Www truity com test big five personality test

The Trait Model Of Personality

The Trait Model of Personality

Prior to beginning work on this assignment,

Read Chapter 8 in the course textbook.(PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENTS) Lecci, L. B. (2015). Personality. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu
Read the article Stability of Personality Traits in Adulthood: Mechanisms and Implications (Allemand, Steiger, & Hill, 2013).(PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENTS)
Go to the Truity (n.d.) The Big Five Personality Test, and complete the free, confidential personality test that is based on the big five theory. The results of this test may be used to aid in the completion of this assignment. ( MY RESULTS ARE PROVIDED IN THE ATTACHMENTS!)
In addition to the required sources, research a minimum of one scholarly source on the trait model of personality (part one of the paper) and one scholarly resource on the big five theory of personality (part two of the paper).

All required and outside sources should be properly cited in your paper.

This assignment has two parts. In the first part,

Provide an overview of the trait model of personality in which you identify at least one principal theory and its theorist (i.e., Allport, Cattell, or Eysenck) associated with the model. (Please note that the trait model is more than just the big five—this part of the paper should cover the general history and evolution of the model.)
Compare and contrast the basic assumptions of the trait model and the psychodynamic model regarding the theorist’s explanations of personality development.
Use the scholarly sources you researched for this assignment as well as this week’s required sources to support your statements.
In the second part of your paper,

Describe each of the five traits included in the big five model:
extroversion,
agreeableness,
conscientiousness,
neuroticism, and
openness to experience.
(This section demonstrates your understanding of the theory, so do not just copy and paste the explanations provided on the Truity website.)
Reflect on your results from the test, on each of the five traits. (MY RESULTS ARE PROVIDED IN THE ATTACHMENTS!)
Use the scholarly sources you researched for this assignment as well as this week’s required sources to support your statements.
The Trait Model of Personality paper

Must be five to six double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style.
Must include a separate title page with the following:
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
PLEASE BE SURE TO USE MY RESULTS PROVIDED IN THE ATTACHMENTS!

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Explain trait theory and how it emerged as a dominant force in personality theory. Describe the emergence of the trait approach to psychology and identify some contributions of important historical figures, such as Allport, Cattell, and Eysenck. Describe how the taxonomy of traits was developed based on language and how they are organized into a hierarchy of factors (e.g., using three-, five-, and sixteen-factor models). Explain how factors relate to behaviors in a hierarchy. Describe some of the important outcomes that have been predicted by traits such as neuroticism, extraversion, optimism, and locus of control. Describe the stability of traits over the lifespan and across cultures and languages. Characterize Mischel's critique of the trait approach and the field's response to that critique (i.e., the person-situation debate). Describe the novel approaches to conceptualizing and assessing traits, such as the act-frequency approach. Characterize the complementary contributions of the goal approach, which examines traits in the context of our lives.

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 2 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Describe some of the commonly used measures of traits.

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 3 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Introduction John is presenting a lecture, and as is his custom, he keeps the students entertained and engaged with his wit, smooth dialogue, and animated body language. Given the reaction of the students, this is not a lecture, but an hour of informative entertainment. After class, the students are drawn to John because of his gregarious and friendly demeanor during class, but he is nowhere to be found. John has a habit of retreating from public after giving a lecture because he feels both exhausted and overwhelmed. His favorite place to hide is a stall in the men's room; it affords the best protection from interactions with others. After 30 minutes or so, he emerges feeling somewhat recovered.

You see, John's job requires that he engage in an activity that is not especially pleasant for him. John is, in fact, somewhat isolative, but not shy. John doesn't look at a group of people and long for their attention or for more social interactions. Rather than attend a party or be in large groups, he prefers to read a book under a tree or some other solitary, tranquil place. John is what some people call a "pseudo-extravert." That is, he is actually an introvert, but he engages in extraverted behavior in order to meet the demands of his life or important life goals.

Why is it that some people are hard-wired to enjoy stimulation, whereas others appear just as hard-wired to dislike and avoid it? Why are some individuals prone to worry? For example, you may know someone who always worries about their exam performance, yet they typically set the curve on every exam. Why do many people gravitate toward taking (or at least wanting) control over a situation, whereas others prefer to give up that control and let others decide matters?

In this chapter, we will examine what is known as the trait approach to personality. We will examine the theorists who initiated the movement, some of the more interesting research findings on traits, the challenges to trait theory, and the field's responses.

Trait Model

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 4 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Over 2,000 years after the descriptive terms were introduced, we still use the term "choleric" to refer to an easily angered child.

8.1 Trait Theory in Historical Perspective Trait theory is a popular approach for studying personality; it is closely tied to the everyday concept of personality that many people hold because traits are commonly employed in everyday language and are widely understood. We will begin by defining the concept of traits and identify some of the earliest contributors to the trait approach to personality, including Hippocrates, Galen, Carl Jung, Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, and Hans Eysenck.

Traits as Building Blocks of Personality

At its most fundamental level, a trait is a unit of analysis to describe, predict, and explain human thought, affect, and behavior. From a distance, it appears as though there are great many terms (traits) that are used to characterize human activity, but extensive research suggests that these traits can be organized into coherent and meaningful patterns and even enveloped by a smaller number of broad trait categories, thereby simplifying the trait approach.

Hippocrates and Galen: The Ancient Greeks and Humoral Theory

The earliest documented work on humoral theory dates back to ancient Greece—and the belief that the body was compromised of four basic fluids and the balance of these fluids could determine behavioral and emotional tendencies (and disease susceptibility). Based originally on early writings in medicine by Hippocrates and later expanded by Galen (On the Temperaments), humoral theory focuses on blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile; these are the four basic fluids (humors) that were thought to be within the human body.

According to the theory, the four humors have to be in balance to achieve and maintain health, and this likewise predicted imbalances in emotion and behavior. An ideal temperament was associated with a balance of the four humors. Excessive blood (sanguine) was associated with a cheerful disposition, excessive black bile (melancholic) was associated with a sad disposition, excessive yellow bile (choleric) was characterized as irritable, and too much phlegm (phlegmatic) meant an unemotional temperament.

Although contemporary personality researchers do not relate the humors to character, the descriptive terms are still employed. For example, an irritable infant is still referred to as choleric, and the term melancholy still applies to sadness. Moreover, as we shall see when reviewing the work of Eysenck, the basic terminology for characterizing all human behavior has been somewhat consistent for more than

2,000 years, suggesting that there may be a core set of personality traits expressed by humans that have been stable throughout much of modern history. Moreover, humoral theory also established the framework for connecting traits to biological functioning, and this tradition also continues today (see especially Eysenck's work on extraversion and research on heritability coefficients for personality).

