Verified by 
Big 5 Personality Traits
How Universal Is the Big Five?
In Africa, the methods that led to the Big Five tell us something different.
Posted December 15, 2020 Reviewed by Matt Huston
A Model of Personality Can Be Built From the Everyday Words We Use to Describe Each Other
Personality questionnaires that ask about our patterns of behavior or feelings predict important life outcomes: success in work and marriage, health and longevity, and risk of psychological disorders. But before creating a questionnaire, personality psychologists must decide which traits are most important to measure. In the early part of the 20th century, opinions varied and everyone used a different model. It was hard to compare results.
Lexical studies of personality introduced an objective way to decide which traits are important. They are based on a rationale from linguistics: People seek efficiency, and where an idea is expressed often, it will become encoded into a single word. These studies are conducted in four basic steps: (1) extract all terms used to describe psychological differences from a dictionary; (2) reduce the list to a manageable number by determining which are most commonly used; (3) administer the list as a questionnaire, asking participants how well each term describes a target person; (4) use factor analysis to find out which terms group together into broad traits. For example, people who are described as very kind are often also described as very patient, but as not at all rude. The resulting factor might be labelled something like "Agreeableness."
In the 1990s, lexical studies in English, German and Dutch, converged on the same model, and the Big Five (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness/Intellect) was born. Questionnaires to measure it were developed and have since been used in thousands of studies.
Is the Big Five Universal?
It’s hard to overstate how significant it was for the field of personality psychology to settle on a standard, consensus model, so enthusiasm is understandable. Claims that it was a universal model were made early and probably went too far, considering that the original studies were in very closely related languages and cultures.
Lexical studies in other languages have not consistently found the "Big Five." Other common-denominator models have been proposed: For example, some suggest that adding a sixth factor with content related to Honesty integrates more results. Others find only two factors that emerge as universal: Social Self-Regulation (content from Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Honesty) and Dynamism (more or less Extraversion and Openness). Ultimately, however, tests for universality require evidence from all over the world.
Lexical Studies of Personality in African Languages
The initial lexical studies were in European languages, and later a few came from Asia. Africa was missing, but with over a thousand languages spoken here, where to start? Our team decided to begin with one each in the three main language groups of Sub-Saharan Africa, in far-separated regions with different environmental, social and economic conditions, in order to reflect the great diversity in Africa.
The first were conducted in small samples among Maasai people, herders in Kenya and Tanzania, and among speakers of Supyire-Senufo, horticulturalists in Mali, and published in 2019. When restricted to two factors, the content in both languages matched the broad Big Two. A five-factor solution in Maa and a 10-factor solution in Supyire were the best descriptions of local results, but these models did not look like the “Big Five.” There was no Openness content, for one thing. The two languages had similar dimensions up to three factors (virtue; well-being; power), but they included culture-specific content starting with the fourth.
A Lexical Study in a Khoesan Clicking Language
In 2018 in Namibia we embarked on the most ambitious lexical study yet in Africa, in Khoekhoegowab, the most widely spoken of Khoesan clicking languages. As in our prior work in Africa, but unlike previous lexical studies, we sought responses from adults throughout the country, rather than university students. In addition to a more systematic approach to data analysis, this was also the first lexical study to incorporate follow-up qualitative interviews after the survey: we sought the perspectives of Khoekhoegowab speakers from the community on how they use words from the study, and their understanding of Big Five concepts that did not show up in it.
A list of words that can be used to describe differences between people was extracted from the Khoekhoe dictionary, and reduced to the 272 most commonly-used. To succeed in getting data from throughout the country, we recruited a team of 15 schoolteachers of Khoekhoegowab. After a training weekend, they went home and invited neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances to participate, sometimes going door to door. Sitting privately, the interviewer asked the participant to think about a specific person they knew well. The interviewer read the list of terms aloud, and the participant rated how well each term described their target person.
We explored the resulting data set of over 500 cases, with ratings on the 272 terms, using factor analysis. This indicated which grouped together. For example, people who were described as helpful (sîsenhuixa) were also described as attentive and meticulous (ǃûiǃgâxa), but as not untidy (ǃkhaera(si)b/s).
Follow-Up Conversations With Khoekhoe-Speakers
Some terms that grouped together were harder to interpret, and we were not confident that all definitions in the Khoekhoe-English dictionary were adequate. For example, the word ǁgoaraxa was defined as "prone to blackmail" but it was hard to picture what was meant.
We spoke to 23 Khoekhoegowab-speakers in six towns to find out. The examples they gave for how they used the terms in our study led us to update the definitions of 22 words to better summarize their usage. For example, we clarified the meaning of ǁgoaraxa to be: “someone who wants to be begged by others, creates situations where others are in a position to beg, and/or withholds in order to be begged.”
