0% found this document useful (0 votes)

43 views57 pages

Bfi 2 Serbian Validation

This document describes a study that validated a Serbian translation of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) personality assessment. Data were collected from 1016 Serbian adults across two samples, and compared to a US sample of 1000 participants. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the proposed five-factor structure of the BFI-2 in Serbian. Convergent validity was established by comparing the BFI-2 to other Big Five and Big Six/Seven measures. Criterion validity was supported by correlations with behavioral, cognitive, and emotional indicators. The study provides evidence for the cross-cultural validity of measuring personality with the BFI-2 in Serbian.

Uploaded by

milorad krusica

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

43 views57 pages

Bfi 2 Serbian Validation

Uploaded by

milorad krusica

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 57

Running head: The Big Five Inventory (BFI-2) in Serbian language

ed
Title page

The Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Psychometric Properties and Validation in Serbian language

iew
Authors:

v
Snežana Smederevac1

re
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
er
Dr Zorana Djindjica 2 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; email: [email protected]

ORCID 0000-0002-3780-0576
pe

Dušanka Mitrović

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

Dr Zorana Djindjica 2 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; email: [email protected]

ORCID 0000-0001-8532-6795
tn

Selka Sadiković
rin

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

Dr Zorana Djindjica 2 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; email: [email protected]

ORCID 0000-0003-0874-2511
Pr

1 Corresponding autor:

Snežana Smederevac
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +381 63 592 572

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4711058
Running head: The Big Five Inventory (BFI-2) in Serbian language

ed
Bojana M.Dinić

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

Dr Zorana Djindjica 2 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; email: [email protected]

iew
ORCID: 0000-0002-5492-2188

Oliver P. John

v
Department of Psychology and Institute of Personality and Social

re
Research, University of California, Berkeley

Christopher J. Soto
er
Department of Psychology, Colby College

5550 Mayflower Hill, Waterville, ME 04901. E-mail: [email protected]

pe
ORCID: 0000-0002-2875-8919
ot

Data availability statement

We have deposited datasets at OSF platform (https://osf.io/4ps9m/) but it is currently

not available, due to anonymization. It will be publicly available upon publication.

rin

Funding statement

This research was supported by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia
ep

(#7744418, Genetic and environmental influences on psychological adaptation of children

and adults – GENIUS)

Conflicts of Interest disclosure

The author(s) declare that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or

ed
the publication of this article.

Ethics approval statement

iew
The data were collected in a manner consistent with ethical standards for the treatment of

human subjects. The research was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the

Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia code: 202210301555_AvtI).

v
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

The Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Psychometric Properties and Validation in Serbian

d
language

we
Abstract

vie
The Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), as a comprehensive measure encompassing the Big Five

domains and their facets, has undergone numerous validations in various languages. To

validate a Serbian adaptation of the BFI-2, data from two samples, comprising a total of 1016

re
adult participants (Sample 1, N = 389; Sample 2, N = 627), along with a US sample (N =

1000), were utilized. The originally proposed factor structure of Serbian adaptation of the
er
BFI-2 was confirmed, along with partial scalar invariance across Serbian and US samples.

Convergent validity was established in relation to an alternative Big Five measure (IPIP-50),
pe
as well as six-factor (HEXACO-60) and seven-factor models (Big Five Plus Two).

Additionally, criterion validity was confirmed through correlations with various behavior,

cognitive, and emotional indicators measured by the Behavior Report Form. This study
ot

contributes findings that add to the accumulating evidence supporting the cross-cultural

validity of BFI-2.
tn

Key words: BFI-2, HEXACO, Big Five, Big Six, Big Seven, validity, measurement
rin

invariance
ep
Pr

Introduction

d
we
The psycholexical paradigm is founded on the premise that the initial set of variables

in the study of personality should derive from attributes and descriptors already present in

natural language (John et al., 1988). This conceptual approach provided a framework for

vie
lexical personality research, fostering a consensus regarding the number and structure of trait

dimensions (Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990). Nevertheless, some evidence of new traits has

surfaced, due to variations in the selection of the initial set of variables in lexical studies,

re
raising questions about this consensus (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Saucier, 1997; Waller, 1999).

er
Selection of the initial pool of variables and psycholexical dimensions
pe
Psycholexical studies have so far offered three possible solutions concerning the

number and content of basic personality dimensions, named Big Five, Big Six and Big Seven.

As empirical findings have shown, these solutions are influenced by the criteria for selecting
ot

the initial set of variables (DeRaad et al., 2018; Saucier, 1997).

Goldberg (1982) started with Norman's 2797 term set (Norman, 1963) which was
tn

reduced according to several exclusion criteria, such as ambiguity, difficulty, slanginess, sex-

linkage, over-evaluation, peripherality and redundancy. To the remaining 505 terms he added
rin

61 terms that aligned with Peabody's criteria for amplification and evaluation (Peabody,

1970), resulting in the final list comprising 566 descriptors. This study was the starting point
ep

in the development of the Big Five model (Goldberg, 1982, 1990, 1992), which in subsequent

decades accumulated compelling evidence supporting its robustness across languages.

In a German psycholexical study (Angleitner et al., 1990), a comprehensive

classification template was outlined, encompassing dispositions, temporary conditions, social

and reputational aspects, overt characteristics, and appearance, as well as terms of limited

d
utility. The dispositional category within this classification, with the explicit inclusion of

we
subcategories such as temperament, character, abilities, and talents, was used in various

studies (e.g., Church et al., 1996; Mlačić & Ostendorf, 2005), leading to the derivation of a

five-factor solution.

vie
A Dutch psycholexical study (Brokken, 1978) used more straightforward criteria for

word selection. All words deemed "possibly applicable to a person" were selected from the

dictionary to form a comprehensive pool of terms (Hofstee, 1976). A combination of the

re
“nature criterion” (“He/she is... by nature.”) and the “personality” criterion (“What kind of

person is X?”), outlined by Brokken (1978), was applied to create the final list of descriptors,
er
also resulting in a five-factor solution in subsequent studies (De Raad, 1992).

The first substantial shift in the research paradigm of psycholexical studies was
pe
introduced by Tellegen and Waller (Almagor et al., 1995; Waller, 1999). They argued that

“classical” psycholexical studies had exclusively focused on stable traits, systematically

excluding descriptors related to temporary states, moods, and social roles. Therefore, they
ot

included all descriptors in the list, except synonyms, emphasizing the importance of having a

representative sample of descriptors instead of comprehensive list. This approach yielded a

seven-factor personality structure, largely similar to the “Big Five”, with two novel

evaluative dimensions, named Positive Valence and Negative Valence.

rin

Saucier (1997) also included more evaluative and appearance terms, identifying two

additional factors beyond the Big Five, denoted as Attractiveness and Negative Valence.
ep

Examining lexical studies with an inclusive selection of variables, Saucier (2009) concluded

that six or seven factors consistently emerged. The factors appearing outside the Big Five

depended on differentiation in the broad domain of Agreeableness.

Finally, Ashton and Lee provided a six-dimensional lexical solution, encapsulated in

d
the HEXACO model of personality structure (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2007; Ashton et al., 2014;

we
Ashton et al., 2004). While HEXACO Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to

Experience align with corresponding Big Five dimensions, remaining three factors diverge

substantially. The rotated version of Neuroticism is named Emotionality in the HEXACO

vie
model, while Agreeableness undergoes a substantive transformation due to the addition of a

sixth dimension, entitled Honesty-Humility. Specifically, the indicators of irritability and ill

temper, which are part of the Big Five Neuroticism, loaded on the negative pole of HEXACO

re
Agreeableness. Although HEXACO Agreeableness shares some content with Big Five

Agreeableness, such as gentleness, it lacks aspects related to empathy and sentimentality.

er
Instead, it contains, at low pole, anger-related traits associated with Big Five Neuroticism

(Ashton & Lee, 2007). Descriptors that define HEXACO Honesty-Humility include honest,
pe
sincere, fair, and modest versus greedy, conceited, deceitful, and pretentious, indicators that

can be considered as elements of Big Five Agreeableness (Ashton et al., 2014).

>> INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE<<

The tradition rooted in the Big Five (De Raad, 1992; Goldberg, 1982, 1990; Norman,

1967; Tupes & Christal, 1961/1992) has laid the groundwork for a research paradigm that,
rin

both conceptually and methodologically, has paved the way for exploring important

psychological phenomena and the development of newer models (Ashton & Lee, 2007;
ep

Saucier, 1997; Waller, 1999). HEXACO (Ashton & Lee, 2007) and the Big Seven (Waller,

1999) provide valuable insights into personality structure and novel hierarchical levels,

meriting empirical consideration.

Serbian psycholexical studies

d
we
Psycholexical studies in the Serbian language (DeRaad et al., 2018; Smederevac,

2000; Smederevac et al., 2007), utilized different procedures to examine the effects of

variable selection on the number and structure of ultimate personality factors. In the initial

vie
study, following the approach of Tellegen and Waller (Almagor et al., 1995; Waller, 1999),

the dictionary was sampled by selecting the first person-related word encountered on every

fourth page (Smederevac 2000). The study yielded a seven-factor structure. However, the

re
factor content did not fully resemble the Big Seven model. While confirming the robustness

of the evaluative dimensions, Agreeableness had a strong aggressive connotation, and instead
er
of Extraversion, a novel factor emerged, named Emotional Control.

In the second study (Smederevac et al., 2007), which also adhered to Tellegen and
pe
Waller’s (Almagor et al., 1995; Waller, 1999) criteria, two questionnaire formats were

employed: one with items in the format of short sentences (e.g., “I am tolerant”, “I often lie”),

and another with a more natural, contextualized sentence format (e.g., “I don't mind if people
ot

act or think differently,-”, “I've often been forced to tell lies”). This dual-format approach

aimed to facilitate endorsement of highly evaluative items and to remove ambiguity. This
tn

study confirmed a seven-factor structure using the questionnaire with single words or

expressions, encompassing the Big Five, Positive and Negative Valence. However,
rin

questionnaire with a more contextualized format resulted in the five-factor structure.

