Head‐to‐head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions

Abstract

The utility of a configural type approach for predictions from personality is currently controversial. Configural types predict important personality correlates, but continuous dimensions based on the same data often fare much better in cross-sectional head-to-head comparisons. However, many such comparisons can be considered unfair to the type approach, confound diverse differences between type and dimensional approaches, and rely only on cross-sectional data. A sequence of analyses is reported that include fairer comparisons and deconfound differences due to the number of predictors, categorical versus dimensional predictors, dichotomized dimensions versus configural types, dimensional versus type criterion variables, and cross-sectional versus longitudinal predictions. The results suggest incremental validity of configural types over dimensions only in a very few cases.

Child Personality and Parental Behavior as Moderators of Problem Behavior: Variable- and Person-Centered Approaches.

“…So far, attempts to replicate the three types across heterogeneous samples, time, informants, methods, and variables for clustering have produced mixed results (for an overview, see Asendorpf, Borkenau, Ostendorf, &van Aken, 2001, andAsendorpf et al, 2002). This has led to the conclusion that although the three prototypes are frequently recovered, they are not necessarily the prototypes that best describe each particular sample (Asendorpf, 2003;Van Leeuwen, De Fruyt, & Mervielde, 2004).…”

Childhood Personality Predicts Long‐Term Trajectories of Shyness and Aggressiveness in the Context of Demographic Transitions in Emerging Adulthood

“…The present study analyzed the same longitudinal sample and the same Q-types used by Asendorpf and van Aken (1999), and Asendorpf (2003). Because Q-types were derived from teacher Q-sorts, whereas the developmental outcomes were parental judgments and intelligence tests, the influence of shared method variance (e.g., selfenhancement bias in self-ratings) could be limited.…”

Stability and change in personality type membership and anxiety in adolescence

“…Some advantages of this approach are that information on individuals' personality structure as a whole is preserved, at least in part, in the definition of the types and that it provides a descriptive efficiency as well as conceptual clarity (Robins & Tracy, 2003). The main disadvantages are that data on interindividual differences are lost in the transition from individual personality structure to personality types and that the types appear to have little utility for predictions from personality (Asendorpf, 2003). However, although both approaches have some advantages as well as disadvantages, they both add important insights into the understanding of personality (Caspi & Shiner, 2006).…”

“…One of the primary advantages of the Big Five framework is its ability to organize previous research findings on the development of personality traits into a manageable number of conceptually different domains (Roberts, Robins, Trzesniewski, & Caspi, 2003). However, an important disadvantage is that it ignores the individuals' personality structure as a whole (Asendorpf, 2003). The second approach in personality research is the person-centred approach, which focuses on the patterning and organization of traits within a person.…”