PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 1

A cross-cultural analysis of personality structure through the lens of the HEXACO

model

Andrei Ion¹, Dragoș Iliescu¹, Said Aldhafri², Neeti Rana³, Kattiya Ratanadilok⁴,

Ari Widyanti⁵, and Cătălin Nedelcea¹

¹Department of Psychology, University of Bucharest, Romania

²Department of Psychology, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

³School of Buddhist Studies and Civilization, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida,

Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India

⁴Ministry of Justice, Bangkok Metropolitan Area, Thailand

⁵Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia

Corresponding author: Andrei Ion, Department of Psychology, University of Bucharest, 90

Panduri Boulevard, Bucharest, 050663, Romania. E-mail address: andrei.ion@fpse.unibuc.ro

(Andrei Ion).

SELF-ARCHIVED PREPRINT

Ion, A., Iliescu, D., Ratanadilok, K., Rana, N., Widyanti, A., & Aldhafri, S. (2017). A Cross-

Cultural Analysis of Personality Structure through the Lens of the HEXACO Model. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 99(1), 25-34. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1187155

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 2

Abstract

Across 5 different samples, totaling more than 1,600 participants from India,

Indonesia, Oman, Romania, and Thailand, the authors address the question of cross-cultural

replicability of a personality structure, while exploring the utility of exploratory structural

equation modeling (ESEM) as a data analysis technique in cross-cultural personality research.

Personality was measured with an alternative, non–Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality

framework, provided by the HEXACO–PI (Lee & Ashton, 2004). The results show that the

HEXACO framework was replicated in some of the investigated cultures. The ESEM data

analysis technique proved to be especially useful in investigating the between-group

measurement equivalence of broad personality measures across different cultures.

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 3

A cross-cultural analysis of personality structure through the lens of the HEXACO

model

The degree to which human personality has some invariant characteristics in its

structure that could be called universal is a question that has caught the interest of scientists

and also has important practical implications. In the past decades, many large-scale, cross

cultural investigations have aimed at exploring personality trait structure. Most of these large-

scale, cross-cultural investigations (e.g., D. P. Schmitt et al., 2007) have converged toward a

culturally replicable five-factor structure of personality.

However, a closer look reveals that these findings were based on exploratory data

analytical frameworks, specifically exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The use of more robust

data analytical methods in estimating the structure of personality traits, such as confirmatory

factor analysis, yielded less articulate results (e.g., Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1990). Therefore,

new data analytic methods that can be useful in personality research have been devised, such

as exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). These have, to our knowledge, not yet

been used in the analysis of cross-cultural personality research. Encouraged by the recent

developments in data analysis methods and by the need to test whether universality is indeed

a hallmark of only one personality framework, or if it can be extended to other personality

frameworks, we investigate the cross-cultural replicability of a six-factor model of

personality through the lens of ESEM.

This investigation fits into the still vivid debate regarding two of the issues that are

central to our understanding of personality: the universality of personality trait structure and

the adequacy of various data-analytical approaches in the analysis of cross-cultural data.

The universality issue in personality assessment

A number of studies employing different methodologies, aimed at identifying a

potentially universal structure of personality traits, have shown findings converging toward a
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 4

five-factor structure. This structure has been labeled the Five-Factor Model (FFM). Some

authors have argued that the five-factor structure is so far the closest match to an

“omnipresent” personality trait structure (De Raad, Perugini, Hrebickova, & Szarota, 1998).

Further research has offered empirical support for the universality of the five-factor structure

(De Fruyt, De Bolle, McCrae, Terraciano, & Costa, 2009; McCrae et al., 2005; D. P. Schmitt

et al., 2007). Specific traits measured by the FFM have been shown to be replicable at the

content level across different cultures (e.g., Nye, Roberts, Saucier, & Zhou, 2008). Gradually,

this model has risen in importance and has become so prominent that currently even the most

severe critics of the FFM acknowledge the fact that it has become central to “contemporary

personality research” (Block, 2010, p. 4).

Recent cross-cultural investigations that reported personality traits structures that

deviate to a greater or lesser extent from the mainstream FFM reopened debates surrounding

the alleged universal structure that can be retrieved or replicated in most cultures. For

example, recent investigations conducted on indigenous and illiterate societies in Bolivia

offer support for a narrow, two-factor personality traits structure (e.g., Gurven, von Rueden,

Massenkoff, Kaplan, & Lero Vie, 2013). Even for Western countries, an analysis of factor

structures of personality traits across 12 languages and 14 taxonomies concluded that only

three factors are entirely replicable across all the different cultural groups (De Raad et al.,

2010). Some empirical research advocates in favor of a Big One personality factor (e.g.,

Musek, 2007). In support of a larger number of personality traits, several lexical studies

conducted across Croatian, Turkish, Greek, English, or Dutch groups have revealed a six-

factor personality traits structure (Ashton & Lee, 2007). A study analyzing the personality

traits structure across 11 South African cultural groups and languages reported the emergence

of nine-factor structures (Nel et al., 2012). During the early 1990s a model including seven
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 5

personality dimensions was retrieved (Tellegen & Waller, 1987) and replicated in various

cultures (e.g., Almagor, Tellegen, & Waller, 1995; Benet & Waller, 1995).

The fact that some of the popular personality models are confirmed in different

cultures does not imply that those are the only cross-culturally replicable or “universal”

personality traits structures. We consider that to better understand the universality issue in

personality research, scientific endeavors should focus not only on confirming that the most

popular frameworks are replicable across different cultures, but also on investigating whether

other, less researched frameworks are cross-culturally replicable. To this end we investigated

whether the six-factor model of personality traits, model commonly labeled HEXACO

(Ashton & Lee 2001; Lee & Ashton, 2004) exhibits replicability across different cultural

groups.

The HEXACO Personality Inventory

One of the more influential projects exploring personality traits structure beyond the

FFM was undertaken by Ashton and Lee (2001; also Lee & Ashton, 2004) resulting in a six-

factor framework of personality traits, the HEXACO model. The instrument attached to this

model and used for measuring the six factors is the HEXACO Personality Inventory

(HEXACO–PI; Lee & Ashton, 2004). The model includes some components that are related,

at least in name, to the FFM, such as Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A),

Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O), but includes an additional

component that has no counterpart within the FFM, the Honesty-Humility (H) dimension.

The six-factor model of personality traits is not an extension of the FFM, as it has emerged as

a distinct structure obtained via lexical studies conducted in various languages and cultures

(Ashton & Lee, 2007). The dimensions of the HEXACO model have various degrees of

overlap with the dimensions of the FFM. For example, Extraversion, Openness to

Experience, and Conscientiousness are by and large counterparts of the homonymous factors
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 6

of the FFM. On the other hand, the Honesty-Humility component has no corresponding

dimension in the FFM. The HEXACO Agreeableness factor is also not perfectly matched

with the FFM Agreeableness factor. In addition to the traits typically measured in the FFM, it

includes traits of anger and hostility (Lee, Ashton, Morrison, Cordery, & Dunlop, 2008). The

utility of the HEXACO has been investigated in different areas of applied psychology.