In the third study (DeRaad et al., 2018), the effects of adding distinct categories, such
ep

as dispositions, talents, states, reputations, attitudes, and evaluations, were examined to

derive lexical dimensions. A combination of Dutch and German procedures was employed to

select the initial pool of variables. The results showed that the variable selection procedures
Pr

significantly influenced the factor solutions. Without including a separate set of evaluative

terms, the stability of the Big Five model was confirmed, along with the Honesty-Humility

d
Factor.

we
Big Five Inventory - 2 (BFI-2)

One of the most significant and widely utilized questionnaires for assessing the

vie
lexical Big Five in the previous decades was the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, &

Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). The key goals in developing the original BFI

re
were to focus on the prototypical Big Five components, while maximizing the measure’s

clarity and efficiency.

er
In the initial phase, a panel of expert judges identified items conceptually relevant to

the Big Five from an initial list of 300 items of the Adjective Checklist (ACL; Gough &
pe
Heilbrun, 1983). After analyzing observer reports to test and refine the structures of the Big

Five-selected adjectives, approximately 100 descriptive adjectives that were conceptually and

empirically central to the Big Five remained (John, 1989, 1990). Subsequently, these
ot

prototypical adjectives were expanded into short phrases for the BFI, in one of three ways:

(a) adjective, synonym (e.g., “Is outgoing, sociable”), (b) adjective, definition (e.g., “Is
tn

relaxed, handles stress well”) or (c) an adjective in context (e.g., “Is a reliable worker”).

Although each BFI scale is short enough to save survey time and prevent respondent fatigue,
rin

it is sufficiently long to ensure reliability and provide reasonably comprehensive coverage of

the Big Five domains (Soto & John, 2017a). Despite covering higher levels of the personality
ep

hierarchy, BFI demonstrated discriminant validity in relation to important phenomena, such

as psychopathological symptoms (Watson et al., 2008), executive functions (Nikolašević et

al., 2022), or alcohol use (Martin et al., 2021).

However, personality research increasingly demand more comprehensive levels of

d
dimensional assessment, particularly in light of accumulating evidence supporting the greater

we
predictive power of facets (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001) and levels

lower than facets (Mõttus et al., 2017) in explaining a wider range of psychological

phenotypes. Since the original BFI was developed without facet-level distinctions, it captures

vie
an uneven representation across relevant domains. For example, BFI Conscientiousness

includes more items related to productivity than organization (Soto & John, 2017a).

re
In response to these challenges, Soto and John (2017a) developed the Big Five

Inventory – 2 (BFI-2), aiming to delineate sharper distinctions between facets, enhance

differentiation between facets, and clarify the hierarchical structure of the questionnaire. The
er
BFI-2 enables the assessment of 15 facets encompassed within the Big Five factors. To avoid

the clinical connotations, the label Neuroticism was replaced with Negative Emotionality.
pe
Additionally, to prevent misinterpretation of the content of Openness, which may relate more

to the social aspects of this dimension than mental experiences, the label was changed to
ot

Open-Mindedness (Soto & John, 2017a).

The BFI-2 comprises the domains of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,

Negative Emotionality, and Open-Mindedness, each covering three facets. Extraversion

encompasses Sociability, Assertiveness and Energy Level; Agreeableness includes

rin

Compassion, Respectfulness and Trust; Conscientiousness covers Organization,

Productiveness and Responsibility; Negative Emotionality contains Anxiety, Depression and

Emotional Volatility, while Open-Mindedness incorporates Aesthetic Sensitivity, Intellectual

Curiosity and Creative Imagination (Soto & John, 2017a).

To date, the BFI-2 has undergone adaptation and validation in various languages,

including Dutch (Denissen et al., 2019), German (Danner et al., 2019), Danish (Vedel et al.,

2020), Russian (Shchebetenko et al., 2020), Slovak (Halama et al., 2020), Chinese (Zhang et

d
al., 2021), Turkish (Cemalcilar et al., 2021), French (Lignier et al., 2022), and Spanish

we
(Gallardo-Pujol et al., 2022), Japanese (Yoshino et al., 2022) and Mongolian (Minkov et al.,

2022). Additionally, it has been validated in an adolescent sample (Ober et al., 2021) and

consistently demonstrated predictive power in capturing extreme levels of personality

vie
relevant to personality disorders in adolescents (van Dijk et al., 2021). Both the original and

maladaptive variants of BFI-2 showed discriminative power in the context of personality

disorder symptomatology (Smith et al., 2022).

re
Up to the present, there is only one study that has examined the cross-cultural

measurement invariance of the BFI-2. In this study, the German adaptations of the two short
er
forms of the BFI-2 were found to be invariant to the original Anglo-American BFI-2

(Rammstedt et al., 2020). Moreover, the BFI-2 demonstrated invariance across gender and
pe
age in the Russian sample (Shchebetenko et al., 2020). However, in Spanish sample only

metric invariance was confirmed, while scalar invariance was not established (Gallardo-Pujol

et al., 2022).
ot

Current study
tn

The main aim of this study is to explore psychometric properties of the Serbian
rin

adaptation of the BFI-2. Specifically, we tested factor structure, measurement invariance

across Serbian and the US samples, convergent validity, criterion validity, and reliability
ep

based on internal consistency. We expected to confirm the hierarchical structure of five

domains, measurement invariance at the scalar level, convergent validity through comparison

with IPIP-50, HEXACO-60, and BF+2 inventories, as well as criterion validity through
Pr

comparison with various behavioral self-report indicators.

Despite the accumulation of evidence on personality dimensions beyond the Big Five,

d
the five factors at the top of the hierarchy continue to hold paradigmatic status. Therefore, the

we
comparison of the BFI-2 with instruments derived from the six-factor and seven-factor

models represents a significant challenge. Although Honesty-Humility and Positive and

Negative Valence may not meet the most rigorous criteria for basic personality traits (e.g.,

vie
Zuckerman, 1999) they provide a substantial contribution to the evaluative aspects of

behavior important in personality assessment (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Waller, 1999).

Emphasizing the importance of the relationships between the three instruments originating

re
from psycholexical studies can contribute to the ongoing debate about the number and

content of personality dimensions at different levels of the hierarchy (Ashton et al., 2019;

McCrae & Costa, 1995).

er
pe
Method

Participants
ot

Sample 1 comprised 389 adults (62% females) from Serbia, aged 18-65 (M = 32.39,
tn

SD = 13.87). The educational background of the participants varied, with 48.1% having

completed high school, 38.6% finished faculty or postgraduate studies, 7.5% completed
rin

vocational school, and 5.9% completed elementary or vocational primary school. Almost half

of the participants (47.3%) were currently employed. The study was approved by the Ethical
ep

Committee of the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad (code:

202210301555_AvtI). Psychology students recruited participants online as a part of their pre-

exam activities, with each student tasked to recruit five participants in accordance with given
Pr

quotas regarding gender. Participation in the study was anonymous and participants provided

d
their consent by signing an online form before taking a part in the study.

we
Sample 2 consisted of 627 adults from Serbia, with 55.2% females, ranging in age

from 16 to 83 (M = 32,58, SD = 14.37). The majority of participants had a high level of

education, with 35.4% being students, 14.8% holding a Bachelor’s degree, and 9.4%

vie
possessing master’s/PhD degree. Additionally, 33.6% completed elementary or high school,

and 6.7% finished college. The majority of participants (58.5%) were currently employed.

The dataset for the Serbian sample is accessible on OSF (https://osf.io/4ps9m/).

re
The US sample is derived from Study 3 of Soto and John (2017a) aligning with our

sampling procedure, involving an internet sample (N = 1000). It comprises 1 000 adult

er
residents of English-speaking nations who rated themselves at personalitylab.org, a website

providing free, anonymous feedback on various personality-related questionnaires. This

pe
sample was randomly selected from a larger pool of participants to ensure an equal

distribution of 500 men and 500 women. Participants in this sample ranged in age from 18 to

77 years old (M=29.25, SD=12.17), with the majority (64%) under the age of 30. The sample
ot

exhibited ethnic diversity, with 65% identifying as White/Caucasian, 7% as Hispanic/Latino,

7% as Black/African American, 6% as Asian/Asian American, 1% as Native

American/American Indian, 4% as another ethnicity, and 5% as mixed ethnicity, while 5%

did not report ethnicity. The majority of participants (79%) were residents of the United
rin

States, with smaller percentages residing in the United Kingdom (9%), Canada (7%), and

Australia or New Zealand (5%).

ep
Pr

Measures

d
we
The Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2; Soto & John, 2017a) comprises 60 self-

administered items utilizing a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = disagree strongly to 5

= strongly agree. It encompasses 15 facets, three within the Big Five trait domain, with each

vie
facet assessed by four items - two positively and two negatively worded. To adapt inventory

to Serbian language, a back-translation process was employed. Snežana Smederevac,

Dušanka Mitrović, and Bojana Dinić translated the items from English to Serbian, while the

re
bilingual expert, Biljana Radić Bojanić, translated all items from Serbian back to English.

The authors of the original BFI-2, Christopher J. Soto and Oliver P. John, provided
er
consultation regarding non-literal translations and terms that lack equivalents in both

languages. Consequently, 7 Extraversion, 6 Agreeableness, 5 Consciousnesses, 6

pe
Neuroticism and 5 Open-Mindedness items were replaced with more suitable terms. The final

set of 60 Serbian BFI-2 items is presented in the Appendix.

The IPIP-50 is a measure for assessing the Big Five personality domains, sourced
ot

from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006), as

open-source resource providing sample questionnaires for personality constructs which has
tn

been translated into Serbian (Smederevac et al., 2016). The IPIP-50 encompasses dimensions

of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Intellect, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, each comprising

rin

10 items, with five-point Likert scale, ranging from very inaccurate to very accurate.

HECAXO–60 (Ashton & Lee, 2009) is a short form of the HEXACO–PI–R, which
ep

measures six dimensions of the HEXACO model (Serbian adaptation: Međedović et al.,

2019). Each of these dimensions is comprised of four facets and 10 items with 5-point Likert

type scale for responses (Sokolovska et al., 2018).

