A Framework for Testing Causality in Personality Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio Costantini ◽  
Marco Perugini
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
European Association ◽  
Laboratory Research ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Candidate Target ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Over Time

Causal explanations in personality require conceptual clarity about alternative causal conditions that could, even in principle, affect personality. These causal conditions crucially depend on the theoretical model of personality, each model constraining the possibility of planning and performing causal research in different ways. We discuss how some prominent models of personality allow for specific types of causal research and impede others. We then discuss causality from a network perspective, which sees personality as a phenomenon that emerges from a network of behaviours and environments over time. From a methodological perspective, we propose a three–step strategy to investigate causality: (1) identify a candidate target for manipulation (e.g. using network analysis), (2) identify and test a manipulation (e.g. using laboratory research), and (3) deliver the manipulation repeatedly for a congruous amount of time (e.g. using ecological momentary interventions) and evaluate its ability to generate trait change. We discuss how a part of these steps was implemented for trait conscientiousness and present a detailed plan for implementing the remaining steps. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Objections to the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure—and why those Objections Fail

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 492-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Ashton ◽  
Kibeom Lee
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
European Association ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Hexaco Model

The six–dimensional HEXACO model of personality structure and its associated inventory have increasingly been used in personality research. But in spite of the evidence supporting this structure and demonstrating its advantages over five–dimensional models, some researchers continue to use and promote the latter. Although there has been little overt, organized argument against the adoption of the HEXACO model, we do hear sporadic offerings of reasons for retaining the five–dimensional systems, usually in informal conversations, in manuscript reviews, on social media platforms, and occasionally in published works. In this target article, we list all of the objections to the HEXACO model that we have heard of, and we then explain why each objection fails. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

scholarly journals The Relation between Appraised Mismatch and the Duration of Negative Emotions: Evidence for Universality

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 481-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Verduyn ◽  
Iven Van Mechelen ◽  
Francis Tuerlinckx ◽  
Klaus Scherer
Keyword(s):  
European Association ◽  
Emotional Experience ◽  
Negative Emotions ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Central Aspect ◽  
Shame And Guilt ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Emotional Episodes ◽  
Over Time

Emotions are processes that unfold over time. As a consequence, a better understanding of emotions can be reached only when their time–related characteristics can be assessed and interpreted adequately. A central aspect in this regard is the duration of emotional experience. Previous studies have shown that an emotional experience can last anywhere from a couple of seconds up to several hours or longer. In this article, we examine to what extent specific appraisals of the eliciting event may account for variability in emotion duration and to what degree appraisal–duration relations are universal or culture specific. Participants in 37 countries were asked to recollect emotional episodes of fear, anger, sadness, disgust, shame and guilt. Subsequently, they were asked to report the duration of these episodes and to answer a number of questions regarding their appraisal of the emotion–eliciting event. Multi–level analyses revealed that negative emotions last especially long when the eliciting event and its consequences are perceived to be incongruent with the individual's goals, values and self–ideal, creating a mismatch. These relations are largely universal, although evidence for some limited variability across countries is found as well. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology

Using Big Data and Machine Learning in Personality Measurement: Opportunities and Challenges

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 632-648
Author(s):  
Leo Alexander ◽  
Evan Mulfinger ◽  
Frederick L. Oswald
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Big Data ◽  
European Association ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Personality Measurement ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
The Future ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Conceptual Paper

This conceptual paper examines the promises and critical challenges posed by contemporary personality measurement using big data. More specifically, the paper provides (i) an introduction to the type of technologies that give rise to big data, (ii) an overview of how big data is used in personality research and how it might be used in the future, (iii) a framework for approaching big data in personality science, (iv) an exploration of ideas that connect psychometric reliability and validity, as well as principles of fairness and privacy, to measures of personality that use big data, (v) a discussion emphasizing the importance of collaboration with other disciplines for personality psychologists seeking to adopt big data methods, and finally, (vi) a list of practical considerations for researchers seeking to move forward with big data personality measurement and research. It is expected that this paper will provide insights, guidance, and inspiration that helps personality researchers navigate the challenges and opportunities posed by using big data methods in personality measurement. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

A Three–Part Framework for Self–Regulated Personality Development across Adulthood

