Personality adjectives in British and American English from 1800-2010. How to trace back historical trends in personality.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Steppan
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
American English ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Historical Trends ◽  
Trace Back ◽  
Google Books ◽  
Personality Description ◽  
Over Time

Background: Historic shifts in personality cannot easily be quantified, particularly before the existence of standardized personality tests. However, the historical corpus of a language can give insights into how writers of an era described their contemporaries. The archive of Google books can be used to quantify the relative frequency of personality describing adjectives in British and American English at least since 1800. The aim of the study is to describe trends in adjective use over time with respect to the Five Factor Model (FFM) and common personality disorders (PD’s). Methods: A list of 435 English personality adjectives was available for which FFM-factor loadings exist. Google ngram viewer was used to extract the usage of these adjectives over time. Applying the ’prototype’ approach these adjectives are also indicative of common personality disorders. Results: Over time personality adjectives in total have become more frequently used reaching a maximum in the 1970s for American English and the 2000’s for British English. Regardless of this trend, Openness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism have risen over time in both corpora. In terms of personality disorder prototypes more obsessive-compulsive and narcissistic (particularly for American English) features of personality have become salient during the second half of the 20th Century. Discussion: These results suggest that there are secular trends in personality description over time. The question whether or not the collective of writers accurately describes their contemporaries cannot be answered unequivocally, however the results show trends, which personality characteristics mattered most to different generations.

Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

2012 ◽  
pp. 565-581
Author(s):  
Jack Samuels ◽  
Paul T. Costa
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Positive Emotions ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Compulsive Disorder ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder ◽  
Over Time

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) has been described in the clinical literature for over 100 years. Although the specific traits included in the construct have changed over time, there is remarkable consistency in the core concept. OCPD is clinically significant, given its relatively high prevalence in the community, its frequent co-occurrence with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, especially obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders, and treatment challenges. Although OCPD can be quite severe, it is generally less impairing than other personality disorders in the clinic, and it has not been found to be strongly related to functional impairment in the community. OCPD has excellent construct validity, but concerns have been raised about the stability over time and the reliability of assessment. OCPD may be alternatively construed dimensionally, with high conscientiousness as an important feature. Like other personality disorders, OCPD is better understood and described in terms of a combination of traits or facets rather than as reflecting a single domain of personality. In this regard, a number of studies illuminate the contribution of high neuroticism, low openness to actions and values, low agreeableness, and low extraversion facets of warmth and positive emotions. Finally, there are many advantages to tying personality disorders, and especially OCPD, to established dimensions of general personality because a great deal is already known about the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model.

scholarly journals Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 983-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
LESLIE C. MOREY ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. HOPWOOD ◽  
JOHN G. GUNDERSON ◽  
ANDREW E. SKODOL ◽  
M. TRACIE SHEA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Validation Data ◽  
Categorical Diagnosis ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Marker Variables ◽  
Over Time

Background. The categorical classification system for personality disorder (PD) has been frequently criticized and several alternative dimensional models have been proposed.Method. Antecedent, concurrent and predictive markers of construct validity were examined for three models of PDs: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) model and the DSM-IV in the Collaborative Study of Personality Disorders (CLPS) sample.Results. All models showed substantial validity across a variety of marker variables over time. Dimensional models (including dimensionalized DSM-IV) consistently outperformed the conventional categorical diagnosis in predicting external variables, such as subsequent suicidal gestures and hospitalizations. FFM facets failed to improve upon the validity of higher-order factors upon cross-validation. Data demonstrated the importance of both stable trait and dynamic psychopathological influences in predicting external criteria over time.Conclusions. The results support a dimensional representation of PDs that assesses both stable traits and dynamic processes.

