中西方人格结构差异的理论与实证分析 ——以中国人人格量表（QZPS）和西方五因素人格量表（NEO PI-R）为例

区分中西方人格结构的共性与特异性及其性质是心理学研究中国化的重要理论问题。本文首先总结了中西方人格结构的五因素（大五）与七因素模型的建立过程及词汇学途径的内在逻辑,依据人格结构的行为归类假设,提出中西方人格结构的差异源自对行为进行归类的标准或原则的差异。其次,根据相关的实证研究结果,对中西方人格结构的“共性”与“特异性”的性质进行了分析,认为它们仅在具体行为或量表项目水平上才有区分的意义,对人格因素（维度）水平上的“共性”与“特异性”的区分是无法做到的,也是没有意义的。文中还讨论了心理学研究中国化的重要性     

人格结构的中西方差异与中国人的人格特点

该文旨在通过对中西方人格结构的比较和分析揭示文化与人格结构的关系,并探寻中国人人格结构的文化意义。根据词汇学假设进行的中西方人格结构的研究结果表明,人格结构的形成是建立在对行为归类的基础之上的,中西方人格结构的差异最直接的原因就在于中西方对行为归类的差别。中国文化比较强调整体性、联系性以及评价性是造成中国人与西方人行为归类差异的原因,而更深层次的原因则是中西方文化中对人性看法的差异。中国人人格量表有着比较理想的预测效度,而且与西方大五人格量表相比更高的预测效度,这些均表明中国人人格结构的合理性。文中还提出了进一步研究的展望     

人格特质与外显自尊和内隐自尊的关系

自尊被认为与人格特质之间存在紧密的联系。近年来社会认知研究领域发现,在传统“外显自尊”以外,个体还存在一个“内隐自尊”结构。由于中国人格结构与西方“大五”人格结构存在系统性的差异,本研究试图考察在中国文化下个体的人格特质与自尊水平之间的关系。结果发现,外显自尊主要与中国人人格结构中的“自我指向”的人格特点关系紧密;内隐自尊作为一个独立于外显自尊的内隐态度结构,与各个人格特质不存在显著的相关     

"大七"人格结构模型下的汉族、纳西族人格结构比较

采用中国人人格形容词评定量表(简式)对985名成年汉族和207名纳西族被试进行测量,结果显示:汉族的人格结构模型符合“大七人格结构模型”,而纳西族则不符合。纳西族在“外向活跃”、“严谨自制”、“温顺随和”、“淡泊诚信”等四个人格结构因子上的得分均显著高于汉族。     

“大五”与五因素模型：两种不同的人格结构

随着词汇学取向的“大五”结构和理论取向的五因素模型的出现,人格研究者就人格分类系统的问题达成了初步的共识。“大五”结构和五因素模型在形式和内容上有很多相似之处,但二者在历史渊源、内容形式、基本性质、研究走向等方面都存在一定的差异。文章试图从以上方面明确二者的差异,以澄清相关的混淆和误解,并在文章结语部分对两种取向研究对中国人人格结构研究的启示进行了详细的分析     

中国人人格结构的确认与形容词评定结果

中西方的人格结构既存在相似性,又有明显的差异性。该研究根据杨国枢和王登峰探讨中国人人格结构的“大七”模型时所用的中文人格特质形容词表,经过化简,由410个形容词压缩为273个;并扩大了被试量,由原来的733人（项目与人数比为1:1.8）扩大为1511人（项目与人数比为1:5.5）。采用相同的评定方法、评定程序和统计方法,得到了完全相同的人格结构。采用另外的样本进行的验证性因素分析也确认了中国人人格的七因素结构。由此揭示了中国人的人格结构及其与西方理论的差异,为系统研究中国人的人格特点和编制测量量表奠定了扎实的基础。文中还比较了大学生被试和社会人士在各个因素上的分数差异。     

中国人人格量表（QZPS）的编制过程与初步结果

旨在编制能够反映中国人人格结构特点的中国人人格量表（QZPS）。文中首先分析了直接采用或修订西方人格量表的问题和潜在危险,以及目前国内使用的各种人格量表存在的局限;按照人格研究的“词汇学假设”,根据杨国枢和王登峰（1999）以及后来的研究所确定的中国人人格结构的七因素模型,提出了QZPS的编制原则和操作程序。按照人格特质形容词的含义编写测量项目,并根据小因素和大因素的含义对项目进行修改,初步确定了1600多个项目。经2280名被试的评定,初步筛选出409个项目。再经1099名被试评定,确定了215个项目构成QZPS,测量中国人人格的7个维度和18个小因素。文中还报告了对QZPS的项目分析的结果     

