Trait Theories: Allport, Eysenck, & Cattell Flashcards
Traits
words that describe people’s typical styles of experience (personality) and action (behavior)
Personality trait
consistent patterns in the way people behave, feel and think
Two features of traits:
Consistency: doesn’t mean always; a predisposition
Distinctive: people can differ on the trait
Three scientific aspects of trait theory
Description
Prediction
Explanation
Descriptive aspect of trait theory
Trait constructs are descriptive – they describe people and their typical behaviour
Trait words (descriptors) can form a taxonomy (e.g. a classification system)
Predictive aspect of trait theory
Personality traits may predict types of (observable/objective) behaviour
Can we predict a “good employee?” – conscientious, agreeable, trustful?
How do we predict/label an individual’s traits?
How do we predict/label an individual’s behaviour?
Explanative aspect of trait theory
Do traits also ‘explain’ behaviour?
What is the intent of the behaviour?
Traits can explain but its easy to be biased, inaccurate, unknowing and uncertain
More of a “Gestalt” (holistic impression) “…an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts”
Shared assumptions of traits
Enduring predispositions, consistent and distinctive
Continuum: People can be high or low on a trait
Validity: However, it can still lack certainty (phenomenological: limited knowledge; e.g., intent)
We only truly know our own intent (…or do we?)
e.g., Acting extroverted to repress or compensate for feelings of anxiety/shyness
Hierarchy: Human behaviour can be organised in a hierarchy (with a bi-directional process)
Example: Eysenck’s P-E-N model
Gordon Allport
- Rejected both psychoanalytic and behavioral approaches
- Accepted idiographic approach
- Emphasized the uniqueness of each individual
- Present > past
- Situation influences expression of trait
- In-depth analysis of individuals
- Opposite of nomothetic approach
Traits vs States vs Activities
Traits: frequent, intense and seen across a wide variety of situations (stable)
States (e.g., emotional) and Activities (e.g., situational) are temporary, brief and caused by
situational (often external) and internal states and circumstances
Lexical Approach
Allport went through the entire dictionary (+150k words) and located every term that he thought
could describe a person
He developed a list of 4500 descriptive (trait-like) words (i.e., adjectives – describe person/thing)
He organized these into three levels of traits: cardinal, general and secondary
Cardinal traits
A trait that is so pervasive it dominates a person’s behavior and character
They are rare, a person may have no clear cardinal trait at all
e.g., Narcissistic (Narcissisus), Libidinal/Seductive (Don Juan; Quagmire, family guy),
Sadistic (Marquis de Sade), Benevolent (Nelson Mandela; Mother Theresa)
General traits
A trait found to varying degrees in most people
honesty, kindness, assertiveness, etc. (i.e., the “normal” traits)
Secondary traits
Trait x situation
Traits related to attitudes or preferences that often appear only in certain situations or under
specific circumstances
nervous when speaking to large groups
getting impatient waiting in a line
fearful of the dentist
Factor analysis
Factor Analysis is a statistical technique that summarizes the way in which a large number of
variables correlate or co-occur together
Remember if a variable is highly (pos.) correlated with another they behave in very similar
ways, e.g. if one goes up, the other goes up, or if one occurs the other occurs
(Fictional) Facebook Friends Survey N=10,000 people (Correlation Matrix results)
Factor Analysis Method
The analysis investigates the correlation (or co-occurrence) of a large number of variables and
identifies which ones co-occur with each other
Variables that are highly correlated with each other will cluster together and form a “factor”
Thus, factors are made up of co-occuring variables…
We can reduce a large number of variables into a small number of meaningful factors
Factors are overarching (latent) representations of many traits
Factors are then subjectively labelled (i.e., described) as to what variables it possesses/represents
In other words, our “labelling” defines the factor
Latent traits
Latent traits describe traits that cannot be directly measured, such as neuroticism, happiness, etc.
Benefits of factor analysis
Parsimonious (simplifies the “data”)
Organising a large set of information into a simpler form
Factors can be used to describe, predict and explain almost anything
Limitations of factor analysis
atheoretical
Completely mathematical solution (apart from the subjective labelling)
Not lead by theory – completely data driven!
So, other data sets – can result in different correlations and factors
Does not answer why – why do they co-vary in this way?