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Hennecke ◽  
Wiebke Bleidorn ◽  
Jaap J. A. Denissen ◽  
Dustin Wood
Keyword(s):  
European Association ◽  
Personality Development ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Personality Change ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Behavioural Changes ◽  
Personality Changes ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
View Change ◽  
Over Time

Recently, researchers interested in personality development have begun to acknowledge the roles of motivation and self–regulation for why traits change across adulthood. We propose three preconditions under which individuals may change their own levels of a personality trait through self–directed efforts. Firstly, individuals need to desire changing their trait–related behaviours either as an end in itself or in order to achieve other goals. Secondly, they need to consider behavioural changes feasible and be able to implement the desired changes. Thirdly, behavioural changes need to become habitual in order to constitute a stable trait. After elaborating on these three conditions, we review evidence attesting to the importance of motivation and self–regulation for trait development. We conclude with a discussion of the mutual interdependence of traits and goals, as well as the limits of self–regulated personality change. From our framework, we derive why personality changes across adulthood tend to be small to medium only, namely because they may require that all three preconditions for self–regulated personality change are fulfilled. We provide reasons for why people might not view change as desirable, feasible or fail to maintain it over time. Finally, we propose ideas for potential study designs to research self–regulated personality change. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

scholarly journals Towards More Rigorous Personality Trait–Outcome Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Mõttus
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Trait ◽  
Outcome Research ◽  
European Association ◽  
Causal Inferences ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Factor Loadings ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Trait Level

Much of personality research attempts to identify causal links between personality traits and various types of outcomes. I argue that causal interpretations require traits to be seen as existentially and holistically real and the associations to be independent of specific ways of operationalizing the traits. Among other things, this means that, to the extents that causality is to be ascribed to such holistic traits, items and facets of those traits should be similarly associated with specific outcomes, except for variability in the degrees to which they reflect the traits (i.e. factor loadings). I argue that, before drawing causal inferences about personality trait–outcome associations, the presence of this condition should be routinely tested by, for example, systematically comparing the outcome associations of individual items or facets, or sampling different indicators for measuring the same purported traits. Existing evidence suggests that observed associations between personality traits and outcomes at least sometimes depend on which particular items or facets have been included in trait operationalizations, calling trait–level causal interpretations into question. However, this has rarely been considered in the literature. I argue that when outcome associations are specific to facets, they should not be generalized to traits. Furthermore, when the associations are specific to particular items, they should not even be generalized to facets. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology

Predicting Creativity Based on the Facets of the Theoretical Intellect Framework

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Mussel ◽  
Alexander S. McKay ◽  
Matthias Ziegler ◽  
Johannes Hewig ◽  
James C. Kaufman
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Big Five ◽  
European Association ◽  
Openness To Experience ◽  
The Self ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Remote Associates Test

The present study investigates how the construct intellect, according to the Theoretical Intellect Framework (TIF), predicts creativity. The TIF is a theoretical model describing the structure of the construct intellect, a sub–dimension of the Big Five domain openness to experience. People (N = 2709) from two sub–samples (undergraduate students and Amazon MTurkers) completed one of three creativity tasks (self–reported, remote associates, or rated photo caption) and the Intellect Scale. The results support hypotheses derived from the TIF, as the operation Create, rather than the operations Think or Learn, significantly and in some cases uniquely predicted the self–reported creativity indicators. Creativity indicators with a strong cognitive load (remote associates test and rated photo caption), however, were predicted by the operation Think. Results are discussed with regards to the nomological net of the operation Create and the construct validity of the creativity assessments. We provide implications for applied purposes and call for further examination of the TIF with additional creativity measures. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology

scholarly journals Assessing Personality–Situation Interplay in Personnel Selection: Toward More Integration into Personality Research

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 424-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filip Lievens ◽  
Wendy Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Personnel Selection ◽  
European Association ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Situational Judgement Tests ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Research Themes ◽  
Job Candidates ◽  
Assessment Centre ◽  
Display Behaviour ◽  
Situational Judgement

Over the years, the personnel selection field has developed methods to assess trait expression in particular situations, but these approaches have evolved mostly outside the field of personality psychology. In this article, I review available personnel selection evidence regarding two such approaches: (i) situational judgement tests that present short scenarios and ask job candidates how they would handle the situations and (ii) assessment centre exercises requiring candidates to display behaviour in specified interactive situations. I describe these approaches and discuss their relations with personality research. I posit that adapting these approaches to personality research creates methodological diversity to address key research themes related to within–person variability, trait–behaviour links, personality disorders, and personality expression and perception. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

scholarly journals A Five–Factor Theory Perspective on Causal Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert R. McCrae ◽  
Angelina R. Sutin
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
Personality Characteristics ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Causal Understanding ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Individual

