See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292654129

The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 1 —

Personality Theories and Models

Book · January 2008

DOI: 10.4135/9781849200462

CITATIONS READS

154 8,541

3 authors:

Gregory J. Boyle Gerald Matthews

University of Melbourne University of Central Florida
237 PUBLICATIONS 5,534 CITATIONS 475 PUBLICATIONS 29,621 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Don Saklofske
The University of Western Ontario
607 PUBLICATIONS 13,395 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregory J. Boyle on 28 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 1

1
Personality Theories
and Models: An Overview
Gregory J. Boyle, Gerald Matthews and Donald H. Saklofske

The thesis of these volumes is that the study of The purpose of these handbooks is to review
personality traits has advanced towards issues of both consensus and controversy.
‘normal science’ in the sense of a Kuhnian par- Contributors synthesize the state of the art of
adigm (cf. Eysenck, 1981; Kuhn, 1962). That the research on the core tenets of trait theory,
is, most researchers in this area share a set of such as behaviour genetics and trait stability,
common core beliefs supported by empirical and present perspectives on unresolved
evidence. These include the relative stability of issues such as the important role of culture.
traits over time, a significant genetic and bio- In addition, trait theory is only one scientific
logical influence on personality, and relevance paradigm for personality research. Although
of traits to many areas of everyday life. Each the focus here is on trait models, the hand-
one of these beliefs has been vigorously con- books also seek to explore key points of con-
tested in the past, but the evidence in favour of tact and differences with traditional
each one is now overwhelming (Boyle and approaches to personality (Campbell, Vol. 1)
Saklofske, 2004; Matthews et al., 2003). At the and with social-cognitive theory and methods
same time, researchers do not subscribe to (Cervone, Vol. 1; Zayas et al., Vol. 2).
some crude biological determinism. The roles In this introductory chapter, we will outline
of gene–environment interaction in personality the case that the trait model of personality
development and of person–situation interac- constitutes normal science, and compare the
tion in determining behaviour are also well trait perspective with alternative scientific
established. Within the overall paradigm, trait approaches. We will also set out the key
models have also stimulated important and criteria that must be satisfied to build a
unresolved debates, including the optimal successful trait theory, subdivided into
measurement framework for traits, the mecha- formal and often quantitative criteria such as
nisms that transmit causal effects of traits on test–retest stability, and criteria that relate to
behaviour, as well as the roles of cultural and the psychological meaning and construct
social factors in moderating the nature of validity of traits. We will also discuss some
traits. of the challenges to trait theory, and the
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 2

2 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

directions the field may take in addressing Vol. 1), as the most articulate early proponent
these challenges. We will conclude the chapter of the view that the main attributes of person-
by introducing the various contributions to ality may be described by a number of dis-
Vol. 1, related to the pivotal issues previously crete dimensions. Cattell’s personality theory
discussed. is inextricably linked to quantitative meas-
urement models based on factor analysis of
questionnaire responses and other sources
of personality data (although known for the
TRAIT THEORY AS NORMAL SCIENCE ‘16 Personality Factor Questionnaire’ or
16PF, Cattell also identified several addi-
The basic tenets of modern trait theory are tional personality traits that were not
not new – indeed, their origins lie in antiquity amenable to questionnaire assessment).
(Stelmack and Stalikas, 1991). However, in Cattell’s formulation of trait models remains
their contemporary form, they owe much to influential. Four attributes of these models
three founding fathers of trait psychology: stand out. First, the trait as a latent construct
Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell and Hans with causal force, the source trait, should be
Eysenck. In his early career, Cattell was distinguished from superficial regularities in
influenced by Allport, when both were faculty behaviour or surface traits. Second, person-
members at Harvard University. At the outset, ality models should be hierarchical; broad
Allport (1937) famously remarked, ‘In every- factors such as extraversion and anxiety are
day life, no-one, not even a psychologist, defined by groupings of more narrowly
doubts that underlying the conduct of a mature defined primary traits, such as in the case of
person there are characteristic dispositions extraversion – dominance, surgency and ven-
or traits.’ turesomeness. Third, the personality sphere
Allport defined a trait or disposition as ‘a should be differentiated from other domains
generalized neuropsychic structure (peculiar of individual differences, including ability,
to the individual), with the capacity to render motivation and transient mood states. Fourth,
many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to the influence of traits on behaviour is moder-
initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) ated by situational factors. Controversies
forms of adaptive and stylistic behaviour’. continue over whether numbers can ever cap-
That is, a trait describes the filtering of expe- ture human personality (see Pervin, 2002),
rience through the self to impose a personal and over the scaling and measurement
structure on the world, as for example, a trait- assumptions inherent in assessment of traits
anxious person may interpret a miscellany of (Barrett, 2005). Nevertheless, the four
stimuli as threats. Furthermore, traits gener- features of Cattellian theory listed here remain
ate a consistency of response in the service of as key principles for most contemporary trait
adaptive and expressive goals. These remain theorists.
the central assumptions of contemporary trait The third figure in the trinity is Hans
theory. The phrase ‘peculiar to the individual’ Eysenck (e.g. Eysenck, 1957, 1967; see
is telling, in that it signals Allport’s predom- O’Connor, Vol. 1). His debates with Cattell
inantly idiographic stance on traits. While on the optimal number of factors (Eysenck
this view has been cherished by much of focused on three broad dimensions: extraver-
social-cognitive personality psychology, trait sion, neuroticism and psychoticism, as com-
theory has been dominated by nomothetic pared with the 16 primary factors and several
approaches that seek to identify traits that are secondary factors reported by Cattell) were a
meaningful for all individuals. precursor to the number-of-factors issue that
Nomothetic trait models owe much to has embroiled the field ever since (e.g. see
Raymond Cattell (e.g. Cattell, 1973; Cattell Boyle, 2006). However, this discrepancy was
and Kline, 1977: see Boyle, Vol. 1; Campbell, more apparent than real, since Eysenck and
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 3

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 3

Cattell were focusing on measurement at dif- basis for traits that meets standard criteria for
ferent levels within the hierarchical trait reliability and validity. The internal consis-
model. In fact, at the second-order 16PF tency of major trait measures and their stabil-
level, communality between the Cattellian ity in the adult (e.g. Boyle, 1991; Asendorpf,
and Eysenckian factors was striking, so much Vol. 1; Terracciano et al., 2006) are not in
so that ‘the Cattell and Eysenck constructs question. Validity is a more complex issue
and theories should be seen, not as mutually that we can only touch upon at this point. The
contradictory, but as complementary and issue here is that traits possess criterion
mutually supportive’ (Eysenck, 1984: 336). validity in correlating with a variety of quan-
We emphasize Eysenck’s attempt to titative external indices, including objective
ground traits in heritable properties of the criteria, such as error rates during perform-
brain, so that extraversion, neuroticism and ance and amplitudes of physiological
psychoticism were linked to specific brain responses (Matthews et al., 2003; Stelmack
systems. In addition, Eysenck pioneered the and Rammsayer, Vol. 1). The multiplicity of
use of empirical studies to test the relation- traits requires a focus on a personality struc-
ships between traits and behaviour – and the ture defined by latent factors. Multivariate
moderating role of situational factors – in rig- methods including factor analysis (Cattell,
orously controlled experiments. As O’Connor 1978; Gorsuch, 1983) and structural equation
(Vol. 1) discusses, building causal models of modelling (Cuttance and Ecob, 1987) may be
individual differences requires both the used to propose and test configurations of
matching of correlational and experimental multiple dimensions that provide a compre-
methods, and the study of person x situation hensive description of personality going
interaction. Also central to Eysenck’s pro- beyond an arbitrary collection of single traits
gramme was empirical investigation of what (see Boyle, 2006; & Vol.1 for a simplified
these days are called consequential outcomes psychometric model). A further consequence
(Ozer and Benet-Martinez, 2006); the rele- is that abnormality in personality may be
vance of traits to real-life outcomes in rela- defined statistically, in relation to the end-
tion to mental health, academic and work points of each trait continuum. Whether
accomplishments and social relationships. abnormality is pathological is a distinct
Eysenck’s specific hypotheses about the bio- question, although in fact convergence
logical bases for personality remain open to between normal and abnormality in studies
debate (Matthews and Gilliland, 1999), but on personality structure (Costa and Widiger,
there is no serious argument among trait psy- 2002; Malik et al., Vol. 1) suggests a grada-
chologists over the importance of the brain, tion from normal to abnormal personality.
the use of experimental methods and the The contrary view, expressed by Cattell (see
investigation of real-life outcomes. Cattell, 1995; Boyle, Vol. 1), is that pathol-
ogy may need to be related to abnormal traits
beyond the normal personality factor space.
Basic assumptions and principles The second principle of a genetic basis
for the major traits has been supported by
Table 1.1 sets out some basic assumptions of behavioural genetic and, increasingly, molec-
trait theory, to which the great majority of ular genetic evidence (see Johnson et al., Vol.
researchers in the field would subscribe 1; Congden and Canli, Vol. 2). Historically,
(cf. Matthews et al., 2003; Pervin, 2002). We the heritability principle – especially when
suggest that many of the familiar, defining framed as a crude genetic determinism –
features of traits reflect four underlying prin- clashed with the egalitarian ethos of the
ciples, as shown in the table. The assumption 1960s and the social science model of the
that traits are relatively stable, continuous, time that denied any role to the genes
dimensional qualities requires a psychometric (Pinker, 2002). The subsequent accumulation
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 4

4 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

Table 1.1 Core principles of trait theory

Stable quantitative Reliability and validity Traits may be assessed as numeric
dimensions scales, evaluated against
psychometric and external criteria
Latent factor models Multivariate methods indicate
personality structure
Abnormality Pathology may correspond to the
extremes of trait dimensions
Genetic basis Behaviour genetics Genetic influences are necessary to
model effects of kinship on
personality similarity
Molecular genetics DNA is linked to phenotypic personality
Psychophysiology Neuroscience models of traits generate
testable predictions
Universality Traits correspond to individual
differences in brain functioning
evident in all cultures
Generality of trait Cross-situational Traits are expressed in multiple
expression consistency situations and contexts
Laboratory studies Traits are expressed in controlled
environments and psychological tasks
Consequential outcomes Traits are expressed in real-life contexts
including health, work and relationships
Pathology Abnormal traits are sufficiently far-
reaching to increase vulnerability to
clinical disorder
Interactionism Situational moderation Situational factors moderate trait
expression
Dynamics of development Personality development depends on the
interplay between temperament and
environment
Applications Traits may be matched against jobs,
therapies and teaching styles, for
example, to achieve real-world benefits

of evidence has been sufficiently persuasive equivalent, then the trait will encourage sim-
that it is safe to say that the role of genetics ilar responses to different situations perceived
is no longer controversial. As Plomin et al. as functionally equivalent. The point here
(2001) noted, behaviour genetic studies also is that a trait such as extraversion is not rele-
provide powerful evidence for the role of the vant to a single class of situations only – say,
environment in shaping personality (espe- lively parties – but influences behaviour
cially the ‘non-familial’ environment). The across a whole range of different contexts.
genetic assumption implies that traits can be This position depends on the evidence for
understood within neuroscience models, cross-situational consistency in behaviour
supported by psychophysiological evidence. (e.g. Funder, 2006); without such consis-
If personality is a ‘window on the brain’, it tency, traits could only describe behaviour in
follows too that traits must be universal, in specific situations. Historically, cross-situa-
generalizing across the different cultures of tional consistency has also been controver-
Homo sapiens. The genetic basis for traits is sial, as exemplified by Mischel’s (1968)
also compatible with evolutionary accounts famous (or notorious) ‘situationist’ critique
of personality. of the personality trait field. As with genet-
The third principle listed in Table 1.1 is the ics, accumulating evidence based on the
generality of expression of traits. If, as Allport important principle of aggregating data to
stated, traits work to render different stimuli provide reliable behavioural assessment
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 5

