ingenious
Sophisticated
Reflective
Simple
Not artistic
77
76
58
53
19
-65
-69
-79
02
02
-02
28
00
11
-23
09
-00
-03
-03
-00
-01
-00
08
-01
00
-10
-19
-37
-10
-03
14
01
-09
-04
16
09
13
-03
17
-11
-10
-24
05
11
-01
05
06
04
14
00
01
55
51
47
41
33
-33
-38
-43
-57
01
-07
03
00
15
00
03
-06
-12
-16
-20
05
-12
-05
07
18
14
-10
-05
-16
13
-12
00
-11
-02
-09
-09
-04
-06
00
-09
-06
08
-06
07
-11
-00
02
-07
06
-05
-10
-16
66
58
56
48
29
-41
-64
-69
-15
-12
-01
27
-07
23
04
05
07
-07
-07
-05
-02
-01
-02
16
-04
-05
N
O
-07
12
-16
-26
-19
19
-03
-08
-01
-11
-02
03
-21
17
05
20
13
02
-04
04
-14
-00
33
07
02
68
58
53
48
45
-28
-50
-68
-69
-12
-08
-11
-00
-08
08
01
09
-05
-10
-09
06
07
15
-21
-02
-10
-11
-03
-13
-04
-02
-16
-16
01
-10
-04
-13
-02
02
-09
-14
-04
-01
-06
-08
-10
-08
-15
07
-04
-09
-08
70
66
59
43
42
40
21
-31
-59
Note. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness;
N = Neuroticism; O = Openness. All loadings multiplied by 100. Loadings a 1301 are in boldface.
from the Spanish self-ratings. The first 10 eigenvalues from the
correlation matrix (with squared multiple correlations on the
diagonal) for these data were: 4.92,3.60,2.55,2.45,1.55,1.08,
0.68, 0.56, 0.52, 0.44. The moderate break between the fifth
and sixth eigenvalues in the eigenvalue profile suggests that a
five dimensional solution is plausible. This hypothesis was corroborated when we examined alternative varimax-rotated solutions for the Big Five items. The final factor structure for the
Spanish self-ratings in the Big Five inventory is reported in Table 5. As can be seen in this table, the major features of the Five
Factor model are immediately recognizable. Although a couple
of items failed to load strongly on their targeted dimensions
(e.g., Curious, Assertive), for the most part these data provide
709
additional evidence for the Big Five model when the item pool
is restricted to carefully selected Big Five markers.
A second means of evaluating the structural validity of our
results, and the domain coverage of our Big Seven item pool, is
to perform a joint factor analysis of the Big Seven and Big Five
questionnaires. This analysis was performed in the American
and Spanish data sets. For the American data, the first 10 eigenvalues of the 113 X 113 item correlation matrix (with squared
multiple correlations on the diagonal) were: 11.41, 7.78, 5.18,
4.75, 3.74, 3.35, 2.14, 1.83, 1.54, 1.33. The corresponding eigenvalues in the Spanish sample were: 11.17, 8.95, 5.98, 5.46,
3.30, 2.75, 2.14, 1.84, 1.72, 1.50. Although these eigenvalue
profiles are less informative than those previously reported (in
the sense that they do not suggest strongly seven- or five-factor
models), when the various rotated solutions were inspected the
evidence in favor of the seven-factor model was overwhelming.
For instance, when we examined thefive-dimensionalsolution
for the joint factor analysis in the American data, 50% of the
Big Seven markers for Positive and Negative Valence failed to
load saliently (defined as a loading S: .30) on any of the five
dimensions. Similar results were found in the Spanish data. Tables 6 and 7 report the varimax-rotated, seven-factor solutions
from these analyses. These tables reveal that even when univocal markers of the Big Five factor structure are included with
Big Seven markers, a robust and psychologically imperious Big
Seven structure emerges. Notice that in the joint factor analyses
the Positive and Negative Valence factors are defined almost exclusively by Big Seven items. Indeed, only one Big Five marker,
Ingenious, loaded on Positive Valence in the American and
Spanish solutions, and none of the Big Five markers loaded on
Negative Valence. Thisfindingrepresents cogent evidence that
Positive and Negative Valence are psychologically differentiated
personality constructs that cannot be subsumed by the Five Factor model. These analyses offer additionalfindingsthat warrant
comment. For example, paralleling the Spanish peer- and selfreport data on the Big Seven inventory, in the Spanish joint factor analysis, the terms Unusual and Odd-Peculiar continue to
be salient markers of Positive Valence. Notice, moreover, that
the paragon Conventionality marker, Conventional, also loads
saliently on Positive Valence in the Spanish joint factor analysis,
afindingthat further bolsters our earlier interpretation that unconventionality—as represented by such terms as Unusual,
Odd, Peculiar, and (reversed) Conventional—is a positively valued trait in Spanish society.1
Discussion
Using a cross-cultural and cross-target design, a primary goal
of our study was to demonstrate that the Big Seven factor struc1
We also measured the congruence between the respective factor solutions with the Kaiser-Hunka-Bianchini (KHB; Kaiser, Hunka, & Bianchini, 1971) index of factor similarity. This procedure projects factors from two solutions into a common space and calculates the cosines
of the angles for corresponding test vectors. These cosines can be interpreted as correlations between corresponding test vectors. The overall
KHB index represents the average cosine across all test vectors. The
obtained similarity indices were as follows: (a) The American and
Spanish Self Rating on the Big 7: .903; (b) The Spanish Self and Peer
Ratings on the Big 7: .938; (c) The American and Spanish joint factor
solutions for the Big 7 and Big 5: .890. These values provide additional
evidence for the cross cultural robustness of the Big 7 factors.
