搜索结果：Personality

The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.

In this review, we evaluate four topics in the study of personality development where discernible progress has been made since 1995 (the last time the area of personality development was reviewed in this series). We (a) evaluate research about the structure of personality in childhood and in adulthood, with special attention to possible developmental changes in the lower-order components of broad traits; (b) summarize new directions in behavioral genetic studies of personality; (c) synthesize evidence from longitudinal studies to pinpoint where and when in the life course personality change is most likely to occur; and (d) document which personality traits influence social relationships, status attainment, and health, and the mechanisms by which these personality effects come about. In each of these four areas, we note gaps and identify priorities for further research.

Data from three normal samples were used to examine links between personality disorder scales and measures of the five-factor model of personality. In the first study, self-reports, spouse ratings, and peer ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), a measure of the five basic factors of personality, were correlated with MMPI personality disorder scales in a sample of 297 adult volunteers. In the second study, self-reports on the NEO-PI were correlated with Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-I) scales in a sample of 207 adults; self-reports on the MCMI-II were examined in a sample of 62 students. Results generally replicated the findings of Wiggins and Pincus (1990), suggesting that the five-factor model encompasses dimensions of both normal and abnormal personality. Distinctions between the MMPI, MCMI-I, and MCMI-II scales are examined in light of the model, and suggestions are made for integrating traditional personality trait models with psychiatric conceptions of disorder.

After many out-of-print years, this volume has been reissued in response to an increasing demand for copies. This reflects that the fundamental questions that motivated this book thirty years ago are still being asked. But more important, the answers -- or at least their outlines -- now seem to be in sight. In 1968, this book stood as an expression of paradigm crisis in its critique of the state of personality The last three decades have been filled with controversy and debate about the dilemmas raised here, and then with renewal and fresh discoveries. It therefore seems especially timely to revisit the pages which posed the challenges. Mischel outlined the need to encompass the situation in the study of personality, but with focus on the acquired meaning of stimuli and on the situation as perceived, viewing the individual as cognitive-affective being who construes, interprets, and transforms the stimulus in dynamic reciprocal interaction with the social world. He focused on the idiographic analysis of personality that had originally motivated the field, and the complexity, discriminative facility, and uniqueness of the individual, and sought to connect the expressions of personality to the individual's behavior -- that is, to what people do and not just what they say. Even the intrinsically contextualized if...then... expressions of the personality system -- its essential behavioral signatures -- were foreshadowed in this book that fired the opening salvo in search for a truly dynamic personality psychology.

A systematic method for clinical description and classification of both normal and abnormal personality variants is proposed based on a general biosocial theory of personality. Three dimensions of personality are defined in terms of the basic stimulus-response characteristics of novelty seeking, harm avoidance, and reward dependence. The possible underlying genetic and neuroanatomical bases of observed variation in these dimensions are reviewed and considered in relation to adaptive responses to environmental challenge. The functional interaction of these dimensions leads to integrated patterns of differential response to novelty, punishment, and reward. The possible tridimensional combinations of extreme (high or low) variants on these basic stimulus-response characteristics correspond closely to traditional descriptions of personality disorders. This reconciles dimensional and categorical approaches to personality description. It also implies that the underlying structure of normal adaptive traits is the same as that of maladaptive personality traits, except for schizotypal and paranoid disorders.

This study investigated the relation of the “Big Five” personality dimensions (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) to three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and personnel data) for five occupational groups (professionals, police, managers, sales, and skilled/semi‐skilled). Results indicated that one dimension of personality, Conscientiousness, showed consistent relations with all job performance criteria for all occupational groups. For the remaining personality dimensions, the estimated true score correlations varied by occupational group and criterion type. Extraversion was a valid predictor for two occupations involving social interaction, managers and sales (across criterion types). Also, both Openness to Experience and Extraversion were valid predictors of the training proficiency criterion (across occupations). Other personality dimensions were also found to be valid predictors for some occupations and some criterion types, but the magnitude of the estimated true score correlations was small (ρ < .10). Overall, the results illustrate the benefits of using the 5‐factor model of personality to accumulate and communicate empirical findings. The findings have numerous implications for research and practice in personnel psychology , especially in the subfields of personnel selection, training and development, and performance appraisal.