Local Understanding of Extraversion and Openness
We had other questions. Of the 272 most-used Khoekhoe terms to describe people, none related to Big Five Extraversion or Openness. This absence has been reported in other African contexts and sometimes in Asia, but what does it mean? Are these distinctions unknown? Or have they just not been encoded into single words?
We asked about aspects of Extraversion (friendliness) and of Openness (creativity), and we found them to be understood by Khoekhoegowab-speakers very similarly to how they are used in the West. When asked to describe someone high in these qualities, Khoekhoegowab-speakers gave examples that matched those Americans might give.
This is a good example of how personality description has both universal and culturally specific aspects. On one hand, the lack of equivalent frequently-used terms suggests that these concepts have been less useful and relevant locally. But when we describe an imported trait, people easily relate it to others they know. This might be analogous to explaining an imported concept such as the Japanese amae (one who likes to be kindly indulged by a parent or spouse, acting dependent) to Americans, and asking if they can think of someone who embodies this trait. Many of us could come up with an example once it is explained, even if it isn’t a key concept locally.
Personality Structure in Khoekhoegowab
The patterns of association among the 272 terms suggested 11 dimensions for how Khoekhoe speakers describe others (see table). Eight had only small correlations (.30 or less), if any, with imported Big Two, Big Five, and Big Six scales. These unique dimensions can give us clues about the local culture.
Only three Khoekhoe factors (Prosocial Diligence, Bad Temper, and Fear vs. Courage) had higher overlap (though still not large) with imported scales. Interestingly, Prosocial Diligence correlated with both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. These factors are sometimes correlated in the West, but not as strongly. Their association might be stronger in collectivistic settings, particularly those under economic stress. In an individualistic context, one person’s Conscientiousness might be considered their own business: your lower grades or earning power, or worse long-term health, may be your own problem. But in contexts where obligations to extended family are the social safety net, your hard work or laziness impacts those around you.
What Does It Mean If the Big Five Isn’t Found in Africa?
A personality model created in one place can be used in others: people are similar enough that we can understand each other’s distinctions once they are explained. Can you think of someone you would describe as amae? What about ǁgoaraxa? Imported concepts can be a pleasure, giving us new ideas for how to think about human variation. Their ability to be translated and understood suggest a universal aspects of personality description.
But the trait dimensions that arise naturally through a lexical study don’t just tell us about personality differences; they also tell us about the local society. Extraversion, for example, is very important in the United States where people move often and interact with many strangers, where there is high ‘relational mobility’. In such contexts, Extraversion is not only advantageous, it is also highly visible. A rich vocabulary has arisen to indicate subtle distinctions: from gregarious, friendly, outspoken, and brash, to shy, withdrawn, and laconic. Speakers of Supyire-Senufo, on the other hand, have a different lifestyle, commonly remaining in the same rural area, interacting with well-known others with whom they share the labor of raising food crops. There, a trait dimension of ‘laziness’ appeared; their most-used terms included many that defined subtle nuances in hard-working-ness, but almost none that related to Extraversion. It isn’t as noticeable or useful to talk about.
In Asian and African studies, where Extraversion terms are found they often sort out differently with those of Agreeableness. The warmth, gregariousness, and positive-emotion aspects of Extraversion tend to combine with Agreeableness’ trust and altruistic aspects, whereas assertiveness and excitement-seeking associate with dis-Agreeableness, as something like ‘Abrasively Bold’. A highly positive view of Extraversion, as a dimension of ambitiousness and social skill, associated with attractiveness and likability, may be specific to the United States, where it arguably defines an American personality-ideal!
What Does It Mean for a Personality Model to Be Universal?
If the dominant model had been first created in Africa or Asia, under the same pressure to choose a consensus model, it is possible that we might now use something very different than the Big Five. People have enough in common that this foreign-born measure would probably work acceptably in the United States, and its authors might claim it as a universal model. But we know that it would be missing content, like Openness, that is meaningful to individualistic Americans and captures useful distinctions between our role and career choices. It might combine dimensions like Extraversion and Agreeableness, or Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (as in Khoekhoe Prosocial Diligence), in ways that less optimally capture our experience. It might include domains like Temperance (religiousness versus substance use) that don’t really match local attitudes. This model could work to some extent, the same way that the Big Five, translated to dozens of languages and imposed around the world, works to some extent. But it would likewise be an awkward and incomplete fit in many societies.
Hopefully the future will see more interest in the nuances of personality traits across contexts, and less fixation on the Big Five. If we can make room in our science for universal and for culturally specific aspects of personality traits and models, they can teach us a lot about the societies from which they emerge.