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 5

(Epstein, 1977) has persuaded many of the selecting job applicants whose personalities
doubters. It follows too that the behavioural are congruent with job demands and tailoring
expression of traits may be studied in artificial therapies to the strengths and weaknesses
laboratory situations. We are not obliged to conferred by traits; for example, a conscien-
study extraverted individuals only during nat- tious patient is more likely to follow pro-
uralistic revelry; Eysenck’s (1967) theory pre- grammes of ‘homework’ used in cognitive
dicts the trait should influence laboratory tasks therapy (Bagby and Quilty, 2006; Miller,
including conditioning, vigilance and memory, 1991). Interactionism generates no discern-
for example. Traits should also influence able controversy as a general principle;
behaviour across a range of significant real-life although naturally the specific theories
contexts including the workplace, leisure pur- are open to normal scientific criticism
suits, stressful encounters and intimate rela- (e.g. Matthews and Gilliland, 1999).
tionships (e.g. Furnham and Heaven, 1999).
The fourth principle is interactionism
(Endler, 1983), necessary to accommodate Alternative strategies for
the role of the situation evidenced in studies personality science
of cross-situational consistency. Most
simply, traits may be switched on or off by The success of trait models as a scientific
situational factors; neuroticism might only be framework for studying personality does not
expressed in threatening or stressful situa- preclude alternative strategies for scientific
tions, for example. More subtly, traits may advance. A familiar point is that personality
correspond to parameters of key neural or psychology is so wide-ranging that it needs
psychological processes elicited by situa- multiple levels of explanation (Hettema and
tional stimuli. For example, trait anxiety Deary, 1993; Matthews, 2000). Zuckerman
might correspond to the sensitivity to activa- refers to the ancient myth that the world rests
tion of a brain punishment system (Gray, on a stack of giant turtles. He states that
1991; Pickering and Corr, Vol. 1), or to the ‘Each turtle is a distinct creature to be stud-
accessibility in the memory of a cognitive ied at its own level, but for a complete under-
code representing threat (Wells and Matthews, standing of any turtle one cannot ignore the
1994). The trait does not directly control next turtle down who forms its foundation’
behaviour but modulates processing. Some (1992: 681). Specifically, he lists seven tur-
trait theorists (e.g. Eysenck, 1967; Gray, tles from the top down as traits, social behav-
1991) make explicit predictions about the iour, conditioning, physiology, biochemistry,
processes thus modulated, such as reticulo- neurology and genetics. Indeed, researchers
cortical activation in the case of Eysenck’s working at different levels within this hierar-
theory (O’Connor, Vol. 1). chy propose different explanatory constructs
Over the extended timescale of personality ranging from DNA to high-level traits, such
development, the modulatory role of person- as E and N.
ality influences not just immediate behaviour The differentiation of levels is uncontro-
but also feedback from the environment versial, but two more difficult issues remain.
impacting on personality development The first is how to integrate the different
(Asendorpf, Vol. 1; Caspi et al., 2005; Cattell theories relating to each individual level.
and Nesselroade, 1988). For example, the The second is whether levels that reflect a
risk-taking and the inhibited child are likely ‘natural science’ approach to personality
to experience rather different formative expe- (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985) are adequate to
riences. A final consequence of interaction- explain traditional concerns of personality
ism is that, given the resistance to change of psychology such as the nature of the self, social
adult traits, applied psychologists should relationships and motives, and individuality.
address the congruence or compatibility of So far as integration of theories is concerned,
traits and environments. Examples include there have been two broad strategies
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 6

6 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

(Matthews, 2000, 2004). The first is biologi- psychoanalytic theories originating with
cal reductionism (occasionally, triumphal- Freud and the social-cognitive theory associ-
ism) that seeks to explain all expressions of ated with Bandura, Mischel and others as two
traits, including high-level social behaviours, major systems for understanding, which are
in terms of brain functioning. The idea at variance with trait theory in important
underlies the classic theories of Eysenck and respects. We will not dwell at length on the
Gray, in which individual differences in the prospects of psychoanalysis and its successor
brain (influenced by genetic variation) feed theories as a basis for scientific understand-
up the stack of ‘turtles’, progressively influ- ing. It does not bode well that much of the
encing integrative brain systems (e.g. debate on the scientific status of psycho-
Eysenck’s reticulocortical circuit), learning analysis hinges on whether it is fundamen-
and behaviour, and actual life outcomes. The tally untestable, and outside the realm of
strongest contemporary theory of this kind is science, or whether it is testable but discon-
Nyborg’s (1994) view that the psychology of firmed by data (MacMillan, 1997). As
personality may be reduced entirely to Campbell (Vol. 1) discusses, psychodynamic
biochemical explanations. However, a hard theories may be important as sources of ideas.
reductionism has been criticized on the basis Some commentators, notably Westen (1999),
that traits do not appear to be isomorphic have pointed out the re-emergence in scien-
with specific brain systems (Zuckerman, tific studies of some Freudian concepts, such
2005). Traits may be seen as emergent, as the importance of the unconscious and
higher-order properties of self-organization repression. However, we agree with Kihlstrom
that, while influenced by neural processes, (1999) that the unconscious as revealed by
do not directly map onto them. experimental studies of implicit processes
The alternative strategy for accomplishing does not closely resemble the Freudian uncon-
integration of theories at different levels is to scious. More generally, whatever heuristic
accept that the various constructs used are value there may be to Freud’s insights, there is
equally valid as the basis for explanation. At no evidence supporting the elaborate theoreti-
the same time, it is important to explore how cal architecture of psychoanalysis.
different types of explanation may be related Social cognitive theories are more deserving
to each other, for example by developing of attention as an alternative ‘normal science’.
neural network models that may support par- One of the sustained minor chords of person-
allel neurological and cognitive accounts of ality research has been of interest in the sys-
personality effects (Matthews and Harley, tematic study of individual lives expressed,
1993). It has been proposed elsewhere that for example, through research on personal
the ‘classical’ theory of cognitive science constructs (Grice, 2004). Little and
(Pylyshyn, 1984) provides a suitable frame- Chambers (2004: 65) highlight the ‘personal
work of this kind (Matthews, 1997, 2000). It projects’ that ‘range from the daily doings of
differentiates three forms of explanation, say typical Thursdays (e.g. “put out the cat,
relating to the physical (brain) hardware, the quickly”) to the self-defining passions of a
virtual and symbolic software (information lifetime (e.g. “transform Western thought,
processing) and self-knowledge (motives, slowly”)’. A more far-reaching approach is
goals and intentions). The application of cog- that of social-cognitive personality theory. Its
nitive science to integrating different levels antecedents include rigorous work on learn-
of trait theory is discussed further by ing – both conditioning and social learning –
Matthews (Vol. 1). and representations in memory of the self
The second issue related to theory integra- (the self-schema). Typically, social-cognitive
tion is that personality theory may need to approaches fuse a concern with general princi-
accommodate models that are radically ples of psychological functioning with an
different to trait theory. Pervin (2002) lists emphasis on the individual as the appropriate
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 7

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 7

unit of analysis for personality studies validity and an understanding of what traits
(Caprara and Cervone, 2000). A key question actually mean in terms of psychological or
is the extent to which integration of trait biological theory. Matthews et al. (2003)
theory and social cognitive theory is possi- identify four major areas of progress in
ble, or even desirable. The two forms of recent trait research that support the scien-
theory might be seen as fundamentally tific credibility of the enterprise. In addition
incommensurable (in the Kuhnian sense) and to developments in psychometrics, progress
doomed to remain in mutual isolation. A dif- in psychological understanding of traits is
ferent view (Matthews et al., 2003) is that signalled by three important advances: a
while there are important differences in aims more sophisticated understanding of biologi-
and assumptions, both approaches can learn cal bases of traits, increasing integration of
from one another. Stable social knowledge, trait research with mainstream cognitive,
shaped by social learning, may contribute to social and developmental psychology, and
traits, and the basic constructs of social- the increasing applied value of assessment
cognitive theory, including the self-concept, of traits.
expectancies and motives, may not be In this section, we briefly review some of
immune to temperamental and trait influ- the sources of optimism among trait psychol-
ences. Various contributors to these hand- ogists, covering both the psychometric
books integrate social-cognitive constructs ‘syntax’ and the theoretical ‘semantics’. In
into trait theories, most directly in the section the section that follows, we then turn to some
on key self-regulative traits. Self-regulative of the emerging challenges to personality
theories may also serve to elucidate relation- trait theories.
ships between biologically based traits and
cognitions of the self (Elliott and Thrash,
Vol. 1). While the major focus of these vol- Psychometric advances
umes is on traits, the editors also considered
it vital to present the essentials of social- The question of how many basic factors are
cognitive theory (Cervone, Vol. 1) and needed to describe human personality has, at
methodologies (Zayas et al., Vol. 2). times, seemed like asking: ‘How many
angels may dance on the end of a pin?’ For
a number of years, the issue appeared to
founder on disagreements about factor-
PUSHING OUT THE FRONTIERS: KEY analytic techniques, sampling of personality
AREAS OF PROGRESS data, and what constituted a ‘basic’ factor.
However, recent years have seen signs of a
The hallmark of a successful scientific growing convergence on psychometric
paradigm is that it is ‘progressive’, in the accounts of broad, higher-order personality
sense of stimulating new and informative traits. Based on the work of McCrae and
research (Lakatos, 1977). By contrast, degen- Costa (1997), Goldberg (1990) and others,
erative programmes are more concerned with the five-factor model (FFM) has risen into
post hoc modifications to theory in order to some prominence in some quarters as a puta-
explain away contradictory data. Personality tive framework for organizing personality
trait models are open to progress (or degener- trait data (McCrae and Costa, Vol. 1). At the
ation) on two fronts. First, there is a ‘syntax’ second-stratum level, a somewhat different
of traits referring to their formal psychomet- five-factor structure can also be derived from
ric properties including the definition of Cattell’s personality questionnaires (Krug and
reliable latent constructs, long-term stability Johns, 1986; see Boyle, Vol. 1). Furthermore,
and cross-situational generality. Second, there Zuckerman’s version of the FFM with its
are ‘semantics’ of traits referring to construct emphasis on psychobiological underpinnings
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 8

8 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

(see Zuckerman, 1995), goes considerably However, as previously noted, we now know
beyond the simple trait descriptions postu- that Mischel’s argument was over-stated, and
lated in the lexical FFM (see Fraley and convincing evidence for cross-situational
Roberts, 2005). Thus, Zuckerman’s FFM of consistency of behaviour is obtained when
personality structure in its incorporation of rigorous methods are used (e.g. Epstein,
biological, comparative, experimental and 1977; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1980; Funder,
trait approaches illustrates how descriptive 2006). There is now a general consensus in
accounts of personality may be integrated favour of the interactionist position that both
with sophisticated theory. traits and situations are important influences
Clearly, consensus about the number of on behaviour.
broad personality dimensions is not complete. The issue of whether traits generalize across
Although the FFM has generated substantial cultures has also been controversial (see Chiu
empirical data spanning the various fields of et al., Vol. 1; Stankov and Lee, Vol. 1). If it is
psychology (McCrae and Costa, Vol. 1), believed that personality is an expression of
substantive objections to the FFM have been cultural values, there is no particular reason
raised in relation both to the validity of why personality structures found within dif-
dimensional models in general (e.g. ferent cultures should coincide. On the other
McAdams, 1992), and to the specific psycho- hand, if traits reflect universal features of
metric evidence supporting it (Block, 1995; brain physiology – or, indeed, universal
Boyle, Vol. 1). There is also considerable themes or challenges of human life – then the
current interest in adding additional major same traits should be observed in all cultures.
factors (e.g. Ashton and Lee, Vol. 2; Bond, As we have seen, this claim has been at the
2000; Durrett and Trull, 2005). Indeed, as foundations of the argument for the FFM
Eysenck (personal communication, 1996) (Costa and McCrae, 1992). There appear to
pointed out, extraction of five factors is be different readings of the evidence on this
somewhat arbitrary. Presumably, the person- issue. McCrae and Costa (Vol. 1) argue that
ality sphere can be divided into any number the five-factor structure of traits has been
of factors, depending upon one’s particular confirmed in many studies conducted around
preference. It remains to be seen whether the world. By contrast, psychologists working
advances in psychometrics will eventually with indigenous personality constructs have
provide a universally accepted personality identified what may be additional major
structure, akin to the periodic table of traits such as those relating to ‘Chinese tradi-
elements in chemistry. tions’ (Bond, 2000). Of course, distributions
Perhaps the most controversial element of of personality factors in different cultures
the ‘syntax’ of traits has been their generality. may differ even if personality structure gen-
Even if we accept that traits can be assessed eralizes. Thus, cross-cultural differences in
reliably, and show temporal stability, we may personality may actually explain some cul-
question whether the construct assessed gen- tural differences in behaviour. Matsumoto
eralizes across different situations and differ- (2006) found that differences in emotion reg-
ent cultures. Indeed, an attack on the ulation between Japanese and the US samples
cross-situational generalization of behaviour could be entirely explained by the higher neu-
was at the core of Mischel’s (1968) critique roticism, and lower conscientiousness and
of traits. He coined the term ‘personality extraversion, of the Japanese respondents.
coefficient’ to describe the typical correlation To summarize, the psychometric criteria
between trait measures and external criteria for traits refer to whether ‘the numbers
obtained using other methods (i.e. not further behave properly’. In fact, to a large extent,
questionnaires). Mischel’s claim was that the they do. Confirmatory factor analyses and
coefficient rarely exceeded 0.2–0.3, which he structural equation modelling demonstrate
took as an argument for the triviality of traits. reliable, and often corresponding, factor
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 9

