Theories of Personality: Hans Eysenck, Gordon Allport & Raymond Cattell

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, Ph.D., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years experience of working in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

  • Personality tests date back to the 18th century, when phrenology, measuring bumps on the skull, and physiognomy, analyzing a person’s outer appearance, were used to assess personality (Goldstein & Hershen, 2000).
  • Beginning in the late 19th century, Sir Francis Galton, a British polymath (an expert in many fields) estimated the number of adjectives in the English dictionary that described personality. Louis Leon Thurstone eventually refined the list to 60 words, and through analyzing roughly 1,300 participants, the list was reduced again to seven common factors (Goldberg, 1993).
  • Similarly, British-American psychologist Raymond Cattell developed a Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, a 185 multiple-choice self-report questionnaire used to measure personality in both clinical and non-clinical settings.
  • In the 1980s, after an almost four-decade-long hiatus, Lewis Goldberg and colleagues (1980) revived Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal’s (1961) exploration of five major personality traits : openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (commonly abbreviated as the acronym OCEAN).
  • This new model significantly contributed to the wide acceptance and increased popularity the five-factor model received.

What is this thing we call personality? Consider the following definitions, what do they have in common?

“Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristics behavior and thought” (Allport, 1961, p. 28). “The characteristics or blend of characteristics that make a person unique” (Weinberg & Gould, 1999).

Both definitions emphasize the uniqueness of the individual and consequently adopt an idiographic view.

The idiographic view assumes that each person has a unique psychological structure and that some traits are possessed by only one person; and that there are times when it is impossible to compare one person with others. It tends to use case studies for information gathering.

The nomothetic view, on the other hand, emphasizes comparability among individuals. This viewpoint sees traits as having the same psychological meaning in everyone.

This approach tends to use self-report personality questions, factor analysis, etc. People differ in their positions along a continuum in the same set of traits.

We must also consider the influence and interaction of nature (biology, genetics, etc.) and nurture (the environment, upbringing) with respect to personality development.

Trait theories of personality imply that personality is biologically based, whereas state theories, such as Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory , emphasize the role of nurture and environmental influence.

Sigmund Freud’s psychodynamic theory of personality assumes there is an interaction between nature (innate instincts) and nurture (parental influences).

Trait Approach to Personality

This approach assumes behavior is determined by relatively stable traits, the fundamental units of one’s personality.

Traits predispose one to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation. This means that traits should remain consistent across situations and over time, but may vary between individuals.

It is presumed that individuals differ in their traits due to genetic differences.

These theories are sometimes referred to as psychometric theories, because of their emphasis on measuring personality by using psychometric tests. Trait scores are continuous (quantitative) variables. A person is given a numeric score to indicate how much of a trait they possess.

Eysenck’s Personality Theory

Eysenck (1952, 1967, 1982) proposed a theory of personality based on biological factors, arguing that individuals inherit a type of nervous system that affects their ability to learn and adapt to the environment.

During the 1940s, Eysenck was working at the Maudsley psychiatric hospital in London. His job was to make an initial assessment of each patient before their mental disorder was diagnosed by a psychiatrist.

Through this position, he compiled a battery of questions about behavior, which he later applied to 700 soldiers who were being treated for neurotic disorders at the hospital (Eysenck (1947).

He found that the soldiers” answers seemed to link naturally with one another, suggesting that there were a number of different personality traits which were being revealed by the soldier’s answers. He called these first-order personality traits.

He used a technique called factor analysis. This technique reduces behavior to a number of factors which can be grouped together under separate headings, called dimensions.

Eysenck (1947) found that their behavior could be represented by two dimensions: Introversion / Extroversion (E); Neuroticism / Stability (N). Eysenck called these second-order personality traits.

Each aspect of personality (extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism) can be traced back to a different biological cause. Personality is dependent on the balance between the excitation and inhibition process of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) .

Extraversion/Introversion

  • Extraverts are sociable and crave excitement and change, and thus can become bored easily. They tend to be carefree, optimistic, and impulsive.
  • They are more likely to take risks and be thrill seekers. Eysenck argues that this is because they inherit an under aroused nervous system and so seek stimulation to restore the level of optimum stimulation.
  • Introverts lie at the other end of this scale, being quiet and reserved. They are already over-aroused and shun sensation and stimulation.
  • Introverts are reserved, plan their actions and control their emotions. They tend to be serious, reliable, and pessimistic.

Neuroticism/Stability

A person’s level of neuroticism is determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system . A stable person’s nervous system will generally be less reactive to stressful situations, remaining calm and level headed.

Someone high in neuroticism on the other hand will be much more unstable, and prone to overreacting to stimuli and may be quick to worry, anger or fear.

They are overly emotional and find it difficult to calm down once upset. Neurotic individuals have an ANS that responds quickly to stress.

Psychoticism/normality

Eysenck (1966) later added a third trait (dimension) called psychoticism, characterized by lacking of empathy, being cruel, being a loner, aggressive and troublesome.

This has been related to high levels of testosterone. The higher the testosterone, the higher the level of psychoticism, with low levels related to more normal balanced behavior.

He was especially interested in the characteristics of people whom he considered to have achieved their potential as individuals.

According to Eysenck, the two dimensions of neuroticism (stable vs. unstable) and introversion-extroversion combine to form a variety of personality characteristics.

Eysenck traits theory of personality

Critical Evaluation

Twin studies can be used to see if personality is genetic. However, the findings are conflicting and non-conclusive.

Shields (1976) found that monozygotic (identical) twins were significantly more alike on the Introvert – Extrovert (E) and Psychoticism (P) dimensions than dizygotic (non-identical) twins.

Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn (1988) found that only 50% of the variations of scores on personality dimensions are due to inherited traits. This suggests that social factors are also important.

One good element of Eysenck’s theory is that it takes into account both nature and nurture. Eysenck’s theory argues strongly that biological predispositions towards certain personality traits combined with conditioning and socialization during childhood in order to create our personality.

This interactionist approach may, therefore, be much more valid than either a biological or environmental theory alone.

It also links nicely with the diathesis-stress model of behavior which argues for a biological predisposition combined with an environmental trigger for a particular behavior.

Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)

Cattell’s 16PF Trait Theory

Raymond Cattell (1965) disagreed with Eysenck’s view that personality can be understood by looking at only two or three dimensions of behavior.

Instead, he argued that it was necessary to look at a much larger number of traits in order to get a complete picture of someone’s personality.

Whereas Eysenck based his theory based on the responses of hospitalized servicemen, Cattell collected data from a range of people through three different sources of data.

  • L-data – this is life record data such as school grades, absence from work, etc.
  • Q-data – this was a questionnaire designed to rate an individual’s personality (known as the 16PF).
  • T-data – this is data from objective tests designed to “tap” into a personality construct.

Cattell analyzed the T-data and Q-data using a mathematical technique called factor analysis to look at which types of behavior tended to be grouped together in the same people. He identified 16 personality traits (factors) common to all people.

Cattell made a distinction between source and surface traits. Surface traits are very obvious and can be easily identified by other people, whereas source traits are less visible to other people and appear to underlie several different aspects of behavior.

Cattell regarded source traits are more important in describing personality than surface traits.

Cattell

Cattell produced a personality test similar to the EPI that measured each of the sixteen traits. The 16PF (16 Personality Factors Test) has 160 questions in total, ten questions relating to each personality factor.

Allport’s Trait Theory

Gordon Allport’s theory of personality emphasizes the uniqueness of the individual and the internal cognitive and motivational processes that influence behavior. For example, intelligence, temperament, habits, skills, attitudes, and traits.

Allport (1937) believes that personality is biologically determined at birth, and shaped by a person’s environmental experience.

He categorized traits into three levels: cardinal traits (dominant traits shaping a person’s entire life), central traits (characteristics influencing behavior in various situations), and secondary traits (specific traits that have minimal impact).

Allport emphasized the importance of studying individuals holistically and understanding the complexity of human personality beyond mere trait labels.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality . New York: Harper and Row (pp. 228).

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation . New York: H. Holt and. Company.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality . Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of personality .

Eysenck, H. J. (1966). Personality and experimental psychology. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society .

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality (Vol. 689) . Transaction publishers.

Eysenck, H. J. (1982). Personality, genetics, and behavior : Selected papers.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle . SE, 18: 1-64.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id . SE, 19: 1-66.

Goldberg, L. R. (1980). Some ruminations about the structure of individual differences: Developing a common lexicon for the major characteristics of human personality. In Invited paper, convention of the western psychological association, honolulu, hawaii .

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48 (1), 26.

Goldstein, G., & Hersen, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of psychological assessment. Elsevier.

Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. (1956). Attitudes Toward Desegregation. Scientific American , 195:35-39.

Loehlin, J. C., Willerman, L., & Horn, J. M. (1988). Human behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology , 39(1), 101-133.

Pervin, L. A. (1993). Personality: Theory and research . John Wiley & Sons.

Shields, J. (1976). Heredity and environment. In A textbook of human psychology (pp. 145-160) . Springer Netherlands.

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1999). Personality and sport. Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 25-46.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Logo for M Libraries Publishing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.2 The Origins of Personality

Learning objectives.

  • Describe the strengths and limitations of the psychodynamic approach to explaining personality.
  • Summarize the accomplishments of the neo-Freudians.
  • Identify the major contributions of the humanistic approach to understanding personality.

Although measures such as the Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) are able to effectively assess personality, they do not say much about where personality comes from. In this section we will consider two major theories of the origin of personality: psychodynamic and humanistic approaches.

Psychodynamic Theories of Personality: The Role of the Unconscious

One of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the theorizing of the Austrian physician and psychologist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who founded what today is known as the psychodynamic approach to understanding personality. Many people know about Freud because his work has had a huge impact on our everyday thinking about psychology, and the psychodynamic approach is one of the most important approaches to psychological therapy (Roudinesco, 2003; Taylor, 2009). Freud is probably the best known of all psychologists, in part because of his impressive observation and analyses of personality (there are 24 volumes of his writings). As is true of all theories, many of Freud’s ingenious ideas have turned out to be at least partially incorrect, and yet other aspects of his theories are still influencing psychology.

Freud was influenced by the work of the French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–1893), who had been interviewing patients (almost all women) who were experiencing what was at the time known as hysteria . Although it is no longer used to describe a psychological disorder, hysteria at the time referred to a set of personality and physical symptoms that included chronic pain, fainting, seizures, and paralysis.

Charcot could find no biological reason for the symptoms. For instance, some women experienced a loss of feeling in their hands and yet not in their arms, and this seemed impossible given that the nerves in the arms are the same that are in the hands. Charcot was experimenting with the use of hypnosis, and he and Freud found that under hypnosis many of the hysterical patients reported having experienced a traumatic sexual experience, such as sexual abuse, as children (Dolnick, 1998).

Freud and Charcot also found that during hypnosis the remembering of the trauma was often accompanied by an outpouring of emotion, known as catharsis , and that following the catharsis the patient’s symptoms were frequently reduced in severity. These observations led Freud and Charcot to conclude that these disorders were caused by psychological rather than physiological factors.

Freud used the observations that he and Charcot had made to develop his theory regarding the sources of personality and behavior, and his insights are central to the fundamental themes of psychology. In terms of free will, Freud did not believe that we were able to control our own behaviors. Rather, he believed that all behaviors are predetermined by motivations that lie outside our awareness, in the unconscious. These forces show themselves in our dreams, in neurotic symptoms such as obsessions, while we are under hypnosis, and in Freudian “slips of the tongue” in which people reveal their unconscious desires in language. Freud argued that we rarely understand why we do what we do, although we can make up explanations for our behaviors after the fact. For Freud the mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of the unconscious being much larger, but also out of sight, in comparison to the consciousness of which we are aware ( Figure 11.8 “Mind as Iceberg” ).

Figure 11.8 Mind as Iceberg

The Mind as an Iceberg (Conscious is the tip, the unconscious is far under water)

In Sigmund Freud’s conceptualization of personality, the most important motivations are unconscious, just as the major part of an iceberg is under water.

Id, Ego, and Superego

Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id , ego , and superego , and that the interactions and conflicts among the components create personality (Freud, 1923/1943). According to Freudian theory, the id is the component of personality that forms the basis of our most primitive impulses . The id is entirely unconscious, and it drives our most important motivations, including the sexual drive ( libido ) and the aggressive or destructive drive ( Thanatos ). According to Freud, the id is driven by the pleasure principle —the desire for immediate gratification of our sexual and aggressive urges. The id is why we smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, view pornography, tell mean jokes about people, and engage in other fun or harmful behaviors, often at the cost of doing more productive activities.

In stark contrast to the id, the superego represents our sense of morality and oughts . The superego tell us all the things that we shouldn’t do, or the duties and obligations of society. The superego strives for perfection, and when we fail to live up to its demands we feel guilty.

In contrast to the id, which is about the pleasure principle, the function of the ego is based on the reality principle —the idea that we must delay gratification of our basic motivations until the appropriate time with the appropriate outlet. The ego is the largely conscious controller or decision-maker of personality . The ego serves as the intermediary between the desires of the id and the constraints of society contained in the superego ( Figure 11.9 “Ego, Id, and Superego in Interaction” ). We may wish to scream, yell, or hit, and yet our ego normally tells us to wait, reflect, and choose a more appropriate response.

Figure 11.9 Ego, Id, and Superego in Interaction

The ego, id, and superego in interaction

Freud believed that psychological disorders, and particularly the experience of anxiety, occur when there is conflict or imbalance among the motivations of the id, ego, and superego. When the ego finds that the id is pressing too hard for immediate pleasure, it attempts to correct for this problem, often through the use of defense mechanisms — unconscious psychological strategies used to cope with anxiety and to maintain a positive self-image . Freud believed that the defense mechanisms were essential for effective coping with everyday life, but that any of them could be overused ( Table 11.4 “The Major Freudian Defense Mechanisms” ).

Table 11.4 The Major Freudian Defense Mechanisms

The most controversial, and least scientifically valid, part of Freudian theory is its explanations of personality development. Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages , each focusing on pleasure from a different part of the body ( Table 11.5 “Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development” ). Freud believed that sexuality begins in infancy, and that the appropriate resolution of each stage has implications for later personality development.

Table 11.5 Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development

In the first of Freud’s proposed stages of psychosexual development, which begins at birth and lasts until about 18 months of age, the focus is on the mouth. During this oral stage , the infant obtains sexual pleasure by sucking and drinking. Infants who receive either too little or too much gratification become fixated or “locked” in the oral stage, and are likely to regress to these points of fixation under stress, even as adults. According to Freud, a child who receives too little oral gratification (e.g., who was underfed or neglected) will become orally dependent as an adult and be likely to manipulate others to fulfill his or her needs rather than becoming independent. On the other hand, the child who was overfed or overly gratified will resist growing up and try to return to the prior state of dependency by acting helpless, demanding satisfaction from others, and acting in a needy way.

The anal stage , lasting from about 18 months to 3 years of age is when children first experience psychological conflict. During this stage children desire to experience pleasure through bowel movements, but they are also being toilet trained to delay this gratification. Freud believed that if this toilet training was either too harsh or too lenient, children would become fixated in the anal stage and become likely to regress to this stage under stress as adults. If the child received too little anal gratification (i.e., if the parents had been very harsh about toilet training), the adult personality will be anal retentive —stingy, with a compulsive seeking of order and tidiness. On the other hand, if the parents had been too lenient, the anal expulsive personality results, characterized by a lack of self-control and a tendency toward messiness and carelessness.

The phallic stage , which lasts from age 3 to age 6 is when the penis (for boys) and clitoris (for girls) become the primary erogenous zone for sexual pleasure. During this stage, Freud believed that children develop a powerful but unconscious attraction for the opposite-sex parent, as well as a desire to eliminate the same-sex parent as a rival. Freud based his theory of sexual development in boys (the “Oedipus complex”) on the Greek mythological character Oedipus, who unknowingly killed his father and married his mother, and then put his own eyes out when he learned what he had done. Freud argued that boys will normally eventually abandon their love of the mother, and instead identify with the father, also taking on the father’s personality characteristics, but that boys who do not successfully resolve the Oedipus complex will experience psychological problems later in life. Although it was not as important in Freud’s theorizing, in girls the phallic stage is often termed the “Electra complex,” after the Greek character who avenged her father’s murder by killing her mother. Freud believed that girls frequently experienced penis envy , the sense of deprivation supposedly experienced by girls because they do not have a penis.

The latency stage is a period of relative calm that lasts from about 6 years to 12 years. During this time, Freud believed that sexual impulses were repressed, leading boys and girls to have little or no interest in members of the opposite sex.

The fifth and last stage, the genital stage , begins about 12 years of age and lasts into adulthood. According to Freud, sexual impulses return during this time frame, and if development has proceeded normally to this point, the child is able to move into the development of mature romantic relationships. But if earlier problems have not been appropriately resolved, difficulties with establishing intimate love attachments are likely.

Freud’s Followers: The Neo-Freudians

Freudian theory was so popular that it led to a number of followers, including many of Freud’s own students, who developed, modified, and expanded his theories. Taken together, these approaches are known as neo-Freudian theories . The neo-Freudian theories are theories based on Freudian principles that emphasize the role of the unconscious and early experience in shaping personality but place less evidence on sexuality as the primary motivating force in personality and are more optimistic concerning the prospects for personality growth and change in personality in adults .

Alfred Adler (1870–1937) was a follower of Freud who developed his own interpretation of Freudian theory. Adler proposed that the primary motivation in human personality was not sex or aggression, but rather the striving for superiority. According to Adler, we desire to be better than others and we accomplish this goal by creating a unique and valuable life. We may attempt to satisfy our need for superiority through our school or professional accomplishments, or by our enjoyment of music, athletics, or other activities that seem important to us.

Adler believed that psychological disorders begin in early childhood. He argued that children who are either overly nurtured or overly neglected by their parents are later likely to develop an inferiority complex —a psychological state in which people feel that they are not living up to expectations, leading them to have low self-esteem, with a tendency to try to overcompensate for the negative feelings. People with an inferiority complex often attempt to demonstrate their superiority to others at all costs, even if it means humiliating, dominating, or alienating them. According to Adler, most psychological disorders result from misguided attempts to compensate for the inferiority complex in order meet the goal of superiority.

Carl Jung (1875–1961) was another student of Freud who developed his own theories about personality. Jung agreed with Freud about the power of the unconscious but felt that Freud overemphasized the importance of sexuality. Jung argued that in addition to the personal unconscious, there was also a collective unconscious , or a collection of shared ancestral memories . Jung believed that the collective unconscious contains a variety of archetypes , or cross-culturally universal symbols, which explain the similarities among people in their emotional reactions to many stimuli. Important archetypes include the mother, the goddess, the hero, and the mandala or circle, which Jung believed symbolized a desire for wholeness or unity. For Jung, the underlying motivation that guides successful personality is self-realization , or learning about and developing the self to the fullest possible extent.

Karen Horney (the last syllable of her last name rhymes with “eye”; 1855–1952), was a German physician who applied Freudian theories to create a personality theory that she thought was more balanced between men and women. Horney believed that parts of Freudian theory, and particularly the ideas of the Oedipus complex and penis envy, were biased against women. Horney argued that women’s sense of inferiority was not due to their lack of a penis but rather to their dependency on men, an approach that the culture made it difficult for them to break from. For Horney, the underlying motivation that guides personality development is the desire for security , the ability to develop appropriate and supportive relationships with others.

Another important neo-Freudian was Erich Fromm (1900–1980). Fromm’s focus was on the negative impact of technology, arguing that the increases in its use have led people to feel increasingly isolated from others. Fromm believed that the independence that technology brings us also creates the need “escape from freedom,” that is, to become closer to others.

Research Focus: How the Fear of Death Causes Aggressive Behavior

Fromm believed that the primary human motivation was to escape the fear of death, and contemporary research has shown how our concerns about dying can influence our behavior. In this research, people have been made to confront their death by writing about it or otherwise being reminded of it, and effects on their behavior are then observed. In one relevant study, McGregor et al. (1998) demonstrated that people who are provoked may be particularly aggressive after they have been reminded of the possibility of their own death. The participants in the study had been selected, on the basis of prior reporting, to have either politically liberal or politically conservative views. When they arrived at the lab they were asked to write a short paragraph describing their opinion of politics in the United States. In addition, half of the participants (the mortality salient condition ) were asked to “briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you” and to “jot down as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die, and once you are physically dead.” Participants in the exam control condition also thought about a negative event, but not one associated with a fear of death. They were instructed to “please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your next important exam arouses in you” and to “jot down as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically take your next exam, and once you are physically taking your next exam.”

Then the participants read the essay that had supposedly just been written by another person. (The other person did not exist, but the participants didn’t know this until the end of the experiment.) The essay that they read had been prepared by the experimenters to be very negative toward politically liberal views or to be very negative toward politically conservative views. Thus one-half of the participants were provoked by the other person by reading a statement that strongly conflicted with their own political beliefs, whereas the other half read an essay in which the other person’s views supported their own (liberal or conservative) beliefs.

At this point the participants moved on to what they thought was a completely separate study in which they were to be tasting and giving their impression of some foods. Furthermore, they were told that it was necessary for the participants in the research to administer the food samples to each other. At this point, the participants found out that the food they were going to be sampling was spicy hot sauce and that they were going to be administering the sauce to the very person whose essay they had just read. In addition, the participants read some information about the other person that indicated that he very much disliked eating spicy food. Participants were given a taste of the hot sauce (it was really hot!) and then instructed to place a quantity of it into a cup for the other person to sample. Furthermore, they were told that the other person would have to eat all the sauce.

As you can see in Figure 11.10 “Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation” , McGregor et al. found that the participants who had not been reminded of their own death, even if they had been insulted by the partner, did not retaliate by giving him a lot of hot sauce to eat. On the other hand, the participants who were both provoked by the other person and who had also been reminded of their own death administered significantly more hot sauce than did the participants in the other three conditions. McGregor et al. (1998) argued that thinking about one’s own death creates a strong concern with maintaining one’s one cherished worldviews (in this case our political beliefs). When we are concerned about dying we become more motivated to defend these important beliefs from the challenges made by others, in this case by aggressing through the hot sauce.

Figure 11.10 Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation

Participants who had been provoked by a stranger who disagreed with them on important opinions, and who had also been reminded of their own death, administered significantly more unpleasant hot sauce to the partner than did the participants in the other three conditions.

Participants who had been provoked by a stranger who disagreed with them on important opinions, and who had also been reminded of their own death, administered significantly more unpleasant hot sauce to the partner than did the participants in the other three conditions.

Adapted from McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon, L.,…Pyszczynski, T. (1998). Terror management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (3), 590–605.

Strengths and Limitations of Freudian and Neo-Freudian Approaches

Freud has probably exerted a greater impact on the public’s understanding of personality than any other thinker, and he has also in large part defined the field of psychology. Although Freudian psychologists no longer talk about oral, anal, or genital “fixations,” they do continue to believe that our childhood experiences and unconscious motivations shape our personalities and our attachments with others, and they still make use of psychodynamic concepts when they conduct psychological therapy.

Nevertheless, Freud’s theories, as well as those of the neo-Freudians, have in many cases failed to pass the test of empiricism, and as a result they are less influential now than they have been in the past (Crews, 1998). The problems are first, that it has proved to be difficult to rigorously test Freudian theory because the predictions that it makes (particularly those regarding defense mechanisms) are often vague and unfalsifiable, and second, that the aspects of the theory that can be tested often have not received much empirical support.

As examples, although Freud claimed that children exposed to overly harsh toilet training would become fixated in the anal stage and thus be prone to excessive neatness, stinginess, and stubbornness in adulthood, research has found few reliable associations between toilet training practices and adult personality (Fisher & Greenberg, 1996). And since the time of Freud, the need to repress sexual desires would seem to have become much less necessary as societies have tolerated a wider variety of sexual practices. And yet the psychological disorders that Freud thought we caused by this repression have not decreased.

There is also little scientific support for most of the Freudian defense mechanisms. For example, studies have failed to yield evidence for the existence of repression. People who are exposed to traumatic experiences in war have been found to remember their traumas only too well (Kihlstrom, 1997). Although we may attempt to push information that is anxiety-arousing into our unconscious, this often has the ironic effect of making us think about the information even more strongly than if we hadn’t tried to repress it (Newman, Duff, & Baumeister, 1997). It is true that children remember little of their childhood experiences, but this seems to be true of both negative as well as positive experiences, is true for animals as well, and probably is better explained in terms of the brain’s inability to form long-term memories than in terms of repression. On the other hand, Freud’s important idea that expressing or talking through one’s difficulties can be psychologically helpful has been supported in current research (Baddeley & Pennebaker, 2009) and has become a mainstay of psychological therapy.

A particular problem for testing Freudian theories is that almost anything that conflicts with a prediction based in Freudian theory can be explained away in terms of the use of a defense mechanism. A man who expresses a lot of anger toward his father may be seen via Freudian theory to be experiencing the Oedipus complex, which includes conflict with the father. But a man who expresses no anger at all toward the father also may be seen as experiencing the Oedipus complex by repressing the anger. Because Freud hypothesized that either was possible, but did not specify when repression would or would not occur, the theory is difficult to falsify.

In terms of the important role of the unconscious, Freud seems to have been at least in part correct. More and more research demonstrates that a large part of everyday behavior is driven by processes that are outside our conscious awareness (Kihlstrom, 1987). And yet, although our unconscious motivations influence every aspect of our learning and behavior Freud probably overestimated the extent to which these unconscious motivations are primarily sexual and aggressive.

Taken together, it is fair to say that Freudian theory, like most psychological theories, was not entirely correct and that it has had to be modified over time as the results of new studies have become available. But the fundamental ideas about personality that Freud proposed, as well as the use of talk therapy as an essential component of therapy, are nevertheless still a major part of psychology and are used by clinical psychologists every day.

Focusing on the Self: Humanism and Self-Actualization

Psychoanalytic models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and 1960s by the theories of humanistic psychologists . In contrast to the proponents of psychoanalysis, humanists embraced the notion of free will. Arguing that people are free to choose their own lives and make their own decisions, humanistic psychologists focused on the underlying motivations that they believed drove personality, focusing on the nature of the self-concept , the set of beliefs about who we are , and self-esteem , our positive feelings about the self .

One of the most important humanists, Abraham Maslow (1908–1970), conceptualized personality in terms of a pyramid-shaped hierarchy of motives ( Figure 11.11 “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” ). At the base of the pyramid are the lowest-level motivations, including hunger and thirst, and safety and belongingness. Maslow argued that only when people are able to meet the lower-level needs are they able to move on to achieve the higher-level needs of self-esteem, and eventually self-actualization , which is the motivation to develop our innate potential to the fullest possible extent .

Maslow studied how successful people, including Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Helen Keller, and Mahatma Gandhi had been able to lead such successful and productive lives. Maslow (1970) believed that self-actualized people are creative, spontaneous, and loving of themselves and others. They tend to have a few deep friendships rather than many superficial ones, and are generally private. He felt that these individuals do not need to conform to the opinions of others because they are very confident and thus free to express unpopular opinions. Self-actualized people are also likely to have peak experiences , or transcendent moments of tranquility accompanied by a strong sense of connection with others.

Figure 11.11 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow conceptualized personality in terms of a hierarchy of needs. The highest of these motivations is self-actualization.

Perhaps the best-known humanistic theorist is Carl Rogers (1902–1987). Rogers was positive about human nature, viewing people as primarily moral and helpful to others, and believed that we can achieve our full potential for emotional fulfillment if the self-concept is characterized by unconditional positive regard — a set of behaviors including being genuine, open to experience, transparent, able to listen to others, and self-disclosing and empathic . When we treat ourselves or others with unconditional positive regard, we express understanding and support, even while we may acknowledge failings. Unconditional positive regard allows us to admit our fears and failures, to drop our pretenses, and yet at the same time to feel completely accepted for what we are. The principle of unconditional positive regard has become a foundation of psychological therapy; therapists who use it in their practice are more effective than those who do not (Prochaska & Norcross, 2007; Yalom, 1995).

