Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Personality inventories are predominantly curated using factor analytic approaches. Indicators capturing common and thus redundant variance are preferentially selected, whereas indicators capturing a large proportion of unique variance outside the broad trait domains are omitted from further research. Even recent research dealing with lower-level personality traits such as facets or nuances has invariably relied on inventories founded on this factor analytic approach. However, items can also be selected to ensure low instead of high communality amongst them. The expected predictive power of such item sets is higher compared to those compiled to capitalize on the indicators’ redundancy. To investigate this, we applied Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) to select personality-descriptive adjectives with minimal inter-item correlations. When used to predict the frequency of everyday life behaviors, this ‘crude-grit’ set outperformed a traditional big-five item set and sets of randomly selected adjectives. The size of the predictive advantage of the crude-grit set was generally higher for those behaviors that could also be predicted better by the big-five item set. This study provides a proof-of-concept for an alternative procedure for compiling personality scales, and serves as a starting point for future studies using broader item sets.

Keywords

ant colony optimization big-five personality assessment personality nuances prediction

Introduction

Factor analytic approaches to personality description and assessment have been an essential driving force for personality psychology over the last 70 years. In general, personality factors, such as the big-five or other similarly extracted personality factors (e.g., HEXACO, Ashton et al., 2004) represent very broad hierarchical trait domains and thereby provide a somewhat unifying structure for the strongest, most salient, and universal personality traits.

Furthermore, these personality factors have been shown to predict many relevant life outcomes, such as health, well-being, or academic and occupational achievement (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Poropat, 2009). Recent research has shown that these life outcomes can be better predicted by focusing on more specific traits, such as personality facets or nuances (Mõttus et al., 2017; Seeboth & Mõttus, 2018; Stewart et al., 2021). However, the true potential of predicting relevant life outcomes with these narrower traits is arguably limited due to personality measures being designed to predominantly measure five (or six) broad trait domains. As a consequence, items have been selected to correlate highly with each other and might thus capture content redundantly (i.e., shared trait domain variance). The full breadth of personality traits is likely to be underrepresented.

In the current study, we highlight conceptual and psychometric issues of factor analytic approaches to item selection. We illustrate an alternative procedure for compiling a personality instrument in which item overlap is minimized. The predictive accuracy of this new item set is measured with respect to a broad range of 395 behavioral act frequencies. Its predictive accuracy is then compared to that of a traditional big-five scale and to that of randomly selected item sets.

Scale Construction and Item Selection

The focus on a small set of few trait domains and factor analyses (Cattell, 1945; Fiske, 1949; Goldberg, 1990; John et al., 1988) has shaped the way most personality inventories are built. Based on the factor analytic approach, item selection is mainly driven by the goal to maximize internal consistency amongst groups of indicators. Psychologists tend to select items that load strongly on target factors (i.e., maximize main loadings) and weak on all other factors (i.e., minimize cross-loadings) (Goldberg, 1993). This approach does not account for smaller traits that represent interstitial variance and fall in between the few dimensions or represent blends thereof (Clark & Watson, 2019; see also AB5C model; Hofstee, 1994). Notably, items with cross-loadings are usually discarded during scale construction. Furthermore, homogenous and potentially redundant indicators are favored; indicators capturing unique variance which might contribute to covered content breadth are excluded (Epstein, 1984).

A more differentiated description and assessment of personality traits within the trait-domain hierarchy is possible by focusing on lower-level traits, such as facets or nuances. Facets are commonly defined as narrower personality traits located directly below the trait domains (Costa Jr. & McCrae, 1995) and are represented by subscales within an inventory. Personality nuances are seen as even narrower traits, which are often operationalized by single items in personality inventories (McCrae, 2015; Mõttus et al., 2017). These additional hierarchy levels allow for a more differentiated perspective on personality traits. Yet, they are still limited to capturing variance within the few broad trait domains, as they have been introduced in a top-down manner. Thus, the expansion of the personality space is restricted to the five dimensions at the apex of the hierarchy. As a result, indicators capturing variance outside the domains are not included in measures representing the lower levels of the personality trait hierarchy as well.

While this factor analytic approach provides a unifying framework for personality trait research, the prediction of relevant life outcomes or behaviors is limited due to the focus on the big few (Mõttus et al., 2020). Therefore, the following section presents a review on how prediction is affected by item selection.

Prediction and How it is Affected by Item Selection

Predictions improve, when the dimensionality of the predictor set increases. This relationship is supported by studies showing the incremental predictive power of personality facets over factors (Anglim et al., 2020; Paunonen, 1998) or nuances over facets (Seeboth & Mõttus, 2018; Stewart et al., 2021). The latter findings suggest that relations between criteria and personality traits (or facets) are driven by narrow personality nuances because they contain unique information. However, as nuances have so far been conceptualized within an implicit higher-order model of personality, empirical results do not entail how explained variance changes with the selection strategy for indicators.

A recent study by Saucier et al. (2020) provides first insights about how different item selection strategies affect predictive power of personality scales. They found higher predictive performance for personality measures developed to measure a large number of relatively independent dimensions compared to narrowly arranged big few measures. Nevertheless, these high-dimensional item sets have still been extracted based on factor analytic approaches. Therefore, in this manuscript we aim to select a broad set of indicators via an item sampling algorithm, moving beyond the factor analytical approaches on personality.

The Present Study

The goal of the present study was to examine how an item selection strategy that prioritizes low redundancy compares to alternative selection strategies in terms of predictive power.

A first item set, representing the factorial approach to personality, consisted of 40 adjectives referred to as the big-five mini-markers (Saucier, 1994). The items of this big-five set were selected to maximize inter-item correlations amongst indicators representing the same trait domain (high internal consistency) and to minimize inter-item correlations amongst indicators representing different trait domains (simple structure).

A second set of personality-descriptive adjectives was selected to minimize inter-item correlations as well as the standard deviation amongst those. We thus strived to maximize unique variance of each item belonging to the set. Minimizing the variance in inter-item correlations ensured that items were equidistantly dispersed and no clusters of redundant items emerged. Given these criteria of item selection, we referred to this set as the crude-grit set. It was used to address the key question of this manuscript – what if there were no personality factors?

For comparison, further adjective sets were randomly selected. These random sets did not adhere to the factorial approach by maximizing inter-item correlation within one specific domain, nor did they pursue the crude-grit approach by minimizing inter-item correlations. Note that the items were sampled from a large item pool of personality-descriptive adjectives likely containing a proportionally larger number of big-five than non-big-five related adjectives. Thus, the random sets were expected to constitute a compromise between the big-five set and the crude-grit set. This means, although latent factors could be present in these random sets, we expected them to be weaker. As such, the items in the random sets should have more unique variance than those in the big-five set.

We were interested in the general predictive power of the different adjective sets. Thus, a large set of behavioral statements as outcome variables was used instead of pre-selected relevant outcome variables. We compared the overall explained variance in these behavioral statements (R²). As the R² of the BRIs was not expected to equal zero even in completely random data, we used reshuffled data to estimate a baseline for explained variance. All sets were expected to perform better than this baseline, because it should only represent random covariances between variables with no underlying ‘true’ covariances. Further, we expected the crude-grit set to perform better than the big-five set as well as the random sets due to items capturing more unique than shared variance. Following this reasoning, we also expected the random sets to perform better than the big-five set. In turn, lowest explained variances were expected for the big-five set, because its items had been selected to be redundant within factors and their unique variance was minimized. The hypotheses regarding the predictive performance of differently selected sets were not pre-registered.