Big Five Plus Two (BF+2; Smederevac et al., 2010) was based on lexical descriptions

d
of personality in the Serbian language. The instrument was derived form the second

we
psycholexical study in the Serbian language, conducted using Tellegen and Waller's non-

restrictive methodology for the selection of personality descriptions (Almagor et al., 1995;

Waller, 1999). This instrument is designed to assess seven dimensions of personality at the

vie
highest level of the hierarchy, each comprising two or three facets. The first five dimensions

align with the Big Five, except for Agreeableness, which is presented in the opposite

direction and entitled Aggressiveness. The last two dimensions correspond to Positive

re
valence and Negative valence. The instrument contains 184 items with a five-point Likert

scale.
er
The Behavior Report Form (BRF; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001) is a measure designed

to assess a broad spectrum of behaviors. It encompasses a total of 34 behavior criteria,

pe
including self-perceived attributes such as attractiveness, intelligence, popularity, and overt

behaviors such as grade point average, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, participation in

organized sports, and number of parties attended per month. In this study, the Serbian
ot

adaptation of the BRF questionnaire corresponds to the original measure. However, certain

segments were adjusted due to disparities between American and Serbian culture. For
tn

instance, the item related to membership in student fraternities and sororities in the domestic

version was adapted to describe membership in student organizations.

rin

Data analysis
ep

To examine the multidimensional factor structure, analyses on both facet and item

levels were conducted using combined Sample 1 and 2. While the original study (Soto &
Pr

John, 2016) utilized principal component analysis, this study employed exploratory structural

equation modelling (ESEM; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2009) on 15 facets, considering that the

d
proposed model is already known. Due to a violation of multinormal distribution

we
(multivariate kurtosis was 22), a robust, weighted least square mean and variance adjusted

(WLSMV) estimator was used. The ESEM was conducted in a three-step procedure using the

esemComp R package (for details see Silvestrin & de Beer, 2022). An acquiescence factor

vie
was not included in this model since the facet scores represent the mean of positively and

negatively worded items and have already been corrected for acquiescence.

On the item level, three models were tested in each domain via confirmatory factor

re
analysis (CFA): 1) Single domain model with all 12 items loading on a single factor (used as

the baseline for comparison, although it showed the worst model fit in previous studies, e.g.,
er
Soto & John, 2016); 2) Three facets model where each item was allowed to load on a single

facet factor and all factors were correlated; 3) Three facets plus acquiescence model,
pe
allowing each item to load on both its facet factor and an acquiescence method factor. All

loadings on the acquiescence factor were constrained to equal 1 and this factor was

orthogonal to facet factors, while facet factors were correlated. The second and the third
ot

model were selected as the best models in Soto and John (2016).

Next, measurement invariance (MI) of the five-factor model with 15 facets across
tn

Serbian and the US samples was tested via multigroup CFA. For this analysis, an internet

sample (N = 1000) from Study 3 of Soto and John (2017), which matched our sampling
rin

procedure, was selected. Following Brown (2006) a stepwise method was employed to test

configural (equal factor structure across samples), metric (equal factor loadings across
ep

samples), and scalar invariance (equal loadings and intercepts across samples). Scalar

invariance implies that scores represent the same levels of latent constructs between samples

and that the mean comparison is appropriate.

While there are no absolute standards, the assessment of model fit requires

d
considering a range of fit indices that may indicate either a good fit (RMSEA and SRMR <

we
.06, TLI and CFI > .95) or an acceptable fit (RMSEA < .08, TLI and CFI > .90, see Hu &

Bentler, 1999). When comparing nested models, cut-offs of ΔRMSEA≤.01 and ΔCFI≥-.01

were followed (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) and semTools R

vie
packages (Jorgensen et al., 2022) were utilized for CFA and MI testing.

Convergent validity was tested through correlations with other inventories derived

from lexical studies (IPIP-50, HEXACO-60, BF+2). Additionally, a joint principal

re
component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed on scales from the used

inventories to determine the optimal number of factors and its structure. Horn's parallel
er
analysis was employed to determine the number of components. PCA was conducted

separately on Sample 1 and 2.

pe
Criterion validity was examined though Pearson correlations for continuous variables

and point-biserial correlations for dichotomous variables and the BRF measures.
ot

Results
tn

Descriptives, reliabilities, and inter-correlations

rin

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics, alpha reliabilities and intercorrelations of BFI-2

domains and facets. Intercorrelations of the facets were all significant within the domains, and
ep

some were also significant across domains. For instance, the Conscientiousness facet

Productiveness correlated to the Extraversion facets Assertiveness (.39) and Energy Level
Pr

(.53), while Responsibility correlated with Respectfulness (.37). Open-Mindedness facets

Intellect/Curiosity and Creativity/imagination correlated with Depression (.51; .51,

respectively). Alpha reliabilities ranged from .60 for Trust (Agreeableness) to .89 for Negative

d
Emotionality.

we
>> INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE<<

Factor structure

vie
The fit of the five-factor ESEM model on 15 facets was deemed good

(WLSMVχ2(40) = 133.50, p < .001, CFI = .972, TLI = .925, RMSEA = .048, 90%CI .039-

re
.057, SRMR = .015). All facets loaded substantially on their intended factors (from .49 to .86,

see Table 3). However, there were cross-loadings greater than ±.30 for Depression,

Responsibility, and Trust facets on Extraversion domain. The absolute mean of inter-factor
er
correlations was .23, and they ranged from .01 (between Negative Emotionality and Open-

Mindedness) to .58 (between Extraversion and Conscientiousness). Although the majority of

pe
inter-factor correlations were low, the noticeable higher correlation was between

Conscientiousness and Extraversion (.53) and Negative Emotionality and Agreeableness

(.50).
ot

>> INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE<<

In all tested models on item level, three facets plus acquiescence model

overperformed the three-facet model for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, according to

rin

ΔCFI and ΔRMSEA. Conversely, for the remaining domains, both models performed well

and better than single-domain models (Table 4). Thus, BFI-2 domains have a robust
ep

hierarchical structure with three facets nested within the domain. However, acquiescence

somewhat distorted this structure in the case of two domains.

>> INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE<<

d
we
Measurement invariance

vie
Results of measurement invariance testing on a five-factor model with 15 facets

showed metric invariance, but not scalar invariance according to ΔCFI (-.011). However,

re
ΔRMSEA met criteria for all levels of invariance (.003, see Table 5). Based on parameters

inspection, an intercept of facet Organization was freed which resulted in partial scalar
er
invariance (ΔCFI = .008, ΔRMSEA = .001). These results indicate that the meaning of scores

of Serbian adaptation of the BFI-2 are comparable to the US sample.

>> INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE<<

Convergent validity and joint factor structure

The joint factor structure analysis was performed on scales from BFI-2 and other

personality measures. Based on parallel analysis, five components were extracted on both
rin

Sample 1 and 2. In the analysis of BFI-2, IPIP-50, and HEXACO-60 scales on Sample 1, the

five components corresponded to the Big Five factor structure, with Honesty-Humility
ep

loading on the Agreeableness component (Table 6). Additionally, a test of a 6-component

solution indicated that only Honesty-Humility loaded on the 6th component (see Table B in

Supplementary Material).
Pr

On Sample 2, the analysis of BFI-2, BF+2, and HEXACO-60 scales revealed that a

d
five-component solution corresponded to the Big Five factor structure. In this solution,

we
Honesty-Humility and Negative Valence loaded on Agreeableness component, while Positive

Valence loaded on Extraversion component (Table 7). A 6-component solution (see Table C

in Supplementary Material) resulted in Honesty-Humility, Negative Valence, and Positive

vie
Valence loaded on the 6th component. In a 7-component solution (see Table D in

Supplementary Material), Honesty-Humility and Negative Valence remained loaded on the

6th component, while Positive Valence showed a significant loading on the 7th component.

re
>> INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE<<
er
>> INSERT TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE<<
pe

Criterion validity
ot

Table 8 presents the correlations between BFI-2 domains and facets, and BRF items.

At the domain level, Extraversion showed a significant positive correlation with self-
tn

perceptions of attractiveness, intelligence, popularity, and employment. Agreeableness

correlated positively with honesty, while Conscientiousness showed significant positive

associations with attractiveness, popularity, religiousness, and employment, and a negative

rin

correlation with alcohol use. Negative Emotionality demonstrated negative correlations with

attractiveness and popularity, and a positive correlation with masculinity/femininity.

Openness displayed positive correlations with intelligence and engagement in scientific

disciplines.
Pr

These findings demonstrate convincing criterion validity of the BFI 2 domain, which

d
was also confirmed at the facet level. Specifically, the facets of Extraversion—Sociability,

we
Assertiveness, and Energy Level—showed positive correlations with various overt behaviors,

including attractiveness, intelligence, and popularity. Furthermore, Energy Level had a

noteworthy association with religiousness.

vie
Within the Agreeableness domain, the facet of Compassion was associated to

masculinity/femininity and honesty. Within the domain of Conscientiousness, the

re
Productivity facet correlated with the broadest array of criteria, including attractiveness,

religiosity, and employment. It is noteworthy that this aspect of personality encompasses a

diverse range of indicators, spanning from those associated with the impression management
er
to attitudes towards work and religion. Responsibility facet showed the highest correlation

with popularity, highlighting its connection to social perceptions. Conversely, the

pe
Organization aspect had a negative correlation with alcohol use, indicating a potential link

between organizational skills and lower alcohol consumption.

All facets within the Negative Emotionality domain displayed negative correlations

with popularity. Furthermore, Anxiety and Emotionality facets had positive correlations with
tn

masculinity/femininity, while Depression showed negative associations with both

attractiveness and religiousness. Given that visible behaviors served as criteria, it is plausible
rin

that the presence of negative emotions contributes to an overall negative self-evaluation.

In the Open-Mindedness domain, as anticipated, Creativity showed the highest

number of correlations with criteria such as intelligence, popularity, and hobbies.

Additionally, Intellect was associated with engagement in scientific disciplines.

These findings underscore the predictive capacity of the BFI-2, both at the broader

domain level and at the facet level, in relation to external criteria.

d
we
Discussion

This study aimed to validate a Serbian adaptation of the BFI-2, with an emphasis on

vie
testing replicability of the intended five-dimensional structure. Therefore, a series of analyses

were performed to examine the latent structure of the inventory, measurement invariance

across Serbian and USA samples, internal consistency of the scales, as well as convergent and

re
criterion validity. Additionally, the study aimed to contribute to the conceptual issues related

to the structure of lexical dimensions across various hierarchical levels.

er
The findings indicate that the factor structure on the Serbian sample and internal

consistency (alpha reliability) of the scores on Serbian BFI-2 adaptation closely mirror those
pe
observed in prior studies across various languages (Cemalcilar et al., 2021; Denissen et al.,

2019; Gallardo-Pujol et al., 2022; Halama et al., 2020; Lignier et al., 2022; Minkov et al.,

2022; Rammstedt et al., 2019; Shchebetenko et al., 2020; Vedel et al., 2020; Yoshino et al.,
ot

2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Additionally, there are notably high intercorrelations among facets

within the same domain, consistent with findings reported in the original study (Soto & John,
tn

2017a). The pattern of significant facet loadings in ESEM analysis closely corresponds to the

one reported by Soto and John (2017a). Therefore, the factor structure of facets recovered the
rin

intended BFI-2 structure, with three facets loading on each intended Big Five domain.