Although there are critiques of the humanistic psychologists (e.g., that Maslow focused on historically productive rather than destructive personalities in his research and thus drew overly optimistic conclusions about the capacity of people to do good), the ideas of humanism are so powerful and optimistic that they have continued to influence both everyday experiences as well as psychology. Today the positive psychology movement argues for many of these ideas, and research has documented the extent to which thinking positively and openly has important positive consequences for our relationships, our life satisfaction, and our psychological and physical health (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

Research Focus: Self-Discrepancies, Anxiety, and Depression

Tory Higgins and his colleagues (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Strauman & Higgins, 1988) have studied how different aspects of the self-concept relate to personality characteristics. These researchers focused on the types of emotional distress that we might experience as a result of how we are currently evaluating our self-concept. Higgins proposes that the emotions we experience are determined both by our perceptions of how well our own behaviors meet up to the standards and goals we have provided ourselves (our internal standards ) and by our perceptions of how others think about us (our external standards ). Furthermore, Higgins argues that different types of self-discrepancies lead to different types of negative emotions.

In one of Higgins’s experiments (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman., 1986), participants were first asked to describe themselves using a self-report measure. The participants listed 10 thoughts that they thought described the kind of person they actually are; this is the actual self-concept . Then, participants also listed 10 thoughts that they thought described the type of person they would “ideally like to be” (the ideal self-concept ) as well as 10 thoughts describing the way that someone else—for instance, a parent—thinks they “ought to be” (the ought self-concept ).

Higgins then divided his participants into two groups. Those with low self-concept discrepancies were those who listed similar traits on all three lists. Their ideal, ought, and actual self-concepts were all pretty similar and so they were not considered to be vulnerable to threats to their self-concept. The other half of the participants, those with high self-concept discrepancies , were those for whom the traits listed on the ideal and ought lists were very different from those listed on the actual self list. These participants were expected to be vulnerable to threats to the self-concept.

Then, at a later research session, Higgins first asked people to express their current emotions, including those related to sadness and anxiety. After obtaining this baseline measure Higgins activated either ideal or ought discrepancies for the participants. Participants in the ideal self-discrepancy priming condition were asked to think about and discuss their own and their parents’ hopes and goals for them. Participants in the ought self-priming condition listed their own and their parents’ beliefs concerning their duty and obligations. Then all participants again indicated their current emotions.

As you can see in Figure 11.12 “Results From Higgins, Bond, Klein, and Strauman, 1986” , for low self-concept discrepancy participants, thinking about their ideal or ought selves did not much change their emotions. For high self-concept discrepancy participants, however, priming the ideal self-concept increased their sadness and dejection, whereas priming the ought self-concept increased their anxiety and agitation. These results are consistent with the idea that discrepancies between the ideal and the actual self lead us to experience sadness, dissatisfaction, and other depression-related emotions, whereas discrepancies between the actual and ought self are more likely to lead to fear, worry, tension, and other anxiety-related emotions.

Figure 11.12 Results From Higgins, Bond, Klein, and Strauman, 1986

Higgins and his colleagues documented the impact of self-concept discrepancies on emotion. For participants with low self-concept discrepancies (right bars), seeing words that related to the self had little influence on emotions. For those with high self-concept discrepancies (left bars), priming the ideal self increased dejection whereas priming the ought self increased agitation.

Higgins and his colleagues documented the impact of self-concept discrepancies on emotion. For participants with low self-concept discrepancies (right bars), seeing words that related to the self had little influence on emotions. For those with high self-concept discrepancies (left bars), priming the ideal self increased dejection whereas priming the ought self increased agitation.

Adapted from Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), 5–15.

One of the critical aspects of Higgins’s approach is that, as is our personality, our feelings are also influenced both by our own behavior and by our expectations of how other people view us. This makes it clear that even though you might not care that much about achieving in school, your failure to do well may still produce negative emotions because you realize that your parents do think it is important.

Key Takeaways

  • One of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the psychodynamic approach to personality developed by Sigmund Freud.
  • For Freud the mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of the unconscious being much larger, but also out of sight, in comparison to the consciousness of which we are aware.
  • Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that the interactions and conflicts among the components create personality.
  • Freud proposed that we use defense mechanisms to cope with anxiety and to maintain a positive self-image.
  • Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages, each focusing on pleasure from a different part of the body.
  • The neo-Freudian theorists, including Adler, Jung, Horney, and Fromm, emphasized the role of the unconscious and early experience in shaping personality, but placed less evidence on sexuality as the primary motivating force in personality.
  • Psychoanalytic and behavioral models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and 1960s by the theories of humanistic psychologists, including Maslow and Rogers.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

  • Based on your understanding of psychodynamic theories, how would you analyze your own personality? Are there aspects of the theory that might help you explain your own strengths and weaknesses?
  • Based on your understanding of humanistic theories, how would you try to change your behavior to better meet the underlying motivations of security, acceptance, and self-realization?
  • Consider your own self-concept discrepancies. Do you have an actual-ideal or actual-ought discrepancy? Which one is more important for you, and why?

Baddeley, J. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Expressive writing. In W. T. O’Donohue & J. E. Fisher (Eds.), General principles and empirically supported techniques of cognitive behavior therapy (pp. 295–299). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Crews, F. C. (1998). Unauthorized Freud: Doubters confront a legend . New York, NY: Viking Press.

Dolnick, E. (1998). Madness on the couch: Blaming the victim in the heyday of psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. P. (1996). Freud scientifically reappraised: Testing the theories and therapy . Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Freud, S. (1923/1949). The ego and the id . London, England: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923)

Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), 5–15.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237 (4821), 1445–1452.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (1997). Memory, abuse, and science. American Psychologist, 52 (9), 994–995.

Maslow, Abraham (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper.

McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon, L.,…Pyszczynski, T. (1998). Terror management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (3), 590–605.

Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (5), 980–1001.

Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2007). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole; Yalom, I. (1995). Introduction. In C. Rogers, A way of being . (1980). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Roudinesco, E. (2003). Why psychoanalysis? New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 5–14.

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56 (4), 685–707.

Taylor, E. (2009). The mystery of personality: A history of psychodynamic theories . New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Book cover

Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences pp 4962–4973 Cite as

Sixteen-Factor Model of Personality, The

  • Malissa Cornwell 3 &
  • Dion Greenidge 3  
  • Reference work entry
  • First Online: 01 January 2020

261 Accesses

The sixteen-factor model of personality represents a unique and momentous chapter in the history of personality research. Emerging out of the lexical tradition and factor analytic studies, the sixteen-factor model was the first scientifically derived personality taxonomy (Tucker 2009 ). The sixteen-factor model of personality provided researchers with a taxonomy to describe, understand, and study personality at a time when no adequate taxonomy of personality characteristics was available (John 1990 ). Moreover, the sixteen-factor model stimulated new thinking and generated a vast quantity of research in contemporary personality psychology (Ryckman 2012 ). Furthermore, this model introduced the quantitative approach to the study of personality, which paved the way for the development of later trait models such as the five-factor model of personality (Matz et al. 2016 ).

Introduction

Despite its revolutionary impact, the sixteen-factor model was subjected to many criticisms and as...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47 (1), i-171.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arnold, M. (1997). The importance of personality in the performance of diagnostic radiographers. Radiography, 3 (2), 83–98.

Barrett, P., & Kline, P. (1982). An item and radial parcel factor analysis of the 16PF Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 3 , 259–270.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44 (1), 1–26.

Barton, K., & Dreger, R. M. (1986). Prediction of marital roles from normal and pathological dimensions of personality: 16PF and MMPI. Psychological Reports, 59 (2 Pt 1), 459–468.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Barton, K., Dielman, T. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1971). The prediction of school grades from personality and IQ measures. Personality, 2 , 325–333.

Google Scholar  

Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1990). Cross-cultural assessment of personality: The case for replicatory factor analysis. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 8, pp. 27–48). London: Routledge.

Bernardin, H. J. (1977). The relationship of personality variables to organizational withdrawal. Personnel Psychology, 30 (1), 17–27.

Boyle, G. (1989). Re-examination of the major personality-type factors in the Cattell, Comrey and Eysenck scales: Were the factor solutions by Noller et al. optimal? Personality and Individual Differences, 10 (12), 1289.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38 (4), 476–506.

Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 58 (1), 69–90.

Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12 (3), 197–220.

Cattell, R. B. (1948). The primary personality factors in women compared with those in men. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1 (2), 114–130.

Cattell, H. E. (2001). The sixteen personality factor (16PF) questionnaire. In W. I. Dorfman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Perspectives on individual differences: Understanding psychological assessment (pp. 187–218). New York: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cattell, H. E. (2004). The sixteen personality factor (16PF) Questionnaire. In M. J. Hilsenroth & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Personality assessment (Vol. 2). Hoboken: Wiley.

Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 135–159). Los Angeles: Sage.

Cattell, R. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1967). Likeness and completeness theories examined by sixteen personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 (4), 351–361.

Cattell, H. E., & Schuerger, J. M. (2003). Essentials of 16PF assessment (Eds: Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L.). Hoboken: Wiley.

Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, F. W. (1961). A cross-cultural comparison of patterns of extraversion and anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 52 (1), 3–15.

Cattell, R. B., Pichot, P., & Rennes, P. (1961). Constance interculturelle des facteurs de personnalite mesures par le test 16PF. II. Comparaison fraoco-americaine . Revue de Psychotogie Apptiquee, 11 , 165–196.

Cattell, R. B., Schmidt, L. R., & Pawlik, K. (1973). Cross cultural comparison (U.S.A, Japan, Austria) of the personality factor structures of 10 to 14 year olds in objective tests. Social Behavior and Personality, 1 (2), 182–211.

Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2016). Personality: Theory and research (13th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition technical manual . Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Csoka, L. S. (1993). Psychological profiles for predicting leader performance. Human Resource Management Review, 3 (4), 255–270.

DeLamatre, J., & Schuerger, J. (1992). Personality disorder concept scales and 16PF dimensions. Psychological Reports, 70 (3), 839–849.

Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41 (1), 417–440.

Digman, J. M. (1996). The curious history of the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–20). New York: Guilford.

Eicke, F. J., Blake, G., & Replogle, W. (1993). A comparative view of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Family Medicine, 25 (3), 186–190.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?-Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12 (8), 773–790.

Ferrer, L., & Kirchner, T. (2015). Suicidal tendency among adolescents with adjustment disorder: Risk and protective personality factors. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 36 (3), 202–210.

Golden, C. J. (1978). Cross-cultural second order factor structures of the 16PF. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42 (2), 167–170.

Hergenhahn, B., & Olson, M. H. (2007). An introduction to theories of personality (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hetland, H., & Sandal, G. M. (2003). Transformational leadership in Norway: Outcomes and personality correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12 (2), 147–170.

Hewstone, M., Fincham, F. D., & Foster, J. (2005). Psychology . Hoboken: Wiley.

Holland, J. L. (1960). The prediction of college grades from personality and aptitude variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51 (5), 245–254.

Howarth, E. (1976). Were Cattell’s ‘personality sphere’ factors correctly identified in the first instance? British Journal of Psychology, 67 (2), 213.

John, O. P. (1990). The search for the basic dimensions of personality: Review and critique. In P. McReynolds, J. C. Rosen, & G. J. Chelune (Eds.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 7). New York: Plenum Press.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford.

Jones, W. P. (1976). Some implications of the sixteen personality factor questionnaire for marital guidance. Family Coordinator, 25 (2), 189–192.

Jones, H. L., Sasek, J., & Wakefield, J. A. (1976). Maslow’s need hierarchy and Cattell’s 16PF. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32 , 74–76.

Karol, D., & Russell, M. (1995). Summary of recent research: 16PF 5th edition questionnaire and relationship adjustment. In M. Russell (Ed.), The 16PF fifth edition couple’s counseling report user’s guide (pp. 23–49). Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Karson, S., & Pool, K. B. (1957). The construct validity of the sixteen personality factors test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13 (3), 245–252.

Krug, S. E., & Johns, E. F. (1986). A large scale cross-validation of second-order personality structure defined by the 16PF. Psychological Reports, 59 , 683–693.

Liebert, R. M., & Spiegler, M. D. (1970). Personality: An introduction to theory and research . Homewood: The Dorsey Press.

Lounsbury, J., Park, S. H., Sundstrom, E., Williamson, J. M., & Pemberton, A. E. (2004). Personality, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction: Test of a directional model. Journal of Career Assessment, 12 (4), 395–406.

Love, K. G., & DeArmond, S. (2007). The validity of assessment center ratings and 16PF personality trait scores in police sergeant promotions: A case of incremental validity. Public Personnel Management, 36 (1), 21–32.

Low, J. M., Williamson, D., & Cottingham, J. (2004). Predictors of university student lawbreaking behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 45 (5), 535–548.

Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2009). Personality traits (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Matz, S., Chan, Y. W., & Kosinski, M. (2016). Models of personality. In M. Tkalcic, B. D. Carolis, M. de Gemmis, A. Odic, & A. Kosir (Eds.), Emotions and personality in personalized services: Models, evaluations and applications (pp. 35–56). Switzerland: Springer International Publishings.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s ‘adequacy taxonomy’: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (3), 710–721.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60 (2), 175–215.

Noller, P., Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 775–782.

Philip, A. E. (1972). Cross-cultural stability of second-order factors in the 16PF. The British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11 (3), 276–283.

Rivera, H. (1996). Critique of 16PF . Retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED401304).

Rossier, J., Meyer de Stadelhofen, F., & Berthoud, S. (2004). The hierarchical structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16PF 5. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20 (1), 27–38.

Russell, M. T. (1995). The 16PF couple’s counseling report user’s guide . Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Ryckman, R. M. (2012). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Schuerger, J. M. (1992). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire and its junior versions. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71 (2), 231–244.

Schuerger, J. M., & Watterson, D. G. (1998). Occupational interpretation of the 16PF questionnaire . Cleveland: Watterson and Associates.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2005). Theories of personality (8th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc.

Shergill, H. K. (2010). Psychology-part 1 . New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.

Strack, K. M., Dunaway, M. H., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2008). On the multicultural utility of the 16PF and the CPI-434 in the United States. In L. A. Suzuki & J. G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (3rd ed., pp. 375–401). San Francisco: Wiley.

Tango, R. A., & Kolodinsky, P. (2004). Investigation of placement outcomes 3 years after a job skills training program for chronically unemployed adults. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41 (2), 80–92.

Tsujioka, B., & Cattell, R. B. (1965). A cross-cultural comparison of second-stratum questionnaire personality factor structures – Anxiety and extraversion – In America and Japan. The Journal of Social Psychology, 65 , 205–219.

Tucker, W. H. (2009). The Cattell controversy: Race, science, and ideology . Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60 (2), 225–251.

Vaughan, G. M., & Cattell, R. B. (1976). Personality differences between young New Zealanders and Americans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 99 (1), 3–12.

Wang, Y., & Li, Y. (2003). The effect of group counseling on improvement of self-confidence of college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 17 (4), 235–239.

Weiner, I. B., & Craighead, W. E. (Eds.). (2010). The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 4, 4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

Williams, J. D., Dudley, H. K., & Overall, J. E. (1972). Validity of the 16PF and the MMPI in a mental hospital setting. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 80 (3), 261–270.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management Studies, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Bridgetown, Barbados

Malissa Cornwell & Dion Greenidge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malissa Cornwell .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Virgil Zeigler-Hill

Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

Ashton Southard

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Cornwell, M., Greenidge, D. (2020). Sixteen-Factor Model of Personality, The. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1266

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1266

Published : 22 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-24610-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-24612-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

Personality Psychology Explained: 7 Theories and Assessments

Personality Psychology

The search to understand human nature has been a journey lasting thousands of years, taking us from ancient Greece to modern gene labs.

During that time, there have been many theories of personality, yet they all attempt to answer the same questions.

What makes us who we are, and how do we differ from those around us?

This article introduces a brief history of personality theory before exploring the present, including models, fascinating findings, and how to perform assessments.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains:

What is personality psychology, a brief history of the field, 3 scientifically proven personality theories, 4 fascinating facts and research findings, assessing personality: 2 valid tests and questions, 3 books on the topic, positivepsychology.com’s related resources, a take-home message.

Our personality is the sum of the psychological qualities that impact our enduring thinking, behavior, and feelings. It is very much part of who we are and how others see us (Allen, Greenlees, & Jones, 2011).

Our personality traits not only define us, but identify how we differ from others (Larsen, Buss, Wismeijer, & Song, 2017). And despite their persistence, every trait and process of personality is not equally active all the time. While aggression may be appropriate when defending oneself from attack, it is not suitable for handing a book in at the library (Nabi et al., 2005).

Personality traits are not separate from who we are; they affect how we act, see ourselves, feel, and interact with others. Not only that, they shape how we view life and the goals we pursue (Larsen et al., 2017).

Therefore, a comprehensive personality theory has several challenges. It must explain how every human is, to some degree (Kluckhohn & Murray, 1948; Larsen et al., 2017):

  • Like all others We all have the capacity to feel love and a need for companionship (known as universals or human nature ).
  • Like some others We each vary in our need for belonging (known as particulars or individual differences ).
  • Like no others We are unique in how we express our feelings (known as our individual uniqueness ).

As therapists working with clients, it can be useful to walk through the elements of personality theory with our clients. An understanding that they share much of who they are with other humans and, yet, remain unique and special may offer both comfort during difficult times and encouragement when attempting to grow.

Shy Personality

After all, much of psychology’s current thinking owes a considerable debt to the long, complex, and interweaving trail of ideas, thinkers, and research into personality.

While we could begin much earlier, we will instead start in the early years of the 20th century.

Psychoanalysis and the early theories of personality

In 1921 German psychiatrist Ernst Kretschmer suggested that body shape was linked to personality. In his view, a slim, delicate person is much more likely to be introverted than someone strong and muscular. Despite a lack of empirical evidence, this idea was further developed in the 1930s by William Sheldon. He created a scoring system that linked body appearance to a set of personality traits (Holzman, 2020).

Around that time was also the rise of psychoanalysis , driven by the Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud. He began by focusing on psychopathologies – such as hysteria and phobic conditions – before moving into psychoanalysis and personality development and functioning.

Freud believed that neurotic conditions were rooted in distressing episodes from the past – mostly real or imagined sexual fantasies – that were incompatible with the person’s current moral standards. Such conflicts between human drives (the id) and the primarily unconscious structures that control them (the ego) were thought to lead to lasting self-criticism (Freud, 1922; Holzman, 2020).

Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung arrived at a theory of personality development that was less driven by sexual desires, yet more abstract, and at times, even spiritual (Holzman, 2020).

Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler, a contemporary of Jung, also challenged the importance of sexual motives in defining who we are. Instead, he suggested that our behavior continually hangs in a balance; we exaggerate one behavior to compensate for a deficiency in another (McAdams, 1997).

Erik Erikson, an American psychoanalyst, proposed eight stages of psychosocial growth – or personality transformation. The next phase only emerges upon successful completion of the existing one.

But what does this mean for personality?

Psychoanalytic theory – borne out of psychoanalysts’ consulting rooms – was largely untestable but did provide a starting point for the subsequent development of frameworks for personality research and was the beginning of client-focused therapy.

Earlier personality theories tend to focus on the human nature level, providing a universal account for humans as a species. While such grand theories are historically interesting, they fail to explain what makes us unique (Larsen et al., 2017).

Trait theories of personality

From the 1940s onwards, several investigators including Gordon Allport, Henry Murray, and Raymond Cattell began exploring the personality traits’ stability and hierarchy. Rather than based on single key characteristics, they found personality to be a “unified and organized totality” (McAdams, 1997).

And yet, by 1971, Rae Carlson claimed that the field had lost its way, misplacing the person in personality research (McAdams, 1997).

By the 1980s, many researchers had accepted that personality was a function of both traits and situation – the interaction between person and environment. Over this time, personality psychologists were spending a great deal of time attempting to “reach a single systematic taxonomy for personality traits” (McAdams, 1997).

Perhaps the most celebrated trait psychologist, Hans Eysenck, produced a taxonomy of personality firmly rooted in biology (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). Not only was it highly heritable, but it also helped to explain how individuals differed.

Eysenck organized personality into three main traits, psychoticism (P), extraversion–introversion (E), and neuroticism–emotional stability (N), memorable as the acronym PEN. For example, we might typically think of extroverts as liking parties and having many friends; neurotics as anxious, irritable worriers; and the psychotic as egocentric or aggressive.

However, despite the theory’s strengths, the model has since been considered limited in its number of traits. And while Raymond Cattell created an extended taxonomy of 16 personality factors, he could not replicate how he found them (Larsen et al., 2017).

3 positive psychology exercises

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Contemporary personality research has a strong focus on individual and group differences (such as between men and women, and across cultures, etc.). It typically sets out to answer the following questions (Larsen et al., 2017):

  • How many personality traits are there?
  • How are they organized?
  • What is their origin?
  • What are their consequences?

By answering the questions, psychologists can explain how we differ, behave, and perform (Laajaj et al., 2019).

Several of the personality models receiving the most attention at present include:

Five-factor model

The five-factor model of personality, also known as the Big Five , is a suggested taxonomy of personality consisting of the following traits (McCrae & John, 1992):

  • Conscientiousness
  • Extraversion
  • Agreeableness
  • Neuroticism

The creation of the model and agreement of its traits resulted from a statistical and linguistic analysis of natural language.

Crucially, the five-factor model has proven highly reliable at describing the basic personality dimensions and how we differ. Indeed, the model has been successfully proven over the last five decades across multiple languages (Larsen et al., 2017).

However, despite its replicability, there have been challenges to labeling some of the existing traits and the suggestion of a sixth factor known as Honesty–Humility (Hilbig & Zettler, 2015).

HEXACO model of personality

Canadian psychologists Michael Ashton and Kibeom Lee presented their six-factor model known as HEXACO in 1994 (Larsen et al., 2017). It consists of:

  • Honesty-Humility – sincerity, fairness, modesty, etc.
  • Emotionality – fearfulness, anxiety, dependence, etc.
  • eXtraversion – social self-esteem, social boldness, liveliness, etc.
  • Agreeableness – forgiveness, flexibility, gentleness, etc.
  • Conscientiousness – organization, diligence, perfectionism, etc
  • Openness to experience – creativity, curiosity, etc

While similar to the Big Five, there are several significant differences. For example, in the Big Five model, irritability and a quick temper fall under neuroticism; in HEXACO, they are found in agreeableness.

Although the Big Five model remains the dominant model, over 150 published studies use HEXACO, and the body of research continues to grow (Larsen et al., 2017).

Evolutionary theory

In 1848, Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. Its impact was phenomenal (Darwin, 1859). Not only was its effect on explaining the diversity of species profound, but more recently, it has had a significant impact on psychology in the form of evolutionary psychology .

Research into twins’ personalities has found that between 30% and 50% of people’s variation is genetic. However, this also means that between 50% and 70% of our personality is environmental . Such factors include (Workman & Reader, 2015):

  • Treatment as a child
  • Mother’s lifestyle during pregnancy
  • Birth trauma, such as oxygen starvation
  • Childhood diseases
  • Good and bad experiences throughout life

For evolutionary theory to successfully explain personality, it will need to answer the following two questions:

  • Why do particular personality traits pass down through the generations (30–50%)?
  • Why is the remaining 50–70% of personality left to chance?

Evolutionary theory may ultimately offer psychology a grand unifying theory, but it isn’t there yet (Buss, 2016).

Research continues in this exciting and fruitful area and will undoubtedly lead to further understanding of the effect of both nature and nurture on who we are and how we behave.

While the above three theories (and others) continue to develop and be challenged, and as new ones arise, it is crucial to remember that a personality theory should be judged by its ability to:

  • Explain the empirical data (observations of personality and behavior)
  • Offer a guide to new and important discoveries
  • Be precise enough to be testable
  • Contain few assumptions and premises; it should be possible to explain findings based on the theory, rather than relying on a complex set of caveats
  • Be consistent with well-established thinking inside and outside psychology

With many more personality theories abounding, it is interesting to investigate the research results which either prove, or disprove, such theories. We share a few interesting research results.

Sensation seekers

Sensation Seeker

Research has shown that people who inherit a variation of the D4DR gene do not feel the effect of dopamine – involved in motivation and arousal – as much as others.

Studies suggest that such differences can lead to potentially dangerous, thrill-seeking behavior as individuals attempt to feel the dopamine pathways’ full effect (Eichhammer et al., 2005).

Shyness, anxiety, and eating disorders

Research has linked variations of another gene, 5-HTT, to shyness.

Several studies suggest that differences in the gene expression impact coping with anxiety and the prevalence of eating disorders (Monteleone, Tortorella, Castaldo, & Maj, 2005; Workman & Reader, 2015).

Personality research is WEIRD

Research into personalities of Americans and other WEIRD populations (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) may not be as representative as previously thought (Henrich, 2020).

According to Joseph Henrich, the evolutionary approach suggests that our dispositions are calibrated based on the social and economic environments with which we are confronted throughout our lives.

Our personality is influenced by where  we are brought up.

Therefore, we should be careful about how we ascribe the findings of personality research in restricted populations to those culturally very different from ourselves.

Personality impacts sports

Personality plays a crucial role in sporting success and can even impact the sports people play.

Athletes are typically more extroverted and less neurotic than non-athletes, and individual athletes are more conscientious than team players. However, team players tend to be more agreeable than lone sportspeople (Allen et al., 2011; Nia & Besharat, 2010).

Such findings are significant as they can influence coping and the choice of subsequent coaching interventions.

Measuring personality: crash course psychology #22

The following personality tests are widely used, and two have repeatedly passed scientific scrutiny. They also offer useful insights into clients’ personalities for purposes of coaching and therapy.

Big Five personality inventory

The popular Big Five personality inventory, based on the five-factor model, has been widely validated.

The test consists of 44 questions answered on a scale between 1 and 5 (1 – disagree strongly, 5 – agree strongly) (Kaiseler, Polman, & Nicholls, 2012; Sutton, 2019).

Questions include:

I am a person who is talkative. I am a person who finds fault in others. I am someone who is reserved.

HEXACO Personality Inventory

The HEXACO-PI-R is growing in popularity and is a scientifically validated assessment.

Each domain is scored on four different facets. For example, extraversion is measured based on social self-esteem, social boldness, sociability, and liveliness (Larsen et al., 2017).

Each person is typically scored on their response to 100 statements (though a 60-item test is also available) such as:

I wouldn’t pretend to like someone to get that person to do favors for me. I feel like crying when I see other people crying. On most days I feel cheerful and optimistic.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

This test is worth mentioning briefly as it is popular in business but has been challenged repeatedly by academic research.

Despite academic misgivings, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is often used to determine staff appropriateness for positions (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998).

Each person is scored on eight fundamental preferences:

  • Introversion

Despite broad appeal and utility, the MBTI has been strongly criticized by researchers for its failure to meet rigorous theoretical criteria. It not only lacks testability, but also has internal contradictions (Stein & Swan, 2019).

According to Randy Larsen, the test may have some limited value in getting people to think about their personality but should not solely decide a person’s fit for a job (Larsen et al., 2017).

The following three books approach the exciting field of personality from very different (yet overlapping) angles to offer a more complete view of the subject matter.

1. Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature – R. Larsen, D. Buss, A Wismeijer, and J. Song

Personality Psychology

This first book is an incredibly well-put-together and comprehensive guide to personality, covering all key knowledge domains in the field.

Larsen and colleagues review the scientific basis for classical and contemporary theories and the latest developments in intelligence, genetics, and personality disorders.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous –  Joseph Henrich

The WEIRDest People in the World

Joseph Henrich’s engaging book is an interesting challenge to psychology and its community of researchers and academics.

How can we map our understanding of who we are on to other cultures when our research is often restricted to WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) cultures?

Henrich also provides a unique standpoint that helps us look at how WEIRD populations became so psychologically peculiar.

3. Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction – Lance Workman and Will Reader

Evolutionary Psychology

This comprehensive volume is the ideal introduction and companion to evolutionary psychology for students, practitioners, and the interested public.

The book is full of the latest research, and Lance Workman and Will Reader introduce the challenges, issues, and advances that have faced evolutionary psychology in recent years.

Try out some of the tools and worksheets below with your clients to help them understand how they emotionally react to situations and can know themselves better.

  • Getting To Know Yourself is a great place to start. Clients can use the boxes to help them remind themselves of who they are.
  • Signs of Emotional Discomfort can help them to spot the signals that suggest they are becoming more agitated and responding poorly to life events.
  • Exploring Our Feelings helps your clients reflect on the frequency and content of their emotions.
  • Emotional Awareness can increase emotional intelligence by encouraging clients to track their emotional states throughout the day.
  • Mapping Emotions directs your clients’ attention to bodily experiences of emotion to reach a greater acceptance of feelings.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others enhance their wellbeing, this signature collection contains 17 validated positive psychology tools for practitioners . Use them to help others flourish and thrive.

Ultimately, we all share a set of common needs, wishes, and desires with our fellow humans, including the desire to know who we are. Yet, we are all unique. We vary in our strengths and weaknesses and have individual differences in our personalities.

