A geometric taxonomy of personality scales

Abstract

Previous taxonomies of personality traits have been lexical in nature and have been concerned primarily with the meaning of adjectives in personality description. The taxonomy presented in this article employed personality scales as the units to be classified and was guided by theoretical, rather than lexical, considerations. A priori distinctions among different domains of trait‐descriptive terms identified a distinctive domain of interpersonal traits within which a preliminary conceptually‐based taxonomy was developed. The Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS) were constructed to provide geometrically precise semantic markers of that domain in the form of a circumplex model organized around the orthogonal coordinates of dominance and nurturance. In the course of a decade of research, some 172 personality scales were classified with reference to the IAS by computational procedures described in detail. Advantages and limitations of the current geometric taxonomy of personality scales are discussed, and future research directions are indicated.

Cognitive egocentrism differentiates warm and cold people

“…They seek to distance themselves from others, are quarrelsome, less caring, and less cooperative (Moskowitz, 2010; Smith et al, 2004; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). According to multiple theories, cognitive egocentrism underlies social egocentrism (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985; Galinsky et al, 2005; Piaget, 1932) and we therefore predicted systematic relations between interpersonal coldness and a very basic form of cognitive egocentrism (Wapner & Werner, 1957) that, we think, holds great promise as a probe of it.…”

“…Such results, too, make sense. Warm individuals report greater empathy for others (Wiggins & Broughton, 1991), which would seem to require a less egocentric mode of perception (Baron-Cohen et al, 1985). Warm individuals compromise with others to a greater extent (Moskowitz, 2010), likely so because they are able to distinguish the self’s perspective from the other’s perspective in their interpersonal transactions (Finkel & Rusbult, 2008).…”

“…For example, cold individuals value autonomy to a greater extent, whereas warm individuals value nurturance to a greater extent (Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). Cold individuals view others as less trustworthy, whereas warm individuals view others as more trustworthy (Moskowitz, 2010).…”

“…Cold individuals often seek to isolate the self from others, whereas warm individuals are, if anything, sometimes too dependent on others and motivated to please them (Strack & Lorr, 1994; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989). A communal (Bakan, 1966) label for this dimension is apt because warm individuals score higher in femininity and quite a few other motivations and traits suggestive of a greater appreciation for others and goals to accommodate to others in everyday social interactions (Locke, 2011; Markey & Markey, 2007; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). Cold people, by contrast, are less communal and more egocentric in their social relations (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996).…”

“…Additionally, coldness is a predictor of social isolation (Smith, Glazer, Ruiz, & Gallo, 2004) and personality disorders associated with it (such as schizoid personality disorder; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989). Thus, although coldness is predictive of aggression (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Campbell, 2006) and psychopathy (Jones & Paulhus, 2011), it is also predictive of avoiding others due to a distrust of them (Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). Regardless of whether coldness takes a manipulative or avoidant form, the underlying interpersonal dynamic seems the same: a self-centric perspective on relationships.…”