Independent findings indicate that the six personality dimensions are predictive for life

outcomes (e.g., Thalmayer, Saucier, & Eigenhuis, 2011), counterproductive work behaviors

(e.g., Marcus, Ashton, & Lee, 2013; O’Neill, Lewis, & Carswell, 2011), job performance

(e.g., Johnson, Rowatt, & Perrini, 2011), academic performance (De Vries, De Vries, &

Born, 2011), and integrity (e.g., Lee et al., 2008). The HEXACO model is comparable to the

FFM in terms of utility in predicting work-related outcomes (e.g., Lee, Ashton, & De Vries,

2005; Lee, Ashton, & Shin, 2005). In some areas, the HEXACO has evidence to support its

incremental validity over and beyond the FFM trait domains; most of the practical advantages

of the HEXACO over the FFM are related to the Honesty-Humility component (Ashton &

Lee, 2007). The six-dimensional model was replicated across more than 10 different cultures

(Aghababaei, Wasserman, & Nannini, 2014; Ashton & Lee, 2007; Wasti, Lee, Ashton, &

Somer, 2008). However, as with other celebrated personality frameworks, all the just

mentioned investigations relied on EFA as the main data analytical framework. This

investigation extends our knowledge of the HEXACO model by examining its replicability

with culturally distinct groups, for which this framework has not been previously studied

(India, Indonesia, Oman, Romania, and Thailand) via ESEM.

The adequacy of various data analytical approaches in analyzing personality traits

structure

EFA is one of the most commonly used data analysis techniques in psychology, and

especially in personality research (e.g., Cudeck & MacCallum, 2007). The results of an EFA
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 7

depend heavily on a set of decisions the researcher makes, mainly regarding the extraction

method, the rotation method, and the number of factors retained in the solution (e.g., Bentler

& Kano, 1990; Conway & Huffcut, 2003; Costello & Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar, Wegener,

MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). It is due to this dependency that some authors have called the

validity of EFA findings into question, arguing that “EFA can generate a variety of truths

according to the bent or desires or avoidances of the particular factor analyst” (Block, 2010,

p. 6).

Another data-analytic method that gradually became the gold standard in analyzing

the latent structures of different measures is confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA has

often been used for analyses into the structure of personality traits across different cultural

groups (e.g., Cheung & Rensvold, 2000; Little, 1997; Vandenburg & Lance, 2000; Van de

Vijver & Leung, 1997). Motivated by the fact that several straightforward and seemingly

valid personality frameworks were not confirmed via CFA (e.g., Borkenau & Ostendorf,

1990; Church & Burke, 1994; Parker, Bagby, & Summerfeldt, 1993), some authors have

raised concerns about its utility in personality assessment research. Most of the critiques have

focused on the imposition of zero-order constraints on covariances outside of the perfect

predicted factor structure. This imposition is seen by some as inappropriate for analysing

personality traits structures, which are characterized by complex facet-construct interrelations

(Aluja, Garcia, Garcia, & Seisdedos, 2005; Marsh & Hau, 2007; McCrae, Zonderman, Costa,

Bond, & Paunonen, 1996).

Briefly stated, both EFA and CFA entail a set of advantages and limitations,

especially when deployed in the analysis of broad personality measures. Thus far, regardless

of the personality taxonomy that has been explored, our current understanding regarding the

structure of personality traits has been shaped by research that relied mainly on EFA or CFA.

A new evolution in the area of factor-analytic techniques used in personality research, ESEM,
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 8

builds on the strengths of both these techniques. In this article we compare the utility of

ESEM against that of EFA, having a methodological contribution to the field of personality

research.

Exploratory structural equations modeling

ESEM is a data analysis method that builds on the main features of EFA and CFA,

while providing a more flexible analytical framework. ESEM uses the traditional parameters

of structural equation modeling (SEM) that are met in CFA approaches such as fit indexes

and residual correlations or factor regressions. However, it also allows for the rotation of the

initial measurement models (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2009). This way, ESEM tackles some of

the limitations associated with both EFA and CFA, permitting simultaneous estimations of

both structural and measurement models, thus avoiding misspecified models for measures

developed in an EFA framework, and testing a theoretical model without a strict specification

of the measurement structure (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2009). ESEM permits the testing of

different models without imposing zero-order constraints on cross-loadings generated either

by complex item–construct relations or by errors in measurement, both ubiquitous in

personality assessment. This technique has been already successfully pioneered in exploring

the invariance of the FFM across age and gender (e.g., Marsh et al., 2010; Marsh, Nagengast,

& Morin, 2013) or across testing contexts (Furnham, Guenole, Levine, & Chamorro-

Premuzic, 2013).

The measurement invariance deadlock

Measurement invariance is critical for investigating the way in which a personality

framework functions across culturally diverse groups. Lack of measurement invariance

makes score comparisons across groups impossible and obviates the capacity to analyze how

one or several constructs function across different groups (Little, 1997; van de Vijver &

Leung, 1997). In CFA, before conducting a measurement invariance analysis, a researcher

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 9

typically establishes a baseline model by specifying the hypothesized model (Byrne, 2008; N.

Schmitt & Kuljanin, 2008). A prerequisite of measurement invariance testing consists in the

identification of well-fitting baseline models. It should be noted that several research projects

that are usually referenced in support of the FFM claim for replicability fail to address the

issue of measurement invariance (e.g., McCrae et al., 2005; D. P. Schmitt et al., 2007). Such

a failure could be partly explained by the severity with which CFA sanctions nonzero

loadings in nontarget factors. If a certain measurement model exhibits a high number of

cross-loadings outside the predicted structure, the identification of well-fitting baseline

models becomes difficult. Because ESEM tolerates cross-loadings, it could be successfully

deployed for identifying clear baseline models. Establishing an acceptable baseline model is

an important step in the computation of measurement invariance analyses.

This article applies the ESEM analytical framework to cross-cultural personality data.

We expected ESEM to yield baseline models that yield acceptable goodness of fit when used

for a complex personality framework (HEXACO), thus enabling the exploration of various

forms of invariance across the investigated groups.

Method

This research investigated the way in which the HEXACO model, as an alternative

(non-FFM) personality traits framework, functions across a number of different cultural

groups with different languages: India (Hindi), Indonesia (Indonesian), Oman (Arabic),

Romania (Romanian), and Thailand (Thai). There are two principles that guided the inclusion

of these different cultural groups in this investigation. First, in an attempt to expand our

understanding regarding personality traits structure, we chose countries that do not belong to

the typically overstudied group of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic

(WEIRD) countries. To maximize the betweenculture variability we chose to investigate

personality traits structure in five countries where an overwhelming proportion of the

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 10

population belongs to different religions: Hinduism in India; Islam in Indonesia; Ibadiyya, a

branch of Islam, in Oman; Greek Orthodoxism, a branch of Christianity, in Romania; and

Buddhism in Thailand.

