Traits and Trait Taxonomies Chapter 3 Traits and Trait Taxonomies

Some textbooks are entirely this one chapter !

Three fundamental questions How should we conceptualize what a trait is? How can we identify which traits are most important from among the many ways that individuals differ? How can we formulate a comprehensive taxonomy of traits—a system that includes within it all the major traits of personality?

Summary View of Traits Causal View of Traits Jerry Wiggins Paul Costa

“Causal” view of traits Presumed to be internal in that individuals carry their desires, needs, and wants from one situation to next. Desires and needs, dispositions to act that can serve as explanations of the behavior Scientific usefulness of viewing traits as causes of behavior lies in ruling out other causes

“Summary” View of Traits Trait= behavor trend (summary of behav.) No assumption about internality No assumption that it is a cause of anything Scientific goal should be identify and describe behavior trends (traits) Afterward, develop casual theories that explain these trends (traits) According to the Summary point of view, a trait is NOT an explanation of anything.

Traits = categories of acts Example of the“Summary” view of traits: Act Frequency approach to trait measurement Traits = categories of acts Therefore the way to measure traits is… Identify central “acts” for a trait category Measure how frequently someone does those acts.

Act Frequency Research Program 1) Act nominations: Designed to identify which acts belong in which trait categories 2) Prototypicality judgements: Involves identifying which acts are most central or prototypical of each trait category Classical view of categories: clear boundary: “features” Prototype view of categories fuzzy boundary: “family resemblance”

Which is the more prototypic “dog”? Why? (NOTE: They possess dog features equally!)

Golden Lab’s are “prototypic”

Benefits of Act Frequency approach Makes explicit the behavioral referents of a trait Helpful to illuminate the meaning of some traits that are difficult to study, e.g., impulsivity, creativity

Limitations Doesn’t say how much context is needed for act descriptions Weak approach for traits having few observable referents Weak approach for complex traits

Which traits are important? 3 approaches to answering this: Lexical Approach Statistical Approach Theoretical Approach

The "Lexical" Approach Sir Francis Galton’s (1885) "Lexical hypothesis" "All individual differences that are socially important enough for people to want to talk about them will over time become registered in the natural language (e.g., as an adjective or noun). "

Lexical Approach How identify important traits? If group members need to talk about an individual difference a lot…. Trait words will be invented to faciliate easier communication about that. Therefore: Dictionaries define the universe of possible traits that are socially important

Lexical Approach 2 criteria of importance Synonym frequency Kind, warm, nurturant…. Cross-cultural universality Kind (yes, universal) Unokai (NOT universal) e.g., Yanomamo language has a culturally specific trait: Unokai “Achieving manhood via killing a man” Frequency of AGREEABLNESS words are most common in all languages Eg kind, warm… do on board…. EXAMPLE ON NON-UNIVERSAL: Yanomamo word ooonakay ("UNOKAI") has achieved manhood by killing another man.

Yanomami Frequency of AGREEABLNESS words are most common in all languages Eg kind, warm… do on board…. EXAMPLE ON NON-UNIVERSAL: Yanomamo word ooonakay ("UNOKAI") has achieved manhood by killing another man.

Advantage of Lexical Approach Good starting point for identifying important differences (But, should not be only approach) Very valuable to as a finite pool of terms to sample from for statistical approaches to traits Cannot representatively sample an infinite pool of terms

Limitations Many traits are ambiguous, metaphorical, obscure, or difficult Personality is conveyed through many different parts of speech Assessment via single words (adjectives) lacks context I..E., FEW KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN!!! EXAMPLE: "wily" See website: phrontistery.info/ihlstart.html Galimatias gal-i-may'shi-us, n (French, gibberish) Nonsense; a confused mixture of unrelated things. This very cordial-sounding word is extraordinarily useful in contexts where one wishes to inform someone that their ideas are bafflingly ridiculous and incoherent without seeming overly impolite.

Statistical Approach Starts with a large pool of trait descriptors Try to identify large trait dimensions “Statistical” refers to analysis of covariation Factor analysis of the correlations among large numbers of traits

Raymond Cattell (1905-1998) Statistical/Lexical Spearman's student 16PF questionnaire Founded Lexical approach Unbelievably prolific researcher Career ended in scandal Died 1998

Example of Lexical+Statistical Approach Allport (1938): 28,000 trait words Cattell (1944): representative list ratings factor analysis Cattell's results was 16 factors.

Theoretical Approach Theory determines which indivdual differences are important to try to measure and study. e.g., Sociosexual Orientation (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991)

Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI) With how many different partners have you had sex in the past 12 months? In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous fantasies about having sex with someone you just met? Sex without love is OK. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

Theoretical Approach Sociosexual Orientation Evolutionary theory Mating strategies SOI= Short-term vs Long-term strategies (+) Value of the theory approach depends on the strengths of that theory (-) Weakness of theory approach follows from weakness of that theory

Most use a combination of the 3 approaches. Cattell Eysenck Goldberg

III. Taxonomies of Personality Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model Cattell’s Taxonomy: The 16 PF Circumplex models The Five-Factor Model The AB5C model

Trait taxonomies How many traits? How do they covary (group together)? Science of classification taxonomics

Trait taxonomics Rational approach (clinical observ) Freud's types, Jung's types Empirical approach (measure traits) 1) Rise of trait measurement Galton (1890), Binet (1912) 2) Rise of factor analysis Guilford (1930s), Cattell (1940s) ...

Empirical taxonomies “Dimensions of trait covariation” Guilford (1936) Extraversion questionnaire. Factor analyze item correlations Look for new factors. Impulsivity Thinking Introversion Expand questionnaire. Factor analyze item correlations.

Problem with bottom-up approach? 1) Proliferation Item pools can be extended infinitely. 2) Jingle-Jangle Different label, but same thing Same label, but different thing e.g. "Self-Monitoring Scale”

Eysenck (1916-1998) Hierarchical model of trait structure Focus on big factors Anchor trait theories in biology Test by experiments Focus on dimensions instead of types Hierarchical model of trait structure

Factor Hierarchical model Trait Trait Habit Habit Habit Habit Habits covary to form traits. Traits covary to form broad trait dimensions. Hierarchical model Factor Trait Trait Habit Habit Habit Habit

Say Goodbye to “Typologies” Galen’s Typology (400 AD) sanguine (happy) choleric (impulsive) phlegmatic (relaxed) melancholic (gloomy)

Gloomy Stable Anxious Calm Irritable Relaxed - Neuroticism +

Inhibited Bold Reserved Lively Quiet Outgoing - Extraversion +

E+ Sanguine Choleric (-) N+ Phlegmatic Melancholic (-)

What’s the difference between a type and a trait ? Short answer: The concept of type implies a population distribution that is distinct instead of gradual or continuous.

Men and women are distinct categories (types) in degree of femininity. How test if a distinct type exists? Examine shape of score distribution. EXAMPLE: Men Wom Men and women are distinct categories (types) in degree of femininity.

Say Goodbye to Jung’s Types Thinking vs. Feeling Sensing vs. Intuition Extraversion vs. Introversion Q: Do people really come in different “types”? Is there any way to test if that is true?

Concept of a type implies a bimodal distribution of scores

Actual Distributions… E

McCrae & Costa (1989

Type concept not completely abandoned.. Kagan et al. (1979) Bold vs Inhibited babies Robins et al. (1996) Consistent evidence of 3 children temperament types similar to those proposed by Block (1971) Resilient Overcontrolled Undercontrolled