710
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
Table 6
Joint Factor Analysis ofBig Seven and Big Five Questionnaires: American Sample, SelfRatings
Abbreviated items
Outstanding
Impressive
Excellent
Exceptional
Admirable
Important
High ranking
Ingenious
Ordinary
Average
Not exceptional
Wicked
Awful
Deserves to be hated
Dangerous
Disgusting
Cruel
Mentally sick
Treacherous
Depraved
Vicious
Gregarious
Talkative
Sociable
Talkative
Sociable
Animated
Peppy
Enthusiastic
Assertive
Playful
Energetic
Impulsive
Not talkative
Loner
Shy
Reserved
Reserved
Quiet
Quiet
Worrying
Nervous
Nervous
Tense
Irritated
Feelings hurt
Jittery
Sorry for myself
Feels guilty
Depressed
Moody
Calm
Stable
Not overworrving
Worries aside
Not frustrated
Not easily upset
Relaxed
Well organized
Tidy
Orderly
Place for everything
Efficient
Thorough
Prompt
Planful
Persevering
PVAL
73
70
67
61
55
51
44
34
-56
-59
-65
06
-03
-06
04
-12
03
04
-01
01
-00
06
01
09
-05
-01
05
12
16
16
03
11
04
-11
-13
-20
-02
-06
-05
-08
-02
-08
-04
-02
-20
-22
-04
-19
-16
-09
-05
11
02
-00
-02
00
-02
01
-00
-07
04
-10
02
-02
-03
-02
04
NVAL
-00
-00
02
02
-08
-09
-03
-07
-08
-01
-10
74
68
64
56
55
55
54
47
45
44
06
09
02
07
-03
-01
-11
-02
03
-04
-05
-07
-09
-03
-01
-13
-09
-13
-04
02
-04
-09
-01
00
01
-09
01
-00
13
04
06
-06
-01
-03
-04
-06
05
-03
00
-03
-03
-04
-07
-04
00
-08
PEM
09
12
06
12
08
13
16
-05
-08
-16
-15
02
01
01
-01
03
-02
06
03
11
06
71
71
69
69
61
60
56
53
50
40
38
38
-54
-55
-58
-60
-62
-72
-73
-11
-20
-07
-10
-05
-12
-10
-11
-12
-31
-19
-03
-01
03
00
02
05
02
-01
00
-13
-03
-05
-04
-03
02
02
CNV
NEM
-10
-15
-17
-11
-14
-16
-11
04
-05
04
07
-00
01
-04
-07
-03
-05
-01
03
09
05
-11
03
-12
03
-10
-06
-13
-12
-12
11
-20
-13
-01
05
15
09
08
-01
-02
68
62
60
59
55
55
54
50
46
42
36
00
-00
09
-03
03
03
09
07
07
01
02
-01
-00
01
-04
00
-00
-16
-11
-06
00
-04
-04
-06
03
-10
-06
04
03
10
-10
17
-24
-02
05
00
05
07
05
-00
07
-00
-05
-00
-08
-01
-10
-11
-52
-59
-02
-08
-12
07
12
-61
-64
-67
-67
-68
-01
09
06
14
-14
-08
-06
-13
-12
-16
-10
-05
-03
04
73
69
66
64
49
46
45
40
34
-06
-11
-01
-08
-07
01
-20
00
-04
-02
13
-03
-10
-07
-32
-14
14
26
07
30
02
13
-02
03
06
00
-08
-03
-14
-14
-03
00
-06
-10
-01
09
-06
06
-01
-00
01
-30
03
03
-07
-00
05
12
05
-06
14
-01
-17
00
11
-06
05
-05
-34
-06
-01
-14
-04
14
-09
-23
11
05
-09
-05
20
02
-02
08
21
11
19
05
16
10
-02
06
09
08
-04
-06
-20
06
-17
06
03
04
01
00
00
06
04
04
-15
07
-22
01
07
-00
21
07
-01
-01
00
00
08
-01
20
-01
18
03
01
06
06
07
01
11
04
10
-05
20
-13
16
-01
08
08
-00
-05
01
(table continues)
711
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
Table 6 (continued)
Abbreviated items
Consistent
Improvises
Distractible
Careless
Disorganized
Disorganized
Rude
Quarrelsome
Ouarrelsome
Argumentative
Stubborn
Strong
Tough
Put up fieht
Cold
Fault-finding
Headstrong
Helpful
Trv avoid differences
Trusting
Forgiving
Lenient
Dislike argument
Cooperative
Kind
Original
Artistic
Inventive
Unusual
Sophisticated
Imaginative
Radical
Reflective
Curious
Strange
Odd
Progressive
Cautious
Old-fashioned
No permissive parents
Strict discipline
Reliable
Simple
Traditional
Conventional
Not artistic
PVAL
-20
-00
-13
-10
-06
-11
-10
01
-12
-02
-06
15
04
03
02
-08
20
-02
-10
-02
-10
-12
-13
-13
01
16
01
07
19
18
08
04
07
03
-09
-07
-01
-15
-11
-03
00
-13
-19
-10
-21
-06
NVAL
-09
-00
06
-00
-06
06
09
19
10
02
-02
-03
-07
-09
07
00
-15
02
01
-13
03
00
-02
-08
-08
-02
02
-03
-01
07
-01
12
-06
-05
08
09
-02
-10
-18
-13
-09
-17
11
-16
-12
04
PEM
-19
23
-02
06
07
-06
02
11
04
08
-00
22
02
09
-33
-07
18
05
-24
13
09
01
-21
03
00
14
-00
11
00
-01
18
-04
06
08
-13
-16
04
-13
-07
-03
01
-04
-01
02
-04
-08
CNV
NEM
-07
-17
26
-00
-13
-03
06
12
02
06
15
-19
01
-00
09
18
-01
-13
15
-06
-20
-16
15
-12
-11
-05
05
-05
-03
03
05
-01
