Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.

The HEXACO Model of Personality Structure

and the Importance of the H Factor
Michael C. Ashton1* and Kibeom Lee2
1
Department of Psychology, Brock University
2
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary

Abstract
We give a brief summary of recent research on the structure of personality
characteristics, describing the six-dimensional ‘HEXACO’ model that has emerged
as the most accurate representation of that structure. We then discuss the importance
of personality as a predictor of socially important criteria, describing a variety of
examples involving the Honesty–Humility (H) factor. The H dimension, alone
or in combination with other factors of the HEXACO model, is related inversely
to a wide array of criteria, including criminal activity and other unethical behaviors
as well as materialistic and power-seeking tendencies.

There are hundreds of identifiable personality characteristics, but each of

them overlaps in varying degrees with many others. Thus, those characteristics
can be seen as combinations of some more fundamental, basic aspects of
personality. Consider the (admittedly imperfect) analogy with color vision:
we can distinguish hundreds of colors; yet, all of these represent varying
combinations of just three primary colors. But finding the number and
identity of the ‘primary colors’ of personality is not easy, and this was one
of the major problems to be addressed by personality psychologists
throughout the second half of the 20th century.

The Structure of Personality Variation

By the 1990s, there were two predominant views about the question of
personality structure. Many psychologists had adopted the ‘Big Five’ or ‘Five-
Factor Model’ (B5/FFM): according to this framework, the dimensions
underlying human personality variation can be identified as Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (versus Neuroticism),
and Openness to Experience.1 (See Table 1 for examples of the characteristics
that define the high and low poles of each factor.) Many other psychologists
viewed the problem as being unsolved and perhaps insoluble, given the
apparently interminable debate between proponents of the B5/FFM
system and many other competing models as derived in diverse ways.
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 HEXACO Model and H Factor 1953

Table 1. Examples of adjectives that have high loadings on the Big Five and
HEXACO personality factors as obtained in lexical studies of personality structure in
the English language

Factors Adjectives

Big Five
Extraversion talkative, extraverted, sociable, assertive, enthusiastic, verbal
versus withdrawn, silent, introverted, shy, reserved, inhibited
Agreeableness sympathetic, kind, warm, cooperative, sincere, compassionate
versus cold, harsh, rude, rough, antagonistic, callous
Conscientiousness organized, systematic, efficient, precise, thorough, practical
versus careless, sloppy, absent-minded, haphazard, disorderly,
unreliable
Emotional Stability relaxed, unemotional, easy-going, unexcitable versus moody,
(versus Neuroticism) jealous, possessive, anxious, touchy, high-strung
Intellect/Imagination/ intellectual, complex, philosophical, innovative, unconventional
Unconventionality* versus simple, conventional, uninquisitive, unintelligent, shallow
HEXACO
Honesty–Humility sincere, honest, faithful/loyal, modest/unassuming, fair-minded
versus sly, deceitful, greedy, pretentious, hypocritical, boastful,
pompous
Emotionality emotional, oversensitive, sentimental, fearful, anxious,
vulnerable versus brave, tough, independent, self-assured, stable
Extraversion outgoing, lively, extraverted, sociable, talkative, cheerful, active
versus shy, passive, withdrawn, introverted, quiet, reserved
Agreeableness patient, tolerant, peaceful, mild, agreeable, lenient, gentle
versus ill-tempered, quarrelsome, stubborn, choleric
Conscientiousness organized, disciplined, diligent, careful, thorough, precise versus
sloppy, negligent, reckless, lazy, irresponsible, absent-minded
Intellect/Imagination/ intellectual, creative, unconventional, innovative, ironic versus
Unconventionality* shallow, unimaginative, conventional

Note: *Intellect/Imagination/Unconventionality is also known as Openness to

Experience. Source for the Big Five factors: Hofstee, de Raad, and Goldberg (1992);
Saucier and Goldberg (1996). Source for the HEXACO factors: Ashton and Lee
(2008); Ashton et al. (2004).