As individuals (and clients), we can each be encouraged to celebrate what we share with others – to gain empathy and understanding – while recognizing and valuing our uniqueness.

After all, this is what it means to be human and defines who we are as individuals.

A sense of our personality – knowing who we are – can help give us that understanding.

Genetics, the study of evolutionary psychology, and ongoing trait analysis will continue to offer more significant insights into our personality. And rather than limit our choices, improved understanding will open the door to showing us what we should accept and treasure in ourselves and where we may need support from professionals.

For the therapist, such knowledge of our client and their self-awareness can be empowering, leading to bigger, more appropriate, and long-lasting changes that are individual and specific, yet considerate of others.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

  • Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. V. (2011) An investigation of the five-factor model of personality and coping behaviour in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences , 29 , 841–850.
  • Buss, D. M. (2016). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind . Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Carlson, R. (1971). Where is the person in personality research? Psychological Bulletin , 75 (3), 203–219.
  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species . Murray.
  • Eichhammer, P., Sand, P. G., Stoertebecker, P., Langguth, B., Zowe, M., & Hajak, G. (2005). Variation at the DRD4 promoter modulates extraversion in Caucasians. Molecular Psychiatry , 10 (6), 520–522.
  • Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenk, M. W. (1975). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach . Plenium Press.
  • Freud, S. (1922). Beyond the pleasure principle . The International Psycho-Analytical Press.
  • Henrich, J. P. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous . Penguin Books.
  • Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2015). When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Personality , 57 , 72–88.
  • Holzman, P. (2020). Personality. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/personality
  • Kaiseler, M., Polman, R. C. J., & Nicholls, A. R. (2012). Effects of the Big Five personality dimensions on appraisal coping, and coping effectiveness in sport. European Journal of Sport Science ,  12 (1), 62–72.
  • Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H. A. (Eds.). (1948). Personality in nature, society and culture . Knopf.
  • Laajaj, R., Macours, K., Pinzon Hernandez, D. A., Arias, O., Gosling, S. D., Potter, J., … Vakis, R. (2019). Challenges to capture the big five personality traits in non-WEIRD populations. Science Advances , 5 (7).
  • Larsen, R., Buss, D., Wismeijer, A., & Song, J. (2017). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature . McGraw-Hill Education.
  • McAdams, D. P. (1997). A conceptual history of personality psychology. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 3–39). Academic Press.
  • McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality , 60 , 175–215.
  • Monteleone, P., Tortorella, A., Castaldo, E., & Maj, M. (2005). Association of a functional serotonin transporter gene polymorphism with binge eating disorder. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetic s, 141B (1), 7–9.
  • Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • Nabi, H., Consoli, S. M., Chiron, M., Lafont, S., Chastang, J. F., Zins, M., & Lagarde, E. (2005). Aggressive/hostile personality traits and injury accidents: An eight-year prospective study of a large cohort of French employees – the GAZEL cohort. Psychological Medicine , 36 (3), 365–373.
  • Nia, M. E., & Besharat, M.A. (2010). Comparison of athletes’ personality characteristics in individual and team sports. Social and Behavioral Sciences , 5 , 808–812.
  • Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 13 (3).
  • Sutton, J. (2019). Psychological and physiological factors that affect success in ultra-marathoners (Doctoral thesis, Ulster University). Retrieved December 1, 2020, from https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/psychological-and-physiological-factors-that-affect-success-in-ul
  • Workman, L., & Reader, W. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: An introduction . Cambridge University Press.

' src=

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Patricia

The review was useful

Charlies magazines

Thank you! This helps more than you know.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Hierarchy of needs

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

One of the most influential theories in human psychology that addresses our quest for wellbeing is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While Maslow’s theory of [...]

Emotional Development

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

We have all witnessed a sweet smile from a baby. That cute little gummy grin that makes us smile in return. Are babies born with [...]

Classical Conditioning Phobias

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? Classical conditioning, a psychological phenomenon first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th century, has proven to [...]

Read other articles by their category

  • Body & Brain (46)
  • Coaching & Application (56)
  • Compassion (26)
  • Counseling (51)
  • Emotional Intelligence (24)
  • Gratitude (18)
  • Grief & Bereavement (21)
  • Happiness & SWB (40)
  • Meaning & Values (26)
  • Meditation (20)
  • Mindfulness (45)
  • Motivation & Goals (45)
  • Optimism & Mindset (33)
  • Positive CBT (26)
  • Positive Communication (20)
  • Positive Education (46)
  • Positive Emotions (31)
  • Positive Leadership (15)
  • Positive Psychology (33)
  • Positive Workplace (34)
  • Productivity (16)
  • Relationships (45)
  • Resilience & Coping (34)
  • Self Awareness (20)
  • Self Esteem (37)
  • Strengths & Virtues (30)
  • Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
  • Theory & Books (46)
  • Therapy Exercises (37)
  • Types of Therapy (64)

3 Positive Psychology Tools (PDF)

  • Search Menu
  • Browse content in Arts and Humanities
  • Browse content in Archaeology
  • Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
  • Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
  • Archaeology by Region
  • Archaeology of Religion
  • Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
  • Biblical Archaeology
  • Contemporary and Public Archaeology
  • Environmental Archaeology
  • Historical Archaeology
  • History and Theory of Archaeology
  • Industrial Archaeology
  • Landscape Archaeology
  • Mortuary Archaeology
  • Prehistoric Archaeology
  • Underwater Archaeology
  • Zooarchaeology
  • Browse content in Architecture
  • Architectural Structure and Design
  • History of Architecture
  • Residential and Domestic Buildings
  • Theory of Architecture
  • Browse content in Art
  • Art Subjects and Themes
  • History of Art
  • Industrial and Commercial Art
  • Theory of Art
  • Biographical Studies
  • Byzantine Studies
  • Browse content in Classical Studies
  • Classical History
  • Classical Philosophy
  • Classical Mythology
  • Classical Literature
  • Classical Reception
  • Classical Art and Architecture
  • Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
  • Greek and Roman Epigraphy
  • Greek and Roman Law
  • Greek and Roman Papyrology
  • Greek and Roman Archaeology
  • Late Antiquity
  • Religion in the Ancient World
  • Digital Humanities
  • Browse content in History
  • Colonialism and Imperialism
  • Diplomatic History
  • Environmental History
  • Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
  • Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
  • Historical Geography
  • History by Period
  • History of Agriculture
  • History of Education
  • History of Gender and Sexuality
  • Industrial History
  • Intellectual History
  • International History
  • Labour History
  • Legal and Constitutional History
  • Local and Family History
  • Maritime History
  • Military History
  • National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
  • Oral History
  • Political History
  • Public History
  • Regional and National History
  • Revolutions and Rebellions
  • Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
  • Social and Cultural History
  • Theory, Methods, and Historiography
  • Urban History
  • World History
  • Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
  • Language Learning (Specific Skills)
  • Language Teaching Theory and Methods
  • Browse content in Linguistics
  • Applied Linguistics
  • Cognitive Linguistics
  • Computational Linguistics
  • Forensic Linguistics
  • Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
  • Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
  • History of English
  • Language Acquisition
  • Language Evolution
  • Language Reference
  • Language Variation
  • Language Families
  • Lexicography
  • Linguistic Anthropology
  • Linguistic Theories
  • Linguistic Typology
  • Phonetics and Phonology
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Sociolinguistics
  • Translation and Interpretation
  • Writing Systems
  • Browse content in Literature
  • Bibliography
  • Children's Literature Studies
  • Literary Studies (Asian)
  • Literary Studies (European)
  • Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
  • Literary Studies (Romanticism)
  • Literary Studies (American)
  • Literary Studies (Modernism)
  • Literary Studies - World
  • Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
  • Literary Studies (19th Century)
  • Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
  • Literary Studies (African American Literature)
  • Literary Studies (British and Irish)
  • Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
  • Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
  • Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
  • Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
  • Literary Studies (History of the Book)
  • Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
  • Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
  • Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
  • Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
  • Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
  • Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
  • Literary Studies (War Literature)
  • Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
  • Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
  • Mythology and Folklore
  • Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
  • Browse content in Media Studies
  • Browse content in Music
  • Applied Music
  • Dance and Music
  • Ethics in Music
  • Ethnomusicology
  • Gender and Sexuality in Music
  • Medicine and Music
  • Music Cultures
  • Music and Religion
  • Music and Media
  • Music and Culture
  • Music Education and Pedagogy
  • Music Theory and Analysis
  • Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
  • Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
  • Musicology and Music History
  • Performance Practice and Studies
  • Race and Ethnicity in Music
  • Sound Studies
  • Browse content in Performing Arts
  • Browse content in Philosophy
  • Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
  • Epistemology
  • Feminist Philosophy
  • History of Western Philosophy
  • Metaphysics
  • Moral Philosophy
  • Non-Western Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Philosophy of Language
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Philosophy of Perception
  • Philosophy of Action
  • Philosophy of Law
  • Philosophy of Religion
  • Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
  • Practical Ethics
  • Social and Political Philosophy
  • Browse content in Religion
  • Biblical Studies
  • Christianity
  • East Asian Religions
  • History of Religion
  • Judaism and Jewish Studies
  • Qumran Studies
  • Religion and Education
  • Religion and Health
  • Religion and Politics
  • Religion and Science
  • Religion and Law
  • Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
  • Religious Studies
  • Browse content in Society and Culture
  • Cookery, Food, and Drink
  • Cultural Studies
  • Customs and Traditions
  • Ethical Issues and Debates
  • Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
  • Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
  • Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
  • Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
  • Sports and Outdoor Recreation
  • Technology and Society
  • Travel and Holiday
  • Visual Culture
  • Browse content in Law
  • Arbitration
  • Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
  • Commercial Law
  • Company Law
  • Browse content in Comparative Law
  • Systems of Law
  • Competition Law
  • Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
  • Government Powers
  • Judicial Review
  • Local Government Law
  • Military and Defence Law
  • Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
  • Construction Law
  • Contract Law
  • Browse content in Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Criminal Evidence Law
  • Sentencing and Punishment
  • Employment and Labour Law
  • Environment and Energy Law
  • Browse content in Financial Law
  • Banking Law
  • Insolvency Law
  • History of Law
  • Human Rights and Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Browse content in International Law
  • Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
  • Public International Law
  • IT and Communications Law
  • Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
  • Law and Politics
  • Law and Society
  • Browse content in Legal System and Practice
  • Courts and Procedure
  • Legal Skills and Practice
  • Primary Sources of Law
  • Regulation of Legal Profession
  • Medical and Healthcare Law
  • Browse content in Policing
  • Criminal Investigation and Detection
  • Police and Security Services
  • Police Procedure and Law
  • Police Regional Planning
  • Browse content in Property Law
  • Personal Property Law
  • Study and Revision
  • Terrorism and National Security Law
  • Browse content in Trusts Law
  • Wills and Probate or Succession
  • Browse content in Medicine and Health
  • Browse content in Allied Health Professions
  • Arts Therapies
  • Clinical Science
  • Dietetics and Nutrition
  • Occupational Therapy
  • Operating Department Practice
  • Physiotherapy
  • Radiography
  • Speech and Language Therapy
  • Browse content in Anaesthetics
  • General Anaesthesia
  • Neuroanaesthesia
  • Browse content in Clinical Medicine
  • Acute Medicine
  • Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Clinical Genetics
  • Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
  • Dermatology
  • Endocrinology and Diabetes
  • Gastroenterology
  • Genito-urinary Medicine
  • Geriatric Medicine
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Medical Toxicology
  • Medical Oncology
  • Pain Medicine
  • Palliative Medicine
  • Rehabilitation Medicine
  • Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
  • Rheumatology
  • Sleep Medicine
  • Sports and Exercise Medicine
  • Clinical Neuroscience
  • Community Medical Services
  • Critical Care
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Forensic Medicine
  • Haematology
  • History of Medicine
  • Browse content in Medical Dentistry
  • Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
  • Paediatric Dentistry
  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
  • Surgical Dentistry
  • Browse content in Medical Skills
  • Clinical Skills
  • Communication Skills
  • Nursing Skills
  • Surgical Skills
  • Medical Ethics
  • Medical Statistics and Methodology
  • Browse content in Neurology
  • Clinical Neurophysiology
  • Neuropathology
  • Nursing Studies
  • Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Gynaecology
  • Occupational Medicine
  • Ophthalmology
  • Otolaryngology (ENT)
  • Browse content in Paediatrics
  • Neonatology
  • Browse content in Pathology
  • Chemical Pathology
  • Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
  • Histopathology
  • Medical Microbiology and Virology
  • Patient Education and Information
  • Browse content in Pharmacology
  • Psychopharmacology
  • Browse content in Popular Health
  • Caring for Others
  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Self-help and Personal Development
  • Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
  • Cell Biology
  • Molecular Biology and Genetics
  • Reproduction, Growth and Development
  • Primary Care
  • Professional Development in Medicine
  • Browse content in Psychiatry
  • Addiction Medicine
  • Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
  • Forensic Psychiatry
  • Learning Disabilities
  • Old Age Psychiatry
  • Psychotherapy
  • Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
  • Epidemiology
  • Public Health
  • Browse content in Radiology
  • Clinical Radiology
  • Interventional Radiology
  • Nuclear Medicine
  • Radiation Oncology
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Browse content in Surgery
  • Cardiothoracic Surgery
  • Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
  • General Surgery
  • Neurosurgery
  • Paediatric Surgery
  • Peri-operative Care
  • Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
  • Surgical Oncology
  • Transplant Surgery
  • Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Vascular Surgery
  • Browse content in Science and Mathematics
  • Browse content in Biological Sciences
  • Aquatic Biology
  • Biochemistry
  • Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology and Conservation
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Genetics and Genomics
  • Microbiology
  • Molecular and Cell Biology
  • Natural History
  • Plant Sciences and Forestry
  • Research Methods in Life Sciences
  • Structural Biology
  • Systems Biology
  • Zoology and Animal Sciences
  • Browse content in Chemistry
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Computational Chemistry
  • Crystallography
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Industrial Chemistry
  • Inorganic Chemistry
  • Materials Chemistry
  • Medicinal Chemistry
  • Mineralogy and Gems
  • Organic Chemistry
  • Physical Chemistry
  • Polymer Chemistry
  • Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
  • Theoretical Chemistry
  • Browse content in Computer Science
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Computer Architecture and Logic Design
  • Game Studies
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Mathematical Theory of Computation
  • Programming Languages
  • Software Engineering
  • Systems Analysis and Design
  • Virtual Reality
  • Browse content in Computing
  • Business Applications
  • Computer Security
  • Computer Games
  • Computer Networking and Communications
  • Digital Lifestyle
  • Graphical and Digital Media Applications
  • Operating Systems
  • Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
  • Atmospheric Sciences
  • Environmental Geography
  • Geology and the Lithosphere
  • Maps and Map-making
  • Meteorology and Climatology
  • Oceanography and Hydrology
  • Palaeontology
  • Physical Geography and Topography
  • Regional Geography
  • Soil Science
  • Urban Geography
  • Browse content in Engineering and Technology
  • Agriculture and Farming
  • Biological Engineering
  • Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
  • Electronics and Communications Engineering
  • Energy Technology
  • Engineering (General)
  • Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
  • History of Engineering and Technology
  • Mechanical Engineering and Materials
  • Technology of Industrial Chemistry
  • Transport Technology and Trades
  • Browse content in Environmental Science
  • Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
  • Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
  • Environmental Sustainability
  • Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
  • Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
  • Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
  • Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
  • Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
  • Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
  • History of Science and Technology
  • Browse content in Materials Science
  • Ceramics and Glasses
  • Composite Materials
  • Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
  • Nanotechnology
  • Browse content in Mathematics
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Biomathematics and Statistics
  • History of Mathematics
  • Mathematical Education
  • Mathematical Finance
  • Mathematical Analysis
  • Numerical and Computational Mathematics
  • Probability and Statistics
  • Pure Mathematics
  • Browse content in Neuroscience
  • Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
  • Development of the Nervous System
  • Disorders of the Nervous System
  • History of Neuroscience
  • Invertebrate Neurobiology
  • Molecular and Cellular Systems
  • Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
  • Neuroscientific Techniques
  • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • Browse content in Physics
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
  • Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
  • Biological and Medical Physics
  • Classical Mechanics
  • Computational Physics
  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
  • History of Physics
  • Mathematical and Statistical Physics
  • Measurement Science
  • Nuclear Physics
  • Particles and Fields
  • Plasma Physics
  • Quantum Physics
  • Relativity and Gravitation
  • Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
  • Browse content in Psychology
  • Affective Sciences
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Criminal and Forensic Psychology
  • Developmental Psychology
  • Educational Psychology
  • Evolutionary Psychology
  • Health Psychology
  • History and Systems in Psychology
  • Music Psychology
  • Neuropsychology
  • Organizational Psychology
  • Psychological Assessment and Testing
  • Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
  • Psychology Professional Development and Training
  • Research Methods in Psychology
  • Social Psychology
  • Browse content in Social Sciences
  • Browse content in Anthropology
  • Anthropology of Religion
  • Human Evolution
  • Medical Anthropology
  • Physical Anthropology
  • Regional Anthropology
  • Social and Cultural Anthropology
  • Theory and Practice of Anthropology
  • Browse content in Business and Management
  • Business Strategy
  • Business Ethics
  • Business History
  • Business and Government
  • Business and Technology
  • Business and the Environment
  • Comparative Management
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate Social Responsibility
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Health Management
  • Human Resource Management
  • Industrial and Employment Relations
  • Industry Studies
  • Information and Communication Technologies
  • International Business
  • Knowledge Management
  • Management and Management Techniques
  • Operations Management
  • Organizational Theory and Behaviour
  • Pensions and Pension Management
  • Public and Nonprofit Management
  • Strategic Management
  • Supply Chain Management
  • Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
  • Criminal Justice
  • Criminology
  • Forms of Crime
  • International and Comparative Criminology
  • Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
  • Development Studies
  • Browse content in Economics
  • Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
  • Asian Economics
  • Behavioural Finance
  • Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
  • Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
  • Economic Systems
  • Economic History
  • Economic Methodology
  • Economic Development and Growth
  • Financial Markets
  • Financial Institutions and Services
  • General Economics and Teaching
  • Health, Education, and Welfare
  • History of Economic Thought
  • International Economics
  • Labour and Demographic Economics
  • Law and Economics
  • Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
  • Microeconomics
  • Public Economics
  • Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
  • Welfare Economics
  • Browse content in Education
  • Adult Education and Continuous Learning
  • Care and Counselling of Students
  • Early Childhood and Elementary Education
  • Educational Equipment and Technology
  • Educational Strategies and Policy
  • Higher and Further Education
  • Organization and Management of Education
  • Philosophy and Theory of Education
  • Schools Studies
  • Secondary Education
  • Teaching of a Specific Subject
  • Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
  • Teaching Skills and Techniques
  • Browse content in Environment
  • Applied Ecology (Social Science)
  • Climate Change
  • Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
  • Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
  • Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
  • Browse content in Human Geography
  • Cultural Geography
  • Economic Geography
  • Political Geography
  • Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
  • Communication Studies
  • Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
  • Browse content in Politics
  • African Politics
  • Asian Politics
  • Chinese Politics
  • Comparative Politics
  • Conflict Politics
  • Elections and Electoral Studies
  • Environmental Politics
  • European Union
  • Foreign Policy
  • Gender and Politics
  • Human Rights and Politics
  • Indian Politics
  • International Relations
  • International Organization (Politics)
  • International Political Economy
  • Irish Politics
  • Latin American Politics
  • Middle Eastern Politics
  • Political Methodology
  • Political Communication
  • Political Philosophy
  • Political Sociology
  • Political Behaviour
  • Political Economy
  • Political Institutions
  • Political Theory
  • Politics and Law
  • Public Administration
  • Public Policy
  • Quantitative Political Methodology
  • Regional Political Studies
  • Russian Politics
  • Security Studies
  • State and Local Government
  • UK Politics
  • US Politics
  • Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
  • African Studies
  • Asian Studies
  • East Asian Studies
  • Japanese Studies
  • Latin American Studies
  • Middle Eastern Studies
  • Native American Studies
  • Scottish Studies
  • Browse content in Research and Information
  • Research Methods
  • Browse content in Social Work
  • Addictions and Substance Misuse
  • Adoption and Fostering
  • Care of the Elderly
  • Child and Adolescent Social Work
  • Couple and Family Social Work
  • Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
  • Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
  • Emergency Services
  • Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
  • International and Global Issues in Social Work
  • Mental and Behavioural Health
  • Social Justice and Human Rights
  • Social Policy and Advocacy
  • Social Work and Crime and Justice
  • Social Work Macro Practice
  • Social Work Practice Settings
  • Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
  • Welfare and Benefit Systems
  • Browse content in Sociology
  • Childhood Studies
  • Community Development
  • Comparative and Historical Sociology
  • Economic Sociology
  • Gender and Sexuality
  • Gerontology and Ageing
  • Health, Illness, and Medicine
  • Marriage and the Family
  • Migration Studies
  • Occupations, Professions, and Work
  • Organizations
  • Population and Demography
  • Race and Ethnicity
  • Social Theory
  • Social Movements and Social Change
  • Social Research and Statistics
  • Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
  • Sociology of Religion
  • Sociology of Education
  • Sport and Leisure
  • Urban and Rural Studies
  • Browse content in Warfare and Defence
  • Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
  • Land Forces and Warfare
  • Military Administration
  • Military Life and Institutions
  • Naval Forces and Warfare
  • Other Warfare and Defence Issues
  • Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
  • Weapons and Equipment

Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment

A newer edition of this book is available.

  • < Previous
  • Next chapter >

Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment

1 Clinical Personality Assessment: History, Evolution, Contemporary Models, and Practical Applications

James N. Butcher is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. He received his PhD in clinical psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1964. He has devoted much of his career to personality assessment, abnormal psychology, cross-cultural personality factors, and computer-based personality assessment.

  • Published: 18 September 2012
  • Cite Icon Cite
  • Permissions Icon Permissions

This book provides a comprehensive view of the field of personality assessment from its historical roots to the major, methodological issues defining the field and that have led to numerous approaches and applications, and to the broad range of assessment techniques available today. One can find throughout history an awareness of the importance of evaluating personality and character using observation and other means of acquiring information on which to make such decisions. The modern era for personality assessment began in late-nineteenth-century England with the work of Sir Francis Galton. The first self-report personality inventory used to obtain personality information was developed by Robert Woodworth during World War I. Numerous personality inventories were developed in the years that followed, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Paralleling the work on personality inventories was the development of projective assessment instruments such as the Thematic Apperception Test. These instruments came to be the most widely used assessment instruments during the expansion of applied psychology after World War II and are still the predominant tests in use today.

People have likely been making personality assessment decisions and personality appraisals since the beginning of human interactions. As an adaptive human activity, effective personality appraisal has clear survival value for our species (Buss, 1984 ). If our cave-dwelling ancestors happened to choose a hunting partner with the “wrong” personality and motivations, the outcome could be tragic. Or if groups from antiquity failed to evaluate whether potential leaders possessed essential personal qualities, their own survival could be threatened. Personality assessments in antiquity were probably based on diverse, if not particularly valid or reliable, sources of information. Early writings, for example, mention such factors as dreams, signs from the gods, oracular speculation, spies, traitors, direct observation, pedigree, physiognomic characteristics, and the interview as important sources of information about people. Even “tests” were employed to evaluate personality characteristics. Hathaway (1965) described an early personality screening situation from the Old Testament: For example, Gideon had collected too large an army, and now the Lord saw that the Israelites would give Him scant credit if so many men overran the Midianites camped in the valley. The Lord suggested two screening items for Gideon. The first of these items had face validity: Gideon proclaimed that all who were afraid could go home. More than two of every three did so. The second was subtle: Those who fought the Midianites were the few who drank from their cupped hands instead of stooping to drink. Altogether it was a battle decided by psychological devices, and 300 men literally scared the demoralized Midianites into headlong flight (p. 457 ).

Highlights in History

Efforts to appraise personality characteristics were evident in antiquity. DuBois (1970) pointed out that for over 3,000 years an elaborate system of competitive examinations was used for selecting government personnel in China. Some of these tests used were designed to assess the personal characteristics of applicants. This system of examinations was described in the year 2200 BC, when the emperor of China examined government officials every 3 years to determine their fitness for office (DuBois, 1970 ). In 1115 BC, candidates for government positions were examined for their proficiency in the “six arts”: music, archery, horsemanship, writing, arithmetic, and the rites and ceremonies of public and private life (DuBois, 1970 ). Examinees were required to write for hours at a time and for a period of several days in succession. For a picture of the early testing booths, see Ben-Porath and Butcher 1991 .

One can find throughout history an awareness of the importance of evaluating personality and character as using observation and other means of acquiring information on which to make such personality-based judgments. However, interest in obtaining further understanding and for evaluating underlying personality and personal qualities began to take more objective focus in the nineteenth century. Some scholars came to believe that human physical characteristics such as bumps on the head or the shape of the eyes were associated with underlying personality or character and that one could understand people by careful observation of their physical features. This phenomenon, known as phrenology, was held by a number of prominent physicians. Phrenology appealed to intellectuals who followed a biological determinism that gave promise to individuals improving themselves in life by being able to read and understand characteristics of other people from their appearance. Boring (1950) pointed out that the modern character of phrenology (as well as its name) was initially founded by Johan Spurzheim (1776–1832), a Viennese physician who studied with Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828) in 1800 and was soon employed as his assistant. Gall, also a Viennese physician and lecturer, had been involved in the investigation of his theory that powerful memory as a characteristic in humans was reflective of having very prominent eyes and that other bodily characteristics, such as head size, were indicative of special talents for painting or music. Gall and Spurzheim were very popular speakers among upper-class intellectuals and scientists in Europe in the 1820s and influenced British physican George Combe (1788–1858), who was the most prolific British phrenologist of the nineteenth century.

During the brief period that Spurzheim and Gall worked together, Gall had hoped to have Spurzheim as his successor and included him as a co-author in a number of publications. However, they had a disagreement that prompted Spurzheim to start his own career, writing extensively about the physiognomical system. Spurzheim was highly successful in his effort to popularize phrenology throughout Europe, particularly in France and England. After leaving the tutorship of Professor Gall, he continued to expand his views and established a new and more complete topography of the skull, filling in blanks that Gall felt had not been empirically established. He also revised the terminology for the faculties used in phrenology. Once he completed the system to his satisfaction, Spurzheim set about spreading the word on phrenology in other countries. Providing lectures in Europe he influenced others such as John C. Warren (1778–1856), a professor of medicine at Harvard (also known for performing the first surgery under ether in the United States). Warren had begun the study of Gall's ideas on phrenology in 1808, but during a trip to France he studied Spurzheim's views on phrenology in 1821. When he returned to Boston, he developed a series of lectures on phrenology at Harvard and later incorporated these ideas into presentations for a broader audience at the Massachusetts Medical Society.

The most prominent promoter of phrenology in the United States during the 1820s was Charles Caldwell (1772–1853), who had also attended Spurzheim's lectures in Paris. He toured throughout the United States lecturing on phrenology and founded a number of societies that promoted phrenology. In 1832, Spurzheim traveled to the United States to spread his views on the science of phrenology. After a lengthy series of lectures, he became ill and died with severe fever. The most notable phrenologists in the United States were the Fowler brothers who lectured and performed in public during the 1840s. Orson Squire Fowler (1809–1889) and his younger brother Lorenzo Fowler (1811–1896) wrote extensively and promoted phrenology during this period. The brothers operated a publishing house, mail-order business, and museum of human and animal skulls. They zealously promoted phrenology as a practical tool for self-improvement.

Although the phrenology movement was popular for a time, it was not widely accepted in the broader scientific community and was a short-lived phenomenon. The popularity of the movement does, however, show that the scientific community at the time was open to and interested in scientifically assessing underlying personality attributes.

Twentieth-Century Developments in Personality Assessment

One of the greatest steps in introducing personality assessment in the modern era began in the late nineteenth-century England with the work of Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), a half-cousin and contemporary of Charles Darwin and a prolific explorer and researcher. Galton ( 1879 , 1884 ) conducted a number of experiments on mental processes and devised explicit experimental procedures for measuring psychological attributes. He also proposed that human character could be studied by observation and experimentation and pointed out that such observations could be standardized and readily compared by the use of developmental norms. Sir Francis Galton initially suggested that questionnaires could be used for measuring mental traits although he did not develop a specific questionnaire for this purpose himself. The first formal use of a structured rating scale for studying human character was published by Heymans and Wiersma 1906 . They constructed a 90-item rating scale and asked 3,000 physicians to rate people with whom they were well acquainted using the scale. The manual of mental and physical tests published by Whipple (1910) addressed primarily physical, motor, sensory, and perceptual tests.