Carl Jung's Introduction of Introversion and Extraversion

Carl Jung was first and foremost a central contributor to psychodynamic theory. However, he was also one of the first to popularize the terms introversion and extraversion, and these remain two of the most popular and widely recognized trait terms. Jung described the outward manifestation of behavior in very similar ways to modern-day psychologists. For example, extraversion meant someone who is interested in other people and things and is focused on them, whereas introversion meant being withdrawn and focusing on the subjective experience of the world. Although Jung did not develop a formal measure of introversion-extraversion, researchers subsequently developed a measure that was based on Jung's typology, called the Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) (see Chapter 1).

Gordon Allport and the Analysis of Language

One of the more enduring early contributions in trait psychology was the method of studying language as the very basis of traits. Gordon W. Allport is often considered the first trait psychologist, and he was interested in classification. Allport adopted traits as his basic unit of analysis. He believed that traits are closely tied to the nervous system, and they account for behavioral consistency across time and situations (Allport & Allport, 1921). Allport believed that a trait would predict which behavior would manifest with high frequency, with intensity, and over a wide range of situations (see also Allport, 1937).

Beginning an important tradition, Allport used Webster's New International Dictionary and culled almost 18,000 words, each of which described some aspect of human behavior (Allport & Odbert, 1936). In adopting this methodology, Allport made the assumption that any descriptive characteristics that are important will become part of our language and that language will evolve such that single words will emerge to capture those important constructs. Thus, Allport's theory is based on the associated meanings of words, as he thought these meanings transcend the word itself and instead speak to human nature. This approach of studying language to understand personality was referred to a lexical analysis, and the underlying theory was referred to as the lexical hypothesis (see also John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988). The general thesis of this work is that by understanding how different adjectives that are used to describe human behavior are related to each other, one can then understand at least two basic questions: What is the minimum number of different personality traits or factors needed to capture all of the adjectives, and what are the best labels for these traits or factors? A third question that often arises focuses on how the different traits/factors relate to each other (i.e., are they independent or correlated?).

Cardinal,Cardinal, Central, Central, and and Secondary Secondary Traits Traits

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 5 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In this classic 1927 paper, "Concepts of Trait and Personality," Allport introduces his conceptualization of traits as a "statistical" unit of analysis and highlights their central role in the study of personality. Click here (https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/{pdfs}ch_8_concepts_of_trait_and_personality_allport.pdf)

to read it.

Reference: Allport, G. W. (1927). Concepts of trait and personality. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 284–293. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku. ca/Allport/concepts.htm (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Allport/concepts.htm)

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In this important text, L. L. Thurstone writes about the use of factor analysis in finding underlying factors in personality and ability testing. Click here (https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/{pdfs}ch_8_the_vectors_of_the_mind_thurstone.pdf)

Allport believed that traits are the characteristic manner in which we respond to stimuli in our environment. Some traits are prominent, and they dominate personality. Others minor and are less obvious to others. The way our traits are patterned reflects our unique personality structure and determines our behavior.

To reflect these different types of traits, Allport established a hierarchical structure to reflect the variability in the prominence of different traits in different individuals (Allport, 1937). Allport referred to cardinal traits as those that are so pervasive and enduring that they manifest in virtually every aspect of an individual's life and serve as primary motivators of action. Later in this chapter we will discuss the big five factors, and some of these (e.g., extraversion, neuroticism, etc.) can be examples of cardinal traits. Interestingly, an abundance of such cardinal traits can be seen as quite problematic, and, in fact, such persistence of behavior independent of the situation is often the hallmark of personality disorders. Central traits were defined as less pervasive than cardinal traits, but still manifesting in a limited range of situations. Central traits were thought to be more commonly observed in everyone. Finally, secondary traits were considered the least durable over time and across situations, and the combination of secondary traits is what contributes most to the individual's uniqueness. Researchers would later debate the stability of personality over situations (the person-situation debate discussed in this chapter), but Allport already had an answer for this issue—suggesting that not all traits are equally generalizable across situations.

Raymond Cattell and the Statistical Approach to Personality

Despite the significant advance that came from Allport's analysis of language, a major shortcoming remained. Given the large number of traits that had been identified (over 4,000), the problem was determining how to best organize those terms. Although early contributions were made by Thurstone's factor theory (1938), it was Raymond Cattell who emerged as one of the primary researchers of an organizational framework for personality. He applied powerful statistical procedures to the taxonomy of traits in an attempt to find an underlying structure.

Most of Cattell's contributions occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, as he reduced Allport's 18,000 descriptive terms to a smaller number of clusters, which in turn, were reduced a smaller number of factors (e.g., Cattell, 1943, 1945, 1957). To understand Cattell's theory, it is critical to have a clear understanding of the nature of a factor.

Cattell studied under Charles Spearman, who was developing the technique of factor analysis in order to better understand the basic structure of human abilities. The basic premise involved examining ratings of items to determine whether ratings for one item (e.g., if I rated myself as outgoing) or set of items are associated with ratings on another item (e.g., if I rated myself as friendly) or set of items. When several items appear to be rated in similar ways by many people, then they are likely to reflect an underlying factor (e.g., the factor of agreeableness for the above two items). Thus, in essence, factors are super-traits that stand toward the top of the organizational structure and can define a large number of other traits. As we will see later, there has been considerable debate as to how many factors underlie all traits, with estimates ranging from as many as 16 to few as 2. Cattell also believed that the various traits were hierarchically organized, and he referred to source traits as the underlying psychological factors (e.g., see top level Figure 8.2) and surface traits as those that are subsumed by the different factors and are most directly translatable to behaviors (e.g., see second level from the top in Figure 8.2).

This statistical approach to identifying the underlying factor structure of personality was seen as an advantage over organizational techniques that were more theory-driven (as was the case with the early contributors to the interpersonal circumplex, discussed in Chapter 7). Of course, the statistical reduction of the data was not atheoretical, as numerous assumptions would have to be made that would affect the number of factors that would be extracted—and even the degree to which the factors would be related to one another.

UnderstandingUnderstanding Factor Factor Analysis Analysis

Suppose you were to tell me about a television show that you watch. Let's use a well-known example such as American Idol. If you were to summarize in bullet points the primary theme or themes of American Idol, what would you say? Perhaps it might be characterized as a singing competition, with the winner getting a record deal. Perhaps it might be described as a show that highlights human triumph and failure. The emphasis could also be on the fact that it is a reality show or that the audience is involved by voting for and, ultimately, selecting the winners. The bottom line is that one could generate a number of basic themes to describe the show, and some themes may overlap, while some may be quite distinct. These themes would be considered a summary of the show, and they provide some organization to all of the data points describing the show.