00
-14
07
13
-10
14
06
02
05
-08
14
-04
-05
-01
32
-30
-34
-42
-55
-66
-06
-08
-09
-18
-04
10
03
01
-02
03
00
03
04
04
-07
-14
12
01
-04
-02
-02
-02
-26
09
-11
-14
-02
-08
-32
-28
-08
19
07
04
07
22
-02
11
12
-01
17
-00
05
-15
-06
05
-55
-54
-50
-49
-47
-45
-43
-43
-40
-37
-36
23
29
30
38
39
42
51
57
00
20
-04
-22
16
-02
-13
06
-00
-16
-16
-11
12
19
00
-00
-02
10
25
13
-22
17
-22
07
-01
-21
06
-00
15
03
-00
03
-12
03
05
06
09
-05
16
11
19
07
01
06
18
25
-49
-49
-48
-45
-45
-43
-40
-40
-37
-33
-29
-29
22
28
28
32
38
38
40
42
50
Note. PVAL = Positive Valence; NVAL = Negative Valence; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; C = Conscientiousness; A = Agreeableness; CNV = Conventionality. Big Seven descriptors are underlined. All loadings multiplied by 100. Loadings a 1301 are in boldface.
ture captures the major sources of variance in self- and peerratings on American, lexically derived personality descriptors.
A secondary goal was to demonstrate that the widely accepted
Big Five factor structure (McCrae & John, 1992; though see
Waller, in press) cannot subsume the Positive and Negative Valence dimensions of the Big Seven (Tellegen, 1993; Waller &
Zavala, 1993; Widiger, 1993). To achieve these goals we analyzed five data sets from American and Spanish participants
who completed self- and peer-ratings on Big Seven (Tellegen et
al., 1991) and Big Five (John et al., 1991) questionnaires. Despite well-known difficulties that are encountered when endemic personality questionnaires are transported to foreign lan-
guages and cultures (Brislin, 1980), our results revealed impressive similarities among the Big Seven factor structures in
the American and Spanish samples and the self and observer
data. However, our findings also revealed some intriguing
differences between the American and Spanish Big Seven solutions. For instance, we found that Americans and Spaniards attach evaluatively different meanings to markers of the Conventionality continuum. In all Big Seven structures from the Spanish data, several Conventionality markers loaded prominently
on the Positive Valence (e.g., Odd-Peculiar, Unusual-Unconventional, Conventional), or (reversed) Positive Emotionality
(e.g., Strange) dimensions. In aggregate, however, our findings
712
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
Table 7
Joint Factor Analysis ofBig Seven and Big Five Questionnaires: Spanish Sample, Self-Ratings
Abbreviated items
PVAL
NVAL
PEM
NEM
Outstanding
Excellent
Exceptional
Admirable
Unusual
Important
Impressive
High ranking
Odd
Ingenious
Old-fashioned
Conventional
Ordinary
Average
Not exceptional
Wicked
Awful
Vicious
Cruel
Disgusting
Treacherous
Deserve hated
Mentally sick
Depraved
Dangerous
Talkative
Talkative
Sociable
Gregarious
Sociable
Animated
Enthusiastic
Energetic
Impulsive
Peppy
Playful
Cooperative
Strange
Loner
Shy
Reserved
Reserved
Don't Talk much
Quiet
Quiet
Nervous
Depressed
Jittery
Nervous
Moody
Feelings hurt
Worrying
Guilty
Irritated
Feel sorry for myself
Tense
Curious
Strong
Assertive
Calm
Not overworrving
Not frustrated
Worries out of mind
Relaxed
Stable
Well organized
64
63
61
06
-05
-08
-07
01
-14
00
05
00
06
14
-01
-10
-04
02
68
65
65
61
47
46
39
00
01
04
15
00
16
27
11
00
11
-19
-15
04
-07
-03
05
-14
-13
-04
-13
-05
-12
49
49
48
45
43
39
33
-21
-33
-63
-65
-67
00
-04
-06
-00
-18
-01
-00
05
11
07
-01
-05
05
-05
-10
05
18
16
08
19
15
-14
13
-06
-22
-09
-08
-10
-10
-11
-07
-07
-02
-07
00
-12
00
-07
-01
-27
-08
02
19
09
10
-03
04
-01
-08
-06
-03
39
34
30
04
07
08
01
-10
-10
02
-11
04
-13
-03
-12
07
02
-09
-07
-04
-06
-00
-10
05
11
05
01
02
-08
-06
-06
-02
-01
00
-04
-11
-06
-03
-01
05
-02
-06
00
-06
03
02
-04
05
07
-08
-06
02
-00
79
78
78
62
61
59
54
48
45
44
40
36
-35
-52
-54
-68
-74
-74
-76
-77