Methods

Sample

We used data from the Eugene-Springfield Community Sample (ESCS; https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/ESCS-Data). The ESCS was collected by the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) starting in 1993 and involved volunteers who were willing to complete questionnaires over a period of 5–10 years. We selected the sample of participants that provided responses on the personality-descriptive adjectives in 1995 and on behavioral act frequencies in 1997. The final sample therefore consisted of 621 participants (f = 364, m = 257) with a mean age of M_age = 52 years (SD_age = 13). The majority of our sample (96.6%) self-identified as Caucasian. Of the participants, 28.2% reported having obtained some college degree and 24.5% reported having obtained a post-college degree. Across the measures used in this study, about 0.3% of the responses were missing values. We imputed missing values using the K-nearest neighbor (KNN) procedure, namely, searching for the k = 5 closest samples based on Euclidean distance and then imputing the mean response of those neighbors. This procedure centers and scales the data automatically. Therefore, whenever descriptive statistics (mean, variance, skew) are reported, they relate to the raw data.

Instruments

Person Descriptive Adjectives 525

The 525 adjectives of the Person Descriptive Adjectives list were used as a representation of the personality item universe. Using such a broad adjective list facilitates the extension of the big-five framework. Additionally, by using single adjectives as personality indicators rather than statements including an action, we minimized the risk of predictor-criterion contamination. The Person Descriptive Adjectives 525 (PDA 525) consists of 500 adjectives that have been rated to be most common in use (Saucier, 1997), as well as 25 additional adjectives belonging to the 40 mini-markers (more information given in the Item Selection section) not already included within the 500 adjectives. Participants rated these person descriptive adjectives on a 7-Point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘very inaccurate’ to 7 ‘very accurate’ as a description of themselves.

Behavioral Report Inventory (BRI 400)

To investigate the predictive power of the different adjective sets, the 400 items of the Behavioral Report Inventory (Goldberg, 2009) were used as criteria. Participants rated statements about everyday life behavior (e.g., ‘drove a car’ or ‘paid someone to polish my shoes’) in terms of the frequency with which they perform said behavior on a 5-Point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘never in my life’ to 5 ‘more than 15 times in the past year’. We excluded five sex-specific statements (e.g., ‘had a mammogram’, ‘did a testicular self-examination’), because the prediction of these could be inflated by sex differences in the responses to some adjectives (e.g., ‘feminine’).

Item Selection

Pre-Selection

The PDA 525 list contains non-personality related adjectives, such as physical descriptors (e.g., ‘old’, ‘tall’) or adjectives that are mainly used to describe life circumstances (e.g., ‘homeless’, ‘poor’). Therefore, it was necessary to evaluate the suitability of the 525 adjectives as self-report indicators in personality assessment before selecting different item sets from the PDA 525. Accordingly, 10 experts (master students of psychology (n = 5) and research assistants in the department of individual differences and psychological assessment (n = 5)) rated each of the 525 adjectives as suitable or not (yes/no). Inter-rater reliability for the 10 raters was good (α = .95). 140 adjectives rated as unsuitable for self-reported personality assessment by at least half of the raters were excluded. After the expert rating, adjectives that had an antonym included in the list were further excluded (e.g., we excluded the word ‘unintellectual’ because the word ‘intellectual’ was already included in the list). This prevented the parallel selection of two adjectives which only differ due to their reversed meaning. The pre-selection procedure yielded a set of 360 adjectives. We will refer to this cleaned list as PDA 360 in the remainder of this manuscript.

Big-Five Set

To represent the big-five personality factors, we selected 40 adjectives that Saucier (1994) extracted from Goldberg’s 100 big-five markers. These adjectives, also referred to as big-five mini-markers, are included in the PDA 525 (and our PDA 360). They are assumed to have simple structure on the corresponding big-five factors, with each factor being represented by eight adjectives. They include six antonyms (‘uncreative’, ‘unenvious’, ‘unintellectual’, ‘unsympathetic’, ‘inefficient’, ‘disorganized’), which were kept in order to use the full set of big-five mini-markers in further analyses.

‘Crude-Grit’ Set

For the selection of the crude-grit set, Ant Colony Optimization (ACO; see Olaru et al., 2019) was applied. Ant Colony Optimization is a metaheuristic algorithm that can be used to identify combinations of items that maximize or minimize a given criterion (e.g., minimize inter-item correlations and the standard deviation of the frequency distribution of these correlations). The algorithm selected a set of 40 adjectives from the PDA 360, which would have minimal inter-item correlations and a minimal standard deviation of inter-item correlations. The latter criterion was included in the optimization function to ensure that the final selection did not include isolated pairs of highly correlated adjectives, but instead low correlated adjectives overall. The exact optimization function is provided in the online supplement at OSF https://osf.io/je6us/.

As the aforementioned item selection approach is probabilistic, it does not necessarily return the same item set across independent runs. We thus ran ACO eight times. The eight selected crude-grit sets had an average item overlap with each other of M_overlap = 50% (SD_overlap = 7%). Although the eight runs shared on average only half of their selected adjectives, both optimization criteria were fit similarly well by all solutions (indicated by equally high values for the overall optimization criterion (φ_overall)). Mean absolute inter-item correlation (criterion one; φ₁) of all eight extracted sets varied only between .08 and 09; the standard deviation of the inter-item correlations (criterion two; φ₂) varied between .07 and .08. For further analyses, the set which had the best overall optimization criterion was retained as the final crude-grit set.

Random Sets

For comparison, 40 adjectives from the PDA 360 adjective list were randomly extracted a thousand times. Results for the random sets will be reported as the averaged results over the 1000 adjective sets. Based on the average prediction amongst the 395 behavioral act frequencies (i.e., BRIs), we extracted the least and most predictive random set out of the 1000. The least predictive set can be interpreted as the expected lower-bound of prediction in our dataset. In contrast, the most predictive set can provide an indication of how an item set specifically designed to predict the behavioral act frequencies (i.e., an empirical keying approach) would perform.

Reshuffled Sets (Baseline Prediction)

To estimate the explained variance that could be expected even for uncorrelated predictors and outcomes given the available data, we used a reshuffling approach. Specifically, we used the 1000 randomly selected item sets and randomly reshuffled the responses on each selected adjective. This would ensure that the response distribution was maintained for each adjective, while eliminating any potential correlations with the outcomes. We then used the 1000 reshuffled adjective sets to predict the BRIs, and calculated the average explained variance as the baseline for prediction.

Comparison of Adjective Difficulty

The lexical approach not only presupposes that differences between persons are reflected in language (i.e., humans invented adjectives to refer to relevant personality characteristics), but also that a sufficiently large number of persons understand the meaning of these adjectives. An unknown proportion of personality-descriptive adjectives might be uncommon, hard to understand, or obscure. One risk of the crude-grit approach is that it might predominately select those adjectives, with low correlations arising from being a lack of understanding. To judge language complexity of our sets, we used data from Condon et al. (2022) who collected short definitions for a list of 2818 adjectives. These adjectives were presented to 1572 participants, who had to choose the corresponding term from a set of four terms. The percentage of correct responses for each adjective was then calculated. Based on these ratings, we calculated the mean percentage of correct answers across the 40 selected adjectives for each set.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were run in RStudio with R version 4.0.3 (RStudio Team, 2020). Correlational analyses were conducted using the ‘psych’ package (Revelle, 2020); for multiple regression analyses, we used the ‘stats’ package (Bolar, 2019). For item sampling, we used the ACO algorithm by Olaru et al. (2019) with an adapted fit-function (see OSF https://osf.io/je6us/).