In the same way, factor analysis starts with a large amount of directly measurable data and then reduces it down to a smaller number of unobserved units called (latent) factors, which are constructed by grouping/organizing the items. The goal is to get to the fewest number of latent factors that capture the largest amount of the observable data. Factor analysis groups items by identifying items that are statistically (quantitatively) related, whereas in the above example, the groupings were thematically (qualitatively) related. Factors emerge when the item-level data are related to each other.

Two questions are often addressed using factor analysis:

1. What is the smallest number of factors needed to capture the majority of data?

2. If there are multiple factors (more than one), how are those factors related to each other?

Both of these questions were at the forefront of Cattell's work (and were noted in the discussion of lexical analysis) and have continued as a source of discussion (e.g., Goldberg, 1993) and debate (see Borkenau &

https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/%7Bpdfs%7Dch_8_concepts_of_trait_and_personality_allport.pdf
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Allport/concepts.htm
https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/AUPSY330.12.2/%7Bpdfs%7Dch_8_the_vectors_of_the_mind_thurstone.pdf
9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 6 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

to read "The Vectors of the Mind" (1934).

Reference: Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1–32. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku. ca/Thurstone/ (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thurstone/)

Ostendorf, 1990; Church & Burke, 1994; Vassend & Skrondal, 1997; cf. Marsh et al., 2010).

Multitrait-MultimethodMultitrait-Multimethod Assessments Assessments

Cattell believed that in order to thoroughly test the trait model, it was necessary to sample not only a wide range of traits, but also to collect data using different methodologies. Accordingly, he specified three sources of data that should be sampled:

1. Questionnaire data (Q-data), which takes the form of the traditional self-report inventories commonly used in psychology.

2. Life data (L-data), involving data culled from naturalistic settings. This can take the form of observations of behavior in the real world, or even objective information, such as number of divorces, arrests, or college degrees earned, to name a few.

3. Experimental data (T-data) involves data that is collected from standardized experiments. This represents the most objective and standardized data, and because the experimenter manipulates one of the variables of interest using random assignment, it is the only method to allow for causal conclusions.

FindingFinding 16 16 Personality Personality Factors Factors

By factor analyzing data using each of these methodologies, Cattell argued that the weaknesses of one methodology are offset by the strengths of the other methodologies, thereby providing a more comprehensive picture of the individual's personality.

Cattell began his analysis by paring Allport's characteristics down to 171; he removed what he considered to be either redundant or rarely used terms. He then conducted numerous factor analytic studies on trait assessments from each of the three methods, spanning a period of several decades, and concluded that there are 16 fundamental traits (or factors) that can be organized into a hierarchical framework and cover all human trait descriptors (Cattell, 1943):

1. Abstractedness 9. Reasoning 2. Apprehension 10. Rule consciousness 3. Dominance 11. Self-reliance 4. Emotional stability 12. Sensitivity 5. Liveliness 13. Social boldness 6. Openness to change 14. Tension 7. Perfectionism 15. Vigilance 8. Privateness 16. Warmth

Research also suggests that the 16 personality factors (PFs) can be captured in other cultures and languages as well (Prieto, Gouveia, & Fernandez, 1996; Schneewind & Graf, 1998), providing further evidence of their robustness. Cattell also suggested that these 16 personality factors apply throughout the lifespan, and accordingly, he developed the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF®) measures for children, adolescents, and adults.

Because these are considered fundamental factors of personality, Cattell argued that everyone can be characterized by some combinations of these factors. Although Cattell published a number of papers on this topic, other researchers who followed suggested that traits could be reduced even further. Researchers have focused on a smaller number traits, and these models have garnered more support and use in the field. One of those models was forwarded by Hans Eysenck.

Eysenck's Model of Personality

Hans J. Eysenck was one of the most controversial and prolific researchers of the 20th century. Eysenck made significant contributions to a number of areas, but none more so than the area of personality psychology. Arguably one of his most lasting legacies was the founding of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, which was and continues to be the official journal of the Society for the Study of Individual Differences.

Emerging from the biological perspective, Eysenck believed that basic biological/genetic mechanisms underlie all human traits (see Chapter 4). From the late 1940s to the early 1950s, Eysenck studied monozygotic and dizygotic twins, concluding that neuroticism has a strong genetic component (Eysenck & Prell, 1951). Personality, explained Eysenck, is the sum of cognition, character, affect, and somatic components. He believed that the study of personality should be concerned with discovering the general laws of the group (nomothetic approach) as opposed to studying the individual (idiographic approach), as was the emphasis in psychoanalysis. In his research, Eysenck, like Cattell, favored the statistical techniques of factor analysis, which allows the researcher to reduce many variables to their essential factors. However, unlike Cattell, Eysenck arrived at a more economical model: a three-factor solution. Eysenck also differed from Cattell in that he examined traits as dichotomies (e.g., emotionally stable vs. unstable, introverted vs. extraverted, etc.).

AA Three-Factor Three-Factor Solution Solution

Using factor analysis and basing his model on the four humors described by the ancient Greeks, Eysenck rearranged the four humors on a continuum describable in terms of two personality dimensions: introverted-extroverted and unstable-stable. He placed the first dimension on a horizontal axis and the second on an intersecting vertical axis (see Figure 8.1). Eysenck believed that these two factors subsumed the primary descriptive features of normal human functioning and were the essence of personality (Eysenck, 1947). As per Figure 8.1, the term melancholic refers to someone high in neuroticism (N) but low in extraversion (E). The choleric person is high in N and high in E. The sanguine type

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thurstone/
9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 7 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

was characterized as low in N and high in E, and the phlegmatic person was low on both. In subsequent years, Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) added a third dimension, psychoticism (meaning recklessness, inappropriate emotional expression, hostility, disregard for common sense, and poor contact with reality), which he believed, along with the first two factors, was most relevant to the characterization of abnormal manifestations of personality. Importantly, Eysenck believed that these three factors were statistically independent of each other, meaning that a score on one factor was unrelated to a score on another factor. For that reason, each factor is depicted at a 90-degree angle of the other factors. Thus, psychoticism/reality contact would be depicted in a three-dimensional image (i.e., the two-dimensional image in Figure 8.1 shows low psychoticism, but variability on N and E). Much of Eysenck's subsequent research was directed toward understanding the relationship between behavior and his personality factor model.

