The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model.

By G. Saucier, L. R. Goldberg. 1996

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A virtues approach to personality (2000, unknown): “The lexical tradition of culling a dictionary for natural language terms is based on the premise that all signi®cant aspects of a human domain (in this case, the domain of virtue) become encoded in the language (John et al., 1988; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996).”
A Socioanalytic Model of Maturity (2004, background): “For example, much of the criticism of the five-factor model (FFM) (Block, 1995) becomes moot if the FFM is seen as a taxonomy of observer descriptions and not as a theory of personality (R. Hogan, 1996; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996).”
Sexual Dimensions of Person Description: Beyond or Subsumed by the Big Five? ☆ (2000, background): “Indeed, a central element of the traditional lexical approach which we are following is that the words found in standard sources have stood the test of time and have been more generally useful than slang words (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996).”
A Survey of Personality Computing (2014, unknown): “notypic individual differences” [18].”
Personality traits and personal values: a conceptual and empirical integration (2003, background): “Most theory and research has focused on environmental rather than endogenous influences on values (see, for example, Knafo & Schwartz, 2001; Schoenpflug, 2001). Still, a number of scholars in each tradition have acknowledged the relationship between personality traits and values. Rokeach (1973) view”
Personality and Psychotherapy: Treating the Whole Person (2005, unknown): “Norman (1963) replicated their findings, and almost 20 years later, Goldberg (1981, 1982), working from his own set of dictionary-generated synonyms, again obtained five dimensions.”
Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality Assessment (2001, background): “…social-cognitive 2Theorists differ in whether they treat self-reports of dispositional tendencies as merely phenotypic properties (Goldberg, 1993) or also as inferred structures with causal force (McCrae & Costa, 1996; see Goldberg & Saucier, 1995; John & Robbins, 1993; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996).”
The Interplay Of Cultural Syndromes And Personality In Predicting Life Satisfaction (2003, methodology): “In accordance with the phenotypic view on the Big Five (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996) and cultural psychology’s definition of personality (Markus & Kitayama, 1998), we predict that for both of our cultural groups, the culture → personality model of SWB will provide a more accurate picture of the…”
What Do We Assess when We Assess a Big 5 Trait? A Content Analysis of the Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Processes Represented in Big 5 Personality Inventories (2002, methodology): “For example, whereas Saucier and Goldberg (1996) emphasize phenotypic descriptions of the Big 5, overall they do not rely on behavioral descriptors any more than other scale constructors.”
Audience Personality and the Selection of Media and Media Genres (2005, methodology): “The Five-factor model, in contrast, was derived, in part, from analyses of natural language trait terms with the goal of establishing a comprehensive list of the contributors to individual personality differences (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996).”
The Circumplex of Personality Metatraits: A Synthesizing Model of Personality Based on the Big Five (2014, background): “Even though the factors are conceptualized slightly differently within these traditions (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996), many studies have demonstrated considerable convergence between the various five-factor models (De Raad & Perugini, 2002; Goldberg, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992;…”