The first self-report personality inventory used to obtain personality information was developed by Robert Woodworth (1879, 1920 ) as a means of detecting psychiatric problems for the U.S. Army in World War I. The Woodworth Personal Data Sheet included 116 items such as:

Have you ever seen a vision? Do you make friends easily? Do you feel tired most of the time?

The scoring on the scale was the total number of extreme item responses (based on a rational determination of adjustment problems). In addition, he included a number of “starred items” or particularly problematic behaviors (today we refer to them as critical items) which were thought to indicate particularly serious problems that require special attention. During the war, Woodworth developed the items and conducted research on a sample of draftees and returning soldiers with “shell shock” comparing the results with college students (Woodworth, 1919 ). The Personal Data Sheet was not, however, completed in time to be used to select out draftees who were maladjusted during the war and was published after the war was over. A few years later, Woodworth and Matthews 1924 also published a 75-item version of the inventory for children and adolescents that included some of the same items as the adult version but with additional content they thought more relevant for young people, such as:

Are you troubled with dreams about your play? Do you find school a hard place to get along in? Is such an idea as that you are an adopted child difficult for you to shake off? Do you like to be tickled?

These personality inventories set the stage for broader development of psychological measures to address personality functioning (see Table 1.1 ). In the years that followed, a large number of personality inventories were developed to assess a variety of characteristics or temperaments. Some of those efforts persisted into the 1920s and 1930s with the development of inventories designed to measure trait-like features such as introversion, extraversion, and neuroticism, but none was used extensively in clinical settings. One exception was the Bernreuter Personality Inventory published by Robert Bernreuter (1931) . This personality scale differed from the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet in that it provided scores for a number of personality characteristics, including an appraisal of neurotic tendencies, ascendance-submission, and introversion-extraversion. The Bernreuter Personality Inventory came to be widely used for counseling, clinical and personnel applications and influenced the development of other inventories that followed, such as the MMPI, that are in use today.

Development of the Three Major Clinical Personality Assessment Instruments of the Twentieth Century: Rorschach, TAT, and MMPI

The rorschach.

The most significant event in the history of projective psychological assessment occurred during the early years of the twentieth century when the Swiss psychiatrist Herman Rorschach published his monograph Psychodiagnostik , which detailed the development of the “Rorschach inkblot technique.” During this period, inkblots were commonly used in Europe at the time as stimuli for imagination in the popular parlor game known as Klecksographie or blotto , in which people made up responses to various inkblot designs. Although Rorschach had experimented with various types and forms of inkblots in 1911 he did not pursue these efforts until his work in 1921 that detailed the interpretation of responses to the inkblots to assess mental health symptoms and personality. This was the only work that Rorschach published on the test because he died of acute appendicitis the following year.

Subsequent developments and refinements of the Rorschach inkblot technique occurred several years later in the United States when Beck (1938) , Klopfer and Tallman (1938) , and Hertz (1938) began to use the Rorschach blots to understand personality and emotional characteristics of patients in a movement that was to see the publication of thousands of articles and recruitment of countless advocates who began to use the 10 blots in clinical settings—a movement that continues today. Beck, Klopfer, and Hertz also developed separate interpretation systems for the inkblots in the 1940s. The most widely used contemporary Rorschach interpretive system was published by John Exner 1983 .

An important theoretical article defining this approach to personality assessment was published by L. K. Frank 1939 . This article detailing the use of ambiguous stimuli like the Rorschach inkblots to assess personality provided an important theoretical explanation that came to be known as the projective method in assessment. In Frank's view, the use of ambiguous stimuli allowed people to “project” their internal meanings and feelings from their unconscious personality in their responses. This process of projection allowed an interpreter to gain a better understanding of the client's thinking. Frank's theoretical interpretation of the projective process by the projective method was influential as projective tests such as the Rorschach and TAT expanded in use during the 1940s.

The Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT, was developed in 1935 by Henry Murray and Christiana Morgan and described in Murray's early works (1938, 1943). The TAT is a projective measure comprised of a series of pictures to which a client is asked to make up a story describing the events going on in the picture. The test allows the clinician to evaluate the client's thought patterns, attitudes, beliefs, observational capacity, and emotional responses to test stimuli that are ambiguous and unstructured. The TAT pictures consist of scenes that portray human figures in a variety of activities and situations. The subject is asked to tell the examiner a story about each card to include the following elements: the event shown in the picture; what has led up to it; what the characters in the picture are feeling and thinking; and the outcome of the event. The TAT has been administered to individuals in a variety of settings such as clinical assessment, personnel screening, and research in personality. It has been shown to be an effective means of eliciting information about a person's view of the others and his or her attitudes toward the self and expectations of relationships with peers, parents, or other authority figures.

In addition to the development of these specific projective measures to assess personality characteristics, the field of personality assessment was advanced substantially by theoretical views of personality developed during this period. Several psychologists made substantial contributions to theoretical perspectives in personality assessment during the early twentieth century. The theoretical views as to the focus of personality research, that is, nomothetic versus idiographic perspectives, can also be traced back to early twentieth-century research, when studies of traits and temperament were beginning to emerge in sufficient numbers to warrant their being reviewed by Thurstone in 1916 and Allport and Allport in 1921. For example, Allport (1937) pointed out that the movement to define the “psychology of personality” gained considerable momentum after 1920 and prompted extensive but conflicting theories and inconsistent research. Allport can be credited with bringing the issue into sharper focus by clarifying the roughly 50 definitions or descriptions of personality and providing a model for personality assessment. Shortly after Allport's classic work on personality was released, Henry Murray (1938) published another classic work Explorations in Personality , in which he emphasized the use of case studies that described the unique integration of various characteristics within individuals. Both Murray and Allport distinguished between idiographic and nomothetic approaches to the study of people and, in their own way, each argued for an integration of the two. They advocated an approach that would not simply judge a person against others but would contrast a person's unique features with those found in others. Allport and Murray stimulated thinking about the objectives of the psychological study of people and, in effect, created a challenge for those interested in testing or assessment. The idea of assessing personality and psychopathology began to be of greater interest to psychologists, although they often used the two terms interchangeably. And, early on, most attempts to use tests to understand people actually did not include much personality testing, focusing instead on issues of intelligence, aptitude, achievement, and vocational interests.

One of the most significant achievements in personality assessment occurred with the development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in the late 1930s. The research underlying the MMPI was initiated by Hathaway and McKinley, who were critical of the way in which personality inventories had been developed up to that time using rational scale development strategies, that is, by simply guessing as to what items would measure the variable in question. They approached the task with an empirically based method. Initially, they developed a large set of items without determining in advance which items were measuring the clinical problem areas they were interested in studying. They next defined a set of clinical problem areas such as depression, somatization, and schizophrenia by grouping together homogeneous problem cases. They then constructed their scales by determining which items actually empirically differentiated the specific clinical group (such as depressed patients) from a known sample of non-patients or “normals.” The first article on the MMPI was published in 1940 introducing a novel approach to clinical personality assessment (Hathaway & McKinley, 1940 ). The test was published in 1943 by the University of Minnesota. In the 1940s and 1950s, numerous applications of the test were established, including medical assessment and personnel selection, as it became the most widely used personality instrument in psychology with well over 19,000 articles and books published on the MMPI and its successors MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. The MMPI went through a major revision during the 1980s. The first public discussion of the need for an MMPI revision was addressed by a panel of MMPI experts at the Fifth MMPI Symposium on Recent Developments in the Use of the MMPI at Minneapolis in 1969, and a book detailing the need for revising the MMPI was published in 1972 (Butcher, 1972 ). In 1982, the MMPI revision and data collection began after many years of discussion: The MMPI-2 Revision Committee was comprised of James Butcher, John Graham, and W. Grant Dahlstom. Auke Tellegen joined the committee a few years later at the data analysis stage. The MMPI-2 was published in 1989 and the MMPI-A (for adolescents) in 1992 (Butcher, Williams, Graham, & Ben-Porath, 1992 ).

Expansion of Personality Assessment During and Following World War II

The entry of the United States into World War II in 1941 brought with it an important need for psychological services in both the clinical service area and personnel selection. The military services implemented several programs in which tests like the MMPI were used in personnel selection for positions such as pilots and special services personnel (Altus, 1945 ; Blair, 1950 ; Fulkerson, Freud, & Raynor, 1958 ; Jennings, 1949 ; Melton, 1955 ).

Other wartime assessment efforts in the selection of special forces included those of the Office of Strategic Services or OSS, a predecessor to the present Central Intelligence Agency, which performed extensive psychological evaluations on persons who were to be assigned to secret overseas missions during the war. Henry Murray created and supervised the selection process in which over 5,000 candidates were evaluated. The psychologists involved in the program used over a hundred different psychological tests and specially designed procedures to perform the evaluations. The extensive assessment project was described, after their work was declassified when the war ended, in the OSS staff history description provided in the Office of Strategic Services Assessment Staff (1948) . See also the article by Handler 2001 .

Expansion of Personality Inventory Development in the Later Part of the Twentieth Century

After World War II, developments in personality assessment continued at a high rate. Most notably, shortly after the war, Cattell began working on the factor analysis of personality and published the Sixteen Personality Factors (16-PF) based upon a number of factor analyses he conducted on a large item pool of adjectives he used to construct trait names. Cattell's 16-PF included a set of 15 personality trait scales and one scale to assess intelligence which were designed to assess the full range of normal personality functioning (Cattell & Stice, 1957 ). This personality inventory has gained wide acceptance and use in both personnel and research applications.

In 1948, Harrison Gough, who had studied with Hathaway at Minnesota, began work on a set of personality trait scales that would assess personality characteristics in nonclinical populations. The California Psychological Inventory or CPI, published in 1956 (Gough, 1956 ), contained 489 items (over 200 items of which were from the original MMPI). He included an additional group of items to address personality traits that were not addressed by MMPI items. The personality scales for the CPI were grouped into four categories: (1) Poise, (2) Socialization, (3) Achievement Potential, and (4) Intelligence and Interest Modes. The CPI scales were designed to assess a broad range of personality attributes found in “normal” populations and became a standard measure for assessing personality in personnel selection and in conducting psychological research (see discussion by Megargee in Chapter 17 ).

In 1977, Theodore Millon developed the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) (see Millon, 1977 ) to assess personality problems among clients in psychotherapy. Millon based his test development strategy upon his theory of psychopathology (a strategy that is very different from the strict empirical method followed by Hathaway and McKinley with the MMPI). Item development followed a rational strategy and his comparison samples were patients in psychotherapy rather than a “normal” population. The MCMI largely addresses Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) Axis II dimensions of personality rather than symptom disorders on AXIS I of DSM that are addressed by the MMPI.

The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI) was developed by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae to assess personality dimension that had been described as the “Big Five” or Five Factor Model of personality. The NEO was published in 1985 as a measure of the major personality dimensions in normal personality to assess: openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1985 ).

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) was developed by Leslie Morey in 1991. This instrument, similar to the MMPI, was designed to address the major clinical syndromes, such as depression (Morey, 1991 ). The PAI contains item content and scales that are similar to the MMPI and devised to be used in the clinical assessment in a range of settings analogous to the applications of the MMPI.

Computer-Based Personality Assessment

No treatment of the history of personality assessment would be complete without mention of the beginnings of computer-based personality assessment (see discussion in Chapter 10 ). The automated interpretation of personality measures has revolutionized psychological testing. The first psychological test to be used in a computerized assessment program was the MMPI in 1962. A group of mental health professionals (Rome et al., 1962 ) at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, developed the first computer interpretation program to provide personality and symptom information on all patients being evaluated at Mayo. Most personality tests today, even projective tests like the Rorschach, are interpreted by a computer. The contemporary computer interpretation option provides fast, reliable, and effective psychological results for clinical settings and for research (see discussion by Butcher, Perry, and Dean in Chapter 10 ).

Contemporary Approaches and Directions in Personality Assessment

The science and practice of personality assessment have expanded substantially over the past two decades both in terms of developing effective measures and in the extent of annual research on testing (Butcher, 2006 ; Weiner & Greene, 2008 ). The sheer number of research articles and journals (and that number increases by about 300 per year) devoted to personality assessment methods makes the task of keeping updated difficult in more than a few techniques. In fact, many researchers and practitioners tend to narrow their focus and rely exclusively on relatively few techniques in their assessment. Many reasons can be found for the increased rate of research publication and clinical application of personality assessment methods. First, personality assessment devices are often used as criterion measures for psychological research into abnormal behavior and psychological processes. Second, clinical assessment, the activity that accounts for the greatest use of personality tests today, appears to be becoming a more respected and engaging task for clinical practitioners today with diverse applications such as medical screening for bariatric surgery as well as traditional mental health assessment. A third reason for the increased interest in personality assessment can be seen in the broadened acceptance of psychological assessment in forensic settings. Psychological tests are more frequently requested and admitted as evidence in court today than were even a decade ago (Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 2006 ). A fourth reason is that psychological assessment in industrial applications, both for conducting fitness-for-duty evaluations and for personnel screening, has expanded greatly in recent years (Butcher, Ones, & Cullen, 2006 ).

The rapid growth in the field of personality assessment and broad range of techniques available guided us in developing the Oxford Handbook of Personality and Clinical Assessment . New areas of research have emerged in recent years requiring consideration. In developing this volume, we wanted to bring together in a single volume of personality and clinical assessment the important and diverse perspectives on personality assessment to illustrate the broad range of views and methods of study that are prominent in the field today. The task of developing this comprehensive handbook in personality and clinical assessment was made somewhat easier by beginning with a substantial core of topic areas and contributors from an earlier work. We began this volume with a number of contributors/chapters that have been at the core of the Oxford University Press's Handbook of Clinical Assessment published in 1995 and revised in 2002. Several of these chapters have been expanded and updated and serve as a valuable core to the present handbook. In addition, a number of additional topic areas were included in order to make this volume more comprehensive and focused on the contemporary assessment scene. In choosing additional contributors for this expanded handbook, we considered it important to provide comprehensive chapters dealing with crucial issues in the field and to focus on general theoretical perspectives as well as specific assessment techniques. We wanted to illustrate a number of varied and more recent personality assessment approaches. And finally, as is evident throughout this volume, we considered it important to try to maintain a pragmatic focus to the field of personality assessment with practical case examples and to pay attention to issues of diversity with chapters that address diverse populations. Contributors of chapters with an applied focus have been encouraged to present their ideas within a practical framework and provide case examples to illustrate the assessment process.

Human personality is infinitely varied and highly complex. The need to gain a thorough understanding of personality has prompted psychologists to approach the task of assessment through highly diverging avenues. Personality theorists have viewed personality from very different angles and have assayed different “chunks” of what we know as personality in their efforts to understand these complex human characteristics. Differing theories of personality and varying conceptions of how personality is structured have led to rather different assumptions about what data are important in understanding personality. For example, psychodynamic theorists have viewed personality as a complex and intricate system of drives and forces that cannot be understood without extensive personal historical information. The means of understanding the connections between personal history and personality can come from many sources, such as through the individual's response to intentionally ambiguous stimulus material such as the Rorschach inkblots or their response to a highly structured sentence acknowledging a clinical symptom. Other perspectives in personality have been oriented more toward “surface” behaviors. For example, a learning- or behavioral-based viewpoint may not involve such historic assumptions as the psychodynamic view but may rely more on overt, observable behaviors. Most researchers and practitioners are familiar with the “standard” sources of personality information that have been developed to appraise personality today—personality inventories, projective methods, and the clinical interview.

Goals of the Handbook

Our goal in this volume is to provide a broad-based and comprehensive view of the field of personality assessment from its historical roots to the major sources of theoretical stimuli, and the methodological issues defining the field that have led to numerous approaches and applications. This volume will serve as an introductory textbook in psychological assessment for graduate students in clinical and counseling psychology as well as a comprehensive “refresher course” for active professionals in the field. At the offset, we provide an introduction to the major sources of personality-based thought—both genetic and cultural sources of information. We next turn to presenting a framework for personality assessment and examine the methodological and conceptual factors and the psychometric considerations defining the field. We have included a number of chapters that address broad methodological issues and strategies for developing personality assessment appproaches. We also include several chapters that examine the meanings of personality assessment results. In addition, we include a number of topics that deal with issues that can impact findings or require particular attention in understanding to find meaningful results. We have tried to incorporate a broad range of personality assessment procedures and instruments to give the reader a picture of the depth of personality assessment field today. We also address factors related to a number of specific populations that require special attention in conducting personality assessments. We examine traditional clinical personality assessment approaches and include new and expanding avenues of assessment such as behavior genetics, and functional magnetic resonance imagery (fMRI). Finally, we examine several problem areas in clinical personality assessment that require special attention because they present problems or issues that are somewhat different from mental health settings where much of the interpretive lore for clinical personality tests has evolved.

Psychological assessments are undertaken in many different settings and for many different purposes. The same psychological tests might be employed to evaluate clients in forensic settings, for example, to assist the court in determining custody of minor children in family disputes as in mental health settings to determine the nature and extent of psychological problems in pretreatment planning.

In this book, contributions were invited to provide the reader with illustrations of a number of different applications. Authors and topics were selected both to cover as many problem areas as practical. Space limitations, of course, prevent a full exploration of all the areas that might touch on assessment. It is hoped that the topics chosen will illustrate both the diversity and the effectiveness of the assessment techniques involved. In all cases, chapters were invited that would address problem-oriented assessment, and they were written by noted psychologists with substantial expertise in the assessment area in question.

Genetic and Cultural Perspectives

We begin this volume by providing two chapters that orient the readers to major sources of variance in the development of personality and important considerations for developing personality measures to assure relevance for practical assessment. A great deal of personality-based genetic research has unveiled the liklihood that many personality traits—those enduring personality characteristics—are likely to be in part inherited qualities. In Chapter 2 , Susan South, Robert Krueger, and Kristian Markon focus on the genetic factors pertinent to understanding and assessing personality in the light of extensive behavior genetics research today. South, Krueger, and Markon provide a background in behavioral genetics and detail the important influences on personality assessment emanating from this rapidly growing research domain. Their chapter “Behavior genetic perspectives on clinical personality assessment” discusses how twin studies work to provide information on the genetics of personality and summarize the contributions to date for understanding personality. They describe current models for analyzing twin data and give a perspective on fruitful current directions in twin research and the implications of behavior genetics for assessment and classification theory.

However, genetic inheritance is not the whole story in personality development. The culture and family in which a person develops plays a crucial role in personality formulation, The perspective provided by Fanny Cheung addresses this second important source of variance in understanding personality and developing effective personality measures that is referred to as the cultural perspective in personality assessment. In Chapter 3 , Professor Cheung points out that everyone grows up in a unique family and social environment that influences the ways they behave and view the world. She provides a rationale for understanding the well-established social and cultural forces that can form personality functioning along highly different lines. She describes the cultural factors that can impact the process of psychological assessment that need to be taken into consideration in developing or adapting psychological assessment procedures across different social or cultural boundaries. She describes the steps necessary in adapting a personality measure that crosses cultural borders. Describing, for example, adapting personality scales such as the MMPI-2 in China, she provides a perspective on the development of a personality measure specifically for Chinese populations in an effort to reduce the impact of cultural variables in personality.

Methodological and Conceptual Factors and Psychometric Considerations

Personality test results do not always mean what we think they mean at first glance. Under some conditions, test scores may not impart the information that we expect. For example, a given score on a particular scale might not reflect the same level of the measured characteristic in two different samples because the base rates for the characteristic in the two groups are different. Or, the scale might not assess the attributes in question because the test is vulnerable to measurement distortion because individuals in the particular setting may tend to dissimulate: claim extreme problems when they do not have them or deny problems when they do. Several contributors were invited to address the important question of what test scores mean or what test interpretation reflects. We initially focus attention on discussion of a number of methodological issues and perspectives in the development of personality assessment measures. Professors Fritz Drasgow, Oleksandr Chernyshenko, and Stephen Stark have made substantial contributions to our understanding of modern test theory and applications. In Chapter 4 , they provide a solid perspective on test theory and contemporary personality testing. They address a number of important related topics including a discussion of classical test theory and its pertinence for contemporary personality assessment and describe how personality constructs can be translated into measurable personality scales as well as the strategies for developing personality assessment measures (criterion-related or empirical validation, mean difference approach, factor analysis, and item response theory). They also illustrate how these methods perform in scale development. Their chapter provides an insightful perspective on test construction and test evaluation strategies in psychological assessment today. In the subsequent chapter, Chapter 5 , Gregory Smith and Tamika Zapolski provide a viewpoint on the importance of demonstrating construct validity for measures of personality. In the past, Dr. Smith has contributed substantially to a contemporary understanding of this important area of thought and has generated a revival of thinking about the importance of construct validity in personality assessment. In this chapter, he and Zapolski provide an extensive description and analysis of construct validity by examining the historical basis and theoretical facets of the concept and the relationships between construct validity and other identified approaches (e.g., content validity). They detail how the construct validity model operates and provides clear illustrations of how this important validational effort can be approached and describes how researchers can incorporate material on the various means of assuring construct validity.

Having agreed upon standards by which personality test procedures can be developed and evaluated is important to a scientific field in order to assure high quality of measurement. The chapter by Kurt Geisinger and Janet Carlson (Chapter 6 ) addresses the importance of standards and norms in interpreting psychological test scores. This chapter describes the importance of maintaining instrument integrity in a sound research context and describes issues that can occur when traditional and well-established standards are set aside or ignored in favor of other goals. Geisinger and Carlson provide an important perspective on standards and standardization in personality measurement development. They discuss test standardization issues and focus upon the importance of test administration factors in assessment. The authors also highlight the importance of considering differences that can emerge and accomodations that might be required in the testing of minority clients and those with disabilities. Over time, psychological assessment procedures that have been established as standards in the field for measuring aspects of personality begin to show their age or become targeted for some reason for change. After a personality inventory has become a widely used one over a number of years, its limitations may begin to be recognized and efforts to modify or surpass the existing scales with new or modified measures emerge. Are there important factors that need to be considered if standard measurement instruments or tests become altered? In Chapter 7 , entitled “Changing or replacing an established standard: Issues, goals, and problem,” Michelle Ranson, David Nichols, Steven Rouse, and Jennifer Harrington address these factors and discuss the issues involved in developing test revisions or modifications of instruments that have become widely used standards. They consider several factors: ethical standards, when should a measure be revised, goals for the revised measure, pragmatic concerns for widely used procedures, challenges for self-report inventories, challenges for free-response measures. They also provide a case study, viz. the MMPI by describing the MMPI-2 restandardization project and some recent changes being developed for the instrument to highlight the importance of assuring continuity to the applied psychological assessment base.

An important issue in personality assessment and prediction of behavior involves the accuracy of the assessment procedure. It is important for practitioners to consider the relative frequency of phenomena (base rates) in particular settings in order to interpret psychological test scores appropriately. One factor that influences the power of an instrument to predict behavior is the base rate of the occurrence of the phenomenon in the population. Stephen Finn, in Chapter 8 , “Incorporating base rate information in daily clinical decision making,” addresses this important issue. Base rates are defined for specified populations and are restricted to them. Thus, a base rate is the a priori chance or prior odds that a member of a specified population will have a certain characteristic, if we know nothing else about this person other than that he or she is a member of the population we are examining. Base rates have important implications for a wide variety of issues in clinical practice. Although rarely acknowledged, base rates affect the prediction of behaviors (e.g., suicide), the interpretation of test data (e.g., MMPI-2 scores), and the making of diagnostic decisions.

Predicting phenomena with low base rates is difficult. In general, it is easier to increase predictive accuracy when the events to be predicted are moderately likely to occur (i.e., occur with a probability close to 50%) than when the events are unlikely to occur. Much improvement in clinical decision making can be accomplished if each of us remembered to think about base rates every time we made a clinical hypothesis. The chapter by Finn provides clear strategies for incorporating base rate information in the prediction process.

Personality assessment has been substantially advanced by theoretical conceptualization of the variables that comprise personality. The view that personality is comprised of definable factors such as personality traits (see the classical work of Allport) has made developing personality-based measures an easier task. Allan Harkness in Chapter 9 , “Theory and measurement of personality traits,” provides a contemporary perspective on the importance of traits in personality assessment. Harkness discusses individual differences in traits and describes the “traits versus states” debate in the search for explanatory concepts in personality assessment. He examines factors that create, develop, and maintain traits and he explores the causal source of personality variance. As an illustration, he describes the development of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 Scales and illustrates their use for assessing personality dimensions.

Computer-based test interpretation of psychological tests has a long history dating back to 1962 when psychologists at the Mayo Clinical developed the first MMPI interpretation program. In contemporary assessment psychology today, many instruments provide computer-derived reports. The extent of this medium of interpretation will be explored in Chapter 10 , “Computer-based interpretation of personality scales,” by James Butcher, Julia Perry, and Brooke Dean. The authors describe the issues involved in providing computer-based personality tests and discuss the professional guidelines for offering computer testing services presented. Research on the adequacy of widely used computer testing resources will be summarized.

Personality Assessment Procedures and Instruments

We next turn to an exploration of a number of personality assessment procedures and instruments that are widely used in contemporary personality assessment. We begin with a discussion of behavioral observation by Martin Leichtman in Chapter 11 who introduces the reader to topics such as the rationale and nature of the behavioral observation process and important facets for developing the standardized interview. He provides an insightful perspective on understanding behavioral observations and the personality inference process and means of incorporating descriptions from different sources of data. Throughout the process he underscores the value of subjectivity in the integration of “behavioral observations” in psychological reports and to maintaining the consumer rights and the importance of developing “humane” psychological reports. The clinical interview is the oldest and most widely used assessment procedure for obtaining assessment information in use today. The contribution by Robert Craig, in Chapter 12 , provides an important overview of the use of this assessment strategy describing both the values and limitations of this approach. The widespread use and demonstrated effectiveness of behavioral therapy in contemporary clinical psychology is prefaced upon having a clear assessment of the problems in question. Sound behavioral assessment is a key ingredient to therapeutic success. Stephen Haynes, Dawn Yoshioka, Karen Kloezeman, and Iruma Bello in Chapter 13 provide an excellent introduction and exploration of behavioral assessment strategies in clinical assessment.

One of the oldest and still most widely used personality assessment instrument around the world today is the MMPI (MMPI-2 and MMPI-A). Chapter 14 , by Andrew Cox, Nathan Weed, and James Butcher, addresses the history, interpretation, and clinical issues to provide an introductory overview of the use of the MMPI-2 in clinical assessment. The chapter includes exhibits illustrating historical developments and summarizing MMPI-2 measures and contain, up-to-date references and resources for readers interested in a more thorough treatment. The traditional MMPI-2 clinical, content, and supplemental scales are described and strategies for interpretation are provided. Some newer measures, such as the PSY-5 and Restructured Clinical scales, are also described. Clinical issues in the use of the MMPI-2 such as using the MMPI-2 with minority populations and international settings are described. In addition, some procedures that have produced less effective results, such as MMPI short forms, are noted.

No handbook on personality assessment would be complete without a section describing the utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Weiner and Meyer provide a contemporary perspective on a major approach in clinical assessment that has a tradition dating to the early twentieth century (see Weiner & Greene, 2008 )—the projective method. This chapter (Chapter 15 ), “Personality assessment with the Rorschach,” is contributed by two of the most prominent Rorschach experts in the psychological assessment field—Irving Weiner and Gregory Meyer. This approach holds the view that clients disclose intimate and powerful descriptions of themselves through their interpretations of ambiguous stimuli, inkblots. The use of the Rorschach in personality assessment has had a strong following in both research and clinical application; the Rorschach method is one of the most widely researched and applied assessment strategies (Butcher & Rouse, 1996 ) and has been one of the most intriguing and widely researched personality assessment procedures in the field since the early twentieth century. The authors deal with important topics: “Is Rorschach assessment psychometrically sound?,” “Does Rorschach assessment serve useful purposes?,” “Is Rorschach assessment being widely taught, studied, and practiced?,” “Can Rorschach assessment be applied cross-culturally?”

Two instruments that were designed to address personality characteristics in a broad range of normal populations are the NEO PI and the CPI. The view that personality can be summarized as five major dimensions or traits has been widely explored in contemporary personality assessment. Paul Costa and Robert McCrae, in Chapter 16 , provide an introduction, theoretical basis, and interpretive strategies for the most widely used five-factor model instrument—the NEO PI. One of the most widely used measures in personality assessment is the CPI published by Harrison Gough (1956) . This instrument is described in Chapter 17 by Edwin Megargee who had studied with Gough and later wrote a widely used textbook on the test. Megargee shares his updated perspective on the CPI in contemporary psychology and provides some key interpretive strategies for the measure.

