Trait Measurement
Does personality exist?
Brian Knutson
Stanford University
Cognitivism


Focus on representation
Focus on process
Trait measurement



Class Goals


Revisit the person-situation debate
Review trait approaches
Focus on measurement
Focus on structure
Focus on individual differences
Four Humours
BLACK BILE = Melancholic
PHLEGM = Sluggish
YELLOW BILE = Irritable
BLOOD = Sanguine
1
Gordon Allport (1897-1967)

Paradox:
Traits:









Person-situation debate



Behavioral inconsistency
Are more than a name
Are more general than a habit
Are dynamic, determinative
May be measured empirically
Are only relatively independent of other traits
Are not moral
Are not disproved by inconsistency
Can be seen as part of an individual or group
Rebuttals
Trait measurements don’t predict
behavior (very well)
Thus, situations are more important
Thus, assessment and intuitions are
wrong


Biased literature review?
Methods under development…




Small compared to what?


Traits vs. Situations

Traits
Cognitive dissonance (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

Bystander intervention (Darley & Batson, 1967)





Compensation
Other people present
Subject in a hurry
Real life measurements
Measure moderators
Predict trends
Absolute: BESD .40 = 70% prediction
Relative: Strength of the situation?
Class Goals
.40


.36
Revisit the person-situation debate
Review trait approaches
-.38
-.39
Obedience (Milgram, 1975)


Isolation of victim
Experimenter proximity
.42
.36
Source: Funder & Ozer (1983), J. Pers. & Soc. Psych.
2
Trait Approaches




Many-trait
Single-trait
Essential-trait
Typological
Many trait approach

Allport & Odbert (1936):


Grouped into 4 categories:




Many trait approach

California Q-Set (Block, 1978)




Authoritarianism

Conscientiousness


Delay of gratification



Girls: 3/.22, 4/.30, 7/.28, 11/.29
Boys: 3/.32, 4/.34, 7/.36, 11/.30
Drug abuse


Challenge: present for puzzle, forbidden toy
“Thinks before acting:”


“Is critical, skeptical, not easily impressed”
“Is a genuinely dependable and responsible person”
Under- versus over-control
Essential trait approach
Generalized personal tendencies (e.g., aggressive)
Moods and mental states (e.g., abashed, frantic)
Social evaluations of character (e.g., insignificant)
Physical qualities and abilitys (e.g., carousing)
Single trait approach
Examples:

Extracted 17,953 person-related terms from
Webster’s Dictionary


Contradictory motivations?
Integrity tests?
Job performance r=.41 (Ones et al., 1993)
Carrying insurance and living longer?
Self-monitoring


Trait consistency?
Unitary construct?
Raymond Cattell (1905-1988)




Looking for a periodic
table of elements for
personality: 16
Personality Factors
Relied on factor analysis
of questionnaires
Concerned with
determinants of
personality: Heredity v.
Environment
Concerned with dynamics
of personality
3
Hans J. Eysenck (1916-1997)



Emphasized types;
viewed traits as
hierarchical
Viewed as biologically
based
Three dimensions:



Introversion-Extraversion
Neuroticism
Psychoticism
Paul Costa & Robert McCrae






Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Typological approach
3 Types (Caspi, 1998)




Big 5: Reliability (Fleeson, 2001)
Self-other ratings
Five-Factor Inventory


Example: Extraversion
Ego-resilients
Vulnerable overcontrollers
Unsettled undercontrolled
Additional predictive validity?
Summary




Personality exists
Trait variables account for about as much
variance as do situational variables
There are several different approaches to
measuring traits
The essential trait approach is making
progress…
4
Next…


Trait inference
Readings:

McCrae & Costa, Funder
5