After the initial item selection, exploratory factor analyses were conducted to (a) inspect how much variance in the sets could be explained by five factors and (b) check how well the crude-grit set met our criteria of capturing variance outside and between the big-five set. To address the latter, Dwyer’s (1937) method of extension analysis was applied. In this type of exploratory factor analysis, first the ‘core variables’ (in our case: the big-five adjectives) are factorized, and then the loadings of the ‘extension variables’ (in our case: the crude-grit adjectives) are calculated for the aforementioned extracted factors. Thus, the communality of the crude-grit adjectives, when they are projected into a factorial space which was produced by the big-five adjectives, was extracted. We used these communalities as an index to determine how well each adjective can be represented by the extracted factors.

Following, we used multiple linear OLS regression to predict the behavioral act frequencies (i.e., BRIs). Each of the 395 BRI statements was regressed onto the 40 adjectives of the big-five set or the crude-grit set. A slightly adjusted procedure was applied for the 1000 random sets. We calculated 1000 multiple regressions per BRI and averaged the resulting R² value across sets. This average R² across sets for one BRI was then used for comparison to the R² yielded by the crude-grit or the big-five set. We additionally calculated the mean R² across BRIs for each of the 1000 random sets. The minimal/maximal mean R² across BRIs was then used to define the lower/upper-bound random set. Please see Table 1 for an overview of these calculations.

Table 1.

Overview of calculations for the random and reshuffled sets.

BRI	Random Sets/Reshuffled Sets
BRI	Set₁	Set₂	…	Set₁₀₀₀	Mean R² Across Sets
BRI₁	R ² _1,1	R ² _1,2	…	R ² _1,1000	$\frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{1000} R_{1, j}^{2}}{1000}$
BRI₂	R ² _2,1	R ² _2,2	…	R ² _2,1000	$\frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{1000} R_{2, j}^{2}}{1000}$
…	…	…	…	…	…
BRI₃₉₅	R ² _395,1	R ² _395,2	…	R ² _395,1000	$\frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{1000} R_{395, j}^{2}}{1000}$
Further calculations in the random sets to extract lower/upper-bound

Mean R² across BRIs	$\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{395} R_{i, 1}^{2}}{395}$	$\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{395} R_{i, 2}^{2}}{395}$	…	$\frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{395} R_{i, 1000}^{2}}{395}$

For the reshuffled sets, we followed the same procedure as we did for the random sets; we calculated 1000 regressions per BRI and averaged the R² values across sets. This value served as a baseline index for prediction, as we expected the R² to be randomly higher than zero. Note that despite the random sets acting as a suitable index for comparison when the adjective selection is performed randomly, only the reshuffled sets are capable of providing the baseline index for prediction, which results from completely random data.

In some research on the predictive accuracy of personality nuances, the residual variance of items after extracting latent factors is used for prediction (e.g., Mõttus & Rozgonjuk, 2021). We did not do so because it would disadvantage the big-five set compared to the crude-grit set. Partialling out factor variance would come at the cost of predictive power for the big-five set as the factor variance is assumed to drive the associations of a big-five set with behavioral act frequencies. In contrast, the crude-grit set should remain relatively unaffected, due to a lack of factors.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the selected adjective sets are reported in Table 2; all selected adjectives for the different sets are available in the Appendix (Table A1). For the 1000 random sets, the distribution of the mean absolute inter-item correlations within the 1000 sets is presented in the online supplement at OSF https://osf.io/je6us/. As presented in Table 2, the mean absolute inter-item correlations within the ACO-selected adjective sets are generally lower than those within the big-five set, or the random sets. The same applies to the standard deviation of the inter-item correlations. Overall, results indicate that we successfully applied item sampling to extract item sets with low inter-item correlations and small variance among these inter-item correlations.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for the different selected adjective sets.

			ACO Solutions
		PDA360	Set1	Set2	Set3	Set4	Set5	Set6	Set7	Crude-grit Set	Big-Five Set	Random Sets	Lower- Bound Set	Upper- Bound Set
	$φ_{o v e r a l l}$		.96	.96	.96	.96	.97	.96	.96	.97
Inter-item correlations (r)	M	.16	.08	.08	.08	.08	.08	.09	.09	.08	.16	.16	.21	.15
	SD	.11	.06	.06	.06	.06	.06	.06	.06	.06	.13	.01	.12	.11
	Mdn	.15	.07	.07	.07	.07	.07	.07	.08	.07	.13	.16	.20	.13
	Max	.81	.32	.36	.36	.28	.33	.35	.31	.39	.71	.21	.64	.64
	Min	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.13	.00	.00
Percent correct (%)^a	M	.85	.85	.84	.84	.85	.86	.86	.86	.84	.84	.85	.89	.85
	SD	.14	.13	.16	.15	.15	.11	.11	.12	.16	.15	.02	.09	.17
	Mdn	.90	.89	.90	.89	.90	.89	.89	.89	.91	.88	.86	.91	.91
	Max	1.00	.98	1.00	.98	.98	1.00	.98	.98	.98	1.00	.91	1.00	.98
	Min	.11	.46	.26	.26	.26	.56	.56	.46	.26	.26	.79	.63	.14
Raw variance accounted for (R²) in BRIs	M		.141	.139	.135	.130	.130	.137	.139	.138	.115	.127	.110	.150
	SD		.058	.057	.055	.056	.057	.067	.056	.060	.034	.036	.032	.068
	Mdn		.128	.128	.124	.120	.117	.119	.128	.125	.109	.122	.107	.137
	Max		.456	.441	.439	.596	.583	.592	.460	.588	.248	.271	.232	.598
	Min		.054	.047	.046	.045	.042	.049	.055	.051	.054	.067	.050	.051
Baseline-corrected variance accounted for (R²_bc) in BRIs	M		.077	.075	.071	.066	.066	.073	.075	.073	.050	.063	.046	.086
	SD		.058	.057	.055	.056	.057	.067	.056	.060	.034	.036	.032	.068
	Mdn		.064	.064	.059	.055	.054	.056	.064	.059	.045	.056	.042	.072
	Max		.389	.374	.372	.535	.522	.531	.393	.527	.185	.204	.167	.537
	Min		−.013	−.022	−.026	−.025	−.025	−.012	−.010	−.018	−.012	−.004	−.024	−.013

Note. BRIs = behavioral Rrport inventory statements, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Mdn = median, Max = maximum, Min = minimum.

^aPercent correct ratings are reported for parallel version A of the adjective test, see Condon et al. (2022) for more details.

Inspecting the word difficulty ratings from the data provided by Condon et al. (2022) for the big-five, the crude-grit and the random sets, average percentage of correct answers within a set did not differ between sets (see Table 2). This means, the selected crude-grit item set was not predominantly made up of uncommon or complex words.

