Chapter 3
Traits and Trait Taxonomies
Some textbooks
are entirely this
one chapter !
Three fundamental questions
1. How should we conceptualize what a
trait is?
2. How can we identify which traits are
most important from among the
many ways that individuals differ?
3. How can we formulate a
comprehensive taxonomy of traits—
a system that includes within it all the
major traits of personality?
Summary View of Traits
Jerry Wiggins
Causal View of Traits
Paul Costa
“Causal” view of traits
● Presumed to be internal in that individuals
carry their desires, needs, and wants from
one situation to next.
● Desires and needs, dispositions to act that
can serve as explanations of the behavior
● Scientific usefulness of viewing traits as
causes of behavior lies in ruling out other
causes
“Summary” View of Traits
● Trait= behavor trend (summary of behav.)
● No assumption about internality
● No assumption that it is a cause of anything
– Scientific goal should be identify and
describe behavior trends (traits)
– Afterward, develop casual theories that
explain these trends (traits)
● According to the Summary point of view,
a trait is NOT an explanation of anything.
Example of the“Summary” view of traits:
Act Frequency approach
to trait measurement
Traits = categories of acts
Therefore the way to measure traits is…
1. Identify central “acts” for a trait category
2. Measure how frequently someone does
those acts.
Act Frequency Research Program
1) Act nominations: Designed to identify
which acts belong in which trait categories
2) Prototypicality judgements: Involves
identifying which acts are most central or
prototypical of each trait category
● Classical view of categories:
clear boundary: “features”
● Prototype view of categories
fuzzy boundary: “family resemblance”
Which is the more prototypic
“dog”? Why?
(NOTE: They possess dog features equally!)
Golden Lab’s are “prototypic”
Benefits of Act Frequency approach
1. Makes explicit the behavioral
referents of a trait
2. Helpful to illuminate the meaning of
some traits that are difficult to
study,
e.g., impulsivity, creativity
Limitations
1. Doesn’t say how much context
is needed for act descriptions
2. Weak approach for traits having
few observable referents
3. Weak approach for complex traits
Which traits are important?
3 approaches to answering this:
1. Lexical Approach
2. Statistical Approach
3. Theoretical Approach
The "Lexical" Approach
Sir Francis Galton’s (1885) "Lexical
hypothesis"
"All individual differences that
are socially important enough for
people to want to talk about them will
over time become registered in the
natural language (e.g., as an
adjective or noun). "
Lexical Approach
How identify important traits?
• If group members need to talk about an
individual difference a lot….
• Trait words will be invented to faciliate
easier communication about that.
Therefore:
• Dictionaries define the universe of
possible traits that are socially important
Lexical Approach
2 criteria of importance
● Synonym frequency
Kind, warm, nurturant….
● Cross-cultural universality
Kind
(yes, universal)
Unokai (NOT universal)
e.g., Yanomamo language has a
culturally specific trait: Unokai
“Achieving manhood via killing a man”
Yanomami
Advantage of Lexical Approach
1. Good starting point for identifying
important differences (But, should not
be only approach)
2. Very valuable to as a finite pool of
terms to sample from for statistical
approaches to traits
Limitations
1.Many traits are ambiguous, metaphorical,
obscure, or difficult
2.Personality is conveyed through many
different parts of speech
3.Assessment via single words (adjectives)
lacks context
Statistical Approach
● Starts with a large pool of trait descriptors
● Try to identify large trait dimensions
● “Statistical” refers to analysis of
covariation
● Factor analysis of the correlations
among large numbers of traits
Raymond Cattell (1905-1998)
●
●
●
●
Statistical/Lexical
Spearman's student
16PF questionnaire
Founded Lexical
approach
● Unbelievably prolific
researcher
● Career ended in scandal
● Died 1998
Example of Lexical+Statistical
Approach
● Allport (1938): 28,000 trait words
● Cattell (1944):
–representative list
–ratings
–factor analysis
Cattell's results was 16 factors.
Theoretical Approach
● Theory determines which indivdual
differences are important to try to
measure and study.
e.g.,
Sociosexual Orientation
(Simpson & Gangestad, 1991)
Sociosexual Orientation
Inventory (SOI)
With how many different partners have you had sex in the
past 12 months?
In everyday life, how often do you have spontaneous
fantasies about having sex with someone you just met?
Sex without love is OK.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
5
Strongly
Agree
Theoretical Approach
Sociosexual Orientation
● Evolutionary theory Mating strategies
SOI= Short-term vs Long-term strategies
(+) Value of the theory approach
depends on the strengths of that
theory
(-) Weakness of theory approach
follows from weakness of that theory
Most use a combination of
the 3 approaches.
• Cattell
• Eysenck
• Goldberg
III. Taxonomies of Personality
•
•
•
•
•
Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model
Cattell’s Taxonomy: The 16 PF
Circumplex models
The Five-Factor Model
The AB5C model
Trait taxonomies
● How many traits?
● How do they covary (group together)?
● Science of classification
taxonomics
Trait taxonomics
● Rational approach
Freud's types,
(clinical observ)
Jung's types
● Empirical approach (measure traits)
1) Rise of trait measurement
–Galton (1890), Binet (1912)
2) Rise of factor analysis
–Guilford (1930s), Cattell (1940s) ...
Empirical taxonomies
“Dimensions of trait covariation”
● Guilford (1936)
1. Extraversion questionnaire.
2. Factor analyze item correlations
3. Look for new factors.
Impulsivity
Thinking Introversion
4. Expand questionnaire.
5. Factor analyze item correlations.
Problem with bottom-up approach?
1) Proliferation
● Item pools can be extended infinitely.
2) Jingle-Jangle
● Different label, but same thing
● Same label, but different thing
e.g. "Self-Monitoring Scale”
Eysenck (1916-1998)
● Focus on big factors
● Anchor trait theories
in biology
● Test by experiments
● Focus on dimensions
instead of types
● Hierarchical model of trait structure
Habits covary to form traits.
Traits covary to form broad trait dimensions.
Hierarchical model
Factor
Trait
Habit
Habit
Trait
Habit
Habit
Say Goodbye to “Typologies”
Galen’s Typology (400 AD)
sanguine
choleric
phlegmatic
melancholic
(happy)
(impulsive)
(relaxed)
(gloomy)
Stable
Calm
Relaxed
Gloomy
Anxious
Irritable
- Neuroticism +
Inhibited
Reserved
Quiet
Bold
Lively
Outgoing
- Extraversion +
Sanguine
E+
(-)
Phlegmatic
Choleric
N+
(-)
Melancholic
What’s the difference
between a type and
a trait ?
Short answer:
The concept of type implies a
population distribution that is
distinct instead of gradual or
continuous.
How test if a distinct type exists?
Examine shape of score distribution.
EXAMPLE:
Men
Wom
Men and women are distinct categories
(types) in degree of femininity.
Say Goodbye to Jung’s Types
Thinking
vs.
Sensing
vs.
Extraversion vs.
Feeling
Intuition
Introversion
Q: Do people really come in
different “types”?
Is there any way to test if
that is true?
Concept of a type implies a bimodal
distribution of scores
T
F
S
I
I
E
Actual Distributions…
I
E
McCrae & Costa (1989
Type concept not completely abandoned..
1. Kagan et al. (1979)
Bold vs Inhibited babies
2. Robins et al. (1996)
Consistent evidence of 3 children temperament
types similar to those proposed by Block (1971)
Resilient
Overcontrolled
Undercontrolled