Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.

Āllport, Gordon W.; Odbert, Henry S.

doi:10.1037/h0093360

Cited by 1,520 publications

(1,022 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

949

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Allport and Odbert (1936) extracted 17,953 person-descriptive words from about 400,000 entries in the 1925 edition of Webster's English Dictionary. The words selected (after some first reductions, see below) are commonly presented separately and in a randomised order to the individuals under study to generate data using standardised questionnaire methods (see below).…”

Section: B) Physical System Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, from the four major categories of person-descriptive terms that Allport and Odbert (1936) derived with a lexical physical system approach, Cattell (1943) used the terms from the first category and added about 100 temporary-state terms that he nominated himself, thus using a nomination approach. After various reduction steps (see below), he also added some further terms and constructs that he derived from the psychological literature on typologies and factor-analytic studies (for details, see John et al, 1988), thus using a cumulative-gain-in-knowledge approach.…”

Section: E) Mixed Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vast number of person-descriptors in the lexica often necessitate non-statistical reductions to a size manageable for data generation. For example, Allport and Odbert (1936), pioneers of decontextualised lexical "personality" research, categorised together with a third person the 17,953 person-descriptive words of the English dictionary into four major categories (labelled "lasting personal traits", "temporary states", "social evaluations", "miscellaneous terms"). Their dyadic inter-judge agreement in these categorisations, analysed in a sub-sample of 300 words, ranged between 41-54% per category; their estimated chance agreement was 6.25%.…”

Section: ) Metatheoretical Rationales Of Reduction Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Developing “Personality” Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

Uher

2014

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomic "personality" models are widely used in research and applied fields. This article applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to scrutinise the three methodological steps that are required for developing comprehensive "personality" taxonomies: 1) the approaches used to select the phenomena and events to be studied, 2) the methods used to generate data about the selected phenomena and events and 3) the reduction principles used to extract the "most important" individual-specific variations for constructing "personality" taxonomies. Analyses of some currently popular taxonomies reveal frequent mismatches between the researchers' explicit and implicit metatheories about "personality" and the abilities of previous methodologies to capture the particular kinds of phenomena toward which they are targeted. Serious deficiencies that preclude scientific quantifications are identified in standardised questionnaires, psychology's established standard method of investigation. These mismatches and deficiencies derive from the lack of an explicit formulation and critical reflection on the philosophical and metatheoretical assumptions being made by scientists and from the established practice of radically matching the methodological tools to researchers' preconceived ideas and to pre-existing statistical theories rather than to the particular phenomena and individuals under study. These findings raise serious doubts about the ability of previous taxonomies to appropriately and comprehensively reflect the phenomena towards which they are targeted and the structures of individual-specificity occurring in them. The article elaborates and illustrates with empirical examples methodological principles that allow researchers to appropriately meet the metatheoretical requirements and that are suitable for comprehensively exploring individuals' "personality".Key words: personality assessment; lexical approach; standardized questionnaire methods; traits; Big Five Model and Five Factor Model; psychometrics; scientific quantification, contextualised methodologies; quantitative methods; phenomenon-methodology matching; emic approach and etic approach. . Developing "personality" taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49,

show abstract

Section: B) Physical System Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: E) Mixed Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ) Metatheoretical Rationales Of Reduction Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing “Personality” Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

Uher

2014

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, previously developed human "personality" taxonomies were primarily derived from standardised assessments of person-descriptive statements or single words denoting "lasting personal traits" and "stable traits" in particular (for details, see Uher 2014b in this trilogy; cf. Allport & Odbert 1936;Cattell 1943). But stable personal properties of individuals (i.e., individualspecific properties) refer to differential and temporal patterns that cannot be directly perceived; they can be derived only through abstractions from and comparisons between events, individuals and times.…”

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

“…Personality psychologists have made tireless efforts to develop taxonomies that classify individuals according to a small number of personality dimensions (Allport & Odbert, 1936;Cattell, 1943;Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976;Costa & McCrae, 1992). Several constructs are now available, among which the Five-factor Model (i.e., the 'Big Five') has been widely accepted as a valid and reliable measure of personality (Gosling, Rentflow, & Swann, 2003;John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008).…”

Section: Personality Traits and Political Ideologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality Traits and South Koreans' Attitudes Toward North Korea

2013

Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies suggest that personality traits affect not only ordinary citizens’ political ideology but also their opinions on specific social or political issues. In line with these studies, this article examines the relationship between personality traits — measured by the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) — and South Koreans’ attitudes toward North Korea. The results from statistical analysis of two nationally representative surveys reveal that people who are conscientious are less likely to feel close to North Korea and more likely to believe North Korea is a hostile nation, whereas those high on Openness are more likely to harbour positive attitudes toward North Korea. Given that attitudes toward North Korea have been the most important determinant of political ideology in South Korea, these findings seem to be consistent with those of pre-existing studies.

show abstract

Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.

Cited by 1,520 publications

References 0 publications

Developing “Personality” Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

Developing “Personality” Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

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

Personality Traits and South Koreans' Attitudes Toward North Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About