-02
-34
-03
00
-13
-02
-04
-08
-11
-19
00
15
23
10
-04
10
15
08
-16
-08
-00
-02
-16
06
-06
05
-04
-03
-02
04
-08
-04
-01
03
-09
05
03
27
03
00
10
04
-11
-10
-10
-27
-22
-35
-04
-36
-01
-01
18
06
23
03
10
-12
00
-01
65
64
64
59
58
55
54
51
51
51
41
-22
-33
-35
-45
-47
-61
-62
-64
-66
-10
c
A
CNV
09
12
00
17
-12
04
-09
03
-21
-03
06
28
-02
00
02
-05
-04
-04
02
-04
-09
-04
-16
-14
-12
-07
-01
-09
-02
-09
-09
-05
00
-33
02
-19
05
-13
-05
-03
08
03
00
-03
07
-12
-03
-09
-09
-14
00
24
-09
05
-10
-05
-12
09
24
-00
-14
-01
-08
08
13
74
02
09
00
09
-22
04
-10
-03
-07
04
-07
-12
-21
-13
-10
07
-15
-30
12
28
20
12
13
-04
-06
-10
05
-12
05
13
-09
-01
-08
01
07
11
-02
-06
08
-01
-03
-13
-05
-13
-00
-00
01
18
-00
08
-03
07
-02
06
06
-05
-09
08
-02
06
06
04
08
13
-20
01
-07
04
-02
-00
-04
07
07
04
-13
-01
04
20
13
05
07
06
04
-06
00
10
-13
-15
-07
-11
-21
-08
-12
08
29
24
18
01
-11
-03
08
03
30
-20
-13
14
08
01
24
13
22
-16
-08
-16
-23
-11
05
01
-01
-25
-02
-11
-00
-20
-16
13
03
09
09
21
14
02
(table continues)
713
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
Table 7 (continued)
Abbreviated items
PVAL
NVAL
PEM
NEM
C
Orderly
Thorough
Place for everything
Tidy
Planful
Persevering
Prompt
Efficient
Headstrong
Cautious
Consistent
Reliable
Strict discipline
Distractible
Like improvise
Careless
Disorganized
Disorganized
Argumentative
-02
-01
-11
-05
08
04
-07
18
09
-16
-26
-02
-08
-16
00
-11
-06
-11
-03
-01
03
' 03
69
65
63
04
Ouarrelsome
-09
Quarrelsome
Tough
Rude
Put up fight
Stubborn
Fault-finding
Forgiving
Trusting
Lenient
Helpful
Kind
Not easily upset
Dislike argument
Try to avoid
differences
Inventive
Imaginative
01
00
-13
-02
-07
-01
-09
-17
-17
-08
-06
-10
-08
01
08
-13
-11
24
Original
Artistic
Sophisticated
Progressive
Radical
Reflective
Simple
Traditional
No artistic
No permissive
parents
Cold
02
-00
-18
13
12
20
00
10
05
01
02
-18
-20
-16
00
00
-02
-13
-12
-03
01
-01
03
-04
-02
-07
00
-05
-02
-17
-21
-18
07
-23
-01
-03
-07
15
15
01
-01
00
13
13
04
-15
-02
04
03
09
00
10
23
-02
-02
08
-03
09
17
-00
05
01
-06
-14
-01
-19
-18
00
10
03
07
03
-00
09
13
-17
-05
-02
05
00
-01
13
13
03
-02
-01
03
-06
-13
-05
-07
-04
-01
-08
30
-07
03
-02
-00
05
14
17
10
13
11
07
17
-22
-14
63
58
52
48
44
35
30
27
25
19
-37
-58
-62
-65
CNV
03
-00
05
09
-08
03
-04
05
-00
-00
00
-03
04
00
14
07
09
15
11
-17
06
-05
06
-06
-11
-02
13
02
01
-01
21
-05
-01
13
16
18
11
-01
-03
06
01
-03
-74
-09
-10
-09
-08
-62
09
-13
-58
-56
-06
12
-01
-00
-08
-11
-17
-50
-47
-46
-40
-38
28
34
42
09
00
-07
-03
-35
-04
08
-13
00
44
45
45
10
00
01
15
-04
-12
-02
-06
02
-66
08
-08
10
-00
-10
08
-04
-11
-21
-01
04
-07
-05
06
-06
-07
47
-00
01
-06
06
-02
-21
-17
-04
-15
06
06
-28
-03
00
02
16
-01
-04
-01
-09
07
-05
02
00
-23
-16
12
01
25
-00
-06
-06
03
27
-06
-63
-57
-39
-34
-34
-25
-23
31
34
52
-26
-26
20
20
06
Note. PVAL = Positive Valence; NVAL = Negative Valence; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; C = Conscientiousness; A = Agreeableness; CNV = Conventionality. Big Seven descriptors are underlined and Big Five descriptors are in regular print. All loadings multiplied by 100. Loadings
S; 1301 are in boldface.
provide strong evidence for the cross-cultural generality of the
Big Seven. Assuming that we accept the veracity of these findings, can we claim that the Big Seven provides a universal framework for personality description? Or, taking a less ambitious
stance, can we claim that the Big Seven represents a compelling
framework for organizing Spanish personality descriptors? For
both of the questions the answer is no, for the following reasons.
First, our study utilized an imposed-etic design (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992) to test the generality of the Big
Seven factor structure in a Spanish sample. In this design, we