Figure 8.1: The "big two" factors and their relation to the four humors Theorists have suggested that the basic personality trait terms used to characterize human behavior have not changed dramatically in over 2,000 years. The figure depicts how the four humors map on to two of the big five factors.

Source: From Eysenck, H.M. and Eysenck, M.W., Personality and Individual Differences: Personality and Individual Difference: A Natural Scientific Approach, Plenum Publishing, 1985. Reprinted with kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media.

ConnectingConnecting the the Three Three Factors Factors to to Behavior Behavior

Eysenck not only developed a model to capture the breadth of personality functioning, but he also offered a hierarchy to explain the depth of these constructs. Eysenck clearly aligned himself with some of the basic tenets of behaviorists, and not surprisingly, when he developed a hierarchical model, he explicitly linked personality to behavior. At the top of the hierarchy are the factors; in the diagram in Figure 8.2, the factor of extraversion is depicted. The next level down shows the traits that are included in extraversion; this diagram, sociability and liveliness are depicted (for a more complete list, see the traits highlighted in yellow and red in Figure 8.1). The third level down depicts habitual behavior; in this instance, regularly talking and smiling. At the lowest level, we find individual instances of behavior (i.e., one specific time when the person spoke to someone). In this way, Eysenck depicts how individual behaviors—ones that are habitually evidenced, are related to each other, and occur in clusters with other traits—define the factors. Eysenck believed that the highest levels of this model represent the most static components that are difficult to change. The lower levels of the hierarchy are those that are most easily changed and, if the change is consistent and broad enough, it can result in changes in personality functioning.

Figure 8.2: Depicting the hierarchical structure of extraversion The top of the hierarchy reflects the factors that are considerably less amenable to change. At the lowest level are the basic behaviors that are very amenable to change. Consistent behavioral enactments that occur in thematic clusters reflect the corresponding traits and factors.

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 8 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

In a similar vein, Eysenck defined the hierarchical structures for both neuroticism and psychoticism, indicating the specific behaviors, habits, and traits that lead to the factors that comprise them (see Eysenck, 1990).

ConnectingConnecting the the Three Three Factors Factors to to Biology Biology

Eysenck believed that the factors were, in fact, driven by underlying biological mechanisms, thereby providing some rationale for why the factors are stable over time. Although this area was discussed in Chapter 4, the emphasis here will be on the behavioral tendencies and practices that are associated with extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.

Extroversion-IntroversionExtroversion-Introversion

Eysenck's (1994) most extensive research focused on the biological mechanisms underlying extraversion. Eysenck believed that it was the brain's need for stimulation that resulted in different patterns of behavior for introverts and extraverts, and he highlighted the Reticular Activating System (RAS), which regulates arousal in the cortex, as the specific part of the brain that would most readily demonstrate these differences. Eysenck hypothesized that extraverts are chronically understimulated, and they would therefore engage in behavior to stimulate their brains. In contrast, he believed that introverts were chronically overstimulated, and they would therefore avoid stimulation.

Eysenck's original theoretical model proved to be close, but not quite accurate, and he subsequently suggested that arousability (rather than baseline arousal) might be the more central distinguishing feature (Eysenck, 1994). Indeed, the research literature suggests that in the absence of stimulation, there may be few if any differences between introverts and extraverts at baseline (Revelle, Humphreys, Simon, & Gilliland, 1980; for a review, see Matthews & Gilliland, 1999). For example, in one study, researchers had participants imagine being in a positive and a neutral situation, and then they rated the moods of the participants. Those identified as extraverts using a standardized measure rated their mood as more positive relative to introverts in the positive situation, but the introverts and extraverts did not differ in the neutral condition (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991). Although the effects appear small, the literature does suggest that there are differences between introverts and extraverts in their potential for, or responsiveness to, arousal (i.e., arousability; see Bullock & Gilliland, 1993). For example, introverts work better when exposed to less background noise (Geen, 1984), and extraverted students are more likely to study in environments with more opportunities for stimulation (Campbell & Hawley, 1982). Similarly, extraverts performed better than introverts on a GRE-type test when stimulated with caffeine (Revelle, Amaral, & Turri, 1976; see also Eysenck, 1994). Interestingly, research has also provided a plausible biochemical explanation that connects extraversion and the sensory modulation to explain differences in how the external world is experienced (Rammsayer & Stahl, 2004; Stahl & Rammsayer, 2008). However, a recent study using advanced statistical procedures (structural equations modeling) refuted many of the findings (at least those based on EEG technology); suggesting that external factors have only minimal impact on EEG readings and are not significantly related to extraversion (Hagemann & Naumann, 2009). Thus, the findings in the literature remain somewhat mixed.

NeuroticismNeuroticism

Recall that neuroticism is essentially emotional instability, and neurotic individuals have been characterized as having nervous, negative, anxious, and self-pitying qualities (McCrae & John, 1992). Those scoring in the clinical range on neuroticism are also more likely to apply negative interpretations to ambiguous stimuli. For example, when selecting from pairs of homophones, highly neurotic individuals are more likely to choose the aversive option (e.g., "die" vs. "dye") as compared to their less-neurotic peers (Eysenck, MacLeod, & Matthews, 1987).

Eysenck (1967, 1990) hypothesized that neurotic individuals would show greater responsiveness in the limbic system relative to those who are more emotionally stable.

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 9 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch0…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Research findings on neuroticism indicate that those who score high on neuroticism are more likely to exhibit excitation of the autonomic nervous system, display behavior that is not as readily apparent in others, and have higher drive than normal (for a summary, see Eysenck, 1994). Eysenck (1967) has also suggested that variability in the responsiveness of the limbic system is most apparent in emotional situations, resulting in the individual responding neurotically to stress. However, recent empirical tests of Eysenck's hypothesis have been less favorable (e.g., Beattie & Corr, 2010).

Neuroticism has also been consistently associated with aversive emotional outcomes, such as the incidence of psychiatric diagnoses (Malouff et al., 2005; Saulsman & Page, 2004) and physical health problems and higher rates of mortality (Lahey, 2008). Even measures of skin conductance (Norris, Larsen, & Cacioppo, 2007) and fMRIs (Canli et 2004) show greater responsiveness in those high on neuroticism.

Years of empirical investigation have led researchers to conclude that there are implications for neuroticism in terms of behaviors in school and work-related settings. For example, neuroticism has been associated with poor time management, as neurotic individuals appear to have poorer study habits (Bond & Feather, 1988) and less adaptability academic settings (Martin, Neiad, Colmar, & Liem, 2013), as well as a higher incidence of negative life events while transitioning through the university setting (Lüdtke, Roberts, Trautwein, & Nagy, 2011). Researchers studying work-related behaviors and attitudes in over 400 employees in different work settings found that neuroticism was inversely related to presenteeism, and resulted in lower productivity (Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & Jackson, 2006). Neuroticism is also associated with poorer academic performance (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2008; O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007), though the association may be modest (McAbee & Oswald, 2013).

