Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 16 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavior | Gray | Corr I 349 Behavior/Gray: Gray used the language of cybernetics (cf. Wiener 1948)(1) – the science of communication and control, comprising end-goals and feedback processes containing control of values within the system that guide the organism towards its final goal – in the form of a cns-CNS (conceptual nervous system/Central Nervous System >Terminology/Gray) bridge, to show how the flow of information and control of outputs is achieved (see also, Gray 2004)(2). >Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory/Gray, >Conceptual Nervous System/Gray. Gray faced two major problems: first, how to identify brain systems responsible for behaviour; and, secondly, how to characterize these systems once identified. The individual differences perspective is one major way of identifying major sources of variation in behaviour; by inference, there must be causal systems (i.e., sources) giving rise to observed variations in behaviour. Hans Eysenck’s (1947(3), 1957(4), 1967(5)) approach was to use multivariate statistical analysis to identify these major sources of variation in the form of personality dimensions. GrayVsEysenck: Gray accepted that this ‘top-down’ approach can identify the minimum number of sources of variation (i.e., the ‚extraction ‘extraction problem’ in factor analysis), but he argued that such statistical approaches can never resolve the correct orientation of these observed dimensions (i.e., the ‘rotation problem’ in factor analysis). Solution/Gray: „bottom-up“ approach: rested on other forms of evidence, including the effects of brain lesions, experimental brain research (e.g., intracranial self-stimulation studies), and, of most importance, the effects on behaviour of classes of drugs known to be effective in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Transforming base pharmacological findings into a valuable neuropsychological theory. This was a subtle and clever way to expose the nature of fundamental emotion and motivation systems, especially those implicated in major forms of psychopathology. >Method/Gray, >Fear/Gray. 1. Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and machine. Cambridge: MIT Press 2. Gray, J. A. 2004. Consciousness: creeping up on the Hard Problem. Oxford University Press 3. Eysenck, H. J. 1947. Dimensions of personality. London: K. Paul/Trench Trubner 4. Eysenck, H. J. 1957. The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria. New York: Preger 5. Eysenck, H. J. 1967. The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas 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 |
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 |
| Conditioning | Gray | Corr I 356 Conditioning/Gray/GrayVsEysenck: In brief, Gray (1970(1), 1972b(2), 1981(3)) proposed a modification of Eysenck’s 1957(4) theory thus: (a) to the position of Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N) in multivariate statistical factor space; and (b) to their neuropsychological bases. According to Gray, E and N should be rotated, approximately, 30° to form the more causally efficient axes of ‘punishment sensitivity’, reflecting Anxiety (Anx), and ‘reward sensitivity’, reflecting Impulsivity (Imp). Gray’s modification stated that highly impulsive individuals (Imp+) are most sensitive to signals of reward, relative to their low impulsive (Imp−) counterparts; highly anxious individuals (Anx+) are most sensitive to signals of punishment, relative to low anxiety (Anx−) counterparts. >Factor Analysis. Corr I 357 GrayVsEysenck: According to this new view, Eysenck’s E and N dimensions (Eysenck 1957)(4) are secondary (conflated) factors of these more fundamental traits/processes. This is now called the ‘separable subsystems hypothesis’ (Corr 2001(5), 2002a(6); see Corr and McNaughton 2008(7)). Solution/Gray: Gray’s (1970)(1) theory deftly side-stepped the problems accompanying Eysenck’s, and it also explained why introverts were, generally, more cortically aroused: they are more punishment sensitive (punishment is more arousing than reward); and, as extraverts are more sensitive to reward, not punishment, they are, accordingly, less aroused. Cf. >Conditioning/Eysenck, >Conditioning/Psychological Theories. 1. Gray, J. A. 1970. The psychophysiological basis of Introversion–Extraversion, Behaviour Research and Therapy 8: 249–66 2. Gray, J. A., 1972b. The psychophysiological nature of Introversion-Extraversion: a modification of Eysenck’s theory, in V. D. Nebylitsyn and J. A. Gray (eds.), The biological bases of individual behaviour, pp. 182–205. New York: Academic Press 3. 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 4. Eysenck, H. J. 1957. The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria. New York: Preger 5. Corr, P. J. 2001. Testing problems in J. A. Gray’s personality theory: a commentary on Matthews and Gilliland (1999), Personal Individual Differences 30: 333–52 6. Corr, P. J. 2002a. J. A. Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory: tests of the joint subsystem hypothesis of anxiety and impulsivity, Personality and Individual Differences 33: 511–32 7. 