administered a translated version of a Big Seven questionnaire—a questionnaire that was originally developed to reflect
the structural organization of the American English personality
lexicon (Tellegen & Waller, 1987)—to a large sample of Spaniards. Thus, before claiming that the Big Seven truly represents
the structure of Spanish personality descriptors, investigators
must first apply an emic design that is sensitive to culturally
specific aspects of personality organization in Spain. In this latter approach, trait terms would be sampled from the entire corpus of Spanish personality descriptors, rather than imported
714
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
from America (Benet, 1994). We do not wish to understate the
value of etic designs in cross-cultural research, however. The
importance of our study rests not on its ability to prove the
universal status of the Big Seven factor structure, which was not
our intention, but rather on its ability to demonstrate that the
seven dimensions of this structure—and especially the Positive
and Negative Valence dimensions—represent something more
than a model of how Americans organize natural language personality trait terms.
As noted previously, our findings also provide evidence for
culturally idiosyncratic differences for several Big Seven markers. For instance, several ( - ) Conventionality items in the
American data were markers of Positive Valence and ( —) Positive Emotionality in the Spanish data. Certainly, these associative patterns are suggestive of the specific societal values that
Spaniards attach to perceptions of unconventionality and introversion. To fully appreciate these associations, first consider
recent cross-cultural research on value orientations.
That cultures differ on value orientations is a prominent
theme in contemporary cross-cultural research. Among the diverse value orientations that have been described in recent years
(Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990; see Berry et al.,
1992, for a review), one in particular—the individualism-collectivism distinction (Triandis, 1990)—seems most relevant
for interpreting our results. Individualism and collectivism describe an individual's orientation toward person-centered
(Agentic) or public-centered (Communal) aspects of social existence. In individualistic societies, evaluations of the self and
others are based primarily on personal achievement, excellence,
the uniqueness of personal attributes and independence
(Oyserman, 1993; Spence, 1985). In collectivist societies, on
the other hand, evaluations of self and others are based on
whether an individual 'belongs to' or 'fits in' to a social network
that stresses interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1990; Oyserman, 1993).
The United States is often described as an individualistic society par excellence (Hofstede, 1980; Spence, 1985). As a
group, Americans place a high value on personal success and
uniqueness, and not surprisingly, the American English lexicon
contains numerous terms denoting uniqueness and self-worth.
Many of these terms are markers of the Positive Valence dimension of the Big Seven, which indicates that in self or other ascriptions of personality these terms cohere in an organized
manner. Certainly, to describe oneself or others as Outstanding,
Admirable or High ranking, requires the kind of cognitive selfother differentiations that are fostered by an individualistic
value orientation.
Spain, on the other hand, is usually described-along with
other Southern European and Latin American cultures-as a
predominantly collectivist society (Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Triandis, 1990), and our results support this characterization.
