Individual differences science for treatment planning: Personality traits.

Evolving ethical, legal, and financial demands require a plan before treatment begins. The authors argue that individual differences research requires the inclusion of personality trait assessment for the construction and implementation of any treatment plan that would lay claim to scientific status. A primer of personality individual differences for treatment planning is presented, including an introduction to constructive realism and major research findings from trait psychology and behavior genetics bearing on treatment planning. The authors present 4 important gains for treatment planning that can be realized from the science of individual differences in personality: (a) knowing where to focus change efforts, (b) realistic expectations, (c) matching treatment to personality, and (d) development of the self. (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)     

Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm.

It is suggested that the scientific status of psychology is put in danger by the lack of paradigms in many of its fields, and by the failure to achieve unification, psychology is breaking up into many different disciplines. One important cause was suggested by Lee Cronbach in his 1957 presidential address to the American Psychological Association: the continuing failure of the two scientific disciplines of psychology—the experimental and the correlational—to come together and mutually support each other. Personality study in particular has suffered from this disunity, and the debates about the number of major dimensions of personality. Examples are given to show that by combining methods and theories typical of these two disciplines, one can be put forward paradigms that would be impossible without such unification. Such a paradigm is suggested for personality and intelligence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Personality in the life course.

Using elements borrowed from psychology, sociology, and history, this article outlines a conceptual framework for the analysis of personality in the life course. It is proposed that the interactional framework toward which personality psychology aspires may be conceived of as a sequence of interactions of personality with age-graded roles and social transitions in historically changing environments. To the extent that one can (a) identify the age-graded role paths in the social structure, (b) select the age-relevant situations in which these roles are enacted, and (c) identify measures relevant to the culture pattern across these age-relevant situations, it should be possible to uncover the coherence of personality—ways of approaching and responding to the world—across time and in diverse situations. Each of these steps is delineated and then illustrated with a longitudinal study of explosive, undercontrolled children. This is not an effort to articulate a theory of personality development but to outline the parameters of social life—temporal and situational—to which personality research should attend. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Assessment of basic social skills.

Proposes a conceptual framework for defining and assessing basic social skills derived from the attempts of social personality psychologists to measure individual differences in nonverbal communication skills. Preliminary testing resulted in the development of a 105-item, pencil-and-paper measure of 7 basic dimensions of social skills, the Social Skills Inventory (SSI). In a series of validation studies using 149 undergraduate students, the SSI demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity in relation to other measures of nonverbal social skill and traditional personality scales (e.g., the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire [16PF], the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale). Scores on the SSI also predicted some social group memberships, typical social behaviors, and the depth of social networks. Evidence suggests that the SSI could prove to be a valuable tool for research in personality and social psychology and for work in applied settings. (57 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychoanalytic theory as a unifying framework for 21st century personality assessment.

Psychoanalysis represents a valuable unifying framework for 21st century personality assessment, with the potential to enhance both research and clinical practice. After reviewing recent trends in psychological testing I discuss how psychoanalytic principles can be used to conceptualize and integrate personality assessment data. Research from three domains—the role of projection in shaping Rorschach responses, contrasting patterns of gender differences in self-report and free-response dependency measures, and the use of process dissociation procedures to illuminate test score convergences and divergences—illustrates how psychoanalytic concepts may be combined with ideas and findings from other areas of psychology to offer unique insights regarding assessment-based personality dynamics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Helen Peak (1900–1985).

Presents an obituary for Helen Peak. Peak was a brilliant scholar, an innovative researcher, and one of the few generalists left in an age of specialization. She helped to build social psychology as a research discipline by bringing the methodologies of the laboratory and of measurement to the study of personality and interpersonal relations. Her scientific contributions began in the 1930s with experiments that were solid contributions to the foundation of behavioral psychology. Her interest in methodology led to her classic chapter, "Problems of Objective Observation" (1953), an account of methods of data collection and analysis. It showed the fundamental assumptions and limitations of scaling procedures and interitem correlations, and considered problems of functional unity. It became a standard source for research workers both in the US and abroad. The major research that occupied Helen Peak in the postwar years was concerned with attitudinal structure and change. Her experiments showed how attitudes could be successfully changed. From this work she developed a general activation theory of both motivational processes and the properties of structure. Peak, in the spirit of Kurt Lewin, helped reunite social psychology with individual psychology in her research and theories on attitudes and motivation—central problems of both disciplines. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Educational psychology and education.

Discusses what elements of educational psychology are useful in elementary school education and how educational practices can enrich research and development in educational psychology. Educational psychology is ready to assume interactive relationships with methods of scientific application, development, and research, as practiced in the traditional sciences. These interactions would be helpful for studying subject-matter learning, the teaching of basic abilities, instructional methods, the influence of content on curriculum design, and individual requirements in formulating new educational models. The "schizophrenia" produced by having one foot in the laboratory and one foot in the field is recommended. (28 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mapping the structure and dynamics of psychological knowledge: Forty years of APA journal citations (1970–2009).

To understand how subfields of psychology relate to each other as a whole, we analyzed 40 years (from 1979 to 2009) of journal citation data collected from 17 American Psychological Association journals. The results reveal two stable underlying dimensions of psychological knowledge—basic versus applied, and population-specific versus population-general—that organize subfields of psychology. Within the structure, personality and social psychology is located at the heart of psychological knowledge. Analysis of the dynamic flow of knowledge between subfields of psychology further reveals that although the subfields engage in clear division of labor, they also engage in dynamic transactions of knowledge. Finally, an emergent subfield would first obtain its intellectual nutrients from the established disciplines. Once it has found its own niche, it turns into a spin-off and starts to assume the role of knowledge supplier. The implications of these results for psychology as a science are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Taking the theorizing in personality theories seriously: Comment.

Comments on "A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate psychology?" by J. D. Mayer (see record 2005-05480-001). Mayer's attempt to find ways to use personality emphases as integrative tendencies in psychology is welcome. Certainly, it would help if the research and practice efforts of psychologists were coordinated more clearly than they are now. The comment author finds Mayer's rather ambiguous and scattered suggestions to be disconcerting. The comment author proposes alternatives he hopes will further Mayer's goals. He believes that emphasizing core, developmental, and peripheral statements is important in envisioning the personality system. The comment author does not agree with Mayer's (2005) assertion that emphasizing existing personality theories is necessarily damaging because of their specific content disagreements. There are, of course, many personality theories, but their diversity can be reduced to a more manageable level by inducing from them the basic models of personality theorizing. When the comment author engages in this process, what emerges is the conflict, fulfillment, and consistency models, each with two subtypes. Psychologists need to collaborate with each other in formulating comparative analytic research that can resolve the fundamental issues arising from the differences between these three models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A Mexican psychology.

The universality—not the scientific character—of psychology is challenged by data previously reported by the present author and other researchers suggesting the need for a sociocultural psychology of personality. Specific factorial scales of Mexican, natural language, and sociocultural premises are found to be meaningfully associated, at three different ages, with a number of reliable measures of psychological dimensions. A national, local-belief-based, clinical understanding of Mexican youth on the basis of intra- and cross-cultural studies is illustrated. From the evidence, it is proposed (a) that culture, as defined, can account for significant variance of bona fide psychological and other behavioral science dimensions; and (b) that there is a basis to speak about sociocultural psychologies, such as a Mexican psychology. The disclosure is made in the context of the author's attempts to understand the Mexican personality and society. (38 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Leadership, Collective Personality, and Performance.

By viewing behavior regularities at the individual and collective level as functionally isomorphic, a referent-shift compositional model for the Big 5 personality dimensions is developed. On the basis of this compositional model, a common measure of Big 5 personality at the individual level is applied to the collective as a whole. Within this framework, it is also hypothesized that leadership (i.e., transformational, transactional, and passive) would predict collective personality and that collective personality would be significantly related to collective performance. The results supported these hypotheses using a sample of franchised units. On the basis of recent research at the individual level, several interactions among the various personality dimensions were hypothesized and supported. Implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The meaning of personality test scores.

The process of reexamining the methodological and metatheoretical assumptions of personality psychology over the past two decades has been useful for both critics and practitioners of personality research. Although the field has progressed substantially, some critics continue to raise 1960s-vintage complaints, and some researchers perpetuate earlier abuses. We believe that a single issue—construct validity—underlies the perceived and actual shortcomings of current assessment-based personality research. Unfortunately, many psychologists seem unaware of the extensive literature on construct validity. This article reviews five major contributions to our understanding of construct validity and discusses their importance for evaluating new personality measures. This review is intended as a guide for practitioners as well as an answer to questions raised by critics. Because the problem of construct validity is generic to our discipline, these issues are significant not only for personality researchers but also for psychologists in other domains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Donald R. Lynam: Award for Distinguished Scientific Early Career Contributions to Psychology.

Announces Donald R. Lynam as a recipient of the Award for Distinguished Scientific Early Career Contributions to Psychology for 2002. A biographical statement is included, along with major works and contributions for the field. Lynam received this award for contributions to psychopathology research. His contributions span adult psychopathology, personality, clinical child psychology, sociology, developmental psychology, and criminology. His research interests include fledgling psychopathology, the contribution of individual differences to a variety of negative outcomes, and the use of the Five Factor Model of personality to understand psychopathy and other personality disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.

Men and women clearly differ in some psychological domains. A. H. Eagly (see record 1995-21141-001) shows that these differences are not artifactual or unstable. Ideally, the next scientific step is to develop a cogent explanatory framework for understanding why the sexes differ in some psychological domains and not in others and for generating accurate predictions about sex differences as yet undiscovered. This article offers a brief outline of an explanatory framework for psychological sex differences—one that is anchored in the new theoretical paradigm of evolutionary psychology. Men and women differ, in this view, in domains in which they have faced different adaptive problems over human evolutionary history. In all other domains, the sexes are predicted to be psychologically similar. Evolutionary psychology jettisons the false dichotomy between biology and environment and provides a powerful metatheory of why sex differences exist, where they exist, and in what contexts they are expressed (D. M. Buss, 1995). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)