Certain specificities indicate a slightly lower primary loading of Assertiveness facet

on the Extraversion factor, as well as Depression on Negative Emotionality. Furthermore, the

secondary loading of Depression is only slightly lower on the Extraversion factor compared

to the primary loading on the intended Negative Emotionality factor. This indicates that in
Pr

Serbian sample depressive tendencies are associated with low positive and high Negative

Emotionality to a similar degree, which is consistent with findings on the role of positive and

d
negative affect in depression (e.g., Forbes et al., 2004; Watson et al., 1988). Although a few

we
other secondary loadings exceed ±30 (e.g., for Depression, Responsibility and Trust facets on

the Extraversion factor), ESEM analysis demonstrates a good model fit when items from

each domain are analyzed separately.

vie
At the facet level, three facets per domain adequately model the facet-level structure

of the Serbian adaptation of BFI-2 within each Big Five domain. However, the three facets

plus acquiescence models overperformed the basic three-facets models in the cases of

re
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, meaning that this response bias could affect the

responses on items on these scales. Similar results were obtained in other adaptations of the

BFI-2 (e.g., Halama et al., 2020).

er
Results of measurement invariance testing showed that partial scalar invariance could
pe
be reached across Serbian and the US samples, with the only required modification being free

estimation of the Organization facet. This result suggests that the meaning of scores of the

original and the Serbian adaptation of the BFI-2 was comparable, but observed differences in
ot

the Organization facet could be biased by different interpretations of this facet across the two

languages.
tn

The results demonstrate convergent validity of the BFI-2 domain and facet scores

with the IPIP-50, BFI+2 and HEXACO-60 scales. A five-component solution in the common
rin

space of these scales proved to be optimal, where scales from different measures contribute,

with few exceptions, roughly equally to the components associated with the intended
ep

measurement domain. The contributions of BFI-2 scales to their respective components are

substantial and align with expectations, typically resembling the contributions of scales from

other measures. Within this solution, the Honesty-Humility (HEXACO-60) and Negative
Pr

Valence (BFI+2) scales load onto the Agreeableness component with secondary loadings on

the Conscientiousness component. While the six-component solution yields the component

d
loaded by the Honesty-Humility and Negative Valence scales, and the seven-component

we
solution introduces a Positive Valence component, there are some reasons to discuss the

status of these three dimensions within Big Five: firstly, statistical criteria favor the five-

component solution at least at the domain/scale level, and additionally, the magnitude of the

vie
loadings indicate significant contributions of these three scales to the dimensions

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion. Consequently, Honesty-Humility might

be viewed as a dimension with substantial content overlap with Agreeableness and

re
Conscientiousness, Negative Valence with Agreeableness and to a lesser extent with

Conscientiousness, and Positive Valence exhibits considerable content overlap with

Extraversion.
er
These findings align with previous research (Ashton & Lee, 2005) and may raise
pe
questions about the distinctiveness of these dimensions beyond the Big Five. However, the

fact that they form separate dimensions in six- and seven-component solutions supports the

notion that their content extends at least somewhat beyond the Big Five. Therefore, these
ot

dimensions can provide valuable additional information to personality assessment (Ashton &

Lee, 2007; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998; Waller, 1999) and demonstrate discriminant validity
tn

(Howard & Van Zandt, 2020) as well as incremental predictive validity (Oh et al., 2014) at

the lower levels of the hierarchical organization of the personality. However, the results
rin

robustly support the five-factor structure as the optimal hierarchical level that combines both

the statistical and content criteria for the Big Five.

The criterion validity of the Serbian adaptation of the BFI-2 was examined through

associations with a variety of external indicators including perception of oneself, different

habits, risky behaviors, behavior in various social situations, but also personal values and
Pr

beliefs. Although the correlations obtained are generally small to moderate in strength, they

align well with expectations. Thus, Extraversion and its facets show associations with self-

d
perceived attractiveness and popularity, and to some degree, with intelligence. People high in

we
Extraversion, probably owing to their dynamic interpersonal approach, often gain popularity

(e.g., Anderson et al., 2001; Feiler & Kleinbaum, 2015; Wolters et al., 2014), and their self-

confidence (Tan et al., 2017) might contribute to the tendency to perceive themselves as both

vie
intelligent and attractive as well.

Agreeableness exhibits a modest positive correlation with self-perceived honesty,

re
aligning with the finding of this study that the Honesty-Humility loads on the Agreeableness

component. This outcome serves as an additional validation of the comprehensive nature of

the Big Five model, encompassing moral dimensions of behavior. Notably, these moral
er
aspects are delineated as a distinct dimension in the six-factor and seven-factor solutions.
pe
Conscientiousness is linked to employment but also to religiousness, suggesting an

inclination to adhere to societal norms. Interestingly, individuals with higher

Conscientiousness consider themselves popular. Previous research failed to establish a clear

connection between Conscientiousness and popularity (Anderson et al., 2001) and even

implies a negative association during childhood (Van der Linden et al., 2010). Nevertheless,
tn

studies do indicate that Conscientiousness is connected to a clear self-concept (Campbell et

al., 1996), self-confidence (Erol & Orth, 2011), and proactivity (De Vries et al., 2016), which
rin

might indirectly explain why conscientious individuals tend to perceive themselves as

popular.
ep

Negative Emotionality and its aspects are linked to self-perceived femininity, a

connection that may be rooted in gender stereotypes associating heightened negative

emotionality with the feminine stereotype (Löckenhoff et al., 2014). This correlation aligns
Pr

with the consistently observed gender differences in this trait (McCrae et al., 2005).

Moreover, elevated Negative Emotionality is inversely related to self-perceived popularity

d
and attractiveness, in line with the generally negative self-perception associated with this

we
dimension (Thomson, 2016). Finally, Open-Mindedness is related to involvement in

scientific fields, intelligence, and hobbies—all encompassed within the fundamental set of

behaviors and traits associated with this dimension (McCrae & Greenberg, 2014).

vie
Limitations and Future Directions

re
The key strengths of this study lie in the validation of the BFI 2 in the Serbian

language, which indicates its applicability and relevance in diverse cultural and linguistic
er
settings. Nonetheless, certain limitations affect simple generalization of the results and

highlight important directions for future research. Firstly, our participants may align with the
pe
WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) sample criteria (Henrich

et al., 2010). This implies uncertainty regarding whether this internet sample, primarily

comprising educated volunteers, accurately represent the whole population. Addressing this
ot

concern in future research will require including participants from a more diverse range of

cultural, educational, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Secondly, there were slight differences in the data collection procedures between the

Serbian and US samples, along with potential subtle differences in item content arising from
rin

the translation of the BFI-2, which may have influenced data quality. It is crucial to note that

all data were obtained through self-report measures, and data collection was cross-sectional.
ep

Future research could examine informant-reports and investigate longitudinal relations of the

BFI-2 with life outcomes.

Despite these considerations, the results of this study clearly replicate previous
Pr

findings (Gallardo-Pujol et al., 2022; Rammstedt et al., 2020; Shchebetenko et al., 2020; Soto

& John, 2017a), affirming the cross-cultural validity of the BFI-2 and generalizability across

d
languages and cultural contexts.

we
Conclusions

Our findings affirm that the Serbian adaptation of the BFI-2 demonstrates robust

vie
psychometric properties, offering a reliable and valid assessment of the Big Five personality

traits. The multidimensional structure of the Serbian adaptation closely aligns with the

original BFI-2 facet-level structure. Additionally, the adaptation exhibits clear criterion

re
validity, as evidenced by its associations with various behavioral indicators. The strong

convergent validity observed between the BFI-2 domain scores and the IPIP-50, BFI+2 and
er
HEXACO-60 scale scores suggests that, despite some indication of dimensions beyond the

Big Five, the Big Five traits maintain a robust structure at the domain level of the personality
pe
trait hierarchy. Overall, this study contributes novel evidence affirming the broad cross-

cultural applicability of the BFI-2.

Appendix
tn

Big Five Inventory – 2 (BFI-2): Serbian adaptation

rin

Uputstvo: Ovaj upitnik sadrži tvrdnje koje se odnose na osećanja, mišljenja i ponašanja

zajednička svim ljudima. Molimo vas da zaokružite ili precrtate broj koji najviše odgovara
ep

vašem stepenu slaganja s iznetom tvrdnjom. Značenje brojeva nalazi se na početku tabele.
Pr

Uopšte se ne Uglavnom se ne Nisam Uglavnom se Potpuno se

d
slažem (1) slažem (2) siguran/na (3) slažem (4) slažem (5)

we
1 ... je druželjubiva, društvena 31 ... je ponekad stidljiva i povučena

2 ... je saosećajna, ima meko srce 32 ... je nesebična i voli da pomaže drugima

3 ... je neorganizovana 33 ... održava stvari čistim i urednim

vie
4 ... je opuštena, dobro podnosi stres 34 ... mnogo brine

5 ... je slabo zainteresovana za umetnost 35 ... ceni umetnost i lepotu

6 ... spremno izražava svoje mišljenje 36 ... teško uspeva da utiče na druge ljude

re
7 ... je puna poštovanja, odnosi se 37 ... je ponekad nepristojna prema

prema drugima s poštovanjem drugima

8
er
... ume da bude lenja 38 ... je efikasna, završava poslove

9 ... ostaje optimistična nakon neuspeha 39 ... se često oseća tužno

pe
10 ... je znatiželjna, zanima je mnogo 40 ... je dubokoumna, voli da razmišlja

različitih stvari

11 ... se retko oseća uzbuđeno ili 41 ... je puna energije

oduševljeno

12 ... je sklona da traži mane u drugima 42 ... je sumnjičava prema tuđim

namerama

13 ... je pouzdana, dosledna 43 ... je pouzdana osoba, na koju drugi

rin

uvek mogu da računaju

14 ... često menja raspoloženja 44 ... drži svoje emocije pod kontrolom
ep

15 ... je domišljata, nalazi dovitljive 45 ... teško uspeva da zamišlja stvari

načine da nešto uradi

16 ... je uglavnom tiha 46 ... je pričljiva

17 ... nema baš mnogo saosećanja prema 47 ... može biti hladna i nezainteresovana

d
drugima za druge

we
18 ... je sistematična, voli da drži stvari u 48 ... ostavlja nered, ne čisti

redu

19 ... je ponekad napeta 49 ... retko oseća anksioznost i strah

vie
20 ... je veoma zainteresovana za 50 ... misli da su poezija i pozorište

slikarstvo, muziku, ili književnost dosadni

21 ... je dominanta, ponaša se kao vođa 51 ... više voli da prepusti drugima da

re
odlučuju

22 ... započinje rasprave sa drugima 52 ... je pristojna, ljubazna prema drugima

23
er
... ima poteškoća da započne nešto 53 ... je uporna, ne odustaje dok ne završi

posao
pe
24 ... se oseća sigurno u sebe 54 ... je depresivna, potištena

25 ... izbegava intelektualne, filozofske 55 ... se slabo zanima za apstraktne ideje

rasprave
ot

26 ... je manje aktivna od drugih ljudi 56 ... pokazuje puno entuzijazma

27 ... ume da oprosti drugima 57 ... pretpostavlja da su drugi dobri

28 ... je ponekad nepažljiva 58 ... se ponekad ponaša neodgovorno

29 ... je emocionalno stabilna, ne 59 ... je emotivna, lako se uznemiri

rin

uznemiri se lako

30 ... nije baš kreativna 60 ... je originalna, puna novih ideja

Ključ za skorovanje (Skoring key)