Participants

The data were obtained as part of the cultural adaptation process for the HEXACO

across five different cultures and the corresponding languages: India (Hindi), Indonesia

(Indonesian), Oman (Arabic), Romania (Romanian), and Thailand (Thai). The five samples

thus obtained are each homogeneous from a linguistic, cultural, and religious point of view.

Still, they ensure diversity in the study and a striking difference from the U.S. or Western

European samples that are typically used in personality research: The investigated samples

are different from each other from a linguistic, religious, and cultural point of view: Hindi

language and Hinduism for India, Indonesian language and Islam in Indonesia, Arabic

language and Ibadiyya (a branch of Islam) in Oman, Romanian language and Greek

Orthodoxy (a branch of Christianity) in Romania, and Thai language and Buddhism in

Thailand. The sample sizes of the five groups included in the analysis ranged from 210 to 482

participants per country. All the investigated groups were assembled via an opportunity

sampling procedure.

The Hindi sample includes a total of 269 participants, with 158 (58.7%) males. The

age range is between 18 and 46 years (M = 22.37, SD = 5.21). The Indonesian sample

includes 482 participants, with 292 (60.5%) males, and ages between 17 and 28 years (M =

20.91, SD = 1.33). The Omani sample includes 255 participants with ages between 16 and 45

years (M = 19.47, SD = 5.07), among them 140 (56%) males. The Romanian sample consists

of 417 participants aged between 18 and 56 years (M = 29.14, SD = 7.86), among them 163

(39%) males. The Thai sample includes 210 participants, with 155 (73%) males, and ages

between 17 and 25 years (M = 19.56, SD = 1.33).

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 11

Measures

Five local language versions of the HEXACO Personality Inventory–Revised

(HEXACO–PI–R) were used to measure the six personality dimensions formulated by

Ashton and Lee (2001; also Lee & Ashton, 2004). The HEXACO–PI–R follows a

hierarchical model, including 200 items structured onto 24 facets, and six broad dimensions,

each dimension including four facet scales. The HEXACO–PI–R uses a 5-point Likert

agreement scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Translation procedure

The HEXACO translation process was based on a similar approach for each of the

five languages, essentially a forward translation process, coupled by a blind back-translation.

This process followed the International Test Commission (ITC, 2010) Guidelines on Test

Adaptation, as well as recommendations made by Hambleton (2005). A translator working

from a forward translation perspective, as opposed to backward translation, does not work

through the items of a questionnaire in the order in which these items are presented to a test

taker, but begins by grouping the items into their respective scales and facets. The translator

then approaches the translation of each item so that it captures the intent of the respective

scale or facet, as shown by the definition of that construct. This procedure was followed in all

five languages of our study. The resulting draft translation was then submitted to a blind

backtranslation, and supplementary adjustments were made on the items. A review was then

made based on the Item Translation and Adaptation Review Form proposed by Hambleton

and Zenisky (2011). Finally, the results of all these steps were submitted to the original test

authors, and their suggestions were implemented in what was considered a final other

language version of the HEXACO–PI.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 12

The internal consistency reliabilities are reported in Table 1.

-- Insert Table 1 here --

The EFAs were conducted based on facet scores, each facet including four items. The

EFA for all the investigated samples was conducted with a maximum likelihood (ML)

extraction and Oblimin rotation. Due to the normality assumption for ML-based factor

analyses, we also conducted principal axis factor analyses (the latter approach does not have

a normality assumption). In each case, a six-factor solution emerged. Similar six-factor

solutions were retrieved by using the principal axis factoring extraction method. We chose to

approach the factor retention issue by deploying a parallel analysis based on a Monte Carlo

data simulation method (Horn, 1965). In the Monte Carlo simulation, we generated 1,000

random data sets.

The 95th percentile cutoff values for the eigenvalues were included in Table 2.

-- Insert Table 2 here --

The EFA-derived six factors displayed eigenvalues greater than the ones obtained via

the simulated results for India, Indonesia, Romania, and Thailand. The Honesty-Humility

component had slightly lower eigenvalues compared to the ones obtained via parallel analysis

(PA) at a 95% confidence interval for India and Oman. Conscientiousness displayed lower

EFA-derived eigenvalues for Oman. The eigenvalues associated with Openness were slightly

lower than those generated via PA for Oman and Thailand. The eigenvalues obtained via

EFA for Emotionality and Extraversion are higher than those generated via PA for all the

investigated groups.

We used target (Procrustes) rotation and the resulting Tucker congruence index to

determine the factor congruence between each of the investigated groups and the original

HEXACO target structure. Tucker’s index is considered an accurate test of replication, and

congruence scores of .90 and above indicate a strong fit to the target structure (McCrae et al.,
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 13

1996). However, congruence indexes are insensitive to the magnitude of loadings. To ensure

that congruence indexes reflect similar rather than opposite loadings, we also computed

Gower’s (1971) similarity coefficient. The similarity coefficient was computed by using a

computation program designed by Barrett (2012). For both analyses, we considered the

HEXACO structure reported by Lee and Ashton (2004) on a Canadian sample of 409

participants as the target structure. The structures obtained via EFA for the five cultures

exhibited a moderate to strong fit with the target structure. Results are presented in Table 2.

The factor solution obtained for the Oman group has the lowest level of congruence with the

target structure (.84), and the solution obtained for the Indian sample has the highest level of

congruence with the target structure (.92). The median congruence coefficient with the six-

factor structure identified by Lee and Ashton (2004) is .88. Gower’s similarity coefficients

ranged between .74 and .91, with the lowest median similarity of .81 (Oman).

Exploratory structural equation modeling

For ESEM we used Mplus version 7 (Muthen & Muthen, 2008). The ESEM analyses

were based on the same samples used for the previous analyses and were conducted on

aggregate facet level, each facet including four items. To tackle the effects of potentially

nonnormal distributions, we used an MLR (Maximum Likelihood Robust to Non-Normality

and Non-Independence of Observations) estimation. The direct and relative goodness-of-fit

indexes for each model are included in Table 3. We draw attention to the fact that relying on

approximate fit tests requires a certain degree of interpretation as to what is considered an

acceptable or unacceptable goodness of fit (Barrett, 2007). However, the use of fixed

thresholds can lead to labeling misspecified models as acceptable (Beauducel & Wittmann,

2005; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004; Yuan, 2005).