Factor Analysis of Item Sets

After item selection, we conducted a parallel analysis on the eigenvalues for the big-five set, the crude-grit set, and the random sets. Within a parallel analysis, eigenvalues for resampled data are calculated on default, so we did not include the reshuffled sets in this step of the analyses. Eigenvalues were extracted from a maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis with five correlated factors and are presented in Figure 1. The scree plot for each of the three sets is presented above the curve for resampled data. Although the crude-grit set was selected to have inter-item correlations near zero (and thereby pushed to have eigenvalues near zero), extracting an indicator set without any covariances among the indicators was not possible. However, the cumulative explained variance by five factors was much smaller for the crude-grit set (19.2%) than it was for the big-five set (41.4%) or the random sets (mean cumulative variance for the 1000 random sets was M = 35.5% with SD = 1.6%, histogram available in the online supplement at OSF https://osf.io/je6us/).

Figure 1.

Eigenvalue curve for the different item sets as well as for resampled data, as calculated in a parallel analysis. Only eigenvalues for the first 10 factors are presented in this figure. Eigenvalues for the random sets are averaged among the 1000 eigenvalues that have been extracted for all random sets. All eigenvalues are presented before rotation.

The scree plot and the cumulative explained variance suggest that the crude-grit adjectives can be factorized. However, these analyses give no information about how well the crude-grit adjectives fit into the factorial space of the big-five adjectives. Therefore, we report results of an extension analysis (Dwyer, 1937) in Table 3. For the majority of the big-five adjectives we found the expected loading patterns. For the crude-grit set, 16 adjectives had an absolute loading higher than .30 on the big-five factors, whereas 24 did not. For the big-five adjectives, communalities indicated that the mean of accounted variance by five extracted factors was at 41% (SD = .14). In contrast, for the crude-grit adjectives, the five extracted factors could explain on average only 17% of variance and the dispersion around this mean was .10. Taken together, these factor analyses showed that we successfully selected a crude-grit set – a group of minimally redundant adjectives that capture variance outside the established five factors and the adjectives used to measure them.

Table 3.

Loadings from a maximum likelihood exploratory extension factor analysis with five correlated factors for 40 big-five adjectives (core variables) and 40 crude-grit adjectives (extension variables).

Big-five adjectives	C	A	N	O	E (r)	h ²
Organized	.86	−.02	.13	−.01	−.07	.717
Disorganized	−.81	.04	.07	.08	−.06	.654
Efficient	.68	.10	.11	.04	−.05	.508
Systematic	.68	−.06	.09	.15	.11	.465
Sloppy	−.61	−.12	.16	.09	.04	.492
Inefficient	−.61	−.01	.16	−.07	.09	.485
Careless	−.48	−.10	.27	.06	−.05	.395
Practical	.43	.17	0	.02	.10	.247
Sympathetic	0	.77	.06	.01	.05	.565
Kind	.08	.77	−.01	0	.06	.618
Warm	−.03	.67	.04	.07	−.21	.535
Unsympathetic	−.04	−.56	.10	−.07	−.04	.373
Cooperative	.10	.52	−.03	.02	0	.322
Cold	0	−.50	.22	.02	.18	.419
Rude	−.05	−.42	.33	.08	−.12	.355
Harsh	.03	−.32	.42	.04	−.10	.322
Moody	−.03	−.01	.68	−.02	.14	.512
Temperamental	−.01	−.05	.65	−.04	−.04	.434
Touchy	.10	.03	.65	−.01	.03	.406
Fretful	−.06	−.03	.59	−.05	.05	.389
Jealous	−.03	−.03	.44	−.13	−.02	.227
Envious	−.15	−.02	.41	−.15	.04	.262
Creative	−.04	.02	−.03	.72	−.01	.518
Imaginative	−.01	.11	−.07	.70	.01	.523
Intellectual	.10	−.09	−.06	.57	.01	.34
Deep	.05	−.06	.11	.56	0	.33
Complex	−.01	−.11	.22	.52	.01	.317
Uncreative	.03	−.05	.24	−.54	.03	.373
Philosophical	−.06	.15	.02	.49	.10	.273
Unintellectual	−.04	−.02	.22	−.45	.05	.279
Shy	−.09	.09	.14	.03	.73	.571
Bashful	−.03	.10	.24	−.04	.71	.596
Quiet	.10	.02	−.12	.15	.68	.454
Extraverted	−.01	.14	.09	.16	−.62	.489
Talkative	−.04	.28	.25	.10	−.60	.525
Bold	.09	−.17	.15	.29	−.40	.301
Withdrawn	−.13	−.18	.28	.11	.47	.454
Unenvious	.05	.03	−.23	.16	0	.094
Energetic	.24	.16	.04	.18	−.23	.232
Relaxed	.04	.16	−.27	.11	.12	.142

Crude-grit adjectives	C	A	N	O	E (r)	h ²
Procrastinating	−.43	.17	.09	.02	.08	.213
Punctual	.39	.12	.03	−.04	.06	.173
Forgetful	−.37	.15	.22	−.06	.03	.207
Sentimental	.04	.52	.20	−.13	−.01	.260
Neighborly	.09	.43	.03	.04	−.14	.256
short_tempered	.11	−.13	.55	−.08	−.06	.342
Opinionated	.08	−.10	.38	.19	−.18	.221
self_conscious	−.03	.10	.38	−.12	.36	.315
Rushed	.01	.03	.35	−.02	−.14	.127
Superstitious	−.11	.09	.35	−.03	.01	.141
Crazy	−.22	−.02	.31	.14	−.09	.189
Deep	.06	−.10	.14	.72	.03	.532
Artistic	−.12	.08	−.01	.64	.09	.412
Experienced	.11	.07	−.05	.38	−.07	.205
Soft_spoken	0	.17	−.13	.11	.60	.364
Private	.13	.01	.03	.23	.48	.261
Observant	.26	.13	.02	.25	−.04	.196
Competitive	.25	−.16	.13	.14	−.20	.149
Liberal	−.24	.26	.09	.20	−.03	.150
Attentive	.21	.35	−.02	.19	.01	.269
Predictable	.21	.18	.03	−.23	.09	.122
Impulsive	−.21	.14	.26	.21	−.16	.196
Cautious	.19	.26	.14	−.18	.25	.184
Self_supporting	.19	−.05	−.05	.08	−.03	.051
Ethical	.15	.28	−.12	.10	.09	.172
Dependent	−.12	.18	.24	−.22	−.01	.129
Cute	.12	.12	.13	.08	−.19	.099
Youthful	.12	.08	.06	.12	−.18	.089
Cool	.10	−.20	.03	.17	.05	.066
Casual	−.09	.17	.01	.07	.09	.040
Lazy	−.09	−.08	−.03	−.01	.03	.019
Old_fashioned	.08	.11	.08	−.15	.14	.059
Religious	.06	.22	.03	−.05	0	.055
Idealistic	−.04	.27	.06	.20	−.08	.136
Prejudiced	.04	−.20	.25	−.06	.01	.126
Harmless	.03	.18	−.04	−.24	.15	.104
Innocent	.02	.19	−.01	−.11	.10	.048
Carefree	−.02	.16	−.19	.10	−.03	.091
Snobbish	.01	−.29	.27	.15	−.04	.193
Evil	−.01	−.20	.28	.05	.01	.144

Note. Loadings ≥ |.30| are printed in bold. A = agreeableness, C = conscientiousness, E = extraversion, N = neuroticism, O = openness. h² = communality.

Predictive Power of Adjective Sets

Next, we examined the predictive accuracy of the adjective sets by comparing the explained variance (R²) in multiple regression analyses with 40 adjectives as predictors of behavioral act frequencies (i.e., BRIs). The explained variances for each BRI are presented in Figure 2, ordered by size of the mean R² across the differently selected adjective sets. An interactive version of the plot in which readers can access further information for the single data points is provided in the OSF.

