How Can Evolutionary Psychology Successfully Explain Personality and Individual Differences?

Buss, David M.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01138.x

Cited by 422 publications

(385 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(77 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

355

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But at the same time, he interpreted "traits" as having "more than nominal existence" (1931, p. 368) and as referring to individuals' "integrated structure within the skin" and their "real neuropsychic organisation" (1966, p. 2, p. 8). Proponents of the Five Factor Model similarly interpret "traits" as evolved psychical mechanisms that are adaptive, genetically influenced and acted on by natural selection (e.g., Buss 2009;McCrae & Costa 1997;Matthews, Deary & Whiteman 2003).…”

Section: /50mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Uher

2014

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As science seeks to make generalisations, a science of individual peculiarities encounters intricate challenges. This article explores these challenges by applying the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) and by exploring taxonomic "personality" research as an example. Analyses of researchers' interpretations of the taxonomic "personality" models, constructs and data that have been generated in the field reveal widespread erroneous assumptions about the abilities of previous methodologies to appropriately represent individual-specificity in the targeted phenomena. These assumptions, rooted in everyday thinking, fail to consider that individualspecificity and others' minds cannot be directly perceived, that abstract descriptions cannot serve as causal explanations, that between-individual structures cannot be isomorphic to within-individual structures, and that knowledge of compositional structures cannot explain the process structures of their functioning and development. These erroneous assumptions and serious methodological deficiencies in widely used standardised questionnaires have effectively prevented psychologists from establishing taxonomies that can comprehensively model individual-specificity in most of the kinds of phenomena explored as "personality", especially in experiencing and behaviour and in individuals' functioning and development. Contrary to previous assumptions, it is not universal models but rather different kinds of taxonomic models that are required for each of the different kinds of phenomena, variations and structures that are commonly conceived of as "personality". Consequently, to comprehensively explore individual-specificity, researchers have to apply a portfolio of complementary methodologies and develop different kinds of taxonomies, most of which have yet to be developed. Closing, the article derives some meta-desiderata for future research on individuals' "personality".Key words: personality functioning and development; phenomenon-methodology matching; betweenindividual and within-individual differences; nomothetic and ideographic approaches; standardised questionnaire methods; traits; Big Five Model and Five Factor Model; Compositional Structures and process structures; personality model and taxonomy. . Interpreting "personality" taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49,

show abstract

Section: /50mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Uher

2014

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Men also score higher on the Dark Triad traits than women (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). It is more advantageous for men to have traits such as the Dark Triad and to engage in short-term behaviors because they acquire more benefits and suffer fewer costs than women do (Buss, 2009;Figueredo et al, 2006;.…”

Section: Life History Strategies and The Dark Triadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships between the Dark Triad and Delayed Gratification: An Evolutionary Perspective

Baughman¹,

Jonason²,

Vernon³

2016

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Dark Triad (i.e., psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism) is a cluster of socially aversive personality traits that account for the "darker" side of human behavior.While traditional views have focused on the maladaptive nature of these traits, recent work in the field of evolutionary psychology suggests these traits may be adaptive in terms of self-serving behavior. The Dark Triad traits may also be a manifestation of a particular life strategy that an individual engages in; one that is characterized by immediate gratification and risk-taking. The present study examined links between the Dark Triad traits and ability to delay gratification in a sample of 364 undergraduate students (136 males). Psychopathy was the most strongly linked to an inability to delay gratification, followed by Machiavellianism and narcissism. Sex also moderated these relationships, such that women who scored high on Machiavellianism were less likely to delay gratification than men; however, these associations were no longer significant when a more conservative Bonferroni correction was applied. Findings are discussed within the evolutionary framework of Life History Theory.

show abstract

“…Evolutionary psychology is not a subdiscipline of psychology, but instead it represents a unifying approach to psychology in which the theory of evolution can be-and has been to varying degrees-applied to all psychological subdisciplines (see Buss, 2011). For example, much progress has been made in incorporating evolutionary theory into the subdisciplines of social psychology (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2009), developmental psychology (Ellis & Bjorklund, 2005), cognitive psychology (Pinker, 2009), abnormal psychology (Wakefi eld, 1992, and personality psychology (Buss, 2009).…”

Section: An Evolutionary Psychological Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, however, evolutionary psychologists have begun to acknowledge the importance of individual diff erences. Progress is being made in regard to explaining individual diff erences from an evolutionary perspective (see Buss, 2009), and this progress also applies to individual diff erences in violent behavior.…”

Section: Individual and Cultural Diff Erences In Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary Perspectives on Violence, Homicide, and War

Liddle

Shackelford

Weekes–Shackelford

2012

The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Violence, Homicide, and War

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review and discuss the evolutionary psychological literature on violence, homicide, and war in humans and nonhumans, and in doing so we argue that an evolutionary perspective can substantially enhance our understanding of these behaviors. We provide a brief primer on evolutionary psychology, describing basic tenets of the field. The theories of sexual selection and parental investment are explained and subsequently used to highlight the evolutionary logic underlying the use of violence by humans and other animals. Our examination of violent behavior begins with a focus on nonhuman animals, reviewing the different contexts in which violence occurs and discussing how an evolutionary perspective can explain why it occurs in these contexts. We then examine violence in humans and illustrate the similarities and differences between human and nonhuman violence. Finally, we summarize what an evolutionary perspective can offer in terms of understanding violence, homicide, and war, and we discuss directions for future research.

show abstract

How Can Evolutionary Psychology Successfully Explain Personality and Individual Differences?

Cited by 422 publications

References 47 publications

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Relationships between the Dark Triad and Delayed Gratification: An Evolutionary Perspective

Evolutionary Perspectives on Violence, Homicide, and War

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About