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 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 Corr II 121 Conditioning/Eyeblink Conditionality/Gray/MacNaughton/Corr: Much of the debate on personality in the human conditioning literature revolved around a particular II 122 type of conditioning, namely that of the eyeblink. Gray’s first data-oriented section focuses on eyeblink conditioning in both introverts and those high on ‘Manifest Anxiety’ (Taylor, 1956)(1), who he argues (…) are neurotic introverts. The eyeblink conditioning data, and arguments, are complicated (particularly where partial reinforcement schedules are used) but best fit the idea that introverts learn better than extraverts only under conditions where they are more highly aroused; with those high on trait anxiety (i.e., neurotic introverts) showing better conditioning when exposed to threat. Neurotic introverts usually condition eyeblinks faster and extinguish them slower than other people. If we can generalize from this to all learning (particularly social), we can then account for their introverted symptoms in the same way as Eysenck. >Conditioning/Eysenck. 1. Taylor, J. (1956). Drive theory and manifest anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 303–320. McNaughton, Neil and Corr, John Philip: “Sensitivity to Punishment and Reward Revisiting Gray (1970)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 115-136. |
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 |
| Conscientiousness | Neurobiology | Corr I 335 Conscientiousness/Neurobiology: Conscientiousness appears to reflect the tendency to maintain motivational >stability within the individual, to make plans and carry them out in an organized and industrious manner. Such top-down control of motivation should be necessary only in species capable of formulating long-term goals that might conflict with more immediate urges. In personality studies of other species, only the chimpanzee, our nearest evolutionary neighbour, has yet been found to possess a trait directly analogous to Conscientiousness (Gosling and John 1999)(1). >Personality traits, >Animal studies, >Animal models. Conscientiousness may represent the purest manifestation in personality of the ability and tendency to constrain immediate impulses in favour of longer-term goals. A factor analysis of many questionnaire measures of impulsivity (Whiteside and Lynam 2001)(2) found four factors, only two of which (labelled lack of perseverance and lack of premeditation) mapped onto Conscientiousness. The other two, labelled urgency and sensation-seeking, mapped onto Neuroticism and Extraversion, respectively, and appeared to describe strong impulses related to punishment and reward. In a similar vein, Depue and Collins (1999)(3) argued that, although theorists have often associated impulsivity with Extraversion, impulsivity might be better conceived as a compound trait emerging from the combination of high extraversion and low constraint or conscientiousness. Corr I 336 Another biological factor that may be related to Conscientiousness is glucose metabolism. Glucose represents the basic energy source for the brain, and a number of studies indicate that blood-glucose is depleted by acts of self-control and that the extent of this depletion predicts failures of self-control (Gailliot, Baumeister, DeWall et al. 2007(4); Gailliot and Baumeister 2007)(5). >Self-regulation, >Control processes. 1. Gosling, S. D. and John, O. P. 1999. Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: a cross-species review, Current Directions in Psychological Science 8: 69–75 2. Whiteside, S. P. and Lynam, R. W. 2001. The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity, Personality and Individual Differences 30: 669–89 3. Depue, R. A. and Collins, P. F. 1999. Neurobiology of the structure of personality: dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion, Behavioural and Brain Sciences 22: 491–569 4. Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., Brewer, L. E. and Schmeichel, B. J. 2007. Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: willpower is more than a metaphor, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92: 325–36 5. Gailliot, M. T. and Baumeister, R. F. 2007. The physiology of willpower: linking blood glucose to self-control, Personality and Social Psychology Review 11: 303–27 Colin G. DeYoung and Jeremy R. Gray, „ Personality neuroscience: explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition“, 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 |
| Cultural Differences | Lexical Studies | Corr I 388 Personality traits/lexical studies/cultural differences/Saucier: studies of most languages of European origin (plus those in Turkish, Korean and Chinese) have produced factors corresponding to Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Although this structure was not observed in Filipino, French, Greek or Maasai studies, it appears readily in a sub-set of languages that is larger than the sub-set that yields the >Big Five. Among English adjectives, this structure was as robust across variable selections as were one- and two-factor structures (Saucier 1997)(1). But studies of English type-nouns (Saucier 2003b(2)) and of other inclusive selections of variables (Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis and Goldberg 2005;(3) Saucier, Ole-Kotikash and Payne 2006)(4) failed to find it. Lexical studies in Slavic and Germanic languages (including English) have been quite supportive of the Big Five, and so has a study in Turkish. But other studies (e.g., Di Blas and Forzi 1998(5); Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis and Goldberg 2005(3); Szirmák and De Raad 1994)(6) have found no clear counterpart to the Intellect factor in five-factor solutions. None of these analyses has found the Big Five in a five-factor solution. The appearance of the Big Five is clearly contingent upon the variable-selection procedure, and thus on the operational definition of personality. Corr I 389 Six factors: Ashton, Lee, Perugini et al. (2004)(7) have presented