Traits and trade-offs are an important tier.

Replies to comments by K. M. Sheldon et al (see record 2007-18356-014) on the author's original article (see record 2006-11202-005) on evolution and personality variation. Sheldon et al concurred with the thrust of that article that the way natural selection shapes or gives rise to interindividual variation is a worthy topic for evolutionary psychologists to consider, so at a broad level Sheldon et al and Nettle are in agreement. The contention concerns the utility of broad traits such as the Big Five personality factors in undertaking evolutionary personality psychology. Nettle does not concur that traits do not provide a good approach to understanding interindividual variation. They have proved their utility in humans and in other species. Nettle does agree that traits alone are not sufficient for understanding personality functioning, particularly in humans, and hopes that other psychologists, including perhaps Sheldon et al, will add an evolution-informed understanding of those higher tiers of personality to the framework Nettle has suggested for the base tier. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology: unified perspective on personality research

Behavioral geneticists and evolutionary psychologists have generally pursued human behavioral analyses with little theoretical or methodological exchange. However, significant benefits might accrue from increased communication between these disciplines. The primary goals of this article are (1) to identify meaningful junctures between behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology, (2) to describe behavioral genetic research designs and their applications to evolutionary analyses, and (3) to reassess current personality research in light of behavioral genetic and evolutionary concepts and techniques. The five-factor model of personality is conceptualized as subsuming variation in normative species-typical systems with adaptive functions in the human environment of evolutionary adaptation. Considered as universal evolved mechanisms, personality systems are often seen in dynamic conflict within individuals and as highly compartmentalized in their functioning between settings. However, genetically influenced individual differences in personality may also be understood within an evolutionary framework. Studies of the heritability of personality traits indicate broad-sense heritabilities in the 0.40-0.50 range with evidence of substantial nonadditive genetic variation and nonshared environmental influences. Evidence indicates that evolutionary theory (e.g., inclusive fitness theory) predicts patterns of social interaction (e.g., cooperation and bereavement) in relatives. Furthermore, variation in personality may constitute a range of viable strategies matching the opportunities available in the complex niche environment of human societies. Within this wide range of viable strategies, personality variation functions as a resource environment for individuals in the sense that personality variation is evaluated according to the interests of the evaluator (e.g., friendships, coalitions, or mate choice).     

Steps toward an evolutionary personality psychology: Individual differences in the social rank domain.

A comprehensive evolutionary personality psychology can be developed by identifying individual differences within each of the evolved systems that regulate social behaviour. We developed a questionnaire measure of social rank style, defined as individual differences in preferred strategies for pursuing, defending, and, when necessary, relinquishing social rank. The 17-item Rank Style with Peers Questionnaire (RSPQ) comprises three nearly independent scales: dominant leadership, coalition-building, and ruthless self-advancement. A series of studies demonstrated that: (a) the RSPQ’s, factor structure is robust; (b) the three rank style variables are not redundant with the five-factor traits or adult attachment styles; (c) they are related in theoretically expected ways to adjustment outcomes, to agentic and communal interpersonal behaviours, and to social reputations; (d) they predict group and individual performance outcomes relevant to organisational psychology; and (e) they are related in theoretically expected ways to psychopathology, including social anxiety disorder and depressive symptoms. Future directions for research on social rank styles and prospects for an evolutionary personality psychology are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A periodic table of personality elements? The "Big Five" and trait "psychology" in critical perspective.

Within contemporary personality psychology there is widespread consensus that, at long last, the basic elements of "the" human personality have been empirically discovered, and that the systematic search for the underlying causes and consequences of personality differences can be pursued on this basis. The putatively basic trait dimensions are neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and are referred to collectively as "the Big Five." In the present article, this perspective on the psychology of personality is examined critically and found wanting. It is argued that neither the "Big Five" framework in particular nor trait "psychology" more generally is adequate as the basis for a scientific psychology of the human person. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality.

In this article the authors investigate the extent to which traits reflecting individual differences in personality and affectivity explain or mediate genetic influences on job satisfaction. Using estimates of the dispositional source of job satisfaction according to 2 dispositional frameworks--the five-factor model and positive affectivity-negative affectivity (PA-NA)--and behavioral-genetic estimates of the heritabilities of job satisfaction and the dispositional factors, the authors computed the proportion of genetic variance in job satisfaction that is explained by these trait frameworks. Results indicate that the affectivity model is a stronger mediator of genetic effects on job satisfaction than the five-factor model. PA and NA mediate about 45% of the genetic influences on job satisfaction, whereas the five-factor model mediates approximately 24% of these genetic effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Personality traits change in adulthood: Reply to Costa and McCrae (2006).

In a response to comments by P. T. Costa, Jr., and R. R. McCrae (see record 2006-00818-002) on the current authors' original article (see record 2006-00818-001), the authors show that Costa and McCrae's writings on personality suggest a belief in immutability of personality traits. The authors agree with Costa and McCrae that new personality trait models that provide an accurate lower order structure of personality traits are needed and explain why the Revised NEO Personality Inventory is not the correct model for that purpose. The authors provide direct evidence refuting the hypothesis that personality traits change only because of biologically based intrinsic maturation. The authors present arguments supporting the contention that meta-analyses should be preferred to single longitudinal studies when drawing inferences about general patterns of personality development. Finally, the authors point out why the differences between their position and Costa and McCrae's are important. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What Are You Doing? What Am I Doing?

