Emotion and personality factors influence the neural response to emotional stimuli

Lindquist et al. assess the neural evidence for locationist versus psychological construction accounts of human emotion. A wealth of experimental and clinical investigations show that individual differences in emotion and personality influence emotion processing. These factors may also influence the brain's response to emotional stimuli. A synthesis of the relevant neuroimaging data must therefore take these factors into consideration.     

Self-esteem and higher-order factors of personality: A reply to Simsek

Simsek (2012) argued that earlier research by Erdle and colleagues on the relationship between self-esteem and higher-order factors of personality used “poor statistical methodology”, that “their results may be untenable”, and that the results of his “high-level data analysis” are “the first to show the importance of self-esteem in the differentiation between stability and plasticity”. In this rejoinder, it is argued that the statistical methodology used by Erdle and colleagues demonstrated the effect of controlling self-esteem on the relationship between stability and plasticity earlier and more accurately than that used by Simsek (2012). Moreover, it is argued that self-esteem might not be a biasing factor, but instead might be a theoretically expected substantive correlate of the Big Five and of higher-order factors of personality. Finally, it is argued that a hierarchical structure of personality, with a general factor of personality (GFP) at the apex, might have a neurological basis in the activity of the prefrontal cortices.     

Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: construct-related validity and susceptibility to response inflation

The authors evaluated the extent to which a personality-based structured interview was susceptible to response inflation. Interview questions were developed to measure facets of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Interviewers administered mock interviews to participants instructed to respond honestly or like a job applicant. Interviewees completed scales of the same 3 facets from the NEO Personality Inventory, under the same honest and applicant-like instructions. Interviewers also evaluated interviewee personality with the NEO. Multitrait-multimethod analysis and confirmatory factor analysis provided some evidence for the construct-related validity of the personality interviews. As for response inflation, analyses revealed that the scores from the applicant-like condition were significantly more elevated (relative to honest condition scores) for self-report personality ratings than for interviewer personality ratings. In addition, instructions to respond like an applicant appeared to have a detrimental effect on the structure of the self-report and interview ratings, but not interviewer NEO ratings.     

Personality and prejudice: from Big Five personality factors to facets

Extending our previous research on personality and prejudice, we tested the predictive power of Big Five facet compared with factor scores in three studies. Study 1 (N=170) examined the predictive power of factors and facets when explaining generalized prejudice, a composite of four prejudice types. Study 2 (N=158) focused on sexism and Study 3 (N=80) examined the impact of personality and experimentally manipulated social norm against expressing sexism. Multiple regression analyses showed the strongest facets (Tender-Mindedness and Values) to outperform the strongest factors (Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) in predicting prejudice in all three studies. We discuss the outcome against the background of previous empirical findings and the two major approaches - the personality and the social psychological - to explaining individual differences in prejudice.     

Women and vulnerability to depression: some personality and clinical factors

The purpose of this study is to explore the role of sex differences and personality in vulnerability to depression. Sex differences in personality and some clinical variables are described. We also assess the value of the variables that revealed significant sex differences as predictors of vulnerability to depression. In a group of adult participants (N = 112), 50% males and 50% females (mean age = 41.30; SD = 15.09; range 17-67), we studied sex differences in the three-factor personality model, using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Form A (EPQ-A; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), and in the Five-Factor Personality Model, with the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985). The following clinical scales were used: the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979), the Schizotypy Questionnaire (STQ; Claridge & Broks, 1984; Spanish version, Carrillo & Rojo, 1999), the THARL Scales (Dua, 1989, 1990; Spanish version, Dua & Carrillo, 1994) and the Adjustment Inventory (Bell, 1937; Spanish version, Cerdá, 1980). Subsequently, simple linear regression analysis, with BDI scores as criterion, were performed to estimate the value of the variables as predictors of vulnerability to depression. The results indicate that a series of personality variables cause women to be more vulnerable to depression than men and that these variables could be explained by a negative emotion main factor. Results are discussed within the framework of the psychological behaviorism theory of depression.     

The emergence of personality: Dynamic foundations of individual variation

We conceptualize personality and individual variation from the perspective of dynamical systems. People’s thoughts, feelings, and predispositions for action are inherently dynamic, displaying constant change due to internal mechanisms and external forces, but over time the flow of thought and action converges on a narrow range of states—a fixed-point attractor—that provides cognitive, affective, and behavioral stability. An attractor for personal dynamics develops through two mechanisms: the synchronization of individuals’ internal states in social interaction, and the self-organization of thoughts and feelings with respect to a higher-order property (e.g., goal, self-concept). We present formal models of both processes and instantiate each in computer simulations. Discussion centers on the implications of interpersonal synchronization and self-organization dynamics for issues in personality psychology, including shared vs. non-shared environmental influences on personality development, the expression of personality in social interaction, personal stability vs. change, personal vs. situational causation, and the emergence of self-concept.     

