Explanation in personality psychology: “Verbal magic” and the five-factor model

Abstract

Scientific psychology involves both identifying and classifying phenomena of interest (description) and revealing the causes and mechanisms that contribute towards these phenomena arising (explanation). Within personality psychology, some propose that aspects of behavior and cognition can be explained with reference to personality traits. However, certain conceptual and logical issues cast doubt upon the adequacy of traits as coherent explanatory constructs. This paper discusses “explanation” in psychology and the problems of circularity and reification. An analysis of relations and intrinsic properties is then developed to address the logical requirements necessary for circumventing these problems. An examination of McCrae and Costa's defense of traits as explanatory constructs, in terms of “tendencies” and “dispositions” highlights logical issues that prevent traits, so defined, from explaining trait-like behaviors and cognitions. The logical requirements for a coherent trait-explanatory account are outlined and possible explanatory directions in trait-approaches are discussed. The ongoing tendency towards fallacious reasoning in psychology and suggestions for preventing this are further examined.

On Dreams and Motivation: Comparison of Freud’s and Hobson’s Views

“…24–25). Instead, causes and effects must be logically distinct to avoid the circularity associated with explaining the effect in terms of itself (see Maze, 1983; Boag, 2011, 2015b). Since a ‘desire for x ’ describes a relationship (what the person is doing, viz .…”

Evolutionary and differential psychology: conceptual conflicts and the path to integration

“…In order to discuss the challenges that psychology faces as a science, it is necessary to first clarify precisely what is meant by “science.” While views on what constitutes “science” vary (Salmon, 1989; Gaukroger, 2006), the scientific enterprise generally consists of two major elements: the systematic observation and description of a particular set of natural phenomena, and the theory-guided explanation of the causes of said phenomena (Wilson, 1998; Cervone, 1999; Boag, 2011). In employing this definition, the authors seek to approximate the position advocated by Wilson (1998), and emphasize that the role of science is to “factor out human values” through procedural error-checking, with the goal of developing “representations of reality that are as accurate as possible.”…”

“…While differential descriptive constructs have proven their value through predictive correlations with achievement and outcome measures (Lubinski, 2000), in recent decades the literature has seen the rise and growing acceptance of individual differences papers which employ said descriptive constructs as proposed causative agents in simple explanatory theories (see Boag, 2011 for a detailed account). This form of explanation-description substitution produces a range of far-reaching conceptual problems, particularly with regard to circular reasoning and reification.…”

“…Second, these super-ordinate personality traits are proposed as explanations of the very behaviors that they are aggregated from. This represents internally-inconsistent circular reasoning, as a discrete phenomenon cannot be coherently understood to cause itself (Skinner, 1953; Hanson, 1958; Nozick, 1981; Bandura, 1999; Cervone, 2005; for a more complete treatment of the logical inconsistencies and reification errors in personality trait models, see Boag, 2011). …”

Initial Validation and Refinement of the Hierarchical Inventory of Personality for Children in the Australian Context

“…The modern consensus of adult trait personality is the hierarchical framework of the well‐known Five‐Factor Model (FFM): Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness (Tackett, Kushner, De Fruyt, & Mervielde, ). Despite criticism of the atheoretical genesis of the FFM (Block, ; Epstein, ) and the circular reasoning of using traits to explain traits (Boag, ), an impressive body of FFM literature has accrued in the area of personality over the lifespan (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, ), life outcomes (Samuel, Mullins‐Sweatt, & Widiger, ) , cross‐cultural universality (Allik, ), and psychopathology (Widiger & Smith, ).…”