There is now much evidence that both of these positions are mistaken.
The results obtained from investigations of personality structure now point
strongly toward a six-dimensional framework that we have called the
HEXACO model (Ashton & Lee, 2007). The HEXACO factors are named
Honesty–Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness
(A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). Three of these
dimensions – Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experi-
ence – are essentially the same as their counterparts in the B5/FFM, but the
other three – Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, and Agreeableness – differ
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1954 HEXACO Model and H Factor

in important respects from the Neuroticism and Agreeableness factors of

the B5/FFM (see Table 1). Although the appearance of this model of
personality structure in the research literature is relatively recent, the
evidence favoring this framework is already far stronger than that which
had led so many psychologists to adopt the B5/FFM during the late 20th
century.
To understand why we make such a bold claim, consider the nature of
the problem of personality structure. Ultimately, the basic dimensions of
personality will be found by examining the observed relations among the
many diverse characteristics of personality, as assessed in large samples of
individuals. The statistical technique that is best suited to this problem is factor
analysis, which summarizes the correlations among many variables in terms
of a few dimensions or factors. But the results of a factor analysis will
depend critically on the variable set that is examined. If, for example, one
deliberately chooses a few distinct groups of very similar personality
characteristics, then the number and nature of the resulting personality
factors is more or less preordained. Therefore, the efforts to identify the
structure of personality characteristics require the analysis of variable sets that
represent the entire domain of personality, without favoring certain aspects
of personality that would define the factors of some desired solution.
How can we obtain a variable set that represents the full range of
personality characteristics? The strategy that researchers have adopted is
based on the ‘lexical hypothesis’ – the idea that personality characteristics
tend to be encoded in human languages, particularly as adjectives (or, in
some languages, as other parts of speech that function as adjectives).
Presumably, any major dimension of personality will manifest itself in a
variety of related characteristics, and people will invent words to describe
each other in terms of these characteristics. Therefore, one could find
those major dimensions of personality by first identifying the full list of
reasonably familiar personality-descriptive adjectives of a language, and
then obtaining personality ratings of many people on those adjectives. By
conducting factor analyses of these data sets, one could then identify the
largest set of personality factors that can be recovered widely across the
personality lexicons of various languages, and thereby discover the number
and nature of the major dimensions of personality. (For a summary of
various criticisms of the lexical approach, and responses to those criticisms,
see Ashton & Lee, 2005b.)
The logic described above was the basis for the first lexical studies of
personality structure, which were conducted in the English language (e.g.,
Cattell, 1947). These investigations were based on very small lists of
adjectives, due to the limited computing power available at the time. But
during the following decades, it became clear that a five-factor solution – a
structure resembling the B5/FFM – was repeatedly observed in these
English lexical investigations (e.g., Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981;
Tupes & Christal, 1961, 1992). Thereafter, the B5/FFM became increasingly
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 HEXACO Model and H Factor 1955

popular, largely through the questionnaire-based studies by Costa and

McCrae (e.g., 1988). (Note, however, that the latter program of research
owes its origins to the results of lexical investigations; see McCrae, 1989.)
According to the lexical approach, the basic dimensions of personality
should be recovered from the personality lexicons of many different languages,
and not merely from English or any other single language. Thus, in the
1980s and 1990s, lexical investigations of personality structure were carried
out in various other languages; indeed, these studies were generally superior
in variable sampling to the early English language research, because recent
improvements in computing power made it feasible to analyze ratings on
several hundred adjectives, not merely on a few dozen.
Thus far, standard lexical studies of personality structure have been
conducted in about a dozen languages, including Croatian, Dutch, Filipino,
French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Polish, and Turkish,
as well as English (the latter with larger variable sets than in the past). The
perhaps surprising result of these studies is that a factor space even larger
than the B5/FFM has been recovered consistently. In each of these
languages, analyses of several hundred familiar personality-descriptive
adjectives have recovered similar variants of the set of six dimensions now
known as the HEXACO factors (see detailed descriptions in Ashton &
Lee, 2007; Lee & Ashton, forthcoming; for an earlier review, see Ashton
et al., 2004). The correspondences between the observed lexical factors
and the presumed cross-language common structure (i.e., the HEXACO
factors) have been demonstrated in two ways (Lee & Ashton, forthcoming).
First, in several of the above languages, adjective self-ratings have been obtained
along with self-reports on questionnaire markers of the HEXACO factors,
and these variables have shown the expected pattern of convergent and
disrciminant correlations. In addition, across all of the languages, aggregated
judges’ ratings of the similarity of content between the adjective factors
and the proposed HEXACO constructs have confirmed the hypothesized
pattern of convergent and discriminant values.
The results of the above lexical studies indicate that the HEXACO
factors are recovered across a diverse array of languages, and that these
dimensions do provide a meaningful summary of human personality
characteristics. But the lexical findings also suggest that the HEXACO
framework is the best such summary, because this is the largest set of
dimensions that can be recovered widely across languages. Any given
lexical study conducted in any given language might well produce an
interpretable set of seven (or eight, or nine, or ten ... ) factors, but none
of those solutions are consistently recovered across diverse languages.2,3

