Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 4 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Models | De Raad | Corr I 127 Model/theory/psychology/personality/De Raad: A model of personality may represent its characteristic traits, its mechanisms, its internal processes, at different levels of abstraction, and from different domains of interest (social, biological, cognitive, etc.). However, while the expression ‘structural models of personality’ connotes intended features on the one hand, it may, on the other hand, also evoke unintended references. One such unintended reference could be an emphasis on procedures to test a model, and on the statistics involved, as in structural equation modelling. In personality research, the standard recipe to arrive at structure typically involves the use of factor analytic techniques. Models of personality: Five-Factor Model see >Five-Factor Model. Corr I 128 Cattell/De Raad: Cattell’s original set of 35 trait variables was the result of a process of condensing a list of 171 trait descriptive items considered by Cattell (1943)(1) to summarize the complete ‘personality sphere’. That condensation took place on the basis of correlations of ratings from 100 subjects. The reduction to thirty-five variables was, in Cattell’s (1945(2), p. 70) words, ‘a matter of unhappy necessity’. Cattell (1950)(3) distinguished trait-elements (single trait words), surface traits (traits tending to cluster together in a person), and source traits (trait-factors), essentially forming a hierarchy of traits. The concept of hierarchy was extended in Cattell’s emphasis on the distinction between primary factors and higher order factors. Corr I 129 Costa/McCrae: Costa and McCrae (1976)(4) clustered 16 PF scales on the basis of data from three different age groups, resulting into two consistent age-group independent clusters, called Adjustment-Anxiety and Introversion-Extraversion, and a third inconsistent age-group dependent cluster, which was conceptualized as an Experiential Style dimension. The three clusters formed the starting point for the development of the three-factorial NEO-PI (Costa and McCrae 1985)(5). Corr I 130 Three factor model/Eysenck: In defining his structural conception of personality, Eysenck (1947)(6) distinguished four levels of behaviour-organization that were hierarchically organized, namely single observable behavioural acts, habitual responses (recurrent acts under specified circumstances), traits (based on intercorrelations of different habitual responses), and types of traits (based on correlations between various traits). On the basis of ratings on this ‘intentionally heterogeneous’ item list, Eysenck concluded as to two factors, a general ‘neuroticism’ factor and a factor contrasting ‘affective, dysthymic, inhibited’ symptoms and traits and ‘hysterical and asocial’ symptoms and traits. Eysenck suggested this second factor to be related to Jung’s Introversion-Extraversion distinction. >Personality traits/Eysenck, (EysenckVsCattell). 1. Cattell, R. B. 1943. The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38: 476–507 2. Cattell, R. B. 1945. The description of personality: principles and findings in a factor analysis, American Journal of Psychology 58: 69–90 3. Cattell, R. B. 1950. Personality: a systematic theoretical and factual study, New York: McGraw-Hill 4. Costa, P. T., Jr and McCrae, R. R. 1976. Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach, Journal of Gerontology 31: 564–70 5. Costa, P. T., Jr and McCrae, R. R. 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources 6. Eysenck, H. J. 1947. Dimensions of Personality. London: Kegan Paul 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 |
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 |
| Personality Traits | Cattell | Corr I 128 Personality traits/Cattell/De Raad: Cattell’s original set of 35 trait variables was the result of a process of condensing a list of 171 trait descriptive items considered by Cattell (1943)(1) to summarize the complete ‘personality sphere’. That condensation took place on the basis of correlations of ratings from 100 subjects. The reduction to thirty-five variables was, in Cattell’s (1945(2), p. 70) words, ‘a matter of unhappy necessity’. Cattell (1950)(3) distinguished trait-elements (single trait words), surface traits (traits tending to cluster together in a person), and source traits (trait-factors), essentially forming a hierarchy of traits. The concept of hierarchy was extended in Cattell’s emphasis on the distinction between primary factors and higher order factors. >Models/De Raad, >Personality traits/Eysenck, >EysenckVsCattell. 