Five–Factor Theory provides a broad but largely blank template for causal personality research. Within Five–Factor Theory, there are three major categories of questions: (1) how do biological structures and functions lead to trait levels? (2) how do traits and the environment give rise to acquired psychological institutions? and (3) how do personality characteristics interact with specific situations to determine behaviours and reactions? Both practical and ethical issues complicate the search for the causes of trait change. Causal explanations of the development of characteristic adaptations are likely to be incomplete, because there are many different ways in which the same adaptation may be acquired. Studies of the determinants of behaviour are usually left to social, educational, or clinical psychologists—although personality psychologists may make distinctive contributions by emphasizing the role of the individual in selecting and creating situations. A causal understanding of the functioning of the personality system is possible through the integration of many lines of evidence, but it is likely to take a very long time. In the meanwhile, personality psychologists may fruitfully pursue the identification of practical causes by which individuals with a given set of traits can optimize their adaptation. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

scholarly journals Are Trait–Outcome Associations Caused by Scales Or Particular Items? Example Analysis of Personality Facets and Bmi

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 622-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uku Vainik ◽  
René Mõttus ◽  
Jüri Allik ◽  
Tõnu Esko ◽  
Anu Realo
Keyword(s):  
European Association ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Simulation Design ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Informant Ratings ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Research ◽  
Personality Facets ◽  
Sum Scores

In personality research, trait–outcome associations are often studied by correlating scale sum scores with an outcome. For example, an association between the NEO Impulsiveness scale and body mass index (BMI) is often interpreted to pertain to underlying trait Impulsiveness. We propose that this expectation can be corroborated by testing for Spearman's theorem of indifference of indicator. Namely, an underlying trait–outcome association should not depend on the specific items (i.e. indicators) used to measure the trait. To test this theorem, we outline an indicator exclusion procedure and demonstrate its viability using a simulation design. We then apply this procedure to test personality–BMI associations for indifference of indicator in a large population–based sample of adult Estonians (N = 2581) using self–ratings and informant ratings obtained with the NEO Personality Inventory–3. Our results show that the N5: Impulsiveness–BMI association mostly depends on two eating–related items, suggesting that the trait associated with BMI may be narrower than the trait the N5: Impulsiveness scale is supposed to measure. Associations between BMI, E3: Assertiveness and C2: Order seem to pertain to the trait. In sum, testing for indifference of indicator provides a potentially useful method to clarify trait–outcome relationships. R scripts are provided that implement the indicator exclusion procedure. Copyright © 2015 European Association of Personality Psychology

scholarly journals Differences in the Between–Person and Within–Person Structures of Affect Are A Matter of Degree

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Brose ◽  
Manuel C. Voelkle ◽  
Martin Lövdén ◽  
Ulman Lindenberger ◽  
Florian Schmiedek
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Negative Affect ◽  
European Association ◽  
Structural Characteristics ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Positive And Negative Affect ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Younger Adults ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Over Time

This study tested whether the structure of affect observed on the basis of between–person (BP) differences is equivalent to the affect structures that organize the variability of affective states within persons (WP) over time. Further aims were to identify individual differences in the degree of divergence between the WP and BP structure and examine its association to dispositional and contextual variables (neuroticism, extraversion, well–being and stress). In 100 daily sessions, 101 younger adults rated their mood on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Variability of five negative affect items across time was so low that they were excluded from the analyses. We thus worked with a modified negative affect subscale. WP affect structures diverged reliably from the BP structure, with individual differences in the degree of divergence. Differences in the WP structural characteristics and the degree of divergence could be predicted by well–being and stress. We conclude that BP and WP structures of affect are not equivalent and that BP and WP variation should be considered as distinct phenomena. It would be wrong, for example, to conceive of positive and negative affect as independent at the WP level, as suggested by BP findings. Yet, individual differences in WP structural characteristics are related to stable BP differences, and the degree to which individuals’ affect structures diverge from the BP structure can provide important insights into intraindividual functioning. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document