How Personality Matters and How to Find Out

We now turn to the question of the importance of personality factors in
everyday life, with special attention to the Honesty–Humility factor. This
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1956 HEXACO Model and H Factor

dimension is of some interest partly because it incorporates some variance

not accounted for by the B5/FFM dimensions (even by the FFM variant
of Agreeableness, despite its being broader in scope than the original Big
Five variant). But Honesty–Humility is also worthy of special focus
because of the very harmful effects that low levels of this factor can have
upon individual persons and upon society or humanity as a whole.
Let us first consider how we might gauge the broad social importance
of a personality dimension such as H or any other factor. The most
convincing evidence might come from a longitudinal study of several
thousand persons. Ideally, personality would be measured by a combination
of self-reports and multiple observer reports, as obtained at several intervals
in adolescence and young adulthood. These personality data would then
be compared with objective records of socially important outcomes
involving health, longevity, crime, occupation, education, income, marital
status, family foundation, and many others. But there are no existing
studies that approach this ideal, and it may be decades before any data
from such studies are available. (Moreover, not all important criteria can
be readily assessed through objective records.) In the meantime, however,
we can gain a very plausible idea of the link between personality and
socially important phenomena through the results of investigations that
employ alternative designs. We suggest that cross-sectional studies based
on self-reports (sometimes supplemented with observer reports) can give
a likely indication of the links between personality and outcome variables,
as long as those criteria are assessed by measures that possess strong
content validity.
In the remaining sections of this article, we describe the results of
several investigations of this kind. Together, these studies suggest that a
wide array of socially important phenomena can be understood in terms
of the H factor of personality. Each of these phenomena will also be
influenced by one or more other personality factors (or by other individual
difference dimensions more generally), and each will also have its own
situational determinants. Nevertheless, the common denominator of these
phenomena is the important role of the H factor, which we believe to be
the causal nexus underlying these various outcomes.

Low Honesty–Humility and Common Crime

One of the more intuitively obvious manifestations of low H is crime or
delinquency, including acts such as theft or fraud, and a common setting for
such behaviors is the workplace (Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005a; Lee,
Ashton, & Shin, 2005b; Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007). Much research has
examined the personality correlates of workplace delinquency, as opera-
tionalized in terms of various forms of theft as well as alcohol consumption,
vandalism, and other counterproductive acts. Studies that have investigated
these behaviors in relation to the HEXACO personality factors have
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 HEXACO Model and H Factor 1957

consistently found workplace delinquency to show moderately strong associ-

ations with low H (r ≈ –0.45) and to a lesser extent also with low C (Lee
et al., 2005a,b; Marcus et al., 2007). These results suggest that persons
having tendencies to be greedy and exploitative (i.e., low in H) as well as
impulsive and undisciplined (i.e., low in C) are those who are most likely
to be counterproductive or delinquent employees.
The above characteristics of low H and low C are also implicated in
criminal behavior more generally. Findings similar to those reported above
for workplace delinquency have also been observed for delinquent acts
committed in a wider range of settings (Ashton & Lee, forthcoming).
Moreover, one interesting recent study (Samuels et al., 2004) examined
objective records of previous arrest in relation to self-reports on the NEO
Personality Inventory – Revised. Although this instrument is designed to
measure the B5/FFM dimensions, some of its facet scales are reasonably
good indicators of those HEXACO factors that do not map directly onto
those of the B5/FFM (see Ashton & Lee, 2005a). The results of Samuels
et al. indicated that persons having prior arrests, compared with persons
having no prior arrests, averaged about half of a standard deviation unit
lower in traits corresponding to HEXACO H, C, and A.