Psychology ought to describe how and explain why we human beings live our lives as we do, which necessarily comes down to how and why we engage in the actions and have the subjective experiencings that we do. Our physical actions are themselves in part subjective phenomena, because actions are not simply body movements but also essentially involve intentions, beliefs about specific causation, and a sense of voluntariness. Thus, whatever else it is, psychology is inescapably the science of explaining the personally subjective. It is time for psychology to openly embrace its subjective subject-matter as such, which would open up a vast domain still waiting to be systematically studied. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian perspective.

Since the inception of the psychology of personality, psychologists have been trying to account for regularities in behavior. The preferred construct has been the personality trait as an inner disposition that directs conduct and which is common to all people. Although found lacking during the 1970s, the search for sources of direction from within has been resurrected in the form of the five-factor theory. According to this approach there are five underling structural factors common to all people and independent of cultural influences—an asocial, ahistorical, biologically based conception. Examination of the theory finds it to be dealing with traits of temperament rather than personality and judges it insufficient on that basis. Rather than conceiving of personality as fixed and universal, it is argued that personality is an adaptation worked out in the cultural and historical context of the individual life. It is further contended that a reconsideration of the personality theory of Gordon Allport will provide a better basis for understanding personality and personality traits specifically. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis.

One of the fundamental questions in personality psychology is whether and how strongly trait standing relates to the traits that people actually manifest in their behavior when faced with real pressures and real consequences of their actions. One reason this question is fundamental is the common belief that traits do not predict how individuals behave, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that traits are not important to study. However, this conclusion is surprising given that there is almost no data on the ability of traits to predict distributions of naturally occurring, representative behaviors of individuals (and that there are many studies showing that traits do indeed predict specific behaviors). The authors describe a meta-analysis of 15 experience-sampling studies, conducted over the course of 8 years, amassing over 20,000 reports of trait manifestation in behavior. Participants reported traits on typical self-report questionnaires, then described their current behavior multiple times per day for several days as the behavior was occurring. Results show that traits, contrary to expectations, were strongly predictive of individual differences in trait manifestation in behavior, predicting average levels with correlations between .42 and .56 (approaching .60 for stringently restricted studies). Several other ways of summarizing trait manifestation in behavior were also predicted from traits. These studies provide evidence that traits are powerful predictors of actual manifestation of traits in behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Five-factor trait instability in borderline relative to other personality disorders.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is related to five-factor model (FFM) traits and can be characterized as involving psychological and behavioral instability. A previous study comparing the FFM trait stability across individuals with borderline and other personality disorders found that the BPD group tended to have lower stability, particularly on neuroticism and conscientiousness and the overall configuration of FFM profiles over 6 years, suggesting that associated psychological and behavioral variability may be due to trait variability. The current study was designed to test the degree to which these findings replicate in another sample using different diagnostic and trait measures and extending the measurement period to 10 years. Results are consistent with previous findings in showing lower differential (rank-order) stability on conscientiousness, greater mean-level decreases on neuroticism, lower individual-level stability on conscientiousness, and lower ipsative stability of trait profile configurations among those with BPD. However, unlike the previous study, no differences were observed for differential or individual-level neuroticism or mean-level conscientiousness. Overall, findings show that the instability characteristic of BPD extends into typically stable personality traits, and that it does so with some specificity in terms of which traits are affected and how instability manifests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Belief in a just world and physical attractiveness stereotyping.

Just-world theory provides a possible explanation of physical attractiveness stereotyping, in that believing in a just world should lead to a positive bias toward "winners," such as the physically attractive. Several hypotheses derived from this premise were tested by having adults complete the Just World Scale and rate the personality traits and expected life outcomes of an attractive or unattractive stimulus person. Predictions for the personality trait ratings were borne out for male but not for female stimulus persons: (a) Believers in a just world perceived the personalities of attractive, male stimulus persons as more socially desirable than nonbelievers and also attributed more socially desirable personalities to male stimulus persons who were attractive rather than unattractive; and (b) no effects were found for female stimulus persons. Predictions for the life-outcome ratings and differences in correlations between personality and life-outcome ratings as a function of belief in a just world were clearly supported. Implications for just-world theory, status-characteristics theory, and physical attractiveness stereotyping are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Oversimplifying evolutionary psychology leads to explanatory gaps.

Comments on Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations (see record 2010-02208-001) by Confer et al. They argued that SST cannot explain the existence of either homosexuality or suicide within the human species. We contend that a sufficiently nuanced evolutionary position has no difficulties explaining either phenomenon. Also in this account, it is assumed that all psychological functioning must serve survival and reproduction. However, since evolution selects against certain qualities (it does not select for qualities, as it is commonly, but incorrectly, described), two types of qualities should remain intact for any species: (a) those that facilitate survival and reproduction and (b) those that do not impede survival and reproduction at the population level. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evolutionary psychology and intelligence research.