For example, we found that Spaniards place a high value on the
social facets of Positive Emotionality. Spaniards who are low on
Positive Emotionality describe themselves as being a loner who
is reserved and quiet. By itself, this finding is not unusual because these markers also define low Positive Emotionality in the
American sample. However, in contrast to Americans, Spaniards who are low on this dimension also describe themselves as
being strange. The conjunction of introversion and strangeness
is also found in Spanish peer ratings. Overall, these results sup-
port the contention that collectivist societies-such as Spain—
value affiliation (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Nevertheless, our results also reveal that Spaniards value being different from the collective. For instance, in the Spanish
self-ratings, terms such as Unconventional, Peculiar and Odd
load on the same dimension as Outstanding, Admirable, and
High Ranking! This finding suggests that Spaniards also endorse a 'radical' form of individualism. Certainly in their selfother evaluations, Spaniards go well beyond the achievementbased perceptions of excellence and uniqueness that characterize the American Positive Valence dimension.
In summary, Spaniards hold two seemingly contradictory
values. On the one hand they value social interaction—that is,
being with people—whereas, on the other hand, they value social distinction—that is, being different from people. As Vega
McVeagh (1990)—an American correspondent in Spain—observed in her recent portrayal of Spaniards:
"
gregariousness is the norm. This does not conflict with
individualism in the Iberian sense when one realizes that the larger
the gathering, the larger the potential audience and the opportunity
for showing offand announcing 'this is me" . . . . An internal selfsufficiency
expressed through wit, grandiloquent phrases,
appearance, courtesy, generosity, and pride. The result is that often
the most arrogant person is the most charming" (italics added,
McVeagh, 1990, p. 68).
In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the Big Seven factor structure that characterizes self-ratings on American English, natural-language personality descriptors can also be recovered in Spanish self- and peer-ratings of personality. Factor
structures for a Big Seven and Big Five questionnaire were very
similar in the two cultures. Moreover, joint factor analyses of
the two questionnaires yielded congruent seven-factor solutions
that included the recently described Positive and Negative Valence dimensions (Tellegen, 1993; Tellegen& Waller, 1987; Waller, in press; Waller & Zavala, 1983). These dimensions played
an important role in our results. Because our study included
markers of the self-other evaluation factors, we were able to elucidate psychologically meaningful differences in the ways in
which Americans and Spaniards evaluate Conventionality and
Positive Emotionality trait indicators. These differences would
not have been uncovered had we limited our study to the widely
accepted Big Five factor structure, a result that supports our
view that previously banished evaluative terms should be reintroduced into lexically derived personality taxonomies. This
idea is also consistent with several converging themes in contemporary personality theory. Borkenau, for example, believes
that "the main purpose of trait terms is not so much to describe
but rather to evaluate people . . . ." (italics added, Borkenau,
1990, p. 394). Hogan contended that "the primary function of
trait ascription is to evaluate other people. . ." (italics added;
1982, p. 60). Buss (1991) expresses similar views. Perhaps
these opinions reflect a growing consensus on the importance of
evaluation in personality description and measurement. If they
do, then isn't it time to evaluate the Big Five?
References
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical
study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 211.
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1993). Further explorations
ofthe basic dimensions ofnatural language trait descriptors. Unpublished manuscript, University of Haifa.
Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, E, & John, O. P. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study.
European Journal ofPersonality, 4, 89-118.
Benet, V. (1994). Towards a Spanish taxonomy ofpersonality descriptors: Generality of the Big Seven factor model with indigenous and
imported constructs. Unpublished dissertation, University of California at Davis.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In H. Triandis &
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 1-28). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992).
Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of thefive-factorapproach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.
Bond, M., Nakazato, H., & Shiraishi, D. (1975). Universality and distinctiveness in dimensions of Japanese person perception. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 346-57.
Borkenau, P. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 381-396.
Briggs, S. R. (1992). Assessing the Five-Factor model of personality
description. Journal ofPersonality, 60, 253-293.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of
cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Brokken, F. B. (1978). The language of personality. Meppel, The Netherlands: Krips.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review ofPsychology, 42,459-491.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to
personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105-126.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and the clarity of the self-concept.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C, Borgogni, L., & Perugini, M. (1993).
The "Big Five Questionnaire": A new questionnaire to assess the Five
Factor Model. Personality & Individual Differences, 15, 281 -288.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 38,
476-506.
Cattell, R. B. (1945). The principal trait clusters for describing personality. Psychological Bulletin, 42, 129-161.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1988). The emic strategy in the
identification and assessment of personality dimensions in a nonwestern culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 140-163.
Costa, P. T, & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory
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 ofPersonality, 6, 15-29.
De Raad, B., & Hoskens, M. (1990). Personality descriptive nouns.
European Journal ofPersonality, 4, 89-115.