Dimenzije i facete BFI-2 (BFI-2 dimensions and facets):

Ekstraverzija (Extraversion): 1, 6, 11R, 16R, 21, 26R, 31R, 36R, 41, 46, 51R, 56

d
Socijabillnost (Sociability): 1, 16R, 31R, 46

we
Asertivnost (Assertiveness): 6, 21, 36R, 51R

Energičnost (Energy Level): 11R, 26R, 41, 56

Prijatnost (Agreeableness): 2, 7, 12R, 17R, 22R, 27, 32, 37R, 42R, 47R, 52, 57

vie
Saosećanje (Compassion): 2, 17R, 32, 47R

Poštovanje (Respectfulness): 7, 22R, 37R, 52

Poverenje (Trust): 12R, 27, 42R, 57

re
Savesnost (Conscientiousness): 3R, 8R, 13, 18, 23R, 28R, 33, 38, 43, 48R, 53, 58R

Organizacija (Organization): 3R, 18, 33, 48R

er
Produktivnost (Productiveness): 8R, 23R, 38, 53

Odgovornost (Responsibility): 13, 28R, 43, 58R

pe
Negativna emocionalnost (Negative Emotionality): 4R, 9R, 14, 19, 24R, 29R, 34, 39, 44R,

49R, 54, 59

Anksioznost (Anxiety): 4R, 19, 34, 49R

Depresivnost (Depression): 9R, 24R, 39, 54

Emocionalna nestabilnost (Emotional Volatility): 14, 29R, 44R, 59

Otvoreni um (Open-Mindedness): 5R, 10, 15, 20, 25R, 30R, 35, 40, 45R, 50R, 55R, 60

Intelektualna radoznalost (Intellectual Curiosity): 10, 25R, 40, 55R

rin

Estetska osetljivost (Aesthetic Sensitivity): 5R, 20, 35, 50R

Kreativna imaginacija (Creative Imagination): 15, 30R, 45R, 60

References
Pr

Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The big seven model: A cross-cultural

replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of natural language trait

descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 300–307.

d
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.300

we
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status?

Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

vie
3514.81.1.116

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the

re
HEXACO model of Personality Structure. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907

er
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The hexaco honesty-humility,

agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors. Personality and Social Psychology

pe
Review, 18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Visser, B. A. (2019). Where's the H? relations between BFI-2 and
ot

HEXACO-60 Scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 71–75.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.013
tn

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., &
rin

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(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural

Equation Modeling, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204

Brokken, F. B. (1978). The language of personality. Krips, Meppel.

Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY:

d
Guilford Press

we
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R.

(1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural

boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141–156.

vie
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing

re
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
er
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality

assessment using the revised Neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality

pe
Assessment, 64(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2

Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, J. A. (1996). Toward a taxonomy of trait
ot

adjectives in Filipino: Comparing personality lexicons across cultures. European

Journal of Personality, 10(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-

0984(199603)10:1<3::aid-per234>3.0.co;2-m
rin

Cemalcilar, Z., Baruh, L., Kezer, M., Soto, C. J., Sumer, N., & John, O. P. (2021). Testing

the BFI-2 in a non-weird community sample. Personality and Individual

Differences, 182, 111087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111087

Danner, D., Rammstedt, B., Bluemke, M., Lechner, C., Berres, S., Knopf, T., Soto, C. J., &

John, O. P. (2019). Das Big five inventar 2. Diagnostica, 65(3), 121–132.

https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000218

Denissen, J. J. A., Geenen, R., Soto, C. J., John, O. P., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2020). The

d
Big Five Inventory–2: Replication of psychometric properties in a Dutch adaptation

we
and first evidence for the discriminant predictive validity of the facet scales. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 102(3), 309-324.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1539004

vie
Denissen, J. J. A., Soto, C. J., Geenen, R., John, O. P., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2022).

Incorporating prosocial vs. antisocial trait content in big five measurement: Lessons

re
from the big five inventory-2 (BFI-2). Journal of Research in Personality, 96, 104147.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104147
er
De Raad, B., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based

on a comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors. Journal of Personality and

pe
Social Psychology, 94(2), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.347

De Raad, B., Smederevac, S., Čolović, P. & Mitrović, D. (2018). Personality traits in
ot

the Serbian language: Structure and procedural effects. Journal of Research in

Personality, 73, 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.008

De Vries R. E., Wawoe K. W., & Holtrop D. (2016). What is engagement? Proactivity as the

missing link in the HEXACO model of personality. Journal of Personality, 84, 178–
rin

193. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12150.

Di Blas, L., & Forzi, M. (1998). An alternative taxonomic study of personality-descriptive

adjectives in the Italian language. European Journal of Personality, 12(2), 75–101.

https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199803/04)12:2<75::aid-per288>3.0.co;2-h
Pr

Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2011). Self-esteem development from age 14 to 30 years: A

d
longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 607–619.

we
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024299

Gallardo-Pujol, D., Rouco, V., Cortijos-Bernabeu, A., Oceja, L., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P.

(2022). Factor structure, gender invariance, measurement properties, and short forms of

vie
the Spanish adaptation of the big five inventory-2. Psychological Test Adaptation and

Development, 3(1), 44–69. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000020

re
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of

personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.). Advances in personality

er
assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203–234). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor

pe
structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
ot

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor

structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-

3590.4.1.26
rin

Halama, P., Kohút, M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). Slovak adaptation of the Big Five

Inventory (BFI-2): Psychometric properties and initial validation. Studia

Psychologica, 62(1). https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2020.01.792

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not weird. Nature,

466(7302), 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a

John, O. P. (1990). The ‘‘Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the

d
natural language and questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:

we
Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a

and 54. Berkeley: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.

vie
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five

taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins

re
& L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

er
Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2022). semTools:

Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5-6. Available at
pe
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

Lignier, B., Petot, J.-M., Canada, B., De Oliveira, P., Nicolas, M., Courtois, R., John, O. P.,
ot

Plaisant, O., & Soto, C. (2022). Factor structure, psychometric properties, and validity

of the big five inventory-2 facets: Evidence from the French adaptation (BFI-2-
tn

FR). Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03648-0

rin

Löckenhoff, C. E., Chan, W., McCrae, R. R., De Fruyt, F., Jussim, L., De Bolle, M., Costa,

P. T., Sutin, A. R., Realo, A., Allik, J., Nakazato, K., Shimonaka, Y., Hřebíčková, M.,

Graf, S., Yik, M., Ficková, E., Brunner-Sciarra, M., Leibovich de Figueora, N.,
ep

Schmidt, V., … Terracciano, A. (2014). Gender Stereotypes of Personality: Universal

and Accurate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(5), 675-694.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113520075

Martin, K. P., Benca-Bachman, C. E., & Palmer, R. H. C. (2021). Risk for alcohol use/misuse

d
among entering college students: The role of personality and stress. Addictive

we
Behaviors Reports, 13, 100330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100330

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, J. P. (1995). Positive and negative valence within the five-factor

model. Journal of Research in Personality, 29(4), 443–460.

vie
https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1026

McCrae, R. R., & Greenberg, D. M. (2014). Openness to experience. The Wiley handbook of

re
genius, 222-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118367377.ch12

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Universal
er
features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: data from 50 cultures.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(3), 547–561.

pe
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547

Međedović, J., Čolović, P., Dinić, B. M., & Smederevac, S. (2019). The
ot

HEXACO Personality Inventory: Validation and Psychometric Properties in the

Serbian Language. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101, 25-

31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1370426

Minkov, M., Sokolov, B., Tasse, M.A., Jamballuu, E., Schachner, M., & Kaasa, A. (2022)
rin

The Big Five and Big Two personality factors in Mongolia. Frontiers in Psychology,

13:917505. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.917505
ep

Mlačić, B., & Ostendorf, F. (2005). Taxonomy and structure of Croatian

personality‐descriptive adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 19(2), 117–152.

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.539

Mõttus, R., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., & McCrae, R. R. (2017). Personality

d
traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and

we
utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3),

474–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000100

Nikolašević, Ž., Krstić, T., Rajšli, A., & Bugarski Ignjatović, V. (2022). The relationship

vie
between behavior aspects of executive functions and personality traits in healthy young

adults. Psychological Reports, 003329412211329.

re
https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221132996

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated

er
factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 66(6), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291

pe
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating

characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor: Department of Psychology,

University of Michigan

Ober, T. M., Cheng, Y., Jacobucci, R., & Whitney, B. M. (2021). Examining the factor
tn

structure of the big five inventory-2 personality domains with an adolescent

sample. Psychological Assessment, 33(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000962

rin

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524–539.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524
Pr

Peabody, D. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality perception: A

d
reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(4), 639–646.

we
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030259

Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2020). Validation of the short and

extra-short forms of the big five inventory-2 (BFI-2) and their German

vie
adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 149–161.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000481

re
Rosseel Y (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of

Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

er
Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person

descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1296–1312.

pe
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1296

Saucier, G. (2009). Recurrent personality dimensions in inclusive lexical studies: Indications

for a big six structure. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1577–1614.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00593.x
tn

Saucier, G., and Srivastava, S. (2015). What makes a good structural model of personality?
rin

evaluating the big five and alternatives. In M. Mario, P. R. Shaver, C. M. Cooper, and

R. J. Larsen (Eds). APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 4:

Personality Processes and Individual Differences (pp. 283–305). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Shchebetenko, S., Kalugin, A. Y., Mishkevich, A. M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2019).
Pr

Measurement invariance and sex and age differences of the big five inventory–2:

Evidence from the Russian version. Assessment, 27(3), 472–486.

d
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119860901

we
Silvestrin, M.T., & de Beer, L. (2022). esemComp: ESEM-within-CFA syntax composer. R

package version 0.2. Available at https://mateuspsi.github.io/esemComp

vie
Smith, M. M., McCabe, G. A., & Widiger, T. A. (2022). Experimental manipulation of the

BFI-2, ipip-neo-120, and the IPC-5. Assessment, 107319112211076.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221107622

re
Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D. i Čolović, P. (2007). The Structure of the Lexical

Personality Descriptors in Serbian Language. Psihologija, 40, 485-

er
508. https://doi.org/10.2298/psi0704485s
pe
Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D. i Čolović, P. (2010). Velikih pet plus dva: Primena i

interepretacija. Beograd, Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.