The Representation of Borderline, Avoidant, Obsessive-Compulsive, and Schizotypal Personality Disorders by the Five-Factor Model

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey ◽  
John G. Gunderson ◽  
Brian D. Quigley ◽  
M. Tracie Shea ◽  
Andrew E. Skodol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Schizotypal Personality

Comparison of categorical and dimensional approaches to the diagnosis of personality disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
T. G. Gadisov ◽  
A. A. Tkachenko
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Categorical Approach ◽  
Personal Traits ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Neo Five Factor Inventory

Summary. Objective: A comparative study of the personality structure from the perspective the Five-factor personality model (“Big Five”) in mentally healthy and in people with personality disorders depending on the leading radical determined by the clinical method.Materials and methods: a comparative study of personality structures in the mentally healthy (13 people) and in individuals with personality disorders (47 people) was carried out. To assess the personality structure, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire was used. Persons with personality disorders were divided into groups in accordance with the leading radical: 24 — with emotionally unstable; 13 — with a histrionic; 6 — with schizoid; 4 — with paranoid radicals.Results: There were no differences in the values of the domains of the Five-Factor personality model between a group of individuals with personality disorders and the norm. The features of domain indicators of the Five-factor personality model were revealed in individuals with personality disorder depending on theradical.Conclusion: The NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire, like most other tools from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model, is not suitable for assessing a person in terms of assigning it to variants of a mental disorder. When comparing the categorical and dimensional approaches to assessing the structure of personality disorders, it was found that the obligate personality traits identified using the categorical approach are fully reflected in the «Big Five» in individuals with a leading schizoid radical. The relations of obligate personal traits with the domains of the Five-factor model of personality in individuals with other (paranoid, histrionic,and emotionally unstable) radicals are less clear.

scholarly journals Karakteristik Kepribadian Frater di Wilayah Keuskupan Agung Jakarta Berdasarkan Five-Factor Model

MANASA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-44
Author(s):  
Guiedo Hendy Indra ◽  
Magdalena S. Halim
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Sampling Method ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
High Tendency ◽  
Convenience Sampling ◽  
Dominant Characteristic ◽  
Quantitative Descriptive ◽  
Personality Description ◽  
Age Range

Personality is one of the main things that are being shaped during the formation of Catholic Priest.  However, assessments of personality are often only based on preceptor observations. This study aims to find out the personality characteristics of the brothers to help the preceptors educating them. This research is a quantitative descriptive study with 82 brothers who live in Archdiocese of Jakarta as participants. Participants are currently undergoing stage of Bachelor studies, Pastoral Orientation Year, or Master studies with age range of 20-38 years (M = 23.44, SD = 3.447). Participants were collected by convenience sampling method, by distributing online questionnaires. The general personality description is obtained by processing the score of each Big Five Marker (IPIP-BFM-50) in Indonesian domain with descriptive statistical methods. ANOVA test is carried out to see the differences based on the formation stages. Most of the brothers have moderate scores for each domain, so the expressions can be trained to suit the needs of Church. However, some of them have extremely low score on Emotional Stability (3.7%), thus showing high tendency to be susceptible to stress and negative emotions. Agreeableness is the dominant characteristic as there are no extreme low scores in this domain and the SD on the raw score is also the smallest. It is also found that there are significant differences in Agreeableness based on the stages of the formation that are being undertaken.

Clinical Utility of the Five Factor Model

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Mullins-Sweatt ◽  
Douglas B. Samuel ◽  
Ashley Helle
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Clinical Application ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Three Components

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the clinical utility of the Five Factor Model (FFM). This chapter will consider the clinical application of the FFM for treatment in general, but its primary focus will be on the clinical utility of an FFM of personality disorders. Discussed herein will be the three fundamental components of clinical utility: ease of usage, communication, and treatment planning. Empirical research concerning the clinical utility of the FFM also will be considered in terms of the three components. Finally, research and examination of clincians’ perspectives of the utilty of categorical and dimensional models of personality will be discussed.

Personality Disorders as Collections of Traits

2019 ◽  
pp. 40-70
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
General Model ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Empirical Relations ◽  
Expert Ratings

This chapter argues that personality disorders can and should be understood as collections of basic personality traits from a general model of personality, namely the five-factor model (FFM). It reviews evidence for the convergence of FFM personality disorder profiles across multiple approaches—expert ratings (i.e., researchers and clinicians) and empirical relations. It discusses how to score the personality disorders from the FFM and provides evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and construct validity of this approach. The chapter also demonstrates how the new alternative model for personality disorders can be embedded within the more established and robust FFM literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document