Figure 2.

Explained variances (R²) for each BRI by three differently selected sets in ascending order, plus the upper- and lower-bound as well as baseline predictions. Each BRI has six data datapoints. Each point represents the R² reached by the corresponding adjective set for the specific BRI. For the random sets and the reshuffled sets, the means over 1000 R² values are represented as single data points (random sets (mean)/reshuffled sets (mean)). The lower and upper bounds indicate the R² values of two different random sets for which the average R² across all BRIs was minimal/maximal, respectively. Regression lines are based on local polynomial regression fitting (function ‘loess’ from the R-package stats (R Core Team, 2022), while the gray bounds surrounding the regression lines represent the 95% CI-intervals for the model’s prediction.

As shown in Figure 2, the baseline of the R² for the BRIs was not at zero but slightly higher, with an average R² of the reshuffled sets of M = .064 (SD = .005). Therefore, in the following we subtracted this average baseline from the raw R² values and report baseline-corrected values (R²_bc = R² - .064).

The average R²_bc across the 395 BRI statements was M = .073 (SD = .060) for the crude-grit set, M = .050 (SD = .034) for the big-five set, and M = .063 (SD = .036) across all random item sets. A linear regression in which the R²_bc for a BRI statement was predicted by the type of adjective set (dummy coded) showed that the big-five set explained significantly less variance in the BRIs than the crude-grit set (β = −.023, p < .001). The same applied for the averaged random sets (β = −.011, p = .002). Although the crude-grit set performed better than the random sets or the big-five set, the upper-bound random set was still slightly better than the crude-grit set (β = .013, p < .001). In contrast to that, the big-five set did not perform better than the lower-bound random set (β = .004, p = .226). Furthermore, the crude-grit set outperformed the big-five set for 70.9% of regressions, while it outperformed the random sets for 67.3%. Notably, the random sets also outperformed the big-five set for 63% of the regressions.

In general, the results indicate that the personality adjectives only explained a small to moderate amount of variance in the behavioral act frequencies. As indicated by the increase of R² for all sets along the X-Axis in Figure 2, some behavioral act frequencies are more predictable by personality adjectives than others – independent of the adjective selection strategy.

As some of the BRI statements refer to extremely uncommon behaviors (e.g. ‘called in sick to work because I was too tired to get up’, ‘picked up a date in a bar, restaurant, or similar place’) or to extremely common behaviors (e.g. ‘watched television’, ‘drove a car’), some of the BRI variables are heavily skewed and variance-restricted. Therefore, we dichotomized all BRI statements via median split (1 = performed said behavior more often/equal times than the median, 0 = performed said behavior fewer times than the median) and repeated the analyses using a logistic regression model instead of a linear regression. In logistic regression models, a higher area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) indicates a more precise categorization of a participant. In other words, the higher the AUC values, the more accurately the model predicted whether a participant performed said behavior more often/equal times than the median or not.

The mean AUC was M_AUC = .73 (SD_AUC = .06) for the crude-grit set, M_AUC = .71 (SD_AUC = .05) for the big-five set and M_AUC = .72 (SD_AUC = .05) for the random sets. As with the R²_bc values, when regressing the AUC on the type of set which was used as a predictor (dummy coded variables, crude-grit set is the reference group), the AUC was slightly, but significantly higher for the crude-grit set than for the big-five set (β = −.02, p < .05) or the random sets (β = −.01, p < .05). Logistic regression analyses are available in the online supplement material.

Overall, when using logistic instead of linear regressions the results followed a similar pattern and our conclusions remain unchanged: the predictive accuracy of the crude-grit set was generally higher for those behaviors that were better predicted by the big-five set as well. This outcome suggests that an increased breadth in the personality trait measure predominantly improves the accuracy for outcomes well predicted by personality traits in the first place, but does not compensate for insufficient trait-outcome associations.

To further understand which adjective set best predicted a given behavior, we inspected 20 BRI statements that were predicted best by either the crude-grit set, the big-five set, or the average random sets (Figure 3). As presented in Figure 3(a), when focusing on the 20 BRI statements for which the crude-grit set performed best, explained variances ranged between R²_bc = .18 and R²_bc = .59 and yielded the highest values for spiritual and religious behavioral statements, as well as for sensation seeking behaviors such as drug use.

Figure 3.

Baseline-corrected explained variance (R²_bc) in 20 BRI statements each as predicted in multiple regression analyses by three differently selected item sets. (a) = 20 BRI statements that were predicted best by the crude-grit set. (b) = 20 BRI statements that were predicted best by the big-five set. (c) = 20 BRI statements that were predicted best by the random sets.

In contrast, for the top 20 BRI statements corresponding to the big-five set (Figure 3(b)), explained variances by the big-five set ranged from R² = .10 to R² = .22. The highest explained variances by the big-five set were observed for statements about intake of depression medication, giving talks, sharing problems with friends, or visiting the opera. For comparison, in the random sets, the 20 highest explained variances (Figure 3(c)) ranged between R² = .09 and R² = .27 and were observed for statements about receiving a beauty treatment, repairing one’s car, writing a thank you note, or crying.

As the crude-grit set included the terms ‘religious’ and ‘impulsive’ its predictive power for religious/spiritual behavior statements or statements about drug use might be unjustly inflated. However, this crude-grit set was only one of eight sets that were selected by ACO and all additional sets met our optimization criteria equally well (see Table 1). Four of these seven remaining sets did not contain the term ‘religious’, and one of the seven sets additionally did not contain the word ‘impulsive’ (Set7, see Table A1 in the appendix). Therefore, repeating the analyses with these sets allowed us to inspect possible predictor-criterion contamination. Regardless of whether the sets contained the terms ‘religious’ or ‘impulsive’, the results remained consistent: the ACO-selected crude-grit sets outperformed the big-five and the random sets, with an average difference in R² being small (see Table 1), but for specific BRI statements being rather large. Detailed information on those analyses is available in the online supplement on OSF https://osf.io/je6us/.

Discussion

We examined how different item selection strategies affect the predictive accuracy of personality traits. Selection strategies might be deemed competing approaches to personality representation. However, the crude-grit strategy strives for a broad representation of personality, and the factor analytic strategy strives for a condensed representation via the big-five personality factors. In general, the crude-grit set slightly outperformed the big-five set for predicting everyday life behavior. It also outperformed randomly selected adjective sets, confirming that its predictive advantage was not due to chance but rather due to the deliberate elimination of content overlap in the personality measure.

Item Selection

Goldberg (1993) suggested that the big-five personality factors provide coordinates for a personality landscape. This proposal inspired us to select indicators that cover the personality landscape approximately equidistant from each other and labeled this indicator set crude-grit set. By maximizing unique variance of indicators and reducing redundancy amongst them this crude-grit set was curated to overcome limitations of the few-dimensional perspectives on personality. The set contained prototypical big-five adjectives, such as ‘punctual’ (Conscientiousness), ‘artistic’ (Openness), or ‘dependent’ (Neuroticism), as well as adjectives commonly known to lie outside the range of the big-five, such as ‘religious’ or ‘impulsive’ (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). This characteristic shows that the crude-grit set did not exclude content from the big-five framework, but rather bypassed clustering around these dimensions and also included indicators typically neglected within big-five sets.