Smederevac, S., Mitrović, D., Čolović, P. & Oljača, M. (2016). Serbian translation of

International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of

Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences

(https://ipip.ori.org/Serbian2544Items.htm). Internet Web Site.

rin

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017a). The next big five inventory (BFI-2): Developing and

assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and

predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
Pr

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017b). Short and extra-short forms of the big five inventory–2:

d
The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81.

we
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004

Stricker, J., Buecker, S., & Pietrowsky, R. (2022). Alignment of the personality inventory for

ICD-11 with the five-factor model of personality. Psychological Assessment, 34(7),

vie
711–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001141

Thielmann, I., Akrami, N., Babarović, T., Belloch, A., Bergh, R., Chirumbolo, A., Čolović,

re
P., de Vries, R. E., Dostál, D., Egorova, M., Gnisci, A., Heydasch, T., Hilbig, B. E.,

Hsu, K.-Y., Izdebski, P., Leone, L., Marcus, B., Međedović, J., Nagy, J., … Lee, K.
er
(2019). The HEXACO–100 across 16 languages: A large-scale test of measurement

invariance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(5), 714–726.

pe
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1614011

Thomson, W. (2016). Depression, neuroticism, and the discrepancy between actual and ideal
ot

self-perception. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 219-224.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.003
tn

Tupes, E. C. & Christal R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.

USAF ASD technical report No. 61–97. Lackland Air Force Base, TX. U.S. Air Force.
rin

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait

ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1992.tb00973.x

Van der Linden D., Scholte R. H., Cillessen A. H., Te Nijenhuis J., & Segers E. (2010).
Pr

Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the big five and the

general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 669–672.

d
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007.

we
van Dijk, I., Krueger, R. F., & Laceulle, O. M. (2021). DSM–5 alternative personality

vie
disorder model traits as extreme variants of five-factor model traits in

adolescents. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 12(1), 59–69.

https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000409

re
Vedel, A., Wellnitz, K. B., Ludeke, S., Soto, C. J., John, O. P., & Andersen, S. C. (2021).

Development and validation of the Danish big five inventory-2. European Journal of
er
Psychological Assessment, 37(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000570
pe
Waller, N. G. (1999). Evaluating the structure of personality. In R. C. Cloninger (Ed.),

Personality and psychopathology (pp. 155–197). Washington: American Psychiatric

Press.
ot

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (2008). Structures of personality and their
tn

relevance to psychopathology: II. further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait

structure. Journal of Personality, 76(6), 1545–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

rin

6494.2008.00531.x

Yoshino, S., Shimotsukasa, T., Oshio, A., Hashimoto, Y., Ueno, Y., Mieda, T., Migiwa, I.,
ep

Sato, T., Kawamoto, S., Soto, C.J., & John, O.P. (2022). A validation of the Japanese

adaptation of the Big Five Inventory-2. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:924351.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924351
Pr

Zhang, B., Li, Y. M., Li, J., Luo, J., Ye, Y., Yin, L., Chen, Z., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P.

d
(2021). The big five inventory–2 in China: A Comprehensive Psychometric Evaluation

we
in four diverse samples. Assessment, 29(6), 1262–1284.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211008245

Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to Psychopathology: A Biosocial Model. Washington

vie
DC, American Psychological Association.

re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Table 1

d
Examples of the Effects of Variable Selection on the Lexical Studies Outcomes

we
Results
Language Authors Criteria for selection
Factors Level

Norman, 1967 Stable traits, adjectives I, II, III, IV, V

vie
English Goldberg, 1982, Stable traits, adjectives
I, II, III, IV, V
1990

German Angleitner et al., Stable traits, adjectives

re
I, II, III, IV, V
1990 BIG 5

Dutch De Raad, 1992 Stable traits, adjectives

er I, II, III, IV, V

Croatian Mlačić & Stable traits, adjectives

I, II, III, IV, V
Ostendorf, 2005
pe
English Ashton & Lee, 2007 Stable traits, adjectives I, II, III, IV,

V, VI

Serbian DeRaad et al., 2018 Stable traits with adding

BIG 6
dispositions, talents, states, I, II, III, IV,
tn

reputations, attitudes, and V, VI

evaluations

English Almagor et al.,1991 All terms,

rin

I, II, III, IV,

representativeness instead
V, VI, VII
of comprehensiveness BIG 7
ep

English Saucier, 1997 Stable traits, evaluative I, II, III, IV,

and appearance terms V, VI, VII

Serbian Smederevac et al., All terms,

I, II, III, IV,

d
2007 representativeness instead
V, VI, VII

we
of comprehensiveness

vie
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Table 2

e d
w
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Serbian Adaptation of the BFI-2 (N = 1016)

1 Extraversion
M

3.58
SD

0.66
α

.84
1

1.00
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

v i e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

e
2 Sociability (Ex) 3.49 0.88 .74 .84*** 1.00

3 Assertiveness (Ex)

4 Energy Level (Ex)

3.52

3.72
0.75

0.80
.64

.73
.80***

.81***
.51***

.50***
1.00

.48*** 1.00

r r
e
5 Agreeableness 3.85 0.54 .79 .17*** .10** -.00 .31*** 1.00

e
6 Compassion (A) 3.99 0.68 .67 .15*** .11*** .01 .24*** .81*** 1.00

p
7 Respectfulness (A) 4.10 0.63 .64 .00 -.04 -.10** .15*** .79*** .51*** 1.00

8 Trust (A) 3.45 0.73 .60 .23*** .16*** .07* .33*** .79*** .42*** .42*** 1.00

9 Conscientiousness

3.91
0.66

0.84
.86

.79
.38***

.23***
.18***

.08*
.34***

.21***
.44***

.28***

o
.31***

.23***
.26***

.21***
t
.30***

.24***
.18***

.12***
1.00

.85*** 1.00

3.72
0.82

0.69
.74

.65
.49***

.25***
.28***

t
.09**
.39***

.24***
.53***

.28***
n .23***

.32***
.16***

.29***
.18***

.37***
.20***

.12***
.86***

.81***
.58***

.53***
1.00

.58*** 1.00

in
13 Negative
3.17 0.84 .89 -.22*** -.18*** -.16*** -.19*** -.04 .10*** -.02 -.16*** .07* .11*** -.02 .08* 1.00
Emotionality

14 Anxiety (N)

15 Depression (N)
3.59

2.80
0.89

1.02

p r
.73

.78
-.18***

-.24***
-.17***

-.20***
-.13***

-.16***
-.13***

-.22***
.04

-.08**
.16***

-.00
.05

-.05
-.11***

-.14***
.16***

.01
.30***

.01
.00

-.00
.09**

.02
.84***

.89***
1.00

.62*** 1.00

re
16 Emotional
3.12 0.97 .80 -.15*** -.10** -.12*** -.15*** -.04 .12*** -.04 -.16*** .01 -.00 -.06* .11*** .89*** .62*** .71*** 1.00
Volatility (N)

17 Open-Mindedness 3.76 0.67 .82 .56*** .40*** .49*** .50*** .18*** .18*** .08** .17*** .20*** .10** .25*** .16*** -.09** -.02 -.10** -.11*** 1.00

P
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4711058
Running head: The Big Five Inventory (BFI-2) in Serbian language

18 Aesthetic
Sensitivity (O)
3.72 0.96 .81 -.07* -.09** -.03 -.05 .11*** .18*** .11*** -.03 -.03 .02 -.11*** .02 -.06 .05 -.15*** -.04

e d
.340*** 1.00

19 Intellect/Curiosity
(O)

20
Creativity/imagination
3.40

3.50
1.07

1.02
.65

.70
-.04

.14***
-.05

.07*
-.01

.12***
-.04

.16***
-.01

.04
.02

.12***
.02

.01
-.06

-.02
-.09**

.05
-.05

.05
-.11***

.05
-.06

.03

i w
-.45***

e
-.44***
-.24***

-.23***
-.52***

-.52***
-.41***

-.38***
.32***

.38***
.49***

.48***
1.00

.69*** 1.00

v
(O)

e
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

r r
e e
t p
n o
in t
p r
r e
P
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4711058
Running head: The Big Five Inventory (BFI-2) in Serbian language

Table 3

d
Loadings of Serbian Adaptation of the BFI-2 Facets in ESEM Five-Factor Model (N = 1016)

we
Facet E A C NE O

Sociability .78 .03 -.05 .14 .02

vie
Assertiveness .48 -.20 .23 .01 .25

Energy Level .63 .18 .20 .04 .13

re
Compassion .19 .73 .13 .37 .11

Respectfulness -.25 .68

er .19 -.12 .11

Trust .33 .62 -.15 -.10 -.01

pe
Organization -.27 .08 .85 .06 -.06

Productiveness -.01 .02 .82 -.08 -.04

Responsibility -.37 .15 .85 -.06 .05

Anxiety -.21 .04 .14 .75 .04

Depression -.43 -.13 -.07 .49 .01

rin

Emotional .10 -.02 -.03 .86 -.05

Volatility
ep

Aesthetic -.12 .16 -.05 .10 .67

Sensitivity

Intellectual .01 -.02 -.13 -.10 .74

Curiosity

Creative .18 -.02 .13 -.004 .63

Imagination

d
we
Note: E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; NE = Negative

Emotionality; O = Open-Mindedness. Bolded loadings refer to intended factors.

vie
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Table 4

d
Model Fit Indices for Proposed Models of Serbian adaptation of the BFI-2 Domains on Item

we
Level (N = 1016)

