Traits and trade-offs are insufficient for evolutionary personality psychology.

Comments on the article by D. Nettle (see record 2006-11202-005), who has clearly shown that evolutionary psychologists need to focus more attention on individual differences, not just species-typical universals. Such differences are not mere "noise," and evolutionary theory will gain by understanding how they are produced and maintained. However, by focusing on personality traits and the five-factor personality model, Nettle left unaddressed many of the most important aspects of human personality. An evolutionary psychology of personality must ultimately explain not just trait differences but also differences in personal goals, values, motives, identities, and life narratives--essential elements of human individuality and functionality. K. M. Sheldon et al suggest four reasons why traits and the five-factor personality model do not provide an optimal approach for explaining the evolution of personality: (a) As constructs, traits provide little purchase for explaining the causes of behavior; (b) trait concepts do not acknowledge or explain people's variations around their own baselines, variations that are likely crucial for adaptation; (c) traits do not explain or even describe true human uniqueness, i.e. the ways in which a person is different from everybody else; and (d) traits do not explain personality from the inside, by considering what people are trying to do in their lives. In raising these issues Sheldon et al are suggesting that the important question for evolutionary personality study is not why people fall at different points on a continuum regarding traits x, y, and z, but rather why each person is inevitably unique while still sharing the same evolved psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Trade-offs and individual differences in evolved traits.

Comments on Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations (see record 2010-02208-001) by Confer et al. We applaud Confer et al.’s (February–March 2010) clarifications of the many misconceptions surrounding the use of evolutionary analyses in psychology. As they noted, such misunderstandings are common and result in a curious tendency of some of our colleagues to criticize evolutionary psychology without a firm understanding of evolution itself. Confer et al. also did an admirable job acknowledging current unresolved issues among evolutionary psychologists (e.g., the relative importance of group selection on humans). The above said, we disagree with their view that a current limitation of evolutionary psychology is its inability to explain phenomena “that appear to reduce an individual’s reproductive success, and cannot be explained by mismatches with, or hijacking of, our psychological mechanisms by modern-day novel inputs” (Confer et al., 2010, p. 122). Mismatches between modern environments and environments of evolutionary adaptedness are only one set of explanations for seemingly maladaptive traits (Nesse, 2005). Another set involves evolutionary trade-offs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evolution and psychology.

Comments on the article by D. M. Buss et al (see record 1998-01669-001). The present author states his preference for the term previously used to cover the topic, "preadaptation," but concedes that the term "exaptation" and the exegesis on its utility presented by Buss et al are clearly sensible and understandable. The commenter states his purpose in writing as mainly being on the importance of evolutionary theory for psychology, on the evidence for various aspects of the theory as presented in publications for psychologists, and on how these affect the way the publications have to be documented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rigor, rigor mortis, and conspiratorial views of depression research.

The authors reassert the need for methodological changes in depression research appearing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and other personality and social psychology journals. In this rejoinder the authors update their earlier literature review (H. Tennen, J. Hall, & G. Affleck; see record 1995-31710-001) and respond to the commentaries by P C. Kendall and E. C. Flannery-Schroeder (see record 1995-31700-001) and G. Weary, J. A. Edwards, and J. A. Jacobson (see record 1995-31713-001). The authors notice that G. Weary et al.'s own findings demonstrate the need to change how depression is measured and participants are assigned to experimental groups. The authors also challenge G. Weary et al.'s contention that structured interviews are limited because they require interviewer judgments, and they urge personality and social psychologists to learn more about these interviews. Finally, G. Weary et al.'s suspicion that depression research guidelines reflect professional parochialism is disputed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exploring the Brain's Interface Between Personality, Mood, and Emotion: Theoretical Comment on Canli et al. (2004).

T. Canli et al., 2004 (see record 2004-19432-002) use functional MRI to explore the neural interface between personality, mood, and emotional responses. Their finding of a double dissociation in brain response to emotional stimuli based on personality and mood state has significant implications for our understanding of the effects of personality traits and mood states on the neural bases of emotion and cognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth.