As indicated by the extension analysis, the selected crude-grit adjectives had smaller loadings on the big-five factors than the big-five adjectives, indicating that they captured mainly unique variance. However, the parallel analysis showed that some factors could be extracted even within the crude-grit set, pointing towards shared variance among the indicators. Means and dispersions of the inter-item relations of the crude-grit set also highlight that this set was not composed of completely independent adjectives. Obviously, response sets and other biases could be causal for residual communalities among the crude-grit adjectives. Given self-report biases such as acquiescence, it might be nearly impossible to extract an (self-report) item set with mean absolute inter-item correlations equal to zero. Given the materials used in this study, an item sampling heuristic allowed us to approximate the goal of an equidistant item set: the selected items did not cluster around the big-five personality dimensions and dispersion among inter-item correlations within this set was close to zero.

Minimizing inter-item correlations could result in selecting items which are unreliable, e.g., because they are rarely used in common language or are hard to understand. To address this concern, reliability indices on item level (e.g., re-test data) could be implemented during the sampling process. As such, indices were not available for the current adjectives, the lexical difficulty of the selected sets was compared post-hoc to address this problem, using the data provided by Condon et al. (2022). These comparisons indicated no differences in the lexical difficulties between the differently selected sets. Hence, unreliability due to lexical characteristics of the adjectives is unlikely to distinguish between item sets. Nevertheless, there was no direct estimate of item reliability at our disposal. However, if the crude-grit set happened to include less reliable adjectives, disattenuated relations with outcomes would have more strongly outperformed the big-five set.

Predictive Power

Three main results can be summarized for the comparison of predictive power for differently selected adjective sets. First, for 67 and 71% of the behavioral act frequencies, the crude-grit selected set had a predictive advantage compared to randomly drawn item sets or a big-five based measure, respectively. Second, the difference in the average explained variance across all behavioral act frequencies was mostly small between the crude-grit set and the big-five set, but reached statistical significance. Third, for specific criteria, such as religious and spiritual behaviors or impulsive and sensation seeking behaviors (drug use), the difference in explained variances was substantially greater. Here, the crude-grit set explained up to twice as much variance as the big-five set.

From a statistical stance, the reported predictive advantage of the crude-grit set might be taken as reflecting a statistical necessity: other things being equal, more orthogonal predictors are more predictive than more redundant predictors. This effect is not only visible in the comparison of the big-five and the crude-grit set, but also when juxtaposing the big-five and the random sets. Since indicators within those random sets share less variance among each other by chance, the proportion of shared variance between those indicators and a criterion can be higher compared to a factor-analytic-based set. However, in this manuscript, we deliberately amplified the orthogonality of indicators by selecting items that maximize the unique variances of single indicators.

Regarding the magnitude of prediction, we found that everyday life behaviors in general were hardly predictable from personality traits, regardless of how the inventory was selected. Considering that the big-five set, which has been purposely selected to capture five broad trait domains did not perform better than the worst-performing random set, our results bring into question the utility of factor-analytic-based selection strategies in a predictive context. Relative to that low baseline, the crude-grit selection strategy has shown an increment in a predictive context. The crude-grit set could explain up to 58% of individual differences in some specific behaviors. Hence, it is possible to select item sets capable of explaining everyday life behaviors substantially. However, we need to acknowledge that these very high R² values might be attributable to the relation between individual items and a specific behavior statement. In fact, very high bivariate relations between adjectives and behaviors might be indicative of predictor-criterion contamination (Brogden & Taylor, 1950). For instance, the crude-grit set contained the term religious, which could have caused its high predictive power for religious behaviors.

Nevertheless, the term religious can be considered a personality-descriptive adjective, just like any of the adjectives in any other item set. Similar to how ‘talkative’ or ‘creative’ are indicators of the big-five trait domains extraversion and openness, respectively, ‘religious’ can be considered an indicator of a spirituality trait. Furthermore, specific traits or trait-indicators are inevitably related to specific behaviors (e.g., ‘creative’ is related to ‘creating art’). Hence, we do not view the inclusion of the term religious as an issue of the crude-grit approach. Instead, its inclusion might be considered a limitation of the big-five set, because it does not cover this part of the personality trait space (e.g., a spirituality trait). Furthermore, even crude-grit sets without the term religious explained a comparable amount of variance across all behaviors. Thus, while the prediction accuracy of specific outcomes inevitably depends on the selected adjectives, the overall explained variance in a broad pool of outcomes should be similar across different sets of non-redundant item sets.

Certainly, our findings must not be misinterpreted as a ubiquitous advantage of the crude-grit set, as there are scenarios in which another item selection strategy is preferable. For example, if the goal is to predict only one, or a few highly inter-related criteria, the criterion keying approach (French, 1952; Smith et al., 2003) would be more efficient. Here, items are being selected to maximize the association with the outcome (e.g., Elleman et al., 2020). However, items which are highly predictive for one criterion will not be highly predictive for another orthogonal criterion. Thus, the more dimensions the targeted criterion space has, the more dimensions are needed in the predictor set for successful prediction. When the criterion space is broad and high dimensional, as was the case in this study, the overall predictive accuracy of the criterion-approach might be comparable to the crude-grit approach. This reality becomes evident when considering that the most predictive random item set (akin to a criterion keying selection) and the crude-grit item set were similarly predictive for the same behaviors (Figure 2).

Limitations

Inevitably, the present results are dependent on the measures and instruments included in this study. The item universe used for item sampling, for example, was meant to extend the big-five space (Saucier, 1997), but still only represents a sample of personality trait adjectives. Furthermore, although the selection of this adjective list was not based on factor analyses, when performing a maximum likelihood EFA with five correlated factors, only 8% of the adjectives had a loading |<.30| on one of the five extracted factors. While this fact might point towards a big-five bias within the item universe, there is no reason to assume that such a bias is less of an issue in any other available trait-descriptive adjective list. Also, applying the crude-grit approach in a confirmed unbiased item universe is likely to be even more successful in terms of covered content breadth.

Furthermore, it is conceivable that the vocabulary of participants affected their responses to the personality adjectives. We were able to discard the assumption that crude-grit adjectives differed in difficulty from the big-five adjectives or the random sets. Still, it remains unclear whether or not the covariance within adjective sets or their predictive validity would change, when considering vocabulary as a covariate or a moderator.

With regard to the criterion variables, the list of everyday life behaviors brings forth a number of limitations as well. First, as the list of everyday life behaviors is from 1976 (Loehlin & Nichols, 1976), it lacks behaviors that have become common or that have changed prevalence recently (e.g., behaviors related to smartphone use, sustainability or health related behaviors, for example, considering the COVID-19 pandemic). Hence, the breadth of the criterion space is likely to be underrepresented. Second, we do not know the degree to which behaviors differ in terms of reliability and validity. For instance, it is unclear whether or not behaviors are equally accessible to introspection. Finally, the degree to which behaviors apply to different participants might vary. For example, the behavior ‘went to a lawyer’ is not equally applicable across participants and likely hinges on many determinants, one of which being the financial situation of an individual.

After all, the Eugene Springfield Community Sample might be deemed as having WEIRD participants (Henrich et al., 2010) and the validity of our results for a wide range of human societies is therefore limited. Based on the aforementioned limitations, the following section outlines starting points for future research.

Future Directions

One step for future research could be the application of the crude-grit selection strategy on other kinds of personality indicators. Applying the crude-grit selection strategy to a sample of conventional personality items could be interesting. Because such items provide more context, they are more specific and less abstract (Condon, 2018; Hendriks et al., 1999) relative to trait-descriptive terms (adjectives). Therefore, it might be easier and more comfortable for participants to respond to this type of personality indicator, which might then result in higher-quality data. Better data quality should come along with less error variance, which in turn might result in better predictions, because attenuation is reduced.