1. Cattell, R. B. 1943. The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38: 476–507 2. Cattell, R. B. 1945. The description of personality: principles and findings in a factor analysis, American Journal of Psychology 58: 69–90 3. Cattell, R. B. 1950. Personality: a systematic theoretical and factual study, New York: McGraw-Hill 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 Corr II 48 Personality Traits/Data/Cattell: [Cattell] proposed that the description and measurement of personality constructs should be undertaken via three basic media of observation (three different types of data). Firstly, L-data refers to information that is collected about individuals in real Life situations, either by recording a person’s actual behaviour, or obtaining an observer’s ratings of a given individual’s behaviour. Secondly, Q-data provides measurements of humans’ self-assessments of their own behaviour via self-report Questionnaires. T-data is obtained from objective Tests designed to measure actual behaviour (…). II 49 Study Design/Cattell: Cattell (…) using the (1936) dictionary-based compilation [by Allport and Odbert] as a starting point for his empirical taxonomic personality research programme (…) proceeded by first reducing the list by grouping all synonymous terms together and then designating each synonym group under a key term. With the assistance of a literature student, Cattell spent several months parsing the list to a more manageable number of 171 synonym terms, beginning without any preconceived idea as to the number of separate categories needed. The next step was to organize most of the trait synonyms into a bipolar format by including opposites whenever possible. II 50 Cattell then recruited a sample of 100 individuals, specifically selected to be as representative as possible of the general adult population. Members of the group were rated by a close acquaintance on each of the 171 trait terms. The raters estimated whether a person was high or low on each of the respective trait terms. Research assistants then calculated all 14,535 separate tetrachoric correlation coefficients between all of the 171 trait terms. Cattell employed the statistical technique of cluster analysis to create a list of 67 fundamental clusters representing surface traits of the normal personality sphere. He then reduced these cluster-based trait terms to a more practical number of 35 bipolar dimensions (…). II 51 Findings/Cattell: Cattell (1944(1), 1946(2), 1973(3)) concluded that there were at least 12–16 primary source traits underlying the normal human personality sphere alone (subsequently, Cattell also identified an additional 12 abnormal personality trait factors measured in the Clinical Analysis Questionnaire or CAQ (…) giving at least 28 primary personality trait dimensions [Cattell, 1973, p. 127])(3). At the second-stratum level in the normal personality sphere, Cattell reported 5–8 broad factors (Cattell & Nichols, 1972(4); Cattell, 1973(3); Gillis & Cattell, 1979(5); cf. Boyle & Robertson, 1989(6); Gillis & Lee, 1978(7); Krug & Johns, 1986(8)). II 54 Re-analysis of Cattell’s (1948)(9) data using modern factor analytic methods together with oblique simple-structure rotation supports Cattell’s pioneering research findings of 11–16 primary trait dimensions (e.g., Cattell & Krug, 1986(10); Chernyshenko et al., 2001(11); (…); McKenzie et al., 1997(12); (…). >Personality Traits/Allport/Odbert, >Terminology/Cattell. 1. Cattell, R. B. (1944). Interpretation of the twelve primary personality factors. Character and Personality, 13, 55–91. 2. Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book. 3. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. 4. Cattell, R. B., & Nichols, K. E. (1972). An improved definition, from 10 researches, of second order personality factors in Q-data (with cross-cultural checks). Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 187–203. 5. Gillis, J. S., & Cattell, R. B. (1979). Comparison of second order personality structures with later patterns. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 4, 92–99. 6. Boyle, G. J., & Robertson, J. M. (1989). Anomaly in equation for calculating 16PF second order factor QIII. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1007–1008. 7. Gillis, J. S., & Lee, D. C. (1978). Second-order relations between different modalities of personality trait organization. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 3, 241–248. 8. Krug, S. E., & Johns, E. F. (1986). A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF. Psychological Reports, 59, 683–693. 9. Cattell, R. B. (1948). The primary personality factors in women compared with those in men. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1, 114–130. 10. Cattell, R. B., & Krug, S. E. (1986). The number of factors in the 16PF: A review of the evidence with special emphasis on methodological problems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 509–522. 11. Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2001). Investigating the hierarchical structure of the fifth edition of the 16PF: An application of the Schmid–Leiman orthogonalization procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 290–302. 12. McKenzie, J., Tindell, G., & French, J. (1997). The great triumvirate: Agreement between lexically and psycho-physiologically based models of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 269–277. Gillis, John S. and Gregory J. Boyle: “Factor Analysis of Trait-Names Revisiting Cattell (1943)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 47-67. |
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 |
