Search

Recent developments in personality research highlight the value of modelling dynamic state–like manifestations of personality. The present work integrates these developments with prominent clinical models addressing within–person multiplicity and promotes the exploration of models centred on state–like manifestations of personality that function as cohesive organizational units. Such units possess distinct subjective qualities and are characterized by specific affects, behaviours, cognitions, and desires that tend to be co–activated. As background, we review both theory and research from the fields of social cognition, psychotherapy, and psychopathology that serve as the foundation for such models. We then illustrate our ideas in greater detail with one well–supported clinical model—the schema therapy mode model, chosen because it provides a finite and definite set of modes (i.e. cohesive personality states). We assessed these modes using a newly developed experience–sampling measure administered to 52 individuals (four times daily for 15 days). We estimated intraindividual and group–level temporal and contemporaneous networks based on the within–person variance as well as between–person network. We discuss findings from exemplar participants and from group–level networks and address cross–model particularities and consistencies. In conclusion, we consider potential idiographic and nomothetic applications of subjective states dynamic personality research based on intensive longitudinal methods. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

The six–dimensional HEXACO model of personality structure and its associated inventory have increasingly been used in personality research. But in spite of the evidence supporting this structure and demonstrating its advantages over five–dimensional models, some researchers continue to use and promote the latter. Although there has been little overt, organized argument against the adoption of the HEXACO model, we do hear sporadic offerings of reasons for retaining the five–dimensional systems, usually in informal conversations, in manuscript reviews, on social media platforms, and occasionally in published works. In this target article, we list all of the objections to the HEXACO model that we have heard of, and we then explain why each objection fails. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

Agreeableness is one of the major domains included within prominent hierarchical models of personality like the five–factor model. (Low) agreeableness is the strongest correlate of a variety of antisocial behaviours relative to the other five–factor model domains. Although there is substantial evidence that (low) agreeableness is arguably the most important personality correlate of various antisocial behaviours, this evidence is descriptive and provides little information on the direction or processes underlying the relation. Process–related research has started to provide more insight into how agreeableness–related traits give rise to various antisocial and prosocial behaviours. The proposed study looked to first replicate previous research on some of the potential cognitive–emotional processes related to agreeableness and then conduct exploratory analyses to identify which, if any, of the empirically identified facets of agreeableness bear specific relations to the processes under study. Overall, we were unable to replicate the primary effects of interest in regard to processes of agreeableness and found little support for our preregistered confirmatory and exploratory hypotheses despite having high power (≥.94) to detect these effects. Nonetheless, process models of personality remain at the vanguard of personality research, and we discuss how the current results can inform future work in this area. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

This article earned Open Materials badge through Open Practices Disclosure from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki. The materials are permanently and openly accessible at: https://osf.io/ds7j5/. Author's disclosure form may also be found at the Supporting Information in the online version., Gefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEAL

Measurement in personality development faces many psychometric problems. First, theory–based measurement models do not fit the empirical data in terms of traditional confirmatory factor analysis. Second, measurement invariance across age, which is necessary for a meaningful interpretation of age–associated personality differences, is rarely accomplished. Finally, continuous moderator variables, such as age, are often artificially categorized. This categorization leads to bias when interpreting differences in personality across age. In this tutorial, we introduce methods to remedy these problems. We illustrate how Ant Colony Optimization can be used to sample indicators that meet prespecified demands such as model fit. Further, we use Local Structural Equation Modeling to resample and weight subjects to study differences in the measurement model across age as a continuous moderator variable. We also provide a detailed illustration for both tools with the Neuroticism scale of the openly available International Personality Item Pool – NEO inventory using data from the UK sample ( N = 15 827). Combined, both tools can remedy persistent problems in research on personality and its development. In addition to a step–by–step illustration, we provide commented syntax for both tools. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology

Five-Factor Theory (FFT) provides a broad but largely blank template for causal personality research. Within FFT, there are three major categories of questions: (1) How do biological structures and functions lead to trait levels? (2) how do traits and the environment give rise to acquired psychological institutions? and (3) how do personality characteristics interact with specific situations to determine behaviors and reactions? Both practical and ethical issues complicate the search for the causes of trait change. Causal explanations of the development of characteristic adaptations are likely to be incomplete, because there are many different ways in which the same adaptation may be acquired. Studies of the determinants of behavior are usually left to social, educational, or clinical psychologists-although personality psychologists may make distinctive contributions by emphasizing the role of the individual in selecting and creating situations. A causal understanding of the functioning of the personality system is possible through the integration of many lines of evidence, but it is likely to take a very long time. In the meanwhile, personality psychologists may fruitfully pursue the identification of practical causes by which individuals with a given set of traits can optimize their adaptation. If we require truth in any strict sense, we must confine ourselves to one entire state of the world. This will be the cause, and the next entire state will be the effect. There is much truth in this conclusion, but it remains indefensible.F. H. Bradley, 1893/1966, p. 48.