-- Insert Table 3 here --

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 14

Arguably, there is no “substantive scientific consequence of accepting a model with a

CFI of .90 rather than one of .95” (Barrett, 2007, p. 819). The interpretation of fit indexes in

ESEM is based on the same cutoff values as in CFA, values higher than .90 for comparative

fit index (CFI) and lower than .05 for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)

indicating an acceptable goodness of fit (e.g., Asparouhov & Muthen, 2009).

Overall, the six-factor structure exhibited marginally acceptable goodness-of-fit

indexes. The highest fit indexes were obtained for the Indonesian sample (CFI = .930,

RMSEA = .043) and for the Romanian sample (CFI = .930, RMSEA = .047). The Hindi and

Thai samples exhibited poorer fit indexes: CFI = .906, RMSEA = .053, and CFI = .888,

RMSEA = .053, respectively.

To accurately interpret the results of an ESEM analysis, the pattern of item and facet

loadings on each factor needed to be examined. Table 4 includes the facet loadings for each

of the five investigated cultures. The geomin loadings across the five cultures reveal two

important points. First, ESEM provides a comprehensive representation of facet–factor

relationship, presenting the pattern of cross-loadings between facets and all underlying

factors. Given the nonzero relationships between different higher order factors, the

expectation for all the facets to load on a single higher order dimension is less legitimate. Our

results indicate that crossloadings, which decrease the goodness-of-fit indexes in a CFA

framework, occur frequently.

-- Insert Table 4 here --

For example, even for facets that clearly belong to a specific factor (e.g., the greed

avoidance facet, which loads .65 on the Honesty-Humility dimensions in the Romanian

sample), there are significant secondary loadings (e.g., a –.30 loading on the Emotionality

dimension). In CFA, when not specified, this kind of cross-loading leads to a decrease in

goodness of fit. Instead, in ESEM, such cross-loadings are tolerated, as they could reflect
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 15

between-group differences in the way in which different personality constructs are related to

one another, and they do not artificially decrease the goodness-of-fit indexes. Second, the

examination of loadings across the six factors reveals that there is support for the six-factor

model in India, Indonesia, Romania, and Thailand. The analysis of the loading pattern for

Oman indicates that the Conscientiousness facets tend to “migrate” on other components,

such as Extraversion or Openness.

Typically, goodness of fit is affected by cross-loadings and correlated errors. Because

in an ESEM framework zero-order constraints on cross-loadings are not imposed, we chose

to identify which correlated errors exert a significant impact on goodness of fit. Therefore, we

selected for each analysis those modification indexes that exerted a significant impact on

model fit. As shown in Table 3, the inclusion of facet correlated errors resulted in well-fitting

baseline models for each group. The highest fit indexes were obtained for the Indian sample

(CFI = .965, RMSEA = .032) and for the Indonesian sample (CFI = .953, RMSEA = .035).

For the Romanian and Thailand groups, the fit indexes were slightly below the .95 threshold:

CFI = .943, RMSEA = .043, and CFI = .949, RMSEA = .043, respectively. Even after

specifying three correlated errors, the goodness of fit for the Oman group was lower than

those estimated for the other groups, CFI = .931, RMSEA = .043.

The identification of marginally acceptable goodness-of-fit indexes permits the

deployment of additional measurement invariance analyses for the Romanian and Indonesian

groups. Because this study is pioneering the use of ESEM in cross-cultural personality

research, we chose to include in the invariance analyses the groups that exhibited slightly

poorer goodness-of-fit indexes.

Measurement invariance

To identify whether the HEXACO model functions in a similar way across the five

investigated cultural groups, we have gradually imposed more restrictive constraints on

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 16

several ESEM-based models. Table 5 displays the fit indexes for the five group invariance

ESEM analyses. We tested a set of four different models, ranging from configural invariance

to strict factorial invariance. The first model included in the analysis is the least restrictive,

having no imposed invariance constraints. This model exhibited an acceptable goodness of fit

(CFI = .931, RMSEA = .047). The second model tested if the factor loadings for the six-

factor structures are the same across the five investigated groups; this model is also called

weak factorial invariance. As expected, imposing factor loadings constraints resulted in a

decrease of goodness-of-fit indexes (CFI = .852, RMSEA = .055). The third and fourth

models involved imposing additional constraints on factor loadings and item intercepts

(strong measurement invariance) and factor loadings, item intercepts and item uniqueness

(strict measurement invariance), respectively. The ESEM-based invariance analysis for these

two models resulted in an unacceptably poor goodness of fit: CFI = .666, RMSEA = .079 for

strong and CFI = .644, RMSEA = .079 for strict measurement invariance.

-- Insert Table 5 here --

Discussion

This investigation is centered on two core issues. First, we investigated whether the

six -factor structure proposed by the HEXACO framework is replicable across five culturally

distinct groups. Second, we explored the utility of ESEM as a data analysis technique in the

cross-cultural analysis of personality and compared it with more traditional approaches based

on EFA and CFA.

The replicability of the HEXACO framework across cultural groups

The degree to which different personality trait frameworks are replicable across

diverse social, religious, or cultural groups represents a substantive issue, having important

practical and theoretical implications for personality research. In this study we used two

different data-analytic frameworks, EFA and ESEM, in an effort to estimate the extent to
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 17

which the six-factor personality framework can be considered replicable across five diverse

cultural groups and across different analytical frameworks. The results point toward the

existence of a cross-culturally replicable six-factor personality framework.

When using EFA, the six-factor solution predicted by the HEXACO framework was

extracted across all the five investigated cultures. The percentage of variance explained by

the six-factor solution prior to factor rotation ranged between 37.8% (Indonesia) and 40.9%

(India), and the average percentage of explained variance across the five samples was 38.9%.

We then showed in the Procrustes analysis and Gower’s similarity analysis that the structures

emerging in the five different countries are similar to the one obtained on a Canadian sample,

as part of the first published article addressing the psychometric characteristics of the

HEXACO (Lee & Ashton, 2004). EFA results obtained in this study are strikingly similar to

those commonly reported for the FFM (Aluja et al., 2005; McCrae et al., 1996).

The ESEM solutions displayed an acceptable fit to the data. This tendency was

observed across all the investigated groups. The optimal goodness of fit obtained for each

group can be partly explained by the less restrictive assumptions on which ESEM rests, each

facet or observed variable being allowed to load other factors beside the target factor to

which it theoretically belongs. Even if the six-factor personality model is far from being

equivalent across the five investigated cultures, the invariance analyses suggest that the

groups differ in facet–construct relations (noninvariant loadings), rather than in factorial

structure. However, concerns related to Honesty-Humility reported in other studies (e.g., De

Raad et al., 2010) also emerged in our investigation, as the Honesty-Humility component was

not retrieved in all the cultures as a stand-alone dimension. Overall, the results indicate that

the pattern of primary and secondary factor loadings does not vary to a great extent across the

five religiously and linguistically different cultures.

