Traits and trade-offs are insufficient for evolutionary personality psychology

Comments on the article by D. Nettle, who has clearly shown that evolutionary psychologists need to focus more attention on individual differences, not just species-typical universals. Such differences are not mere "noise," and evolutionary theory will gain by understanding how they are produced and maintained. However, by focusing on personality traits and the five-factor personality model, Nettle left unaddressed many of the most important aspects of human personality. An evolutionary psychology of personality must ultimately explain not just trait differences but also differences in personal goals, values, motives, identities, and life narratives--essential elements of human individuality and functionality. K. M. Sheldon et al suggest four reasons why traits and the five-factor personality model do not provide an optimal approach for explaining the evolution of personality: (a) As constructs, traits provide little purchase for explaining the causes of behavior; (b) trait concepts do not acknowledge or explain people's variations around their own baselines, variations that are likely crucial for adaptation; (c) traits do not explain or even describe true human uniqueness, i.e. the ways in which a person is different from everybody else; and (d) traits do not explain personality from the inside, by considering what people are trying to do in their lives. In raising these issues Sheldon et al are suggesting that the important question for evolutionary personality study is not why people fall at different points on a continuum regarding traits x, y, and z, but rather why each person is inevitably unique while still sharing the same evolved psychology.     

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.     

The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals

A comprehensive evolutionary framework for understanding the maintenance of heritable behavioral variation in humans is yet to be developed. Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that heritable variation will not be found in important, fitness-relevant characteristics because of the winnowing effect of natural selection. This article propounds the opposite view. Heritable variation is ubiquitous in all species, and there are a number of frameworks for understanding its persistence. The author argues that each of the Big Five dimensions of human personality can be seen as the result of a trade-off between different fitness costs and benefits. As there is no unconditionally optimal value of these trade-offs, it is to be expected that genetic diversity will be retained in the population.     

Trade-offs and individual differences in evolved traits

Comments on Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations (see record 2010-02208-001) by Confer et al. We applaud Confer et al.'s (February-March 2010) clarifications of the many misconceptions surrounding the use of evolutionary analyses in psychology. As they noted, such misunderstandings are common and result in a curious tendency of some of our colleagues to criticize evolutionary psychology without a firm understanding of evolution itself. Confer et al. also did an admirable job acknowledging current unresolved issues among evolutionary psychologists (e.g., the relative importance of group selection on humans). The above said, we disagree with their view that a current limitation of evolutionary psychology is its inability to explain phenomena "that appear to reduce an individual's reproductive success, and cannot be explained by mismatches with, or hijacking of, our psychological mechanisms by modern-day novel inputs" (Confer et al., 2010, p. 122). Mismatches between modern environments and environments of evolutionary adaptedness are only one set of explanations for seemingly maladaptive traits (Nesse, 2005). Another set involves evolutionary trade-offs.     

进化心理学关于反乱伦情感的研究

本文评介了利伯曼等进化心理学者对人类反乱伦情感的研究。他们把人类乱伦退避机制纳入人类亲属识别机制的框架,认为数据支持这一理论框架,并且人类乱伦退避机制的发生不存在敏感期。文章主张把＂是否有年龄差距在3岁以内的兄弟姐妹＂纳入利伯曼等人的亲属识别框架,进一步检验敏感期是否存在;对进化心理学抱以宽容的态度或许更为合适;不宜用科学哲学思想排斥进化心理学。     

Evolution and Personality: What Should a Comprehensive Theory Address and How?

Personality is arguably the most integrative area of psychology; yet, it is an area about which evolutionary psychologists have had comparatively little to say. This is unfortunate because evolutionary theory holds great potential as a framework that can link together the disparate aspects that make up a person. We suggest that progress in evolutionary personality psychology will be helped by clarification of precisely what an evolutionary theory of personality would need to address. To this end, we first describe and assess some extant contributions by theorists attempting to understand personality from an evolutionary perspective. Next, we endorse a working definition of what personality entails and outline three types of personality differences – character traits, goals/motives, and selves/identities – that any comprehensive evolutionary theory of personality should address. Finally, we suggest an approach forward, one where evolved species‐typical motives orient people toward adaptive ends and result in the differentiation of individuals’ unique selves.     

