Personality psychology chapter4 the trait perspective

– Represent quantitative differences in people – Individual differences reflect differences in amount of a trait... Views of Traits• Nomothetic – From the Greek meaning ‘law’ – Sees tra

Chapter Four

The Trait Perspective

Themes of Dispositional Approach

• Continuity in thoughts, feelings, behaviors

• Focus on individual differences, rather than intrapersonal processes

– Represent quantitative

differences in people – Individual differences reflect differences in amount of a trait

Views of Traits

• Nomothetic

– From the Greek meaning ‘law’

– Sees traits as universal

– Comparison among individuals is possible

– Individuality reflected in unique combinations of traits

• Idiographic

– Sees traits as idiosyncratic, not universal

– Not all traits are shared

– Traits may differ in connotation and importance among people

What Traits Matter?

• Key issues:

– How many basic traits are there?

– Which ones are they?

– Essentially, how to define and organize the many ways we describe personality?

Factor Analysis

Statistical technique for decomposing large numbers

of intercorrelations into basic underlying dimensions

• Patterns of commonality (covariance) between descriptors indicate underlying traits

• Results of factor analysis can shed light on the structure of personality

• Caveat: What you get out of a factor analysis depends on what you put into it

Steps in a Factor Analysis

• Collect measurements on many variables

– Self-reports

– Observations

• Collect data from many people

• Compute correlations between all pairs of variables

• Extract factors

• Label factors based on factor loadings

How to Decide the Nature of

Personality

• Empirical Approach

– Demonstrated by Raymond Cattell

– Language has evolved to describe the basic qualities of human nature

– Factor analyzed 171 trait names

– Resulted in 16 primary factors of personality

• Theoretical Approach

– Demonstrated by Hans Eysenck

– Conceptually identified 3 types or “supertraits”

• Introversion—Extraversion

• Emotionality—Stability

• Psychoticism (least studied)

– Many individual difference variables can be explained

in the cross between extraversion and emotionality

– Types can be further broken down into component traits

How to Decide the Nature of

Personality

Another Theoretical Approach

Interpersonal Circle

• Assumes that core traits derive from those that

concern interpersonal functioning

• Two core traits

– Dominance (Dominant Submissive)

– Love (Cold-hearted Warm-agreeable)

• Like Eysenck’s view, individual differences

arise from combinations of the two dimensions

The Big Five

• Growing evolution of evidence suggests there are five basic superordinate traits

• Disagreement about the exact nature of the 5 traits

– Why?

• Factor analysis is used to identify factors

• Labeling of factors is subjective

• Results depend heavily on the items you start with

Factor One

• EXTRAVERSION (Sociability)

– Other labels: Social adaptability; Assertiveness; Energy

– Relevant life domain: Power

– Reflected through behavioral and affective

channels

– Common adjectives:

Factor Two

• AGREEABLENESS

– Other labels: Conformity; Friendly Compliance; Likeability

– Relevant life domain: Love

– Reflected through behavioral, affective, and

cognitive channels

– Common adjectives:

• Friendly • Considerate • Spiteful (-)

• Cautious • Planful • Frivolous (-)

• Serious • Careless (-) • Hard-working

Factor Four

• EMOTIONALITY (Neuroticism)

– Other labels: Emotional Control; Emotional Lability

– Relevant life domain: Affect

– Reflected through affective channels

– Common adjectives:

• Nervous • Anxious • Calm (-)

• Excitable • Composed (-) • High-strung

Factor Five

• INTELLECT

– Other labels: Culture; Inquiring Intellect;

Openness to Experience

– Relevant life domain: Intellect

– Reflected mostly through cognitive channels with some affect and behavior input

– Common adjectives:

• Imaginative • Creative • Unreflective (-)

Additional Considerations

of Big Five

• Are all traits included?

– What about evaluative words (e.g., good, bad, excellent, evil)

• What is the best level of specificity?

– Higher-order factors (socialization and

personal growth)

– Lower-order facets are more predictive of

many socially significant behaviors

Is Behavior Really Trait Like?

• Some say “No”

– Behavior across contexts tends to vary

– Low association between trait self-reports and behavior – Walter Mischel’s personality coefficient (r ≈ 30)

• Why low correlations?

– Faulty trait self-reports of personality

– Faulty measurement of behavior

Responses to Low Associations

SITUATIONISM

• Assumption:

– Situations really drive behavior

– Differences in personality are irrelevant

• Data don’t support this position

Responses to Low Associations

Personality’s Influence on

Situations

• Personality influences the situations people choose to enter (e.g., church, scuba diving, work, marriage partners)

• People evoke different responses from others

Result:

Personality can influence situations such that the situation is actually different

Personality Coefficient Revisited

• When analysis is restricted to examination of

carefully conducted studies, coefficient is

New View of Traits

• Personality is linked to behavior only when

in a situation that brings it out.

• Patterns of linkages between situations

and actions vary among people

– Represent individuality, uniqueness

– Differences represent idiographic differences

in trait expression

• Represents an important focus of the trait perspective.

• Mostly self-report in nature

• Frequently evaluate multiple indicators

Disorders of Personality

• From the Big 5 perspective

– Generally indicate patterns of behavior that:

• Deviate from cultural norms or expectations

• Interfere or disrupt person’s life

• Interfere or disrupt the lives of others

• Are thought of as extreme manifestations of Big 5

• From the interactionism perspective

– Traits represent vulnerabilities

– Disorder relies on a combination of vulnerability and a catalytic situation (diathesis-stress)