Sources of nonequivalence across the cultures

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 18

The inclusion of correlated errors resulted in improvements in model fit statistics for

each cultural group. For the Indian sample, specifying correlated errors between the modesty

(Honesty-Humility) and fairness (Honesty-Humility) facets and between dependence

(Emotionality) and sociability (Extraversion) resulted in a significant improvement in

goodness of fit. Specifying cross-loadings between social self-esteem (Extraversion) and

modesty (Honesty-Humility) and between sociability (Extraversion) and greed-avoidance

(Honesty-Humility) resulted in acceptable goodness-of-fit indexes for the Indonesian sample.

A significant yet insufficient improvement in goodness of fit was obtained for the Oman

sample by including the following correlated errors: sincerity (Honesty-Humility) and

fairness (Honesty-Humility), modesty (Honesty-Humility) and greed-avoidance (Honesty-

Humility), and flexibility (Agreeableness) and organization (Conscientiousness). For the

Romanian sample, the inclusion of correlated errors between fairness (Honesty-Humility) and

modesty (Honesty-Humility), and sociability (Extraversion) and organization

(Conscientiousness) resulted in a nonnegligible improvement in goodness-of-fit statistics. A

similar approach was used to obtain a better fitting model for the Thailand group. For this

group the inclusion of three correlated errors generated a significant gain in goodness of fit.

The three correlated errors are sincerity (Honesty-Humility) and fairness (Honesty-Humility),

fairness (Honesty-Humility) and fearfulness (Emotionality), and flexibility (Agreeableness)

and diligence (Conscientiousness). Even though different facets, some from the same domain

and some from different domains, were thus correlated for each culture, correlated errors

related to Honesty-Humility were endemic, being encountered within each investigated

group. These correlated errors suggest that within the sample of reference there is insufficient

differentiation between facets belonging to the various domains.

The cross-cultural replicability of personality frameworks: Overview of five- and six-

factor models
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 19

The EFA solutions described earlier are very similar to the solutions usually reported

for the FFM (e.g., Aluja et al., 2005; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hendriks et al., 2003). To

illustrate the similarity of the EFA results for the two competing models, we compare our

results with the ones obtained by Hendriks et al. (2003) in a study that investigated the

functioning of the FiveFactor Personality Inventory (FFPI) across 13 cultures. The average

percentage of explained variance prior to applying rotation obtained in this research is similar

to that reported by Hendriks et al.: The five-factor solution retrieved by Hendriks et al.

reported an average proportion of explained variance equaling 38.1%, the lowest percentage

of variance being encountered in Slovakia (32.1%) and the highest in Germany (49.7%). Our

results indicate that for the five diverse cultures, the proportion of explained variance

obtained prior to factor rotation ranged between 37.0% and 40.9%. In the Hendriks et al.

study, the average congruence between the solutions obtained in 13 countries and the U.S.

solution was .86, and in our study the average congruence is .88. The analyses conducted by

Hendriks et al. led to the rightful conclusion that the FFPI can be considered “a valid and

reliable instrument to compare personality and personality correlates across cultures”

(Hendriks et al., 2003, p. 362). We consider that the results presented in this research support

similar conclusions for the HEXACO–PI.

As ESEM is a relatively new data analytical framework, there are relatively few

available research papers reporting ESEM results for the FFM. However, the studies

conducted so far show results comparable to those obtained in this research (e.g., Furnham et

al., 2013; Marsh et al., 2010). For example, using the NEO–FFI and data collected from a

large German sample, Marsh et al. (2010) obtained fit indexes that are similar to the ones

obtained in this research (CFI = .851, RMSEA = .044).

In line with the results and their comparison with other reported findings in the

literature, we conclude that:

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 20

1. The Honesty-Humility component was not successfully retrieved in all the

investigated groups.

2. Specifying a small number of correlated errors resulted in an acceptable goodness

of fit for the six-factor framework across all the investigated cultural groups.

3. Most of the correlated errors that exerted a negative influence over the goodness

of fit for each model appertain to the Honesty-Humility domain.

4. Deployment of EFA and ESEM on the same data set leads to convergent

conclusions regarding factor structure, favoring a six-model structure in all the

groups.

5. The six-factor personality traits framework yielded results comparable to the ones

typically exhibited by the other celebrated frameworks across the two data

analytical methods.

Thus, the findings of this research provide evidence in favour of the replicability of an

alternative, non-FFM personality traits framework, the HEXACO, both by EFA and ESEM

standards across five different cultural groups. Although this framework does not keep up

with the popularity of the FFM, the findings reported in this research indicate that both the

five- and six-factor personality traits frameworks exhibit a similar functioning across

cultures. Although the usage of fit indexes derived either via ESEM or via CFA is on its own

not sufficient evidence to advocate the universality of different personality traits models, this

research demonstrates that there are other, non-FFM personality traits frameworks that

exhibit an acceptable goodness of fit across religiously and linguistically diverse groups.

However, the Honesty-Humility component was the most problematic component, presenting

within domain correlated errors across all the investigated groups.

In our invariance analyses, the 24 facets tended to load on the same factors across the

five groups (configural invariance). However, the imposition of additional invariance

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 21

constraints on facet loadings (weak invariance), on facet loadings and intercepts (strong

invariance), and on loadings, intercepts, and uniqueness (strict invariance) resulted in a

significant decay in goodness of fit. This indicates that the functioning of the HEXACO

across the five investigated groups differs with respect to the parameters presented earlier.

This failure to meet the standards imposed in the invariance analyses can be explained by the

existence of true between-group construct differences, defective construct measurement, or

both. Regardless of the cause, these issues are signaled by inequivalent parameters (loadings,

intercepts, uniqueness). Therefore, although the 24-facet, six-factor framework was

successfully retrieved across the five groups, it differed significantly with respect to facet

loadings, intercepts, and uniqueness. Further research is needed to understand the source of

these differences. In this research, the samples were uneven in both composition and size. In

the absence of matched samples, we cannot assert whether failure to meet the invariance

standard stems from true construct and construct measurement differences or sample-related

confounding variables.

The utility of ESEM in the cross-cultural analysis of personality traits

ESEM proves to be a versatile data analytical framework, and its application in the

cross-cultural analysis of personality traits overcomes some of the restrictions inherent to

CFA. As shown in this research, ESEM effectively overcomes the measurement invariance

deadlock, permitting robust investigations of less parsimonious personality traits models.

ESEM permits the comparison of competing personality traits models across the same data

set, in less restrictive conditions. ESEM can be used as an alternative to CFA in testing

different levels of measurement invariance. This is an important advantage that ESEM has

over the standard CFA approach. We consider that ESEM could be used as an extension to

the analyses conducted with different personality traits measures across large, cross-national

studies.
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 22

Directions for future research

Results are encouraging especially because the HEXACO model is more complex

than the FFM. If more complex models can now be addressed in their cross-cultural

invariance, this could help to address the replicability issue in a more robust manner than was

previously possible.