Low Honesty–Humility and Other Unethical Behavior

Besides the ‘common’ criminality discussed thus far, other unethical actions are
also associated with low levels of the H factor. For example, Lee, Ashton,
Morrison, Cordery, and Dunlop (2008; see also Ashton & Lee, forthcoming)
examined participants’ willingness to engage in unethical business practices,
as assessed by responses to short scenarios that described opportunities for
profit via bribery or kickbacks, environmental damage, or risks to consumer
or worker health and safety. Unethical decisions in these scenarios were
related rather strongly to low H (r ≈ –0.50), and to a moderate extent to low
O (r ≈ –0.30)4. One interesting feature of those results is that, unlike the
findings reported above for ‘common’ crimes, the ‘white-collar’ criminal
or unethical behaviors of these scenarios did not show any substantial
association with low C. Apparently, the inclination to engage in these
unethical business practices is not a function of poor impulse control or lack
of discipline.
A broadly similar pattern of results has also been found for the criterion
of sexual harassment tendencies. Lee, Gizzarone, and Ashton (2003)
administered the Likelihood to Sexually Harass scale – a scenario-based
measure of willingness to use one’s position of power to obtain sexual
favors – to a sample of university student men, and also obtained self- and
peer reports of those men’s personality characteristics (in this study, the original
B5/FFM factors plus H). Sexual harassment proclivities were associated
more strongly with low levels of H than with any of the B5/FFM factors.
More recently, Ashton and Lee (forthcoming) replicated the above
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1958 HEXACO Model and H Factor

findings, again finding that willingness to engage in sexual ‘quid pro

quos’ was more strongly related to low H (r ≈ –0.30) than to any other
personality factors of the HEXACO or the B5/FFM frameworks. The latter
study was based on a sample of both men and women and included items
written in a gender-neutral format that asked about willingness either to offer
or to solicit sexual quid pro quos.
Additional research has shown that low levels of H are associated with
other sexuality-related variables that lack the coercive aspects of sexual
harassment tendencies. For example, Lee, Ogunfowora, and Ashton (2005)
found that the trait of seductiveness – as defined by a provocative style of
dress, conversation, and body language – was associated with low H (r ≈ –0.40)
and high X (r ≈ 0.40). Similar results were obtained by Ashton and Lee
(forthcoming) and also (using different measures of sexuality-related traits)
by Bourdage, Lee, Ashton, and Perry (2007). The latter two studies also
showed that ‘unrestricted sociosexuality’ – a willingness to engage in sexual
relations without emotional commitment – was correlated more strongly
(albeit somewhat modestly) with low H (r ≈ – 0.30) than with any other
personality dimensions of the HEXACO or B5/FFM systems.

Low Honesty–Humility and Materialism and Power-Seeking

In a period of increasing concern about resource scarcity and environmental
damage, the human temptation to engage in conspicuous consumption is
widely seen as a serious threat to the future of our civilization. In this
regard, low levels of H are heavily implicated. Measures of materialistic
tendencies – that is, of a drive to possess and display wealth and luxuries
– show very strong negative correlations with the H factor (Ashton & Lee,
forthcoming). This finding is unsurprising given that greed and similar
characteristics are among the traits that best define the low pole of the H
factor, but it is noteworthy that low H can be manifested in behaviors
that are not necessarily criminal and do not necessarily involve deceit.
Given the association between low H and the drive for money and
material goods, one would also expect low H to be related to a drive for
power and social status. This prediction is borne out by data from a recent
study by Pozzebon and Ashton (forthcoming), who examined the value
types of Schwartz’s (1992) system in relation to the HEXACO personality
dimensions. The value type of Power – as defined by a need for status
and dominance over others – was strongly negatively correlated with the
H factor (r ≈ –0.50). This link between low H and the need for power is
consistent with the similarly strong relations between low H and some
aspects of Narcissism, particularly a sense of entitlement (Lee & Ashton, 2005).
That is, a person having low levels of H wants to have power over others,
but also feels that he or she actually deserves to have power over others.
The drive for power over others can be manifested at an intergroup as
well as an interpersonal level. Measures of social dominance orientation
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 HEXACO Model and H Factor 1959

(SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) – a tendency to endorse

hierarchical rather than egalitarian relations among groups in society – show
moderate negative associations (r ≈ –0.30) with a variety of personality trait
scales that load on the low pole of H (e.g., Heaven & Bucci, 2001). Given
that SDO is often a fairly strong predictor of favorability toward aggressive
wars (e.g., Pratto et al., 1994), it is likely that political leaders having low
levels of H would be particularly likely to instigate such conflicts, both
beyond and within their national boundaries.
The pursuit of power can also be the motivation for a wide array of
behaviors that pose extreme risks to an individual and to others. The
construct of status-driven risk-taking (Ashton & Lee, in preparation)
involves a tendency to expose oneself to physical dangers in an effort to
attain great wealth or status. This tendency has only recently been
operationalized in self- or peer report measures, but has been prominent
in discussions of important societal-level phenomena (e.g., Daly & Wilson,
2001; Wilson & Daly, 1985). For example, homicide rates and accident
death rates vary across time and place, to some extent as a function of
the potential gains associated with risk taking (as indicated, for example,
by income inequality). But among individuals within a relatively homo-
geneous social group, the tendency to engage in status-driven risk taking
can be seen as a personality disposition that combines greed with lack
of fear, and hence can be viewed as a blend of low H and low E. (Recall
that E refers to the HEXACO Emotionality factor, which includes traits
of physical fearfulness.) Initial data support these conceptual links, as
status-driven risk-taking has shown substantial negative correlations with
both H and E (rs ≈ –0.50). As such, these dimensions are likely to be
important predictors of an individual’s likelihood of causing injury or
death to oneself and others.

Honesty–Humility in Combination with other

Personality Dimensions
All of the foregoing examples serve to paint a fascinating but frightening
picture of the social consequences that are attributable to low levels of the
Honesty–Humility personality factor. Low H, either alone or in combination
with other personality dimensions, predicts a diverse array of harmful
outcomes. For example, low H is associated with workplace delinquency,
and with common criminality more generally, especially when combined
with the impulsive and angry tendencies of low C and low A, respectively.
This combination of characteristics is of particular social significance
because it indicates a very poorly socialized person who has a considerable
predilection for a variety of antisocial behaviors. Likewise, individuals
who combine low H with the fearlessness and unsentimentality of low E
may be inclined to subject themselves – and others – to extraordinary
risks in the pursuit of wealth and power.
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1960 HEXACO Model and H Factor

But low H is also dangerous when it occurs without the ‘out-of-

control’ tendencies suggested by low C, low A, or low E. For example,
low H on its own predicts a materialistic and status-obsessed orientation
– and a sense of entitlement to money and status – that undermines social
cohesion, democratic government, and environmental sustainability. In
addition, low H is also associated with a rather mercenary approach to
relations between the sexes, as manifested in a willingness to use power
and money to obtain sex – or vice versa. And low H predicts an
inclination to engage in corruption or ‘white-collar’ crime, whereby
grossly unethical decisions are made in the interest of personal or
collective greed. We are reminded of the famous quotation from Lord
Acton, the 19th century British historian: Power tends to corrupt.
Lord Acton neatly identified the ‘situational’ half of the problem, but
the role of the H factor suggests the other, ‘individual’ half: Power
attracts the corrupt.

Acknowledgement
This project was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada grants 410-2007-2159 and 410-2007-0700.

Short Biographies
Michael Ashton conducts research in the areas of personality and individual
differences. He has published articles in various peer-reviewed journals in
these disciplines, and also serves as a reviewer for several journals. In
addition, Ashton is the author of the textbook Individual Differences and
Personality. His current research examines the structure and measurement
of personality traits and of related psychological characteristics, and also
addresses a variety of theoretical issues concerning the nature of these
variables. Ashton is currently Professor of Psychology at Brock University.
He received a BSc degree from the University of Toronto, and MA and
PhD degrees from the University of Western Ontario.
Kibeom Lee conducts research in the areas of personality and individual
differences and of industrial and organizational psychology. He has published
articles in various peer-reviewed journals in these disciplines, and serves
as a reviewer for several journals. His current research examines the
structure and measurement of personality traits and of related psychological
characteristics, and also addresses a variety of theoretical issues concerning
the nature of these variables. He also maintains an interest in the topics
of organizational citizenship and workplace deviance. Lee is currently
Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Calgary, and he was
previously a Lecturer at the University of Western Australia. He holds BA
and MA degrees from Sung Kyun Kwan University and a PhD degree
from the University of Western Ontario.
© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 HEXACO Model and H Factor 1961

