Personality theories facilitate integrating the five principles and deducing hypotheses for testing.

Comments on the original article "A New Big Five: Fundamental Principles for an Integrative Science of Personality," by Dan P. McAdams and Jennifer L. Pals (see record 2006-03947-002). In presenting their view of personality science, McAdams and Pals (April 2006) elaborated the importance of five principles for building an integrated science of personality. These principles are stances on evolution and human nature, dispositional signatures, characteristic adaptations, life narratives, and the differential role of culture. Their main emphasis involved differentiating these principles and indicating that they are all relevant to understanding personality. The discussion by McAdams and Pals certainly illuminates the various aspects of personality, but it also cries out for some greater, more systematic integration of the five principles into particular kinds of personality. It is not yet possible, in their approach, to identify different types of personality orientation and to evaluate the relative effectiveness of these orientations. As presented, their approach may be considered a start but hardly a finish. Here, the current author suggests that the metatheory of personality theories that he has proposed (Maddi, 1969/1996) could accelerate the needed integration of the five proposed principles. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Problems with McAdams and Pals's (2006) proposal of a framework for an integrative theory of personality.

Comments on the original article "A New Big Five: Fundamental Principles for an Integrative Science of Personality," by Dan P. McAdams and Jennifer L. Pals (see record 2006-03947-002). Here, the current author begins with a critique of McAdams and Pals's (April 2006) five principles for a framework for an integrative theory of personality. The current author then comments on their statements about the person-situation debate and the failure of personality psychologists to produce an integrative theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On grandiosity in personality psychology.

Responds to the comments by A. Wood and S. Joseph (see record 2006-23492-015); S. R. Maddi (see record 2006-23492-016); and S. Epstein (see record 2006-23492-017) on the current author's original article (see record 2006-03947-002) "A New Big Five: Fundamental Principles for an Integrative Science of Personality" (McAdams & Pals, April 2006). Here, McAdams responds to the objections raised in the three commentaries to his and Pals' characterization of the grand theories of personality provided by Freud, Jung, Rogers, and other luminaries from the first half of the 20th century. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A new vision of personality...and of personality theory: Reply.

Replies to comments by Maddi (see record 2006-05893-007) on "A Tale of Two Visions: Can a New View of Personality Help Integrate Psychology?" (see record 2005-05480-001). In the original article, the current author proposed a new fieldwide framework for the discipline of personality psychology; in essence, it is a new outline to organize contemporary theory and research in the field. Maddi raised two interrelated objections to that proposed framework. First, he believes that there is a better way to organize the discipline of personality psychology than the one the current author proposed. His method involves comparing and analyzing the grand theories of personality and using the results of his analyses to guide research in the discipline. Maddi's (1968) meta-theory usefully organizes the statements of the grand theories of the early-to-mid-20th century, but the current author is not sure it is sufficient to organize the field. Second, he was concerned that the current author wants to de-emphasize the grand theories of the field. Maddi (2006) believes that disagreements among the grand theories are a fruitful source of research ideas. Although that may be true, there is more to personality psychology than the grand theories alone. (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)     

Positive parenting in adolescence and its relation to low point narration and identity status in emerging adulthood: A longitudinal analysis.

In this longitudinal study, we examined identity development using the life story model (McAdams, 2001), in addition to a traditional identity status approach, in order to explore the association between perceived parenting in adolescence and the subsequent quality of life story narration in emerging adulthood. Participants (N = 100) were given a battery of questionnaires at ages 17 and 26 years and were asked to narrate a story at age 26 about their most difficult life experience. Low point narratives were analyzed for evidence of concluding clarity, resolution, and affective tone, termed coherent positive resolution (Pals, 2006). Structural equation modeling showed that participants who experienced more positive parenting at age 17 narrated their low points with clearer evidence of coherent positive resolution at age 26. Coherent positive resolution of the low point was also related to concurrent measures of identity achievement and emotional adjustment at age 26. Discussion centers on the potential impact of positive parenting as a contributor to healthy low point narration and identity in emerging adulthood. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

Obituary: Donald W. MacKinnon (1903–1987).

This article provides an obituary for Donald W. MacKinnon, 1903-1987. The authors state that MacKinnon was a shaper of the field of personality psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diversity is a compelling interest, and affirmative action is an important strategy for achieving it.

Responds to comments made by Pipes (see record 2007-01685-011) and Kuncel and Sackett (see record 2007-01685-012) on the current authors' original article (see record 2006-01690-003). The current authors respond to the various points raised in the commenting articles, and suggest that diversity is a compelling interest and affirmative action is one means of achieving it. They stand by their original challenge, with the caveat that they do recognize that some tests may predict certain educational outcomes with similar reliability across diverse populations. They suggest that an increase in diversity in psychology would promote a robust exchange of ideas and would be of value to all. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Toward a more inclusive integration of evolutionary biology and personality psychology.

