Lexical studies of Filipino person descriptors: adding personality‐relevant social and physical attributes

Abstract

Lexical studies have focused on traits. In the Filipino language, we investigated whether additional dimensions can be identified when personality-relevant terms for social roles, statuses, and effects, plus physical attributes, are included. Filipino students (N = 496) rated themselves on 268 such terms, plus 253 markers of trait and evaluative dimensions. We identified 10 dimensions of social and physical attributes-Prominence, Uselessness, Attractiveness, Respectability, Uniqueness, Destructiveness, Presentableness, Strength, Dangerousness, and Charisma. Most of these dimensions did not correspond in a one-to-one manner to Filipino or alternative trait models (Big Five, HEXACO, ML7). However, considerable redundancy was observed between the social and physical attribute dimensions and trait and evaluative dimensions. Thus, social and physical attributes communicate information about personality traits, and vice-versa. Keywords personality structure; indigenous; Philippines; lexical studiesThe natural language provides a useful starting point for describing the nature and number of ways that people differ, an important task in the study of personality and individual differences (Goldberg, 1981;Saucier, 1997). Use of the natural language to develop comprehensive taxonomies or classifications of person-descriptive terms is based on the lexical hypothesis, which states that "those individual differences that are most salient and socially relevant in people's lives will eventually become encoded into their language" (Goldberg, 1982, p. 204). In the typical lexical study, comprehensive or representative sets of person-descriptive terms, usually trait adjectives, have been used to obtain self or peer ratings, and factor analyses have been conducted to identify the dimensions that account for the covariation among the terms. When conducted in diverse languages, lexical studies can identify cross-cultural universals in personality language, individual-differences dimensions, and person perception categories, but might also reveal how cultural differences in values and experiences influence persondescriptive categories (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996; John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, Address correspondence to: A. Timothy Church, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Cleveland Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2136, church@mail.wsu.edu; Fax: (509) Phone: (509) 1988). In the present study, we extended previous lexical research in the Philippines (e.g., Church et al., 1996;Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997) by examining additional categories of person description-in particular, terms for social roles, statuses and effects, and physical anatomy and appearance-and by relating the derived Filipino dimensions to alternative structural models in the literature. The results are important for (a) indigenous psychology, in further clarifying the structure or dimensionality of person description in a non-Western culture; and (b) cross-cultural personality psychology, ...

What Are the Most Important Dimensions of Personality?Evidence from Studies of Descriptors in Diverse Languages

“…This definition corresponds roughly to that guiding selection of variables in some lexical studies (Benet‐Martinez & Waller, 1997; Tellegen & Waller, 1987; Saucier, 1997) that sought a more ‘exhaustive specification of personality’ (John et al., 1988; p. 186). By this definition, attributes like Charming, Intimidating, Evil, Impressive, and Sexy contain information relevant to personality (cf., Imperio et al., 2008) and are within the purview of personality science, even if they depend largely on the person's perceived effect on others and on the evaluation of others.…”

Current Controversies in the Study of Personality across Cultures

“…For example, Ashton, Lee, Marcus, and de Vries (2007) acknowledge that terms referring to altruism (e.g., good‐hearted , helpful , considerate , altruistic ) tend to blend with either their Honesty–Humility or Agreeableness dimensions, depending on the variable set, rating source, or sample. Ashton and Lee prefer the Honesty–Humility label even when altruism terms are blended on the same factor, while others may prefer a broader label such as Big Five Agreeableness, particularly for cultures in which a purer Honesty–Humility factor has not emerged without the blended altruism terms (Imperio, Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 2008).…”

“…Also debated in the lexical literature is whether to include terms that are purely evaluative in nature (Ashton & Lee, 2002; Benet‐Martínez & Waller, 2002; Saucier, 2002); terms for social roles, statuses, and effects; or personality‐relevant physical attributes (De Raad & Barelds, 2008; Imperio et al., 2008; Saucier, 1997). Although terms in these categories may not refer to personality traits per se , they may provide useful information about personality.…”

EFFECTS OF SIX PERSONALITY FACTORS OF CEOs AT SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES ON PERFORMANCE IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT: FOCUSING ON LEARNING AND GROWTH

“…The HEXACO model's six factors are additionally observed in other countries, such as Poland, the Philippines, and Turkey (Imperio, Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 2008;Szarota, Ashton, & Lee, 2007;Wasti, Lee, Ashton, & Somer, 2008), and their relationships with tolerance and risk taking have been studied (De Vries, De Vries, De Hoogh, & Feij, 2009;Shepherd & Belicki, 2008). Furthermore, there are studies comparing the phobic tendency within the Big 5 and HEXACO personalities, the development of HEXACO-IPIP, and the measurement itself .…”