One of the most difficult and evolving areas in the personality assessment field involves assessing personality disorders. Thomas Widiger and Sara Boyd, in Chapter 18 , bring this important research and clinical area into clear focus by both presenting a theoretical perspective on the diagnosis of personality disorder and surveying the assessment instruments that make this task easier. They describe semistructured interviews based upon DSM-IV Personality Disorder Interviews as well as surveying a number of self-report inventories such as the PAI, MCMI-III, MMPI-2, and Hare Checklist. They provide a solid perspective on the issues to that need to be considered in the assessment of personality disorders including gender, culture, and ethnicity.

New psychophysiologic approaches to personality have emerged in recent years to assess personality factors or problems. Research on magnetic brain imaging has been increasing at a very rapid pace over the past 10 years. There have been numerous studies published on using fMRI to explore and identify brain processes underlying mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, and to improve the evaluation of these conditions. We have included in this handbook a chapter that addresses the emerging fMRI assessment field, entitled “Functional imaging in clinical assessment? The rise of neurodiagnostic imaging with the fMRI” (Chapter 19 ), by Professors Angus MacDonald, III, and Jessica Hurdelbrink. The chapter includes a description of the use of fMRI in assessing psychiatric disorders and provides an up-to-date survey of the important findings in the area. A great deal of research effort is being devoted to the psychobiology of abnormal behavior today. MacDonald and Hurdelbrink address a new, but rapidly expanding, area of assessment research and its potential in providing unique information in understanding clinical problems.

Specific Populations

By its very nature the field of personality assessment is concerned with individual differences and is enveloped in human diversity. To understand the behavior and personality of individuals, it is imperative that many “status” variables be given careful consideration. Background factors such as age, gender, and ethnicity are important, since personality is in many respects influenced by the environment or groups to which a person belongs. People may share certain characteristics of groups with which they are affiliated. In the assessment of individuals it is important to consider influences that may come from belonging to a group that has been treated differently by our social institutions than others have. Being a member of an ethnic minority group in the United States places a person at considerable risk for discrimination and diminished opportunity. Those who are cast in less dominant societal roles by fact of birth may be at risk for developing problems or adjustment difficulties that are not shared by the majority classes. To fully explore the potential problems associated with being a minority group member in contemporary society, several contributors were asked to provide different perspectives on issues involved in the psychological assessment of minority clients. We begin our discussion in Chapter 20 with an article entitled “Clinical personality assessment with Asian Americans.” Sumie Okazaki, Mimi Okazaki, and Stanley Sue contribute an informative discussion of possible factors involved in the assessment of ethnic Asian minorities that need to be considered in cross-ethnic psychological evaluations. Their work with Asian-American clients has made a substantial contribution to clinical as well as to cross-cultural psychology. In this article they provide information on the demographics of the population and a description of the recent literature on research with Asian-American populations. They describe the problem of the imposed-etic perspective in studies involving Asian-American populations. They also describe studies with overseas Asian populations and provide a critique of imposed-etic studies and provide a discussion of the alternate approach—the indigenous or emic perspective. They conclude with a framework and guidelines for conducting assessments with Asian-Americans. Professor Bernadette Gray-Little, in her chapter entitled “The assessment of psychopathology in racial and ethnic minorities” (Chapter 21 ), addresses factors to consider in conducting psychological evaluations on African-American clients. She describes the factors that are important in the clinical interview pertinent to understanding bias and social distance that can impact an evaluation. She examines racial and ethnic variations that can occur in symptoms of distress and addresses potential factors to consider in employing psychological tests such as the MMPI-2, the MCMI, the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the TAT, and other projective instruments.

This handbook also addresses several populations requiring the assessment psychologist to consider population-specific factors in dealing effectively with potential differences in personality assessment. Women may experience situations or activities differently because of the roles in which they may have been cast and in their lack of access to equal opportunities in society. In Chapter 22 , “Issues in clinical assessment with women,” Judith Worell and Damon Robinson provide valuable insights into understanding specific factors in assessment of women. They include factors related to the purposes of the assessment that is being undertaken and deals with issues related to possible gender bias in the measurement, for example, factors such as sex of clinician, psychiatric diagnosis with women, specific diagnosis and criteria, and clinical decisions. They provide a framework on contextual assessment for women and importance of screening for sexual and physical abuse. They also describe some barriers to screening as well as the need for assessing strength and well-being.

There are other important individual difference variables that require careful consideration in personality evaluation. The chapter entitled “Use of the MMPI-2 in Neuropsychological Evaluations” (Chapter 23 ) by Dr Carlton Gass provides information that will assist psychologists and neuropsychologists in their work with individuals who have known, suspected, or questionable brain damage. Gass describes the distinctive aspects of the MMPI-2 in neuropsychological settings and how this instrument can contribute to significant understanding of behavior and symptoms presented by neuropsychological patients. He describes special interpretive issues in neuropsychological settings including issues in diagnosing brain dysfunction, localizing brain lesions, and diagnosing neuropsychological deficits while controlling for neurological symptom reporting. He provides insights into procedures for incorporating MMPI-2 results in neuropsychological reports and factors to attend to in addressing the referral question.

Factors occurring in another subgroup of the population—couples undergoing emotional distress—require special considerations. In Chapter 24 , Professors Douglas Snyder, Richard Heyman, and Stephen N. Haynes bring the pertinent issues related to marital problems into focus in their chapter entitled “Assessing couples.” They begin with a discussion of important issues involved in conceptualizing couple relationship distress and explore the paramaters of couple distress. Next they focus upon the prevalence and comorbid conditions in couple distress and examine the etiological considerations and describe the implications for assessment. The authors devote a substantial portion of their discussion to assessment for issues involved in case conceptualization and treatment planning from a behavioral perspective. They also include appropriate considerations of cultural differences in couple distress. Finally they discuss effective assessment strategies and specific techniques for evaluating couple distress and the importance of monitoring progress in therapy and evaluating treatment outcome. In Chapter 25 , Edward Cumella and Jennifer Lafferty provide an overview of adolescent assessment based upon the most widely used adolescent test, the MMPI-A. This chapter, “Assessing adolescents with the MMPI-A” provides an overview of special issues in the clinical assessment of adolescents and a historical introduction of the use of the MMPI in assessment of adolescents, and discusses the revision of the original instrument and publication of the MMPI for adolescents, the MMPI-A. The chapter focuses upon the use of the MMPI-A for assessing adolescents. A case example of an adolescent client will be provided and the MMPI-A performance highlighted. The use of the MMPI-A in providing test feedback to adolescents is described.

Specific Settings and Problems

In this section, we examine psychological assessment in a number of problem areas and explore their operation in different settings. In Chapter 26 , Ronald Stolberg and Bruce Bongar discuss the problems and issues involved in assessment of suicide risk—an important and sometimes urgent task for a practitioner to address. They describe the recent empirical evidence on risk assessment practices and explore how risk factors are assessed through a number of psychological tests such as the Rorschach Inkblot Technique, the MMPI-2, the 16-PF, the MCMI, the MCMI-II, the TAT, the Bender Gestalt, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS). They discuss issues involved in the assessment of suicidal ideation, intent, and behavior and describe in depth assessing suicide through structured interviews and a psychological battery and discuss the limitations of theoretical orientation and DSM-IV and diagnostic formulation.

One of the most frequent psychological adjustment problems in society today involves the use and misuse of alcohol and drugs. In many instances, persons who are being seen in mental health or medical settings for problems other than substance abuse also have a hidden problem with addictive substances. Consequently, psychologists frequently find themselves involved in the determination of potential substance abuse in addition to whatever other problems clients are reporting. Because of the importance of substance abuse assessment problems in many settings, Joseph Banken and Roger Greene (Chapter 27 ) in “Use of self-report measures in assessing alcohol and drug abuse” address objective assessment strategies for detecting and appraising alcohol and drug problems. Banken and Greene describe the overall considerations important to conducting an effective substance abuse evaluation and the process of screening for substance abuse. They discuss several traditional personality scales that have been widely used to identify alcohol or drug problems such as the MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale (MAC-R) and the Addiction Admission and Addiction Potential Scales (MMPI-2), scales b and t on the MCMI/ MCMI-II. In addition, they describe additional screening scales such as the Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI). The authors also provide a discussion on the timing of psychological assessment and the role of objective psychological tests traditionally used in alcohol or drug treatment programs.

Edwin I. Megargee, in Chapter 28 , entitled “Understanding and assessing aggression and violence,” discusses the issues pertinent to defining and understanding these problems in society. Dr. Megargee discusses the factors leading to aggressive behavior and violence and provides an overview of contemporary methods being used to assess and predict aggressive behavior and violence. He describes the types of assessments and deals with referral questions and assessment contexts such as not guilty by reason of insanity defense, treatment planning, and needs assessments. He details useful information on assessment tools and techniques that are effective for retrospective and prospective predictions. In his chapter, he provides an overview of violent crimes—assault and murder, domestic violence, forcible rape and sexual battery, kidnapping and hostage taking, arson, bombing, and terrorism—and describes the types of violent offenders delineated in the literature. He also highlights a conceptual framework for the analysis of aggression and violence including his “algebra of aggression” for predicting violence. He describes some personal factors that decrease the likelihood of aggression and discusses situational factors influencing the likelihood of aggression. In a related chapter (Chapter 29 ), “Assessing antisocial and psychopathic personalities,” Carl Gacono and Reid Meloy provide a comprehensive treatment on the assessment of antisocial personality disorder. They begin with a discussion of forensic assessment and issues, and then provide a thorough overview of our knowledge of the personality disorder and a discussion of the relevant research findings on the use of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, the Rorschach, and the MMPI-2. They also include an overview of various measures of cognition and intelligence and their relevance to understanding antisocial personality.

The next chapter in the handbook provides an example of personality assessment in a nonclinical context, personnel selection. Chapter 30 , “Clinical personality assessment in the employment context,” by Butcher, Gucker, and Hellervik provides an overview of the use of personality measurement techniques in employment applications. Major goals of the chapter include the following areas of emphasis. First a rationale for the inclusion of clinical personality assessment measures in personnel decisions such as employment screening, fitness for duty evaluations, and reliability screenings for making recommendations for promotion to responsible positions or for the issuance of security clearances for sensitive applications will be provided. The history of personnel assessment is highlighted. A number of contemporary issues pertaining to clinical personnel screening will be presented. Next, a historical summary of the use of the most widely used personality measure, the MMPI-2, will be presented along with a strategy for the interpreting instruments used in employment settings. The chapter will include several practical examples of clinically based assessments in employment settings. The target audience for the article is professionals who are using personality assessment measures in these industrial-organizational (I-O) settings or are considering a career as an assessment practitioner in business/industrial settings. The strategy of interpreting psychological measures in personnel selection is illustrated with a case example. The article includes descriptive information on the most widely used measure (the MMPI-2) and contains up-to-date references and resources that interested readers wishing more thorough information can follow up on.

We next turn to a guide for the care and effective documentation of psychological test results. Regardless of one&s basic approach to personality assessment, careful accumulation and analysis of information are important considerations in any psychological assessment. In this regard, the discussion by Irving Weiner (Chapter 31 ) provides the practitioner with important background information and a clear rationale for employing meticulous safeguards in conducting personality evaluations in order to avoid potential legal or ethical problems. Weiner, who has made substantial contributions to the field of personality assessment, provides a valuable overview of the issues and guidelines for practitioners in his chapter entitled “Anticipating ethical and legal challenges in personality assessment.” In this chapter, he discusses topics such as accepting a referral, selecting the test battery for conducting the psychological evaluation, how to prepare and present a report, and factors important to managing case records in an assessment practice.

No treatment of clinical assessment would be complete without a chapter on the validity of psychological tests. This volume includes an important discussion about malingering on psychological tests by David Berry and his colleagues that highlights the importance of incorporating validity scales in any personality assessment evaluation in order to assure the credibility of the assessment. In Chapter 32 , entitled “Assessment of feigned psychological symptoms,” Berry and his colleagues provide an up-to-date summary and overview of research related to the credibility of the client's responses in a personality assessment. They discuss important topics such as the criteria for malingering, methodological issues in the research on malingering, the problem of base rates, and issues related to coaching to appear in particular ways on psychological tests. The authors provide a substantial research literature supporting their suggested strategy for clinical practice and assessment of malingering. They describe malingering indices on multiscale inventories and provide examples of malingering assessment using instruments such as the MMPI-2, the MCMI-III, the NEO PI-R, and the PAI as well as specific malingering measures such as the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS), the Structured Inventory of Reported Symptoms (SIRS), and the M Test.

One of the most essential clinical tasks that practitioners are asked to perform in many clinical settings is that of conducting pretreatment planning evaluations—an activity that is often given less attention than it deserves in contemporary clinical practice. In their chapter (Chapter 33 ), entitled “Assessment of clients in pretreatment planning,” Mark Harwood and Larry Beutler explore a number of key issues concerning this major goal of psychological assessment and provide important new insights into personality assessment in pretreatment planning. Harwood and Beutler describe a problem-solving approach in pretreatment planning that is both practical and effective. In their chapter, they focus upon important considerations in treatment planning such as subjective distress and arousal. They describe the patient's predisposition, diagnostic problems, and state variables that are important to their symptomatic picture. They also highlight the need to understand the patient expectations about treatment and the impact of the particular treatment variables inherent in the setting. An important consideration for treatment success includes factors such as important relationship variables and their impact on treatment strategies. Following this, in Chapter 34 , entitled “Assessment of treatment resistance via questionnaire,” Julia Perry provides further thought about assessing personality factors in treatment planning. She focuses attention upon the concept of “resistance” and examines how resistance to undertaking psychological treatment can be assessed by objective personality measures. She describes the utility of the MMPI-2 and the Butcher Treatment Planning Inventory (BTPI).

Raymond Ownby in Chapter 35 , devoted to writing clinical reports, involves the importance of viewing, summarizing, and communicating the conclusions about a patient's problem areas and personality functioning. The chapter addresses the important area of client description and developing case material in clinical reports. Issues pertinent to the practitioner's responsibility in presenting patient material are addressed and safeguards for protecting clients are described. The chapter addresses the important features of a client's interview, behavior, history, and psychological test data to be included in a forensic assessment report. He describes and provides an outline for the most pertinent case features to be included in a report and provides a case example and keys to important resources and guidelines for practitioners to follow in developing forensic reports. The related Chapter 36 , “How to use computer-based reports” by James Butcher, discusses how the task of report writing and communicating personality test information can be enhanced by use of computer technology. Many practitioners use one or more computer-derived personality test interpretation programs in developing their personality assessment study of clients (see Atlis, Hahn, and Butcher (2006) for an extensive introduction to computer-based assessments). In this chapter, the clinical use of computerized exports is illustrated and cautions concerning their use provided. The value of using computer-based psychological test interpretations in developing clinical conclusions is addressed. The types of computer scorings and interpretation services are described. Several new approaches to computer-based testing are described, including computer adaptive results and Internet-based test applications. The clinical use of a computerized MMPI-2 report is illustrated and the task of providing test feedback to clients is described.

When an editor invites authors to contribute chapters to a compendium such as this, it is somewhat analogous to working a complex puzzle. Each of the component parts must mesh together to form an integrated picture. At the beginning of this project the contributions appearing here were sought to fill an important niche in the overall plan. The vastness of the field of personality assessment today does not permit all noted authorities and all perspectives to be equally represented. Some selectivity was required given the limitations of space. The reader will, of course, be the final judge as to how the many parts blend into an integral picture. As for me, I believe that the final pieces matched the initial plan quite well. A primary goal of this volume was to provide a practical and comprehensive overview of the field of personality assessment. I believe that the contributions included here provide the reader with a substantial compendium of assessment resources with diverse and interesting elements. I hope that clinicians and clinicians-in-training who are new to the field of personality assessment will be tantalized by the views and strategies presented here and will travel these paths further when this book is set aside.

Perpetuation of valuable scholarly resources for a scientific discipline is an important goal of this volume to help maintain valuable standards while at the same time incorporating new developments in the field. Following the general plan of the Oxford Handbook Series, this volume ends with a chapter, “Personality assessment: Overview and future directions” (Chapter 37 ), by the volume editor. An overview of the status of personality assessment as described in the contributions to this handbook will be provided and the significant contributions to future development will be summarized. Some lingering challenges to the field of personality assessment will be highlighted. Discussion is provided to highlight significant assessment trends and projections about new directions for research.

Index of Assessment Procedures

A great variety of personality assessment instruments and procedures are discussed in this volume. Because it is unlikely that readers are familiar with all of them, contributors were asked to provide a brief description of the tests they discuss in their chapter. These assessment procedures have been summarized and are described in an appendix.

Allport, G. W. ( 1937 ). Personality: A psychological interpretation . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Allport, F. H., & Allport, G. W. ( 1921 ). Personality traits: Their classification and measurement.   The Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 16, 6–40.

Altus, W. D. ( 1945 ). The adjustment of army illiterates.   Psychological Bulletin, 42, 461–476.

Atlis, M. M., Hahn, J. , & Butcher, J. N. ( 2006 ). Computer-based assessment with the MMPI-2. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practioner's handbook (pp. 445–476). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beck, S. J. ( 1938 ). Personality structure in schizophrenia: A Rorschach investigation in 81 patients and 64 controls.   Nervous and Mental Disorders Monograph Series, 63, ix–88.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. ( 1991 ). The historical development of personality assessment. In C. E. Walker (Ed.), Clinical psychology: Historical and research roots (pp. 121–156). New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Bernreuter, R. G. ( 1931 ). The personality inventory . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bernreuter, R. G. ( 1933 ). The theory and construction of the personality inventory.   Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 387–405.

Blair, W. R. N. ( 1950 ). A comparative study of disciplinary offenders and non-offenders in the Canadian Army, 1948.   Canadian Journal of Psychology, 4, 49–62.

Boring, E. G. ( 1950 ). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Buss, D. M. ( 1984 ). Toward a psychology of person-environment (PE) correlation: The role of spouse selection.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 361–377.

Butcher, J. N. (Ed.). ( 1972 ). Objective personality assessment: Changing perspectives . New York: Academic Press.

Butcher, J. N. ( 2006 ). Assessment in clinical psychology: A perspective on the past, present challenges, and future prospects.   Clinical Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(3), 205–209.

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A. M., & Kaemmer, B. ( 1989 ). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J. N., Ones, D. S., & Cullen, M. ( 2006 ). Personnel screening with the MMPI-2. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practioner's handbook (pp. 381–406). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Butcher, J. N., & Rouse, S. V. ( 1996 ). Personality: Individual differences and clinical assessment.   Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 87–111.

Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., et al. ( 1992 ). MMPI-A manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Archer, R. P., et al. ( 1992 ). Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents: MMPI-A . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Cattell, R. B., & Stice, G. E. ( 1957 ). The sixteen personality factors questionnaire . Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. E. ( 1985 ). The NEO Personality Inventory manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Services.

DuBois, P. L. ( 1970 ). A history of psychological testing . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Exner, J. E., Jr. ( 1983 ). The Exner report for the Rorschach Comprehensive System . Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Frank, L. K. ( 1939 ). Projective methods for the study of personality.   Journal of Psychology, 8, 543–557.

Fulkerson, S. C., Freud, S. L., & Raynor, G. H. ( 1958 ). The use of the MMPI in the psychological evaluation of pilots.   Journal of Aviation Medicine, 29, 122–129.

Galton, F. ( 1879 ). Psychometric experiments.   Brain, 2, 179–185.

Galton, F. ( 1884 ). Measurement of character.   Fortnightly Review, 42, 179–185.

Gough, H. G. ( 1956 ). California Psychological Inventory . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Handler, L. ( 2001 ). Assessment of men: Personality assessment goes to war by the Office of Strategic Services assessment staff.   Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 558–578.

Hathaway, S. R. ( 1965 ). Personality inventories. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.). Handbook of clinical psychology (pp. 451–476). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. ( 1940 ). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule.   Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254.

Hertz, M. R. ( 1938 ). Scoring the Rorschach test with specific reference to “normal detail” category.   American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 8, 100–121.

Heymans, G., & Wiersma, E. ( 1906 ). Beitrage zur spezillen psychologie auf grund einer massenunterschung.   Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie, 43, 81–127.

Jennings, L. S. ( 1949 ). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: Differentiation of psychologically good and poor combat risks among flying personnel.   Journal of Aviation Medicine, 19, 222–226.

Klopfer, B., & Tallman, G. ( 1938 ). A further Rorschach study of Mr. A.   Rorschach Research Exchange, 3, 31–36.

Melton, R. S. ( 1955 ). Studies in the evaluation of the personality characteristics of successful naval aviators.   Journal of Aviation Medicine, 25, 600–604.

Millon, T. ( 1977 ) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Personality Inventory (MCMI) . Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Morey, L. C. ( 1991 ). The Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Murray, H. A. ( 1938 ). Explorations in personality . New York: Oxford University Press.

Murray, H. A. ( 1943 ). Manual for the Thematic Appreciation Test . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Office of Strategic Services Assessment Staff ( 1948 ). Assessment of men . New York: Rinehart.

Pope, K., Butcher. J., & Seelen, J. ( 2006 ). The MMPI/MMPI-2/ MMPI-A in court: Assessment, testimony, and cross-examination for expert witnesses and attorneys (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rome, H. P., Swenson, W. M., Mataya, P., McCarthy, C. E., Pearson, J. S., Keating, F. R., et al. ( 1962 ). Symposium on automation techniques in personality assessment.   Proceedings of the Staff Meeting of the Mayo Clinic, 37, 61–82.

Rorschach, H. ( 1921 ). Psychodiagnostik . Bern: Hans Huber.

Thurstone, L. O. ( 1916 ). Character and temperament.   Psychological Bulletin, 13, 384–388.

Weiner, I. B., & Greene, R. L. ( 2008 ). Handbook of personality assessment. New York: Wiley.

Whipple, G. M. ( 1910 ). Manual of mental and physical tests. Baltimore, MD: Warwick & York.

Woodworth, R. S. ( 1919 ). Examination of emotional fitness for war.   Psychological Bulletin, 15, 59–60.

Woodworth, R. S. ( 1920 ). Personal data sheet . Chicago: Stoelting.

Woodworth, R. S., & Matthews, E. ( 1924 ). Personal data sheet (children and adolescent) . Chicago: Stoelting.

  • About Oxford Academic
  • Publish journals with us
  • University press partners
  • What we publish
  • New features  
  • Open access
  • Institutional account management
  • Rights and permissions
  • Get help with access
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Media enquiries
  • Oxford University Press
  • Oxford Languages
  • University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

  • Bipolar Disorder
  • Therapy Center
  • When To See a Therapist
  • Types of Therapy
  • Best Online Therapy
  • Best Couples Therapy
  • Best Family Therapy
  • Managing Stress
  • Sleep and Dreaming
  • Understanding Emotions
  • Self-Improvement
  • Healthy Relationships
  • Student Resources
  • Personality Types
  • Verywell Mind Insights
  • 2023 Verywell Mind 25
  • Mental Health in the Classroom
  • Editorial Process
  • Meet Our Review Board
  • Crisis Support

A Historical Timeline of Modern Psychology

A brief look at the people and events that shaped modern psychology

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

The history of modern psychology spans centuries, with the earliest known mention of clinical depression appearing in 1500 BCE on an ancient Egyptian manuscript known as the Ebers Papyrus. However, it wasn't until the 11th century that Persian physician Avicenna made a connection between emotions and physical responses in a practice dubbed "physiological psychology."

Understanding the history of modern psychology provides insight into how this field has developed and evolved over time. It also gives a better understanding of the thought processes of some of the most influential figures in the field, ultimately emerging into psychology as we know it today.

The Birth of Modern Psychology

Some say that modern psychology was born in the 18th century, which is largely due to William Battie's "Treatise on Madness," published in 1758. Others consider the mid-19th century experiments conducted in Hermann von Helmholtz's lab to be the origin of modern psychology .

Still others suggest that modern psychology began in 1879 when Wilhelm Wundt—also known as the father of modern psychology —established the first experimental psychology lab . From that moment forward, the study of psychology would evolve, as it still does today.

Important Events in the History of Modern Psychology

A number of important, landmark events highlight psychology's transformation throughout the years.

19th Century

In the 19th century, psychology was established as an empirical, accepted science. While measures would change, the model of research and evaluation would begin to take shape within this 100-year time span.

  • 1869 : Sir Francis Galton establishes statistical techniques to better understand the relationship between variables such as intelligence and personality in heredity studies.
  • 1878 : G. Stanley Hall becomes the first American to earn a Ph.D. in psychology.
  • 1879 : Wilhelm Wundt establishes the first experimental psychology lab in Leipzig, Germany dedicated to the study of the mind.
  • 1883 : G. Stanley Hall opens the first experimental psychology lab in the U.S. at Johns Hopkins University.
  • 1885 : Herman Ebbinghaus publishes his seminal "Über das Gedächtnis" ("On Memory"), in which he describes learning and memory experiments he conducted on himself.
  • 1886 : Sigmund Freud begins offering talk therapy known as psychoanalysis to patients in Vienna, Austria.
  • 1888 : James McKeen Cattell becomes the first professor of psychology in the United States at the University of Pennsylvania. He would later publish "Mental Tests and Measurements," marking the advent of psychological assessment.
  • 1890 : William James publishes "Principles of Psychology," one of the most influential texts in the field of psychology.
  • 1892 : G. Stanley Hall forms the American Psychological Association (APA), enlisting 26 members in the first meeting.
  • 1896 : Lightner Witmer establishes the first psychology clinic in America and establishes guidelines for training future clinical psychologists.
  • 1898 : Edward Thorndike develops the Law of Effect , explaining how behavior is learned.

1900 to 1950

The first half of the 20th century was dominated by two major figures: Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. During this segment of modern psychology's history, these two theorists established the foundation of analysis, including Freud's examination of the unconscious processes and psychopathology and Jung's analytic psychology.

  • 1900 : Sigmund Freud publishes his landmark book, " Interpretation of Dreams ."
  • 1901 : The British Psychological Society is established.
  • 1905 : Mary Whiton Calkins is elected the first woman president of the American Psychological Association. Alfred Binet introduces the intelligence test .
  • 1906 : Ivan Pavlov publishes his findings on classical conditioning . Carl Jung publishes "The Psychology of Dementia Praecox ."
  • 1911 : Edward Thorndike publishes "Animal Intelligence," which leads to the development of the theory of operant conditioning .
  • 1912 : Max Wertheimer publishes "Experimental Studies of the Perception of Movement," which leads to the development of Gestalt psychology .
  • 1913 : Carl Jung begins to depart from Freudian views and develop his own theories, which he refers to as analytical psychology. John B. Watson publishes "Psychology As the Behaviorist Views It," in which he establishes the concept of behaviorism.
  • 1915 : Freud publishes work on repression .
  • 1920 : Watson and Rosalie Rayner publish research on the classical conditioning of fear, highlighting the subject of their experiment, Little Albert .
  • 1932 : Jean Piaget becomes the foremost cognitive developmental theorist with the publication of his work "The Moral Judgment of the Child."
  • 1935 : B.F. Skinner known for his "radical behaviorism" further develops the theory of operant conditioning and researches varying schedules of reinforcement that influence the acquisition and extinction of behaviors.
  • 1942 : Carl Rogers develops the practice of client-centered therapy , which encourages respect and positive regard for patients.

1950 to 2000

The latter half of the 20th century centered around the standardization of diagnostic criteria for mental illness. The hallmark of this process was the publication of the American Psychological Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) . This foundational tool is still in use in modern psychology and helps direct diagnosis and treatment.

  • 1952 : The first "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" is published.
  • 1954 : Abraham Maslow publishes "Motivation and Personality," describing his theory of a hierarchy of needs . Maslow is one of the founders of humanistic psychology.
  • 1958 : Harry Harlow publishes " The Nature of Love ," which describes the importance of attachment and love in rhesus monkeys.
  • 1961 : Albert Bandura conducts his now-famous Bobo doll experiment , in which child behavior is described as a construct of observation, imitation, and modeling.
  • 1963 : Bandura first describes the concept of observational learning to explain aggression.
  • 1967 : Ulric Neisser introduces the term cognitive psychology . Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck establish a new form of talk therapy known as cognitive therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy was soon to follow.
  • 1968 : The DSM-II is published.
  • 1974 : Stanley Milgram publishes "Obedience to Authority," which describes the findings of his famous obedience experiments .
  • 1980 : The DSM-III is published.
  • 1990 : Noam Chomsky publishes "On the Nature, Use, and Acquisition of Language."
  • 1991 : Steven Pinker publishes an article introducing his theories as to how children acquire language , which he later publishes in the book "The Language Instinct."
  • 1994 : The DSM-IV is published.