青少年自我描述归类与人格维度特点

对青少年自我描述的内容进行归类时发现,依据不同的归类标准会得到不同的人格结构。500多名青少年学生提供了620个不同的对自我的描述,除9个项目属于对身体和家庭状况的描述外,所有的人格特征既可以归属到中国青少年人格结构的19个二级因素,又可以归属到西方大五人格结构的30个层面。这一结果表明,外显的人格特征分类无法准确表达人格结构的实际构成,人格结构的确定还需要实证评定及对内隐结构的探索。文中还讨论了心理学研究中国化（本土化）的思路与策略。     

稳定性与可变性：西方儿童青少年“大五”人格发展研究概述

弄清儿童青少年人格发展特点,可为人格发展与教育工作提供参考。文章梳理了近30年西方儿童青少年“大五”人格发展的研究进展,区分了人格发展的两种主要表现形式,并分别从这两方面总结出儿童青少年“大五”人格结构的稳定性、人格特质平均水平的可变性。最后基于现有研究存在的问题,结合当前时代特点,提出未来研究方向。     

大五人格背后的高级人格因素：社会关系模型

人格结构研究中的一种观点认为人格特质具有层级结构,其中大五人格结构是一种流行的人格结构模型,近年来有研究关注大五人格背后是否存在更高等级的人格.采用全循环设计,用等级评定和团队内排序方法,在80个4～6人小团队中收集成员及成员之间在五个人格特质上的自我人格知觉和对成员的人格知觉,共获得四种来源的大五人格数据,根据社会关系模型分解出目标效应.对每一种来源的数据进行探索性因素分析和跨来源联合因素分析,将四种来源数据视为四个指标进行结构方程建模,结果显示,两高级因素相关模型对数据有较高的拟合程度,两个高级人格因素对关系质量有显著且不同效应量的预测作用.结果支持大五人格背后存在更高级的人格因素.最后,讨论高级人格因素模型对理解人格结构、进行人格评估的意义;未来研究可从发展角度采用多评定者、多方法进行.     

Dichotomous Thinking and Personality Traits: From the Viewpoints of the Big Five and HEXACO1,2

Dichotomous thinking is a feature of certain personality traits, such as the Dark Triad and Cluster B personality disorders, which commonly reflect a fast life history strategy. The Big Five and HEXACO personality models are useful for understanding the personality structure and individual differences in life history strategy. Our study aimed to shed light on the propensity for dichotomous thinking using the framework of the Big Five and HEXACO personality models. Participants (n = 229) completed the Dichotomous Thinking Inventory, the 60-item HEXACO Personality Inventory – Revised, and the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. We examined correlations between dichotomous thinking and each domain of the Big Five and HEXACO personality models, and then computed multiple correlations predicting total and dimensional scores on the propensity for dichotomous thinking with scores on the Big Five and HEXACO personality traits. Results indicated that dichotomous thinking tendency is characterized by the set of low Agreeableness and Honesty–Humility. This study suggests that dichotomous thinking has antagonistic characteristics and a linkage to the fast life history strategy.     

THE "BIG FIVE" PERSONALITY FACTORS IN THE IPI AND MMPI: PREDICTORS OF POLICE PERFORMANCE

Rational and empirical linkages were formed between the "Big Five" personality factors and two personality inventories: the Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI), which is a personality inventory designed especially for use in the selection of corrections officers, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). A criterion-related validation of the study was then conducted to assess the validity of these two measures of the Big Five in predicting various measures of police performance. Results indicated that while both inventories provided adequate measures of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, neither inventory consistently contributed incremental validity over the Civil Service exam.     