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 9

structures for leading instruments. Individual are critical, as much as objective qualities of
differences in behaviour correlate across sit- the situation. The role of trait anxiety in gov-
uations, and relate predictably to personality erning behaviour depends on how much the
traits. Personality structures also correlate person ‘reads’ threat into a situation that may
across cultures, at least to some degree. New or not be objectively dangerous. Threat
psychometric methods are expected to refine appraisal itself may depend on trait anxiety,
such investigations. At the same time, psy- so that trait and situational influences
chometrics also indicates some of the com- become intertwined (cf. Endler and
plexities and challenges which trait theory Kocovski, 2001).
must accommodate, including the existence A second, related issue is that empirical
of alternate factor models, the powerful role studies do, indeed, reveal that the influence
of the situation as an influence on behaviour, of traits on behaviour is commonly – and
and the existence of culture-specific traits. sometimes, confusingly – dependent upon
We will return to these challenges later in various moderator factors. Whether
this chapter. extraverted or introverted individuals
perform better on laboratory tasks depends
on whether performance is time-pressured,
Towards a psychological whether subjects have ingested caffeine, how
understanding of traits well they have slept, whether they are
rewarded or punished for performance, and
Psychometrics essentially provides a quanti- even on the time of day of the study
tative basis for understanding the network of (e.g. Revelle et al., 1980). It seems unlikely
relationships between various latent and that each moderator effect could be specified
manifest (measured) constructs. The approach psychometrically on an empirical, actuarial
was taken furthest by Cattell’s notion basis. It would certainly be prohibitively
(Cattell, 1973; Cattell et al., 2002) of the expensive. A theory is needed that specifies
‘behavioural specification equation’ that pre- ante hoc how moderator effects are to be
dicts some criteria from a linear equation understood. Indeed, Eysenck’s (1967)
including both trait and situational factors. personality theory sought just this aim,
A psychometric understanding can be pur- on the basis that the critical attribute of
sued with only limited psychological theory. moderator factors was their impact on level
We can develop and validate empirically of cortical arousal.
multiple-regression equations that afford A third issue is that applications of person-
prediction of, say, performance at some job, ality science beyond the exercises in predic-
from traits and situational factors without tive validity that support occupational
asking whether trait influence is mediated by selection require theoretical understanding of
individual differences in brain functioning or mediating processes. In designing training
in social learning. programmes geared towards extraverted indi-
There are several reasons why a purely viduals and introverted individuals, we need
psychometric understanding is insufficient to know whether the intervention should
(in addition to intellectual curiosity). First, target brain functioning, information pro-
quantitative assessment of situational factors cessing or social interactions. For example,
is difficult; the lack of good measurement neuroticism appears to predict poorer per-
models for the situation is a familiar com- formance in police officers (Detrick and
plaint in personality research. The issue is Chibnall, 2006). Should police departments
not just one of ignorance of how to measure then simply reject all high-N applicants, or
the situation. Interactionist studies (e.g. King should they train the ‘talented-but-neurotic’
and Endler, 1990) suggest that it is the in techniques for stress management? The
individual’s appraisals and perceptions that answer depends upon the nature of the
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 10

10 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

processes mediating stress vulnerability, and one. Brain-imaging studies using fMRI
their amenability to change. (Congdon and Canli, Vol. 2) also promise to
Finally, alternative approaches to person- provide much more fine-grained mappings of
ality have often been more concerned with traits onto specific brain structures than tradi-
semantics than syntax. Psychodynamic tional psychophysiology afforded. Finally,
theories are exclusively concerned with find- evolutionary psychology, although typically
ing the supposedly hidden meanings of an directed towards species- rather than individ-
individual’s behaviour and experience. In ual-level adaptations, may provide a deeper
this case, neglect of measurement issues puts theoretical understanding of why individuals
the approach beyond the scientific pale. diverge in genotype and phenotype (Michalski
Social-cognitive theory, by contrast, retains a and Shackelford, Vol. 1; Penke et al., 2007).
strong focus on personal meaning, as Enthusiasm for the emerging new biology of
expressed in the self, for example, but also traits should be tempered by an appreciation
incorporates quantitative behavioural meas- of its limitations (see Matthews, Vol. 1), but
ures, as in the assessment of the individual’s there are solid grounds for optimism that
‘behavioural signatures’ (Mischel et al., these parallel advances in psychobiology,
2002; Zayas et al., Vol. 2). which may inform one another, will in time
Matthews et al. (2003) single out three give us increasingly powerful psychobiolog-
features of research that are increasingly ical theories of personality (Pickering and
contributing to psychological theories of Corr, Vol. 1).
traits, which we will now briefly review.
These are the growing sophistication and Integration with mainstream psychology
power of biological theories, increasing inte- Traditionally, personality psychology has
gration of studies of traits with mainstream been a field somewhat set apart from other
psychology and applications of research sup- branches of psychology, with only sporadic
ported by studies of consequential outcomes. points of contact, such as the integration of
trait models and psychobiology effected by
Biological bases of personality Eysenck and Gray. Recent trait research has
As already noted, Eysenck’s (1957, 1967) been enriched by the growing adoption of
contribution was remarkable in linking traits process models from other areas of psychol-
to neural processes that could be investigated ogy to explain personality findings, notably
experimentally, through behavioural and developmental, cognitive and social psychol-
psychophysiological measures (O’Connor, ogy. There is extensive evidence that biolog-
Vol. 1). Eysenck’s vision has been broadly ically based temperamental factors such as
substantiated by the ever-accumulating emotionality, inhibition and self-control pro-
weight of evidence from behaviour genetics vide a platform for adult personality develop-
and an array of psychophysiological tech- ment (Eisenberg et al., 2005; Rothbart and
niques (e.g. Johnson et al., Vol. 1; Stelmack Bates, 2006). At a process level, there is
and Rammsayer, Vol. 1; Zuckerman, 2005), growing interest in how interactions between
although we may take issue with the specifics caregivers and children influence, both brain
of the theory (Matthews and Gilliland, 1999). development and social-emotional learning
Recent research advances are providing (Zeidner et al., 2003), and in the role of
fresh impetus to biological approaches. genetics in shaping interactions with the
Behaviour genetics is increasingly supple- environment (Rutter et al., 2006).
mented by molecular genetics that promises Psychobiological accounts of trait effects
to relate traits to specific polymorphisms. on attention and performance have been
Tracking down the genes involved may prove increasingly complemented – or supplanted –
to be arduous (cf. Munafo et al., 2003), but by theories based on a cognitive psychologi-
the problem is now essentially a technical cal understanding of performance, using
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 11

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 11

explanatory constructs including resource typically been conflicted in their stance, on

availability (Humphreys and Revelle, 1984), the one hand using abnormal trait measures
working memory (M.W. Eysenck et al., 2007) such as the MMPI extensively, while on the
and spreading activation (Matthews and Harley, other hand rejecting much of the theory that
1993). Social psychology has given trait theo- makes sense of the traits. Eysenck’s
rists a better understanding of how agreeable- (e.g. 1994) jousts with the clinical profession
ness, for example, may influence interactions illustrate the point. Although the use of
between people. For example, neuroticism personality measures in organizational
may be related to the content of the social self, psychology dates back to the 1900s (Kanfer
represented as a schema or schemas (Matthews et al., 1995), the modest effect sizes for traits
et al., 2000b). Recent studies of agreeableness as predictors of job performance have inspired
demonstrate its relationships with more posi- scepticism. Some critics (e.g. Blinkhorn,
tive and accepting social perceptions (e.g. 1997) have seen personality assessment as
Jensen-Campbell and Graziano, 2001), and largely irrelevant to the needs of the practi-
with nonverbal behaviours that express greater tioner. Many applied psychologists remain
attention and openness towards others (Berry unenthused about the utility of trait assess-
and Sherman-Hansen, 2000). ments, but several factors have collaborated
Higher-level integrative accounts inter- to increase acceptance. The most basic of
related a personality and multiple fields these is the increasing evidence for traits as
of mainstream psychology. For example, predictors of ‘consequential outcomes’ in
cognitive neuroscience approaches (e.g. diverse fields including health, work, inter-
Derryberry and Reed, 2001; Matthews et al., personal functioning, deviance and commu-
2000a) relate personality to both brain sys- nity involvement (Fisher and Boyle 1997;
tems and the information processing those Ozer and Benet-Martinez, 2006). The final
systems support. The emerging field of social section in this volume illustrates some of
neuroscience (Cacioppo and Berntson, 2004) these research areas. In addition, striking evi-
offers an approach towards understanding how dence for the predictive power of childhood
brain processes may control complex social temperament as a predictor of dysfunction in
processes (always a weakness of the traditional adults has emerged from longitudinal studies
biological theories of personality). Matthews (Asendorpf, Vol. 1; Caspi et al., 2005).
(Vol. 1) discusses how cognitive science Somewhat similarly, while there has been a
provides an explanatory framework that may long-running debate over whether elevation
integrate – and, where appropriate, dissociate – of neuroticism and other traits is a cause or
biological, information processing and consequence of mental illness, recent evi-
social-cognitive explanations for personality. dence strongly supports an etiological role
Integration is a two-way street. Not only is for traits (e.g. Harkness et al., 2002).
personality research enriched by the infusion Some more subtle factors are also at work.
of concepts and models from other fields; In clinical psychology, there is increasing
accommodating individual differences is also acceptance of dimensional models of abnor-
increasingly seen as an imperative for main- mality, compatible with general trait models
stream psychology (see Boyle and Saklofske, (Malik et al., Vol. 1; Widiger and Trull, 2007).
2004). Not only is personality psychology The assumption incorporated into the
becoming a mature science, but so too is psy- various editions of the American Psychiatric
chology in general. Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (DSM), that abnormal personality is
Consequences and applications represented by discrete all-or-nothing cate-
Trait psychologists have had to work hard to gories is simply not supported by the evi-
establish the relevance of traits to applied dence for dimensional constructs. Factor
psychology. Clinical psychologists have analytic studies (e.g. Austin and Deary, 2000)
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 12