Over the years, the personnel selection field has developed methods to assess trait expression in particular situations, but these approaches have evolved mostly outside the field of personality psychology. In this article, I review available personnel selection evidence regarding two such approaches: (i) situational judgement tests that present short scenarios and ask job candidates how they would handle the situations and (ii) assessment centre exercises requiring candidates to display behaviour in specified interactive situations. I describe these approaches and discuss their relations with personality research. I posit that adapting these approaches to personality research creates methodological diversity to address key research themes related to within–person variability, trait–behaviour links, personality disorders, and personality expression and perception. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

Much of personality research attempts to identify causal links between personality traits and various types of outcomes. I argue that causal interpretations require traits to be seen as existentially and holistically real and the associations to be independent of specific ways of operationalizing the traits. Among other things, this means that, to the extents that causality is to be ascribed to such holistic traits, items and facets of those traits should be similarly associated with specific outcomes, except for variability in the degrees to which they reflect the traits (i.e. factor loadings). I argue that, before drawing causal inferences about personality trait–outcome associations, the presence of this condition should be routinely tested by, for example, systematically comparing the outcome associations of individual items or facets, or sampling different indicators for measuring the same purported traits. Existing evidence suggests that observed associations between personality traits and outcomes at least sometimes depend on which particular items or facets have been included in trait operationalizations, calling trait–level causal interpretations into question. However, this has rarely been considered in the literature. I argue that when outcome associations are specific to facets, they should not be generalized to traits. Furthermore, when the associations are specific to particular items, they should not even be generalized to facets. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology

In personality research, trait–outcome associations are often studied by correlating scale sum scores with an outcome. For example, an association between the NEO Impulsiveness scale and body mass index (BMI) is often interpreted to pertain to underlying trait Impulsiveness. We propose that this expectation can be corroborated by testing for Spearman's theorem of indifference of indicator. Namely, an underlying trait–outcome association should not depend on the specific items (i.e. indicators) used to measure the trait. To test this theorem, we outline an indicator exclusion procedure and demonstrate its viability using a simulation design. We then apply this procedure to test personality–BMI associations for indifference of indicator in a large population–based sample of adult Estonians (N = 2581) using self–ratings and informant ratings obtained with the NEO Personality Inventory–3. Our results show that the N5: Impulsiveness–BMI association mostly depends on two eating–related items, suggesting that the trait associated with BMI may be narrower than the trait the N5: Impulsiveness scale is supposed to measure. Associations between BMI, E3: Assertiveness and C2: Order seem to pertain to the trait. In sum, testing for indifference of indicator provides a potentially useful method to clarify trait–outcome relationships. R scripts are provided that implement the indicator exclusion procedure. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology

We side with Lee on the importance and potential use of graphical causal modelling in personality research but raise three issues crucial to its validity. First, causal relations obtained at the inter-individual level should not be confused with intra-individual causal relations. Second, it is difficult to explicate all assumptions about which variables are measured, their causal relations and the possibility of co-occurring events when applying graphical modelling to personality data. Third, multiple testing complicates assessing (in)dependencies. Conclusions and inferences should always be drawn with appropriate attention to the underlying assumptions.

Theoretical explanations of personality rarely encompass as broad a range as Corr's revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) model, which attempts to integrate brain physiology, cognitive psychology and consciousness with personality. Yet, some of the more intriguing possibilities of the model are barely hinted at, such as the implications for the value of self-reports in personality research, or a mechanism that may be able to integrate social influence with psycho-physiology. Such extensions, along with exploration of the model's practical consequences, should take us much closer to a genuinely comprehensive understanding of personality.