21st Century

With the advent of genetic science, psychologists began grappling with the ways in which physiology and genetics contribute to a person's psychological well-being in the 21st century.

  • 2002 : Steven Pinker publishes "The Blank Slate," arguing against the concept of tabula rasa (the theory that the mind is a blank slate at birth). Avshalom Caspi offers the first evidence that genetics are associated with a child's response to maltreatment. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman is awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his research on how people make judgments in the face of uncertainty.
  • 2003 : Genetic researchers finish mapping human genes , with the aim of​ isolating the individual chromosomes responsible for physiological and neurological conditions.
  • 2010 : Simon LeVay publishes "Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why," which argues that sexual orientation emerges from prenatal differentiation in the brain.
  • 2013 : The DSM-5 is released. Among other changes, the APA removes "gender identity disorder" from the list of mental illnesses and replaces it with " gender dysphoria " to describe a person's discomfort with their assigned gender.
  • 2014 : John O'Keefe, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard Moser share the Nobel Prize for their discovery of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain that is key to memory and navigation.

Modern Psychology Today

Thanks to the contributions of the many experts along the way, the field of modern psychology has expanded into multiple subdivisions or specializations. Some of the numerous branches in modern psychology as it stands right now are:

  • Abnormal psychology : Psychopathology and abnormal behavior
  • Behavioral psychology : How behaviors are developed
  • Clinical psychology : Assessment and treatment of mental disorders
  • Cognitive psychology : How we think
  • Counseling psychology : Treating clients in mental distress
  • Developmental psychology : How people change throughout life
  • Experimental psychology : Research of the brain and behaviors
  • Forensic psychology : Psychology within legal settings
  • Health psychology : How psychology influences health and illness
  • School psychology : Psychology of children in educational settings
  • Social psychology : Social influences on psychology

Khalil RB, Richa S. When affective disorders were considered to emanate from the heart: The Ebers Papyrus . Am J Psychiatry . 2014;171(3):275. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070860

Macintyre I, Munro A. The Monro dynasty and their treatment of madness in London . Neurosciences and History . 2015;3(3):116-124.

Suris A, Holliday R, North CS. The evolution of the classification of psychiatric disorders . Behav Sci (Basel). 2016;6(1):5. doi:10.3390/bs6010005

Caspi A, McClay JL, Mill J, et al. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children . Science. 2002;297(5582):851-854. doi:10.1126/science.1072290

National Human Genome Research Institute. Human Genome Project timeline of events .

NobelPrize.org. The Nobel prize in physiology or medicine 2014 .

American Psychological Association. 125th Anniversary APA Timeline .

Shiraev E. A History of Psychology: A Global Perspective . 2nd ed. Sage Publishing; 2014.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

logo_full_blue

A History of Personality Psychology: Part 1

Madeline Ford

Section I: General Chronology and Driving Forces of Personality

The history of personality psychology dates as far back as Ancient Greece. Indeed, philosophers since the 4th Century BCE have been trying to define exactly what it is that makes us us. In 370 BCE, Hippocrates proposed two pillars of temperament: hot/cold and moist/dry, resulting in four humors or combinations of these qualities. The hot and dry combination was referred to as yellow bile, cold and dry as black bile, hot and wet was blood and cold and wet was phlegm. Though much of the work that arose from this theory of the Four Humors was medicinal in nature, it was also hypothesized a patient's personality could be influenced by humoral imbalances.

This categorical way of thinking about personality permeated ancient thinking on the matter. Plato proposed four groupings (artistic, sensible, intuitive, reasoning) and Aristotle hypothesized four factors (iconic i.e. artistic, pistic i.e. common-sense, noetic i.e. intuition and dianoetic i.e. logic) contributed to one’s social order in society.

Aristotle was also one of the first individuals to hypothesize connections between physical aspects of the body and behavior. In the mid to late 18th Century, Franz Gall, a neuroanatomist, fathered the new ‘pseudoscience’ of phrenology, a doctrine that hypothesized correlations between specific brain areas and functions. Gall believed measurements of the skull could reveal something about individuals’ inner thoughts and emotions, an assumption that paved the way for modern neuropsychology. Gall’s work was some of the first to move away from a philosophical explanation of behavior and personality into one rooted in anatomy.

Physiological evidence for such a conjecture arrived in the mid 19th Century with the iconic and fascinating case of Phineas Gage. Gage was a railroad construction worker from New Hampshire when, in 1848, an accident caused a tamping iron to be driven through the side of his face, behind his left eye and all the way through the top of his skull. Miraculously, Gage recovered. Though weakened, he was able to walk and speak. However, the brain damage from the accident resulted in numerous changes in his personality. Though history has distorted the extent of these changes, it is generally agreed that Phineas Gage’s demeanor went from moral and calm to irreverent, impatient and profane. His case is one of the first to provide physical evidence that personality is linked to specific brain regions.

In another conceptualization of personality, Sigmund Freud published The Ego and the Id in 1923. Freud posited that the human psyche consists of three main components: the id, the ego and the superego which control all conscious and unconscious thought and therefore behavior. The id can be thought of as the innate drivers of behavior. It encompasses bodily needs and desires and, according to Freud, drives us to seek out these wants. In other words it is “the dark, inaccessible part of our personality [that] contains everything that is inherited, the instincts, which originate from somatic organization.” The ego can be thought of as the bridge between the id and reality; it is what finds realistic ways to achieve what the id wants and also finds justifications and rationalizations for these desires. Lastly, the superego is the organized component of the psyche and is often referred to as the moral check of the ego. It is responsible for conscience and for regulating the drives of the id and ego by providing a sense of right and wrong.

Carl Jung, a psychiatrist and student of Freud, developed a type-based theory of personality. In his book, Psychological Types, Jung claims individuals fall into different dichotomous personality categories - for example, introversion/extraversion. The typology theory of personality was further popularized by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers who eventually developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Type theory remains a common conceptualization of personality to this day.

The trend of investigating the personality puzzle from the angle of “what are our underlying drives?” continued into the 1940s and 1950s. Many are familiar with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs , but fail to recognize Maslow proposed that all of human motivation is driven by the necessity of fulfilling these needs in accordance with the principle of self-actualization, which states humans are driven to be the best they can be.  

In the late 1950s, Carl Rogers built off the ideas of Maslow, arguing that yes, we all strive to achieve our greatest potential but we do so in different ways according to our personalities. This line of reasoning leads to a chicken and the egg problem: motivations to do something (like fulfill your human needs) ultimately influence behavior and thereby influence personality (as Maslow believed); but, that personality is simultaneously influencing the way you act upon motivations (as Rogers hypothesized). Ultimately, there is no right answer in terms of which way this circle flows. The puzzle untangling the relationship between personality and behavior persists in modern psychological conversations and continues to inspire research and debate across many fields of study.

New Call-to-Action

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

The Power of Personality

Brent w. roberts.

University of Illinois

Nathan R. Kuncel

University of Minnesota

Rebecca Shiner

Colgate University

Avshalom Caspi

Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, London, United Kingdom

Duke University

Lewis R. Goldberg

Oregon Research Institute

The ability of personality traits to predict important life outcomes has traditionally been questioned because of the putative small effects of personality. In this article, we compare the predictive validity of personality traits with that of socioeconomic status (SES) and cognitive ability to test the relative contribution of personality traits to predictions of three critical outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Only evidence from prospective longitudinal studies was considered. In addition, an attempt was made to limit the review to studies that controlled for important background factors. Results showed that the magnitude of the effects of personality traits on mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment was indistinguishable from the effects of SES and cognitive ability on these outcomes. These results demonstrate the influence of personality traits on important life outcomes, highlight the need to more routinely incorporate measures of personality into quality of life surveys, and encourage further research about the developmental origins of personality traits and the processes by which these traits influence diverse life outcomes.

Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound renaissance and has now become an extraordinarily diverse and intellectually stimulating field ( Pervin & John, 1999 ). However, just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is practical or useful—one would need to show that personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as health and longevity, marital success, and educational and occupational attainment. In fact, two recent reviews have shown that different personality traits are associated with outcomes in each of these domains ( Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005 ; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006 ). But simply showing that personality traits are related to health, love, and attainment is not a stringent test of the utility of personality traits. These associations could be the result of “third” variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES), that account for the patterns but have not been controlled for in the studies reviewed. In addition, many of the studies reviewed were cross-sectional and therefore lacked the methodological rigor to show the predictive validity of personality traits. A more stringent test of the importance of personality traits can be found in prospective longitudinal studies that show the incremental validity of personality traits over and above other factors.

The analyses reported in this article test whether personality traits are important, practical predictors of significant life outcomes. We focus on three domains: longevity/mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment in work. Within each domain, we evaluate empirical evidence using the gold standard of prospective longitudinal studies—that is, those studies that can provide data about whether personality traits predict life outcomes above and beyond well-known factors such as SES and cognitive abilities. To guide the interpretation drawn from the results of these prospective longitudinal studies, we provide benchmark relations of SES and cognitive ability with outcomes from these three domains. The review proceeds in three sections. First, we address some misperceptions about personality traits that are, in part, responsible for the idea that personality does not predict important life outcomes. Second, we present a review of the evidence for the predictive validity of personality traits. Third, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and recommendations for future work in this area.

THE “PERSONALITY COEFFICIENT”: AN UNFORTUNATE LEGACY OF THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE

Before we embark on our review, it is necessary to lay to rest a myth perpetrated by the 1960s manifestation of the person–situation debate; this myth is often at the root of the perspective that personality traits do not predict outcomes well, if at all. Specifically, in his highly influential book, Walter Mischel (1968) argued that personality traits had limited utility in predicting behavior because their correlational upper limit appeared to be about .30. Subsequently, this .30 value became derided as the “personality coefficient.” Two conclusions were inferred from this argument. First, personality traits have little predictive validity. Second, if personality traits do not predict much, then other factors, such as the situation, must be responsible for the vast amounts of variance that are left unaccounted for. The idea that personality traits are the validity weaklings of the predictive panoply has been reiterated in unmitigated form to this day (e.g., Bandura, 1999 ; Lewis, 2001 ; Paul, 2004 ; Ross & Nisbett, 1991 ). In fact, this position is so widely accepted that personality psychologists often apologize for correlations in the range of .20 to .30 (e.g., Bornstein, 1999 ).

Should personality psychologists be apologetic for their modest validity coefficients? Apparently not, according to Meyer and his colleagues ( Meyer et al., 2001 ), who did psychological science a service by tabling the effect sizes for a wide variety of psychological investigations and placing them side-by-side with comparable effect sizes from medicine and everyday life. These investigators made several important points. First, the modal effect size on a correlational scale for psychology as a whole is between .10 and .40, including that seen in experimental investigations (see also Hemphill, 2003 ). It appears that the .30 barrier applies to most phenomena in psychology and not just to those in the realm of personality psychology. Second, the very largest effects for any variables in psychology are in the .50 to .60 range, and these are quite rare (e.g., the effect of increasing age on declining speed of information processing in adults). Third, effect sizes for assessment measures and therapeutic interventions in psychology are similar to those found in medicine. It is sobering to see that the effect sizes for many medical interventions—like consuming aspirin to treat heart disease or using chemotherapy to treat breast cancer—translate into correlations of .02 or .03. Taken together, the data presented by Meyer and colleagues make clear that our standards for effect sizes need to be established in light of what is typical for psychology and for other fields concerned with human functioning.

In the decades since Mischel’s (1968) critique, researchers have also directly addressed the claim that situations have a stronger influence on behavior than they do on personality traits. Social psychological research on the effects of situations typically involves experimental manipulation of the situation, and the results are analyzed to establish whether the situational manipulation has yielded a statistically significant difference in the outcome. When the effects of situations are converted into the same metric as that used in personality research (typically the correlation coefficient, which conveys both the direction and the size of an effect), the effects of personality traits are generally as strong as the effects of situations ( Funder & Ozer, 1983 ; Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975 ). Overall, it is the moderate position that is correct: Both the person and the situation are necessary for explaining human behavior, given that both have comparable relations with important outcomes.

As research on the relative magnitude of effects has documented, personality psychologists should not apologize for correlations between .10 and .30, given that the effect sizes found in personality psychology are no different than those found in other fields of inquiry. In addition, the importance of a predictor lies not only in the magnitude of its association with the outcome, but also in the nature of the outcome being predicted. A large association between two self-report measures of extraversion and positive affect may be theoretically interesting but may not offer much solace to the researcher searching for proof that extraversion is an important predictor for outcomes that society values. In contrast, a modest correlation between a personality trait and mortality or some other medical outcome, such as Alzheimer’s disease, would be quite important. Moreover, when attempting to predict these critical life outcomes, even relatively small effects can be important because of their pragmatic effects and because of their cumulative effects across a person’s life ( Abelson, 1985 ; Funder, 2004 ; Rosenthal, 1990 ). In terms of practicality, the −.03 association between taking aspirin and reducing heart attacks provides an excellent example. In one study, this surprisingly small association resulted in 85 fewer heart attacks among the patients of 10,845 physicians ( Rosenthal, 2000 ). Because of its practical significance, this type of association should not be ignored because of the small effect size. In terms of cumulative effects, a seemingly small effect that moves a person away from pursuing his or her education early in life can have monumental consequences for that person’s health and well-being later in life ( Hardarson et al., 2001 ). In other words, psychological processes with a statistically small or moderate effect can have important effects on individuals’ lives depending on the outcomes with which they are associated and depending on whether those effects get cumulated across a person’s life.

PERSONALITY EFFECTS ON MORTALITY, DIVORCE, AND OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Selection of predictors, outcomes, and studies for this review.

To provide the most stringent test of the predictive validity of personality traits, we chose to focus on three objective outcomes: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. Although we could have chosen many different outcomes to examine, we selected these three because they are socially valued; they are measured in similar ways across studies; and they have been assessed as outcomes in studies of SES, cognitive ability, and personality traits. Mortality needs little justification as an outcome, as most individuals value a long life. Divorce and marital stability are important outcomes for several reasons. Divorce is a significant source of depression and distress for many individuals and can have negative consequences for children, whereas a happy marriage is one of the most important predictors of life satisfaction ( Myers, 2000 ). Divorce is also linked to disproportionate drops in economic status, especially for women ( Kuh & Maclean, 1990 ), and it can undermine men’s health (e.g., Lund, Holstein, & Osler, 2004 ). An intact marriage can also preserve cognitive function into old age for both men and women, particularly for those married to a high-ability spouse ( Schaie, 1994 ).

Educational and occupational attainment are also highly prized ( Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004 ). Research on subjective well-being has shown that occupational attainment and its important correlate, income, are not as critical for happiness as many assume them to be ( Myers, 2000 ). Nonetheless, educational and occupational attainment are associated with greater access to many resources that can improve the quality of life (e.g., medical care, education) and with greater “social capital” (i.e., greater access to various resources through connections with others; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002 ; Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ). The greater income resulting from high educational and occupational attainment may also enable individuals to maintain strong life satisfaction when faced with difficult life circumstances ( Johnson & Krueger, 2006 ).

To better interpret the significance of the relations between personality traits and these outcomes, we have provided comparative information concerning the effect of SES and cognitive ability on each of these outcomes. We chose to use SES as a comparison because it is widely accepted to be one of the most important contributors to a more successful life, including better health and higher occupational attainment (e.g., Adler et al., 1994 ; Gallo & Mathews, 2003 ; Galobardes, Lynch, & Smith, 2004 ; Sapolsky, 2005 ). In addition, we chose cognitive ability as a comparison variable because, like SES, it is a widely accepted predictor of longevity and occupational success ( Deary, Batty, & Gottfredson, 2005 ; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998 ). In this article, we compare the effect sizes of personality traits with these two predictors in order to understand the relative contribution of personality to a long, stable, and successful life. We also required that the studies in this review make some attempt to control for background variables. For example, in the case of mortality, we looked for prospective longitudinal studies that controlled for previous medical conditions, gender, age, and other relevant variables.

We are not assuming that personality traits are direct causes of the outcomes under study. Rather, we were exclusively interested in whether personality traits predict mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment and in their modal effect sizes. If found to be robust, these patterns of statistical association then invite the question of why and how personality traits might cause these outcomes, and we have provided several examples in each section of potential mechanisms and causal steps involved in the process.

The Measurement of Effect Sizes in Prospective Longitudinal Studies

Before turning to the specific findings for personality, SES, and cognitive ability, we must first address the measurement of effect sizes in the studies reviewed here. Most of the studies that we reviewed used some form of regression analysis for either continuous or categorical outcomes. In studies with continuous outcomes, findings were typically reported as standardized regression weights (beta coefficients). In studies of categorical outcomes, the most common effect size indicators are odds ratios, relative risk ratios, or hazard ratios. Because many psychologists may be less familiar with these ratio statistics, a brief discussion of them is in order. In the context of individual differences, ratio statistics quantify the likelihood of an event (e.g., divorce, mortality) for a higher scoring group versus the likelihood of the same event for a lower scoring group (e.g., persons high in negative affect versus those low in negative affect). An odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of the event for one group over the odds of the same event for the second group. The risk ratio compares the probabilities of the event occurring for the two groups. The hazard ratio assesses the probability of an event occurring for a group over a specific window of time. For these statistics, a value of 1.0 equals no difference in odds or probabilities. Values above 1.0 indicate increased likelihood (odds or probabilities) for the experimental (or numerator) group, with the reverse being true for values below 1.0 (down to a lower limit of zero). Because of this asymmetry, the log of these statistics is often taken.

The primary advantage of ratio statistics in general, and the risk ratio in particular, is their ease of interpretation in applied settings. It is easier to understand that death is three times as likely to occur for one group than for another than it is to make sense out of a point-biserial correlation. However, there are also some disadvantages that should be understood. First, ratio statistics can make effects that are actually very small in absolute magnitude appear to be large when in fact they are very rare events. For example, although it is technically correct that one is three times as likely (risk ratio = 3.0) to win the lottery when buying three tickets instead of one ticket, the improved chances of winning are trivial in an absolute sense.

Second, there is no accepted practice for how to divide continuous predictor variables when computing odds, risk, and hazard ratios. Some predictors are naturally dichotomous (e.g., gender), but many are continuous (e.g., cognitive ability, SES). Researchers often divide continuous variables into some arbitrary set of categories in order to use the odds, rate, or hazard metrics. For example, instead of reporting an association between SES and mortality using a point-biserial correlation, a researcher may use proportional hazards models using some arbitrary categorization of SES, such as quartile estimates (e.g., lowest versus highest quartiles). This permits the researcher to draw conclusions such as “individuals from the highest category of SES are four times as likely to live longer than are groups lowest in SES.” Although more intuitively appealing, the odds statements derived from categorizing continuous variables makes it difficult to deduce the true effect size of a relation, especially across studies. Researchers with very large samples may have the luxury of carving a continuous variable into very fine-grained categories (e.g., 10 categories of SES), which may lead to seemingly huge hazard ratios. In contrast, researchers with smaller samples may only dichotomize or trichotomize the same variables, thus resulting in smaller hazard ratios and what appear to be smaller effects for identical predictors. Finally, many researchers may not categorize their continuous variables at all, which can result in hazard ratios very close to 1.0 that are nonetheless still statistically significant. These procedures for analyzing odds, rate, and hazard ratios produce a haphazard array of results from which it is almost impossible to discern a meaningful average effect size. 1

One of the primary tasks of this review is to transform the results from different studies into a common metric so that a fair comparison could be made across the predictors and outcomes. For this purpose, we chose the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. We used a variety of techniques to arrive at an accurate estimate of the effect size from each study. When transforming relative risk ratios into the correlation metric, we used several methods to arrive at the most appropriate estimate of the effect size. For example, the correlation coefficient can be estimated from reported significance levels ( p values) and from test statistics such as the t test or chi-square, as well as from other effect size indicators such as d scores ( Rosenthal, 1991 ). Also, the correlation coefficient can be estimated directly from relative risk ratios and hazard ratios using the generic inverse variance approach ( The Cochrane Collaboration, 2005 ). In this procedure, the relative risk ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) are first transformed into z scores, and the z scores are then transformed into the correlation metric.

For most studies, the effect size correlation was estimated from information on relative risk ratios and p values. For the latter, we used the r equivalent effect size indicator ( Rosenthal & Rubin, 2003 ), which is computed from the sample size and p value associated with specific effects. All of these techniques transform the effect size information to a common correlational metric, making the results of the studies comparable across different analytical methods. After compiling effect sizes, meta-analytic techniques were used to estimate population effect sizes in both the risk ratio and correlation metric ( Hedges & Olkin, 1985 ). Specifically, a random-effects model with no moderators was used to estimate population effect sizes for both the rate ratio and correlation metrics. 2 When appropriate, we first averaged multiple nonindependent effects from studies that reported more than one relevant effect size.

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Mortality

Before considering the role of personality traits in health and longevity, we reviewed a selection of studies linking SES and cognitive ability to these same outcomes. This information provides a point of reference to understand the relative contribution of personality. Table 1 presents the findings from 33 studies examining the prospective relations of low SES and low cognitive ability with mortality. 3 SES was measured using measures or composites of typical SES variables including income, education, and occupational status. Total IQ scores were commonly used in analyses of cognitive ability. Most studies demonstrated that being born into a low-SES household or achieving low SES in adulthood resulted in a higher risk of mortality (e.g., Deary & Der, 2005 ; Hart et al., 2003 ; Osler et al., 2002 ; Steenland, Henley, & Thun, 2002 ). The relative risk ratios and hazard ratios ranged from a low of 0.57 to a high of 1.30 and averaged 1.24 (CIs = 1.19 and 1.29). When translated into the correlation metric, the effect sizes for low SES ranged from −.02 to .08 and averaged .02 (CIs = .017 and .026).

SES and IQ Effects on Mortality/Longevity

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r rr = Correlation estimated from the rate ratio; r hr = correlation estimated from the hazard ratio; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r e = r equivalent —correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size; BMI = body mass index; FEV = forced expiratory volume; ADLs = activities of daily living; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; CPS = Cancer Prevention Study; RIFLE = risk factors and life expectancy.

Through the use of the relative risk metric, we determined that the effect of low IQ on mortality was similar to that of SES, ranging from a modest 0.74 to 2.42 and averaging 1.19 (CIs = 1.10 and 1.30). When translated into the correlation metric, however, the effect of low IQ on mortality was equivalent to a correlation of .06 (CIs = .03 and .09), which was three times larger than the effect of SES on mortality. The discrepancy between the relative risk and correlation metrics most likely resulted because some studies reported the relative risks in terms of continuous measures of IQ, which resulted in smaller relative risk ratios (e.g., St. John, Montgomery, Kristjansson, & McDowell, 2002 ). Merging relative risk ratios from these studies with those that carve the continuous variables into subgroups appears to underestimate the effect of IQ on mortality, at least in terms of the relative risk metric. The most telling comparison of IQ and SES comes from the five studies that include both variables in the prediction of mortality. Consistent with the aggregate results, IQ was a stronger predictor of mortality in each case (i.e., Deary & Der, 2005 ; Ganguli, Dodge, & Mulsant, 2002 ; Hart et al., 2003 ; Osler et al., 2002 ; Wilson, Bienia, Mendes de Leon, Evans, & Bennet, 2003 ).

Table 2 lists 34 studies that link personality traits to mortality/longevity. 4 In most of these studies, multiple factors such as SES, cognitive ability, gender, and disease severity were controlled for. We organized our review roughly around the Big Five taxonomy of personality traits (e.g., Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience; Goldberg, 1993b ). For example, research drawn from the Terman Longitudinal Study showed that children who were more conscientious tended to live longer ( Friedman et al., 1993 ). This effect held even after controlling for gender and parental divorce, two known contributors to shorter lifespans. Moreover, a number of other factors, such as SES and childhood health difficulties, were unrelated to longevity in this study. The protective effect of Conscientiousness has now been replicated across several studies and more heterogeneous samples. Conscientiousness was found to be a rather strong protective factor in an elderly sample participating in a Medicare training program ( Weiss & Costa, 2005 ), even when controlling for education level, cardiovascular disease, and smoking, among other factors. Similarly, Conscientiousness predicted decreased rates of mortality in a sample of individuals suffering from chronic renal insufficiency, even after controlling for age, diabetic status, and hemoglobin count ( Christensen et al., 2002 ).

Personality Traits and Mortality

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r rr = correlation estimated from the rate ratio; r hr = correlation estimated from the hazard ratio; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r B = correlation estimated from a beta weight and standard error; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); FEV = forced expiratory volume; CHD = coronary heart disease; SES =socioeconomic status; BMI =body-ass index; ADLs =activities of daily living; MMSE =Mini Mental State Examination.

Similarly, several studies have shown that dispositions reflecting Positive Emotionality or Extraversion were associated with longevity. For example, nuns who scored higher on an index of Positive Emotionality in young adulthood tended to live longer, even when controlling for age, education, and linguistic ability (an aspect of cognitive ability; Danner, Snowden, & Friesen, 2001 ). Similarly, Optimism was related to higher rates of survival following head and neck cancer ( Allison, Guichard, Fung, & Gilain, 2003 ). In contrast, several studies reported that Neuroticism and Pessimism were associated with increases in one’s risk for premature mortality ( Abas, Hotopf, & Prince, 2002 ; Denollet et al., 1996 ; Schulz, Bookwala, Knapp, Scheier, & Williamson, 1996 ; Wilson, Mendes de Leon, Bienias, Evans, & Bennett, 2004 ). It should be noted, however, that two studies reported a protective effect of high Neuroticism ( Korten et al., 1999 ; Weiss & Costa, 2005 ).

The domain of Agreeableness showed a less clear association to mortality, with some studies showing a protective effect of high Agreeableness ( Wilson et al., 2004 ) and others showing that high Agreeableness contributed to mortality ( Friedman et al., 1993 ). With respect to the domain of Openness to Experience, two studies showed that Openness or facets of Openness, such as creativity, had little or no relation to mortality ( Osler et al., 2002 ; Wilson et al., 2004 ).

Because aggregating all personality traits into one overall effect size washes out important distinctions among different trait domains, we examined the effect of specific trait domains by aggregating studies within four categories: Conscientiousness, Positive Emotion/Extraversion, Neuroticism/Negative Emotion, and Hostility/Disagreeableness. 5 Our Conscientiousness domain included four studies that linked Conscientiousness to mortality. Because only two of these studies reported the information necessary to compute an average relative risk ratio, we only examined the correlation metric. When translated into a correlation metric, the average effect size for Conscientiousness was −.09 (CIs = −.12 and −.05), indicating a protective effect. Our Extraversion/Positive Emotion domain included six studies that examined the effect of extraversion, positive emotion, and optimism. The average relative risk ratio for the low Extraversion/Positive Emotion was 1.04 (CIs = 1.00 and 1.10) with a corresponding correlation effect size for high Extraversion/Positive Emotion being −.07 (−.11, −.03), with the latter showing a statistically significant protective effect of Extraversion/Positive Emotion. Our Negative Emotionality domain included twelve studies that examined the effect of neuroticism, pessimism, mental instability, and sense of coherence. The average relative risk ratio for the Negative Emotionality domain was 1.15 (CIs = 1.04 and 1.26), and the corresponding correlation effect size was .05 (CIs = .02 and .08). Thus, Neuroticism was associated with a diminished life span. Nineteen studies reported relations between Hostility/Disagreeableness and all-cause mortality, with notable heterogeneity in the effects across studies. The risk ratio population estimate showed an effect equivalent to, if not larger than, the remaining personality domains (risk ratio = 1.14; CIs = 1.06 and 1.23). With the correlation metric, this effect translated into a small but statistically significant effect of .04 (CIs = .02 and .06), indicating that hostility was positively associated with mortality. Thus, the specific personality traits of Conscientiousness, Positive Emotionality/Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Hostility/Disagreeableness were stronger predictors of mortality than was SES when effects were translated into a correlation metric. The effect of personality traits on mortality appears to be equivalent to IQ, although the additive effect of multiple trait domains on mortality may well exceed that of IQ.