12 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

establish the correspondences between focus on emotionality as a vital element

normal and abnormal dimensions. Accep- of personality. Applied psychology has been
tance of traits is also eased by the both stirred and shaken by the new construct
integration of abnormal psychology with of ‘emotional intelligence’ (EI) (Austin et al.,
process models widely used in clinical Vol. 1; Rivers et al., Vol. 2; Roberts et al.,
psychology. Constructs at the centre of Vol. 2). It is widely believed that enhancing
cognitive-behaviour therapy (Clark et al., emotional competencies will prove pivotal
1999) such as the self-schema, attentional for addressing deficiencies in provision of
and memory bias and dysfunctional coping, mental health services, education and crimi-
may readily be related to traits including neu- nal justice. Indeed, programmes directed
roticism and its various facets (Matthews towards various aspects of social-emotional
et al., 2000b; Wells and Matthews, 1994). learning in schools have proved effective in
Similarly, measurement of personality and meta-analyses (Greenberg et al., 2003). We
temperament is an integral element of the will note only briefly that existing measures
spectrum of psychoeducational assessments of EI are of questionable construct validity
of children (see Andrews et al., 2001). (see Matthews et al. (2002) for a critique).
An important finding from meta-analyses The larger issue is that emotional competen-
of traits and job performance is that effect cies – and people’s perceptions thereof – may
sizes are larger for confirmatory studies with define traits with wide-ranging real-life
an a priori rationale for linking a specific trait impacts.
to a specific job than for exploratory studies
that are no more than ‘fishing expeditions’
(Tett and Burnett, 2003; Tett and Christiansen, CHALLENGES TO TRAIT MODELS
Vol. 1). This empirical finding reinforces the
need for good theories of traits that will sup- So far, we have presented the case for viewing
port prediction on a reasoned basis, and this personality research as a maturing science.
thinking appears to be gaining ground in orga- Nevertheless, the field continues to face
nizational applications (cf. Hogan, 2005, challenges that should be addressed. There is a
2006). For example, agreeableness may be an somewhat standard critique of traits, typically
advantage in jobs requiring teamwork, but a offered by social psychologists, that is suffi-
hindrance when the individual must compete ciently familiar not to require repetition (e.g.
against others (Barrick et al., 1998). Another Caprara and Cervone, 2000; Pervin, 2002). It
trend in industrial organization is the growing refers to the validity of factor analysis as a
realization that it is not just overt job perform- means for uncovering personality structure,
ance that makes an employee valuable. neglect of the individual in favour of group
Contextual performance refers to those work trends, neglect of dynamic and developmental
behaviours that contribute more widely to the processes in favour of static measurement
organization, such as supporting co-workers structures, and the questionable cross-cultural
constructively, being a good organizational generality of traits. To some degree, these are
citizen, and being willing to volunteer matters of the paradigm-defining assumptions
(Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994). There has that are adopted by researchers, which change
been a rapid accumulation of evidence that (if they change at all) over generations of sci-
trait measures predict criteria of this kind entists. What is more germane here are the
(e.g. Judge et al., 2006); multiple correlations challenges which the researcher sympathetic to
for occupational criteria in relation to person- the trait approach should confront. A detailed
ality dimensions may approach 0.5 (Ones critique is beyond the scope of this chapter, but
et al., 2005). we will offer some general remarks and differ-
Finally, trait psychology has proved to be entiate some qualitatively different types of
in tune with contemporary zeitgeists in its challenge. We will summarize these here.
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 13

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 13

Psychometric challenges The vexations of normal science

Traditionally, virtually all personality As with any science in its early maturity,
assessment instruments have comprised there are significant disputes among scientists
subjective self-report questionnaires who hold broadly similar views on the
(Q-data), or subjective reports (rating scales) nature of personality. Critiques of trait theory
of other people’s personality characteristics (e.g. Block, 1995, 2001) make much
(L-data). This approach, albeit economical of uncertainties over whether the FFM pro-
and easy to apply, is nonetheless prone to the vides the optimum description of broad per-
problems of item transparency and resultant sonality factors. The personality model
motivational and response distortion, ranging outlined by Ashton and Lee (Vol. 2) posits a
all the way from deliberate dissimulation, new factor of Honesty-Humility, and also
to either conscious or unconscious faking makes some substantial modifications to the
(good or bad), to lack of adequate self- standard Big Five. However, finding addi-
insight, and/or biased perceptions of others. tional broad factors that meet standard crite-
If we consider the Freudian ‘tip of the ria (e.g. Gorsuch, 1983) does not threaten the
iceberg’ analogy, it becomes readily apparent trait approach (e.g. any more than the finding
that much of human personality is at the of additional solar planets threatens our
unconscious level of the psyche, and there- understanding of the solar system).
fore unavailable to conscious self-reports or Similarly, we should not be too disturbed
to reports of others. In this light, most per- that specific theories of traits have experi-
sonality assessment instruments amount to enced vicissitudes. The pioneering psychobi-
subjective ‘opinionnaires’. Whereas such ological theories, in fact, transpired to show a
introspective approaches would not be spotty record of success in predicting psy-
regarded as valid in the measurement of cog- chophysiological and behavioural indices
nitive abilities, the current plethora of (Matthews and Gilliland, 1999). In response,
personality rating scales and questionnaires researchers within this tradition have modi-
seems restricted by this fundamentally fied the theories (e.g. Corr, 2004; Pickering
flawed methodology (see Boyle and and Corr, Vol. 1), which still await large-
Saklofske, 2004). One way forward would be scale testing. It is not surprising that building
to construct objective (T-data) tests of per- good, predictive theories is difficult; thus far,
sonality traits, wherein the respondent cannot it does not appear that theory modifications
detect what personality factors are being are regressive.
tapped by the various subtests, thereby alle-
viating the possibility of motivational and Structure, process and causality
response distortion. Such an approach
initially was advocated some 40 years ago by A more fundamental issue is how to progress
Cattell and Warburton (1967), and was from the structural descriptions of traits
actualized in the factor-analytic construction afforded by psychometric models to process-
of the Objective Analytic Battery (OAB) by based models that specify causal agents.
Cattell and Schuerger (1978), and Schuerger, There is a danger that broad, process-based
(1986). However, little subsequent research models of traits will degenerate into plati-
has been undertaken into the construction of tudes. Block (2001) criticizes theories that
objective tests of personality. Clearly, are expressed in terms solely of broad princi-
construction of objective, computer-interac- ples such as the interaction of trait and situa-
tive T-data personality tests will require a tional factors. Similarly, it is unclear what is
major research effort in the years to come. the contribution of “systems theory” versions
This is the great challenge for personality of interactionism that, in effect, state that
assessment. everything interacts with everything else
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 14

14 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

(cf. Cattell’s (1980) VIDAS systems model). in evaluating the mixed success of psychobi-
At the same time, there is a genuine theoreti- ological theories, the modest effect sizes of
cal challenge in that personality and environ- traits as predictors of job performance, and
ment do interact in a complex, bidirectional discrepancies in self-ratings and other ratings
fashion (e.g. Caspi and Bem, 1990). Traits of personality. The long-term answer is that
affect the environment that surrounds a we need more comprehensive theories that
person, and that environment, in turn, feeds integrate trait and contextual effects on
back to influence personality – think, for outcomes, but it may be hard to gauge the
example, of an adolescent whose life goes off rate of progress towards this goal.
the rail after falling in with bad company.
As Matthews (Vol. 1) argues, a particular
challenge is the multiplicity of processes that The unconscious
may mediate the influence of traits. The hope
of the early psychobiologists that we could There is some force to the criticism that trait
find a small number of key neurological assessments may be biased through their
factors from which everything else would typical basis in questionnaire measurement,
flow has proved to be forlorn (Matthews and and there is a worthy tradition within trait
Gilliland, 1999; Zuckerman, 2005). Traits research of measuring response styles and
are distributed across multiple processes; differentiating them from more substantive
biological, cognitive and social. Suls (2001) traits (e.g. Paulhus, 2002). There are long-
aptly refers to the ‘neurotic cascade’ in standing traditions of using objective tests,
referring to the multiple paths that link originating in Cattell’s original work
neuroticism to stress vulnerability. Thus, dif- (Schuerger, Vol. 2), and the classical clinical
ferent mediating processes will emerge from projective tests (Blais and Baity, Vol. 2).
different empirical paradigms, but no single The issue has gained impetus from recent
process can bear the weight of fully explain- research on implicit traits (see Langens and
ing trait action. At the same time, as the con- Schmalt, Vol. 1). A variety of novel behav-
tributors to these volumes demonstrate, good ioural techniques for assessing stable traits
progress is being made in isolating specific have emerged, such as the increasingly
mediating paths. popular ‘implicit activation test’ (IAT:
Schnabel et al., Vol. 2) and structured nonver-
bal tests (Hong and Paunonen, Vol. 2). It
What do we do with a half-full is still too early to say whether this work will
glass? support overarching structural models
of ‘unconscious’ personality of similar scope
Another source of frustration is that the data to standard personality models. The impact
do not always provide unequivocal answers of Cattell and Warburton’s (1967), and
to the big questions. A case in point is the Cattell and Schuerger’s (1978) initial work
cross-cultural generality of traits (see Chui on objective tests was limited by the
et al., Vol. 1); we often find factor structures excessive time taken to carry out such testing
roughly corresponding to the FFM in non- (e.g. administration of the OAB takes
Western cultures, but these are not always a more than five hours), and by the limited
perfect match (however, see McCrae and convergence with subjective questionnaire
Costa, Vol. 1). How concerned should we be? and rating scale indices of personality.
Is a rough correspondence sufficient to However, the potential importance of
demonstrate some universality of personality implicit personality is also signalled by the
traits? There are no criteria for deciding how growing interest within social psychology in
large a discrepancy is tolerable for upholding unconscious priming effects (Bargh and
the universality principle. Similar issues arise Williams, 2006).
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 15

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 15

Few would wish to return to the dark ages and integrative life narratives, both of which
of psychoanalysis or the notion that conscious are more strongly influenced by culture than
experience of the self is simply the froth on dispositional traits are. Characteristic adapta-
the surface of the true, unconscious structure tions refer to contextualized goals, values,
of personality. Nevertheless, recent work on coping strategies, relational patterns and so
implicit processes challenges researchers to on, that fill in the details of individuality
explore both the measurement and influence and describe everyday social functioning.
on behaviour of unconscious traits. Integrative life narratives refer to longer-term
personal narratives and sources of identity that
individuals construct to make sense of their
Setting the boundaries place in the world and their contribution to it.
The McAdams and Pals analysis is valuable in
A final challenge is the demarcation of those providing a sense of what expressions of per-
issues that trait psychology is apt to explain, sonality trait models are well equipped or
and those features of personality that lie poorly equipped to explain. Although they do
outside its boundaries. For example, limita- not make this point, we may also see character-
tions of the trait approach for understanding istic adaptations as a halfway house between
the individual person on an idiographic basis general trait dimensions and idiographic dispo-
are generally accepted. Similarly, changes in sitions. There are successful research pro-
personality through the adult lifespan may be grammes on ‘contextualized’ traits such as test
difficult to capture within the trait model anxiety (Zeidner, 1998) and work self-efficacy
to the extent that change depends on idio- (Judge et al., 2007) that may be assessed and
graphic processes such as the long-term investigated much as broader traits. As we
pursuit of ‘personal projects’ (Little and narrow down the context, the trait becomes
Chambers, 2004). increasingly idiographic. Computer anxiety
Boundary issues are also relevant to an qualifies as a standard (contextualized trait);
issue that Pervin (2002) flags as fundamen- stress induced by a particular misbehaving
tal: what ‘units of personality’ we should machine is idiographic. In summary, it is
adopt. He contrasts motivational units (e.g. unlikely that any single approach will attain
needs) and cognitive units (e.g. self-referent hegemony over the entirety of personality
beliefs) as alternatives to traits as units. research; instead, we may look forward to a
Pervin does not do sufficient justice to the multi-polar research world, in which there is a
extent that contemporary trait psychology is place for those varying perspectives that meet
in fact concerned with relating motives and acceptable scientific standards.
cognitions to traits (e.g. Boyle et al., 1995),
but the general point is valid. There may be
some individual differences in motivation, STRUCTURE OF VOLUME 1
such as traditional implicit achievement
motivation, that should be separated from Explanatory models for personality
trait psychology (cf. Langens and Schmalt,
Vol. 1). As noted earlier, the extent to which This first section of the book elaborates on
stable social cognitions may be accommo- the theoretical issues briefly introduced
dated within trait theory is also open to above, in reviewing and differentiating the
debate (Caprara and Cervone, 2000). key research strategies for investigating
A recent article by McAdams and Pals personality. How personality is studied
(2006) makes some reasonable suggestions. As depends on how it is conceptualized, and the
well as dispositional traits, they define two chapters here serve to illustrate the range of
further levels of understanding of personality explanatory models that may support a science
described as characteristic adaptations of personality. Stelmack and Rammsayer
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 16

