Experience producing drive theory: Personality “writ large”

Bouchard, Thomas J.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.007

Cited by 23 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the error-free variance of a typical Big Five item, less than half has been estimated to pertain to the domains and their facets, leaving at least a half for nuances (McCrae, 2015). There are also personality traits that are either in the peripheries of the Big Five domains, as commonly defined, or beyond them (e.g., competitiveness, loyalty, jealousy, humour, sexuality, or others; Bouchard, 2016;Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). These traits are often not well covered in currently popular personality measures.…”

Section: Descriptive Personality Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Descriptive, predictive and explanatory personality research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond the Big Few traits

Mõttus¹,

Wood²,

Condon³

et al. 2020

Preprint

106

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that it is useful to distinguish between three key goals of personality science – description, prediction and explanation – and that attaining them often requires different priorities and methodological approaches. We put forward specific recommendations such as publishing findings with minimum a priori aggregation and exploring the limits of predictive models without being constrained by parsimony and intuitiveness but instead maximising out-of-sample predictive accuracy. We argue that naturally-occurring variance in many decontextualized and multi-determined constructs that interest personality scientists may not have individual causes, at least as this term is generally understood and in ways that are human-interpretable, never mind intervenable. If so, useful explanations are narratives that summarize many pieces of descriptive findings rather than models that target individual cause-effect associations. By meticulously studying specific and contextualized behaviours, thoughts, feelings and goals, however, individual causes of variance may ultimately be identifiable, although such causal explanations will likely be far more complex, phenomenon-specific and person-specific than anticipated thus far. Progress in all three areas – description, prediction, and explanation – requires higher-dimensional models than the currently-dominant “Big Few” and supplementing subjective trait-ratings with alternative sources of information such as informant-reports and behavioural measurements. Developing a new generation of psychometric tools thus provides many immediate research opportunities.

show abstract

Section: Descriptive Personality Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Descriptive, predictive and explanatory personality research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond the Big Few traits

Mõttus¹,

Wood²,

Condon³

et al. 2020

Preprint

106

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Cattell and other researchers did not gain validity well into the late 20 th century, but advances in technology and further investigation have validated Cattell's model. The following Big Five factors are now the dominant paradigm in personality research: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Bouchard, 2016;Fehringer, n.d.). Although, the well-established five-factor model of personality traits was not used as part of the survey instrument.…”

Section: Vitheoretical Framework Expansionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Athletic Development Personality Relationship Emphasis on Global Business Leadership Challenges in Today's Environment

DeGraffe¹

2021

IJRISS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are also personality traits that are either in the peripheries of the Big Five domains, as commonly defined, or beyond them (e.g. competitiveness, loyalty, jealousy, humour, sexuality or others; Bouchard, 2016; Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). These traits are often not well covered in currently popular personality measures.…”

Section: Descriptive Personality Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…But it is unlikely that we will ever identify a tractable explanation of how a leader's personality affects her organization's longevity through particle physics. Instead, explanations using units at more proximal levels to the phenomena we wish to explain may be more useful and appropriate (Borsboom, Cramer, & Kalis, 2019; Dennett, 2013; Hofstadter, 2007; Sperry, 1966). Social cognitive, learning or functionalist accounts, which explain personality trait levels as arising through the interactions of units such as goals, expectancies, affordances and perceptual processes, may be more appropriate and necessary components of causal accounts of the phenomena than explanations through specific genes or even specific neurological structures (Back, in press; Baumert et al, 2017).…”

Section: Explanatory Personality Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Descriptive, Predictive and Explanatory Personality Research: Different Goals, Different Approaches, but a Shared Need to Move beyond the Big Few Traits

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that it is useful to distinguish between three key goals of personality science—description, prediction and explanation—and that attaining them often requires different priorities and methodological approaches. We put forward specific recommendations such as publishing findings with minimum a priori aggregation and exploring the limits of predictive models without being constrained by parsimony and intuitiveness but instead maximizing out–of–sample predictive accuracy. We argue that naturally occurring variance in many decontextualized and multidetermined constructs that interest personality scientists may not have individual causes, at least as this term is generally understood and in ways that are human–interpretable, never mind intervenable. If so, useful explanations are narratives that summarize many pieces of descriptive findings rather than models that target individual cause–effect associations. By meticulously studying specific and contextualized behaviours, thoughts, feelings and goals, however, individual causes of variance may ultimately be identifiable, although such causal explanations will likely be far more complex, phenomenon–specific and person–specific than anticipated thus far. Progress in all three areas—description, prediction and explanation—requires higher dimensional models than the currently dominant ‘Big Few’ and supplementing subjective trait–ratings with alternative sources of information such as informant–reports and behavioural measurements. Developing a new generation of psychometric tools thus provides many immediate research opportunities. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

Experience producing drive theory: Personality “writ large”

Cited by 23 publications

References 82 publications

Descriptive, predictive and explanatory personality research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond the Big Few traits

Descriptive, predictive and explanatory personality research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond the Big Few traits

Athletic Development Personality Relationship Emphasis on Global Business Leadership Challenges in Today's Environment

Descriptive, Predictive and Explanatory Personality Research: Different Goals, Different Approaches, but a Shared Need to Move beyond the Big Few Traits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About