On the predictor side, a second avenue for future research is the item sampling algorithm, which is essential for crude-grit selection. Refining the algorithm could provide further insights about the full potential of crude-grit selection strategies. For example, parameters focusing on the dimensionality of data, such as multi-dimensional scaling, effective dimensionality (Del Giudice, 2020), or network analyses could be used for selection. Using such parameters within the item sampling algorithm could help with the selection of equidistant personality indicators. Additionally, lexical indices such as semantic similarity indices (as done in latent semantic analyses; Landauer et al., 1998; Rosenbusch et al., 2019) could be a target for selection algorithms as well.

On the criterion side, covering the full spectrum of everyday life behaviors seems crucial for further research. In accordance with the idea of covering the personality space in its entire breadth, future research could focus on expanding and broadening the criterion space. To do so, generating a possibly exhaustive item pool for everyday life behaviors is necessary. Based on this, a crude-grit selected criterion set could be extracted. This set should capture behaviors that have not been included in the present study (e.g., smartphone usage, health behaviors, and sustainable behaviors).

Conclusion

Our results provide initial insights about how crude-grit selection of personality indicators can enhance prediction of everyday life behaviors. Yet, the full potential of crude-grit selection strategies for prediction is still unknown and possibly underestimated. Therefore, the current work should be seen as ‘proof-of-principle’, as it needs to be replicated and extended in larger samples and with other kinds of measures (e.g., personality items, expanded criteria space).

In addition to the predictive advantage, the crude-grit selection strategy provides a competing perspective on personality assessment. We selected the crude-grit set with the goal to not factorize, cluster, or reduce it in dimensionality. Therefore, this set will not serve the purpose of describing personality in the condensed manner the big-five sets do (Mõttus et al., 2020). Rather, instead of factors, individual responses are conceptualized as an inventory of trait-like person attributes. In the end, our findings emphasize the trade-off between capturing the entire personality trait space or only the most salient trait domains. While a questionnaire based on a few broad trait domains will provide a tool for easier interpretation and communication of personality-outcome associations, we showed that it may be limited in finding these associations to begin with. In contrast, a broader personality space coverage can improve the prediction of relevant outcomes, but does so at the cost of interpretability of the associations.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - What if there were no personality factors? Comparing the predictability of behavioral act frequencies from a big-five and a maximal-dimensional item set

Supplemental Material for What if there were no personality factors? Comparing the predictability of behavioral act frequencies from a big-five and a maximal-dimensional item set by Elisa Altgassen, Gabriel Olaru, and Oliver Wilhelm in European Journal of Personality

Footnotes

Author contributions

Conceptualization, E.A., G.O, and O.W.; Data curation, E.A.; Formal analysis, E.A.; Methodology, E.A., G.O., and O.W.; Project ad-ministration, E.A; Supervision, G.O. and O.W.; Writing – original draft, E.A.; Writing – review & editing, E.A., G.O., and O.W. All authors have read and agreed to the current version of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open Science Statement

The study materials, supplement materials and analysis scripts used for this article can be accessed at the Open Science Framework (OSF) via https://osf.io/je6us/. All data is publicly available at Harvard Dataverse from Eugene Springfield Community Sample .

ORCID iD

Elisa Altgassen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental materials are publicly available on OSF: https://osf.io/je6us/ Data is publicly available at Harvard Dataverse from Eugene Springfield Community Sample:

Appendix

Table A1.

Selected adjectives for the big-five set, the crude-grit set, the lower-bound and upper-bound random sets plus the remaining seven ACO-selected sets.

Big-five set	Crude-grit set	Lower-bound	Upper-bound	Set1	Set2
Bashful	Artistic	Annoying	Active	Attentive	Active
Bold	Attentive	Appealing	Agreeable	Businesslike	Adorable
Careless	Carefree	Capable	Anxious	Careful	Artistic
Cold	Casual	Carefree	Assertive	Casual	Cautious
Complex	Cautious	Caring	Boring	Closed_minded	Childish
Cooperative	Competitive	Confident	Brave	Clumsy	Comical
Creative	Cool	Consistent	Capable	Concerned	Cool
Deep	Crazy	Courageous	Careless	Creative	Deep
Disorganized	Cute	Courteous	Cool	Cute	Dependent
Efficient	Deep	Critical	Cute	Dumb	Easygoing
Energetic	Dependent	Cruel	Dependent	Forgetful	Emotional
Envious	Ethical	Effective	Down_to_earth	Harmless	Experienced
Extraverted	Evil	Encouraging	Exciting	Hilarious	Furious
Fretful	Experienced	Experienced	Forward	Idealistic	Generous
Harsh	Forgetful	Helpful	Graceful	Impulsive	Harmless
Imaginative	Harmless	Hostile	Greedy	Innocent	Idealistic
Inefficient	Idealistic	hot_tempered	Hard_working	laid_back	Impulsive
Intellectual	Impulsive	Insulting	Hopeful	Lazy	Innocent
Jealous	Innocent	Irritable	Humorous	Liberal	Lazy
Kind	Lazy	Irritating	Influential	Lonesome	Liberal
Moody	Liberal	Lovable	Liberal	Masculine	Masculine
Organized	Neighborly	Loving	Lively	Normal	Materialistic
Philosophical	Observant	Loyal	Loyal	Nosy	Naive
Practical	Old_fashioned	Needy	Masculine	Observant	Observant
Quiet	Opinionated	Obsessive	Motherly	Old_fashioned	Old_fashioned
Relaxed	Predictable	Outspoken	Punctual	Opinionated	Plain
Rude	Prejudiced	Persistent	Religious	Private	Prejudiced
Shy	Private	Practical	Remarkable	Procrastinating	Preoccupied
Sloppy	Procrastinating	Prejudiced	Resourceful	Punctual	Private
Sympathetic	Punctual	Reliable	Sad	Romantic	Procrastinating
Systematic	Religious	Remarkable	Scared	Rushed	Punctual
Talkative	Rushed	Resourceful	Sensible	Self_conscious	Rushed
Temperamental	Self_conscious	Scared	Sincere	Self_supporting	Sentimental
Touchy	Self_supporting	Social	Smart	Short_tempered	Serious
Uncreative	Sentimental	Spontaneous	Stable	Sophisticated	Soft_spoken
Unenvious	Short_tempered	Supportive	Superstitious	Stingy	Stubborn
Unintellectual	Snobbish	Suspicious	Terrible	Straightforward	Systematic
Unsympathetic	Soft_spoken	Temperamental	Unforgettable	Stuck_up	Terrible
Warm	Superstitious	Thoughtless	Uninhibited	Superstitious	Tough
Withdrawn	Youthful	Warm_hearted	Unusual	Unforgettable	Uninhibited

