Multitrait Multimethod validation of Implicit Association Test as a measure of individual differences in personality: Is there personality at all?

The objective of the study was to investigate the validity of IAT in the assessment of the Big five personality traits. We employed the Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) approach on a sample of 146 respondents. We collected measures on IATs assessing Big five personality traits, self-reports, and two ratings of close others of different gender on NEO PI-R. Additionally, we assessed behavior related to the Big five personality traits in a structured interview where three experts independently provided rating measures. MTMM analyses suggest that personality IAT measures have little in common with personality traits measured traditionally using explicit methods. The evidence does not support the claim that personality IAT can serve as a valid measure of individual differences in personality traits.     

Consensual and behavioral validity of a measure of adaptive individual differences dimensions in human motivation

Data from three sources—an initial self sample (N = 108) and a friend sample (N = 103) and relative sample (N = 103) recruited by self sample participants—were used to test the consensual and behavioral validity of new individual differences measures of 15 dimensions of motivation represented in the assessment of individual motives-questionnaire (AIM-Q). AIM-Q scores for all three samples converged and hypotheses of their predicted relationships with reports of the occurrence and frequency of a variety of behavior criteria of some importance were supported in most cases. These results support the utility of the AIM-Q as a new measure of motives in purposeful human behavior.     

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。     

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.     

How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology

Now more than ever animal studies have the potential to test hypotheses regarding how cognition evolves. Comparative psychologists have developed new techniques to probe the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behavior, and they have become increasingly skillful at adapting methodologies to test multiple species. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists have generated quantitative approaches to investigate the phylogenetic distribution and function of phenotypic traits, including cognition. In particular, phylogenetic methods can quantitatively (1) test whether specific cognitive abilities are correlated with life history (e.g., lifespan), morphology (e.g., brain size), or socio-ecological variables (e.g., social system), (2) measure how strongly phylogenetic relatedness predicts the distribution of cognitive skills across species, and (3) estimate the ancestral state of a given cognitive trait using measures of cognitive performance from extant species. Phylogenetic methods can also be used to guide the selection of species comparisons that offer the strongest tests of a priori predictions of cognitive evolutionary hypotheses (i.e., phylogenetic targeting). Here, we explain how an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary biology will answer a host of questions regarding the phylogenetic distribution and history of cognitive traits, as well as the evolutionary processes that drove their evolution.     

Spiritual But Not Religious? Evidence for Two Independent Dispositions

Some psychologists treat religious/spiritual beliefs as a unitary aspect of individual differences. But a distinction between mysticism and orthodox religion has been recognized by scholars as well as laypersons, and empirical studies of "ism" variables and of "spirituality" measures have yielded factors reflecting this distinction. Using a large sample of American adults, analyses demonstrate that subjective spirituality and tradition-oriented religiousness are empirically highly independent and have distinctly different correlates in the personality domain, suggesting that individuals with different dispositions tend toward different styles of religious/spiritual beliefs. These dimensions have low correlations with the lexical Big Five but high correlations with scales (e.g., Absorption, Traditionalism) on some omnibus personality inventories, indicating their relevance for studies of personality.     

BANOVA: Bayesian Analysis of Experiments in Consumer Psychology

This article introduces a Bayesian extension of ANOVA for the analysis of experimental data in consumer psychology. The approach, called BANOVA (Bayesian ANOVA), addresses some common challenges that consumer psychologists encounter in their experimental work, and is specifically suited for the analysis of repeated measures designs. There appears to be a recent surge in interest in those designs based on the recognition that they are sensitive to individual differences in response to experimental treatments and that they offer advantages for assessing causal mediating mechanisms, even at the individual level. BANOVA enables the analysis of repeated measures data derived from mixed within–between‐subjects experiments with Normal and nonNormal‐dependent variables and accommodates unobserved individual differences. It allows for the calculation of effect sizes, planned comparisons, simple effects, spotlight and floodlight analyses, and includes a wide range of mediation, moderation, and moderated mediation analyses. An R software package implements these analyses, and aims to provide a one‐stop shop for the analysis of experiments in consumer psychology. The package is illustrated through applications to a number of data sets from previously published studies.     

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.     

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.     

Time frames and the distinction between affective and cognitive well-being

We examined whether the empirical differences between affective well-being (AWB) and cognitive well-being (CWB) might be due to (a) the use of different time frames in measures of AWB and CWB or (b) structural differences. In Study 1, a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analysis indicated that levels of different components are more similar but do not converge completely when the same time frame is used. In Study 2, we found that people are more likely to consider global life circumstances (as opposed to specific events and activities) when they evaluate their CWB, regardless of the specific time frame. In both studies, the time frame did not moderate the associations between AWB and CWB and important correlates (personality, life circumstances).     

Feminism and the Evolution of Sex Differences and Similarities

Distrust between most evolutionary psychologists and most feminist psychologists is evident in the majority of the articles contained in this Special Issue. The debates between proponents of these perspectives reflect different views of the potential for transforming gender relations from patriarchal to gender-equal. Yet, with respect to the overall prevalence of sex differences or similarities, the articles in the Special Issue show that neither feminist psychologists nor evolutionary psychologists have uniform positions. Questions about how and if women and men differ are still under negotiation in the articles in this Special Issue as well as in other research related to evolutionary and feminist psychology. Clearer conclusions would be fostered by standardized metrics for representing male?Cfemale comparisons, more varied research methods for assessing both psychological and biological processes, greater diversity in populations sampled, and more researcher openness to taking into account findings that challenge their theories. Theoretical growth also is needed, especially to develop and integrate the many individual feminism-influenced theories represented in this Special Issue. To this end, we propose an integrative evolutionary framework that recognizes human culture in both ultimate and proximal causes of female and male behavior.     