evidence that many of the lexical studies conducted to date yield a consistent pattern in six factor solutions: six factors that can be labelled as Extraversion, Emotionality, Agreeableness, Honesty/Humility, Conscientiousness and Openness. Although the structural pattern was first detected in studies of Korean (Hahn, Lee and Ashton 1999)(8) and French (Boies, Lee, Ashton et al. 2001)(9), it has appeared to a recognizable degree also in Dutch, German, Hungarian, Italian and Polish. Seven factors: seven-factor solution (Goldberg and Somer 2000(10); Saucier 1997(1); Tellegen and Waller 1987)(11). Of the two additional factors in these studies, one was found in all three: ‘Negative Valence’ (NV) is a factor emphasizing attributes with extremely low desirability and endorsement rates and with descriptive content involving morality/depravity, dangerousness, worthlessness, peculiarity and stupidity (cf., Benet-Martínez and Waller 2002)(12). A core content theme seems to be Noxious Violativeness – attributes reflecting a tendency to harmfully violate the rights of others, corresponding in many ways to contemporary definitions of antisocial personality disorder (Saucier 2007). Corr I 390 A lexical study of the language with the largest number of native speakers (Chinese) generated seven emic factors with some resemblance to this structure (Zhou, Saucier, Gao and Liu in press). The seven factors include Negative Valence (or Noxious Violativeness), Conscientiousness, Intellect, Gregariousness, Self-Assurance, Even Temper and Concern for Others (versus Egotism). A comparison of seven-factor solutions from numerous studies indicates that the first six of these are particularly recurrent across studies. 1. Saucier, G. 1997. Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 1296–1312 2. Saucier, G. 2003b. Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 695–708 3. 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 4. Saucier, G., Ole-Kotikash, L. and Payne, D. L. 2006. The structure of personality and character attributes in the language of the Maasai. Unpublished report. University of Oregon 5, Di Blas, L. and Forzi, M. 1998. An alternative taxonomic study of personality descriptors in the Italian language, European Journal of Personality 12: 75–101 6. Szirmák, Z. and De Raad, B. 1994. Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits, European Journal of Personality 8: 95–118 7. 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 8. Hahn, D. W., Lee, K. and Ashton, M. C. 1999. A factor analysis of the most frequently used Korean personality trait adjectives, European Journal of Personality 13: 261–82 9. Boies, K., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pascal, S. and Nicol, A. A. M. 2001. The structure of the French personality lexicon, European Journal of Personality 15: 277–95 10. Goldberg, L. R. and Somer, O. 2000. The hierarchical structure of common Turkish person-descriptive adjectives, European Journal of Personality 14: 497–531 11. Tellegen, A. and Waller, N. G. 1987. Re-examining basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Paper presented at the 95th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, August 1987 Gerard Saucier, „Semantic and linguistic aspects 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 |
| Deep Learning | Gropnik | Brockman I 224 Deep Learning/Gropnik: A. Bottom-up deep learning: In the 1980s, computer scientists devised an ingenious way to get computers to detect patterns in data: connectionist, or neural-network, architecture (the “neural” part was, and still is, metaphorical). The approach fell into the doldrums in the 1990s but has recently been revived with powerful “deep-learning” methods like Google’s DeepMind. E.g., give the program a bunch of Internet images labeled “cat” etc. The program can use that information to label new images correctly. Unsupervised learning: can detect data with no labels at all; these programs simply look for clusters of features (factor analysis.) Reinforcement learning: In the 1950s, B. F. Skinner, building on the work of John Watson, famously programmed pigeons to perform elaborate actions (…) by giving them a particular schedule of rewards and punishments. The essential idea was that actions that were rewarded would be repeated and those that were punished would not, until the desired behavior was achieved. Even in Skinner’s day, this simple process, repeated over and over, could lead to complex behavior. >Conditioning. E.g., researchers at Google’s DeepMind used a combination of deep learning and reinforcement learning to teach a computer to play Atari video games. The computer knew nothing about how the games worked. Brockman I 225 These bottom-up systems can generalize to new examples; they can label a Brockman I 226 new image as a cat fairly accurately over all. But they do so in ways quite different from how humans generalize. Some images almost identical to a cat image won’t be identified by us as cats at all. Others that look like a random blur will be. B. Top-down Bayesian Models: The early attempts to use this approach faced two kinds of problems. 1st Most patterns of evidence might in principle be explained by many different hypotheses: It’s possible that my journal email message is genuine, it just doesn’t seem likely. 