However, obtaining acceptable fit indexes across different cultures does not fully

respond to questions regarding the existence of a universal personality traits model. We

consider that the universality issue should be tackled both from a methodological perspective

that typically focuses on the replicability of personality traits framework, but also, and more

important, from the perspective of the theoretical foundations and antecedents of those

personality traits frameworks that prove to be replicable. We consider that more research into

the foundations of hypothesized traits is needed in the case of such models as the HEXACO.

Limitations

Several limitations of this research should be noted. First, most of the limitations of

this research stem from the structure and sizes of the samples. The volume and structure of

the samples differ from one culture to another. To rule out these potential sources of error,

between-groups invariance analyses must be preceded by within-group invariance analyses

across gender, age, or other covariates that can induce a systematic bias. Although the

samples are sufficiently large to permit the computation of EFA or ESEM, between-group

analyses are likely to be biased by the differences in sample size and structure. One way of

tackling this issue is to create matched samples. However, due to uneven sample sizes and

structures, creating matched samples would yield unacceptably small sample sizes.

Moreover, the samples are far too small to be considered nationally representative, thus

hindering the generalization of this study’s findings. To reliably tap into country-level

personality traits differences, further investigations will need to rely on cross-culturally

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 23

equivalent psychometric instruments, but also on groups that can be considered nationally

representative. Although tempting from an exploratory perspective, we did not compare the

constructs across the five groups via mean difference tests. Before deploying such

comparison tests, several issues must be considered: (a) the comparability of the investigated

groups (across age, gender, and educational level), (b) invariance of the measurement

instrument across the investigated groups, and (c) nationally representative samples must be

used to draw accurate conclusions regarding cultural differences. Future cross-cultural

research projects or potential retrospective analyses of already collected cross-cultural

personality data need to carefully consider these constraints before comparing personality

constructs across cultures.

Second, this investigation was not based on item-level analyses, but on four-item facet

scores. Although not uncommon in personality research (e.g., Marsh, Trautwein, Ludtke, K €

€oller, & Baumert, 2006), using aggregate scores instead of individual items does not permit

the investigation of potential differential item functioning. Moreover, when not conducting

item-level analyses there is no straightforward information as to what items should be

eliminated or modified to optimize the measurement instrument. The most significant

drawbacks entailed by aggregate-level analyses are that they do not permit a clear

identification of the sources of nonequivalence and they can yield potentially inflated factor

correlations and goodness of fit.

Third, the research design employed is cross-sectional. The problem of universal

personality traits structures was not and will not be solved via cross-sectional research

designs, regardless of the magnitude of the samples or number of cultures included in the

analysis. Even if a certain personality traits structure would show replicable results across

different cultures, asserting the universality of that specific structure would not be

methodologically sound because the universality assumption is de facto a causation

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 24

assumption. It implies that there are some factors that determine the structure of personality

traits in all humans, regardless of social and cultural environments. Future research should

attempt to tap more profoundly into the biological foundations of those universally replicable

personality traits structures via research designs that permit the investigation of causality

assumptions.

Acknowledgment

This article is the result of an Advanced Research and Training Seminar organized at

the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology (July 11–16, 2010, Melbourne,

Australia) by the International Union of Psychological Science, International Association of

Applied Psychology, and International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, and led by

the second author.

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 25

References

Aghababaei, N., Wasserman, J. A., & Nannini, D. (2014). The religious person revisited:

Cross-cultural evidence from the HEXACO model of personality structure. Mental

Health, Religion, & Culture, 17, 24–29.

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, 300–307.

Aluja, A., Garcia, O., Garcia, L. F., & Seisdedos, N. (2005). Invariance of the “NEO–PI–R”

structure across exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Personality and

Individual Differences, 38, 1879–1889.

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

Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality.

European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–353.

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.

Barrett, P. T. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and

Individual Differences, 42, 812–824.

Barrett, P. T. (2012). Gower agreement (version 1.1) [software]. Retrieved from

http://www.pbarrett.net/Gower/Gower.html

Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indices in confirmatory

factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural

Equation Modeling, 12, 41–75.

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 26

Benet, V., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The “Big Seven” model of personality description:

Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 69, 701–718.

Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1990). On the equivalence of factors and components.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 67–74.

Block, J. (2010). The five factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations.

Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.

Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor

analysis: A study on the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual

Differences, 11, 515–524.

Byrne, M. B. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk

through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets

in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 31, 187–212.

Church, T. A., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five and

Tellegen’s three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66, 93–114.

Conway, J. M., & Huffcut, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor

analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,

6,147–168.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI–R) and

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 27

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four

recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,

Research and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.

Cudeck, R., & MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical

developments and future directions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., McCrae, R. R., Terraciano, A., & Costa, P. T. (2009). Assessing

the universal structure of personality in early adolescence: The NEO–PI–R and NEO–

PI–3 in 24 cultures. Assessment, 16, 301–311.

De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P. H., Levert, E., Ostendorf, F., Mlacic, B., Di Blas, L., …

Katigbak, M. S. (2010). Only three factors of personality description are fully

replicable across languages: A comparison of 14 trait taxonomies. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 160–173.

De Raad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebickova, M., & Szarota, P. (1998). Lingua franca of

personality: Taxonomies and structures based on the psycholexical approach. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 212–232.

De Vries, A., De Vries, R. E., & Born, M. P. (2011). Broad versus narrow traits:

Conscientiousness and Honesty-Humility as predictors of academic criteria. European

Journal of Personality, 25, 336–348.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the

use of exploratory factorial analysis in psychological research. Psychological

Methods, 4, 272–299.

Furnham, A., Guenole, N., Levine, S. J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). The NEO–PI–R:

Factor structure and gender invariance from exploratory structural equation modeling

analyses in a high-stakes setting. Assessment, 20, 14–23.

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 28

Gower, G. C. (1971). A general coefficient for similarity and some of its properties.

Biometrics, 27, 857–871.

Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How

universal is the Big Five? Testing the Five-Factor Model of personality variation

among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 104, 354–370.

Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests in

multiple languages. In R. K. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C. Spielberger (Eds.),

Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–

38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hambleton, R. K., & Zenisky, A. L. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural

assessments. In D. Matsumoto & F. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research

methods (pp. 46–70). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hendriks, A. A. J., Perugini, M., Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., Johnson, J. A., De Fruyt, F.,

… Ruisel, I. (2003). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Cross-cultural

generalizability across 13 countries. Journal of Personality, 17, 347–373.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

International Test Commission (2010). Guidelines for translating and adapting tests.