Why would personality traits predict mortality? Personality traits may affect health and ultimately longevity through at least three distinct processes ( Contrada, Cather, & O’Leary, 1999 ; Pressman & Cohen, 2005 ; Rozanski, Blumenthal, & Kaplan, 1999 ; T.W. Smith, 2006 ). First, personality differences may be related to pathogenesis or mechanisms that promote disease. This has been evaluated most directly in studies relating various facets of Hostility/Disagreeableness to greater reactivity in response to stressful experiences (T.W. Smith & Gallo, 2001 ) and in studies relating low Extraversion to neuroendocrine and immune functioning ( Miller, Cohen, Rabin, Skoner, & Doyle, 1999 ) and greater susceptibility to colds ( Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, & Skoner, 2003a , 2003b ). Second, personality traits may be related to physical-health outcomes because they are associated with health-promoting or health-damaging behaviors. For example, individuals high in Extraversion may foster social relationships, social support, and social integration, all of which are positively associated with health outcomes ( Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000 ). In contrast, individuals low in Conscientiousness may engage in a variety of health-risk behaviors such as smoking, unhealthy eating habits, lack of exercise, unprotected sexual intercourse, and dangerous driving habits ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). Third, personality differences may be related to reactions to illness. This includes a wide class of behaviors, such as the ways individuals cope with illness (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1993 ), reduce stress, and adhere to prescribed treatments ( Kenford et al., 2002 ).

These processes linking personality traits to physical health are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, different personality traits may affect physical health via different processes. For example, facets of Disagreeableness may be most directly linked to disease processes, facets of low Conscientiousness may be implicated in health-damaging behaviors, and facets of Neuroticism may contribute to ill-health by shaping reactions to illness. In addition, it is likely that the impact of personality differences on health varies across the life course. For example, Neuroticism may have a protective effect on mortality in young adulthood, as individuals who are more neurotic tend to avoid accidents in adolescence and young adulthood ( Lee, Wadsworth, & Hotopf, 2006 ). It is apparent from the extant research that personality traits influence outcomes at all stages of the health process, but much more work remains to be done to specify the processes that account for these effects.

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Divorce

Next, we considered the role that SES, cognitive ability, and personality traits play in divorce. Because there were fewer studies examining these issues, we included prospective studies of SES, IQ, and personality that did not control for many background variables.

In terms of SES and IQ, we found 11 studies that showed a wide range of associations with divorce and marriage (see Table 3 ). 6 For example, the SES of the couple in one study was unsystematically related to divorce ( Tzeng & Mare, 1995 ). In contrast, Kurdek (1993) reported relatively large, protective effects for education and income for both men and women. Because not all these studies reported relative risk ratios, we computed an aggregate using the correlation metric and found the relation between SES and divorce was −.05 (CIs = −.08 and − .02), which indicates a significant protective effect of SES on divorce across these studies. Contradictory patterns were found for the two studies that predicted divorce and marital patterns from measures of cognitive ability. Taylor et al. (2005) reported that IQ was positively related to the possibility of male participants ever marrying but was negatively related to the possibility of female participants ever marrying. Data drawn from the Mills Longitudinal study ( Helson, 2006 ) showed conflicting patterns of associations between verbal and mathematical aptitude and divorce. Because there were only two studies, we did not examine the average effects of IQ on divorce.

SES and IQ Effects on Divorce

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. SES = socioeconomic status; HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r z = correlation estimated from the z score and sample size; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r B = correlation estimated from the reported unstandardized beta weight and standard error; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; NLSY = National Longitudinal Study of Youth; NLSYM = National Longitudinal Study of Young Men; NLSYW = National Longitudinal Study of Young Women.

Table 4 shows the data from thirteen prospective studies testing whether personality traits predicted divorce. Traits associated with the domain of Neuroticism, such as being anxious and overly sensitive, increased the probability of experiencing divorce ( Kelly & Conley, 1987 ; Tucker, Kressin, Spiro, & Ruscio, 1998 ). In contrast, those individuals who were more conscientious and agreeable tended to remain longer in their marriages and avoided divorce ( Kelly & Conley, 1987 ; Kinnunen & Pulkkenin, 2003 ; Roberts & Bogg, 2004 ). Although these studies did not control for as many factors as the health studies, the time spans over which the studies were carried out were impressive (e.g., 45 years). We aggregated effects across these studies for the trait domains of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness with the correlation metric, as too few studies reported relative risk outcomes to warrant aggregating. When so aggregated, the effect of Neuroticism on divorce was .17 (CIs = .12 and .22), the effect of Agreeableness was − .18 (CIs = −.27 and −.09), and the effect of Conscientiousness on divorce was −.13 (CIs = −.17 and −.09). Thus, the predictive effects of these three personality traits on divorce were greater than those found for SES.

Personality Traits and Marital Outcomes

Note. Confidence intervals are given in parentheses. HR = hazard ratio; RR = relative risk ratio; OR = odds ratio; r d = Correlation estimated from the d score; r or = correlation estimated from the odds ratio; r F = correlation estimated from F test; r e = r equivalent (correlation estimated from the reported p value and sample size); MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IHS = Institute of Human Development.

Why would personality traits lead to divorce or conversely marital stability? The most likely reason is because personality traits help shape the quality of long-term relationships. For example, Neuroticism is one of the strongest and most consistent personality predictors of relationship dissatisfaction, conflict, abuse, and ultimately dissolution ( Karney & Bradbury, 1995 ). Sophisticated studies that include dyads (not just individuals) and multiple methods (not just self reports) increasingly demonstrate that the links between personality traits and relationship processes are more than simply an artifact of shared method variance in the assessment of these two domains ( Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004 ; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000 ; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000 ). One study that followed a sample of young adults across their multiple relationships in early adulthood discovered that the influence of Negative Emotionality on relationship quality showed cross-relationship generalization; that is, it predicted the same kinds of experiences across relationships with different partners ( Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002 ).

An important goal for future research will be to uncover the proximal relationship-specific processes that mediate personality effects on relationship outcomes ( Reiss, Capobianco, & Tsai, 2002 ). Three processes merit attention. First, personality traits influence people’s exposure to relationship events. For example, people high in Neuroticism may be more likely to be exposed to daily conflicts in their relationships ( Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995 ; Suls & Martin, 2005 ). Second, personality traits shape people’s reactions to the behavior of their partners. For example, disagreeable individuals may escalate negative affect during conflict (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998 ). Similarly, agreeable people may be better able to regulate emotions during interpersonal conflicts ( Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001 ). Cognitive processes also factor in creating trait-correlated experiences ( Snyder & Stukas, 1999 ). For example, highly neurotic individuals may overreact to minor criticism from their partner, believe they are no longer loved when their partner does not call, or assume infidelity on the basis of mere flirtation. Third, personality traits evoke behaviors from partners that contribute to relationship quality. For example, people high in Neuroticism and low in Agreeableness may be more likely to express behaviors identified as detrimental to relationships such as criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling ( Gottman, 1994 ).

The Predictive Validity of Personality Traits for Educational and Occupational Attainment

The role of personality traits in occupational attainment has been studied sporadically in longitudinal studies over the last few decades. In contrast, the roles of SES and IQ have been studied exhaustively by sociologists in their programmatic research on the antecedents to status attainment. In their seminal work, Blau and Duncan (1967) conceptualized a model of status attainment as a function of the SES of an individual’s father. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin added what they considered social-psychological factors ( Sewell, Haller, & Portes, 1969 ). In this Wisconsin model, attainment is a function of parental SES, cognitive abilities, academic performance, occupational and educational aspirations, and the role of significant others ( Haller & Portes, 1973 ). Each factor in the model has been found to be positively related to occupational attainment ( Hauser, Tsai, & Sewell, 1983 ). The key question here is to what extent SES and IQ predict educational and occupational attainment holding constant the remaining factors.

A great deal of research has validated the structure and content of the Wisconsin model ( Sewell & Hauser, 1980 ; Sewell & Hauser, 1992 ), and rather than compiling these studies, which are highly similar in structure and findings, we provide representative findings from a study that includes three replications of the model ( Jencks, Crouse, & Mueser, 1983 ). As can be seen in Table 5 , childhood socioeconomic indicators, such as father’s occupational status and mother’s education, are related to outcomes, such as grades, educational attainment, and eventual occupational attainment, even after controlling for the remaining variables in the Wisconsin model. The average beta weight of SES and education was .09. 7 Parental income had a stronger effect, with an average beta weight of .14 across these three studies. Cognitive abilities were even more powerful predictors of occupational attainment, with an average beta weight of .27.

SES, IQ, and Status Attainment

Note. SES = socioeconomic status.

Do personality traits contribute to the prediction of occupational attainment even when intelligence and socioeconomic background are taken into account? As there are far fewer studies linking personality traits directly to indices of occupational attainment, such as prestige and income, we also included prospective studies examining the impact of personality traits on related outcomes such as long-term unemployment and occupational stability. The studies listed in Table 6 attest to the fact that personality traits predict all of these work-related outcomes. For example, adolescent ratings of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness predicted occupational status 46 years later, even after controlling for childhood IQ ( Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999 ). The weighted-average beta weight across the studies in Table 6 was .23 (CIs = .14 and .32), indicating that the modal effect size of personality traits was comparable with the effect of childhood SES and IQ on similar outcomes. 8

Personality Traits and Occupational Attainment

Note. SES = socioeconomic status; IHD = Institute of Human Development.

Why are personality traits related to achievement in educational and occupational domains? The personality processes involved may vary across different stages of development, and at least five candidate processes deserve research scrutiny ( Roberts, 2006 ). First, the personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “attraction” effects or “active niche-picking,” whereby people choose educational and work experiences whose qualities are concordant with their own personalities. For example, people who are more conscientious may prefer conventional jobs, such as accounting and farming ( Gottfredson, Jones, & Holland, 1993 ). People who are more extraverted may prefer jobs that are described as social or enterprising, such as teaching or business management ( Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997 ). Moreover, extraverted individuals are more likely to assume leadership roles in multiple settings ( Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002 ). In fact, all of the Big Five personality traits have substantial relations with better performance when the personality predictor is appropriately aligned with work criteria ( Hogan & Holland, 2003 ). This indicates that if people find jobs that fit with their dispositions they will experience greater levels of job performance, which should lead to greater success, tenure, and satisfaction across the life course ( Judge et al., 1999 ).

Second, personality-to-achievement associations may reflect “recruitment effects,” whereby people are selected into achievement situations and are given preferential treatment on the basis of their personality characteristics. These recruitment effects begin to appear early in development. For example, children’s personality traits begin to influence their emerging relationships with teachers at a young age ( Birch & Ladd, 1998 ). In adulthood, job applicants who are more extraverted, conscientious, and less neurotic are liked better by interviewers and are more often recommended for the job ( Cook, Vance, & Spector, 2000 ).

Third, personality traits may affect work outcomes because people take an active role in shaping their work environment ( Roberts, 2006 ). For example, leaders have tremendous power to shape the nature of the organization by hiring, firing, and promoting individuals. Cross-sectional studies of groups have shown that leaders’ conscientiousness and cognitive ability affect decision making and treatment of subordinates ( LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997 ). Individuals who are not leaders or supervisors may shape their work to better fit themselves through job crafting ( Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ) or job sculpting ( Bell & Staw, 1989 ). They can change their day-to-day work environments through changing the tasks they do, organizing their work differently, or changing the nature of the relationships they maintain with others ( Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ). Presumably these changes in their work environments lead to an increase in the fit between personality and work. In turn, increased fit with one’s environment is associated with elevated performance ( Harms, Roberts, & Winter, 2006 ).

Fourth, some personality-to-achievement associations emerge as consequences of “attrition” or “deselection pressures,” whereby people leave achievement settings (e.g., schools or jobs) that do not fit with their personality or are released from these settings because of their trait-correlated behaviors ( Cairns & Cairns, 1994 ). For example, longitudinal evidence from different countries shows that children who exhibit a combination of poor self-control and high irritability or antagonism are at heightened risk of unemployment ( Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998 ; Kokko, Bergman, & Pulkkinen, 2003 ; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000 ).

Fifth, personality-to-achievement associations may emerge as a result of direct effects of personality on performance. Personality traits may promote certain kinds of task effectiveness; there is some evidence that this occurs in part via the processing of information. For example, higher positive emotions facilitate the efficient processing of complex information and are associated with creative problem solving ( Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999 ). In addition to these effects on task effectiveness, personality may directly affect other aspects of work performance, such as interpersonal interactions ( Hurtz & Donovan, 2000 ). Personality traits may also directly influence performance motivation; for example, Conscientiousness consistently predicts stronger goal setting and self-efficacy, whereas Neuroticism predicts these motivations negatively ( Erez & Judge, 2001 ; Judge & Ilies, 2002 ).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is abundantly clear from this review that specific personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as mortality, divorce, and success in work. Depending on the sample, trait, and outcome, people with specific personality characteristics are more likely to experience important life outcomes even after controlling for other factors. Moreover, when compared with the effects reported for SES and cognitive abilities, the predictive validities of personality traits do not appear to be markedly different in magnitude. In fact, as can be seen in Figures 1 – 3 , in many cases, the evidence supports the conclusion that personality traits predict these outcomes better than SES does. Despite these impressive findings, a few limitations and qualifications must be kept in mind when interpreting these data.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms678907f1.jpg

Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low IQ, low Conscientiousness (C), low Extraversion/Positive Emotion(E/PE), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on mortality. Error bars represent standard error.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms678907f3.jpg

Average effects (in the standardized beta weight metric) of high socioeconomic status (SES), high parental income, high IQ, and high personality trait scores on occupational outcomes.

The requirement that we only examine the incremental validity of personality measures after controlling for SES and cognitive abilities, though clearly the most stringent test of the relevance of personality traits, is also arbitrarily tough. In fact, controlling for variables that are assumed to be nuisance factors can obscure important relations ( Meehl, 1971 ). For example, SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits may determine life outcomes through indirect rather than direct pathways. Consider cognitive abilities. These are only modest predictors of occupational attainment when “all other factors are controlled,” but they play a much more important, indirect role through their effect on educational attainment. Students with higher cognitive abilities tend to obtain better grades and go on to achieve more in the educational sphere across a range of disciplines ( Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2007 ; Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001 , 2004 ); in turn, educational attainment is the best predictor of occupational attainment. This observation about cumulative indirect effects applies equally well to SES and personality traits.

Furthermore, the effect sizes associated with SES, cognitive abilities, and personality traits were all uniformly small-to-medium in size. This finding is entirely consistent with those from other reviews showing that most psychological constructs have effect sizes in the range between .10 and .40 on a correlational scale ( Meyer et al., 2001 ). Our hope is that reviews like this one can help adjust the norms researchers hold for what the modal effect size is in psychology and related fields. Studies are often disparaged for having small effects as if it is not the norm. Moreover, small effect sizes are often criticized without any understanding of their practical significance. Practical significance can only be determined if we ground our research by both predicting consequential outcomes, such as mortality, and by translating the results into a metric that is clearly understandable, such as years lost or number of deaths. Correlations and ratio statistics do not provide this type of information. On the other hand, some researchers have translated their results into metrics that most individuals can grasp. As we noted in the introduction, Rosenthal (1990) showed that taking aspirin prevented approximately 85 heart attacks in the patients of 10,845 physicians despite the meager −.03 correlation between this practice and the outcome of having a heart attack. Several other studies in our review provided similar benchmarks. Hardarson et al., (2001) showed that 148 fewer people died in their high education group (out of 869) than in their low education group, despite the effect size being equal to a correlation of −.05. Danner et al. (2001) showed that the association between positive emotion and longevity was associated with a gain of almost 7 years of additional life, despite having an average effect size of around .20. Of course, our ability to draw these types of conclusions necessitates grounding our research in more practical outcomes and their respective metrics.

There is one salient difference between many of the studies of SES and cognitive abilities and the studies focusing on personality traits. The typical sample in studies of the long-term effect of personality traits was a sample of convenience or was distinctly unrepresentative. In contrast, many of the studies of SES and cognitive ability included nationally representative and/or remarkably large samples (e.g., 500,000 participants). Therefore, the results for SES and cognitive abilities are generalizable, whereas it is more difficult to generalize findings from personality research. Perhaps the situation will improve if future demographers include personality measures in large surveys of the general population.

Recommendations

One of the challenges of incorporating personality measures in large studies is the cost–benefit trade off involved with including a thorough assessment of personality traits in a reasonably short period of time. Because most personality inventories include many items, researchers may be pressed either to eliminate them from their studies or to use highly abbreviated measures of personality traits. The latter practice has become even more common now that most personality researchers have concluded that personality traits can be represented within five to seven broad domains ( Goldberg, 1993b ; Saucier, 2003 ). The temptation is to include a brief five-factor instrument under the assumption that this will provide good coverage of the entire range of personality traits. However, the use of short, broad bandwidth measures can lead to substantial decreases in predictive validity ( Goldberg, 1993a ), because short measures of the Big Five lack the breadth and depth of longer personality inventories. In contrast, research has shown that the predictive validity of personality measures increases when one uses a well-elaborated measure with many lower order facets ( Ashton, 1998 ; Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988 ; Paunonen, 1998 ; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001 ).

However, research participants do not have unlimited time, and researchers may need advice on the selection of optimal measures of personality traits. One solution is to pay attention to previous research and focus on those traits that have been found to be related to the specific outcomes under study instead of using an omnibus personality inventory. For example, given the clear and consistent finding that the personality trait of Conscientiousness is related to health behaviors and mortality (e.g., Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ; Friedman, 2000 ), it would seem prudent to measure this trait well if one wanted to control for this factor or include it in any study of health and mortality. Moreover, it appears that specific facets of this domain, such as self-control and conventionality, are more relevant to health than are other facets such as orderliness ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). If researchers are truly interested in assessing personality traits well, then they should invest the time necessary for the task. This entails moving away from expedient surveys to more in-depth assessments. Finally, if one truly wants to assess personality traits well, then researchers should use multiple methods for this purpose and should not rely solely on self-reports ( Eid & Diener, 2006 ).

We also recommend that researchers not equate all individual differences with personality traits. Personality psychologists also study constructs such as motivation, interests, emotions, values, identities, life stories, and self-regulation (see Mayer, 2005 , and Roberts & Wood, 2006 , for reviews). Moreover, these different domains of personality are only modestly correlated (e.g., Ackerman & Heggested, 1997 ; Roberts & Robins, 2000 ). Thus, there are a wide range of additional constructs that may have independent effects on important life outcomes that are waiting to be studied.

Conclusions

In light of increasingly robust evidence that personality matters for a wide range of life outcomes, researchers need to turn their attention to several issues. First, we need to know more about the processes through which personality traits shape individuals’ functioning over time. Simply documenting that links exist between personality traits and life outcomes does not clarify the mechanisms through which personality exerts its effects. In this article, we have suggested a number of potential processes that may be at work in the domains of health, relationships, and educational and occupational success. Undoubtedly, other personality processes will turn out to influence these outcomes as well.

Second, we need a greater understanding of the relationship between personality and the social environmental factors already known to affect health and development. Looking over the studies reviewed above, one can see that specific personality traits such as Conscientiousness predict occupational and marital outcomes that, in turn, predict longevity. Thus, it may be that Conscientiousness has both direct and indirect effects on mortality, as it contributes to following life paths that afford better health, and may also directly affect the ways in which people handle health-related issues, such as whether they exercise or eat a healthy diet ( Bogg & Roberts, 2004 ). One idea that has not been entertained is the potential synergistic relation between personality traits and social environmental factors. It may be the case that the combination of certain personality traits and certain social conditions creates a potent cocktail of factors that either promotes or undermines specific outcomes. Finally, certain social contexts may wash out the effect of individual difference factors, and, in turn, people possessing certain personality characteristics may be resilient to seemingly toxic environmental influences. A systematic understanding of the relations between personality traits and social environmental factors associated with important life outcomes would be very helpful.

Third, the present results drive home the point that we need to know much more about the development of personality traits at all stages in the life course. How does a person arrive in adulthood as an optimistic or conscientious person? If personality traits affect the ways that individuals negotiate the tasks they face across the course of their lives, then the processes contributing to the development of those traits are worthy of study ( Caspi & Shiner, 2006 ; Caspi & Shiner, in press ; Rothbart & Bates, 2006 ). However, there has been a tendency in personality and developmental research to focus on personality traits as the causes of various outcomes without fully considering personality differences as an outcome worthy of study ( Roberts, 2005 ). In contrast, research shows that personality traits continue to change in adulthood (e.g., Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006 ) and that these changes may be important for health and mortality. For example, changes in personality traits such as Neuroticism have been linked to poor health outcomes and even mortality ( Mroczek & Spiro, 2007 ).

Fourth, our results raise fundamental questions about how personality should be addressed in prevention and intervention efforts. Skeptical readers may doubt the relevance of the present results for prevention and intervention in light of the common assumption that personality is highly stable and immutable. However, personality traits do change in adulthood ( Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006 ) and can be changed through therapeutic intervention ( De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006 ). Therefore, one possibility would be to focus on socializing factors that may affect changes in personality traits, as the resulting changes would then be leveraged across multiple domains of life. Further, the findings for personality traits should be of considerable interest to professionals dedicated to promoting healthy, happy marriages and socioeconomic success. Some individuals will clearly be at a heightened risk of problems in these life domains, and it may be possible to target prevention and intervention efforts to the subsets of individuals at the greatest risk. Such research can likewise inform the processes that need to be targeted in prevention and intervention. As we gain greater understanding of how personality exerts its effects on adaptation, we will achieve new insights into the most relevant processes to change. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that it may be possible to improve individuals’ lives by targeting those processes without directly changing the personality traits driving those processes (e.g., see Rapee, Kennedy, Ingram, Edwards, & Sweeney, 2005 , for an interesting example of how this may occur). In all prevention and intervention work, it will be important to attend to the possibility that most personality traits can have positive or negative effects, depending on the outcomes in question, the presence of other psychological attributes, and the environmental context ( Caspi & Shiner, 2006 ; Shiner, 2005 ).

Personality research has had a contentious history, and there are still vestiges of doubt about the importance of personality traits. We thus reviewed the comparative predictive validity of personality traits, SES, and IQ across three objective criteria: mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment. We found that personality traits are just as important as SES and IQ in predicting these important life outcomes. We believe these metaanalytic findings should quell lingering doubts. The closing of a chapter in the history of personality psychology is also an opportunity to open a new chapter. We thus invite new research to test and document how personality traits “work” to shape life outcomes. A useful lead may be taken from cognate research on social disparities in health ( Adler & Snibbe, 2003 ). Just as researchers are seeking to understand how SES “gets under the skin” to influence health, personality researchers need to partner with other branches of psychology to understand how personality traits “get outside the skin” to influence important life outcomes.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms678907f2.jpg

Average effects (in the correlation metric) of low socioeconomic status (SES), low Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and low Agreeableness (A) on divorce. Error bars represent standard error.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported by National Institute of Aging Grants AG19414 and AG20048; National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH49414, MH45070, MH49227; United Kingdom Medical Research Council Grant G0100527; and by grants from the Colgate Research Council. We would like to thank Howard Friedman, David Funder, George Davie Smth, Ian Deary, Chris Fraley, Linda Gottfredson, Josh Jackson, and Ben Karney for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

1 This situation is in no way particular to epidemiological or medical studies using odds, rate, and hazard ratios as outcomes. The field of psychology reports results in a Babylonian array of test statistics and effect sizes also.

2 The population effects for the rate ratio and correlation metric were not based on identical data because in some cases the authors did not report rate ratio information or did not report enough information to compute a rate ratio and a CI.

3 Most of the studies of SES and mortality were compiled from an exhaustive review of the literature on the effect of childhood SES and mortality ( Galobardes et al., 2004 ). We added several of the largest studies examining the effect of adult SES on mortality (e.g., Steenland et al., 2002 ), and to these we added the results from the studies on cognitive ability and personality that reported SES effects. We also did standard electronic literature searches using the terms socioeconomic status, cognitive ability , and all-cause mortality . We also examined the reference sections from the list of studies and searched for papers that cited these studies. Experts in the field of epidemiology were also contacted and asked to identify missing studies. The resulting SES data base is representative of the field, and as the effects are based on over 3 million data points, the effect sizes and CIs are very stable. The studies of cognitive ability and mortality represent all of the studies found that reported usable data.

4 We identified studies through electronic searches that included the terms personality traits, extroversion, agreeableness, hostility, conscientiousness, emotional stability, neuroticism, openness to experience , and all-cause mortality . We also identified studies through reference sections of the list of studies and through studies that cited each study. A number of studies were not included in this review because we focused on studies that were prospective and controlled for background factors.

5 We did not examine the domain of Openness to Experience because there were only two studies that tested the association with mortality.

6 We identified studies using electronic searches including the terms divorce, socioeconomic status , and cognitive ability . We also identified studies through examining the reference sections of the studies and through studies that cited each study.

7 We did not transform the standardized beta weights into the correlation metric because almost all authors failed to provide the necessary information for the transformation (CIs or standard errors). Therefore, we averaged the results in the beta weight metric instead. As the sampling distribution of beta weights is unknown, we used the formula for the standard error of the partial correlation (√ N −k−2) to estimate CIs.

8 In making comparisons between correlations and regression weights, it should be kept in mind that although the two are identical for orthogonal predictors, most regression weights tend to be smaller than the corresponding zero-order validity correlations because of predictor redundancy (R.A. Peterson & Brown, 2005 ).

