AbstractObjectiveSeveral personality theories distinguish between rather genetically rooted, universal dispositional traits (DTs) and rather environmentally shaped, more contextualized characteristic adaptations (CAs). However, no study so far has compared different measures of theoretically postulated DTs and CAs regarding their environmental and genetic components while considering differences in measurement abstraction and reliability. This study aims to bridge this gap by testing the assumed differences in the sensitivity to environmental influences based on representative sets of DTs (Big Five and HEXACO domains and facets) and CAs (goals, interests, value priorities, religiousness, and self‐schemas).MethodUsing intra‐class correlations and running extended twin family and spouses‐of‐twins model analyses, we analyzed a large data set (N = 1967) encompassing 636 twin pairs, 787 parent‐offspring dyads, and 325 spouses/partners.ResultsFindings consistently support lower environmentality of DTs compared to CAs. On average, more than half of reliable variance in DTs was genetic, whereas the reverse was found for CAs. Larger environmental components in CAs were primarily attributable to larger individual‐specific effects (beyond error of measurement) and factors shared by spouses.ConclusionsFindings are discussed against the background of the definitional distinction between DTs and CAs and the value of extended twin family data.