This meta-analysis used 9 literature search strategies to examine 137 distinct personality constructs as correlates of subjective well-being (SWB). Personality was found to be equally predictive of life satisfaction, happiness, and positive affect, but significantly less predictive of negative affect. The traits most closely associated with SWB were repressive-defensiveness, trust, emotional stability, locus of control-chance, desire for control, hardiness, positive affectivity, private collective self-esteem, and tension. When personality traits were grouped according to the Big Five factors, Neuroticism was the strongest predictor of life satisfaction, happiness, and negative affect. Positive affect was predicted equally well by Extraversion and Agreeableness. The relative importance of personality for predicting SWB, how personality might influence SWB, and limitations of the present review are discussed.

A general purpose toolbox developed originally for personality, psychometric theory and experimental psychology. Functions are primarily for multivariate analysis and scale construction using factor analysis, principal component analysis, cluster analysis and reliability analysis, although others provide basic descriptive statistics. Item Response Theory is done using factor analysis of tetrachoric and polychoric correlations. Functions for analyzing data at multiple levels include within and between group statistics, including correlations and factor analysis. Validation and cross validation of scales developed using basic machine learning algorithms are provided, as are functions for simulating and testing particular item and test structures. Several functions serve as a useful front end for structural equation modeling. Graphical displays of path diagrams, including mediation models, factor analysis and structural equation models are created using basic graphics. Some of the functions are written to support a book on psychometric theory as well as publications in personality research. For more information, see the &lt;<a href="https://personality-project.org/r/" target="_top">https://personality-project.org/r/</a>&gt; web page.

Personality traits are organized hierarchically, with narrow, specific traits combining to define broad, global factors. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992c) assesses personality at both levels, with six specific facet scales in each of five broad domains. This article describes conceptual issues in specifying facets of a domain and reports evidence on the validity of NEO-PI-R facet scales. Facet analysis-the interpretation of a scale in terms of the specific facets with which it correlates-is illustrated using alternative measures of the five-factor model and occupational scales. Finally, the hierarchical interpretation of personality profiles is discussed. Interpretation on the domain level yields a rapid understanding of the individual interpretation of specific facet scales gives a more detailed assessment.

Two data sources--self-reports and peer ratings--and two instruments--adjective factors and questionnaire scales--were used to assess the five-factor model of personality. As in a previous study of self-reports (McCrae & Costa, 1985b), adjective factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness-antagonism, and conscientiousness-undirectedness were identified in an analysis of 738 peer ratings of 275 adult subjects. Intraclass correlations among raters, ranging from .30 to .65, and correlations between mean peer ratings and self-reports, from .25 to .62, showed substantial cross-observer agreement on all five adjective factors. Similar results were seen in analyses of scales from the NEO Personality Inventory. Items from the adjective factors were used as guides in a discussion of the nature of the five factors. These data reinforce recent appeals for the adoption of the five-factor model in personality research and assessment.

Patterns of covariation among personality traits in English-speaking populations can be summarized by the five-factor model (FFM). To assess the cross-cultural generalizability of the FFM, data from studies using 6 translations of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (P.T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) were compared with the American factor structure. German, Portuguese, Hebrew, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese samples (N = 7,134) showed similar structures after varimax rotation of 5 factors. When targeted rotations were used, the American factor structure was closely reproduced, even at the level of secondary loadings. Because the samples studied represented highly diverse cultures with languages from 5 distinct language families, these data strongly suggest that personality trait structure is universal.

A theory was proposed to reconcile paradoxical findings on the invariance of personality and the variability of behavior across situations. For this purpose, individuals were assumed to differ in (a) the accessibility of cognitive-affective mediating units (such as encodings, expectancies and beliefs, affects, and goals) and (b) the organization of relationships through which these units interact with each other and with psychological features of situations. The theory accounts for individual differences in predictable patterns of variability across situations (e.g., if A then she X, but if B then she Y), as well as for overall average levels of behavior, as essential expressions or behavioral signatures of the same underlying personality system. Situations, personality dispositions, dynamics, and structure were reconceptualized from this perspective.