16 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

review the biological bases of personality and the brain, and cognitive and social develop-
individual differences, as revealed by over four ment. Asendorpf’s survey of the major devel-
decades of psychophysiological and neuro- opmental issues for personality psychology
chemical research. Their review focuses espe- arrives at three major principles for
cially on the pivotal traits of extraversion, understanding stability and change. First,
neuroticism and impulsive sensation seeking, personality retains plasticity throughout life;
and identifies several robust associations it never becomes ‘set like plaster’. Indeed, in
between these traits and electrocortical and line with a social psychological concern with
biochemical responses. It also highlights the the individual, plasticity can be demonstrated
methodological challenges of work on these in individuals using the Q-sort technique.
issues and inconsistencies requiring further Second, the stability of inter-individual dif-
work to resolve. Biological perspectives may ferences increases with age, because of sev-
be contrasted with the viewpoint from cogni- eral factors including genetic influence,
tive psychology. Matthews reviews studies that dynamic person–environment interaction
link traits to individual differences in informa- and the coherence conferred by stabilization
tion processing, using performance data. It is of personal identity. Third, there is a synergy
argued that these studies identify multiple between person and environment in that the
processes that underpin the major dimensions person’s most characteristic traits interact
of personality. The empirical data may be most strongly with situational influences.
understood within a multi-levelled cognitive Somewhat similar themes of dynamic inter-
science framework that refers both to the neu- action arise in the Chiu et al. (Vol. 1) account
rological underpinnings of cognition and to of personality and culture. A traditional
high-level strategies for goal attainment. Traits assumption is a duality between nature (biol-
are distributed across many component ogy) and culture; in fact, personality research
processes but derive functional unity as adap- reveals the intricate interactions and interde-
tive constructs. pendency of nature and social ecology. The
Yet, another distinctive approach to under- authors propose an integrated framework that
standing personality is provided by social- describes how culture influences personality,
cognitive models, reviewed by Cervone. His and personality influences culture. For
review of the field includes an analysis of what example, culture may affect the knowledge
such models should seek to explain, on the structures that support the self, but personality
basis that mere prediction of behaviour is shapes the strategies the individual uses to
inadequate for understanding personality. adapt to the cultural milieu. People are not
Social-cognitive models are based on an intra- pawns of their cultural programming.
individual understanding of personality that The next two chapters in this section elab-
finds coherence in the individual’s construc- orate on the biological bases for personality.
tion of personal meaning. Cervone outlines the Johnson et al. (Vol. 1) present a comprehen-
key contributions of Bandura and Mischel sive review of the many behaviour genetic
to personality theories built on social- studies that have investigated the contribu-
cognitive principles. He also describes his tion of genetic and environmental factors
KAPA (Knowledge-and-Appraisal Personality to both normal and abnormal personality
Architecture) model that – recapitulating the traits. Beyond the familiar conclusion that
traditional distinction between structure and both environmental and genetic factors are
process – aims to specify the knowledge struc- implicated, the authors identify some of the
tures and appraisal processes that support key methodological and theoretical issues in
personality coherence. contemporary research. These include the
Understanding personality development role of the nonshared environment unique to
requires a multi-levelled understanding of each family member, correlations between
the interplay between maturation of genetic and environmental factors, and recent
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 17

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 17

molecular genetic research which has (Cattell, 1973; Cattell and Kline, 1977). The
attempted to identify specific polymorphisms idea also gains plausibility from the thesis
that may influence personality development. that dimensions correspond to brain systems
Michalski and Shackelford set out the that influence personality in all cultures. At
evolutionary psychology perspective on per- the same time, there are some obvious diffi-
sonality. Initially, they make the strong, culties in making progress. Historically, the
potentially controversial claim that the evolu- key question of how many dimensions to list
tionary sciences provide the only scientifi- has tended to degenerate into technical argu-
cally viable framework for understanding ments over alternative factor solutions; con-
the historical origins of human personality. firmatory methods are stronger in this
They illustrate the contribution of evolutionary respect, but they remain vulnerable to varia-
psychology to several areas of personality psy- tion in the initial sampling of data. Research
chology including personality consistency, also tends to proliferate minor traits of ques-
individual differences in personality, sex tionable generality; what criteria indicate
differences and similarities and contextual whether a trait is truly universal, as opposed
determinants of personality. It is necessary to to being linked to a specific context?
understand both the many species-typical Hierarchical models in which a multiplicity
adaptations that characterize humans, and the of primary traits are overlaid by a smaller
place for individual differences in these number of broad universal factors provide
mechanisms. one answer to this issue. The assumption of a
The final chapter, by Campbell, places strong isomorphism between brain systems
modern explanatory models for personality and basic traits is also open to question
in their historical context. Personality models (Zuckerman, 2005). If traits are admitted to
have changed substantially from those pro- be indirectly rather than directly linked to the
posed by the ‘classic’ personality theorists of brain, the dimensionality of personality may
the last century, including Allport, Murray in fact become rather more contingent, and
and Lewin. Campbell traces the cultural the assumption of universality is thus under-
evolution of personality from these theories mined. A final difficulty is that progress has
to modern times. The classic models provide been slow. Although there may seem to be a
a direct or indirect basis for much contempo- partial consensus over the FFM, points of
rary research and application. Furthermore, serious contention remain, as explored by
their empirical utility is under-utilized; in contributors to this and other sections of
particular, Cattell’s multivariate approach Volume 1. Furthermore, there appears to be
has much to offer in predicting behavioural little progress towards any comprehensive
outcomes from personality data (Boyle, 2006 description of primary traits.
Cattell and Nesselroade, 1988). The chapter The contributors to this section review the
summarizes what has been lost and what has major comprehensive trait models that have
been gained as the theory has developed. shaped personality research. Hans Eysenck’s
model of individual differences, reviewed by
O’Connor, is the most parsimonious of the
Comprehensive trait models major theories, in reducing personality to
major dimensions of extraversion, neuroti-
It follows naturally from the nomothetic trait cism and psychoticism. O’Connor outlines
approach that a comprehensive, universal the conceptual and methodological principles
description of the major personality dimen- of Eysenck’s individual difference paradigm,
sions may be determined. Indeed, like which has a good claim to introducing a
the periodic table of elements in chemis- Kuhnian revolution into personality research.
try, a comprehensive trait model may be a O’Connor also addresses the translation of
necessity for a true science of personality psychobiological theory into applied fields,
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 18

18 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

illustrated by diverse examples related to across gender and cultures. Key issues here
education, drug addiction and psychotherapy. include the validity of alternate dimensional
Eysenck’s theory will always be paired with models, the optimal choice of lower-level
its major competitor, the reinforcement personality facets and the taxing theoretical
sensitivity theory (RST) developed by issue of how causation at the individual level
Jeffrey Gray, which is outlined by Pickering can be understood by studying correlation at
and Corr. RST shares many of the basic the group level. The last issue is central to
assumptions of Eysenck’s theory but differs social-cognitive critiques of trait theory
most sharply in attributing the major traits to (Cervone, Vol. 1), but McCrae and Costa
motivational rather than generalized arousal counter that trait explanations provide
systems. As Pickering and Corr discuss, per- abstract, high-level causal accounts that com-
sonality reflects individual differences in plement more fine-grained, mechanistic
processing reward and punishment stimuli. explanations for behaviour. Insightful cri-
RST has evolved over time to meet the tiques, including those of Cervone and Block,
inevitable conceptual and empirical challenges reject at least some of the core assumptions
that arise in a vigorous research programme. of nomothetic trait psychology. However, the
The chapter reviews these challenges, and FFM is also open to criticisms from within
the modifications to theory they have trait psychology. Boyle provides a critique of
inspired, in order to set the course for future this kind. One line of questioning is psycho-
research. They point out that it is especially metric in nature; re-examination of the
important to bring the neuroscience and empirical data suggests that the five-factor
personality wings of the theory into better solution may not be optimal in view of the
alignment by capitalizing on methodological frequent application of less than adequate
advances in biological psychology. factor-analytic procedures (Boyle et al.,
Raymond Cattell’s work (see Boyle, 2006) 1995; Boyle and Saklofske, 2004).
was unparalleled in its dedication to develop- Furthermore, although proponents of the
ing a truly comprehensive model for individual FFM claim there is a convergence between
differences, taking in not just orthodox normal and abnormal personality dimen-
personality dimensions, but also ability, sions, the FFM may not in fact provide ade-
abnormal personality, normal and abnormal quate coverage of several major abnormal
moods and dynamic motivational traits. traits, including those related to psychoti-
Boyle’s chapter (Vol. 1) points out that the cism. A final source of difficulty is that a lack
complexity and statistical sophistication of of underlying theory and a neglect of
Cattell’s programme may have impeded its dynamic personality processes make the
general acceptance. He describes a program- FFM less than ideal for predicting behaviour
matic series of psychometric studies directed in applied fields including clinical and occu-
towards uncovering higher-order factor pational psychology. Debate over the FFM is
structures that serve to simplify the Cattellian likely to continue; our hope is that the com-
model, reducing 92 constructs to 30 broad plementary chapters by McCrae and Costa,
factors that may jointly provide comprehen- and by Boyle, will highlight the issues that
sive coverage of 6 major domains of differen- are decisive for resolving its place as a
tial psychology. Boyle also emphasizes the comprehensive trait model.
importance of developing objective, interac-
tive tests that counter the over-reliance of the
field on subjective, self-report methodology. Key traits: psychobiology
The last two chapters in this section
address the currently popular five-factor The search for comprehensive trait models
model (FFM). McCrae and Costa set out a occupies the conceptual high ground of per-
case for the FFM that emphasizes its heri- sonality research. By contrast, much of the
tability, temporal stability and generalization daily grind of working to understand in detail
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 19

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 19

the origins and consequences of traits is bases for the trait. The psychobiological
based on single traits. The next two sections account is supported by evidence from
of this book survey some of the key traits behaviour and molecular genetics, along
whose psychological significance is mapped with extensive psychophysiological and
by their relationships with other constructs. biochemical evidence. By contrast with
The painstaking exploration of these ‘nomo- Eysenck and Gray, Zuckerman sees pheno-
logical networks’ is essential for theory typic traits as emerging from multiple physi-
building in personality research. Indeed, ological processes; there is no isomorphism
given that single traits may be placed within between the trait and any single biological
more comprehensive trait models (see system.
McCrae and Costa, Vol. 1), such work also ‘Schizotypy’ refers to a dimension of
serves to deepen understanding of the higher- abnormal personality characterized by sub-
level ‘superfactors’. We have, somewhat clinical levels of oddities of belief and behav-
arbitrarily, divided key traits into those for iour that resemble psychosis. The review by
which research is guided by psychobiological Green et al. (Vol. 1) of the trait illustrates a
theory, and those understood within the variety of themes in contemporary abnormal
cognitive frameworks of self-regulation and personality studies. Schizotypy can be assessed
stress theories. This distinction is made for as a continuous trait in the normal population,
convenience. As discussed previously (see grading increasingly into clinical symptoms
also Matthews, Vol. 1), traits are typically at the top end of the scale. Subdimensions of
multi-layered entities with both biological schizotypy may be distinguished both psy-
and cognitive expressions, and theory must chometrically and in relation to etiology.
integrate both aspects. Complementary sec- Following Raine (2006), Green et al. distin-
tions in Volume 2 set out to cover the assess- guish a ‘neuroschizotypy’ that should be seen
ment of biological and self-regulative traits. as a brain disorder from a ‘pseudoschizo-
Thus far, we have highlighted Eysenck’s typy’ that may be more dependent upon psy-
arousal theory and Gray’s RST as the leading chosocial factors. In both cases, the interplay
comprehensive personality theories based on between genetic and environmental factors is
psychobiology. This section covers research likely to be critical. Rawlings’ chapter
that focuses more narrowly on specific traits addresses some related issues in the context
rooted in brain functioning. It has something of the broader trait of psychoticism (P), and
of a psychopathological flavour, in that much its relationship with impulsivity. The psycho-
of this work reflects concerns with abnormal- metric identification of P was motivated by
ities in brain functioning that may contribute Eysenck’s interest in the diathesis for clinical
to personality disorders. Indeed, it may be psychosis. In fact, the evidence reviewed
seen as an outgrowth of Eysenck’s and Gray’s suggests that the P scale is inadequate as a
interests in the clinical significance of traits. measure of the essential elements of a classic
Zuckerman’s work on sensation seeking psychotic disorder (to which schizotypy may
may be seen as a paradigm for developing a be more relevant). P has greater validity as a
theory of specific traits. It has generated measure of impulsive, antisocial forms of
a reliable and validated questionnaire, ample behaviour, and the chapter concludes with an
evidence for validity and a detailed model of account of the relationships between different
the biological underpinnings of the trait. forms of impulsivity and P.
Furthermore, sensation seeking may be Also discussed is the evidence relating
located within the more comprehensive per- aggression and impulsivity to personality
sonality model developed by Zuckerman traits and related neurophysiological mecha-
(2006; see also Zuckerman, Vol. 2). The nisms (see Lijffijt et al., Vol. 1). Underlying
chapter reviews both behavioural expressions biological causes for higher trait impulsivity
of sensation seeking across a wide range of and emotional arousal in aggression could be
risky behaviours, and also the biological related to suboptimal processing of errors,
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 20

