The factor structure of Lithuanian personality-descriptive adjectives of the highest frequency of use

We developed the Lithuanian taxonomy of personality traits according to the psycho-lexical approach. This was done in two studies. First, trait descriptive terms were selected from a Lithuanian dictionary. This selection led to a list of 435 personality-relevant adjectives was thus collected. This list was reduced to the more useful terms and ultimately led to the 194 most frequently used trait adjectives. Second, self-ratings from 212 participants were collected on both those 194 terms and on the 44-item BFI. Principal Components Analysis followed by Varimax rotation was applied on the collected ratings, and also on the ratings after ipsatization. For both these types of analysis structures with two up to seven factors were discussed. Each of the structures was also related to the five BFI-scales. The slightly clearer structure was found in the ipsatized ratings, in which clear support was found for the two-factor model (with Dynamism and Social Propriety), for the three-factor model (Dynamism, Affiliation and Order). A five-factor solution was fully presented with the Big Five factors Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and with a factor that had Intellect traits on the one pole and Neurotic traits on the other, and finally a factor called Toughness

The relations between conscientiousness and mental health in a North-European and a West-Asian culture

Background: The relationship between conscientiousness, mental health and mental illness has been an issue for the last two decades. Aims: By using a dual model of mental health, the present study examined a non-linear relationship between conscientiousness and healthy or non-healthy symptoms in two different cultures. Method: Participants in this study were 296 Iranian and 310 Swedish university students (18-24 years of age). We used two different conscientiousness scales; the 12-item conscientiousness subscale of the NEO/FFI as an imported (etic) scale, and a 10-item Iranian conscientiousness scale as an indigenous (emic) and culture-dependent scale. Results: In both conscientiousness scales, multivariate analysis of variance showed that conscientiousness differentiated among four mental health groups (languishing, troubled, symptomatic and flourishing), although languishing and troubled individuals were less conscientious than flourishing and symptomatic individuals. Furthermore, the non-healthy symptomatic individuals were more conscientiousness than flourishing individuals. The results showed no significant differences between the two cultures in terms of the four mental health categories. Conclusions: It was concluded that the relationship between conscientiousness and mental health/mental illness is more a non-linear relationship than a linear one