Retrieved from http://www.intestcom.org

Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & Perrini, L. (2011). A new trait on the market: Honesty

Humility as a unique predictor of job performance ratings. Personality and Individual

Differences, 50, 857–862.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality

inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 29

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & De Vries, R. E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and

integrity with the HEXACO and five-factor models of personality structure. Human

Performance, 18, 179–197.

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., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K. H. (2005). Personality correlates of workplace anti-social

behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 81–98.

Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data:

Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.

Marcus, B., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2013). A note on the incremental validity of integrity

tests beyond standard personality inventories for the criterion of counterproductive

behaviour. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 30, 18–25.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2007). Applications of latent-variable models in educational

psychology: The need for methodological-substantive synergies. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 32, 151–171.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on

“Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and

Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) Findings.” Structural Equation

Modeling, 11, 320–341.

Marsh, H. W., Ludtke, O., Muth € en, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., &

Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big-five factor structure through exploratory

structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.

Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2013). Measurement invariance of Big-Five

factor structure over the life span: Exploratory structural equation modeling tests of
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 30

gender, age, plasticity, maturity and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology,

49, 1194–1218.

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., K € €oller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Integration of

multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: Construct validation

and relations to well-being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74, 403–455.

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005).

Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 89, 407–425.

McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996).

Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO Personality Inventory:

Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.

Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the big one in the five-factor

model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2008). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen &

Muthen.

Nel, J. A., Valchev, V. H., Rothmann, S., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Meiring, D., & De Bruin,

G. P. (2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa.

Journal of Personality, 80, 915–948.

Nye, C. D, Roberts, B. V., Saucier, G., & Zhou, X. (2008). Testing the measurement

equivalence of personality adjective items across cultures. Journal of Research in

Personality, 42, 1524–1536.

O’Neill, T. A., Lewis, R. J., & Carswell, J. J. (2011). Employee personality, justice

perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and Individual

Differences, 51, 595–600.

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 31

Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of

the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 15,

463–466.

Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., Benet-Martınez, V., Alcalay, L., & Ault, L. (2007).

The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of

human self description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38,

173–212.

Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and

implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210–222.

Tellegen, A., & Walker, N. G. (1987, August). Reexamining basic concepts of personality

and personality disorder. Paper presented at the 95th annual meeting of the American

Psychological Association, New York, NY.

Thalmayer, A. G., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative validity of brief to

medium length big five and big six personality questionnaires. Psychological

Assessment, 23, 995–1009.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural

research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Vandenburg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement

invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational

research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.

Wasti, S. A., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Somer, O. (2008). The Turkish personality lexicon

and the HEXACO model of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39,

665–684.

Yuan, K.-H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40,

115–148.
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 32

Table 1. Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha

Group H E X A C O
India .79 .76 .81 .79 .76 .71

Indonesia .76 .73 .81 .79 .76 .70

Oman .71 .71 .70 .67 .70 .69

Romania .83 .82 .85 .79 .83 .78

Thailand .75 .70 .74 .73 .75 .67

Median .76 .72 .78 .78 .78 .75

PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 33

Table 2. Similarity of EFA solutions with the original HEXACO structure

Group India Indonesia Oman Romania Thailand
Eigenvalues* TCI GSC Eigenvalues TCI GSC Eigenvalues* TCI GSC Eigenvalues* TCI GSC Eigenvalues* TCI GSC

Honesty-Humility 1.21 (1.29) .91 .88 1.21 (1.19) .91 .91 1.13 (1.30) .86 .78 1.54 (1.23) .85 .84 1.32 (1.33) .85 .88

Emotionality 2.83 (1.55) .92 .90 2.08 (1.35) .94 .87 1.95 (1.49) .87 .82 2.17 (1.37) .91 .89 1.86 (1.54) .91 .87

Extraversion 3.53 (1.67) .94 .90 3.41 (1.49) .91 .89 4.59 (1.70) .82 .74 3.45 (1.53) .88 .90 4.18 (1.78) .81 .86

Agreeableness 2.83 (1.55) .92 .89 2.89 (1.40) .92 .86 2.29 (1.58) .90 .89 2.33 (1.44) .82 .84 2.22 (1.63) .91 .88

Conscientiousness 2.01 (1.40) .92 .89 1.80 (1.30) .90 .89 1.36 (1.42) .78 .73 1.95 (1.32) .92 .91 1.49 (1.46) .79 .80

Openness 1.57 (1.34) .91 .89 1.25 (1.24) .93 .88 1.24 (1.35) .88 .86 1.64 (1.27) .88 .76 1.38 (1.39) .86 .87

*The results of the parallel analysis are presented in brackets. TCI = Tucker’s Congruence Index; GSI = Gower’s Similarity Coefficient.
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 34

Table 3. Goodness-of-Fit Statistics ESEM Analysis

χ2(df) CFI NFParm RMSEA (90% CI)
India 6 factor model 257.26 (147) .906 177 .053 (.042 - .063)
India 6 factor model (2 correlated errors) 178.75 (143) .965 179 .032 (.016 - .045)
Indonesia 6 factor model 276.74 (147) .930 177 .043 (.035 - .050)
Indonesia 6 factor model (2 correlated errors) 232.87 (145) .953 179 .035 (.027 - .044)
Oman 6 factor model 285.68 (147) .862 177 .061 (.050 - .071)
Oman 6 factor model (3 correlated errors) 213.14 (144) .931 180 .043 (.030 - .055)
Romania 6 factor model 282.85 (147) .930 177 .047 (.039 - .055)
Romania 6 factor model (2 correlated errors) 255.78 (145) .943 179 .043 (.034 - .051)
Thailand 6 factor model 235.31 (147) .888 177 .053 (.040 - .066)
Thailand 6 factor model (3 correlated errors) 183.86 (144) .949 180 .036 (.017 - .051)
Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFParm = No. of Free Parameters; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 35