| Personality Traits | Eysenck | Corr I 130 Personality traits/three factor model/Eysenck/De Raad: In defining his structural conception of personality, Eysenck (1947)(1) distinguished four levels of behaviour-organization that were hierarchically organized, namely single observable behavioural acts, habitual responses (recurrent acts under specified circumstances), traits (based on intercorrelations of different habitual responses), and types of traits (based on correlations between various traits). On the basis of ratings on this ‘intentionally heterogeneous’ item list, Eysenck concluded as to two factors, a general ‘neuroticism’ factor and a factor contrasting ‘affective, dysthymic, inhibited’ symptoms and traits and ‘hysterical and asocial’ symptoms and traits. Eysenck suggested this second factor to be related to Jung’s Introversion-Extraversion distinction. >Introversion, >Extraversion. Corr I 131 (…) further empirical results led to the emergence of the psychoticism dimension (Eysenck 1952)(2). These three factors or types of traits, Psychoticism, Extraversion and Neuroticism (the PEN-system), continued to play a major role throughout Eysenck’s structural modelling of personality. For the development of his later questionnaires to measure P, E, and N, the Maudsley Personality Inventory (Eysenck 1959)(3) and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck 1964)(4), Eysenck made use of items of the Guilford inventories (cf., Guilford 1975)(5). Eysenck/Cattell/De Raad: Cattell and Eysenck generally agreed about the hierarchical organization of traits. EysenckVsCattell: While Cattell’s hierarchy conception (Cattell 1943(6), 1945(7), 1950(8)) developed out of presuppositions and observations, and was especially given further form through psychometric considerations and empirical results, Eysenck’s hierarchy had a more explicit theoretical format at four levels, from behavioural acts to types of traits, which format was more determined by theoretical and empirical findings than by psychometric considerations. Corr I 132 Cattell: referred to trait-elements that correlate positively in every possible internal combination as syndromes or surface traits, with very broad surface traits being referred to as types (Cattell 1950(8), p. 21). traits. The Cattell list, consisting of the previously described thirty-five trait-variables, were the result of a thorough process of reduction of the full trait-domain to describe the trait sphere exhaustively. Eysenck: used the term type to refer to second-order factors, as organizations of traits based on observed correlations. Eysenck’s list, the previously mentioned thirty-nine-item list, was the result of a selection from the ‘item-sheet’ for patients, a hybrid with items covering the social history, the personality and the symptoms of a patient. >Personality, >, >Agreeableness, >Openness, >Neuroticism, 1. Eysenck, H. J. 1947. Dimensions of Personality. London: Kegan Paul 2. Eysenck, H. J. 1952. The scientific study of personality. London: Routledge and Kegan 3. Eysenck, H. J. 1959. Manual for the Maudsley Personality Inventory. University of London Press 4. Eysenck, H. J. 1964. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. University of London Press 5. Guilford, J. P. 1975. Factors and factors of personality, Psychological Bulletin 82: 802–14 6. Cattell, R. B. 1943. The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38: 476–507 7. Cattell, R. B. 1945. The description of personality: principles and findings in a factor analysis, American Journal of Psychology 58: 69–90 8. Cattell, R. B. 1950. Personality: a systematic theoretical and factual study, New York: McGraw-Hill 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 |
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 |
| Personality Traits | Tellegen | Corr I 102 Personality traits/Tellegen/Deary: TellegenVsCattell/TellegenVsMeehl: He assesses Cattell as having been too ready to accept factor-analytically-derived factors as actual traits, and characterizes Meehl as a believer in traits as entities with ‘biological underpinnings’ (Tellegen 1991, p. 10). (For Cattell and Meehl see >personality traits/Deary. Traits/Tellegen: Tellegen (p. 13) attempted a definition of traits that predated the inner locus and causal primacy ideas of Matthews and Deary (1998)(2): We can begin by defining traits as an inferred relatively enduring organismic (psychological, psychobiological) structure underlying an extended family of behavioural dispositions. In the case of personality traits it is expected that the manifestations of these dispositions can substantially affect a person’s life. Tellegen argued that, if we merely proceed by observing behaviour, inferring a trait and then successfully predicting another behaviour, we have got to co-variation but not explanation. Causal explanation/TellegenVsCausal explanation: Even if we induce a broader construct of a trait cluster and use that successfully to predict behaviour, we still have the limitation that ‘from an explanatory viewpoint the construct is vacuous’, and nothing but a ‘tautological statement’, and ‘no causal explanations are provided’ (Tellegen 1991, p. 14). >Personality traits, >Personality, >Agreeableness, >Openness, >Extraversion, >Neuroticism, >Conscientiousness 1. Tellegen, A. 1991. Personality traits: issues of definition, evidence, and assessment, in W. Grove and D. Ciccetti (eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology, pp. 10–35. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 2. Matthews, G. and Deary, I. J. 1998. Personality traits. Cambridge University Press 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 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 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.