			Home About us Contact

Personality Theory (personality + theory)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Psychology	100%

Selected Abstracts

Identity Theory and Personality Theory: Mutual Relevance

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 6 2007
Sheldon Stryker
ABSTRACT Some personality psychologists have found a structural symbolic interactionist frame and identity theory relevant to their work. This frame and theory, developed in sociology, are first reviewed. Emphasized in the review are a multiple identity conception of self, identities as internalized expectations derived from roles embedded in organized networks of social interaction, and a view of social structures as facilitators in bringing people into networks or constraints in keeping them out, subsequently, attention turns to a discussion of the mutual relevance of structural symbolic interactionism/identity theory and personality theory, looking to extensions of the current literature on these topics. [source]

Discussion on ,Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science' by R. Michael Furr

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 5 2009
Article first published online: 14 JUL 200
Yes We Can! A Plea for Direct Behavioural Observation in Personality Research MITJA D. BACK and BORIS EGLOFF Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany mback@uni-leipzig.de Furr's target paper (this issue) is thought to enhance the standing of personality psychology as a truly behavioural science. We wholeheartedly agree with this goal. In our comment we argue for more specific and ambitious requirements for behavioural personality research. Specifically, we show why behaviour should be observed directly. Moreover, we illustratively describe potentially interesting approaches in behavioural personality research: lens model analyses, the observation of multiple behaviours in diverse experimentally created situations and the observation of behaviour in real life. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Categories of Behaviour Should be Clearly Defined PETER BORKENAU Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany p.borkenau@psych.uni-halle.de The target paper is helpful by clarifying the terminology as well as the strengths and weaknesses of several approaches to collect behavioural data. Insufficiently considered, however, is the clarity of the categories being used for the coding of behaviour. Evidence is reported showing that interjudge agreement for retrospective and even concurrent codings of behaviour does not execeed interjudge agreement for personality traits if the categories being used for the coding of behaviour are not clearly defined. By contrast, if the behaviour to be registered is unambiguously defined, interjudge agreement may be almost perfect. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviour Functions in Personality Psychology PHILIP J. CORR Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Philip.Corr@btopenworld.com Furr's target paper highlights the importance, yet under-representation, of behaviour in published articles in personality psychology. Whilst agreeing with most of his points, I remain unclear as to how behaviour (as specifically defined by Furr) relates to other forms of psychological data (e.g. cognitive task performance). In addition, it is not clear how the functions of behaviour are to be decided: different behaviours may serve the same function; and identical behaviours may serve different functions. To clarify these points, methodological and theoretical aspects of Furr's proposal would benefit from delineation. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On the Difference Between Experience-Sampling Self-Reports and Other Self-Reports WILLIAM FLEESON Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA fleesonW@wfu.edu Furr's fair but evaluative consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of behavioural assessment methods is a great service to the field. As part of his consideration, Furr makes a subtle and sophisticated distinction between different self-report methods. It is easy to dismiss all self-reports as poor measures, because some are poor. In contrast, Furr points out that the immediacy of the self-reports of behaviour in experience-sampling make experience-sampling one of the three strongest methods for assessing behaviour. This comment supports his conclusion, by arguing that ESM greatly diminishes one the three major problems afflicting self-reports,lack of knowledge,and because direct observations also suffer from the other two major problems afflicting self-reports. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What and Where is ,Behaviour' in Personality Psychology? LAURA A. KING and JASON TRENT Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA kingla@missouri.edu Furr is to be lauded for presenting a coherent and persuasive case for the lack of behavioural data in personality psychology. While agreeing wholeheartedly that personality psychology could benefit from greater inclusion of behavioural variables, here we question two aspects of Furr's analysis, first his definition of behaviour and second, his evidence that behaviour is under-appreciated in personality psychology. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Naturalistic Observation of Daily Behaviour in Personality Psychology MATTHIAS R. MEHL Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA mehl@email.arizona.edu This comment highlights naturalistic observation as a specific method within Furr's (this issue) cluster direct behavioural observation and discusses the Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) as a naturalistic observation sampling method that can be used in relatively large, nomothetic studies. Naturalistic observation with a method such as the EAR can inform researchers' understanding of personality in its relationship to daily behaviour in two important ways. It can help calibrate personality effects against act-frequencies of real-world behaviour and provide ecological, behavioural personality criteria that are independent of self-report. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Measuring Behaviour D. S. MOSKOWITZ and JENNIFER J. RUSSELL Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada dsm@psych.mcgill.ca Furr (this issue) provides an illuminating comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of various methods for assessing behaviour. In the selection of a method for assessing behaviour, there should be a careful analysis of the definition of the behaviour and the purpose of assessment. This commentary clarifies and expands upon some points concerning the suitability of experience sampling measures, referred to as Intensive Repeated Measurements in Naturalistic Settings (IRM-NS). IRM-NS measures are particularly useful for constructing measures of differing levels of specificity or generality, for providing individual difference measures which can be associated with multiple layers of contextual variables, and for providing measures capable of reflecting variability and distributional features of behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behaviours, Non-Behaviours and Self-Reports SAMPO V. PAUNONEN Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada paunonen@uwo.ca Furr's (this issue) thoughtful analysis of the contemporary body of research in personality psychology has led him to two conclusions: our science does not do enough to study real, observable behaviours; and, when it does, too often it relies on ,weak' methods based on retrospective self-reports of behaviour. In reply, I note that many researchers are interested in going beyond the study of individual behaviours to the behaviour trends embodied in personality traits; and the self-report of behaviour, using well-validated personality questionnaires, is often the best measurement option. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. An Ethological Perspective on How to Define and Study Behaviour LARS PENKE Department of Psychology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK lars.penke@ed.ac.uk While Furr (this issue) makes many important contributions to the study of behaviour, his definition of behaviour is somewhat questionable and also lacks a broader theoretical frame. I provide some historical and theoretical background on the study of behaviour in psychology and biology, from which I conclude that a general definition of behaviour might be out of reach. However, psychological research can gain from adding a functional perspective on behaviour in the tradition of Tinbergens's four questions, which takes long-term outcomes and fitness consequences of behaviours into account. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What is a Behaviour? MARCO PERUGINI Faculty of Psychology, University of Milan,Bicocca, Milan, Italy marco.perugini@unimib.it The target paper proposes an interesting framework to classify behaviour as well as a convincing plea to use it more often in personality research. However, besides some potential issues in the definition of what is a behaviour, the application of the proposed definition to specific cases is at times inconsistent. I argue that this is because Furr attempts to provide a theory-free definition yet he implicitly uses theoretical considerations when applying the definition to specific cases. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Is Personality Really the Study of Behaviour? MICHAEL D. ROBINSON Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA Michael.D.Robinson@ndsu.edu Furr (this issue) contends that behavioural studies of personality are particularly important, have been under-appreciated, and should be privileged in the future. The present commentary instead suggests that personality psychology has more value as an integrative science rather than one that narrowly pursues a behavioural agenda. Cognition, emotion, motivation, the self-concept and the structure of personality are important topics regardless of their possible links to behaviour. Indeed, the ultimate goal of personality psychology is to understanding individual difference functioning broadly considered rather than behaviour narrowly considered. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Linking Personality and Behaviour Based on Theory MANFRED SCHMITT Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany schmittm@uni-landau.de My comments on Furr's (this issue) target paper ,Personality as a Truly Behavioural Science' are meant to complement his behavioural taxonomy and sharpen some of the presumptions and conclusions of his analysis. First, I argue that the relevance of behaviour for our field depends on how we define personality. Second, I propose that every taxonomy of behaviour should be grounded in theory. The quality of behavioural data does not only depend on the validity of the measures we use. It also depends on how well behavioural data reflect theoretical assumptions on the causal factors and mechanisms that shape behaviour. Third, I suggest that the quality of personality theories, personality research and behavioural data will profit from ideas about the psychological processes and mechanisms that link personality and behaviour. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Apparent Objectivity of Behaviour is Illusory RYNE A. SHERMAN, CHRISTOPHER S. NAVE and DAVID C. FUNDER Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA funder@ucr.edu It is often presumed that objective measures of behaviour (e.g. counts of the number of smiles) are more scientific than more subjective measures of behaviour (e.g. ratings of the degree to which a person behaved in a cheerful manner). We contend that the apparent objectivity of any behavioural measure is illusory. First, the reliability of more subjective measures of behaviour is often strikingly similar to the reliabilities of so-called objective measures. Further, a growing body of literature suggests that subjective measures of behaviour provide more valid measures of psychological constructs of interest. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Personality and Behaviour: A Neglected Opportunity? LIAD UZIEL and ROY F. BAUMEISTER Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA Baumeister@psy.fsu.edu Personality psychology has neglected the study of behaviour. Furr's efforts to provide a stricter definition of behaviour will not solve the problem, although they may be helpful in other ways. His articulation of various research strategies for studying behaviour will be more helpful for enabling personality psychology to contribute important insights and principles about behaviour. The neglect of behaviour may have roots in how personality psychologists define the mission of their field, but expanding that mission to encompass behaviour would be a positive step. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

What is reinforcement sensitivity?