2nd Where do the concepts that the generative models use come from in the first place? Plato and Chomsky said you were born with them. But how can we explain how we learn the latest concepts of science? Solution: Bayesian models combine generative models and hypothesis testing. >Bayesianism. A Bayesian model lets you calculate how likely it is that a particular hypothesis is true, given the data. And by making small but systematic tweaks to the models we already have, and testing them against the data, we can sometimes make new concepts and models from old ones. Brockman I 227 VsBaysianism: The Bayesian techniques can help you choose which of two hypotheses is more likely, but there are almost always an enormous number of possible hypotheses, and no system can efficiently consider them all. How do you decide which hypotheses are worth testing in the first place? Top-Down method: E.g., Brenden Lake a New York University and colleagues used top-down methods to solve a problem that is easy for people but extremely difficult for computers: recognizing unfamiliar handwritten characters. Bottom-up method: this method gives the computer thousands of examples (…) and lets it pull out the salient features. Top-down method: Lake et al. gave the program a general model of how you draw a character: A stroke goes ether right or left; after you finish one, you start another; and so on. When the program saw a particular character, it could infer the sequence of strokes that were most likely to have led to it (…). Then it could judge whether a new character was likely to result from that sequence or from a different one, and it could produce a similar set of strokes itself. The program worked much better than a deep-learning program applied to exactly the same data, and it closely mirrored the performance of human beings. Brockman I 228 Bottom-up: here, the program doesn’t need much knowledge to begin with, but it needs a great deal of data, and it can generalize only in a limited way. Top-down: here, the program can learn from just a few examples and make much broader and more varied generalizations, but you need to build much more into it to begin with. Brockman Learning in Children/Gropnik: (…) the truly remarkable thing about human children is that they somehow combine the best features of each approach and then go way beyond them. Over the past fifteen years, developmentalists have been exploring the way children learn structure from data. Four-year-olds can learn by taking just one or two examples of data, as a top-down system does, and generalizing to very different concepts. But they can also learn new concepts and models from the data itself, as a bottom-up system does. Young children rapidly learn abstract intuitive theories of biology, physics, and psychology in much the way adult scientists do, even with relatively little data. Gropnik, Alison “AIs versus Four-Year-Olds”, in: Brockman, John (ed.) 2019. Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI. New York: Penguin Press. |
Brockman I John Brockman Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI New York 2019 |
| 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 | Gray | Corr I 326 Personality traits/Jeffrey Gray: Gray’s model of personality, Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) describes personality traits as a function of individual differences in the sensitivities of BIS (behavioural inhibition system), BAS (behavioural approach system) and FFFS (fight-flight-freeze system), Gray (1982)(1) originally described two dimensions of personality associated with BIS sensitivity and BAS sensitivity, which he labelled Anxiety and Impulsivity respectively. Gray viewed Anxiety and Impulsivity as 30˚ rotations from Neuroticism and Extraversion, respectively. Gray and McNaughton (2000)(2) noted, however, that questionnaire measures of Anxiety or BIS sensitivity are, in practice, difficult to distinguish from Neuroticism. >Terminology/Gray, >Terminology/Corr. 1. Gray, J. A. 1982. The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press 2. Gray, J. A. and McNaughton, N. 2000. The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press Colin G. DeYoung and Jeremy R. Gray, „ Personality neuroscience: explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press Corr I 351 Personality traits/Gray: RST (>Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory) assumes that personality factors revealed by multivariate statistical analysis (e.g., factor analysis) reflect sources of variation in neuropsychological systems that are stable over time – that is, they are properties of the individual. (…) the ultimate goal of personality research is to identify the relatively stable biological (i.e., genes and neuroendocrine systems) variables that determine the factor structure that is ‘recovered’ from statistical analysis of behaviour (including verbal output and checking boxes on personality questionnaires; Corr 2004(1); Corr and McNaughton 2008;(2) McNaughton and Corr 2004(3)). >Conditioning/Gray. 1. Corr, P. J. 2004. Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 28: 317–32 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. McNaughton, N. & Corr, P. J. 2008a. The neuropsychology of fear and anxiety: a foundation for reinforcement sensitivity theory, in P. J. Corr (ed). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality, pp. 44–94. Cambridge University Press McNaughton, N. & Corr, P. J. 2008b. Animal cognition and human personality, in P. J. Corr (ed.), The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality, pp. 95–119. Cambridge University Press 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 |