Implicit self-esteem in the context of trait models of personality

Although the basic dimensions of personality are strongly associated with individual differences in (explicit) self-esteem, the relations between personality and implicit self-esteem have not been systematically researched. In three studies, implicit self-evaluations (measured both with the Name-Letter Test and the self-esteem IAT) were generally independent of personality self-reports (Studies 1–3) and peer-reports (Study 3). Moreover, the implicit measures were also independent of one another. Discussion centers on the problems and promises of implicit measures as indicators of individual differences in self-esteem and their relation to personality.     

Sir Francis Galton, Epigenetic Rules, Genetic Similarity Theory, and Human Life-History Analysis

ABSTRACT In this article, an evolutionary perspective is applied to individual differences Among the issues discussed are ( a ) the seminal contributions of Francis Galton and the subsequent ideological reaction, ( b ) the distalproximal continuum for understanding levels of explanation in social behavior, ( c ) consistent patterns of group differences in behavior (age, sex, social class, and race), ( d ) the heritability of personality and the role epigenetic rules play in guiding development in one direction over alternatives, ( e ) the genetic similarity theory perspective on friendship and mate choice, and ( f ) the view that personality is part of an r-K reproductive strategy involving a compensatory exchange between the production of gametes and parental care It is suggested in conclusion that personality traits be considered aspects of a coordinated life cycle deeply embedded in evolutionary history     

Recycling, evolution and the structure of human personality

Concomitant with the recent surge in environmental awareness of the industrialized world, social scientists have begun searching for the determinants of recycling behavior. Although the efforts of these scientists – most notably, environmental psychologists – are commendable, they have as yet not isolated the strategies by which long-term recycling can be effectively encouraged. In this article, I comment that by giving proper attention to the evolved structure of human personality, the emerging paradigm of evolutionary psychology may have something to offer those wishing to encourage durable and generalizable recycling behavior.     

Subjectivity,Not Personality: Combining Discourse Analysis and Psychoanalysis

Mainstream psychology can often be criticized for turning the liberal concerns of psychologists into conservative practices focusing on the individual. In the United Kingdom, the discursive turn in social psychology has been marked by an audacious body of work critical of cognitive attempts to theorize the social. A particular psycho‐discursive strand has emerged, which combines discourse analysis and psychoanalytic theory in an attempt to change both the subject of, and the subjectivity (re)produced by, mainstream psychology. This paper reviews three different psycho‐discursive approaches: (i) Hollway and Jefferson's Free Association Narrative Interview method; (ii) Billig's Psychoanalytic Discursive Psychology; (iii) Parker's Lacanian excursions into social psychology. In these psycho‐discursive approaches, ‘subjectivity’ replaces personality as the key theoretical construct where the social forms part of who we are and these approaches seem to offer social psychologists the theoretical tools to start to appreciate how individual personality and social context are intimately connected.     

Traits and trade-offs are an important tier

Replies to comments by K. M. Sheldon et al on the author's original article on evolution and personality variation. Sheldon et al concurred with the thrust of that article that the way natural selection shapes or gives rise to interindividual variation is a worthy topic for evolutionary psychologists to consider, so at a broad level Sheldon et al and Nettle are in agreement. The contention concerns the utility of broad traits such as the Big Five personality factors in undertaking evolutionary personality psychology. Nettle does not concur that traits do not provide a good approach to understanding interindividual variation. They have proved their utility in humans and in other species. Nettle does agree that traits alone are not sufficient for understanding personality functioning, particularly in humans, and hopes that other psychologists, including perhaps Sheldon et al, will add an evolution-informed understanding of those higher tiers of personality to the framework Nettle has suggested for the base tier.     

Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Individual Differences: The Three Major Dimensions of Personality

ABSTRACT This article deals with the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to individual differences in the three major dimensions of personality (Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism) Twin studies indicate, and family studies confirm within limits, the strong genetic determination of these and many other personality factors, additive genetic variance accounting for roughly half the total phenotypic variance On the environmental side, shared family environment plays little or no part, all environmental effects being within-family Assortative mating, important in the formation of social attitudes, has little impact on personality Dominance may be important for Extraversion Epistasis (emergenesis) may account for the comparative low values of dizygotic (DZ) twins' correlations Evidence for differential heritability of traits is present, but not very strong It is concluded that behavioral genetics forms a vital part of the psychological understanding of the causes of individual differences in personality     

Cognitive test batteries in animal cognition research: evaluating the past,present and future of comparative psychometrics

For the past two decades, behavioural ecologists have documented consistent individual differences in behavioural traits within species and found evidence for animal “personality”. It is only relatively recently, however, that increasing numbers of researchers have begun to investigate individual differences in cognitive ability within species. It has been suggested that cognitive test batteries may provide an ideal tool for this growing research endeavour. In fact, cognitive test batteries have now been used to examine the causes, consequences and underlying structure of cognitive performance within and between many species. In this review, we document the existing attempts to develop cognitive test batteries for non-human animals and review the claims that these studies have made in terms of the structure and evolution of cognition. We argue that our current test battery methods could be improved on multiple fronts, from the design of tasks, to the domains targeted and the species tested. Refining and optimising test battery design will provide many benefits. In future, we envisage that well-designed cognitive test batteries may provide answers to a range of exciting questions, including giving us greater insight into the evolution and structure of cognition.