This article seeks to unify two subfields of psychology that have hitherto stood separately: evolutionary psychology and intelligence research/differential psychology. I suggest that general intelligence may simultaneously be an evolved adaptation and an individual-difference variable. Tooby and Cosmides's (1990a) notion of random quantitative variation on a monomorphic design allows us to incorporate heritable individual differences in evolved adaptations. The Savanna–IQ Interaction Hypothesis, which is one consequence of the integration of evolutionary psychology and intelligence research, can potentially explain why less intelligent individuals enjoy TV more, why liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, and why night owls are more intelligent than morning larks, among many other findings. The general approach proposed here will allow us to integrate evolutionary psychology with any other aspect of differential psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality.

Despite impressive advances in recent years with respect to theory and research, personality psychology has yet to articulate clearly a comprehensive framework for understanding the whole person. In an effort to achieve that aim, the current article draws on the most promising empirical and theoretical trends in personality psychology today to articulate 5 big principles for an integrative science of the whole person. Personality is conceived as (a) an individual's unique variation on the general evolutionary design for human nature, expressed as a developing pattern of (b) dispositional traits, (c) characteristic adaptations, and (d) self-defining life narratives, complexly and differentially situated (e) in culture and social context. The 5 principles suggest a framework for integrating the Big Five model of personality traits with those self-defining features of psychological individuality constructed in response to situated social tasks and the human need to make meaning in culture. (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)     

Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: support for a hierarchical model of personality

The common variance among personality traits can be summarized in the factors of the five-factor model, which are known to be heritable. This study examined heritability of the residual specific variance in facet-level traits from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Analyses of raw and residual facet scales across Canadian (183 monozygotic [MZ] and 175 dizogotic [DZ] pairs) and German (435 MZ and 205 DZ pairs) twin samples showed genetic and environmental influences of the same type and magnitude across the 2 samples for most facets. Additive genetic effects accounted for 25% to 65% of the reliable specific variance. Results provide strong support for hierarchical models of personality that posit a large number of narrow traits in addition to a few broader trait factors or domains. Facet-level traits are not simply exemplars of the broad factors they define; they are discrete constructs with their own heritable and thus biological basis.     

Race, job applicants, and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: Implications for Black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and the Five-Factor Theory.

We tested the fit of the five-factor model of personality with a sample of African American (n?=?184) and Caucasian (n?=?168) job applicants using confirmatory factor analysis with tests of invariance across groups. Indicators for the analyses were responses to the 80 Bipolar Adjective Checklist. The results provided moderate support for the five-factor theory for both groups, and the addition of corresponding constraints on the factor loadings, factor correlations, and latent means did not lead to a significant loss in model fit. There were only differences on four elements of the error matrices. Thus, for the most part, the five-factor model fit equally well for African American and Caucasian applicants. However, for both groups, all factors were highly intercorrelated consistent with an "ideal responding" response set. Implications for Black psychology, I/O psychology, and the five-factor theory are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block.

The five-factor model (FFM) of personality offers a structural organization of personality traits in terms of 5 broad factors. J. Block's (see record 1995-21277-001) critique of the FFM failed to recognize the utility of a trait taxonomy and the intent of research designed to test the 5-factor hypothesis. In a number of instances he omitted reference to empirical evidence that addresses concerns he raised; this evidence shows strong support for the FFM beyond the lexical and questionnaire traditions he reviews. Many of his suggestions for improving the quality of personality research are valuable, but are likely to be more fruitful when used in conjunction with established knowledge about the structure of personality traits: the FFM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A study of personality in literary autobiography: An analysis of Thomas Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel..

Analyzed physical and psychological traits used by Thomas Wolfe to describe self and others in Look Homeward, Angel as a method for studying personality. Set-theoretical comparisons ({hiclas} algorithm) of the traits he attributed to self during 5 successive age periods revealed that Wolfe viewed his development as the accumulation over time of core family traits, particularly those of father. Multidimensional scaling revealed sharp differences between trait content Wolfe attributed to self and family and trait content he attributed to nonfamily. Interpretable differences were also found between family and nonfamily in the proportion of unique traits attributed to a person. In addition, differences were found in the proportion of unique traits attributed to self during the 5 different age periods. Implications of the findings for personality are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development.

Temperaments are often regarded as biologically based psychological tendencies with intrinsic paths of development. It is argued that this definition applies to the personality traits of the five-factor model. Evidence for the endogenous nature of traits is summarized from studies of behavior genetics, parent–child relations, personality structure, animal personality, and the longitudinal stability of individual differences. New evidence for intrinsic maturation is offered from analyses of NEO Five-Factor Inventory scores for men and women age 14 and over in German, British, Spanish, Czech, and Turkish samples (N?=?5,085). These data support strong conceptual links to child temperament despite modest empirical associations. The intrinsic maturation of personality is complemented by the culturally conditioned development of characteristic adaptations that express personality; interventions in human development are best addressed to these. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)