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 | Lexical Studies | Corr I 388 Personality traits/lexical studies/cultural differences/Saucier: studies of most languages of European origin (plus those in Turkish, Korean and Chinese) have produced factors corresponding to Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Although this structure was not observed in Filipino, French, Greek or Maasai studies, it appears readily in a sub-set of languages that is larger than the sub-set that yields the >Big Five, >Personality/Traits, >Personality, >Agreeableness, >Openness, >Neuroticism, >Extraversion, >Conscientiousness. Among English adjectives, this structure was as robust across variable selections as were one- and two-factor structures (Saucier 1997)(1). But studies of English type-nouns (Saucier 2003b(2)) and of other inclusive selections of variables (Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis and Goldberg 2005;(3) Saucier, Ole-Kotikash and Payne 2006)(4) failed to find it. Lexical studies in Slavic and Germanic languages (including English) have been quite supportive of the Big Five, and so has a study in Turkish. But other studies (e.g., Di Blas and Forzi 1998(5); Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis and Goldberg 2005(3); Szirmák and De Raad 1994)(6) have found no clear counterpart to the Intellect factor in five-factor solutions. None of these analyses has found the Big Five in a five-factor solution. The appearance of the Big Five is clearly contingent upon the variable-selection procedure, and thus on the operational definition of personality. Corr I 389 Six factors: Ashton, Lee, Perugini et al. (2004)(7) have presented evidence that many of the lexical studies conducted to date yield a consistent pattern in six factor solutions: six factors that can be labelled as Extraversion, Emotionality, Agreeableness, Honesty/Humility, Conscientiousness and Openness. Although the structural pattern was first detected in studies of Korean (Hahn, Lee and Ashton 1999)(8) and French (Boies, Lee, Ashton et al. 2001)(9), it has appeared to a recognizable degree also in Dutch, German, Hungarian, Italian and Polish. Seven factors: seven-factor solution (Goldberg and Somer 2000(10); Saucier 1997(1); Tellegen and Waller 1987)(11). Of the two additional factors in these studies, one was found in all three: ‘Negative Valence’ (NV) is a factor emphasizing attributes with extremely low desirability and endorsement rates and with descriptive content involving morality/depravity, dangerousness, worthlessness, peculiarity and stupidity (cf., Benet-Martínez and Waller 2002)(12). A core content theme seems to be Noxious Violativeness – attributes reflecting a tendency to harmfully violate the rights of others, corresponding in many ways to contemporary definitions of antisocial personality disorder (Saucier 2007). Cor I 390 A lexical study of the language with the largest number of native speakers (Chinese) generated seven emic factors with some resemblance to this structure (Zhou, Saucier, Gao and Liu in press). The seven factors include Negative Valence (or Noxious Violativeness), Conscientiousness, Intellect, Gregariousness, Self-Assurance, Even Temper and Concern for Others (versus Egotism). A comparison of seven-factor solutions from numerous studies indicates that the first six of these are particularly recurrent across studies. 1. Saucier, G. 1997. Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 1296–1312 2. Saucier, G. 2003b. Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 695–708 3. 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 4. Saucier, G., Ole-Kotikash, L. and Payne, D. L. 2006. The structure of personality and character attributes in the language of the Maasai. Unpublished report. University of Oregon 5, Di Blas, L. and Forzi, M. 1998. An alternative taxonomic study of personality descriptors in the Italian language, European Journal of Personality 12: 75–101 6. Szirmák, Z. and De Raad, B. 1994. Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits, European Journal of Personality 8: 95–118 7. 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 8. Hahn, D. W., Lee, K. and Ashton, M. C. 1999. A factor analysis of the most frequently used Korean personality trait adjectives, European Journal of Personality 13: 261–82 9. Boies, K., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pascal, S. and Nicol, A. A. M. 2001. The structure of the French personality lexicon, European Journal of Personality 15: 277–95 10. Goldberg, L. R. and Somer, O. 2000. The hierarchical structure of common Turkish person-descriptive adjectives, European Journal of Personality 14: 497–531 11. Tellegen, A. and Waller, N. G. 1987. Re-examining basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Paper presented at the 95th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, August 1987 Gerard Saucier, „Semantic and linguistic aspects 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 | Neuroscience | Corr I 329 Personality traits/hierarchy/causality/Neuroscience: Personality traits are arranged hierarchically, with correlated groups of more specific traits categorized together in broader traits. For example, the lower-level traits of talkativeness, assertiveness, enthusiasm and sociability are all grouped within the trait of Extraversion. A key premise of the factor-analytic approach is that specific traits fall within the same larger factor because of some shared underlying cause (Haig 2005)(1). Though this cause need not be exclusively biological, the correlational structure of traits provides a useful clue for personality neuroscience. >Extraversion, >Neuroticism, >Openness, >Big Five. 1. Haig, B. D. 2005. Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method, Multivariate Behavioural Research 40: 303–29 Colin G. DeYoung and Jeremy R. Gray, „ Personality neuroscience: explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition“, 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 | Tupes | Corr II 87 Personality Traits/Tupes/Christal/Johnson: After Allport and Odbert (…) found 17,953 words for human traits in Webster’s unabridged New International Dictionary [a demand arose to shorten that list]. Cattell reduced his set of 35 personality variables one more time with a statistical procedure called factor analysis. His factor analyses indicated 11 personality factors in one study and 12 personality factors in a second study (Cattell, 1945, 1947)(1,2). All might have been well, except that another set of factor analyses published by Donald Fiske (1949…)(3) repeatedly showed five rather than the 11 or 12 factors discovered by Cattell. The Tupes and Christal (1961/1992)(4) study was designed to explain the difference between Cattell’s and Fiske’s results. II 88 Factor rotation/Tupes/Christal: (…) Tupes and Christal believed that the most likely reason for the different results was that Cattell used what is called oblique rotation of factors in his statistical analyses, while Fiske used what is called orthogonal rotation of factors. The difference between the two rotation strategies is that oblique factors are allowed to overlap with each other, whilst orthogonal factors are independent of each other (…). Tupes and Christal (1961/1992)(4) set up their study to test whether using the same (orthogonal) rotation method would produce the same factors across different sets of personality rating data (…). Method/Tupes/Christal: [Tupes and Christal] simply re- II 89 analysed eight existing datasets. Tupes and Christal’s method was motivated by the observation that differences in the number of personality factors found in previous studies could have been due to either the differences in the participants and rating scales or to differences in the method of factor analysis (…) used. By reanalysing data from these diverse samples with the same form of factor analysis, they reasoned that if similar factors are found across the samples, these factors might be ‘universal enough to appear in a variety of samples, and […] are not unduly sensitive to the rating conditions or situations’ (Tupes & Christal, 1992, p. 227)(4). Findings/Personality Factors/Tupes/Christal: Tupes and Christal (1992) summarized their findings in the following sentence: ‘In every sample except one there appeared to be five relatively strong and recurrent personality factors and nothing more of any consequence’ (p. 245)(4). (…) regardless of the total number of factors found in any sample, in every sample each of the first five factors was II 90 clearly defined by the same unique set of trait-words. Tupes and Christal labelled the common theme among the trait-words that defined each of the five factors with a term from previous factor-analytic studies. Tupes and Christal’s first factor was defined by the following traits in all eight samples: I Silent vs. Talkative; Secretive vs. Frank; Cautious vs. Adventurous; Submissive vs. Assertive; and Languid, Slow vs. Energetic. Together, according to Tupes and Christal, these traits described a recurrent factor labelled (…) by others as Extroversion. Traits defining the second factor in all eight samples were II. Spiteful vs. Good-Natured; Obstructive vs. Cooperative; Suspicious vs. Trustful; Rigid vs. Adaptable; and Cool, Aloof vs. Attentive to People. In six of the eight samples, Jealous vs. Not So; Demanding vs. Emotionally Mature; Self-Willed vs. Mild; and Hard, Stern vs. Kindly helped to define the second factor. Traits that defined the third factor in all eight samples were III. Frivolous vs. Responsible and Unscrupulous vs. Conscientious. In addition, Relaxed, Indolent vs. Insistently Orderly; Quitting vs. Persevering; and Unconventional vs. Conventional defined the third factor in six of the eight samples. Traits defining the fourth factor in all eight samples were IV. Worrying, Anxious, vs. Placid; Easily Upset vs. Poised, Tough; and Changeable vs. Emotionally Stable. [Factors also helping to define this factor were:] Neurotic vs. Not So; Hypochondriacal vs. Not So; and Emotional vs. Calm. The fifth factor was less clearly defined than the first four. Overall, only the following three traits defined the fifth factor in all eight samples: V. Boorish vs. Intellectual, Cultured; Clumsy, Awkward vs. Polished; and Immature vs. Independent-Minded. II 91 The five recurrent factors were labelled as (a) Surgency [or Extroversion by others], (b) Agreeableness, (c) Dependability, (d) Emotional Stability, and (e) Culture. II 94 Counterarguments against Tupes and Christal: VsTupes/VsChristal: One of the first questions one should ask about any study is, ‘How representative is the subject sample?’(…) Tupes and Christal used eight groups, and only two of them were undergraduates. However, two of the samples were psychology graduate students (a rather exclusive group), and the other four were students or graduates of Officer Candidate School for the US Air Force (again, a rather specialized group). Worst of all, only one of the eight samples was female, and in this sample the ratings that defined the Culture factor in the seven male samples split into two factors. Tupes and Christal (1961/1992)(4) do not report the nationality and ethnicity of subjects in the eight samples. Neither do the original reports from which they drew their data, but we can be fairly confident that nearly all of them were native-English-speaking, Caucasian Americans. VsVs: Subsequent research has revealed consistent sex differences on some of the Big Five traits, with women expressing higher levels of Agreeableness and Neuroticism than men (e.g., Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001)(5), but no studies have presented evidence that there are different basic personality factors for men and women. >Personality, >Personality traits, >Agreeableness, >Openness, >Extraversion, >Neuroticism, >Conscientiousness. 1. Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90. 2. Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12, 197–220. 3. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329–344. 4. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961/1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Technical Report No. 61–97). Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory: Lackland Air Force Base, TX. (Reprinted as Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225–251.) 5. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331. Johnson, John A.: “Five Strong and Recurrent Personality Factors - Revisiting Tupes and Christal (1961)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 87-100. |
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 |
| Reinforcement Sensitivity | Gray | Corr I 348 Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory/Gray: Jeffrey Gray’s (1970(1), 1975(2), 1976(3), 1982(4)) neuropsychological theory of emotion, motivation, learning and personality is now widely known as RST. Thesis: Stimuli per se do not affect behaviour (at least, in any simple sense); they merely have the potential to activate neuropsychological systems (i.e., internal processes) that control behavioural reactions: the mind is not a series of black boxes. For a fully-satisfying scientific explanation of behaviour control and regulation, it is to these neuropsychological systems that we must turn our attention. Corr I 349 An (…) important aspect of RST is the distinction between those parts that belong to the conceptual nervous system (cns) and those parts that belong to the central nervous system (CNS) (a distinction advanced by Hebb 1955)(5) >Conceptual nervous System/Gray, >Terminology/Hebb, >Behavior/Gray. Corr I 351 RST is built upon a description of the immediate/short-term state of neural systems: how animals, including the human form, respond to motivationally significant (i.e., ‘reinforcing’) stimuli, and which neuropsychological systems mediate these responses. Built upon this state infrastructure are longer-term trait dispositions of emotion, motivation and behaviour. RST assumes that personality factors revealed by multivariate statistical analysis (e.g., factor analysis) reflect sources of variation in neuropsychological systems that are stable over time – that is, they are properties of the individual. Corr I 359 RST/Gray: (summarized in the words of Fowles (2006)(6) p. 8.): „In this view, organisms are seen as maximizing exposure to rewarding (‘appetitive’) events and minimizing exposure to punishing (‘aversive’) events. Rewarding or appetitive events consist of the presentation of a reward (Rew), termination of a punishment (Pun!), or omission of an expected punishment (nonPun), while punishing or aversive events consist of the punishment (Pun), termination of reward (Rew!), and omission of an expected reward (nonRew). Through a process of classical conditioning, conditioned stimuli (CSs) paired with events come to acquire some of their emotional and motivational properties.“ 1, Gray, J. A. 1970. The psychophysiological basis of Introversion–Extraversion, Behaviour Research and Therapy 8: 249–66 2. Gray, J. A. 1975. Elements of a two-process theory of learning. London: Academic Press 3. Gray, J. A. 1976. The behavioural inhibition system: a possible substrate for anxiety, in M. P. Feldman and A. M. Broadhurst (eds.), Theoretical and experimental bases of behaviour modification, pp. 3–41. London: Wiley 4. Gray, J. A. 1982. The neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford University Press 5. Hebb, D. O. 1955. Drives and the C. N. S. (Conceptual Nervous System), Psychological Review 62: 243–54 6. Fowles, D. C. 2006. Jeffrey Gray’s contributions to theories of anxiety, personality, and psychopathology, in T. Canli (ed.), Biology of personality and individual differences, pp. 7–34. New York: Guilford Press 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 |
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 |
| Spirituality | Psychological Theories | Corr I 154 Spirituality/personality traits/psychological theories/Five-Factor Model/McCrae: Spirituality has (…) been proposed as a sixth factor [to the FFM] ((s)>Five-Factor Model of personality traits) (Piedmont 1999)(1). The Spiritual Transcendence Scale includes facets assessing Prayer Fulfilment, Universality and Connectedness, and these three defined a separate factor in a joint analysis with the facets of the NEO-PI-R (see below). Problem 1: One might question whether spirituality is in the domain of personality at all, or whether it is better regarded as an attitude or practice. Problem 2: All the items in this version of the Spiritual Transcendence Scale are positively keyed, so their intercorrelation may be inflated by acquiescent responding, the tendency to agree with items regardless of content. (NEO-PI-R facet scales are balanced, with roughly equal numbers of positively- and negatively-keyed items, so acquiescence is not relevant to their structure.) VsPiedmont: Some evidence for this hypothesis comes from analyses of a different instrument, the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) (Cloninger, Przybeck, Svrakic and Wetzel 1994)(2). McCrae: keyed. A joint factor analysis of the twenty-five TCI scales with the five NEO-PI-R factors yielded clear N (>Neuroticism) , A (>Agreeableness) and C (>Conscientiousness) factors, a factor defined by both E (>Extraversion) and O (>Openness), and a separate Self-Transcendence factor (McCrae, Herbst and Costa 2001)(3). However, when acquiescence was assessed and statistically controlled, the full FFM appeared, with the three Self-Transcendence scales loading on the O factor (evidently measuring something like Openness to Spiritual Experience). Cf. >Mind/Davidson. Corr I 155 NEO-PI-R: has thirty facet scales, six for each factor. They were chosen to represent the most important constructs in the personality literature, while at the same time being maximally distinct.