Whole Trait Theory: An integrative approach to examining personality structure and process

Jayawickreme, Eranda; Zachry, Corinne; Fleeson, William

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.045

Cited by 155 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of this work is to explore and explicate some points of integration between self‐determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, ) and whole trait theory (WTT; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, ; Jayawickreme, Zachry, & Fleeson, ). This presents an exciting and important opportunity for many reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating whole trait theory and self‐determination theory

Prentice

Jayawickreme

Fleeson

2018

Journal of Personality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore and explicate some promising points of integration between self-determination theory (SDT) and whole trait theory (WTT). Integrating SDT and WTT can offer an example for navigating challenges that have long confronted integrating trait-descriptive and motivational-explanatory views of personality. We review SDT and WTT in turn. The review of SDT is organized around the emergence of its six mini-theories. The review of WTT will introduce the descriptive and explanatory elements as aspects of whole traits, and it will also provide a functional view of traits as tools for goal pursuit. For integrating the two, we point out the many instances in which SDT motivational concepts are interpretive or goal activation processes that act as intermediaries between the inputs and outputs WTT describes. Because WTT has focused on outputs as trait manifestations, we can begin to link SDT's need satisfaction processes to traits and their manifestations. This integration leads to a key proposition that traits are tools for satisfying basic psychological needs; basic psychological needs can (partially) explain traits. This then paves the way to novel research questions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating whole trait theory and self‐determination theory

Prentice

Jayawickreme

Fleeson

2018

Journal of Personality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, personality states could be assessed to obtain a proxy for the corresponding personality trait. Based on Whole Trait Theory, the average of personality states should correlate with the trait of this person (Fleeson, 2001;Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015;Jayawickreme, Zachry, & Fleeson, 2019). Examples of such research include the examination of incremental validity of average state scores across self-reported personality trait scores to predict informantreports (Finnigan & Vazire, 2018;Vazire & Mehl, 2008) or affect (Augustine & Larsen, 2012).…”

Section: Average State Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many different purposes come to mind. First, the measure could be put to use in a purely scientific context, i.e., for the examination and testing of personality theories, such as hypotheses derived from Whole Trait Theory (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015;Jayawickreme et al, 2019) or the TESSERA framework (Wrzus & Roberts, 2017). In these cases, personality state measures must be able to provide meaningful information to evaluate these hypotheses.…”

Section: The Abc Of Test-construction For Personality Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Personality States: What to Consider when Constructing Personality State Measures

Horstmann¹,

Ziegler²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeated assessments of personality states in daily diary or experience sampling studies have become a more and more common tool in the psychologist's toolbox. However, and contrary to the widely available literature on personality traits, no best practices for the development of personality state measures exist, and personality state measures have been developed in many different ways. To address this, we first define what a personality state is and discuss important components. Based on this, we define what a personality state measure is and suggest a general guideline for the development of such measures. Following the ABC of test construction can then guide the strategy for obtaining validity and reliability evidence: (A) What is the construct being measured? (B) What is the intended purpose of the measure? And (C)What is the targeted population of persons and situations? We then conclude with an example by developing an initial item pool for the assessment of conscientiousness personality states.

show abstract

“…I wholeheartedly agree with Brandes and Tackett that we must untangle which aspects of the multifaceted neuroticism construct predict what outcomes in more detail [cf. Hill et al (25)], via the study of "personality nuances" [e.g., Mõttus et al (47)] and the inclusion of individual dynamics [e.g., Jayawickreme et al (48) and Jeronimus and Reitsema (49)], and we have only started to explore such questions. For example, the concurrent and prospective associations between neuroticism and somatic distress [as mentioned by Brandes and Tackett (1), p. 241; see Cuijpers et al (17), Costa and McCrae (50), and Rosmalen et al (51)] might primarily reflect vigilance (24) and overlap in semantics and negative affect [e.g., De Gucht et al (52,53) and van Diest et al (54)].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary: Contextualizing Neuroticism in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology

Jeronimus

2020

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although I agree with most of the great review by Brandes and Tackett (1) about the connection between neuroticism and psychopathology as conceptualized in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), there are several limitations and future research directions on which I wish to elaborate. First, and most fundamental, I welcome the aims of the HiTOP model to overcome some limitations of categorical diagnostic systems (2). However, the HiTOP frequency-approach remains largely similar to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-5, (3)] insofar that it negates the time dimension and most intra-individual dynamics and developmental interconnections between the various system levels [e.g., Fisher et al.(4), Jeronimus (5), and Molenaar (6)], from emotions [over hours, e.g., Kuppens et al. (7)] to mood problems [over weeks, e.g., Wichers (8)] and interpersonal and personality processes [over months and years, e.g., Hopwood (9) and Mobbs (10)], their co-development [e.g., Durbin and Hicks (11) and Ormel et al. (12)], underlying processes [e.g., Kunnen et al. (13)] and origins [e.g., Kendler et al. (14); or Nickels et al. (15) for some problems with the HiTOP], among others. For example, in line with the HiTOP model, Brandes and Tackett cover the time dimension only in Table 1 and on page 242. Neuroticism may be linked to the emergence of symptoms and psychopathology [(1), p. 243] but proof requires studies and manipulations that cover intra-individual changes across various time scales [e.g., Jeronimus (5) and Hamaker and Wichers (16)]. Hence, the inclusion of developmental and dynamic process-perspectives and methodology would make the HiTOP approach even more relevant and exciting. For example, the 25% of the Dutch population with the highest neuroticism scores seem to generate over 80% of all mental health costs (17), but a strictly dimensional or spectrum perspective cannot explain why many people with high neuroticism scores do not develop disorders and are healthy and happy (as illustrated in Figure 1 below) Health is a multidimensional state and in certain circumstances high levels of neuroticism can benefit health (20), such as when combined high conscientiousness [e.g., healthy neurotic; Turiano et al. (21) and Weston and Jackson (22)] or in interaction with various other personal strengths [e.g., Bos et al. (23) and Tamir et al. (24)]. Furthermore, high scores on the neuroticism facets worry and vulnerability predict longer lives (25). Future work shall show us in more detail what we can learn from healthy and happy neurotics.Another limitation is the stipulation that neuroticism is the most difficult personality dimension to measure in infants, toddlers, and children [(1), p. 239]. Others have reported that the neuroticism items in self-reported Big Five personality 1 Which also requires an explanation if neuroticism is equated to the general factor P [see Brandes and Tackett (1), p. 241].

show abstract

Whole Trait Theory: An integrative approach to examining personality structure and process

Cited by 155 publications

References 56 publications

Integrating whole trait theory and self‐determination theory

Integrating whole trait theory and self‐determination theory

Assessing Personality States: What to Consider when Constructing Personality State Measures

Commentary: Contextualizing Neuroticism in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About