Raymond Cattell
Wanted to create the ‘basic elements’ of the
human mind like the periodic table of elements
has for chemistry
Created the famous 16 Personality Factor Model
aka 16PF model
Source traits
(Factors)
Correlations of surface traits
- Cattell identified 16 of them
Surface traits
Superficial traits
- can be observed
- Cattell identified 100s of the them
16PF Questionnaire
3 different types of Source Traits (e.g. Factors)
Ability Traits: Skills and abilities that allow the individual to function effectively
e.g. REASONING (High – indicative of Intelligence; Low – indicative of Concrete Thinking)
Temperament Traits: Involve emotional life and stylistic qualities of behaviour
e.g. WARMTH (High – Kind; Low – Detached)
Dynamic Traits: Concern the striving, motivational life of the individual
e.g. DOMINANCE (High – Forceful; Low – Submissive
Evidence for 16PF Model
L-data: Life record data (15PF)
S or Q-data: Questionnaire data; self-report (16PF)
OT-data: Observational / experimental data
- Behavioural mini-situations; extraversion with confederates (21PF)
Cattell tried to relate the outcomes using these different data’s to each other (Construct validity)
L and S-Q similar (the combined results are what makes up the Cattell 16PF model)
OT data; very little direct relationship initially found… fail
But is acclaimed in his attempt to investigate construct validity…
That was a novel idea/process at the time
Cattell: Traits vs States vs Roles
Roles: Certain behaviours are more closely linked to social roles than to personality traits
I may behave more “professional” in class, than I do in other situations/roles
It depends on my perceived “role” in the situation (e.g., professor)
– notice the similarity to Jungian ideas of the persona and archetypes again
Traits are stable behaviours that may be affected by mood/situation (state) and social roles
of the situation
Raymond Cattell Limitations
Approach
Data → Factor Analysis → Theory
Should be… Theory → Data → Factor Analysis
Every data sample is different – dangerous to use data to create theory
Can have problems replicating results (a scientific necessity!)
Conceptual
Even if we can identify what a person’s traits are, how can we use this therapeutically?
Early trait theorist didn’t offer much explanation, but Hans Eysenck took things a little
further with more construct validity of the trait approach itself (introduces biology)
Hans Eysenck
Superfactors: Analyzed substantial questionnaire data to reveal various factors.
-Factors may be related to each other; Eysenck factor-analyzed factors to create super factors
Hans Eysenck Superfactors
Two statistically independent superfactors:
Extraversion: introversion vs extraversion
Neuroticism: emotional stability vs instability
Third dimension to superfactors
Psychoticism: organized largely negative and abnormal social traits and attitude.
Hans Eysenck: Factor Measurement
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)
Based on PEN model
- Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism
EPQ-R (1985)
Full version
- 100 yes/no questions
Short version
- 48 yes/no questions in its short scale version
Scales of P-E-N found to be reliable under criterion analysis, but, limited due to yes/no only
Biological basis of Extraversion/Introversion
Linked to neurophysiological functioning; Arousal
Introverts – High cortical arousal
Highly intense stimuli (parties, skydiving, loud music, etc.) make them OVER-aroused
Extroverts – Low cortical arousal
Low intense calming stimuli will make them UNDER-aroused (they’ll seek arousal)
Green (1997) brain activity shows support
Krueger & Johnson (2008) Twin studies also support (a Hereditary link)
Biological basis of neuroticism
Eysenck theorised that individual differences would be found in the autonomic nervous system (ANS)
Highly attuned to negative and/or emotional experience (overly Anxious)
High neuroticism should be linked to a quick responding ANS that is slow to decrease
These individuals will seem “jumpy” and “stressed out”
Benefits of being Neurotic?
Link between neuroticism and biology not consistently supported (Eysenck, 1990)
Individual differences based on perceived threat/worry
… but temperament (20-60% may be genetic; predisposed to being neurotic)
Biological basis of psychoticism
Some ‘societal’ links between psychoticism traits and male aggressiveness
Particularly in relation to increased testosterone levels (“roid rage” – although disputed) but
evident gender differences seen in antisocial personality disorder
But very little empirical support for the neurophysiological basis of psychoticism
Psychological difficulties arrive from…
(1) personality traits and
(2) the (biological) nervous system functioning related to those traits
For example: a person develops neurotic symptoms due to biological systems and
environmental experiences
Can we change?
Genetic and biological determinants are only predispositions
If a patient has psychopathological symptoms (high neuroticism for example) they can learn
to change their behaviour by changing the way they think about their thoughts