Set3	Set4	Set5	Set6	Set7
Attentive	Attentive	Carefree	Ambitious	Active
Bashful	Casual	Casual	Artistic	Amusing
Carefree	Competitive	Competitive	Businesslike	Businesslike
Casual	Compulsive	Conceited	Casual	Casual
Cautious	Cool	Cool	Cautious	Clumsy
Comical	Crazy	Creative	closed_minded	Complex
Conceited	Creative	Evil	Conceited	Conceited
Cool	Deep	Forgetful	Concerned	Curious
Deep	Dependent	Funny	Cool	Dependent
Dependent	Disobedient	Idealistic	Critical	Down_to_earth
Disgusting	Down_to_earth	Innocent	Dependable	Ethical
Down_to_earth	Forgetful	Lazy	Disobedient	Grateful
Emotional	Frightening	Lonesome	Down_to_earth	Harmless
Ethical	Harmless	Messy	Emotional	Idealistic
Evil	Laid_back	Modest	Humorous	Ignorant
Experienced	Lazy	Naive	Impulsive	Innocent
Harmless	Materialistic	narrow_minded	Insane	Inspirational
Idealistic	Modest	Nosy	Laid_back	Jealous
Imaginative	Naive	Observant	Lazy	Lazy
Impulsive	Observant	old_fashioned	Masculine	Liberal
Lazy	Old_fashioned	Plain	Materialistic	Loud
Masculine	Plain	Possessive	Modest	Masculine
Naive	Prejudiced	Predictable	Naive	Observant
Needy	Private	Private	Observant	Old_fashioned
Nosy	Procrastinating	Punctual	Philosophical	Plain
Old_fashioned	Protective	Rational	Preoccupied	Predictable
Opinionated	Punctual	Religious	Procrastinating	Prejudiced
Plain	Religious	Rushed	Religious	Private
Prejudiced	Self_conscious	Self_supporting	Rushed	Procrastinating
Procrastinating	Self_sufficient	Sensitive	Self_conscious	Protective
Proud	Sensitive	Sentimental	Serious	Punctual
Punctual	Serious	Serious	Shallow	Rushed
Rushed	Soft_spoken	Soft_spoken	Soft_spoken	Serious
Sentimental	Sophisticated	Strict	Stingy	Strange
Serious	Spontaneous	Stubborn	Stubborn	Strict
Soft_spoken	Stubborn	Superstitious	Superstitious	Stubborn
Strict	Superstitious	Terrible	Sweet	Suspicious
Superstitious	Trusting	Tough	Terrible	Sweet
Tough	Unforgettable	Unforgettable	Unforgettable	Unforgettable
Youthful	Youthful	Uninhibited	Uninhibited	Uninhibited

References

Anglim

Horwood

Smillie

L. D.

Marrero

R. J.

Wood

J. K.

(2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

Perugini

Szarota

de Vries

R. E.

Di Blas

Boies

De Raad

(2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

Judge

T. A.

(2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Bolar

(2019). Package “stat” (0.1.0). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/STAT/STAT.pdf

Brogden

H. E.

Taylor

E. K.

(1950). The theory and classification of criterion bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445001000201

Cattell

R. B.

(1945). The principal trait clusters for describing personality. Psychological Bulletin, 42(3), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060679

Clark

L. A.

Watson

(2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626

Condon

D. M.

(2018). The SAPA personality inventory: An empirically-derived, hierarchically-organized self-report personality assessment model [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sc4p9

10.

Condon

D. M.

Coughlin

Weston

S. J.

(2022). Personality trait descriptors: 2,818 trait descriptive adjectives characterized by familiarity, frequency of use, and prior use in psycholexical research. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 10(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.5334/jopd.57

11.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2

12.

Del Giudice

(2020). Effective dimensionality: A tutorial. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1743631

13.

Dwyer

P. S.

(1937). The determination of the factor loadings of a given test from the known factor loadings of other tests. Psychometrika, 2(3), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288394

14.

Elleman

L. G.

McDougald

S. K.

Condon

D. M.

Revelle

(2020). That takes the BISCUIT: Predictive accuracy and parsimony of four statistical learning techniques in personality data, with data missingness conditions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(6), 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000590

15.

Epstein

(1984). A procedural note on the measurement of broad dispositions. Journal of Personality, 52(4), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00354.x

16.

Fiske

D. W.

(1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sour sources. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 44(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198

17.

French

J. W.

(1952). A technique for criterion-keying and selecting test items. Psychometrika, 17(1), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02288798

18.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216

19.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits (p. 9). American Psychologist.

20.

Goldberg

L. R.

(2009). Personality, demographics, and self-reported behavioral acts: The development of avocational interest scales from estimates of the amount of time spent in interest-related activities. In Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (p. 205). Oxford University Press.

21.

Hendriks

A. a. J.

Hofstee

W. K. B.

Raad

B. D.

(1999). The five-factor personality inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27(2), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00245-1

22.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. discussion 83–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

23.

Hofstee

(1994). The abridged big5 circumplex (AB5C) model of trait structure—comparisons with the heymans cube, kieslers interpersonal circle, and peabody and goldberg double cone model. European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee, 44(1), 27–33.

24.

John

O. P.

Angleitner

Ostendorf

(1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020302

25.

Landauer

T. K.

Foltz

P. W.

Laham

(1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028

26.

Loehlin

J. C.

Nichols

R. C.

(1976). Heredity, environment, and personality: A study of 850 sets of twins. University of Texas Press.

27.

McCrae

R. R.

(2015). A more nuanced view of reliability: Specificity in the trait hierarchy. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 19(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314541857

28.

Mõttus

Bates

Condon

D. M.

Mroczek

Revelle

(2017). Leveraging a more nuanced view of personality: Narrow characteristics predict and explain variance in life outcomes. [Preprint]. https://osf.io/4q9gv

29.

Mõttus

Rozgonjuk

(2021). Development is in the details: Age differences in the big five domains, facets, and nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000276

30.

Mõttus

Wood

Condon

D. M.

Back

M. D.

Baumert

Costantini

Epskamp

Greiff

Johnson

Lukaszewski

Murray

Revelle

Wright

A. G. C.

Yarkoni

Ziegler

Zimmermann

(2020). Descriptive, predictive and explanatory personality research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond the big few traits. p. 27.

31.

Olaru

Schroeders

Hartung

Wilhelm

(2019). Ant colony optimization and local weighted structural equation modeling. A tutorial on novel item and person sampling procedures for personality research. European Journal of Personality, 33(3), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2195

32.

Ozer

D. J.

Benet-Martinez

(2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127

33.

Paunonen

S. V.

(1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.538

34.

Paunonen

S. V.

Jackson

D. N.

(2000). What is beyond the big five? Plenty. Journal of Personality, 68(5), 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00117

35.

Poropat

A. E.

(2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996

36.

R Core Team . (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.2.0). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

37.

Revelle

(2020). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version=2.0.12

38.

Rosenbusch

Wanders

Pit

I. L.

(2019). The semantic scale network: An online tool to detect semantic overlap of psychological scales and prevent scale redundancies. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000244

39.

RStudio Team . (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio. http://www.rstudio.com/

40.

Saucier

(1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8

41.

Saucier

(1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. p. 17.

42.

Saucier

Iurino

Thalmayer

A. G.

(2020). Comparing predictive validity in a community sample: High–dimensionality and traditional domain–and–facet structures of personality variation. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1120–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2235

43.

Seeboth

Mõttus

(2018). Successful explanations start with accurate descriptions: Questionnaire items as personality markers for more accurate predictions. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2147

44.

Smith

G. T.

Fischer

Fister

S. M.

(2003). Incremental validity principles in test construction. Psychological Assessment, 15(4), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.467

45.

Stewart

R. D.

Mõttus

Seeboth

Soto

C. J.

Johnson

(2021). The finer details? The predictability of life outcomes from big five domains, facets, and nuances. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12660

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB