Trait

Trait concept

• Personality trait: consistent patterns in how indiv behave, feel, think

• 2 connotations: consistency (person predisposed to act certain way) & distinctiveness (how ppl differ)

• Trait theorists interested in traits where sig diff for ppl

View of science of personality

• Alot interest in measurement (rej speculation)

Scientific fn of trait constructs

Perspectives (assumptions) shared by all theorists

1. Ppl possess broad predispositions/ traits, to respond in particular ways

   1. Relatedly: Assume direct correspondence between person's performance of trait-related actions & their possession of corresponding trait

      • Eg someone acting more calm possess more of the 'calm' characteristic

      • Contrasts with psychoanalysis: may be so anxious that repressing anxiety and acting calm

1. Human beh & personality organized into hierarchy

Gordon W. Allport (1897 - 1967)

• Highlighted the healthy & organized aspects of human beh

  • Contrasted with other theories (psychoanalysis) that emphasize animalistic, neurotic, tension-reducing & mechanistic aspects of beh

• Believed that traits are basic units of personality

  • Traits exist & based in nervous functioning of a person across situations & over time

• Traits: generalized personality dispositions that account for regularities in nervous system

• Defined by

  • Frequency, intensity, range of situations

Personality structure

• Chaplin, John, Goldberg (1988) replicated it into : traits, states, activities

• Trait is not expressed in all situations (trait + situation concepts impt)

  • Trait: explain consistency

  • Situation: explain variability of beh

Functional autonomy (of human motives - motivational process)

Idiographic research

• Emphasize on uniqueness of indiv

Comment on Allport

• Limited empirical contributions

  • Clarified trait concept BUT little research to establish utility

    • Believed that many traits hereditary BUT no research on genetic basis

    • X detailed processing can explain how ppl display distinctive patterns of trait-related beh & interact w situation

  • Idiographic emphasis partly backfired

    • Some felt its antiscientific -> conflicted with science's search for general laws

Identifying primary trait dimensions: Factor analysis

• Key insight: some traits tend to co-occur

• Statistical method for identifying patterns in this mass of corr -> ideally identify a small # of factors that summarize intercorrelations among large # of variables

• Identifies patterns of covariation in test responses NOT why covary

Raymond B Cattel (1905-1998)

• Provided 2 conceptual distinctions

  • Differentiated surface traits (superficial level) from source traits (internal psych structures that’s source of observed intercorr among surface traits)

  • Method (Allport 4500 -> 171 adjectives)

    1. Examined patterns of intercorr among large # -> 40 surface traits

    2. Factor analysis -> 16 source traits

       • Grouped into 3 categories that captured the major stable elements of personality

         • Ability, temperament, dynamic traits (motivation)

         • Subsumed under 5 second-order global factors: Extraversion, Anxiety, Tough-mindedness, Independence, Self-control

• 4 step research

  1. Define personality structure using L, Q, OT-data

1. Started with L-data + factor analysis -> 15 source traits

2. Then developed the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 P.F.) [12 traits from L-data, 4 unique ones from Q-data]

3. Used these results to guide research in dev of objective tests, found 21 source traits in OT-data that’s complex & low-level relation to traits in other data

• Evidence for existence of these traits

  1. Results of FA of diff kinds of data

  2. Similar results across cultures

  3. Similar results across age grps

  4. Utility in prediction of beh in natural env

  5. Evidence of sig genetic contribution to many traits

• Stability & variability in beh

  • Influenced by state (emotion & mood at particular time) & role (style of self-presentation in given situation; eg tcher)

• Comment

  • Troublesome in practical applications: 16 is too many factors

  • Basing theory on measurement is risky because the system may not detect impt qualities

  • Huge limitation: Overlook psychological attributes like life story

Hans J. Eysenck (1916-1997)
 

• Also criticized psychoanalysis shortcoming of providing precise, reliable measures of their psych constructs

• Emphasized biological foundations to break out of conceptual circles

  • Using a word (sociable) to describe a pattern of beh & use same to explain existence of beh described

    • "She's sociable because she has the trait of sociability"

• "Superfactors"

  • Identify independent factors: Conducted secondary FA to analyze the intercorrelations among Cattell's 16 factors

  • Name because trait dimensions at highest level

  • Readily apparent variations : 1. Introversion-Extraversion, 2. Neuroticism then extreme 3. Psychoticism

• Measuring the factors

  • Questionnaire measures (eg Eysenck Personality Questionnaire) contained simple self-report items

  • A test to differentiate extraverts from introverts: Eysenck 'lemon drop test'

    • A standard amt of lemon juice placed on subject's tongue -> I & E produce diff saliva amt

• Biological Bases of personality traits

  • Need separate biological model for each 3 superfactor traits, since statistically independent

    • Extraversion: Most successful trait for Eysenck theorizing abt underlying biology

      •  

        	Extraverts	Introverts	Supported by
        Arousal	Less	More (Begin)
        Tolerance to increased arousal	More	Less	Response to a tone Intro response occurs more rapidly and larger Recorded by electrodes placed over the auditory cortex of an introverted & extraverted subj
        Inhibited beh	Less	More

      • I more influenced by punishments in learning; E more influenced by rewards

      • ***Indiv diff in I-E shd be at least partly hereditary

        • Bio basis don’t imply trait entirely hereditary, cause one's experiences during child dev influence one's bio makeup

      • Additional support for his biological theorizing

        • I-E dimension is found cross-culturally

        • Indiv diff stable overtime

        • Various indices of bio functioning (eg heart rate)

    • Neuroticism

      • Key neural systems:

        • limbic system - emotional arousal (lower-level brain region)

        • Autonomic nervous system - influence bodily arousal (eg heart rate), when then regulated by limbic system

        • *** Just remember Reticular Activating System (RAS) -> general arousal , tuned diff for I E

      • Predicted that indiv high N, ANS respond quicker to stress and activity dissipate slower

      • Not consistently supported

• Psychoticism

  • Suggested genetic association (aggressiveness higher in men)

  • High P -> high dopamine-based neural activity (linked to schizo)

• IE & Social behavior

Psychopathology & beh change

• Type of symptoms experienced relate to basic personality traits & nervous system functioning associated with traits

• Person develops neurotic symptoms cause of joint action of biological system & env experiences that contribute to learning of strong emo rxn to fear-producing stimuli

• Despite genetic component of personality traits & disorders, Eysenck was optimistic abt treatment -> advocated behavior therapy

Evaluation

-----------------------------------------------

 Rationale for this Big Five approach:

• Goldberg - Fundamental lexical hypothesis: humans found some indv diff particularly impt in their interactions and developed terms for easy ref

  • Counterexample: indiv differ in degree to which they need variety in their lives/ tolerate ambiguity when making decisions

  • No single term in Eng lang that corresponds to these qualities

• Emphasis on universal terms for describing impt indiv diff ties trait theory to evolutionary model

Questionnaire

• NEO-Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R)

  • Costa & McCrae add NEO first, then A & C to conform Big5

  • Differentiated into facets: more specific components make up each of broad Big Five factors

  • Good reliability & validity

• Disagreements between researchers

  • Warmth facet: Costa & McCrae (Extraversion), Others (Agreeableness)

  • Particularly on openness, Goldberg (intellectual & creative cognition) <- McCrae criticised too narrow

Integration of Eysenck's & Cattell's factors within Big 5

• Eysenck

  • Superfactors Extraversion & Neuroticism virtually identical to those  in big 5

  • Superfactor Psychoticism- combi of low agreeableness & low conscientiousness

• Cattell

  • Scales: outgoing, assertive, and venturesome link with NEO-PI-R extraversion

• Indiv diff identified in Murray's motivational model of personality can be understood within big 5 system of traits

Self-ratings & observer ratings

• 3 major findings from self-report & observer-report data

• How observer & self-ratings differ

  • Less visible traits (Neuroticism)

  • Social desirability bias

  • Ppl see themselves as higher in Neuroticism & lower in Conscientiousness than others believe

Growth and Development

Age diff throughout adulthood

• Support for stability: corr between measures form one time to another remain sig

• Contradict that traits entirely inherited & unaffected by social experiences 

  • Older adults: Lower (N+E+O), Higher (A+C) than adolescents

  • These age trends are consistent across cultures (age diff reflect intrinsic maturation)

  • Studies

    • Californian Women (Ravenna Helson & colleagues)-> Scores on norm-oriented measures increased w age but on social vitality decreased

    • Changes in Adulthood (Srivastava, John, Gosling, Potter) -> Sig age-linked changes in most big5 traits for both genders

      • Eg self-ratings on agreeableness increased sig for both between 31-50yo (possibly cause raising children- nurturing experiences)

Stability & change in personality

• Different view points

  1. Personality dev largely bio determined & continuous

  2. Evidence of trait consistency insufficient to conclude change X occur

  3. Altho general trait structure & levels remain stable, evidence theres changes in indiv trait levels

• Data suggests these

  1. Personality more stable over short time periods

  2. ' ' in adulthood

  3. Altho evidence of general trait stability, Indiv differences in stability during dev

  4. ' ', limits of env influence on change, during childhood & adulthood, remain to be determined

  5. Some stability reasons are genetic/ env (in terms of env that confirm alr existing personality traits)

Applications of Big 5 model

• Predict career pathway & how ppl fn in these occupations

• Application areas

  • Subjective well-being: high score on this associated with high +ve & low -ve emotion

  • Health: More conscientious indiv live longer

    • Hampson & colleagues- longitudinal study of children - those differ in self-reports of health-related behaviours when studied 40y later

• Clinical diagnosis & treatment

  • Pattern of scores

    • Compulsive personality: extremely high C + N

    • Antisocial personality: extremely low A + C

  • Choosing & planning psychological treatments

    • Therapist better position to anticipate prob & plan treatment course

  • Guidance in selecting optimal form of therapy

    • High O indiv profit more from therapies that encourage exploration & fantasy

      • Eg psychoanalysis dreams/ emphasis on self-actualisation in humanistic-existential approach

  • Criticism

    • Offers little unique insight into causal dynamics underlying psychopathology

      • DID NOT generate unique therapeutic methods for helping ppl to change maladaptive psych qualities

Five-Factor Theory

• Many trait psychologists view big5 as descriptive but McCrae & Costa call it five-factor theory

• Claims that each traits is seen as a psychological structure that every person has in varying amounts

  • Basic dispositional tendencies possessed universally by all individuals

• McCrae & Costa (2013) propose factors have biological basis

  • Its so strong that the ' ' tendencies arent directly influenced by env

• Culture is viewed as influencing trait expression not basic trait structure

• Unique claims

  1. External influences no influence on indiv personality trait

  2. Traits are not merely descriptions of indiv diff but also causal structure

• Problems

  1. Linking personality structures to other personality processes

     • McCrae & Costa - view this as to be filled in by other theoretical approaches

     • Causal mechanisms (biological & psychological) associated with traits are unknown

  2. Traits not affected by social factors

     • Contradicted by research

       • Personality trait scores changed across historical periods:

         • Twenge (2002) -due to  cultural changes across periods of 20th century

         • ^ also found that anx increased sig (1950-1960)

       • Personality change due to clinical interventions

         • Roberts & colleagues- substantially changes traits N & E

  3. Not necessarily true that everyone in population possess each five factors

     • Because rely on statistical analysis of WHOLE popn not indiv

• Solution: conduct FA on each indiv and see if can recover five-factor model everytime

Six-Factor Model

• Data sets compiled by international research team

• OCEAN + H (honesty/humility)

• Q: Do ppl similar on big 5 score diff on sixth trait; A: yes

• New development

• Additional unrepresented factors

  • De Raad (2006) noted almost all big 5 model research studied adjectives but studying nouns & verbs might convey more info -> revealed 8 factors (including competence) not identified clearly in big 5/6 model  

Cross-cultural research

• Huge issue is translation (english -> other languages)

  • May lack one-to-one translations, and even words that translate the same don't necessarily mean same thing (eg German 'aggressive' is hostile not forceful)

  • Hofstede & colleagues (1997)

    • Identified 126 words to translate directly across prev lexical studies in Eng, Dutch, & German , then compare meanings of factors in 3 languages

    • Results: Considerable congruence across 3 related lang but EXCEPT openness (German & English v similar, but Dutch included both the expected traits related to intellect & emphasised those related to unconventionality & rebelliousness)

    • A similar variant of openness was found in Italian & Hungarian trait studies

• Evidence that McCrae & Costa (2013) gave is, using translations of BFI resulted in same 5 factors w great regularity

  • LIMITATION

    • Translation process may impose certain psych factors onto respondents in another culture, where the factor don’t arise spontaneously