Personality psychology addresses views of human nature and individual differences. Biological and goal-based views of human nature provide an especially useful basis for construing coping; the five-factor model of traits adds a useful set of individual differences. Coping-responses to adversity and to the distress that results-is categorized in many ways. Meta-analyses link optimism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to more engagement coping; neuroticism to more disengagement coping; and optimism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness to less disengagement coping. Relations of traits to specific coping responses reveal a more nuanced picture. Several moderators of these associations also emerge: age, stressor severity, and temporal proximity between the coping activity and the coping report. Personality and coping play both independent and interactive roles in influencing physical and mental health. Recommendations are presented for ways future research can expand on the growing understanding of how personality and coping shape adjustment to stress.

Personality has consequences. Measures of personality have contemporaneous and predictive relations to a variety of important outcomes. Using the Big Five factors as heuristics for organizing the research literature, numerous consequential relations are identified. Personality dispositions are associated with happiness, physical and psychological health, spirituality, and identity at an individual level; associated with the quality of relationships with peers, family, and romantic others at an interpersonal level; and associated with occupational choice, satisfaction, and performance, as well as community involvement, criminal activity, and political ideology at a social institutional level.

The immediate stimulus for developing a test of narcissism was the inclusion of a new category, the narcissistic personality disorder, in the diagnostic manual (DSM-111) being prepared by the American Psychiatric Association. The narcissistic personality disorder is defined by the following characteristics: ( 1 ) grandiose sense of one's self-irnportance; ( 2 ) preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, o r ideal love; ( 3 ) exhibitionism; ( 4 ) responds to criticism, indifference, or defeat either with cool indifference or with marked feelungs of rage, inferiority, shame, humiliation, o r emptiness; ( 5 ) entitlement, expecting spec~al favors without assuming reciprocal responsibilities; (6) exploitativeness; ( 7 ) relationships vacillate between the extremes of overidealization and devaluation; and ( 8 ) lack of empathy. W e made up 223 items which sampled the domain of the narcissistic personality as defined by the foregoing characteristics. Each item is a pair of statements, one narcissistic and the other nonnarcissistic. Subjects are required to check one of rhe two statements. This is an example.

This book sets forth a provocative agenda for the scientific study of human personality. Blending no-nonsense empiricism with the humanistic desire to understand the whole person, the book is as relevant today as it was to its many readers seventy years ago. The book sets forth a full theory of human personality, illustrated with a bevy of creative methods for personality assessment, and presenting the results of a landmark study of fifty Harvard men. The book is one of the great classics in 20th-century psychology.

Past work has documented and described major patterns of adaptive and maladaptive behavior: the mastery-oriented and the helpless patterns. In this article, we present a research-based model that accounts for these patterns in terms of underlying psychological processes. The model specifies how individuals &amp;apos; implicit theories orient them toward particular goals and how these goals set up the different patterns. Indeed, we show how each feature (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) of the adaptive and maladaptive patterns can be seen to follow directly from different goals. We then exam-ine the generality of the model and use it to illuminate phenomena in a wide variety of domains. Finally, we place the model in its broadest context and examine its implications for our understand-ing of motivational and personality processes. The task for investigators of motivation and personality is to identify major patterns of behavior and link them to underlying psychological processes. In this article we (a) describe a re-search-based model that accounts for major patterns of behav-ior, (b) examine the generality of this model—its utility for un-derstanding domains beyond the ones in which it was originally

Attitudes and personality traits - how they are defined and measured behaviourial consistency - theory and research in personality and social psychology the principle of aggregation - creating stability and consistency moderating variables - effects of individual differences, characteristics of the disposition, situational factors, and type of behaviour theory of planned behaviour - prediction of specific actions with varying degrees of volitional control.

Although a considerable amount of research in personality psychology has been done to conceptualize human personality, identify the “Big Five” dimensions, and explore the meaning of each dimension,...