Intentional response distortion on personality tests: using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking

Intentional response distortion or faking among job applicants completing measures such as personality and integrity tests is a concern in personnel selection. The present study aimed to investigate whether eye-tracking technology can improve our understanding of the response process when faking. In an experimental within-participants design, a Big Five personality test and an integrity measure were administered to 129 university students in 2 conditions: a respond honestly and a faking good instruction. Item responses, response latencies, and eye movements were measured. Results demonstrated that all personality dimensions were fakeable. In support of the theoretical position that faking involves a less cognitively demanding process than responding honestly, we found that response times were on average 0.25 s slower and participants had less eye fixations in the fake good condition. However, in the fake good condition, participants had more fixations on the 2 extreme response options of the 5-point answering scale, and they fixated on these more directly after having read the question. These findings support the idea that faking leads to semantic rather than self-referenced item interpretations. Eye-tracking was demonstrated to be potentially useful in detecting faking behavior, improving detecting rates over and beyond response extremity and latency metrics.     

Some personality factors in reaction to aggressive stimuli

A word association test which included aggressive stimuli (weapon names) was given to college students. Those whose responses were relatively high or low in emotionality were asked to participate in a “study of stress reactions to electric shock” When the subject arrived at the laboratory, he and a partner were given tasks to perform The partner, a confederate of the experimenter, gave the subject an unfairly high number of shocks in judging the subject's performance The subject then judged the partner's work, using shock Half the subjects were in the apparently accidental presence of guns when given the chance to retaliate Among low-emotionality subjects, the presence of guns increased the number of shocks given the partner, as Berkowitz and LePage found High-emotionality subjects tended to give the partner longer shocks than low subjects, whether guns were present or not. In contrast to the low subjects, when guns were present, highs tended to give shocks of shorter duration and to report lowered anger, as if the aggressive stimuli had dampened the intensity of their reaction. The results as a whole indicate that the perceptual set for aggressive stimuli and the presence of such stimuli have an interactive effect on aggressive tendencies     

The substantive nature of psycholexical personality factors: a comparison across languages

The psycholexical approach to personality structure in American English has led to the Big Five factors. The present study considers whether this result is similar or different in other languages. Instead of placing the usual emphasis on quantitative indices, this study examines the substantive nature of the factors. Six studies in European languages were used to develop a taxonomy of content categories. The English translations of the relevant terms were then classified under this taxonomy. The results support the generality of Big Five Factor III (Conscientiousness). Factors IV (Emotional Stability) and V (Intellect) generally did not cohere. Factors I (Extraversion) and II (Agreeableness) tended to split when this was necessary to produce 5 factors. The analysis was extended to several additional studies.     

The Mini-IPIP6: Tiny yet highly stable markers of Big Six personality

We assessed the stability of a short-form six-factor personality measure over a one-year period in a large national probability sample (N = 4289). Personality was assessed using the Mini-IPIP6—a short-form measure assessing Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Honesty-Humility. Standardized estimates calculated using Bayesian Structural Equation Modelling (BSEM) indicated that all six personality dimensions were extremely stable. An alternative model using Maximum Likelihood estimation, in which residual item variances were associated over repeated assessments, yielded similar findings. These results highlight the stability of personality in the general population, even when assessed using short-form scales. The use of Bayesian models to examine the stability of personality and their application for study of change in specific developmental periods is discussed.     

On the validity of narrow and broad personality traits: A response to

Salgado, Moscoso, and Berges (2013) have recently commented on the issue of the comparative validity of broad factor-level personality traits and narrow facet-level personality traits, providing arguments and data suggesting superior validity for the former. In response, we first clarify some of our previous points that were discussed by Salgado et al. and comment on some other aspects of their article. We then provide an empirical example in which a facet-level personality scale does better in predicting a delinquency criterion than does the factor-level personality scale that contains that facet. We also use CFA to demonstrate that it was the specific trait variance in our narrow predictor that added significantly to predictive validity, above and beyond the validity achieved by the common factor variance contained within the trait measure. These results support our previous conclusion that exclusive reliance on broad factor measures can be counterproductive for understanding and predicting behavior.     

Individual differences in response to automation: the five factor model of personality

This study examined the relationship of operator personality (Five Factor Model) and characteristics of the task and of adaptive automation (reliability and adaptiveness-whether the automation was well-matched to changes in task demand) to operator performance, workload, stress, and coping. This represents the first investigation of how the Five Factors relate to human response to automation. One-hundred-sixty-one college students experienced either 75% or 95% reliable automation provided with task loads of either two or four displays to be monitored. The task required threat detection in a simulated uninhabited ground vehicle (UGV) task. Task demand exerted the strongest influence on outcome variables. Automation characteristics did not directly impact workload or stress, but effects did emerge in the context of trait-task interactions that varied as a function of the dimension of workload and stress. The pattern of relationships of traits to dependent variables was generally moderated by at least one task factor. Neuroticism was related to poorer performance in some conditions, and all five traits were associated with at least one measure of workload and stress. Neuroticism generally predicted increased workload and stress and the other traits predicted decreased levels of these states. However, in the case of the relation of Extraversion and Agreeableness to Worry, Frustration, and avoidant coping, the direction of effects varied across task conditions. The results support incorporation of individual differences into automation design by identifying the relevant person characteristics and using the information to determine what functions to automate and the form and level of automation.