The Dynamics of Personality Approach (DPA): 20 Tenets for Uncovering the Causal Mechanisms of Personality

Over the last few decades, most personality psychology research has been focused on assessing personality via scores on a few broad traits and investigating how these scores predict various behaviours and outcomes. This approach does not seek to explain the causal mechanisms underlying human personality and thus falls short of explaining the proximal sources of traits as well as the variation of individuals' behaviour over time and across situations. On the basis of the commonalities shared by influential process-oriented personality theories and models, we describe a general dynamics of personality approach (DPA). The DPA relies heavily on theoretical principles applicable to complex adaptive systems that self-regulate via feedback mechanisms, and it parses the sources of personality in terms of various psychological functions relevant in different phases of self-regulation. Thus, we consider personality to be rooted in individual differences in various cognitive, emotional–motivational, and volitional functions, as well as their causal interactions. In this article, we lay out 20 tenets for the DPA that may serve as a guideline for integrative research in personality science. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology     

Evolution, the Five-Factor Model, and Levels of Personality

ABSTRACT This article interprets the five-factor model as subsuming variation in normative, species-typical systems with adaptive functions in the human environment of evolutionary adaptedness. It is argued that the evolutionary logic of personality systems is apparent in the patterning of mean sex differences in personality. Personality systems are conceptualized as evolved motivational systems with an affective core. The evolved motive dispositions at the core of personality anchor a hierarchy of levels of cognitive and behavioral functioning aimed at attaining or avoiding the affective states central to these personality systems. Personality systems are seen as often in dynamic conflict within individuals and as highly compartmentalized in their functioning between settings. While variation in personality consists of a range of viable strategies for humans, extremes on these systems tend to be maladaptive, although in at least some cases individuals who approach the maladaptive extremes of individual variation may be viewed as engaging in high-risk evolutionary strategies. Within this wide range of viable strategies, personality variation functions as a resource environment for individuals in the sense that personality variation is evaluated according to the interests of the evaluator.     

Clinical Use of the Five-Factor Model: An Introduction

In the past decade, clinical psychologists have developed a renewed appreciation of the value of assessment. At the same time, personality psychologists have come to agree on a fundamental taxonomy of personality traits, the five-factor model. Articles in this special series describe the model and its measurement and discuss applications in three different settings: general clinical practice, a sexual behaviors consultation unit, and a behavioral medicine clinic. This introduction raises questions about the use of personality profiles in psychodiagnosis, the range of applicability of the five-factor model, the utility of personality feedback in psychotherapy, the stability of personality scores among psychotherapy patients, and the feasibility of using personality scores to select optimal forms of treatment. This special series is intended to stimulate research on such topics.     

Clinical use of the five-factor model: an introduction.

In the past decade, clinical psychologists have developed a renewed appreciation of the value of assessment. At the same time, personality psychologists have come to agree on a fundamental taxonomy of personality traits, the five-factor model. Articles in this special series describe the model and its measurement and discuss applications in three different settings: general clinical practice, a sexual behaviors consultation unit, and a behavioral medicine clinic. This introduction raises questions about the use of personality profiles in psychodiagnosis, the range of applicability of the five-factor model, the utility of personality feedback in psychotherapy, the stability of personality scores among psychotherapy patients, and the feasibility of using personality scores to select optimal forms of treatment. This special series is intended to stimulate research on such topics.     