Discusses D. M. Buss's (see record 1985-28068-001) failure to recognize the work of W. McDougall (1921) and his lack of consideration of the psychology of the self-concept in Buss's analysis of how contemporary work in sociobiology and behavior genetics might be useful in the effort to integrate the currently fragmented state of personality psychology. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An ecological perspective on integrating personality and social psychology.

We use the Gibsonian ecological construct of affordance to integrate personality and social psychology. Illustrative applications include the interpersonal implications of depression, the nature of social competence, the meaning of traits, and various aspects of the structure and function of attitudes. We also use the affordance concept to derive a lock-and-key metaphor for integrating personality and social 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)     

Developmental Dynamics and Contemporary Evolutionary Psychology: Status Quo or Irreconcilable Views? Reply to Bjorklund (2003), Krebs (2003), Buss and Reeve (2003), Crawford (2003), and Tooby et al. (2003).

The authors address commentaries by D. F. Bjorklund (2003; see record 200309105-002); D. M. Buss and H. K. Reeve (2003; see record 200309105-004); C. B. Crawford (2003; see record 200309105-005); D. L. Krebs (2003; see record 2003-09105-003); and J. Tooby, L. Cosmides, and H. C. Barrett (2003; see record 2003-09105-006) on their analysis of the underlying assumptions of contemporary evolutionary psychology (R. Lickliter & H. Honeycutt, 2003; see record 200309105-001). The authors argue that evolutionary psychology currently offers no coherent framework for how to integrate genetic, environmental, and experiential factors into a theory of behavioral or cognitive phenotypes. The authors propose that this absence is due to a lack of developmental analysis in the major works of evolutionary psychology, resulting in an almost exclusive focus on adaptationist accounts of evolution by natural selection rather than a more broad-based focus on the process and products of evolution by epigenetic developmental dynamics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Views from the inside and outside.

Replies to comments on the article "Psychology and Phenomenology: A Clarification" (see record 2005-05480-003). Four (see records 2006-03947-010; 2006-03947-011; 2006-03947-012; and 2006-03947-013) of the five comments on my article were critical of my treatment of psychology and phenomenology. I will try to identify the sources of these disputes, but not with the intention of demonstrating the superiority of one discipline over the other. In an attempt to compare and contrast psychology and phenomenology, I analyze three concepts: objectivity, values, and falsifiability. Reber's comments (see record 2006-03947-014) were agreeable to read because of the common methodological orientation we share. Reber's optimism about humanity sharing common moral commitments appears to be contradicted by history and current events. Cloonan's (see record 2006-03947-010) plea for a "methodological pluralism" (p. 255) in psychology sounds appealing but is basically destructive for psychology and society. You can't play chess and checkers on the same board at the same time! (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

Prior positive psychologists proposed personality and spiritual growth.

Applaudes M. E. P. Seligman and M. Csikszentmihalyi (see record 2000-13324-001) and the other authors of the special issue on positive psychology (American Psychologist, 2000[Jan], Vol 55[1]). In this commentary, C. L. McLafferty and J. D. Kirylo outline an overarching theoretical framework for a positive psychology, supported by psychoanalytic, existential, humanistic, and transpersonal theories. Jung, V. R. Frankl, Maslow, and R. Assagioli emphasized wholeness and wellness without encouraging narcissism, though admittedly with little empirical support. Each of these theorists implicitly or explicitly acknowledged two overlapping processes of growth: the emergence of personality and the alignment of that personality with a transcendent (spiritual) center. (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)     

Review of Paradigms of personality assessment.

Reviews the book, Paradigms of personality assessment by Jerry S. Wiggins (see record 2004-00021-000). Wiggins' latest work is very much a must-read book for personality assessment specialists and their students. The book is unique, and important, for two reasons. First, it attempts to deliver on Personality Psychology's longstanding quest to integrate the many disparate perspectives in the field. Second, this is a multidisciplinary case study (a multitrait/multimethod analysis) of one person that combines theory and practice in a way not done before. This is a collaborative project involving eight additional contributors representing five major traditions in personality assessment. I believe the new book is destined to become another classic and a want-to-read book for many psychologists, ranging from those with a stake in the unity of scientific psychology to others who just like a good human-interest story (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

Further comments toward a dimensional classification of personality disorder.

Responds to the comments by H. N. Garb (see record 2007-19520-012) and A. M. Ruscio (see record 2007-19520-013) on the current authors' original article "Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model" (see record 2007-01685-001). Unable to respond to all of Garb's and Ruscio's concerns given space limitations, the current authors attempt to respond to key points regarding their article on integrating the classification of personality disorder with a dimensional model of general personality structure. These points include: clinical judgments; feasibility; communication; thresholds; and validity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)