20 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

reward and punishment. Without checks and at least to the extent they lend themselves to
balances of either low neuroticism with high nomothetic understanding of personality.
impulsivity, or low impulsivity with high Contributions to this section illustrates the
neuroticism, it is less likely that stress can be range and depth of personality theories of
countered effectively, thereby exacerbating this kind. Several general issues are evident.
pre-existing heightened levels of emotional First, there is a tension between general self-
arousal in aggressive individuals. regulative trait models and contextualized
The final chapter in this section, Elliott models that differentiate multiple dimensions
and Thrash’s account of approach and avoid- of self-regulation linked to specific situations
ance temperaments, bridges the somewhat or challenges. The former approach may add
artificial divide between psychobiological to understanding of general traits, for example,
and self-regulative traits explicitly. Basic through exploring the role of low self-esteem
traits related to approach and avoidance in neuroticism. The second approach con-
motivations appear to have a biological basis tributes to understanding what lies beyond
conceptualized here in relation to Gray’s standard traits for example, how research on
RST (see Pickering and Corr, Vol. 1). evaluative anxieties complements general
Neurobiological sensitivity to reward is trait anxiety work (e.g. Endler and Kocovski,
controlled by Gray’s behaviour activation 2001). A second issue is whether research is
system (BAS); punishment sensitivity relates directed towards the content of self-beliefs
to the behaviour inhibition system (BIS). that guide self-regulation (e.g. self-concept,
Elliott and Thrash go on to discuss the outcome expectancy) or towards specific
measurement of approach and avoidance self-regulative processes (e.g. self-directed
temperaments, and provide evidence that attention, choice of coping strategy). Third,
these personality factors influence self- self-regulative models are intimately con-
regulative processes such as adoption of cerned with emotion and stress, and the inter-
goals for mastery and performance. play between negative affect and styles of
self-regulation (Carver and Scheier, 1998).
Dysfunctional self-regulation may contribute
to clinical disorders so that therapeutic
Key traits: self-regulation and stress
interventions may be usefully directed
Self-regulative models of personality are towards harmful content and process factors
built on the assumption that behaviour is (Wells and Matthews, 1994).
controlled by a feedback loop that serves to Trait anxiety may relate to individual dif-
reduce the discrepancy between ideal and ferences in strategies for self-preservation in
desired behaviour, supported by various threatening environments. Zeidner’s review
cognitive processes including goal setting, of trait and test anxiety points out that in
strategy choice and self-evaluation (Zeidner modern times, the most salient threats are
et al., 2000). Personality traits may relate often social-evaluative in nature. The chapter
both to the contents of stable self-knowledge reviews assessment issues, biological and
that guides self-regulation, and to biases in environmental influences on anxiety and the
specific information-processing components behavioural expressions of anxiety revealed
such as retrieval from memory and selective by performance studies. Evaluative anxieties
attention (Carver and Scheier, 1998; may significantly interfere with personal goal
Matthews et al., 2000b). Self-regulative attainment, causing test performance and job
models are thus compatible with notions of proficiency to fall short of actual competence.
approach and avoidance motivation (Elliott The chapter prefigures the applied issues
and Thrash, Vol. 1), with the transactional that conclude Volume 1 by reviewing how
theory of stress (Lazarus, 1999), and with psychological research supports interventions
social-cognitive perspectives (Cervone, Vol. 1), for excessive evaluative anxiety. Naturally, an
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 21

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 21

understanding of the self-concept is central self-consciousness has been especially influ-

to self-regulative models of personality. ential, but other important dimensions also
Research on self-concept may also serve to include rumination, mindfulness, self-moni-
integrate personality trait models with social- toring and related traits. Smári et al. review
cognitive theory. In reviewing the field, the inter-relationships between different
Marsh describes a uni-dimensional concep- operationalizations of these traits. They sug-
tion of self-concept that focuses on global gest that advances in both psychometric and
self-esteem. However, research shows that conceptual models are needed in order to
specific domains of self-concept are more resolve some theoretical ambiguities and
useful than a general domain construct for empirical problems that have arisen from
understanding the self (cf. Boyle, 1994). In research on self-consciousness.
line with social-cognitive concerns about the Process issues are also central to Parker
context for behaviour, Marsh advocates a and Wood’s review of personality and coping.
multi-dimensional approach to self-concept. Growing out of earlier work on defence
Measurement of self-concept across different mechanisms, coping is now understood
domains appears to provide better predictive within an interactional model, such that due
validity for educational criteria than general attention to both person and situation factors
self-esteem or standard personality traits. is essential. There is a considerable degree
Domain-specific self-concepts may be recip- of consistency in individual differences in
rocally linked to personality traits through coping, supporting a role for personality
mutual causal effects. traits as drivers of coping style. However,
Outcome expectancies also play a pivotal although various robust associations between
role in self-regulation. Optimists and pes- standard traits and basic dimensions of
simists appear to differ in these beliefs. coping have been established, the field
Chang et al. define optimism and pessimism has been held back by neglect of the
as generalized positive and negative outcome intra-individual variation in coping that
expectancies that directly or indirectly demonstrates situational influences. A truly
contribute to a variety of physical and psy- interactionist perspective requires a more
chological outcomes. They review several detailed examination of the interplay
lines of research on these constructs, includ- between personality and situational factors
ing alternate uni-dimensional and multi- in determining coping.
dimensional measurement models, and the
costs and benefits of the traits in dealing with
stressful encounters. Optimism–pessimism New trait and dynamic trait
research also adds to perspectives on cultural constructs
differences in personality (see Chiu et al.,
Vol. 1): the adaptive functions of optimism As Boyle (Vol. 1) notes, operationalization of
and pessimism may differ in Western and personality as a relatively small number of
East Asian cultures. traits measured by questionnaire may fail to
Research on the contents of self-knowledge illuminate important aspects of the personality
(e.g. self-concept) are complemented by sphere. At any given time, there are always
studies of key self-referent processes that some personality psychologists who seek to
influence the availability and accessibility of add to the number of recognized traits by
self-knowledge. As Smári et al. discuss, developing and validating new measures.
an important family of constructs relates to Sometimes these efforts succeed; at other
self-consciousness. As traits, these constructs times, new traits lack validity or prove to be
relate to the individual’s style of attention no more than old traits repackaged. At the
to internal states and/or social personae. The lower end of the radicalism scale are those
distinction between public and private investigators who accept the broad validity of
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 22

22 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

a questionnaire-based approach but seek to section devoted to implicit, projective and

modify or extend canonical models such as objective measures of personality.
the FFM. The chapters of Zuckerman, and Langens and Schmalt review the state of
Ashton and Lee in Vol. 2 represent such an the art in the implicit measurement of human
approach. Rather more radical are attempts to motives. Their approach builds on the earlier
redefine the scope of the personality domain, contributions of Cattell, in distinguishing
by identifying new kinds of content for per- dynamic traits from conventional personality
sonality questionnaires, such as culturally traits (see Boyle, Vol. 1), and McClelland’s
dependent belief structures. There may also use of the thematic apperception test (TAT)
be new traits to be found at the interface of in measurement of basic needs. Implicit
personality and ability, such as meta-cogni- measures such as the TAT may provide a path
tions of task performance and ‘emotional towards motivational processes that instigate
intelligence’. In such cases, the researcher behaviour by means of unconscious affective
must define both the overlaps and the distinc- processes, processes which are inaccessible
tive features of the new traits, in relation to to self-report. The authors’ multi-motive grid
personality and intelligence. Developing psy- (MMG) affords valid assessment of achieve-
chometrically adequate measurement models ment, power and affiliation motives. It also
that meet this goal may prove challenging, as differentiates implicit approach and avoid-
the example of emotional intelligence shows ance components of these motives (compare
(see Roberts et al., Vol. 2). the explicit measurement model reviewed by
The greatest challenge to existing trait Elliott and Thrash, Vol. 1). Integrating the
models derives from the recent resurgence of concept of motivational traits into the larger
interest in implicit traits (i.e. those evident field of personality may cast light on the
through behavioural consistency rather than hidden forces that shape behaviour.
from conscious experience and self-report). One contribution to new traits at the inter-
Interest in the unconscious, both looks back to face of ability and personality is provided by
psychoanalysis (see Campbell, Vol. 1), and Stankov and Kleitman’s account of confi-
looks sideways to modern experimental stud- dence and its realism. A person’s confidence
ies of implicit processes – although it is debat- in his/her performance may be measured sep-
able whether the experimental findings support arately from performance itself; that is, as an
Freudian notions (Kihlstrom, 1999). Some aspect of meta-cognition. The chapter shows
researchers (e.g. Schmukle and Egloff, 2005) that confidence can be assessed as a trait that
see explicit and implicit traits as representing is distinct – but meaningfully related to –
largely different domains; we may have sepa- cognate constructs, including performance
rate unconscious personalities that interact accuracy, standard personality traits and
rather weakly with our explicit self-beliefs. On questionnaire assessments of meta-cognition.
the other hand, psychobiological models imply A separate issue is the realism of judgements
– given that we are largely unaware of subcor- and confidence: can we find individuals who
tical processes – that implicit neural processes are systematically over- and under-confident?
provide the foundation for ‘explicit’ traits such Stankov and Kleitman identify some psycho-
as E and N. Thus (as with self-regulative metric difficulties in the measurement of
approaches), work on implicit traits has the realism, but also some application towards
potential both for deepening our understanding understanding group differences.
of existing constructs, and adding novel There is increasing interest in traits
dimensions to the personality sphere. relating to standards and attitudes that are at
Contributors to this section address some of least somewhat detached from conventional
the key principles that guide conceptualization personality traits (e.g. Saucier, 2000).
of new explicit and implicit traits. Work con- Stankov and Lee identify three trait domains
cerned more directly with measurement of spe- distinct from the personality traits that
cific traits is covered in Vol. 2, including a describe broadly the way we ‘think, feel or
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 23

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 23

act’. These domains describe dealing with educational issues are treated from an assess-
others (social attitudes), attaching meanings ment perspective by Rowe et al. (Vol. 2).
to long-term goals (values) and considering In clinical practice, the two major applica-
societal milieu (social norms). The authors tions are in diagnosis and treatment. As
describe empirical work supporting a factor Malik et al. point out, the diagnosis of psy-
model that may capture differences between chopathology has long been defined in the
a variety of different cultures. In addition to US by the American Psychiatric Association’s
the domain factors already described, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
further conservatism factor also emerges in Their chapter reviews the relationship
the data. The factor model also serves to between this standard framework for diagno-
illuminate cultural dimensions in cognitive, sis and abnormal personality traits. They
gender and ethnic differences. identify various weakness of the DSM as a
The last chapter in this section (Austin means for understanding personality disorder;
et al.) provides a second contribution to new weaknesses that may be remedied by use of
directions in understanding the ability– dimensional models of abnormality. Such
personality interface, focusing on the new models may better fit the data than the cate-
and sometimes controversial construct of gorical approach of DSM, and provide a
emotional intelligence (EI: see also Roberts better psychological understanding of disor-
et al., Vol. 2). EI is broadly defined as a set of ders. Furthermore, dimensional models may
abilities for perceiving, understanding and provide guidance on the etiology and treat-
managing emotions, but differing conceptu- ment of personality disorders, a topic further
alizations have emerged. ‘Trait EI’ refers to addressed by Groth-Marnat et al. These
the construct operationalized as an explicit authors introduce the systematic treatment
aspect of personality that can be measured by selection (STS) model which aims to opti-
questionnaire. Alternatively, EI may be mize the fit between the client’s personality
treated as a true ability that requires implicit and various strategies of psychotherapy.
assessment using objective tests (see Salovey They discuss the application of STS to
et al., Vol. 2). Austin et al. review contempo- conditions including depression, substance
rary research based on trait and ability abuse and trauma, and look forward to
models for EI and the relevance of the con- realizing the benefits of the approach.
struct to health, educational and occupational Health psychology is a newer field than
psychology. clinical psychology, but here too interest
in personality traits is growing. Traits are rel-
Applications evant both to the medical patient’s awareness
and regulation of illness (e.g. complaining
On the basis that ‘nothing is so practical as behaviours), and to the physiological
a good theory’, it is expected that an increas- processes that may contribute to objective
ingly rigorous science of personality should pathology (e.g. stress-linked changes in
support a range of real-world applications. immune system function). Williams et al.
Growing evidence for the ‘consequential provide a general survey of the role of per-
validity’ of personality traits (Ozer and sonality in health psychology, behavioural
Benet-Martinez, 2006), in particular, sup- medicine and psychosomatics. Personality
ports application. Indeed, there is a long may be linked to a variety of physical health
tradition of using personality assessments as outcomes, including longevity and vulnera-
an aid to diagnosis and intervention in a vari- bility to specific illnesses such as cardiovas-
ety of applied fields including organizational, cular disease and cancer. The chapter reviews
clinical and educational psychology. The conceptual issues and methodological chal-
chapters in this section together provide a com- lenges, together with the main topics
prehensive survey of these principal applica- addressed by empirical studies. As Fernandez
tions of personality research; note that and Kerns discuss, medical illness is often
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 24