Table 4 Geomin Factor Loadings from ESEM

H E X A C O
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
.28 .00 .09 .00 .00 .02
Sincerity
.52 .42 .29 .46 -.05 -.07 -.04 -.05 .06 .02 .22 .11 .03 -.06 .02 -.02 .02 .05 .10 .01 -.01 -.01 .06 .03
.36 .35 .15 .52 .33 .21 .15 .17 .20 .05 .02 .03 .23 .19 .00 .25 .02 -.01 -.01 .16 .06 .24 .02 -.01 .07 .02 -.02 .12 .01 .00
Fairness
.37 .40 .74 .49 .65 -.03 -.06 .02 .10 -.30 -.14 -.05 .01 -.08 .00 .24 .15 .03 .01 .03 .05 .05 -.09 .01 .01 .06 .01 .04 -.01 .00
Greed Avoidance
.37 .36 .24 .30 .42 .04 .04 -.03 .30 .00 -.07 -.12 -.06 .00 .00 -.02 .05 .15 -.02 .00 -.03 -.06 .03 .03 -.10 -.16 .00 -.04 .01 .00
Modesty
-.03 -.12 .05 -.02 -.10 .54 .32 .62 .49 .48 -.22 -.23 -.03 -.13 .00 -.00 .01 -.09 .13 .06 -.00 .01 .01 -.03 .17 -.06 -.11 -.05 -.04 .00
Fearfulness
.03 -.09 -.01 .00 .01 .29 .21 .19 .56 .28 -.33 -.30 -.01 -.17 -.20 -.16 -.02 -.07 -.03 -.10 .07 .14 .25 .04 .02 .00 .02 .02 .00 .06
Anxiety
-.02 -.04 -.11 -.05 .15 .48 .60 .35 .23 .28 .09 .09 -.01 .10 .01 .06 -.02 .01 .33 -.10 -.17 .02 -.05 .01 .07 .03 -.02 .02 .01 .06
Dependence
.03 .06 .00 .11 .03 .42 .36 .44 .48 .35 -.01 .00 .09 .00 .00 -.02 -.07 .04 -.01 .00 .03 .00 .08 -.06 .00 .02 .04 .17 .01 .23
Sentimentality
-.06 -.10 .00 .00 -.01 .03 .00 .04 -.02 .00 .45 .32 .38 .51 .43 -.00 .03 .02 .01 .00 .09 .16 -.18 .00 .17 .02 .00 .00 .00 .00
Social Self Esteem
.03 -.08 .02 .03 -.05 -.09 .02 -.14 -.07 -.10 .51 .45 .16 .46 .12 -.15 -.14 -.02 -.24 .00 .06 .19 -.21 -.02 .28 .18 .03 .17 -.02 .06
Social Boldness
.01 .03 -.08 -.18 .14 .14 .27 -.02 .03 .12 .34 .30 .14 .24 .16 .12 .05 .10 .16 .05 -.12 -.01 -.07 -.01 .04 -.02 .04 .10 .02 .15
Sociability
.01 -.02 -.06 .01 .03 .03 .04 -.03 -.01 .01 .61 .43 .32 .59 .48 .01 .00 .15 .05 .00 .06 .09 -.10 .03 .00 -.03 -.02 .02 .00 .03
Liveliness
.00 .01 .19 .21 .06 -.08 -.04 .04 -.08 -.20 .03 .04 -.02 -.04 .00 .52 .48 .32 .17 .27 .01 .09 -.09 -.09 .05 .16 -.01 .01 -.01 .06
Forgiveness
.10 .03 .02 .02 -.04 .06 .08 .00 -.07 .00 -.12 -.08 .11 -.11 .05 .38 .33 .30 .26 .36 -.00 -.05 .27 -.01 .00 -.02 .02 .00 .02 .04
Gentleness
.09 .03 .07 .20 .03 -.01 .11 .00 -.26 .01 .05 .02 .11 .02 .00 .36 .33 .26 .45 .39 -.10 -.05 -.01 .01 .12 -.04 -.01 -.10 -.01 .01
Flexibility
.00 -.06 -.02 .25 .00 -.01 -.09 -.04 -.16 .00 .03 .03 -.03 .01 .07 .49 .63 .47 .13 .36 .02 .05 .04 -.03 .01 .04 .00 -.01 -.01 .00
Patience
-.01 .04 .19 .07 .07 -.02 -.01 .01 .03 .05 .10 .01 .43 -.04 .05 .05 .02 -.03 .02 .08 .46 .39 .04 .39 .41 -.20 -.07 -.07 -.01 .00
Organization
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 36

.02 .05 .07 -.01 .10 .09 .02 -.02 -.02 .00 .06 .04 .23 .00 .00 -.10 -.09 -.01 .01 .00 .34 .43 -.02 .43 .30 .01 .00 .18 -.01 .20
Diligence
-.01 -.03 -.04 .01 -.03 .07 .01 .01 .01 .01 -.01 -.22 .27 -.01 .00 -.01 .00 -.01 -.01 .00 .41 .48 .12 .38 .37 .11 .01 .30 .00 .11
Perfectionism
.02 .10 -.01 -.02 .05 -.10 -.09 .03 -.02 .00 .00 .02 .24 .03 .11 .14 .03 .14 -.01 .10 .40 .34 .01 .44 .31 -.00 .07 .02 .01 .00
Prudence
.01 .07 .01 -.01 .01 .05 .02 .16 -.03 .00 -.07 -.03 -.02 -.01 .00 .08 .02 .11 .01 .17 .02 -.02 -.03 -.01 .00 .38 .46 .37 .73 .41
Aesthetic App.*
.02 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 -.18 -.16 .00 -.01 -.20 -.02 -.04 .03 -.05 .00 .02 .04 .09 -.01 .04 .14 .09 -.11 -.01 .15 .30 .30 .32 .32 .12
Inquisitiveness
-.00 -.06 .05 .02 -.05 .03 .05 .06 .05 .00 .18 .18 .06 .04 .12 -.00 .00 -.04 .04 .05 -.01 .00 -.02 .06 .03 .58 .39 .48 .37 .39
Creativity
.18 -.05 .00 .01 -.03 -.02 -.15 -.21 .03 .00 .01 .10 -.12 .03 .01 -.16 -.07 -.01 -.06 .00 -.09 .03 .03 -.02 .00 .25 .23 .40 .28 .20
Unconventionality

Note: The different countries are noted as 1 (India) , 2 (Indonesia), 3 (Oman), 4 (Romania) and 5 (Thailand). *Aesthetic Appreciation.
PERSONALITY HEXACO MODEL 37

Table 5. Multiple (five) group invariance ESEM analysis

χ2 CFI NFParm
(df)
Configural invariance (no constraints) 1269.93 (735) .931 885
Partial configural invariance 1090.97 (723) .953 897
Weak factorial invariance (factor loadings constrained equal) 2315.96 (1167) .852 453
Partial weak factorial invariance (factor loadings constrained equal) 2197.66 (1155) .866 465
Strong factorial invariance (factor loadings 3863.52 (1263) .666 357
and facet intercepts constrained equal)
Partial strong factorial invariance (factor loadings 3624.49 (1241) .679 369
and facet intercepts constrained equal)
Strict factorial invariance (factor loadings, facet 4127.76 (1359) .644 261
intercepts and uniqueness constrained)
Partial strict factorial invariance (factor loadings, facet 3452.64 (1251) .679 369
intercepts and uniqueness constrained)
Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFParm = No. of Free Parameters; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
RMSEA (90% CI)
.047 (.043 - .052)
.039 (.035 - .044)
.055 (.052 - .058)
.053 (.049 - .056)
.079 (.077 - .082)
.078 (.075 - .081)
.079 (.076 - .082)
.078 (.075 - .081)