Philosophy Dictionary of Arguments

Home Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

 
Method: a method is a procedure agreed on by participants of a discussion or research project. In the case of violations of a method, the comparability of the results is in particular questioned, since these no longer come from a set with uniformly defined properties of the elements.

_____________
Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

 
Author Item Summary Meta data

Hans Jürgen Eysenck on Method - Dictionary of Arguments

Corr I 352
Method/personality traits/Eysenck: Hans Eysenck’s (1967)(1) arousal/activation theory of Introversion-Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N). Eysenck’s ‘top-down’ approach consisted in first ‘discovering’ the major dimensions of personality, and, secondly, providing a theoretical (biological) account for their existence.
GrayVsEysenck: (Corr and McNaughton 2008)(2): multivariate statistical analysis is unable to ‘recover’ the separate causal influences that get conflated in immediate/short-term behaviour responses, as well as in the longer-term development of personality: what is measured in behaviour is the net products of, possibly separate, causal influences and the operation of their underlying systems. >Personality traits/Gray.
Eysenck: What Eysenck seemed to have found were major descriptive dimensions of personality (principally, E and N), that reflect the causal influences of separate, and interacting, underlying systems, and which, as such, could only ever be tied to very general biological processes that cut across these underlying systems, specifically neuropsychological arousal and activation, of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) and visceral system, respectively (for a summary, see Corr 2004)(3). GrayVsEysenck: See Gray 1981(4).



1. Eysenck, H. J. 1967. The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas
2. Corr, P. J. and McNaughton, N. 2008. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality, in P. J. Corr (ed). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality, pp. 155–87. Cambridge University Press
3. Corr, P. J. 2004. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 28: 317–32
4. Gray, J. A. 1981. A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality, in H. J. Eysenck (ed.), A model for personality, pp. 246–76. Berlin: Springer


Philip J. Corr, „ The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory 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 [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Eysenck, Hans Jürgen
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


Send Link
> Counter arguments against Eysenck
> Counter arguments in relation to Method

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Y   Z  


Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  



Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2021-04-12
Legal Notice   Contact   Data protection declaration