24 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

accompanied by negative affect. Emotional the major applications of personality

disturbances may indeed become clinically research. Their review of the literature
significant. Their review of the field proposes on personality traits as predictors of job
that fear, sadness and anger should be performance states that recent meta-analyses
identified as correlated, but functionally may underestimate the importance of traits
distinct aspects of negative affect. The by ignoring critical conditions favouring
chapter reviews the evidence on the medical personality test use. They review essential
significance of these components of emotion, methodological recommendations including
including strategies for assessment and the use of a formal job analysis to identify
treatment. relevant personality factors, and generation
Studies of substance abuse bring together of predictive directional hypotheses.
practitioners of both clinical and health Practical issues covered include the problem
psychology. Two chapters here cover alcohol of faking, applicant reactions, alternative
and nicotine abuse respectively. Given the measurement strategies and legal issues. Tett
damaging effects on health of these drugs, and Christiansen also survey the importance
studies of personality may potentially make of personality beyond the traditional concern
an important contribution to identifying and of predicting performance. Personality infor-
treating those individuals prone to substance mation may be used not only in hiring, but
abuse. Ibáñez et al. review the relationship for post-hire practices including worker
between personality and individual differ- motivation, team building and promotion.
ences in alcohol use and misuse. Traits
including E, N and impulsivity/disinhibition
are implicated in normal and pathological
alcohol consumption. The authors caution CONCLUDING REMARKS
that multiple mechanisms contribute to these
behaviours, so that personality is only one The editors believe that the contributions to
piece in the complex puzzle of multiple bio- these handbooks will speak for themselves in
logical, psychological and social variables. highlighting the strength, diversity and
Their biopsychosocial model accommodates relevance to multiple fields of psychology of
the role of personality traits by linking them contemporary personality science. The
to the biological trait models reviewed integration of psychometrics and theory
elsewhere in Volume 1 (Pickering and Corr; envisioned by Eysenck, Cattell and others
Zuckerman). Byrne and Mazanov likewise provides a basis for exploring stable individ-
emphasize the multiple determinants of ual differences in a multitude of traits that
smoking behaviour: socio-demographic, permeate every area of life. The chapters also
environmental, behavioural and personal. illustrate how the controversies that have his-
Personality is related to smoking in cross- torically divided personality researchers have
sectional studies of adolescents, but it has in the end served to enhance the evidence for
proved challenging to establish causal effects trait models. Moving on from debates over
in longitudinal studies. There is better the stability, generality and heritability of
evidence for a causal effect of stress; person- traits has served to maintain the momentum
ality may contribute to the onset of smoking of the field. The field is not free of contro-
behaviour by enhancing vulnerability to versy (and nor should it be). The biological
external stress or by undermining available basis of personality is evident, but it has
coping strategies. The authors also indicate sometimes seemed difficult to translate the
the need for better theories to guide the general principle into theories that are effec-
applied research in this area. tive in predicting behaviour. The challenge
The chapter that concludes the section, from social-psychological perspectives
Tett and Christiansen’s review of personality remains. Social-cognitive theory has inspired
assessment in organizations, covers one of important self-regulative accounts of traits,
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 25

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 25

but the idiographic focus of much of this Berry, D.S. and Sherman-Hansen, J. (2000)
work remains problematic. The Freudian ‘Personality, nonverbal behavior, and interac-
unconscious is an historical relic for most tion quality in female dyads’, Personality
researchers, but important questions about and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3):
the role of conscious and unconscious 278–92.
Blinkhorn, S. (1997) ‘Past imperfect, future
processes in personality are still to be
conditional: Fifty years of test theory’, British
resolved. Given that validity coefficients in
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
relation to real-life criteria are widespread Psychology, 50(2): 175–86.
but often modest in magnitude, it is still Block, J. (1995) ‘A contrarian view of the five-
unclear how applied psychologists can best factor approach to personality description’,
make use of personality assessment. Perhaps Psychological Bulletin, 117(2): 187–215.
the most compelling sign of the vitality of Block, J. (2001) ‘Millennial contrarianism: The
personality research is that its most pressing five-factor approach to personality description
problems are those that are critical to psy- 5 years later’, Journal of Research in
chology in general. We look forward to Personality, 35(1): 98–107.
future personality research helping to resolve Bond, M.H. (2000) ‘Localizing the imperial
the tension between biological and social outreach – The Big Five and more in Chinese
culture’, American Behavioral Scientist,
psychological models, the impact of
44(1): 63–72.
unconscious processes on behaviour and
Boyle, G.J. (1991) ‘Does item homogeneity
the application of psychological theory to indicate internal consistency or item redun-
real-world issues. dancy in psychometric scales?’ Personality
and Individual Differences, 12(3): 291–4.
Boyle, G.J. (1994) ‘Self-Description Questionnaire
II’, in D.J. Keyser and R.C. Sweetland (eds), Test
REFERENCES Critiques, 10: 632–43.
Boyle, G.J. (2006) ‘Scientific analysis of person-
Allport, G.W. (1937) Personality: A Psychological ality and individual differences’, Doctor of
Interpretation. New York: Holt. Science thesis, University of Queensland.
Andrews, J.J.W., Saklofske, D.H. and Janzen, H.L. Boyle, G.J. and Saklofske, D.H. (2004) (eds),
(2001) (eds), Handbook of Psychoedu- Sage Benchmarks in Psychology: The
cational Assessment: Ability, Achievement, Psychology of Individual Differences (Vols
and Behavior in Children. San Diego: 1–4). London: Sage.
Academic. Boyle, G.J., Stankov, L. and Cattell, R.B. (1995)
Austin, E.J. and Deary, I.J. (2000) ‘The “four ‘Measurement and statistical models in the
As”: A common framework for normal and study of personality and intelligence’, in D.H.
abnormal personality?’, Personality and Saklofske and M. Zeidner (eds), International
Individual Differences, 28(5): 977–95. Handbook of Personality and Intelligence.
Bagby, R.M. and Quilty, C. (2006) ‘Personality New York: Plenum.
traits can predict best treatment for depres- Cacioppo, J.T. and Berntson, G.G. (2004)
sion’, Directions in Psychiatry, 26(4): 199–208. ‘Social neuroscience’, in M.S. Gazzaniga
Bargh, J.A. and Williams, L. (2006) ‘The (ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (3rd
automaticity of social life’, Current Directions edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
in Psychological Science, 15(1): 1–4. pp. 977–85.
Barrett, P. (2005) ‘What if there were no Caprara, G.V. and Cervone, D. (2000)
psychometrics?: Constructs, complexity, and Personality: Determinants, Dynamics, and
measurement’, Journal of Personality Potentials. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Assessment, 85(2): 134–40. Press.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J. and Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1998) On the
Mount, M.K. (1998) ‘Relating member ability Self-Regulation of Behavior. New York:
and personality to work-team processes and Cambridge University Press.
team effectiveness’, Journal of Applied Caspi, A. and Bem, D.J. (1990) ‘Personality
Psychology, 83(3): 377–91. continuity and change across the life course’,
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 26

26 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

in L.A. Pervin (ed.), Handbook of Personality: Cuttance, P. and Ecob, R. (1987) (eds),
Theory and Research. New York: Guilford, Structural Modeling by Example:
pp. 549–75. Applications in Educational, Sociological,
Caspi, A., Roberts, B.W. and Shiner, R.L. (2005) and Behavioural Research. New York:
‘Personality development: Stability and Cambridge University Press.
change’, Annual Review of Psychology, 56: Derryberry, D. and Reed, M.A. (2001) ‘A multidis-
453–84. ciplinary perspective on attentional control’, in
Cattell, R.B. (1973) Personality and Mood C.L. Folk and B.S. Gibson (eds), Attraction,
by Questionnaire. New York: Jossey Bass. Distraction and Action: Multiple Perspectives
Cattell, R.B. (1978) The Scientific Use of Factor on Attentional Capture. New York: Elsevier
Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences. Science, pp. 325–47.
New York: Plenum. Detrick, P. and Chibnall, T. (2006) ‘NEO PI-R
Cattell, R.B. (1980) Personality and Learning personality characteristics of high-performing
Theory, Vol. 2: A Systems Theory of entry-level police officers’, Psychological
Maturation and Learning. New York: Springer. Services, 3(4): 274–85.
Cattell, R.B. (1995) ‘The fallacy of five factors in Durrett, C. and Trull, J. (2005) ‘An evaluation
the personality sphere’, The Psychologist, of evaluative personality terms: A compari-
8(5): 207–8. son of the Big Seven and Five-factor model in
Cattell, R.B., Boyle, G.J. and Chant, D. (2002) predicting psychopathology’, Psychological
‘The enriched behavioral prediction equation Assessment, 17(3): 359–68.
and its impact on structured learning and the Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T.L.,
dynamic calculus’, Psychological Review, Fabes, R.A., Losoya, S.H., Valiente, C., Reiser,
109(1): 202–5. M., Cumberland, A. and Shepard, S. (2005)
Cattell, R.B. and Kline, P. (1977) ‘The Scientific ‘The relations of problem behavior status to
Analysis of Personality and Motivation’, New children’s negative emotionality, effortful
York: Academic. control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations
Cattell, R.B. and Nesselroade, J.R. (1988) (eds), and prediction of change’, Developmental
Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, 41(1): 193–211.
Psychology (rev. 2nd edn). New York: Endler, N.S. (1983) ‘Interactionism: A personal-
Plenum. ity model but not yet a theory’, in M.M. Page
Cattell, R.B. and Schuerger, J.M. (1978) (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
Personality Theory in Action: Handbook for 1982: Personality – Current Theory and
the Objective-Analytic (O-A) Test Kit. Research. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Press, pp. 155–200.
Ability Testing. Endler, N.S. and Kocovski, N. L. (2001) ‘State
Cattell, R.B. and Warburton, F.W. (1967) and trait anxiety revisited’, Journal of Anxiety
Objective Personality and Motivation Tests: Disorders, 15(3): 231–45.
A Theoretical Introduction and Practical Epstein, S. (1977) ‘Traits are alive and well’, in
Compendium. Champaign, IL: University of D. Magnusson and N.S. Endler (eds),
Illinois Press. Personality at the Crossroads. Hillsdale, NJ:
Clark, D.A., Beck, A.T. and Alford, B.A. (1999) Erlbaum, pp. 83–98.
Scientific Foundations of Cognitive Theory and Eysenck, H.J. (1957) The Dynamics of Anxiety
Therapy of Depression. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. and Hysteria. London: Routledge and
Corr, P.J. (2004) ‘Reinforcement sensitivity Kegan Paul.
theory and personality’, Neuroscience Eysenck, H.J. (1967) The Biological Basis of
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3): 317–32. Personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Costa, P.T. Jr. and McCrae, R.R. (1992) ‘Four Eysenck, H.J. (1981) ‘General features of
ways five factors are basic’, Personality the model’, in H.J. Eysenck (ed.), A Model
and Individual Differences, 13(6): for Personality. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–37.
653–65. Eysenck, H.J. (1984) ‘Cattell and the theory of
Costa, P.T. and Widiger, T.A. (2002) Personality personality’, Multivariate Behavioral
Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Research, 19(2–3): 323–36.
Personality (2nd edn). Washington, DC: Eysenck, H.J. (1994) ‘The outcome problem
American Psychological Association. in psychotherapy: What have we learned?’,
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 27