Comparative personality research in human and nonhuman species advances many areas of empirical and theoretical research. The methodological foundations underlying these attempts to explain personality, however, remain an unpopular and often ignored topic. The target paper and this rejoinder explore three methodological core issues in the philosophy of science for comparative personality research: Conceptualising personality variation, identifying domains of variation and measuring variation. Clear distinctions among these issues may help to avoid misunderstandings among different disciplines concerned with personality. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Much personality research suggests that the variance in personality can be accounted for by a few dimensions, often hypothesized to be connected to neurological circuits. Gray's (1982) behavioural activation system (BAS) and behavioural inhibition system (BIS) in particular propose to explain for a variety of behaviour. This investigation sought to determine whether Positive Emotionality is an appropriate measure of the BAS, and how Tellegen's (1985) constructs are related to BAS activity. Measures of BAS and Positive Emotionality were administered to undergraduates. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that, while Positive Emotionality can be used as an indicator of BAS activity, it is better conceived of as a distinct, correlated construct. In addition, not all components of Positive Emotionality were related to BAS activity, and BAS was further related to components of Negative Emotionality and Constraint. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The aim of the paper is to show that research on temperament is inescapably bound with the concept of trait as applied in personality research. It is the individual differences approach on which temperament studies are based, and traits are the basic units by means of which these differences are described. Taking as a point of departure the definition of trait understood as a relatively stable and individual‐specific generalized tendency to behave or react in a certain way expressed in a variety of situations, the hypothetical status of temperament traits is discussed. Special attention is paid to states and behaviour by means of which temperament traits are inferred as well as to the biological and environmental determinants of these traits. Temperamental traits constitute only a part of the personality structure viewed from the perspective of individual differences and this perspective is only one of the many from which the complex nature of personality should be viewed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Psychoanalytic theory is fundamentally a cognitive theory—a series of attempts to understand the functioning of the human mind. The purpose of this paper is to review the various psychoanalytic models of the mind and to demonstrate how a contemporary psychoanalytic model of the mind, the representational model, derives from earlier psychoanalytic models, how it is congruent with many aspects of contemporary cognitive and developmental theory, and how it provides a theoretical basis for the systematic investigation of personality development, psychopathology, and the therapeutic process. Research using a representational psychoanalytic model is discussed. Open-ended descriptions of self and significant others (mother, father, and therapist) were evaluated using ratings scales derived from developmental cognitive and psychoanalytic theories. Aspects of these ratings were related significantly to independent assessments of the quality of interpersonal attachment and to the degree of therapeutic change in long-term, intensive, inpatient treatment of seriously disturbed, treatment-resistant patients. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We continue to disagree with Asendorpf (2006) on the best way to analyse Q‐sort data and on our priorities for personality research. We believe on statistical grounds that the large first factor found in inverse factor analyses of raw CAQ items tells us much about response norms, but little or nothing about individual differences. These emerge more clearly in analyses of standardised items, which show the familiar dimensions of the Five‐Factor Model. Based on our research on types and the mixed results reported by other researchers, we do not believe that replicable empirical types are likely to be found, and suggest that a more profitable line of research would focus on the heuristics of types and the configural interpretation of traits. Published in 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A vast academic literature shows that personality significantly mediates and moderates relationships between environmental stress and the onset and progression of physical disease. In the psychological literature, several models have been proposed for such links between personality and disease. Most of these models focus on the role of stress resistance, induced hyperactivity, constitutional predispositions, and risk factors such as the voluntary or forced exposure to perilous circumstances. It will be argued that at this moment, more than ever, personality psychologists and health psychologists should pose the fundamental question ‘What units shall we employ?’. A multifactor approach is suggested that acknowledges the role of (i) environmental factors as well as (ii) the individual's personal resources. Examples will be given of how the adoption of an ecological perspective can provide the tools for studying conditional effects in personality and disease research. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Configural frequency analysis (CFA) tests whether certain individual patterns in different variables are observed more frequently in a sample than expected by chance. In normative CFA, these patterns are derived from the subject's specific position in relation to sample characteristics such as the median or the mean. In ipsative CFA, patterns are defined within an individual reference system, e.g. relative to the subject's median of different variable scores. Normative CFA examines dimensionality of scales and is comparable to factor analysis in this respect. Ipsative CFA rather yields information about location of scores in different variables, in a similar way to ANOVA or Friedman testing. However, both normative and ipsative CFA may supply information not obtainable by means of the aforementioned methods. This is illustrated in a reanalysis of data in four scales of an anxiety inventory. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The current status of the personality area is critically examined with the view that problems in the discipline voiced two decades ago are still prevalent. Recurring problems in the personality area have important ramifications for much of contemporary theoretical and applied psychology. The interactional approach to personality came to the fore in the 1970s and early 1980s as an explicit attempt to resolve a number of perceived weaknesses in the personality area. While it has become common for researchers to publicly advocate an interactional position, in practice little interactional research has been conducted recently. The historical developments of the trait and situationism models of personality research and relevant assessment issues are outlined. This history is of interest because it helps to illuminate why and how many current personality researchers continue to perpetuate problems in the personality area. The interactional model of personality is also examined. Finally, the development of an interactional model for the study of anxiety is examined as a specific example of the theoretical, research, and practical benefits of this approach.

