Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Psychological Theories on Language - Dictionary of Arguments
Corr I 90/91 Language/personality traits/psychological theories/Deary: in relation to the assessment of personality traits (see >Five-Factor Model, >Agreeablenes, >Extraversion) there is especially good agreement across some languages. For example, English and German have very similar five factor structures in the lexicons (Saucier and Ostendorf 1999)(1). On the other hand, whereas the Greek lexicon did afford a five factor solution, there were also possible one, two, six and seven factor solutions (Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis and Goldberg 2005)(2). >Personality traits. 1. Saucier, G. and Ostendorf, F. 1999. Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality factors: a cross-language replication, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 613–27 2. Saucier, G., Georgiades, S., Tsaousis, I. and Goldberg, L. R. 2005. The factor structure of Greek personality Ian J. Deary, “The trait approach to personality”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press - - - Corr I 134 Language/psychological theories/personality traits/cultural differences/Five-Factor Model/De Raad: Support for (…) [a] sixth factor was observed in several languages (Ashton, Lee, Perugini et al. 2004)(1), but not, or not clearly, in all languages where this sixth factor was studied, as in American-English (Ashton, Lee and Goldberg 2004)(2), Turkish (Somer and Goldberg 1999)(3) and Croatian (Mlačić and Ostendorf 2005)(4). A seventh factor: was assumed by Almagor, Tellegen and Waller (1995)(5) and Benet-Martínez and Waller (1997)(6). Using a so-called ‘non-restrictive’ approach with respect to selecting personality descriptors, Almagor et al. (1995)(5) produced a Big Seven model in Hebrew, that included versions of some of the Big Five factors, and two additional factors, called Negative Valence (e.g., fabricator, envious and corrupted, versus honest, sincere and dependable) and Positive Valence (e.g., sophisticated, sharp and original, versus mediocre). Support for one or both of these factors was found in Spanish (Benet-Martínez and Waller 1997(6)), in Filipino (Church, Katigbak and Reyes 1996)(7) and in Greek (Saucier et al. 2005)(8). An eighth factor: De Raad and Barelds (2008) argued that on this point the psycholexical approach has not made use of its full potential. potential. In their study they not only used adjectives, but also nouns, verbs, adverbs and some standard expressions as the basis for the formulation of trait-descriptive items. Greek: dimensions. Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis and Goldberg (2005)(8) distinguished Morality (considerate, humble, responsible, versus bad-tempered, gross, disrespectful) and Dynamism (dynamic, exciting, energetic, versus gutless, hesitant, boring) when extracting only two factors to structure the Greek trait-language. Dutch: De Raad and Barelds (2008)(9) similarly distinguished at the two-factor level for the Dutch trait-language between Virtue (good, reliable, polite, versus unfair, indecent, annoying) and Dynamism (enthusiasm, energy, vividness). >Cultural differences, >Cultural psychology. 1. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K. and De Raad, B. 2004. A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86: 356–66 2. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K. and Goldberg, L. R. 2004. A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87: 707–21 3. Somer, O. and Goldberg, L. R. 1999. The structure of Turkish trait-descriptive adjectives, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 431–50 4. Mlačić, B. and Ostendorf, F. 2005. Taxonomy and structure of Croatian personality-descriptive adjectives, European Journal of Personality 19: 117–52 5. Almagor, M., Tellegen, A. and Waller, N. 1995. The Big Seven Model: a cross-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of natural language of trait descriptions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 300–7 6. Benet-Martínez, V. and Waller, N. G. 1997. Further evidence for the cross-cultural generality of the Big Seven model: indigenous and imported Spanish personality constructs, Journal of Personality 65: 567–98 7. Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S. and Reyes, J. A. S. 1996. Toward a taxonomy of trait adjectives in Filipino: comparing personality lexicons across cultures, European Journal of Personality 10: 3–24 8. Saucier, G., Georgiades, S., Tsaousis, I. and Goldberg, L. R. 2005. The factor structure of Greek personality adjectives, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 856–75 9. De Raad, B. and 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 Social Psychology 94: 347–64 Boele De Raad, “Structural models of personality”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Psychological Theories Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
||
> Counter arguments against Psychological Theories
> Counter arguments in relation to Language
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-19