      • Eg ppl in a given culture don’t rly think about Openness

  • Hence need alternative research strategy

    • Instead of english -> lang, do lang -> english (personality descriptions taken from native lang)

    • Eg Di Blas & Forzi (1999) selected items directly from Italian indigenous lang then asked ppl to rate and FA

      • Not all 5 factors replicated consistently

      • E A C more replicable, N not found in Italian lang (maybe cause of cultural var in perceptions of -ve emotions in diff interpersonal settings)

    • De Raad & Peabody (2005) examined trait across 11 lang (E A C) lingually recurrent

• Personality factors may exist that are unique to particular cultures

  • Eg "Chinese tradition" factor (could reflect other indiv diff like attitudes & beliefs)

• Studies showing substantial cultural variation in personality structure

  • 3 examples

• Summary

Contemporary Developments in Trait Theory: Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Limitations of Classic Trait Theories

Personality Theory & the classic Trait strategy

• The conceptual status of statistical factors

Risk of top-down approach

RST alternative strategy :Bottom-up trait theory

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Implications for classic trait theory

The Person-Situation Controversy

• Walter Mischel -> Ppl behavior often varies/ is inconsistent from 1 situation to another

  • Reflects a basic human capability: To discriminate between diff situations & vary one's actions according to diff opportunities, constraints, rules, and norms present in diff circumstances

• In considering consistency of traits -> Longitudinal stability & cross-situational consistency

• Studies that support high LS but low CSC

• Trait questionnaires only ask abt general tendencies to display trait NOT how variable behaviour is

  • Possible enormous variability around average

  • Study by Fleeson (2001)

• Results: Levels of variability close to max extreme possible -> Ppl differ in avg beh level

• CONCLUDE: Evidence of Trait consistency WITHIN situational domains than ACROSS domains

• Evidence for both cross-situational consistency & variability

Pros and Cons of Trait Approach

Pros:

/

• Consistency: The trait approach provides a stable framework for understanding how individuals behave consistently across different situations, emphasizing the stability of personality traits over time.

• Predictive Value: It allows predictions about behavior based on personality traits, aiding in various applications such as career counseling and clinical settings.

• Scientific Measurement: The approach favors empirical measurement, often employing statistical techniques like factor analysis to identify personality dimensions.

• Simplified Framework: It distills complex human behaviors into understandable traits, aiding in quicker assessments of personality.

Cons:

• Situational Variability: Critics argue that behavior can vary significantly across different situations, and the trait approach may overlook this variability.

• Causal Explanations Lacking: The approach often fails to explain the underlying causes of traits or how they interact with environmental factors.

• Complexity Reduction: Reducing personality to a few traits may oversimplify the complexity of individual differences and unique human experiences.

• Cultural Limitations: Trait assessments may be less effective across different cultures where behaviors and traits vary significantly in interpretation and expression.

Sample Questions Based on Provided Information

Case Analysis (Personality Techniques/Theories)

1. Case Overview: What key aspects of the person's experience should be highlighted, and how do they relate to major personality theories?

2. Trait Theory Application: How might you apply trait theory (e.g., Big Five or Cattell's 16 personality factors) to analyze the individual's behavior and experiences?

3. Psychoanalytic Perspective: How would a psychoanalytic theorist interpret the individual's experiences and their impact on personality development?

4. Humanistic Approach: From a humanistic perspective, what factors might contribute to the person's sense of self and personal growth?

5. Situation vs. Trait: In this case, how can you differentiate between personality traits and situational influences affecting the individual's behavior?

Critical Evaluations/Discussions

1. Theory Evaluation: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the trait theory in explaining personality differences compared to other theories such as psychoanalysis or humanistic psychology?

2. Psychoanalysis vs. Trait Theory: In what ways do psychoanalytic approaches offer insights into personality that trait theories might overlook?

3. Cultural Sensitivity: How do cultural factors influence the applicability of trait theories across different populations? Discuss its implications in personality research.

4. Longitudinal vs. Cross-sectional Studies: What are the pros and cons of using longitudinal studies versus cross-sectional studies in understanding personality stability and change?

5. Applications of Big Five Model: In what ways has the Big Five model contributed to our understanding of personality in various practical contexts such as clinical psychology or occupational settings?