人格差异性的进化心理学解释

进化心理学一直热衷于人格共同性的探讨,但一些研究者也认为应该关注人格差异性,因为共同性和差异性是人格必不可分的两面。对人格差异性的进化解释比较成熟的有三种：生活历史理论、基因多样性理论和代价信号理论。生活历史理论认为是不同的环境(稳定和不稳定),造成了不同的生活历史策略(K策略和R策略),人格特质差异是这些策略的进化产物。基因多样性理论主要从基因突变和平衡选择的角度来解释人格差异性。前者强调突变基因的不可避免性引发了个性差异的存在和发展;后者强调概率的调节作用,解释了不同人格特质之所以能够并行存在的原因。代价信号理论则认为是个体拥有的先天禀赋或者资源差距导致其传递信号的能力差异,从而选择了不同的行为策略。未来研究需要加大遗传学、神经科学等方面的力度,以及研究范式的创新。     

Assessing psychopathic personality traits with the MMPI-2

In this study, we examined the utility of the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001) in assessing psychopathic personality traits. We explored whether MMPI-2 scales that measure affective and interpersonal traits add to the instrument's social deviance measures in assessing global psychopathy and its two facets. Our study of 281 male and female college students indicates that the MMPI-2 Social Deviance scales (e.g., Clinical Scales 4 and 9, ASP) predict substantial variance in the social deviance factor and affiliated subscales of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), whereas MMPI-2 measures of affective and interpersonal functioning predict substantial variance in the affective-interpersonal PPI factor. In addition, the results of two regression models indicate that the Restructured Clinical scales provide the most parsimonious assessment of psychopathic personality traits.     

A Clinical-Empirical Model of Personality: Life after the Mischelian Ice Age and the NEO-Lithic Era

ABSTRACT A theory of personality should lead to both accurate prediction and interpretive understanding. Aside from its empirical uses, a personality theory should provide a grammar that allows personality psychologists to infer meaning from overt behavior with more sophistication than a layperson, and the best laboratory for testing the interpretive utility of a personality theory remains the clinic. With respect to the appropriate data for constructing and evaluating theories of personality, an overreliance on questionnaire data is problematic for several reasons: It assumes that understanding people requires no training, it mistakes research on the conscious self-concept for research on personality, it conflates implicit and explicit knowledge, it fails to address defensive biases, and it lacks interrater reliability. Consideration of both empirical and clinical data points to three questions that define the elements of personality necessary for a comprehensive assessment of an individual: (a) What psychological resources–cognitive, affective, and behavioral dispositions–does the individual have at his or her disposal? (b) What does the person wish for, fear, and value, and how do these motives combine and conflict? (c) How does the person experience the self and others, and to what extent can the individual enter into intimate relationships?     

Identification Problems in Personality Psychology

This paper discusses and illustrates identification problems in personality psychology. The measures used by psychologists to infer traits are based on behaviors, broadly defined. These behaviors are produced from multiple traits interacting with incentives in situations. In general, measures are determined by these multiple traits and do not identify any particular trait unless incentives and other traits are controlled for. Using two data sets, we show, that substantial portions of the variance in achievement test scores and grades, which are often used as measures of cognition, are explained by personality variables.     

The limitations of behavior-genetic analyses: comment on McGue, Elkins, Walden, and Iacono (2005)

This article takes issue with the behavior-genetic analysis of parenting style presented by M. McGue, I. Elkins, B. Walden, and W. G. Iacono. The author argues that the attribution of their findings to inherited genetic effects was without basis because McGue et al. never indicated how those genetic effects manifested themselves. Instead, McGue et al. neglected important, and inevitable, developmental effects that most developmental psychologists understand to influence parent and adolescent behavior. The author also suggests that there is great merit in adopting the approach of developmental systems theory in understanding McGue et al.'s findings in particular and all developmental phenomena in general.     

说谎行为及其识别的心理学研究

国外关于说谎行为及其识别的心理学研究主要包括对说谎时行为表现的研究、对说谎识别准确率的研究及测谎技术的开发与应用。说谎是人类社会普遍存在的现象,但研究显示人们对说谎行为的识别准确率并不显著高于随机判断的概率。说谎者通常所表现出来的与说真话时不同的特点被称为“线索”,人们对说谎线索的看法与说谎者的实际行为表现并不一致。动机、互动特点、个体差异、沟通情境等因素对说谎和识别行为都会产生影响。网络沟通方式下的说谎行为呈现出一些新的特点