日本人格心理学研究动向及启示

日本人格心理学领域近几年的研究表明,对“大五”和“自我”的研究是其主要关注点,同时还重视对人际关系的研究,强调理论研究的应用化取向与研究方法的多元化和整合。但目前日本人格心理学研究仍然存在一定局限,对此加深认识,具有重要的借鉴意义。     

A sixth personality domain that is independent of the Big Five domains: The psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory in a Japanese sample

We investigated the reliability of the HEXACO‐Personality Inventory (HEXACO‐PI) using the NEO Five‐Factor Inventory (NEO‐FFI) and the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Big Five scales in a Japanese sample of 492 respondents (mean age = 20.4 years). The psychometric properties of the HEXACO‐PI were examined and found to be satisfactory. The results of the factor analysis showed that the six hypothesized personality domains were found independently. A total of 307 participants responded to the NEO‐FFI and the IPIP Big Five scales. The results showed that the five domains of the HEXACO model corresponded to the Five‐Factor domains and were relative to the Big Five personality domains as a whole, but the sixth domain, Honesty‐Humility, showed weak to moderate correlations with some factors of the NEO‐FFI and the IPIP Big Five scales. These results suggest that the Honesty‐Humility domain is independent of the five fundamental personality factors and that the HEXACO‐PI is a useful and reliable questionnaire for investigating personality structure in cross‐cultural and other context.     

Anger and hostility from the perspective of the Big Five personality model

Sanz, J., García‐Vera, M. P. & Magán, I. (2010). Anger and hostility from the perspective of the Big Five personality model. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 262–270. This study was aimed at examining the relationships of the personality dimensions of the five‐factor model or Big Five with trait anger and with two specific traits of hostility (mistrust and confrontational attitude), and identifying the similarities and differences between trait anger and hostility in the framework of the Big Five. In a sample of 353 male and female adults, the Big Five explained a significant percentage of individual differences in trait anger and hostility after controlling the effects due to the relationship between both constructs and content overlapping across scales. In addition, trait anger was primarily associated with neuroticism, whereas mistrust and confrontational attitude were principally related to low agreeableness. These findings are discussed in the context of the anger‐hostility‐aggression syndrome and the capability of the Big Five for organizing and clarifying related personality constructs.     

“大五”人格模型及其在工业与组织心理学中的应用

“大五”是涵盖人格的5个因素的简称,它包括：神经质、外向性、开放性、宜人性和责任感。在介绍了该模型的基础上,文章重点介绍了它在工业与组织心理学中的应用,即“大五”可以有效的预测工作绩效、工作动机、领导行为、创造性行为和工作满意感等。     

The Relation of Self-Supporting Personality,Big Five Personality and Depression

Self-supporting personality (SSP) is an indigenous Chinese personality concept. It is assumed to be a protective personality factor with regard to depression. In the present study, self-supporting personality traits are assumed to be similar to Big Five personality traits or facets of the Five Factor Model to a considerable degree, but also to contain some tendencies or dispositions which are related to depression in ways that go beyond either the Big Five factors or their sub-factors. The relation of self-supporting personality, Big Five personality, and depression was examined in a sample of 439 Chinese undergraduate students using the Self-Supporting Personality Scale for Adolescent Students (SSPS-AS), the Mandarin Chinese version of Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), and the Chinese Version of Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). Results from the correlation analysis revealed that most SSP traits were significantly correlated with the Big Five personality dimensions and sub-dimensions, but the correlation between personal flexibility and either the Big Five dimensions or their sub-dimensions were modest at best. Results from the hierarchical linear regression analyses showed that interpersonal responsibility, interpersonal openness, and personal independence negatively predicted depression, even after controlling for demographic variables and the Big Five personality, however, the explained variance decreased sharply. These results support the hypothesis that despite some overlap with the Big Five personality, self-supporting personality is related to depression in additional ways that the Big Five personality dimensions or their sub-dimensions are not.     

Leader personality and 360‐degree assessments of leader behavior

To investigate the relationship between personality and multi‐source feedback, we assessed 190 health care managers by applying the Understanding Personal Potential personality test, which provides comprehensive measurement of the Big Five dimensions and eight narrower personality traits. Managers' leadership behaviors were assessed by colleagues, supervisors, a random sample of each manager's subordinates as well as the managers themselves using a 360‐degree change, production, employee (CPE) instrument. Hierarchical multivariate regression analysis showed that the Big Five variables were significantly related to the Managers' leadership behavior in all CPE dimensions. Also, addition of narrow personality variables to the Big Five increased explained variance in leadership behavior. This study is the first of its kind to include the full range of viewpoints in a 360‐degree instrument, along with a large number of subordinate assessments. We found that both the strength of the relationship between personality and behavior and the configuration of different predictors varied depending on who did the rating and what leadership orientation was investigated, and this observation merits further investigation.