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 27

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(5): Hettema, J. and Deary, I.J. (1993) ‘Bio-
477–95. logical and social approaches to individuality:
Eysenck, M.W. and Eysenck, H.J. (1980) Towards a common paradigm’, in J. Hettema
‘Mischel and the concept of personality’, and I.J. Deary (eds), Foundations of Perso-
British Journal of Psychology, 71(2): nality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1–14.
191–204. Hogan, R. (2005) ‘In defense of personality
Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, M.W. (1985) measurement: New wine for old whiners’,
Personality and Individual Differences: A Human Performance, 18(4): 331–41.
Natural Science Approach. New York: Plenum. Hogan, R. (2006) ‘Who wants to be a psychol-
Eysenck, M.W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R. and ogist?’, Journal of Personality Assessment,
Calvo, M.G. (2007) ‘Anxiety and cognitive 86(2): 119–30.
performance: Attentional control theory’, Humphreys, M.S. and Revelle, W. (1984)
Emotion, 7(2): 336–53. ‘Personality, motivation and performance:
Fisher, C.D. and Boyle, G.J. (1997) ‘Personality A theory of the relationship between
and employee selection: Credibility regained’, individual differences and information
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, processing’, Psychological Review, 91(2):
35(2): 26–40. 153–84.
Fraley, R.C. and Roberts, B.W. (2005) ‘Patterns Jensen-Campbell, L.A. and Graziano, W.G.
of continuity: A dynamic model for concep- (2001) ‘Agreeableness as a moderator of
tualizing the stability of individual differences interpersonal conflict’, Journal of Personality,
in psychological constructs across the life 69(2): 323–62.
course’, Psychological Review, 112(1): Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A.
60–74. and Rich, B.L. (2007) ‘Self-efficacy and work-
Funder, D.C. (2006) ‘Towards a resolution of related performance: The integral role of
the personality triad: Persons, situations, and individual differences’, Journal of Applied
behaviors’, Journal of Research in Psychology, 92(1): 107–27.
Personality, 40(1): 21–34. Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2006)
Furnham, A. and Heaven, P. (1999) Personality ‘Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of
and Social Behaviour. London: Arnold. the narcissistic personality to self- and
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983) Factor Analysis (rev. 2nd other perceptions of workplace deviance,
edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. leadership, and task and contextual perform-
Goldberg, L.R. (1990) ‘An alternative ance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4):
“Description of personality”: The Big-Five 762–76.
factor structure’, Journal of Personality and Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P.L., Murtha, T. and Goff,
Social Psychology, 59(6): 1216–29. M. (1995) ‘Personality and intelligence in
Gray, J.A. (1991) ‘Neural systems, emotion and industrial and organisational psychology’, in
personality’, in J. Madden IV (ed.), D.H. Saklofske and M. Zeidner (eds),
Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion and International Handbook of Personality
Affect. New York: Raven, pp. 273–306. and Intelligence. New York: Plenum, pp.
Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., O’Brien, 577–602.
M.U. and Zins, J.E. (2003) ‘Enhancing school Kihlstrom, J.F. (1999) ‘The psychological uncon-
based prevention and youth development scious’, in L.A. Pervin and O.P. John (eds),
through coordinated social, emotional, and Handbook of Personality: Theory and
academic learning’, American Psychologist, Research (2nd edn). New York: Guilford,
58(6–7): 466–74. pp. 424–42.
Grice, J.W. (2004) ‘Bridging the King, P.R. and Endler, N.S. (1990) ‘The trait anx-
idiographic–nomothetic divide in ratings of iety x perception score: A composite
self and others on the Big Five’, Journal of predictor for state anxiety’, Journal of
Personality, 72(2): 203–42. Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4):
Harkness, K.L., Bagby, R.M., Joffe, R.T. and 679–84.
Levitt, A. (2002) ‘Major depression, chronic Krug, S.E. and Johns, E.F. (1986) ‘A large scale
minor depression, and the Five-Factor Model cross-validation of second-order personality
of Personality’, European Journal of structure defined by the 16PF’, Psychological
Personality, 16(4): 271–81. Reports, 59(2): 683–93.
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 28

28 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PERSONALITY THEORY AND ASSESSMENT

Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Advances in Personality Psychology (Vol. 1).
Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago London: Routledge, pp. 199–237.
Press. Matthews, G. and Gilliland, K. (1999) ‘The
Lakatos (1977) ‘The methodology of scientific personality theories of H.J. Eysenck and
research programmes’, Philosophical J.A. Gray: A comparative review’, Personality
Papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge and Individual Differences, 26(4): 583–626.
University Press. Matthews, G. and Harley, T.A. (1993) ‘Effects
Lazarus, R.S. (1999) Stress and Emotion: A New of extraversion and self-report arousal on
Synthesis. New York: Springer. semantic priming: a connectionist approach’,
Little, B.R. and Chambers, N.C. (2004) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
‘Personal project pursuit: On human doings 65(4): 735–56.
and well-beings’, in W.M. Cox and E. Klinger Matthews, G., Schwean, V.L., Campbell, S.E.,
(eds), Handbook of Motivational Counseling: Saklofske, D.H. and Mohamed, A.A.R.
Concepts, Approaches, and Assessment. (2000b) ‘Personality, self-regulation and
New York: Wiley, pp. 65–82. adaptation: A cognitive-social framework’, in
McAdams, D.P. (1992) ‘The five-factor model in M. Boekarts, P.R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner
personality: A critical appraisal’, Journal of (eds), Handbook of Self-Regulation. New
Personality, 60(2): 329–61. York: Academic, pp. 171–207.
McAdams, D.P. and Pals, J. (2006) A new Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.
Big Five: Fundamental principles for an (2002) Emotional Intelligence: Science and
integrative science of personality. American Myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Psychologist, 61(3): 204–17. Miller, T. (1991) ‘The psychotherapeutic utility
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr. (1997) of the five-factor model of personality:
‘Personality trait structure as a human univer- A clinician’s experience’, Journal of
sal’, American Psychologist, 52(5): 509–16. Personality Assessment, 57(3): 414–33.
MacMillan, M. (1997) Freud Evaluated: Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and Assessment.
The Completed Arc. Cambridge, MA: MIT New York: Wiley.
Press. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y. and Mendoza-Denton, R.
Matsumoto, D. (2006) ‘Are cultural differences (2002) ‘Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of
in emotion regulation mediated by personality consistency in personality’, Current Directions
traits?’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, in Psychological Science, 11(2): 50–4.
37(4): 421–37. Motowidlo, S. J. and Van Scotter, R. (1994)
Matthews, G. (1997) ‘An introduction to the ‘Evidence that task performance should be
cognitive science of personality and emotion’, distinguished from contextual performance’,
in G. Matthews (ed.), Cognitive Science Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4):
Perspectives on Personality and Emotion. 475–80.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 3–30. Munafo, M.R, Clark, T.G., Moore, L.R., Payne,
Matthews, G. (2000) ‘A cognitive science E., Walton, R. and Flint, J. (2003) ‘Genetic
critique of biological theories of personality polymorphisms and personality in healthy
traits’, History and Philosophy of Psychology, adults: A systematic review and meta-
2(1): 1–17. analysis’, Molecular Psychiatry, 8(5): 471–84.
Matthews, G. (2004) ‘Designing personality: Nyborg, H. (1994) Hormones, Sex, and Society:
Cognitive architectures and beyond’, The Science of Physicology. Westport, CT:
Proceedings of the American Artificial Praeger.
Intelligence Society Symposium on Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C. and Dilchert, S.
Architectures for Modeling Emotion: (2005) ‘Personality at work: Raising aware-
Cross-Disciplinary Foundations. Menlo Park, ness and correcting misconceptions’, Human
CA: AAIS, pp. 83–91. Performance, 18(4): 389–404.
Matthews, G., Deary, I.J. and Whiteman, M.C. Ozer, D.J. and Benet-Martinez, V. (2006)
(2003) Personality Traits (2nd edn). ‘Personality and the prediction of conse-
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. quential outcomes’, Annual Review of
Matthews, G., Derryberry, D. and Siegle, G.J. Psychology, 57: 401–21.
(2000a) ‘Personality and emotion: Cognitive Paulhus, D.L. (2002) ‘Socially desirable
science perspectives’, in S.E. Hampson (ed.), responding: The evolution of a construct’,
9781412946513-Ch01 5/23/08 7:19 PM Page 29

PERSONALITY THEORIES AND MODELS: AN OVERVIEW 29

in H.I. Braun and D.N. Jackson (eds), The Testing: Principles and Instruments. New York:
Role of Constructs in Psychological and Brunner/Mazel.
Educational Measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Stelmack, R.M. and Stalikas, A. (1991) ‘Galen
Erlbaum, pp. 49–69. and the humour theory of temperament’,
Penke, L., Denissen, J.J.A. and Miller, G.F. Personality and Individual Differences,
(2007) ‘The evolutionary genetics of person- 12(3): 255–63.
ality’, European Journal of Personality, 21(5): Suls, J. (2001) ‘Affect, stress, and personality’,
549–87. in J.P. Forgas (ed.), Handbook of Affect and
Pervin, L.A. (2002) Current Controversies and Social Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Issues in Personality (3rd edn). New York: pp. 392–409.
Guilford. Terracciano, A., Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R.
Pinker, S. (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern (2006) ‘Personality plasticity after age 30’,
Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Putnam. 32(8): 999–1009.
Plomin, R., Asbury, K. and Dunn, J. (2001) Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003) ‘A personality
‘Why are children in the same family so trait-based interactionist model of job per-
different? Nonshared environment a decade formance’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
later’, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46(3): 88(3): 500–517.
225–33. Wells, A. and Matthews, G. (1994) Attention and
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1984) Computation and Emotion: A Clinical Perspective. Hove: Erlbaum.
Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Westen, D. (1999) ‘The scientific status of
Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. unconscious processes: Is Freud really dead?’,
Raine, A. (2006) ‘Schizotypal personality: Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Neurodevelopmental and psychosocial tra- Association, 47(4): 1061–106.
jectories’, Annual Review of Clinical Widiger, T.A. and Trull, J. (2007) ‘Plate tectonics
Psychology, 2: 291–326. in the classification of personality disorder:
Revelle, W., Humphreys, M.S., Simon, L. and Shifting to a dimensional model’, American
Gilliland, K. (1980) ‘The interactive effect Psychologist, 62(2): 71–83.
of personality, time of day and caffeine: Zeidner, M. (1998) Test Anxiety: The State of
A test of the arousal model’, Journal of the Art. New York: Plenum.
Experimental Psychology: General, 109(1): Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M. and Pintrich, P.R.
1–31. (2000) ‘Self-regulation: Directions and chal-
Rothbart, M.K. and Bates, J.E. (2006) lenges for future research’, in M. Boekaerts,
‘Temperament in children’s development’, in P.R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (eds), Handbook
W. Damon, R. Lerner, and N. Eisenberg of Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA:
(eds), Handbook of Child Psychology Academic, pp. 749–768.
(6th edn): Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., Roberts, R.D. and
Personality Development. New York: Wiley, McCann, C. (2003) ‘Development of emo-
pp. 99–166. tional intelligence: Towards a multi-level
Rutter, M., Moffitt, T.E. and Caspi, A. (2006) investment model’, Human Development,
‘Gene-environment interplay and psy- 46(2–3): 69–96.
chopathology: Multiple varieties but real Zuckerman, M. (1991) Psychobiology of per-
effects’, Journal of Child Psychology and sonality. New York: Cambridge.
Psychiatry, 47(3–4): 226–61. Zuckerman, M. (1992) ‘What is a basic factor
Saucier, G. (2000) ‘Isms and the structure of and which factors are basic? Turtles all the
social attitudes’, Journal of Personality and way down’, Personality and Individual
Social Psychology, 78(2): 366–85. Differences, 13(6): 675–81.
Schmukle, S.C. and Egloff, B. (2005) ‘A latent Zuckerman, M. (1995) ‘Good and bad humors:
state-trait analysis of implicit and explicit biochemical bases of personality and its
personality measures’, European Journal of disorders’, Psychological Science, 6(6):
Psychological Assessment, 21(2): 100–7. 325–32.
Schuerger, J.M. (1986) ‘Personality assessment Zuckerman, M. (2005) Psychobiology of
by objective tests’, in R.B. Cattell and R.C. Personality (2nd rev. edn). New York:
Johnson (eds), Functional Psychological Cambridge University Press.

View publication stats