  • Abas M, Hotopf M, Prince M. Depression and mortality in a high-risk population. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2002; 181 :123–128. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Abelson RP. A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin. 1985; 97 :129–133. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ackerman PL, Heggestad ED. Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin. 1997; 121 :219–245. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Adler NE, Boyce T, Chesney MA, Cohen S, Folkman S, Kahn RL, Syme SL. Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :15–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Adler NE, Snibbe AC. The role of psychosocial processes in explaining the gradient between socioeconomic status and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2003; 12 :119–123. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Allison PJ, Guichard C, Fung K, Gilain L. Dispositional optimism predicts survival status 1 year after diagnosis in head and neck cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003; 21 :543–548. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Almada SJ, Zonderman AB, Shekelle RB, Dyer AR, Daviglus ML, Costa PT, Stamler J. Neuroticism and cynicism and risk of death in middle-aged men: The Western Electric Study. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1991; 53 :165–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Amato PR, Rogers SJ. A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997; 59 :612–624. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review. 1999; 106 :529–550. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ashton MC. Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1998; 19 :289–303. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of personality. In: Pervin LA, John OR, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 154–196. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barefoot JC, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. Hostility, CHD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1983; 45 :59–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barefoot JC, Dodge KA, Peterson BL, Dahlstrom WG, Williams RB. The Cook-Medley hostility scale: Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1989; 51 :46–57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barefoot JC, Larsen S, von der Lieth L, Schroll M. Hostility, incidence of acute myocardial infarction, and mortality in a sample of older Danish men and women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1995; 142 :477–484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barefoot JC, Maynard KE, Beckham JC, Brummett BH, Hooker K, Siegler IC. Trust, health, and longevity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1998; 21 :517–526. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barefoot JC, Siegler IC, Nowlin JB, Peterson BL, Haney TL, Williams RB. Suspiciousness, health, and mortality: A follow-up stuffy of 500 older adults. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1987; 49 :450–457. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bassuk SS, Berkman LF, Amick BC. Socioeconomic status and mortality among the elderly: Findings from four U.S. Communities. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 155 :520–533. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Beebe-Dimmer J, Lynch JW, Turrell G, Lustgarten S, Raghunathan T, Kaplan GA. Childhood and adult socioeconomic conditions and 31-year mortality risk in women. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 159 :481–490. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bell NE, Staw BM. People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In: Arthur MB, Hall DT, Lawrence BS, editors. Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. pp. 232–251. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bentler PM, Newcomb MD. Longitudinal study of marital success and failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1978; 46 :1053–1070. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health. Social Science Medicine. 2000; 51 :843–857. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Birch SH, Ladd GW. Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Developmental Psychology. 1998; 34 :934–946. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Blau PM, Duncan OD. The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bogg T, Roberts BW. Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin. 2004; 130 :887–919. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bolger N, Zuckerman A. A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :890–902. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bornstein RF. Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment. 1999; 11 :48–57. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bosworth HB, Schaie KW. Survival effects in cognitive function, cognitive style, and sociodemographic variables in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Experimental Aging Research. 1999; 25 :121–139. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Barefoot JC. Hostility, age, and mortality in a sample of cardiac patients. American Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 96 :64–66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Boyle SH, Williams RB, Mark DB, Brummett BH, Siegler IC, Helms MJ, Barefoot JC. Hostility as a predictor of survival in patients with coronary artery disease. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2004; 66 :629–632. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bradley RH, Corwyn RF. Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53 :371–399. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bucher HC, Ragland DR. Socioeconomic indicators and mortality from coronary heart disease and cancer: A 22-year follow-up of middle-aged men. American Journal of Public Health. 1995; 85 :1231–1236. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cairns RB, Cairns BD. Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology. 1987; 23 :308–313. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caspi A, Elder GH, Bern DJ. Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology. 1988; 24 :824–831. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caspi A, Roberts BW, Shiner R. Personality development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2005; 56 :453–484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caspi A, Shiner RL. Personality development. In: Damon W, Lerner R, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 300–365. (Vol. Ed.) [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caspi A, Shiner RL. Temperament and personality. In: Rutter M, Bishop D, Pine D, Scott S, Stevenson J, Taylor E, Thapar A, editors. Rutter’s child and adolescent psychiatry. 5th ed. London: Blackwell; (in press) [ Google Scholar ]
  • Caspi A, Wright BR, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Preview. 1998; 63 :424–451. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Christensen AJ, Ehlers SL, Wiebe JS, Moran PJ, Raichle K, Ferneyhough K, Lawton WJ. Patient personality and mortality: A 4-year prospective examination of chronic renal insufficiency. Health Psychology. 2002; 21 :315–320. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Claussen B, Davey-Smith G, Thelle D. Impact of childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position on cause specific mortality: The Oslo Mortality Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003; 57 :40–45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. 2005 May; Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/handbook.pdf .
  • Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Emotional style and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003a; 65 :652–657. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Turner RB, Alper CM, Skoner DR. Sociability and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychological Science. 2003b; 14 :389–395. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :175–199. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Contrada RJ, Cather C, O’Leary A. Personality and health: Dispositions and processes in disease susceptibility and adaptation to illness. In: Pervin LA, John OR, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 576–604. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cook KW, Vance CA, Spector RE. The relation of candidate personality with selection-interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2000; 30 :867–885. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Curtis S, Southall H, Congdon P, Dodgeon B. Area effects on health variation over the life-course: Analysis of the longitudinal study sample in England using new data on are of residence in childhood. Social Science & Medicine. 2004; 58 :57–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Danner DD, Snowden DA, Friesen WV. Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the Nun Study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80 :804–813. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Davey-Smith G, Hart C, Blane D, Hole D. Adverse socioeconomic conditions in childhood and cause specific adult mortality: Prospective observational study. British Medical Journal. 1998; 316 :1631–1635. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Deary IJ, Batty D, Gottfredson LS. Human hierarchies, health, and IQ: Comment. Science. 2005; 309 :703. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Deary IJ, Der G. Reaction time explains IQ’s association with death. Psychological Science. 2005; 16 :64–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • De Fruyt F, Denollet J. Type D personality: A five-factor model perspective. Psychology and Health. 2002; 17 :671–683. [ Google Scholar ]
  • De Fruyt F, Van Leeuwen K, Bagby RM, Rolland J, Rouillon F. Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychological Assessment. 2006; 18 :71–80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Denollet J, Sys SU, Stroobant N, Rombouts H, Gillebert TC, Brutsaert DL. Personality as independent predictor of long-term mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Lancet. 1996; 347 :417–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Donnellan MB, Conger RD, Bryant CM. The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality. 2004; 38 :481–504. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Doornbos G, Kromhout D. Educational level and mortality in a 32-year follow-up study of 18-year old men in the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1990; 19 :374–379. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Eid M, Diener E. Handbook of psychological assessment: A multimethod perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Erez A, Judge TA. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86 :1270–1279. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Everson SA, Kauhanen J, Kaplan GA, Goldberg DE, Julkunen J, Tuomilehto J, Salonen JT. Hostility and increased risk of mortality and acute myocardial infarction: The mediating role of behavioral risk factors. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1997; 146 :142–152. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Shannon FT. A proportional hazards model of family breakdown. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1984; 46 :539–549. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fiscella K, Franks P. Individual income, income inequality, health, and mortality: What are the relationships? Health Services Research. 2000; 35 :307–318. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Friedman HS. Long-term relations of personality and health: Dynamisms, mechanisms, tropisms. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :1089–1108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Friedman HS, Tucker JS, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Schwartz JE, Wingard DL, Criqui MH. Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 65 :176–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Funder DC. The personality puzzle. New York: Norton; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983; 44 :107–112. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gallo LC, Matthews KA. Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :10–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Galobardes B, Lynch JW, Smith GD. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances and cause-specific mortality in adulthood: Systematic review and interpretation. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2004; 26 :7–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ganguli M, Dodge HH, Mulsant BH. Rates and predictors of mortality in an aging, rural, community-based cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002; 59 :1046–1052. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Giltay EJ, Geleijnse JM, Zitman EG, Hoekstra T, Schouten EG. Dispositional optimism and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly Dutch men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2004; 61 :1126–1135. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Goldberg LR. The structure of personality traits: Vertical and horizontal aspects. In: Funder DC, Parke RD, Tomlinson-Keasey C, Widaman K, editors. Studying lives through time: Personality and development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993a. pp. 169–188. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist. 1993b; 48 :26–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gottfredson GD, Jones EM, Holland JL. Personality and vocational interests: The relation of Holland’s six interest dimensions to five robust dimensions of personality. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1993; 40 :518–524. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gottman JM. What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gottman JM, Coan J, Carrere S, Swanson C. Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1998; 60 :5–22. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Grossarth-Maticek R, Bastianns J, Kanazir DT. Psychosocial factors as strong predictors of mortality from cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke: The Yugoslav prospective study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1985; 29 :167–176. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Haller AO, Portes A. Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education. 1973; 46 :51–91. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hardarson T, Gardarsdottir M, Gudmundsson KT, Thorgeirsson G, Sigvaldason H, Sigfusson N. The relationship between educational level and mortality: The Reykjavik Study. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2001; 249 :495–502. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harms PD, Roberts BW, Winter D. Becoming the Harvard man: Person-environment fit, personality development, and academic success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006; 32 :851–865. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hart CL, Taylor MD, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Starr JM, Hole DJ, et al. Childhood IQ, social class, deprivation, and their relationships with mortality and morbidity risk in later life: Prospective observational study linking the Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan Studies. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2003; 65 :877–883. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hauser RM, Tsai S, Sewell WH. A model of stratification with response error in social and psychological variables. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56 :20–46. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hearn MD, Murray DM, Luepker RV. Hostility, coronary heart disease, and total mortality: A 33-year follow-up study of university students. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1989; 12 :105–121. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Helson R. [Unpublished data from the Mills Longitudinal Study] Berkeley: University of California; 2006. Unpublished raw data. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Helson R, Roberts BW. Personality of young adult couples and wives’ work patterns. Journal of Personality. 1992; 60 :575–597. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Helson R, Roberts BW, Agronick G. Enduringness and change in creative personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :1173–1183. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitude of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist. 2003; 58 :78–79. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Heslop P, Smith GD, Macleod J, Hart C. The socioeconomic position of employed women, risk factors and mortality. Social Science and Medicine. 2001; 53 :477–485. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hirokawa K, Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Shimizu H. The relationships of a rationality/antiemotionality personality scale to mortalities of cancer and cardiovascular disease in a community population in Japan. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2004; 56 :103–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hogan J, Holland B. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 :100–112. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holley P, Yabiku S, Benin M. The relationship between intelligence and divorce. Journal of Family Issues. 2006; 27 :1723–1748. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hollis JF, Connett JE, Stevens VJ, Greenlick MR. Stressful life events, Type A behavior, and the prediction of cardiovascular and total mortality over six years. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1990; 13 :263–280. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hosegood V, Campbell OMR. Body mass index, height, weight, arm circumference, and mortality in rural Bangladeshi women: A 19-year longitudinal study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2003; 77 :341–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hurtz GM, Donovan JJ. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85 :869–879. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Huston TL, Caughlin JP, Houts RM, Smith SE, George LJ. The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80 :237–252. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Iribarren C, Jacobs DR, Kiefe CI, Lewis CE, Matthews KA, Roseman JM, Hulley SB. Causes and demographic, medical, lifestyle and psychosocial predictors of premature mortality: the CARDIA study. Social Science & Medicine. 2005; 60 :471–482. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jalovaara M. Socio-economic status and divorce in first marriages in Finland 1991–1993. Population Studies. 2001; 55 :119–133. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jencks C, Crouse J, Mueser P. The Wisconsin model of status attainment: A national replication with improved measures of ability and aspiration. Sociology of Education. 1983; 56 :3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jensen-Campbell LA, Graziano WG. Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality. 2001; 69 :323–361. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jockin V, McGue M, Lykken DT. Personality and divorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 71 :288–299. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Johnson W, Krueger RF. How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006; 90 :680–691. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :765–780. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Barrick MR. The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology. 1999; 52 :621–652. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :797–807. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kaplan GA, Wilson TW, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wu M, Salonen JT. Social functioning and overall mortality: Prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Epidemiology. 1994; 5 :495–500. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin. 1995; 118 :3–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kelly EL, Conley JJ. Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987; 52 :27–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kenford SL, Smith SS, Wetter DW, Jorenby DE, Fiore MC, Baker TB. Predicting relapse back to smoking: Contrasting affective and physical models of dependence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2002; 70 :216–227. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Khang Y, Kim HR. Explaining socioeconomic inequality in mortality among South Koreans: An examination of multiple pathways in a nationally representative longitudinal study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 34 :630–637. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kinnunen U, Pulkkinen L. Childhood socio-emotional characteristics as antecedents of marital stability and quality. European Psychologist. 2003; 8 :223–237. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kokko K, Bergman LR, Pulkkinen L. Child personality characteristics and selection into long-term unemployment in Finnish and Swedish longitudinal samples. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2003; 27 :134–144. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kokko K, Pulkkinen L. Aggression in childhood and long-term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaptation and some protective factors. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36 :463–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Korten AE, Jorm AF, Jaio Z, Letenneur L, Jacomb PA, Henderson AS, et al. Health, cognitive, and psychosocial factors as predictors of mortality in an elderly community sample. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999; 53 :83–88. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J, Rose RJ, Kesaniemi A, Sarna S, Heikkila K, Langinvainio H. Hostility as a risk factor for mortality and ischemic heart disease in men. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1988; 50 :330–340. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuh D, Hardy R, Langenberg C, Richards M, Wadsworth MEJ. Mortality in adults aged 26–54 years related to socioeconomic conditions in childhood and adulthood: Post war birth cohort study. British Medical Journal. 2002; 325 :1076–1080. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuh D, Maclean M. Women’s childhood experience of parental separation and their subsequent health and socioeconomic status in adulthood. Journal of Biosocial Science. 1990; 22 :121–135. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuh D, Richards M, Hardy R, Butterworth S, Wadsworth MEJ. Childhood cognitive ability and deaths up until middle age: A post-war birth cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 33 :408–413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuncel NR, Crede M, Thomas LL. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2007; 6 :51–68. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127 :162–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA, Ones DS. Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004; 86 :148–161. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kurdek LA. Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64 :221–242. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998; 279 :1703–1708. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lawrence E, Bradbury TN. Physical aggression and marital dysfunction: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15 :135–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lee WE, Wadsorth MEJ, Hotopf M. The protective role of trait anxiety: S longitudinal cohort study. Psychological Medicine. 2006; 36 :345–351. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • LePine JA, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Hedlund J. Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g . Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997; 82 :803–811. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lewis M. Issues in the study of personality development. Psychological Inquiry. 2001; 12 :67–83. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Loeb J. The personality factor in divorce. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1966; 30 :562. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lund R, Holstein BE, Osler M. Marital history from age 15 to 40 years and subsequent 10-year mortality: A longitudinal study of Danish males born in 1953. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 33 :389–397. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Luster T, McAdoo H. Family and child influences on educational attainment: A secondary analysis of the High/Scope Perry preschool data. Developmental Psychology. 1996; 32 :26–39. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Cohen RD, Kauhanen J, Wilson TW, Smith NL, Salonen JT. Childhood and adult socioeconomic status as predictors of mortality in Finland. Lancet. 1994; 343 :424–527. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Maier H, Smith J. Psychological predictors of mortality in old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1999; 54B :44–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Martin LT, Friedman HS. Comparing personality scales across time: An illustrative study of validity and consistency in life-span archival data. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :85–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Martin LT, Kubzansky LD. Childhood cognitive performance and risk of mortality: A prospective cohort study of gifted individuals. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 162 :887–890. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Maruta T, Colligan RC, Malinchoc M, Offord KP. Optimists vs. pessimists: Survival rate among medical patients over a 30-year period. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2000; 75 :140–143. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Maruta T, Hamburgen ME, Jennings CA, Offord KP, Colligan RC, Frye RL, Malinchoc M. Keeping hostility in perspective: Coronary heart disease and the hostility scale on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1993; 68 :109–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mayer JD. A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate psychology? American Psychologist. 2005; 60 :294–307. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • McCarron P, Gunnell D, Harrison GL, Okasha M, Davey-Smith G. Temperament in young adulthood and later mortality: Prospective observational study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003; 57 :888–892. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • McCranie EW, Kahan J. Personality and multiple divorce. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1986; 174 :161–164. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • McCrainie EW, Watkins LO, Brandsma JM, Sisson BD. Hostility, coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence, and total mortality: Lack of association in a 25-year follow-up study of 478 physicians. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1986; 9 :119–125. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Meehl RE. High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1971; 77 :143–148. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mershon B, Gorsuch RL. Number of factors in personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 55 :675–680. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Meyer GJ, Finn SE, Eyde LD, Kay GG, Moreland KL, Dies RR, et al. Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist. 2001; 56 :128–165. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Miller GE, Cohen S, Rabin BS, Skoner DR, Doyle WJ. Personality and tonic cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune parameters. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 1999; 13 :109–123. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mischel W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mroczek DK, Spiro A. Personality change influences mortality in older men. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :371–376. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Murberg TA, Bru E, Aarsland T. Personality as predictor of mortality among patients with congestive heart failure: A two-year follow-up study. Personality and Individual Differences. 2001; 30 :749–757. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Myers DG. The American paradox: Spiritual hunger in an age of plenty. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Orbuch TL, Veroff J, Hassan H, Horrocks J. Who will divorce: A 14-year longitudinal study of black couples and white couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2002; 19 :179–202. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Osler M, Andersen AN, Due P, Lund R, Damsgaard MT, Holstein BE. Socioeconomic position in early life, birth weight, childhood cognitive function, and adult mortality. A longitudinal study of Danish men born in 1953. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health. 2003; 57 :681–686. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Osler M, Prescott E, Gronbaek M, Christensen U, Due P, Enghorn G. Income inequality, individual income, and mortality in Danish adults: Analysis of pooled data from two cohort studies. British Medical Journal. 2002; 324 :1–4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ozer DJ, Benet-Martinez V. Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006; 57 :401–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Paul AM. The cult of personality. New York: Free Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Paunonen SV. Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 74 :538–556. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Paunonen SV, Ashton MC. Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 81 :524–539. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pervin LA, John OP. Handbook of personality theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Peterson C, Seligman MER, Yurko KH, Martin LR, Friedman HS. Catastrophizing and untimely death. Psychological Science. 1998; 2 :127–130. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Peterson RA, Brown SR. On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90 :175–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131 :925–971. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pudaric S, Sundquist J, Johansson S. Country of birth, instrumental activities of daily living, self-rated health and mortality: A Swedish population-based survey of people aged 55–74. Social Science and Medicine. 2003; 56 :2439–2503. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rapee RM, Kennedy S, Ingram M, Edwards S, Sweeney L. Prevention and early intervention of anxiety disorders in inhibited preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005; 73 :488–497. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Reiss HT, Capobianco A, Tsai FT. Finding the person in personal relationships. Journal of Personality. 2002; 70 :813–850. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roberts BW. Blessings, banes, and possibilities in the study of childhood personality. Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 2005; 51 :367–378. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roberts BW. Personality development and organizational behavior. In: Staw BM, editor. Research on organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press; 2006. pp. 1–41. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roberts BW, Bogg T. A 30-year longitudinal study of the relationships between conscientiousness-related traits, and the family structure and health-behavior factors that affect health. Journal of Personality. 2004; 72 :325–354. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roberts BW, Caspi A, Moffitt T. Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84 :582–593. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roberts BW, Robins RW. Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of the Big Five dimensions and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000; 26 :1284–1296. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roberts BW, Walton K, Viechtbauer W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2006; 132 :1–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roberts BW, Wood D. Personality development in the context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In: Mroczek D, Little T, editors. Handbook of personality development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 11–39. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of a relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 79 :251–259. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Robins RW, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. It’s not just who you’re with, it’s who you are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality. 2002; 70 :925–964. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roisman GE, Masten AS, Coatsworth D, Tellegen A. Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development. 2004; 75 :123–133. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rosenthal R. How are we doing in soft psychology. American Psychologist. 1990; 45 :775–777. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Rev. ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rosenthal R. Effect sizes in behavioral and biomedical research. In: Bicman L, editor. Validity and social experimentation: Don Campbell’s legacy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2000. pp. 121–139. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. R equivalent : A simple effect size indicator. Psychological Methods. 2003; 8 :492–496. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ross L, Nisbett RE. The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rothbart MK, Bates JE. Temperament. In: Damon W, Lerner R, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006. pp. 99–166. (Vol. Ed.) [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rozanski A, Blumenthal JA, Kaplan J. Impact of psychological factors on the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease and implications for therapy. Circulation. 1999; 99 :2192–2217. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sapolsky RM. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science. 2005; 308 :648–652. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sarason IG, Smith RE, Diener E. Personality research: Components of variance attributable to the person and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975; 32 :199–204. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Saucier G. An alternative multi-language structure for personality attributes. European Journal of Personality. 2003; 76 :179–205. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schaie KW. The course of adult intellectual development. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :304–313. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Scheier MF, Carver CS. On the power of positive thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1993; 2 :26–30. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin. 1998; 124 :262–274. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schulz R, Bookwala J, Knapp JE, Scheier M, Williamson GM. Pessimism, age, and cancer mortality. Psychology and Aging. 1996; 11 :304–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Seibert SE, Kraimer ML, Crant JM. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology. 2001; 54 :845–874. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sewell WH, Haller AO, Portes A. The educational and early occupational process. American Sociological Review. 1969; 34 :82–92. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The Wisconsin longitudinal study of social and psychological factors in aspirations and achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. 1980; 1 :59–101. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The influence of The American Occupational Structure on the Wisconsin model. Contemporary Sociology. 1992; 21 :598–603. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shiner RL. An emerging developmental science of personality: Current progress and future prospects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2005; 51 :379–387. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shipley BA, Der G, Taylor MD, Deary IJ. Cognition and all-cause mortality across the entire adult age range: Health and lifestyle survey. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2006; 68 :17–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Skolnick A. Married lives: Longitudinal perspectives on marriage. In: Eichorn DH, Clausen JA, Haan N, Honzik MP, Mussen PH, editors. Present and past in midlife. New York: Academic Press; 1981. pp. 270–300. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Smith AW, Meitz JEG. Vanishing supermoms and other trends in marital dissolution, 1969–1978. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1985; 47 :53–65. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Smith TW. Personality as risk and resilience in physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2006; 15 :227–231. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Smith TW, Gallo L. Personality traits as risk factors for physical illness. In: Baum A, Evenson T, Singer J, editors. Handbook of health psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. pp. 139–174. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Snyder M, Stukas A. Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999; 50 :273–303. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Steenland K, Henley J, Thun M. All-cause and cause-specific death rates by educational status for two million people in two American Cancer Society cohorts, 1959–1996. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002; 156 :11–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • St. John PD, Montgomery PR, Kristjansson B, McDowell I. Cognitive scores, even with the normal range, predict death and institutionalization. Age and Ageing. 2002; 31 :373–378. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Suls J, Martin R. The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality. 2005; 73 :1485–1509. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Day NE, Khaw K. Prospective cohort study of hostility and the risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. International Journal of Cardiology. 2005; 100 :155–161. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Surtees PG, Wainwright NWJ, Luben R, Khaw K, Day NE. Sense of coherence and mortality in men and women in the EPIC-Norfolk United Kingdom prospective cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 158 :1202–1209. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Taylor MD, Hart CL, Davey-Smith G, Whalley LJ, Hole DJ, Wilson V, Deary IJ. Childhood IQ and marriage by mid-life: The Scottish Mental Survey 1932 and the Midspan studies. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 38 :1621–1630. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tenconi MT, Devoti G, Comelli M RIFLE Research Group. Role of socioeconomic indicators in the prediction of all causes and coronary heart disease mortality in over 12,000 men—The Italian RIFLE pooling project. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2000; 16 :565–571. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tharenou P. Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management? Academy of Management Journal. 2001; 44 :1005–1017. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tucker JS, Kressin NR, Spiro A, Ruscio J. Intrapersonal characteristics and the timing of divorce: A prospective investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1998; 15 :211–225. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tzeng JM, Mare RD. Labor market and socioeconomic effects on marital stability. Social Science Research. 1995; 24 :329–351. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vagero D, Leon D. Effect of social class in childhood and adulthood on adult mortality. Lancet. 1994; 343 :1224–1225. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Watson D, Hubbard B, Wiese D. General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self-and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68 :413–449. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Weiss A, Costa PT. Domain and facet personality predictors of all-cause mortality among Medicare patients aged 65 to 100. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67 :1–10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Whalley LJ, Deary IJ. Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76. British Medical Journal. 2001; 322 :1–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wilson RS, Bienias JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA, Bennet DA. Negative affect and mortality in older persons. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 9 :827–835. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Gu L, Bienas JL, Mendes de Leon CF, Evans DA. Neuroticism, extraversion, and mortality in a defined population of older persons. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005; 67 :841–845. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wilson RS, Mendes de Leon CF, Bienias JL, Evans DA, Bennett DA. Personality and mortality in old age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 2004; 59 :110–116. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review. 2001; 26 :179–201. [ Google Scholar ]

research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

There are no new answers.

There are no comments.

research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

IMAGES

  1. A History of Personality Psychology: Part 2

    research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

  2. Personality Test Myers Briggs : Who are you? Take the MBTI Test

    research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

  3. Encyclopedia of Personality Research (2 Volume Set)

    research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

  4. PPT

    research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

  5. 28 Great Tips on Personality and Charm from the 1940s · The Lindy Charm

    research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

  6. PPT

    research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

VIDEO

  1. 1940s Personality Quiz

  2. Personality analysis born August 21, 1994

  3. Personality analysis born August 30, 1994

  4. Personality analysis born August 24, 1994

  5. Personality analysis born August 25, 1994

  6. Personality analysis born August 20, 1994

COMMENTS

  1. Theories of Personality: Hans Eysenck, Cattell & Allport

    Eysenck's Personality Theory. Eysenck (1952, 1967, 1982) proposed a theory of personality based on biological factors, arguing that individuals inherit a type of nervous system that affects their ability to learn and adapt to the environment. During the 1940s, Eysenck was working at the Maudsley psychiatric hospital in London.

  2. Influences on Personality Formation Flashcards

    Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to _____. a. find a prototypical personality in each culture The term parenting style can be described as the way in which one interacts with, sets limits for, and provides guidance to children.

  3. Milestones in the history of personality disorders

    Abstract This paper analyzes the major historical milestones in the study of normal and abnormal personality, from antiquity up until the 20th century. Special attention is paid to the interaction between dimensional and typological approaches, which was a major issue during the preparation of DSM-5.

  4. PDF A History of Personality Psychology

    History of Personality Psychology Theory, Science, and Research from Hellenism to the Twenty-First Century Frank Dumont cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

  5. 11.2 The Origins of Personality

    Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that the interactions and conflicts among the components create personality (Freud, 1923/1943). According to Freudian theory, the id is the component of personality that forms the basis of our most primitive impulses.

  6. Sixteen-Factor Model of Personality, The

    The sixteen-factor model of personality represents a unique and momentous chapter in the history of personality research. Emerging out of the lexical tradition and factor analytic studies, the sixteen-factor model was the first scientifically derived personality taxonomy (Tucker 2009).The sixteen-factor model of personality provided researchers with a taxonomy to describe, understand, and ...

  7. A history of personality psychology: Theory, science, and research from

    Citation Dumont, F. (2010). A history of personality psychology: Theory, science, and research from Hellenism to the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press. https:// https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676093 Abstract Frank Dumont presents personality psychology with a fresh description of its current status as well as its prospects.

  8. Personality Psychology Explained: 7 Theories and Assessments

    Trait theories of personality. From the 1940s onwards, several investigators including Gordon Allport, Henry Murray, and Raymond Cattell began exploring the personality traits' stability and hierarchy. Rather than based on single key characteristics, they found personality to be a "unified and organized totality" (McAdams, 1997).

  9. The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait

    Wiggins J. S., Broughton R. (1985). ' The interpersonal circle: A structural model for the integration of personality research'. In: Hogan, R. and Jones, W. H. (Eds), Perspectives in Personality, Vol. 1, pp.1-47, JAI Press ... Higher-Order Structures of Personality. Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar. A Brand as a Person. Go to ...

  10. Personality Theories for the 21st Century

    Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. , 57, 17-40. McCrae R. R., Costa P. T. Jr. (1994). The paradox of parental influence: Understanding retrospective studies of parent-child relations and adult personality.

  11. Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

    In the 1940s and 1950s, the main point of interest in psychology became personality traits and the goal was to determine differences in personality between people belonging to different classes in society and, in more extensive research, between people belonging to different cultures

  12. Clinical Personality Assessment: History, Evolution, Contemporary

    The modern era for personality assessment began in late-nineteenth-century England with the work of Sir Francis Galton. The first self-report personality inventory used to obtain personality information was developed by Robert Woodworth during World War I. Numerous personality inventories were developed in the years that followed, including the ...

  13. Influences on Personality Formation Flashcards

    Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to __________. find a prototypical personality in each culture Twin studies research indicates that two-thirds of personality can be attributed to __________. genetic influences An example of collectivism is an individual defining oneself as an obedient son. T

  14. A Historical Timeline of Modern Psychology

    1869: Sir Francis Galton establishes statistical techniques to better understand the relationship between variables such as intelligence and personality in heredity studies. 1878: G. Stanley Hall becomes the first American to earn a Ph.D. in psychology. 1879: Wilhelm Wundt establishes the first experimental psychology lab in Leipzig, Germany ...

  15. Personality: Where Does it Come From?

    The invisible part of personality consists of the needs and BEATs. They form the basis of personality and they drive and guide the visible part. The visible part happens when the needs and BEATs create the actual goals people pursue in the world — what people actually do. Take the following example.

  16. A History of Personality Psychology: Part 1

    Plato proposed four groupings (artistic, sensible, intuitive, reasoning) and Aristotle hypothesized four factors (iconic i.e. artistic, pistic i.e. common-sense, noetic i.e. intuition and dianoetic i.e. logic) contributed to one's social order in society.

  17. The Power of Personality

    Starting in the 1980s, personality psychology began a profound renaissance and has now become an extraordinarily diverse and intellectually stimulating field (Pervin & John, 1999).However, just because a field of inquiry is vibrant does not mean it is practical or useful—one would need to show that personality traits predict important life outcomes, such as health and longevity, marital ...

  18. Influences on Personality Formation quiz Flashcards

    Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to _____. Please select the best answer from the choices provided. A. find a prototypical personality in each culture B. establish support for similar personality traits across cultures C. demonstrate environmental influences on personality D. demonstrate heredity influences on personality

  19. Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

    Answer: find a prototypical personality in each culture Explanation: Psychology was a new field in science and scientists began to make some findings and researches about some subject topics in the newly discovered field. They started a research on personality in the 1940s in order to find a prototypical personality in each culture.

  20. Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to

    Answer: a. find a prototypical personality in each culture. Explanation: Compared to other areas of science, psychology is still a somewhat new and less developed area of study. Many of its biggest accomplishments have occurred in recent years. One of these big leaps that only happened recently includes the research on personality.

  21. Influences on Personality Formation Flashcards

    Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to __________. X establish support for similar personality traits across cultures. demonstrate environmental influences on personality. Although environmental factors play a role in the best parenting style for each family, according to research in the US, the one that is most effective is the ...

  22. Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to ...

    Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to establish support for similar personality traits across cultures. f Expert answered| sujaysen |Points 22028| Log in for more information. Question Asked 2/10/2017 4:17:00 PM Updated 2/11/2017 2:55:54 PM 0 Answers/Comments This answer has been confirmed as correct and helpful.

  23. Studying For Final by Alyna Gonzales Flashcards

    Research on personality began in the 1940s in order to _____. Please select the best answer from the choices provided A. find a prototypical personality in each culture B. establish support for similar personality traits across cultures C. demonstrate environmental influences on personality D. demonstrate heredity influences on personality