Robust SRMR

WLSMVχ2(df) CFI TLI RMSEA (90%CI)

vie
Extraversion

single domain 540.19(54) .954 .944 .069 (.063-.074) .064

re
three facets 252.65(51) .982 .976 .045 (.039-.050) .043

three facets + acquiescence factor

er
242.14(50) .983 .978 .043 (.038-.049) .041

Agreeableness
pe
single domain 553.06(54) .905 .884 .071 (.066-.077) .077

three facets 443.64(51) .927 .906 .064 (.059-.070) .067

three facets + acquiescence factor 301.69(50) .958 .944 .049 (.044-.055) .052

Conscientiousness
tn

single domain 741.33(54) .949 .938 .076 (.072-.081) .084

rin

three facets 600.11(51) .961 .949 .069 (.064-.074) .074

three facets + acquiescence factor 435.08(50) .976 .968 .055 (.050-.060) .058
ep

Negative Emotionality

single domain 613.67(54) .977 .972 .064 (.060-.069) .060

three facets 365.19(51) .988 .984 .048 (.044-.053) .045

three facets + acquiescence factor 255.96(50) .992 .990 .038 (.034-.043) .036

d
Open-Mindedness

we
single domain 819.89(54) .911 .891 .088 (.083-.094) .086

three facets 299.35(51) .973 .964 .050 (.045-.056) .50

vie
three facets + acquiescence factor 295.71(50) .974 .966 .050 (.044-.055) .049

re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Table 5

d
Measurement Invariance Across Serbian (N = 1016) and the US Samples (N = 1000) for

we
BFI-2 on Facet Level

Robust SRMR

Invariance level WLSMVχ2(df) CFI TLI RMSEA (90%CI)

vie
Configural 2041.14(160) .903 .873 .092 (.088-.095) .078

Metric 1857.57(170) .902 .879 .089 (.086-.093) .078

re
Scalar 2084.89(180) .891 .893 .092 (.088-.095) .082

Partial scalar 2024.68(179)

er.894 .876 .090 (.087-.094) .081
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Table 6

d
Rotated Component Matrix of Scales From Serbian Adaptations of the BFI-2, IPIP-50, and

we
HEXACO-60 (Sample 1, N = 389)

Component

Scales

vie
1 2 3 4 5

Extraversion IPIP-50 .90

Extraversion HEXACO-60 .85

re
Extraversion BFI-2 .84

Conscientiousness IPIP-50
er .90

Conscientiousness BFI-2 .89

pe
Conscientiousness HEXACO-60 .87

Emotionality HEXACO-60 .87

Negative Emotionality BFI-2 -.37 .82

Emotional Stability IPIP-50 .35 -.80

Open-Mindedness BFI-2 .91

rin

Openness to Experience HEXACO-60 .90

Intellect/Imagination IPIP-50 .83

Agreeableness BFI .87

Agreeableness HEXACO-60 -.33 .77

Agreeableness IPIP-50 .40 .42 .61

Honesty-Humility HEXACO-60 .57

d
Note: Loadings < .30 were omitted.

we
vie
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Table 7

d
Rotated Component Matrix of Scales From Serbian Adaptations of the BFI-2, BF+2, and

we
HEXACO-60 (Sample 2, N = 627)

Component

Scales

vie
1 2 3 4 5

Extraversion BF+2 .88

Extraversion HEXACO-60 .84

re
Extraversion BFI-2 .82

Positive Valence BF+2 .71

er
pe
Aggressiveness BF+2 -.81

Agreeableness HEXACO-60 .81

Agreeableness BFI-2 .31 .79

Negative Valence BF+2 -.73 -.44

Honesty-Humility .50 .44

HEXACO-60
rin

Conscientiousness BF+2 .88

Conscientiousness .87
ep

HEXACO-60

Conscientiousness BFI-2 .85

Openness to Experience .93

HEXACO-60

Open-Mindedness BFI-2 .92

d
Openness BF+2 .38 .82

we
Emotionality HEXACO-60 .91

vie
Negative Emotionality BF-2 -.41 .78

Neuroticism BF+2 -.47 -.38 .57

re
Note: Loadings < .30 were omitted

er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Table 8

e d
w
Correlations Between BFI-2 Domains and Facets and BRF Criterion-related Items (Sample 1, N = 389)

Criterion E SOC
E

AST ENG A COM

REP TRU C ORG

PRO RES NE

v
ANX
i e NE

DEP EMO O INT

AES CRE

BRF1

BRF2
.40**

.28**
.32**

.18**
.32**

.34**
.34**

.18**
.07

.04
.00

.02
.04

.00
.11*

.07
.20**

.10
.15**

.00
.21**

.09
.15**

.16**
-.23**

-.19**

r e
-.15**

-.16**
-.30**

-.18**
-.14**

-.16**
.09

.24**
-.02

.10
.09

.22**
.18**

.28**

BRF3

BRF4
.51**

-.04
.39**

-.00
.44**

-.05
.41**

-.05
.13*

.12*
.09

.23**
.05

.08
.15**

-.01
.25**

.03

er.16**

.05
.23**

-.04
.25**

.07
-.30**

.27**
-.22**

.27**
-.32**

.17**
-.24**

.27**
.14**

.09
.04

.15**
.09

.05
.23**

.01

BRF5

BRF6
.09

.10*
.02

.04
.00

.11*
.20**

.10
.19**

.23**
.17**

.25**
.17**

.16**
.12*

.14**
.28**

.09

pe .22**

.08
.29**

.03
.19**

.13**
-.13**

.02
-.05

.02
-.21**

-.03
-.09

.07
-.12*

.13**
-.08

.09
-.18**

.12*
-.05

.11*

BRF7

BRF8
-.06

.04
-.02

.05
-.06

.03
-.05

.01
-.05

-.06
-.05

-.02
.08

o
-.11*
-.13*

-.01 t
-.01

.01
.00

.01
-.04

.08
.02

-.07
.00

-.13*
.07

-.11*
.01

-.12*
-.07

-.10*
-.05

.04
-.01

.02
-.06

.04
-.05

.04

BRF9

BRF10
.17**

.17**
.16**

.21**
.18**

.10*
.07

.09
-.04

t
-.02
.04

-.03 n
-.10

-.06
-.05

.04
-.04

-.22**
-.03

-.21**
-.02

-.16**
-.04

-.17**
-.01

-.05
.05

-.05
-.02

.01
-.06

-.08
.08

.02
.07

-.04
.07

.11*
.04

-.02

BRF11

BRF12
-.07

.14**
-.08

.14**
-.02

.09

r
-.06

.11*
in
-.08

.06
-.15**

.04
-.00

.00
-.04

.08
-.02

.05
-.01

-.00
-.00

.10
-.05

.02
-.07

-.13*
-.08

-.09
-.02

-.11*
-.09

-.13**
-.31**

.16**
-.34**

.10*
-.10*

.09
-.28**

.21**

BRF13 .16** .08

p
.14* .16** .00 -.02 -.01 .02 .06 -.02 .16** .02 -.10 -.10 -.14* -.02 .09 .01 .08 .16**

re
BRF14 -.04 -.02 -.06 -.04 -.04 .00 -.08 -.03 -.03 -.03 .04 -.10 -.11* -.12* -.09 -.08 -.00 -.01 -.01 .01

P
BRF15 .13* .15** .09 .08 -.07 -.08 -.06 -.03 -.01 -.02 .01 -.03 -.06 -.07 -.04 -.04 .08 .03 .06 .11*

BRF16 .01 .01 .12* -.09 -.09 -.12* -.10* -.01 -.11* -.09 -.08 -.11* .02 -.02 .06 .01 .12* .09

e d
.12* .09

BRF17

BRF18
.02

-.01
.01

.04
.00

-.02
.05

-.03
.08

.05
.09

.13**
.02

.06
.08

-.06
.10

.08
.07

.05
.09

.05
.08

.12*
.08

.06
.09

.08

i ew.06

.03
.05

.05
.03

.06
.04

.12*
.01

-.01
.01

.00

v
BRF19 .20** .14** .11* .23** .10* .13* .02 .09 .25** .17** .29** .16** -.09 -.10* -.18** .02 -.06 -.06 -.10 .02

e
BRF20 .15** .07 .11* .18** -.06 -.08 -.06 .00 .02 -.02 .09 -.02 -.07 -.07 -.04 -.06 .10** .13* .12* .24**

r r
Note: E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; NE = Negative Emotionality; O = Open-Mindedness; BRF1 – attractiveness; BRF2 – intelligence; BRF3

– popularity; BRF4 – masculinity/femininity; BRF5 – religiousness; BRF6 – honesty; BRF7 – average grades; BRF8 – average dates (monthly); BRF9 – tobacco; BRF10 –

e e
alcohol; BRF11 – scientific disciplines ; BRF12 – clubs membership; BRF13 – traffic ticket fines; BRF14 – lottery games; BRF15 – parties (monthly); BRF16 – diet; BRF17

– medical treatment; BRF18 – glasses/eye-lenses; BRF19 – employment; BRF20 – hobbies.