In this paper, arguments are presented for considering the subject as co‐investigator in personality research. A review of current research methods suggests that personality psychology is well on its way to recognizing the individual as an expert on his or her own self and situation. This means that the subject should also be allowed to take a much more active role in psychological research. It is argued that the ideal methodology for accomplishing this integration of the individual into psychological research is to establish a dialogue between psychologist and subject, allowing each to contribute to the scientific process from his or her own perspective and on the basis of his or her own expertise. The present approach calls for greater emphasis on the organization and coherence of personality as a system, greater openness and sensitivity to the particular world of the individual, and an even more dynamic conception of individuality than is currently found in our field. An important implication of the open system approach advocated in this article, the reduced role of prediction in personality research, is discussed and, finally, a preliminary list of expected gains and losses is presented.

This article is about the lessons that can be learned from the mistakes of the past. After a critical, constructive analysis of current theorizing and research, important directions of future personality psychology are described against the background of a general theoretical framework. It is argued that individual functioning cannot be understood or explained if the environmental factors that are operating in the individual's interactions with the environment and the biological factors that are constantly interacting with the cognitive‐emotional system are not considered. Finally, the article focuses on conceptual and methodological issues that are of major importance for further progress in personality psychology, viz. (a) the match between level of psychological processes and type of data, (b) the nature of psychological phenomena studied in terms of variables, (c) the use of chronological age as the marker of individual development, and (d) the comparison between a variable and a person approach.

We argue that replacing the trait model with the network model proposed in the target article would be immature for three reasons. (i) If properly specified and grounded in substantive theories, the classic state–trait model provides a flexible framework for the description and explanation of person × situation transactions. (ii) Without additional substantive theories, the network model cannot guide the identification of personality components. (iii) Without assumptions about psychological processes that account for causal links among personality components, the concept of equilibrium has merely descriptive value and lacks explanatory power. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

It is hard to judge the potential usefulness of a network approach to personality research because Cramer et al. (2012) mix up applications to one individual, inter–individual differences and intra–individual processes. From each perspective, the network units, their associations and causal interpretations of such associations have a completely different meaning, and it depends on the particular perspective, the level of aggregation and whether one wants to model measurement error whether latent variables have a place in network models in personality research. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Langer (1978) suggests that repetitive tasks may induce more automatic or mindless responding. Since many personality questionnaires consist of large numbers of questions of a similar form, a possible implication is that such questionnaires are sometimes completed mindlessly. To test this implication, a questionnaire was presented to 150 subjects which contained (both early and late in the questionnaire) items from the Dominance and Impulsivity subscales of Jackson's (1974) Personality Research Form. These items were separated by, or randomly interspersed with, filler items that were either similar (other subscales of the Personality Research Form) or dissimilar (attitude statements concerning nuclear energy). Item order was counterbalanced. It was hypothesized that the inclusion of dissimilar filler items should inhibit mindless responding to the later items. Change scores comparing late and early items showed a significant effect of the type of filler on the Impulsivity scores. A similar trend on the Dominance subscale was not significant. It is argued that personality research should pay more attention to the nature of the cognitive processes involved in self‐rating measures.

Critics of personality research have asserted that consistency of personality is in the eye of the beholder and does not reflect differences between rated targets. The relative importance of perceiver and target effects is assessed with self‐ and other‐ratings on five personality tests. Three members of the same family, both parents and an adolescent, supplied self‐ratings as well as ratings of the two other members. Perceiver and target effects were assessed with analysis of variance. The correlation between ratings of the same target by different perceivers was compared with that between ratings of different targets by the same perceiver. Both types of analysis showed target effects to be more important than effects of the perceiver. The differences between the present study and those using free descriptions instead of personality tests are discussed.