De Raad, B., Mulder, E., Kloosterman, K., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1988).
Personality descriptive verbs. European Journal ofPersonality, 2, 81—
96.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the fivefactor model. Annual Review ofPsychology, 41,417-440.
Dunlap, W. P., & Cornell, J. M. (1994). Factor analysis of ipsative measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 115-126.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal ofAbnormal and Social
Psychology, 4, 329-344.
715
Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 42,
181.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The
search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler (Ed.), Review ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 2, 141-165.
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the
language of personality. In Spielberger & Butcher (Eds.), Advances in
Personality Assessment, 1, 203-234.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "Description of Personality":
The Big-Five factor structure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 4, 26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits.
American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1983). The Adjective Check List
manual (Rev.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hamilton, D. L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme
response style. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 192-203.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences
in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstee, W. K. (1990). The use of everyday personality language for
scientific purposes. European Journal ofPersonality, 4, 77-88.
Hogan, R. (1982). A socio-analytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1982: Personality-Current theory and research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hooper, J. (1987). The Spaniards: A portrait ofthe new Spain. London:
Penguin Books.
John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In
D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends
and emerging directions (pp. 261 -271). New York: Springer-Verlag.
John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of
personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A.
Per vin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66100). New York: Guilford Press.
John, Q P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research.
European Journal ofPersonality, 2, 171-203.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The "BigFive"
Inventory-Versions 4a and54. Technical Report. IPAR. University of
California at Berkeley.
John, O. P., Goldberg, L. R., & Angleitner, A. (1984). Better than the
alphabet: Taxonomies of personality-descriptive terms in English,
Dutch, and German. In H. Bonarius, G. van Heck, & N. Smid (Eds.),
Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and empirical developments(pp. 83-110). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to
positive and negative emotional states. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140.
Loevinger, J. (1994). Has psychology lost its conscience? Journal of
Personality Assessment, 62, 2-8.
Markus, H., & Cross, S. (1990). The interpersonal self. In L. A. Pervin
(Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theoryand research (pp. 576-608).
New York: Guilford Press.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,
224-253.
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The Five-Factor Model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal ofPersonality, 60, 175-215.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Clinical assessment can benefit
from recent advances in personality psychology. American Psychologist, 41, 1001-1002.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor
716
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of
Tellegen, A., Grove, W. M., & Waller, N. G. (1991). Inventory of PerPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
sonal Characteristics #7 (IPC- 7). Unpublished materials, University
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). Introduction to the five-factor
of Minnesota.
model and its applications. Journal ofPersonality, 60, 175-215.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1987). Reexamining basic dimensions of
natural language trait descriptors. 95 annual meeting ofthe American
McVeagh, V. (1990). People. In K. Wheaton (Ed.), Inside guides:
Psychological Association, (abstract).
Spain. Singapore: APA Publications.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (in press). Exploring personality through
Meyer, G. J., & Shack, J. R. (1989). Structural convergence of mood
test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality
and personality: Evidence for old and new directions. Journal ofPerQuestionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measonality and Social Psychology, 5 7, 691 -706.
sures: Development and evaluation (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality
Press.
attributes. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative The American Heritage Dictionary. (1985). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
operating characteristicsfor a university population. Ann Arbor: Uni- Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 323-337). Linversity of Michigan, Department of Psychology.
coln: University of Nebraska Press.
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and
others in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Tupes, E. C, & Christal, R. C. (1992). Recurrent personality factors
based on trait ratings. Journal ofPersonality, 60, 225-251.
Psychology, 65, 993-1009.
Waller, N. G. (in press). Evaluating the structure of personality. In C. R.
Peabody, D. (1967). Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 7 Cloninger(Ed-), Personality and psychopathology. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
(4, Whole No. 644).
Waller, N. G., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1987). Is it time for clinical psycholPeabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal of
ogy to embrace the FFM of personality? American Psychologist, 42,
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.
887-889.
Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor
Waller,
N. G., & Zavala, J. (1993). Evaluating the Big Five. Psychologistructures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality
cal
Inquiry,
4, 131-134.
and Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.
Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (submitted). Multivariate taxometric
Pervin, L. A. (1990). A brief history of modern personality theory. In
methods. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Danis.
L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: GenNew York: Guilford Press.
eral and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to
Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structhe Five-Factor model. Journal ofPersonality, 60, 441-476.
ture of personality attributes. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psy- Widiger, T. A. (1993). The DSM-IH-R categorical personality disorder
chology, 66, 141-154.
diagnoses: A critique and an alternative. Psychological Inquiry, 4,1 {Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky (1990). Toward a theory of the universal
93.
content and structure of values: Extension and cross-cultural replicaWiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive
tions. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.
terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social
Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and
Psychology, 37, 395-412.
costs of individuality. American Psychologist, 40, 1285-1295.
Yang, K., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theoTellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their releries with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case.
vance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087-1095.