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 5 2008
Neuroscience paradigms for approach-avoidance process theories of personality
Abstract Reinforcement sensitivity is a concept proposed by Gray (1973) to describe the biological antecedents of personality, and has become the common mechanism among a family of personality theories concerning approach and avoidance processes. These theories suggest that 2,3 biobehavioural systems mediate the effects of reward and punishment on emotion and motivation, and that individual differences in the functioning of these systems manifest as personality. Identifying paradigms for operationalising reinforcement sensitivity is therefore critical for testing and developing these theories, and evaluating their footprint in personality space. In this paper I suggest that, while traditional self-report paradigms in personality psychology may be less-than-ideal for this purpose, neuroscience paradigms may offer operations of reinforcement sensitivity at multiple levels of approach and avoidance processes. After brief reflection on the use of such methods in animal models,which first spawned the concept of reinforcement sensitivity,recent developments in four domains of neuroscience are reviewed. These are psychogenomics, psychopharmacology, neuroimaging and category-learning. By exploring these paradigms as potential operations of reinforcement sensitivity we may enrich our understanding of the putative biobehavioural bases of personality. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Use of Western and Indigenously Developed Personality Tests in Asia

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2004
Fanny M. Cheung
Cet article passe en revue les recherches transculturelles sur les grandes évaluations de la personnalité dans les pays asiatiques, à savoir le MMPI, l'EPQ, le STAI et le NEO-PI-R. On aborde la question de l'application interculturelle de tests traduits. L'Inventaire d'Evaluation de la Personnalité Chinois (CPAI) est mentionné comme exemple de travaux autochtones qui ont mis en évidence des dimensions originales ou importantes. Développéà l'origine en tant qu'outil d'évaluation culturellement approprié au peuple chinois, le CPAI a ensuite permis de mettre à l'épreuve l'universalité des théories occidentales de la personnalité. Le facteur spécifique du CPAI relatif aux liens interpersonnels est utile pour l'étude d'un aspect de la personnalité qui est absent des mesures de la personnalité importées. On examine aussi les défis à venir qui attendent la recherche et les applications concernant l'évaluation de la personnalité en Asie. This paper reviews the cross-cultural research on major personality measures in Asian countries, including the MMPI, EPQ, STAI, and the NEO-PI-R. Considerations in the cross-cultural application of translated tests are discussed. The Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) is cited as an example of indigenous measures that have identified culturally salient or unique dimensions. Although developed originally as a culturally relevant assessment tool for Chinese people, the CPAI has also become a means to examine the universality of Western personality theories. The unique Interpersonal Relatedness factor of the CPAI is useful to the study of an aspect of personality that has been absent in imported personality measures. Future challenges for research and applications of personality assessment in Asia are discussed. [source]

Gray's model of personality and aggregate level factor analysis

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 5 2003
Chris J. Jackson
Previous research shows that correlations tend to increase in magnitude when individuals are aggregated across groups. This suggests that uncorrelated constellations of personality variables (such as the primary scales of Extraversion and Neuroticism) may display much higher correlations in aggregate factor analysis. We hypothesize and report that individual level factor analysis can be explained in terms of Giant Three (or Big Five) descriptions of personality, whereas aggregate level factor analysis can be explained in terms of Gray's physiological based model. Although alternative interpretations exist, aggregate level factor analysis may correctly identify the basis of an individual's personality as a result of better reliability of measures due to aggregation. We discuss the implications of this form of analysis in terms of construct validity, personality theory, and its applicability in general. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Individual differences in preschool children: temperament or personality?

INFANT AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, Issue 3 2010
Cathy L. Grist
Abstract Individual differences among adults have generally been conceptualized in terms of personality theory and traits. In contrast, individual differences among very young children (birth to kindergarten) have generally been conceptualized in terms of temperament theory and traits. The present study compares and contrasts measures of temperament and personality in a sample of preschool children. Temperament traits were assessed with a well-established measure (the Rothbart CBQ), and a new preschool rating instrument was used to assess personality traits from the five-factor framework (M5-PS). Indeed, a key purpose of this study was to further the development of the M5-PS. Data were gathered on 122 preschool children who were rated by their teachers. Significant correlations were found between the temperament trait Surgency and the personality trait Extraversion, between the temperament trait Negative Affect and the personality trait Neuroticism, and between the temperament trait Effortful Control and the personality trait Conscientiousness. The overall pattern of correlational data suggests that individual differences in preschool children can be adequately described using the five-factor theory, and that this framework may effectively subsume traditional theories of temperament. Preliminary support for the reliability and validity of the M5-PS is offered. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Examining psychopathic tendencies in adolescence from the perspective of personality theory

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, Issue 5 2009
Naomi Sadeh
Abstract This study sought to clarify the personality correlates of psychopathic tendencies in adolescents using the Antisocial Process Screening Device [APSD; Frick and Hare, 2001] and a youth adapted version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire [Patrick et al., 2009, unpublished]. A combination of self- and parent-reports on the APSD (n=229) revealed that the three-facet model of psychopathic tendencies in youth was characterized by a similar constellation of personality traits as the psychopathic construct in adulthood [e.g., Hall, Benning and Patrick, 2004]. Specifically, low anxiety and trait aggression characterized the APSD Callous/Unemotional dimension, social dominance and trait aggression characterized the APSD Narcissism dimension, and disinhibition and low harm avoidance characterized the APSD Impulsivity dimension. The results add credence to the hypothesis that personality relationships to psychopathic tendencies emerge from an early age [Lynam, 2002] and dimensions of psychopathy in youth are associated with distinct personality profiles. Aggr. Behav. 35:399,407, 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]