Because neurotic behavior has important clinical implications, Eysenck also wrote about methods for changing the behaviors associated with neuroticism. Even though neuroticism and the other personality factors were considered to be greatly affected by genetics (e.g., Pedersen, Plomin, McClearn, & Friberg, 1988) and shown to be stable (Costa & McCrae, 1990), Eysenck still believed that the traits could be modified through therapy. Specifically, Eysenck (1947, 1953, 1960a) believed that neurotic patterns are learned and that it is possible to uncondition them (i.e., either through counter-conditioning or extinction; see Chapter 5). He made extensive use of learning theory in his quest to understand and predict human personality dynamics. He thought that personality could be restructured according to the same learning principles on which it was based.

PsychoticismPsychoticism

As noted, Eysenck thought psychoticism was the factor most relevant for distinguishing between normal and non-normal manifestations of personality. It involves acting impulsively and with aggression and is related to contact with reality. Those scoring high on psychoticism are characterized as being cold, unemotional, antisocial, paranoid, and lacking in both empathy and insight (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976). Eysenck hypothesized that psychoticism lies on a continuum, with low psychoticism defining normal functioning, antisocial behavior defining intermediate psychoticism, and susceptibility to psychosis (e.g., schizophrenia) defining extreme psychosis (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976, p. 203). Thus, Eysenck believed that these diagnoses differed only in the degree to which they vary along the factor of psychoticism, rather than assuming that they were distinct entities. Moreover, research suggests that psychoticism has a significant genetic component (Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Gattaz, 1981; Lester, 1989); though the magnitude of the genetic contribution may vary depending on the specific items used from the psychoticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Heath & Martin, 1990).

SummarySummary of of Eysenck's Eysenck's Work Work

Overall, it appears that the data are mixed with respect to supporting Eysenck's views on personality. Eysenck presented a strong challenge to the field of psychotherapy and became a very controversial figure. For one thing, his review of the research led him to the conclusion that current methods of psychotherapy were ineffective—a conclusion that motivated the psychotherapy research movement to prove him wrong. His writings also seemed to support the belief that intelligence is largely inherited—a fact that led to his being accused of being a racist (Buchanan, 2010).

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 10 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Pinnacle Pictures/Photodisc/Thinkstock

Openness to new experience reflects a personality trait whereby individuals are not only interested in but actually enjoy trying novel and diverse experiences.

8.2 Convergence on the Big Five More recently, personality researchers have converged on a small set of personality factors that appear to be recoverable from a wide range of sources, including other measures that purport to assess a larger number of factors (e.g., 16PF®, MBTI®, etc.; Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993; Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987).

Collectively known as the Big Five (or Five Factor Model), this model represents a descriptive taxonomy of personality traits. Like previous factorial models, the Big Five provides a simplified framework for understanding personality and for describing situational and temporal consistency (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). The Big Five consists five factors or traits, usually labeled as extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (or its reverse, emotional stability), and openness to experience (or intellectance; Digman, 1990). Extraversion and neuroticism have already been discussed earlier in this chapter, leaving the remaining three factors to be discussed in the subsequent sections. These big five factors have been studied in a wide range of research and applied contexts, and as was the case with earlier reviewed research, the Big Five have been shown to relate to academic accomplishments (e.g., O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012; Trapmann, Hell, Hirn, & Schuler, 2007) as well as work-related outcomes and performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).

Openness to New Experience

Openness to new experience involves traits such as a sensitivity for aesthetics, imaginativeness, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity. This is often considered the personality version of creativity and thus is related to playfulness and a high tolerance for uncertainty (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, 2009). Research also suggests that openness is related to sexual behaviors and attitudes, as open individuals tend to have more liberal views about sex, have more sexual partners, a wider range of sexual experiences (McCrae, 1994), and greater satisfaction in their sex lives, at least for women (McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Thus, individuals scoring low on this factor are characterized as more traditional, conventional, dogmatic, and authoritarian in their thinking and attitudes (Butler, 2000). Those scoring low are also more conservative in their political views, less tolerant of diversity, and even more prejudicial in their attitudes (e.g., Sibley & Duckitt, 2000). Unlike some of the other big five factors, openness to new experience is not significantly related to mental health (Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005) or quality of life measures (Steel, Schmidt, & Schultz, 2008). Thus, despite clear differences in how people experience the world, in the end, these differences do not lead to appreciable differences in psychological wellbeing.

Agreeableness

The agreeableness factor primarily involves the trait of friendliness and captures the extent to which one is accommodating. Agreeableness involves traits such as trust, altruism, and modesty. In order to minimize conflict with others, agreeable individuals tend to conform with others, and they are more likely to compromise their beliefs and attitudes. In contrast, those scoring low on this factor show less empathy for others, and they are skeptical, suspicious, rude, and unfriendly (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1991; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997).

Given the nature of agreeableness, it holds the biggest implications for interpersonal relationships. For example, agreeable individuals are more likely to engage in prosocial (helping) behavior across a variety of situations, and even in the absence of external motives for helping—sometimes referred to as altruistic behavior (Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007; Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995). One reason agreeable individuals are interpersonally effective is that they appear to be prone to respond emotionally to the needs of others by detecting the emotional needs of others (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000).

In addition to manifesting favorable behaviors, emotions, and attitudes, agreeable individuals also minimize the expression of negative reactions and behaviors. Thus, agreeableness is associated with cooperativeness, whereas low agreeableness is associated with competitiveness and conflict (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Jensen- Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Some researchers have concluded that agreeable individuals value the relationships over other outcomes (Graziano et al., 1996). Not surprisingly, those low on agreeableness are characterized as hostile and aggressive, and these individuals are more likely to experience problems with mental health (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, 2008).

Despite the consistency of the Big Five, the one factor that may be inadequate is agreeableness. For example, researchers have suggested and found corroborative evidence for the fact that traits such as honesty and humility are not adequately captured by the agreeableness factor and merit consideration as an independent (sixth) factor (e.g., Ashton et al., 2004; Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000). Moreover, it also appears to be the case that the Big Five fail to adequately capture traits such as narcissism and psychopathy (i.e., these are more than simply low agreeableness). Thus, the single factor of agreeableness may be insufficient to capture this variability.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness captures traits such as diligence, organization, punctuality, scrupulousness, self-discipline, thoroughness, deliberation, and need for achievement (Costa & McCrae, 1991). It also includes such traits as perceived self-efficacy, rule consciousness, and internal locus of control (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Of the big five factors, conscientiousness is the one most closely tied to favorable outcomes in a number of domains. For example, conscientious individuals are more likely to be successful in school and in work settings relative to their less conscientious peers (Higgins, Peterson, Lee, & Pihl, 2007). This effect is driven largely by the fact that conscientiousness predicts hard work and effort in a variety of settings. That is, the predictive validity of conscientiousness is not setting or job-specific.

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 11 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Fuse/Thinkstock

Extraversion appears to be one of the big five factors with the highest level of heritability.

Personality Trait–The Big Five

Conscientiousness is also a positive predictor for physical and mental health. Specifically, highly conscientious individuals engage in more proactive health behavior (Roberts, Jackson, Favard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009) and have a longer lifespan. In fact, over 20 published studies have documented the association between conscientiousness and longevity (Kern & Friedman, 2008). In a recent study that attempted to establish a clear connection between the two variables, researchers prospectively studied over 700 individuals for a period of 40 years, ranging from childhood to adulthood (Hampson, Edmonds, Goldberg, Dubanoski, & Hillier, 2013). After measuring conscientiousness in childhood (mean age 10), researchers tracked the participants, who then had comprehensive medical exams in adulthood (mean age 51). Childhood conscientiousness was shown to predict objective measures of adult health, such as fasting blood sugar, body mass index, blood pressure, and the like (Hampson et al., 2013; see also Friedman, Kern, Hampson, & Duckworth, 2012).

Conscientiousness has also been related to measures of well-being and life satisfaction (Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008), and this factor predicts success in relationships as well, with conscientiousness linked to marital idealization (O'Rourke, Neufeld, Claxton, & Smith, 2010). Low conscientiousness is also more likely to result in such problematic behavior and outcomes as homelessness, drug use, imprisonment, and unemployment (Roberts et al., 2009).

Big Five in Cultural Context

The bulk of the research on the Big Five (and any trait or other factor) comes from standardized self-report measures (e.g., Goldberg, 1981). However, the five factors appear emerge even when the data are collected from other sources, such as peer ratings and spousal ratings (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1990), and even when the peer raters may be less familiar with the person they are rating (e.g., Passini & Norman, 1966).

Despite some methodological discrepancies, it is reasonable to conclude that the Big Five are generally replicable, with only a limited number of exceptions, such as when descriptive words do not have equivalent translations in other languages (e.g., Benet-Martinez & Oishi, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2008). Indeed, in one of the larger analyses that covered seven European and Asian languages, researchers were able to extract all of the big five factors, though they suggested that agreeableness was better defined as two separate factors (honesty and humility) (Ashton et al., 2004).

Heritability of the Big Five

Research supports the conclusion that the big five factors are highly heritable (e.g., Bergeman et al., 1993; Bouchard & McGue, 2003; Yamagata et al., 2006), and this appears especially true for facet scores (Jang, Livesley, Angleitner, Riemann, & Vernon, 2002; Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998).

It is also important to note that when considering the heritability of the Big Five, the answer does not appear to be the same for all five factors. Specifically, it appears that extraversion and neuroticism (sometimes referred to as the "big two") have significantly higher heritability coefficients relative to the other three. Of course, analyses of the genetic influence on the Big Five also clearly indicate that considerable variability is predicted by environmental influences as well (Plomin, 1989). See Chapter 4 for more detailed coverage of the biology and

genetics of personality.

The Big Five Over the Lifespan

From a theoretical standpoint, it is hypothesized that scores on the Big Five (personality) should be stable because genetics (which are stable) contribute significantly to personality and because there will likely be some increasing stability as a function of individuals being able to exercise choice over their environments (e.g., Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Caspi and colleagues have termed this a cumulative continuity hypothesis, whereby individuals choose environments that are consistent with their personalities (something that they can do more easily as they move out of childhood), and these environments essentially reinforce their personalities (resulting in greater stability). Thus, an extraverted individual would be more likely to select environments that allow for social interactions and, in turn, foster further extraverted behavior. This hypothesis allows for the interaction of genetic and environmental factors to promote personality stability (see also Kandler et al., 2010).

Several meta-analyses (a statistical method for summarizing the effects observed over many different studies) have not only found general stability, but, consistent with the cumulative continuity hypotheses, have shown that stability typically increases from childhood to adulthood (Ferguson, 2010; Roberts & Delvecchio, 2000).

One of the more impressive studies examining personality stability involved the collection of cross-sectional data from over 1.25 million individuals from around the world, aged 10 to 65 (Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011). The authors were able to arrive at several conclusions, including the fact that during adolescence and childhood, the most pronounced changes occur and gender differences begin to emerge (Soto et al., 2011). The data also indicate that neuroticism increases for females as they move from late childhood to adolescence, whereas this trend does not occur for males. Openness to new experience decreases into adolescence, then increases into the college years. Thus, these findings again support the fact that personality stability is greatest in later adulthood.

As suggested by the above-mentioned study, the question of stability for the big five factors across the lifespan may

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 12 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. What is the most popular model for assessing and conceptualizing personality traits?

2. What is the acronym used to capture the five personality traits that are most commonly discussed?

also depend, to some extent, on which of them is being considered. In a 40-year longitudinal study of almost 800 individuals (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006), the highest stability across the lifespan emerged for extraversion and conscientiousness, with lower stability for openness to new experience, agreeableness, and neuroticism, in that order (Hampson & Goldberg, 2006).

One final issue to consider is whether the stability coefficients tend to show any further change when considering later life. Two recently published studies suggest that although personality stability increases from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, there may be a trend toward less stability at the last stages in life (see Ardelt, 2000). For example, a recent German study that examined rank-order stability beyond age 60 found that peak stability emerged in adulthood, but then decreased with age thereafter (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011). Similarly, a large-scale study examining over 13,000 Australians found a U-shaped function over the lifespan, with the highest stability occurring in middle age and relatively lower values in adolescence and later life (Wortman, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012).

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 13 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

MokeyBusiness Images/iStockphoto/Thinkstock

If this were a first date, it is not likely that these individuals would learn much about each others' personalities. Instead, their behaviors would be driven by the strong situational script of a first date. However, if this were a tenth date, their personalities would likely be much more evident.

8.3 The Person-Situation Debate If someone wanted to know how you would behave at a party, would it be better to know the context of the party you were to be attending or to know something about you?

The stability of personality across situations was a widely accepted assumption when trait research first became popular. However, researchers began to question this assumption, championing instead the situation, and this culminated in Walter Mischel's 1968 book, Personality and Assessment, in which he critiqued the trait approach on two grounds:

1. Traits were limited in their predictive utility.

2. Traits were simply descriptors, not explanatory accounts.

The first criticism was drawn in large part from Mischel's own data examining the cross-situational consistency of children (Mischel, 1968). Mischel concluded that traits can only predict approximately 9% of the variance in behavior (which corresponds to correlations of .30), and he considered this to be a small amount of explained variability in behavior. Mischel concluded that the poor predictive power of traits highlights the fact that the situation is a critical element in predicting how the person will act. Mischel's view was that psychologists should not consider the situation as error variance (i.e., "noise") when examining traits (this reflected the common practice of trait researchers at that time). Instead, his approach involved considering the situation or context as a relevant variable, equally, if not more, important than the trait. Mischel argued that more robust consistency would be observed within specific situational contexts (e.g., Mischel, 2004).

Mischel's second critique was perhaps more damaging, in that he correctly noted that much of the trait research occurring was theoretical in nature (Mischel, 1968). That is, to conclude that a particular set of behaviors occurs simply because a person is extraverted or neurotic provides no explanation or theory; rather, it merely labels the behavior. In fact, the end result is a tautology: Why is John behaving in an outgoing and gregarious manner? Because he is extraverted. Why is he extraverted? Because he engages in outgoing and gregarious acts.

These criticisms had a significant impact on the field, and for a short period of time, trait research retreated to the shadows. Of course, trait researchers eventually responded to Mischel's critiques, especially the first point, and, as we just saw, research on traits continues today. But Mischel's criticisms played a key role in advancing the field.

Responses to Mischel's Critique of Trait Psychology

After Mischel voiced his objections to trait research, new measures for assessing personality emerged that helped to improve predictive validity. Also, alternative statistical and methodological procedures were developed to help address these criticisms. Moreover, researchers countered with a number of sophisticated points targeting Mischel's critique, and focused on such issues as Mischel's omission of better personality studies, where the predictive validity of behavior exceeded .30 (e.g., Block, 1977). Researchers also highlighted Mischel's tendency to predict very specific behaviors using traits, rather than predicting aggregated behavior (Epstein & O'Brien, 1985). This latter point is important and worth elaborating.

Imagine a study in which you objectively measure someone's behavior in three distinct situational contexts (e.g., a student's socialization behavior at home with her family, in classroom, and with her friends while at a party). The researcher then measures the individual's tendency to socialize and interact with others (e.g., assessing extraversion). The researcher then attempts to predict the individual's behavior in one of the three settings (e.g., in the classroom) by using his or her extraversion score. The likely conclusion is that knowing how people typically behave in the classroom (i.e., the situational information) will provide the best predictor for behaviors in that setting. On the surface, this would seem to support the situational perspective. In contrast, if the goal were to predict how the individual would behave on average (i.e., typically over time and over different situations), then the personality trait would be the optimal predictor. The counterviews to Mischel and others are nicely summarized by Kenrick & Funder (1988), as they systematically address and debunk a series of conclusions that would otherwise prove problematic to trait researchers.

Understanding Situational Strength, Domain Breadth, and Trait Relevance

Some situations influence an individual's behavior more than others, and this has been referred to as situational strength (Mischel, 2004). For example, some situations have strong situational scripts, where the cues in the environment strongly and clearly dictate how one should act in that setting. The situational script is a form of psychological pressure on the individual to engage in or refrain from particular behaviors. As an example, consider the situational script for riding in an elevator. Individuals enter, push the button for the desired floor, then stand facing forward and looking at the lights that indicate the current floor. Even the distance at which you stand apart from others is quite prescribed. In all likelihood, a flaming extravert and the most reclusive introvert would behave similarly in this setting because of the strength of the situational script. Thus, the influence of personality is significantly reduced in this setting.

In contrast, when the situational script is weak or largely absent, then personality factors should play a more significant role in predicting behaviors. To illustrate the contrast between strong and weak situational scripts, consider the example of dating behavior. A first date would have a relatively strong situational script, and the observed behavior is, for the most part, going reflect conservative, cautious, even superficial, but perhaps highly friendly behavior. Again, observing first-date behavior will tell us less about the person. In contrast, a tenth

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 14 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

date has a much weaker (more ambiguous) situational script, as there are fewer expectations for what should or should not occur. As a result, we are likely to see behaviors that are more directly influenced by the individual's personality.

It is also the case that more specific traits can predict best in specific situations. For example, work LOC was a better predictor of outcomes in the work setting relative to broader non-specific LOC beliefs (Wang et al., 2010), and the same was true for health-specific LOC and health outcomes (Johansson et al., 2001). Higher predictive validity traits that are domain-specific also bridges the gap in the person-situation debate by identifying the specific situational contexts where traits predict best.

Finally, the person-situation debate can also be addressed by considering the relevance of a trait to the individual (e.g., Bem & Allen, 1974). The argument is that when individuals demonstrate greater cross-situation consistency, it is because their behaviors are being governed by traits with greater personal relevance (see Kenrick, McCreath, Govern, King, & Bordin, 1990; Zuckerman et al., 1988).

The Role of the Fundamental Attribution Error

Imagine that you find yourself looking for a parking space on campus on a rainy day. There are long creeping lines of cars searching for spots because, it seems, everyone decided to drive today. Fortunately, you come across a spot—but you may not have been the first one to notice it and signal for it. Nevertheless, you pull into the spot. As you head off to class, other drivers, who are obviously upset with your having taken the spot out of turn, honk their horns at you (and you can imagine what they are thinking). It's likely the case that you do not consider yourself a "bad" person; instead you emphasize the situation that resulted in that behavior (e.g., "I don't normally do that"). Perhaps you even question the legitimacy of the complaining behavior by the other drivers. Now what if you were on the receiving end of this violation of parking etiquette? As you honk your horn at the offending party, you are likely to think quite negatively about the person's character—instead of thinking that the person was in an urgent rush, or being absent- minded, or perhaps is now even regretful of the decision he just made.

This situation illustrates an interesting phenomenon in the psychological literature. When we attempt to explain our own behavior, there is a tendency to emphasize the influence of situational factors. However, when explaining the behaviors of others, the emphasis tends to be on the influence of traits. This is known as the fundamental attribution error (see Jones & Harris, 1967), and it is relevant in research on traits because it reveals how self-evaluations and evaluations by others can vary, not just due to error, but because of real and predictable differences in perspective. This concept from social psychology highlights the value of collecting data using multiple sources. Thus, who is assessing traits could affect the determination of whether the situation or the person is emphasized.