Tuma& J. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681Received October 17,1994
706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Revision received December 30,1994
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of perAccepted February 2,1995 •
sonality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122-130.
SPANISH BIG SEVEN
Appendix
The Items of the IPC-7 and BFI: American and Spanish Translations
American IPC-7
1. not easily upset
2. don't talk much, uncommunicative
3. conventional
4. exceptional, special
5. dangerous to others, harmful
6. others think I am quarrelsome and contentious
7. quiet
8. reserved, distant
9. often feel guilty for no reason
10. important, significant
11. easy on others, lenient
12. rather put a fight that make a concession
13. average, unremarkable
14. disgusting, horrible
15. consistent, predictable
16. strong, forceful
17. lively, animated
18. often irritated my minor setbacks
19. tough, uncompromising
20. talkative
21. like things to be a bit disorganized and chaotic
22. prefer to be alone, a loner
23. playful
24. can put worries out of mind
25. gregarious, sociable
26. vicious, nasty
27. do things in an orderly and systematic manner
28. often jumpy and jittery
29. hold traditional values and beliefs
30. awful, terrible
31. stubborn, obstinate
32. an ordinary, everyday person
33. wicked, evil
34. get into arguments, argumentative
35. deserve to be admired
36. peppy, spirited
37. high-ranking, powerful
38. do not worry about little things
39. feelings are easily hurt
40. keep belongings neat and tidy
41. politically radical, hold revolutionary views
42. prompt, puntual, get things done on time
43. don't let many things bother or frustrate me
44. cautious, circumspect
45. believe that strict discipline at home would prevent
most of the crime in society today
46. odd, peculiar
47. impressive, remarkable
48. headstrong, willful
49. unusual, unconventional
50. excellent, first-rate
51. dislike arguments and conflict
52. well-organized
53. deserve to be hated
54. like to improvise, 'play things by ear'
55. nervous, high-strung
56. cruel, mean
57. believe that most parents are too permissive, let their
Spanish IPC-7
1. dificil de alterar
2. poco habladora
3. convencional, tradicional
4. exceptional, especial
5. peligrosa para los demas, perjudicial
6. la gente piensa que me gusta discutir
7. callada
8. reservada, distante
9. a menudo se siente culpable sin motivo
10. importante, significante
11. de trato facil, indulgente
12. se pelea antes que ceder
13. promedio, nada extraordinario
14. repugnante, asquerosa
15. consecuente, predecible
16. fuerte, energica
17. animada, alegre
18. a menudo se molesta por pequenos contratiempos
19. dura, intransigente
20. habladora
21. le gustan las cosas un poco desorganizadas y caoticas
22. prefiere estar sola, solitaria
23. juguetona, traviesa
24. sabe poner poner las preocupaciones a un lado
25. gusta de la compania, sociable
26. malvada, ruin
27. hace las cosas de forma ordenada y sistematica
28. a menudo esti intranquila, inquieta
29. tiene valores y creencias tradicionales
30. horrible, terrible
31. testaruda, obstinada
32. una persona normal y corriente, del monton
33. malvada, cruel
34. entra en disputas, discutidora
35. digna de admiration
36. llena de vida y energia
37. de alto rango, poderosa
38. no se preocupa por pequeneces
39. es facil herir sus sentimientos
40. limpia y ordenada con sus cosas
41. de ideas politicas radicales, revolucionarias
42. puntual, acaba las cosas a tiempo
43. no se deja frustrar por muchas cosas
44. cauta, precavida
45. cree que con disciplina mas estricta en el hogar se prevendria el
crimen
46. rara, peculiar
47. llama la atencion, notable
48. testaruda, terca
49. inusual, poco convencional
50. excelente, de primera
51. no le gustan las discusiones ni las situaciones conflictivas
52. bien organizada
53. digna de ser odiada
54. le gusta improvisar, hacer las cosas sobre la marcha
55. nerviosa, tensa
56. cruel, mal intencionada
57. cree que muchos padres son demasiado blandos, que
(Appendix continues on next page)
717
718
VERONICA BENET AND NIELS G. WALLER
Appendix
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
children gee away with too much
outstanding, superior
often feel sorry for myself
strange
spontaneous, impulsive
depraved, perverted
try to avoid difficulties with other people
mentally disturbed, sick
not exceptional, not that special
like to be with people, sociable
treacherous, disloyal
conservative
like to have a place for everything and everything in its place
progressive, favor social reform
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
consienten a sus hijos
sobresaliente, superior
siente compasion por si misma con frecuencia
estrana
espontanea, impulsiva
depravada, pervertida
intenta evitar tener problemas con la gente
transtornada. mentalmente enferma
nada excepcional o especial
le gusta estar con la gente, sociable
traidora, desleal
conservadora
le gusta tener un sitio para cada cosa y cada cosa en su sitio
de ideas progresistas, a favor del cambio social
Received October 17, 1994
Revision received December 30, 1994
Accepted February 2, 1995