Endnotes
* Correspondence address: Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, 500
Glenridge Ave., St. Catharines, ON, Canada L2S 3A1. Email: [email protected]
1
For most purposes, the Big Five and Five-Factor Model can be considered as interchangeable.
But the factor described above as Openness to Experience is usually called Intellect/Imagination
in the Big Five framework, and the Big Five variant incorporates traits of intellectual ability not
included as personality characteristics in the Five-Factor Model. Also, the Five-Factor Model
version of Agreeableness is somewhat broader in content than is Big Five Agreeableness, by
virtue of including such traits as straightforwardness and modesty (see Ashton & Lee, 2005a).
2
Of course, one could attempt to recover additional factors by including ratings on adjectives
that are not chiefly descriptors of personality, such as terms describing physical appearance or
abilities, or terms that serve mainly as extremely negative evaluations (and hence have extremely
low mean ratings). The inclusion of such terms would, however, miss the point of lexical studies
of personality structure, which is to find the major dimensions of personality variation (see a
more detailed discussion in Ashton & Lee, 2008).
3
An anonymous reviewer of this manuscript raised the common objection that the six HEXACO
factors merely represent ‘a slightly different rearrangement of narrower dimensions from the five
factors’ and that the Honesty–Humility factor is not ‘a major, orthogonal factor of comparable breadth’
to the Big Five factors. For a detailed discussion of this point, see Ashton and Lee (2005a).
4
These tendencies involve an element of low O in addition to low H, but the combination
of high O and low H would likely also be associated with some problematic outcomes, such
as gratuitous rule-breaking and defiance of authority.

References
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005a). Honesty-Humility, the Big Five and the Five-Factor model.
Journal of Personality, 73, 1321–1353.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005b). A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality
structure. European Journal of Personality, 19, 5–24.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the
HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–
166.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The HEXACO model of personality structure. In G. J. Boyle,
G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Theory and Testing: Volume 2 –
Personality Measurement and Assessment (pp. 239–260). London: Sage.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (forthcoming). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria
by the HEXACO and Five-Factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (in preparation). Validation of a scale to assess status-driven risk taking.
Manuscript in preparation.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., &
De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions
from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
356 –366.
Bourdage, J. S., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Perry, A. (2007). Big Five and HEXACO model
personality correlates of sexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1506 –1516.
Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika,
12, 197–220.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and
the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258 –265.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2001). Risk-taking, intrasexual competition, and homicide. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 47, 1– 36.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality:
Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 16, 149 –170.

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1962 HEXACO Model and H Factor

Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance and
personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 49 –56.
Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and
circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-
Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual
Differences, 38, 1571– 1582.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (forthcoming). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous
personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2005a). Explaining workplace delinquency and
integrity with the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality structure. Human Performance,
18, 179 –197.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K.-H. (2005b). Personality correlates of workplace anti-social
behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 81– 98.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Morrison, D. L., Cordery, D., & Dunlop, P. D. (2008). Predicting
integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self- and observer reports. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 147–167.
Lee, K., Gizzarone, M., & Ashton, M. C. (2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually
harass. Sex Roles, 49, 59 – 69.
Lee, K., Ogunfowora, B., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Personality traits beyond the Big Five: Are
they within the HEXACO space? Journal of Personality, 73, 1437–1463.
Marcus, B., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships
between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big Five, or one in addition?
Personnel Psychology, 60, 1–34.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint analyses of the NEO-PI
with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality Psychology: Recent
Trends and Emerging Directions (pp. 237–245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Pozzebon, J. A., & Ashton, M. C. (forthcoming). Personality and values as predictors of self- and
peer reported behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation:
A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Samuels, J., Bienvenu, O. J., Cullen, B., Costa, P. T. Jr., Eaton, W. W., & Nestadt, G. (2004).
Personality dimensions and criminal arrest. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 45, 275–280.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English
personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 10, 61–77.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1– 65.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors based on Trait Ratings. (USAF
Tech. Rep. No. 61–97). US Air Force: Lackland Air Force Base, TX.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.
Journal of Personality, 60, 225–251.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male
syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59–73.

© 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1952–1962, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00134.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd