1 / 19

BLOCK V MCCRAE

BLOCK V MCCRAE. What vs something. Block (2001) “Millennial Contrarianism”. A currently popular pursuit, vigorously, resourcefully, and encompassingly advanced, has proposed that all of what we call personality can be well and sufficiently expressed by means of self-report questionnaires.

kata
Download Presentation

BLOCK V MCCRAE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BLOCK V MCCRAE What vs something

  2. Block (2001) “Millennial Contrarianism” • A currently popular pursuit, vigorously, resourcefully, and encompassingly advanced, has proposed that all of what we call personality can be well and sufficiently expressed by means of self-report questionnaires. • … variants of factor analysis [being] interpreted as manifesting five robust orthogonal factors.

  3. Two Versions • Costa and McCrae • ‘‘the five-factor model.’’ • Lew Goldberg (1993) • Psycholexical Big Five

  4. The Realm of the 5FM • Comprehensive • ‘‘are both necessary and reasonably sufficient for describing at a global level the major features of personality’’ (McCrae & Costa, 1986); • Universal • ‘‘the five-factor model developed in studies of normal personality is fully adequate to account for the dimensions of abnormal personality as well’’ (Costa & McCrae, 1992a,p.347)

  5. “Signifying almost nothing … • … of central importance to the study of personality • Grabbed 50 recent articles using the 5FM • Compulsive buying • Media use • Computer stress • The Rorschach • Exercise • Multiple sclerosis • Personnel selection • Intellectual engagement • Spinal injury • Expatriate selection • A hodgepodge • But .. 4 were major reviews and 2 were substantive JPSP articles...

  6. Problems? • ‘‘the ‘true’ number of dimensions of human personality is a metaphysical rather than a scientific question’’ (Costa & McCrae, 1980, p.69). • Problem of measures • Would new items (or subjects) generate new factors? • Problem of meaning • Is impulsivity E or N or A?

  7. Answers? • ‘‘the ‘true’ number of dimensions • The dimensions are theoretical, thus they are a choice we exercise (metaphysical) but are within the scientific ambit • Would new items generate new factors? • Maybe… What would that mean? • Problem of meaning • Impulsivity is a composite of E, N, & A • This is a critical new insight from trait theory (Eysenck knew it in the 70s too!)

  8. More Problems? • Arguments for 6th factors • i.e., Ashton • Abnormal psychology • Poor discrimination amongst Personality disorders • More factors needed? Livesley

  9. More Problems? • Arguments for 6th factors • i.e., Ashton • Testable • Abnormal psychology • Poor discrimination amongst Personality disorders • More factors needed? Livesley • Maybe so. Might not undermine the 5FM (Wuthrich & Bates in press)

  10. Fractionation? • Paunonen and Jackson (1996) • Conscientious is better partitioned into • methodical and orderly (e.g., Adolf Eichmann) • dependable and reliable (e.g., Jimmy Carter) • ambitious and driven (e.g., Richard Nixon). • Lack of moral factor? • Loevinger (1994)

  11. Higher order analyses • Digman: • Socialisation: impulse control, concientious restraint, agression control • Growth: “Positive Emotionality, a venturesome encountering of life, and surgent imaginativeness”.

  12. Carrol (late of 2003) • Teacher ratings (from Digman & Inouye) • 43 1st order characteristics rated on 499 early adolescents • five 2nd order traits • two 3rd order “superfactors’’ • Superfactors explain .75% of the variance • 1 = “impulsive”, “restless”, “rude”, “fidgety”, “spiteful”, “outspoken” • 2= “socially confident”, “adaptable”, ‘‘perceptive,’’ ‘‘verbal”, ‘‘original”, “sensible”

  13. Not a theory • People differ, react, develop… • What then would Block’s science of personality look like?

  14. McCrae • “the same five factors [emerge] from a variety of instruments and methods. • Additional factors have not replicated • no one has seconded the suggestion of Paunonen and Jackson (1996) that the Conscientiousness factor lacks coherence (Costa & McCrae, 1998). • No persuasive sixth factor of comparable scope and generality

  15. Correlates: Is that so bad? • Personality correlates are why traits are important • They predict health, vocational interests, social interactions, and so on • FFM provides a systematic framework for the investigation of all these topics, • and [for] collecting these findings

  16. And there’s more than correlates! • Heritability (.5-.7) • Facet heritability (Jang) • Universal • Across cultures • Reliable developmental trends • Increasing C decreasing A across life span • Extending into childhood

  17. And the 5FM is just a system • Time must test the system • Brains must add causes and reasons and mechanisms

  18. What’s beyond the big 5? • Some suggestions (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000) • Religious • Sly • Ethical • Sexy • Thrifty • Conservative • Masculine • Egotistical • Humorous/witty • What do you think?

  19. Response to proposed candidates • Saucier & Goldberg (1998) • Based of a multiple r of <.3 from the 5-main factors • Height, weight, age, attractiveness • Only one non-physical outlier: Religiosity • Paunonen & Jackson critique • Why is feminine, cunning, and witty part of the big 5 • i.e., how do we decide what belongs in a personality inventory? • Words don’t only load on 1 factor • not multiple R) • If they load on several, usually load more than .3

More Related