Comments on articles by S. I. Pfeiffer et al (see record 2001-16379-001), C. A. Riccio and G. W. Hynd (see record 2001-16379-002), D. A. Pritchard et al (see record 2001-16379-003), J. A. Naglieri (see record 2001-16379-004), and H. C. Stanton and C. R. Reynolds (see record 2001-16379-005) on profile analysis in IQ tests. Consistent with the largely negative research literature, detailed analysis found the cognitive profile reports presented in these studies to be lacking reliability, validity, or diagnostic utility; even cognitive profiles composed of composites were psychometrically weak. These results were not surprising because ipsative methods are inferior to normative methods in cognitive assessment. Given this consistent failure of empirical validation, belief in the utility of cognitive test profile interpretations was likened to a shared professional myth and it was recommended that psychologists eschew the application of cognitive test profiles for differential diagnosis and remediation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychologists' contributions to the genetic revolution.

Responds to the comments of H. Goldsmith et al (see record 2003-05602-013) and S. Kéri (see record 2003-05602-014) regarding the article by A. Patenaude et al (see record 2002-12457-022) that discusses the role of psychologists in genetics and genetic testing. Patenaude reviews the comments made and states that both comments enlarge the discussion of the important roles psychologists will continue to play as genetics advances the knowledge of the etiology and treatment of disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Haviland, McGuire, and Rothbaum's "A critique of Plomin and Foch's twin study."

Replies to the criticism of J. M. Haviland et al (see record 1984-11539-001) of the present authors' (see record 1981-25190-001) twin study of objectively assessed personality in childhood. No merit is found in the criticisms of Haviland et al concerning conceptual validity and stability of the measures, comparability of populations, the accuracy of the literature review, or the appropriate interpretation of broad heritability. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Addressing criticism of sex bias research on borderline personality disorder.

Replies to H. N. Garb's (see record 1996-08172-001) criticism that D. Becker and S. Lamb (see record 1994-29756-001) overlooked previous studies of sex bias in the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and overinterpreted their findings. The authors address specific methodological criticisms and discuss their study's strengths (e.g., the inclusion of psychologists and social workers as well as psychiatrists) in the context of studies by M. R. Ford and T. A. Widiger (see record 1989-26071-001), K. A. Henry and C. I. Cohen (see record 1984-06917-001), and D. A. Adler et al (see record 1991-15353-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Practitioner-model programs?

Comments on the article by N. Watson et al (see record 1982-01951-001) concerning the education of professional psychologists and indicates that the Graduate School of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary does not offer a practitioner-model program. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Generalized social phobia versus avoidant personality disorder: A commentary on three studies.

The findings of J. D. Herbert et al (see record 1992-27377-001), C. S. Holt et al (see record 1992-27380-001), and S. M. Turner et al (see record 1992-27401-001) are largely consistent. Avoidant personality disorder and generalized social phobia appear to be overlapping constructs that have only minor differences with respect to severity of dysfunction. This commentary addresses the implications of the findings with respect to the validity of the categorical distinction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-III—Revised (DSM-III—R) between avoidant personality and generalized social phobia, revisions of their respective diagnostic criteria, and their reclassification as either an anxiety or a personality disorder. Methodological and substantive suggestions for future research are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Research psychologist' roles in the genetic revolution.

Comments on the article by A. F. Patenaude et al (see record 2002-12457-022) that discusses advances in genetics and genetic testing and the role of psychology and psychologists in this field. Goldsmith et al present their thoughts on the role of psychologists in the genetic revolution. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Let's be realistic!

Replies to comments by M. B. Smith (see record 2000-02781-010), K Sheldon et al (see record 2000-02781-011), and J. M. DuBois (see record 2000-02781-012) on H. H. Kendler's (see record 1999-11644-004) article on the role of value in the world of psychology. They incorrectly read into Kendler's position an espousal of a so-called value-free science, a discipline that is free of all values. A major thrust of Kendler's article was not that all of science is value free but instead that scientific data are value neutral; there is no logical connection between the natural is and the moral ought. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Graduate education in psychology: Time for a change?