* p < .05; ** p < .01

t p
n o
in t
p r
r e
P
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4711058

Soto John 2017a
No ratings yet
Soto John 2017a
79 pages
Rammstedt Et Al 2020
No ratings yet
Rammstedt Et Al 2020
13 pages
Adaptasi IPIP-BFM-50
No ratings yet
Adaptasi IPIP-BFM-50
14 pages
Individual Differences 2nd
No ratings yet
Individual Differences 2nd
46 pages
John 2008
No ratings yet
John 2008
45 pages
Soto John 2017b
No ratings yet
Soto John 2017b
41 pages
Mammadov (2021) - Big Five Personality Traits and Academic Performance. A Meta Analysis
No ratings yet
Mammadov (2021) - Big Five Personality Traits and Academic Performance. A Meta Analysis
75 pages
Ashton 2005
No ratings yet
Ashton 2005
34 pages
Saucier WhatisBeyondThe5
No ratings yet
Saucier WhatisBeyondThe5
30 pages
The Big 5 Personality Tests Measures and
No ratings yet
The Big 5 Personality Tests Measures and
59 pages
BFFI
100% (2)
BFFI
11 pages
Bfi Draft
No ratings yet
Bfi Draft
27 pages
A Very Brief Measure of The Big-Five Personality Domains
No ratings yet
A Very Brief Measure of The Big-Five Personality Domains
25 pages
Badanie 1
No ratings yet
Badanie 1
23 pages
Structural Validity and Measurement Invariance of The Short Version of The Big Five Inventory BFI-10 in Selected Countries
No ratings yet
Structural Validity and Measurement Invariance of The Short Version of The Big Five Inventory BFI-10 in Selected Countries
18 pages
FiveFactor Personality Types
100% (1)
FiveFactor Personality Types
29 pages
Hierarchical Subcomponents of The Big Five Personality Factors-Saucier1999
No ratings yet
Hierarchical Subcomponents of The Big Five Personality Factors-Saucier1999
15 pages
Five Factor Model of Personality, Assessment of
No ratings yet
Five Factor Model of Personality, Assessment of
6 pages
Fpsyg 10 01057
No ratings yet
Fpsyg 10 01057
10 pages
Big 5 Per Traits
No ratings yet
Big 5 Per Traits
17 pages
European J of Personality - 2005 - Woods - Measuring The Big Five With Single Items Using A Bipolar Response Scale
No ratings yet
European J of Personality - 2005 - Woods - Measuring The Big Five With Single Items Using A Bipolar Response Scale
18 pages
Gosling Et Al. 2003 A - Very - Brief - Measure - of - The - Big-Five - perXCELLENT
No ratings yet
Gosling Et Al. 2003 A - Very - Brief - Measure - of - The - Big-Five - perXCELLENT
25 pages
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
No ratings yet
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
12 pages
2006 Donnellan PA MiniIPIP
No ratings yet
2006 Donnellan PA MiniIPIP
13 pages
03 Chapter1b
No ratings yet
03 Chapter1b
10 pages
International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 1577-7057
No ratings yet
International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 1577-7057
11 pages
The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-Yet-Effective Measures of The Big Five Factors of Personality
No ratings yet
The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-Yet-Effective Measures of The Big Five Factors of Personality
12 pages
Adjective Checklist To Assess The Big Fi
No ratings yet
Adjective Checklist To Assess The Big Fi
11 pages
Bigfiveinventory Version10atwo Minutepersonalitymeasurementtoolinurdu
No ratings yet
Bigfiveinventory Version10atwo Minutepersonalitymeasurementtoolinurdu
6 pages
Rammstedt2007 PDF
No ratings yet
Rammstedt2007 PDF
10 pages
John Et Al 2008
No ratings yet
John Et Al 2008
45 pages
Psychological Assessment
No ratings yet
Psychological Assessment
15 pages
A Short Version of The Big Five Inventory (BFI-20) : Evidence On Construct Validity
No ratings yet
A Short Version of The Big Five Inventory (BFI-20) : Evidence On Construct Validity
22 pages
9 ICARI-AS-23-05-103 IJARI V11i1
No ratings yet
9 ICARI-AS-23-05-103 IJARI V11i1
6 pages
Big Five Inventory
No ratings yet
Big Five Inventory
9 pages
Unit 4 The Big Five Factors: The Basic Dimensions of Personality
No ratings yet
Unit 4 The Big Five Factors: The Basic Dimensions of Personality
12 pages
NIH Public Access: Author Manuscript
No ratings yet
NIH Public Access: Author Manuscript
17 pages
Big Five Personality Measurement Instrum
No ratings yet
Big Five Personality Measurement Instrum
6 pages
Bigfive
No ratings yet
Bigfive
4 pages
Multivariate Behavioral Research: To Cite This Article: Kibeom Lee & Michael C. Ashton (2004) Psychometric Properties
No ratings yet
Multivariate Behavioral Research: To Cite This Article: Kibeom Lee & Michael C. Ashton (2004) Psychometric Properties
32 pages
A Study of The Psychometric Properties and The Standardization of Hexaco Personality Inventory
No ratings yet
A Study of The Psychometric Properties and The Standardization of Hexaco Personality Inventory
4 pages
A Broad-Bandwidth Inventory
No ratings yet
A Broad-Bandwidth Inventory
22 pages
The Big Five Personality Test
No ratings yet
The Big Five Personality Test
4 pages
Constantinescu - Constantinescu The - Romanian IPIP-50-revisited For COPP2016 PDF
No ratings yet
Constantinescu - Constantinescu The - Romanian IPIP-50-revisited For COPP2016 PDF
11 pages
NeuroInvesting - 2013 - Chen - Appendix A Big Five Inventory Questionnaire Adapted
No ratings yet
NeuroInvesting - 2013 - Chen - Appendix A Big Five Inventory Questionnaire Adapted
5 pages
Report 2 - Measuring The Big Five Personality Dimensions of A Human Participant
No ratings yet
Report 2 - Measuring The Big Five Personality Dimensions of A Human Participant
13 pages
Yashita Chhabra - 22223134 NEO FFI Report
No ratings yet
Yashita Chhabra - 22223134 NEO FFI Report
9 pages
Personality and Social Dynamics Lab - Sanjay Srivastava
No ratings yet
Personality and Social Dynamics Lab - Sanjay Srivastava
4 pages
Personality PROFILE
No ratings yet
Personality PROFILE
7 pages
NEO-PI-R Factor Structure in College Students: Special Feature
No ratings yet
NEO-PI-R Factor Structure in College Students: Special Feature
9 pages
A Study On Effect of Big Five Personality Traits o
No ratings yet
A Study On Effect of Big Five Personality Traits o
6 pages
Big Five
No ratings yet
Big Five
30 pages
The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-Effective Measures of The Big Five Factors of Personality
No ratings yet
The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-Effective Measures of The Big Five Factors of Personality
13 pages
Earthing Design
No ratings yet
Earthing Design
12 pages
Appendix A: Big Five Inventory Questionnaire (Adapted) : Instruction 1: in Table A.1 Are Some Characteristics That May
No ratings yet
Appendix A: Big Five Inventory Questionnaire (Adapted) : Instruction 1: in Table A.1 Are Some Characteristics That May
5 pages
Big Five Envanteri Turkce Formu Toad
No ratings yet
Big Five Envanteri Turkce Formu Toad
3 pages
10.10160191 88699390218 R
No ratings yet
10.10160191 88699390218 R
8 pages
Psychometric Properties of The Big Five Inventory in A Mexican Sample
No ratings yet
Psychometric Properties of The Big Five Inventory in A Mexican Sample
7 pages
Study of The Psychometric Properties and The Standardization of HEXACO Personality Inventory
No ratings yet
Study of The Psychometric Properties and The Standardization of HEXACO Personality Inventory
4 pages
Benedetto Croce, Aesthetic As Science of Expression and General Linguistic
No ratings yet
Benedetto Croce, Aesthetic As Science of Expression and General Linguistic
135 pages
TLE9 CSS Q3 M4 Maintain-Hand-Tools
No ratings yet
TLE9 CSS Q3 M4 Maintain-Hand-Tools
8 pages
Politics of Development and Underdevelop
No ratings yet
Politics of Development and Underdevelop
310 pages
Plastic Waste Management
No ratings yet
Plastic Waste Management
9 pages
How To Preserve Malaysian Identity Essay
No ratings yet
How To Preserve Malaysian Identity Essay
1 page
The NEO
No ratings yet
The NEO
2 pages
Skit Rubric
No ratings yet
Skit Rubric
1 page
TCS Codevita Previous Papers - Pdf-Edited
No ratings yet
TCS Codevita Previous Papers - Pdf-Edited
8 pages
Ipip Neo Scoring Facets
No ratings yet
Ipip Neo Scoring Facets
9 pages
Ieee Mas Awards - 2024
No ratings yet
Ieee Mas Awards - 2024
17 pages
Soil Nails Field Pull Out Testing Evaluation and Applications
No ratings yet
Soil Nails Field Pull Out Testing Evaluation and Applications
11 pages
I M OK You Re OK Thomas Harris Download
No ratings yet
I M OK You Re OK Thomas Harris Download
52 pages
Engineered Ferrites and Their Applications: Pankaj Sharma Gagan Kumar Bhargava Sumit Bhardwaj Indu Sharma Editors
No ratings yet
Engineered Ferrites and Their Applications: Pankaj Sharma Gagan Kumar Bhargava Sumit Bhardwaj Indu Sharma Editors
261 pages
Ipip Items Test Assignment
No ratings yet
Ipip Items Test Assignment
142 pages
23MIPrelimQP (H2 Chem Paper 3)
No ratings yet
23MIPrelimQP (H2 Chem Paper 3)
26 pages
02 Strategy - Setting Aspirations
No ratings yet
02 Strategy - Setting Aspirations
27 pages
Transfer Application 445584
No ratings yet
Transfer Application 445584
1 page
Python Lab Program 3
No ratings yet
Python Lab Program 3
3 pages
DR Tambanandmr Flores
No ratings yet
DR Tambanandmr Flores
7 pages
1.3 Food SOvereignty
No ratings yet
1.3 Food SOvereignty
16 pages
Essay On Technology and Economy
No ratings yet
Essay On Technology and Economy
4 pages
Goldberg Big Five Vs Costa Mccrae Five Factors
No ratings yet
Goldberg Big Five Vs Costa Mccrae Five Factors
12 pages
Frequency Distribution Table
No ratings yet
Frequency Distribution Table
2 pages
Samai (Hod) Applied Accounting Year 1 Business Economices Sec Sem
No ratings yet
Samai (Hod) Applied Accounting Year 1 Business Economices Sec Sem
19 pages
Ipip Neo Scoring Domains
No ratings yet
Ipip Neo Scoring Domains
5 pages
Chap4 - Functions, Pigeonhole Principle
No ratings yet
Chap4 - Functions, Pigeonhole Principle
31 pages
Understanding The Aumann's Agreement Theorem
No ratings yet
Understanding The Aumann's Agreement Theorem
25 pages
3D Dynamic Soil - Uid-Structure Interaction Analysis in The Time Domain
No ratings yet
3D Dynamic Soil - Uid-Structure Interaction Analysis in The Time Domain
6 pages
Science 5
No ratings yet
Science 5
8 pages
Ortho Dimensions and Sketching
No ratings yet
Ortho Dimensions and Sketching
13 pages
Ocb & LMX
No ratings yet
Ocb & LMX
12 pages
Triz Ol Rna Extraction 030911
No ratings yet
Triz Ol Rna Extraction 030911
3 pages
Lab 1 - Experiment On Electrostatics
No ratings yet
Lab 1 - Experiment On Electrostatics
5 pages
Bilateral Dimples That Are Rarely Seen in The Lower Alignment of The Mouth Corners Fovea Inferior Anguli Oris PDF
No ratings yet
Bilateral Dimples That Are Rarely Seen in The Lower Alignment of The Mouth Corners Fovea Inferior Anguli Oris PDF
2 pages