Summary of Person-Situation Debate

Most personality researchers have now concluded that both the person and the situation contribute to behavior. Specifically, situational variables are more effective when it comes to predicting behavior in specific situations, especially when dealing with settings that have strong situational scripts and traits that are low in relevance to the individual. In contrast, when predicting an aggregate of behavior, especially in settings with weak situational scripts and when dealing with highly relevant traits, traits should predict quite well. This reflects the interaction between traits (the person) and the situation.

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 15 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Design Pics/Thinkstock

Are these individuals driven by a need to perform well or to learn? If it's the former, then grades will be paramount. If it's the latter, then grades become secondary to the process of learning.

8.4 Supplementing the Big Five With Complementary Approaches In addition to the improvement of personality measures and the research regarding the person-situation debate, additional lines of research have emerged as complementary responses that have broadened the scope of how personality can be construed. Two such approaches are briefly reviewed here.

Projects, Life Tasks, Concerns, Strivings, and Goals: An Idiographic Approach

This chapter has largely focused on the nomothetic approach to personality, meaning the identification of discussion of the traits that are common to everyone (e.g., the Big Five). The perspective to be presented here suggests that to fully understand the individual, one must also consider an idiographic approach, which focuses on what is unique the individual. This approach adopts a broader perspective, as the need to identify what is unique involves capturing the contributions of traits, the demands of the situation, and even the motives of the individual. One approach for capturing personality from this broad perspective (sometimes referred to as a grand systems perspective), is to focus on units of analysis that at their center assess motivation within the context of life (e.g., McAdams, 1997).

Beginning in the 1970s, and then more prominently in the 1980s, researchers began to develop a series of measures that tap into people's idiosyncratic manifestations of (motivated) behavior; in other words, personal goal pursuit emerged as a new approach for understanding personality. Also referred to as personal action units (Little, Lecci, & Wakinson, 1992), they include the constructs of current concerns (Klinger, 1977, 1989), personal projects (Little, 1983, 1989), life tasks (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987), personal strivings (Emmons, 1986), and personal goals (Karoly & Ruehlman, 1995; see Buss & Cantor, 1989, for a review of these constructs; see also Little, Salmela-Aro, & Phillips, 2007). These units represent intentional actions in the context of our lives and provide a distinct perspective for understanding personality and interpersonal processes. Personal projects are extended sets of personally meaningful behavior, and they range from the simplest of daily activities (e.g., "read Chapter 8") to the monumental endeavors of a lifetime (e.g., "find the 'meaning of my life'") (Little, 1989). The theory is that how people undertake the challenges of life, how traits manifest in daily living, and how broad motivations (e.g., achievement, autonomy, etc.) uniquely play out in the individual is a reflection of their personality.

One of the primary reasons for the popularity of the goal perspective is that it addresses the full range of disciplines that have been explored in personality science, including neuroscience, genetics, evolution, social psychology, and even more traditional influences, such as the trait approach (e.g., Little, 2005). Idiographic goals provide a conceptual tool that allows for each of these factors to converge on the individual and be represented in a single construct (Little, 2005, 2006).

From a theoretical standpoint, personality traits and personal action units have respectively been equated with the "havings" and "doings" of personality (Cantor, 1990). According to Cantor, if traits represent what we have to work with (e.g., biological predispositions reflected in basic trait terms), then personal goals represent what we do with what we have. Traits tap what is largely stable, whereas personal goal methodology can reflect what is changeable (Cantor, 1990).

Numerous studies have been conducted to demonstrate the breath of outcomes that can be predicted using the "doing" side of personality, and they are similar to those predicted by traits. For example, personal goal constructs can predict academic adjustment (Little, Lecci, & Watkins, 1992), life satisfaction (e.g., Palys & Little, 1983), meaning in life (e.g., McGregor & Little, 1998), as well as subjective well-being (e.g., Omodei & Wearing, 1990), physical symptoms (King & Emmons, 1990), pain (Karoly & Ruehlman, 1996), health fears (Karoly & Lecci, 1993; Lecci, Karoly, Ruehlman, & Lanyon, 1996), and even depression (Lecci, Karoly, Briggs, & Kuhn, 1994).

Researchers have also examined different types of goals and how they relate to academic performance. For example, Dweck and colleagues differentiate performance goals (where the focus is impression management or how you appear to others) from learning goals (where your focus is on accumulation of information to improve the quality of your work) (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Olson & Dweck, 2008). Experimental research on students in which either performance or learning goals were induced indicates that performance goals are more likely to lead to anxiety when undertaking a difficult task (see Elliot & Dweck, 1988). This is important experimental work, as it establishes a pathway whereby trait behavior could result in specific goals, and specific goals can reinforce and strengthen specific traits. For example, highly stressful goals with a low probability of working out are more likely to be evidenced by the student high in neuroticism and low in conscientiousness (see Little et al., 1992).

Researchers have also differentiated approach goals and avoidance goals; the former denotes goals that are desirable outcomes to move toward, whereas the latter denotes goals of avoiding undesirable outcomes (Elliot, 2006). As an example, consider a batter who steps to the plate in the bottom of the ninth inning with two out: "Don't strike out" would be considered an avoidance goal, whereas "Get a hit" would be an example of an approach goal. This may even result in subtle differences in behavior (e.g., swinging defensively versus swinging assertively) and ultimate success. Importantly, however, how goals are formulated predicts both psychological and physical well-being, with avoidance goals being more deleterious (Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997; Elliot & Sheldon, 1998). Not surprisingly, research shows that approach goals are associated with extraversion, whereas avoidance goals are associated with neuroticism (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).

Goals have also been differentiated with respect to their authenticity, such that a goal that is highly consistent with one's core values and sense of self is considered authentic, and this, in turn, results in higher psychological well-being (McGregor & Little, 1998; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Iardi, 1997) and is positively correlated with openness to new experience (Little et al., 1992).

9/6/20, 8)49 PMPrint

Page 16 of 21https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPSY330.12.2?sections=ch08,ch…ntent&clientToken=23e8e70d-98b2-694d-592b-c4bd9c8f1ff0&np=sec1.1

Beyond the Text: Classic Writings

In this engaging piece, Brian Little (2010) describes how traits and personal projects (goals) interact to reflect the complexities of our lives (including when we seem to act out of character). Read it at www.brianrlittle.com/articles/ acting-out-of-character-in-the-immortal-profession- toward-a-free-trait-agreement/#more-484 (http://www.brianrlittle.com/articles/acting-out-of-character-in-

the-immortal-profession-toward-a-free-trait-agreement/#more-