Contends that the emergence and growth of professional schools that provide psychological knowledge and training to those seeking applied careers constitutes the most visible attempt to alter the training of psychologists. The American Psychological Association's Education and Training Board has been mandated to evaluate the scope and mechanisms of the accreditation of doctoral psychology programs and to develop a planning committee for a national conference on university-based graduate education in psychology. Proposals for change suggested by R. E. Fox et al (see record 1986-12821-001), R. L. Klatzky et al (see record 1986-13164-001), and M. E. Olbrisch et al (see record 1986-12850-001) are discussed. (7 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

To medicate or not to medicate: Let us be honest about why we should.

Responds to the articles of P. H. DeLeon et al (see record 1991-25292-001) and S. J. Kingsbury (see record 1992-25066-001) on prescribing privileges for psychologists. It is argued that such privileges would help psychologists provide the best, most efficient, and least complicated care for the patients, unencumbered by a 3rd party. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Traits, consistency, and self-schemata: What do our methods measure?

Psychologists have responded to the inadequacies that W. Mischel (1968) noted in the trait approach to personality by exploring 2 other facets of personality, cross-situational consistency and self-schemata. It is argued that these newer approaches have yet to be clearly distinguished conceptually or empirically from the traditional model that they were designed to supplement or replace. In the present 2 studies, 362 undergraduates rated the extent to which 10 traits applied to them (overall level), their consistency on these traits (cross-situational consistency), and the importance of these traits to their view of themselves (self-schema). Correlational analyses showed that the measures of consistency and self-schema lacked discriminant validity from the measures of overall level. Specifically, their correlations with level were as high as their internal consistencies. It is concluded that the measurement models for cross-situational consistency and for self-schemata do not adequately reflect their theoretical counterparts. This failure undercuts the interpretations of recent research by H. Markus (see record 1977-27585-001), Markus et al (see record 1982-23588-001), and S. Bem (see record 1981-25685-001). (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Validity of the salience asymmetry account of the Implicit Association Test: Reply to Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, and Klauer (2005).

In their comment on K. Rothermund and D. Wentura (see record 2004-14313-001), A. G. Greenwald, B. A. Nosek, M. R. Banaji, and K. C. Klauer (see record 2005-09704-008) agreed that salience asymmetries can be a source of Implicit Association Test (IAT) effects. The authors applaud this conclusion but point to problems with the other points that Greenwald et al. made. The authors have difficulties understanding the nominal feature account that Greenwald et al. put forward and have doubts about the usefulness of their broad conception of the concept association. The authors also argue that existing evidence concerning the construct validity of the IAT does not allow one to discriminate between the association and the salience accounts. In addition, the new studies that were presented by Greenwald et al. do not provide insights into what the IAT measures because they are either irrelevant for a decision between the different accounts or contain methodological problems that prevent a meaningful interpretation in terms of the models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Comparative practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists": Reply.

Replies to comments by J. Hunsley (see record 83:28521) on the original article by C. E. Watkins et al (see record 1995-23048-001) on the practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. While Watkins et al feel that Hunsley raises some valid points, they contend that he goes too far in referring to their conclusions as inaccurate, not warranted, and as having effects that could be unfortunate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Review of major theories of personality disorder.

Reviews the book, Review of major theories of personality disorder edited by J. Clarkin and M. Lenzenweger (see record 1996-97764-000). This book provides a comprehensive review of several major theories of personality disorder that exist today. With most studies examining specific aspects of the assessment and diagnosis of personality disorders, the editors hope to fill a void in contemporary work by presenting several broad theoretical frameworks. Some of the approaches to personality disorders discussed include the cognitive model, psychoanalytic approach, interpersonal theory, evolutionary theory, and a neurobiological framework. The reviewers note that although this variety provides a broad spectrum of approaches, it fails to integrate the different models. However, overall, the reviewers believe that this is a solid text that provides new information and divergent views. This book may be useful to academic psychologists who are interested in learning the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches to personality disorder. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)