(Costa and McCrae 1995a)(4). 1. Piedmont, R. L. 1999. Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the Five-Factor Model, Journal of Personality 67: 985–1013 2. Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M. and Wetzel, R. D. 1994. The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): a guide to its development and use. St. Louis, MO: C.R. Cloninger et al. 3. McCrae, R. R., Herbst, J. H. and Costa, P. T., Jr 2001. Effects of acquiescence on personality factor structures, in R. Riemann, F. Ostendorf and F. Spinath (eds.), Personality and temperament: genetics, evolution, and structure, pp. 217–31. Berlin: Pabst Science Publishers 4. Costa, P. T., Jr., and McCrae, R. R. 1995a. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Journal of Personality Assessment 64: 21–50 Robert R. McCrae, “The Five-Factor Model of personality traits: consensus and controversy”, 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 |
| Temperament | Cloninger | Corr I 328 Temperament/R. C. Cloninger: He hypothesized that the original three traits and Persistence reflect dimensions of temperament, meaning that they should be evident early in ontogeny and strongly genetically determined. In contrast, he hypothesized that Self-Directedness, Cooperativeness and Self-Transcendence reflect dimensions of character, meaning that they should develop later, being determined by experience during development rather than primarily by genes. VsCloninger: Research has demonstrated several problems with Cloninger’s model (>personality traits/Cloninger). (1) A simple distinction between temperament and character appears untenable. The character traits show much the same levels of heritability as the temperament traits (Ando, Suzuki, Yamagata et al. 2004(1); Gillespie, Cloninger, Heath and Martin 2003)(2). (2) Evidence has accumulated to contradict the idea that single neurotransmitter systems are responsible for Novelty-Seeking, Harm Avoidance and Reward Dependence (Paris 2005)(3). (3) Cloninger’s seven-factor structure has not proven consistently replicable. Factor analyses have demonstrated (a) that the scales Cloninger developed do not group together in the manner that he assigned them to his seven traits (Ando, Suzuki, Yamagata et al. 2004(1); Ball, Tennen and Kranzler 1999(4); Herbst, Zonderman, McCrae and Costa 2000)(5), and (b) that his instrument is best described by the five factor structure of the Big Five (Markon, Krueger and Watson 2005(6); Ramanaiah, Rielage and Cheng 2002)(7). 1. Ando, J., Suzuki, A., Yamagata, S., Kijima, N., Maekawa, H., Ono, Y. and Jang, K. L. 2004. Genetic and environmental structure of Cloninger’s temperament and character character dimensions, Journal of Personality Disorders 18: 379–93 2. Gillespie, N. A., Cloninger, C. R., Heath, A. C. and Martin, N. G. 2003. The genetic and environmental relationship between Cloninger’s dimensions of temperament and character, Personality and Individual Differences 35: 1931–46 3. Paris, J. 2005. Neurobiological dimensional models of personality: a review of the models of Cloninger, Depue, and Siever, Journal of Personality Disorders 19: 156–70 4. Ball, S. A., Tennen, H. and Kranzler, H. R. 1999. Factor replicability and validity of the Temperament and Character Inventory in substance-dependent patients, Psychological Assessment 11: 514–24 5. Herbst, J. H., Zonderman, A. B., McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. 2000. Do the dimensions of the Temperament and Character Inventory map a simple genetic architecture? Evidence from molecular genetics and factor analysis, American Journal of Psychiatry 157: 1285–90 6. Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F. and Watson, D. 2005. Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 139–57 7. Ramanaiah, N. V., Rielage, J. K. and Cheng, Y. 2002. Cloninger’s temperament and character inventory and the NEO Five–Factor Inventory, Psychological Reports 90: 59–63 Colin G. DeYoung and Jeremy R. Gray, „ Personality neuroscience: explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition“, 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 |
| Terminology | Cattell | Corr II 48 Terminology/Personality Sphere/Cattell: [Cattell coined the term personality sphere] proposing to use L-data as an initial guide for undertaking an investigation into [this] sphere. The concept of the personality sphere (including both normal and abnormal personality domains) may be regarded as the cornerstone of Cattell’s scientific approach to understanding personality. II 48 Lexical Hypothesis/Cattell: Cattell’s demonstration of the use of the words in the English language as a means to systematically analyse personality constructs, has become widely known as the lexical hypothesis (…). II 48 Data/Cattell: (…) 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. (…) 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 (…). >Personality Traits/Cattell. 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 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.