Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_27_библиотеки_им_акад_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
Description
Figure 8.8 The Personality Theory of Carl Rogers
Self-Esteem
From the start, Rogers sought empirical verification for his newly formulated
theory. To evaluate the importance of the self-concept, he taped, transcribed, and
analyzed many of his therapy sessions and found that, as treatment progressed,
clients made more and more positive statements about themselves. Whatever selfdiscrepancies that existed tended to diminish. More recent research confirms that
people have clear, often complex beliefs about the self. According to Hazel Markus
(1977), these beliefs are a collection of self-schemas, which are specific beliefs
about the self that influence how we interpret self-relevant information. It also
appears that we think about—and are guided by—images of what we might become,
would like to become, and are afraid of becoming in the future (Bocage-Barthélémy,
Selimbegović, & Chatard, 2018; Davidai & Gilovich, 2018; Ruvolo & Markus, 1992).
self-schemas. Specific beliefs about the self that influence how we interpret selfrelevant information.
When it comes to the self, we are not mere cool and dispassionate observers.
Rather, we evaluate ourselves in positive and negative terms, opinions that comprise
a person’s self-esteem (Coopersmith, 1967). Some individuals have higher opinions
of themselves than others do. However, self-esteem is not a single trait etched
permanently in stone. Rather, it is a state of mind that varies in response to success,
failure, changes in fortune, social interactions, and other life experiences (Heatherton
& Polivy, 1991; Orth & Robins, 2014; von Soest, Wichstrøm, & Kvalem, 2016). Also,
because self-concepts are made up of many self-schemas, people may have higher
self-esteem in some life domains than others (Pelham, 1995; Pelham & Swann,
1989; Ruiter, Geert, & Kunnen, 2017). In fact, some people consistently have high or
low regard for themselves (Marigold, Cavallo, Holmes, & Wood, 2014; Robinson &
Cameron, 2012), but others seem to fluctuate up and down as a result of daily
experiences—which makes them highly responsive to praise and overly sensitive to
criticism (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996; Schimel, Arndt, Pyszczynski, & Greenberg, 2001;
Zeigler-Hill et al., 2013).
self-esteem. A positive or negative evaluation of the self.
In many ways, satisfying the need for self-esteem is critical to our entire outlook
on life (Brown, 1998; Wagner, Hoppmann, Ram, & Gerstorf, 2015). People with
positive rather than negative self-images tend to be happy, healthy, productive, and
successful. They are also confident, bringing to new challenges a winning and
motivating attitude—which leads them to persist longer at difficult tasks, sleep better
at night, maintain independence in the face of peer pressure, and suffer fewer ulcers.
In contrast, people with negative self-images tend to be more depressed, pessimistic
about the future, and prone to failure. Lacking confidence, they bring to new tasks a
losing attitude that traps them in a self-defeating cycle. Expecting to fail, and fearing
the worst, they become anxious, exert less effort, disregard positive feedback
(Josephs, Bosson, & Jacobs, 2003), and “tune out” on important challenges. Then
when they do fail, people with low self-esteem blame themselves, which makes them
feel even worse (Brockner, 1983; Brown & Dutton, 1995).
Just as individuals differ in their self-esteem, so too do social and cultural groups.
If you were to administer a self-esteem test to thousands of people all over the world,
would you find that some segments of the population score higher than others?
Believing that self-esteem promotes health, happiness, and success, and concerned
that some social groups are disadvantaged in this regard, researchers have made
https://t.me/medicina_free
these types of comparisons. Consider the possibility of a gender gap. Over the years,
much has been written in the popular press about the inflated but fragile “male ego”
and the low self-regard among adolescent girls and women. Does research support
this assumption? To find out, Bleidorn and others (2016) collected data across 48
nations from 985,937 participants. The result: Males reported a consistently higher
level of self-esteem than females. Zuckerman and colleagues (2016) investigated this
same gender difference and discovered interesting trends. When comparing the
results of numerous studies, Zuckerman and colleagues determined that while a
difference in self-esteem between males and females exists, the difference is small.
Reasons for this difference could be a number of factors: body dissatisfaction, gender
roles, how either is valued by society, age, culture, and susceptibility to depression
and anxiety.
If we were meeting this woman for the first time, we would likely assume that she
is confident. More senior women are making these types of fashion statements on
social media to promote positive self-esteem at any age.
iStock.com/Diamond Dogs
Researchers have also wondered if low self-esteem is a problem for stigmatized
minority groups, historical victims of prejudice and discrimination. Does being part of
a minority group—such as being African American—deflate one’s sense of selfworth? Based on the combined results of studies involving more than half a million
respondents, Bernadette Gray-Little and Adam Hafdahl (2000 reported that Black
American children, adolescents, and young adults tend to score higher, not lower,
than their white counterparts on measures of self-esteem. In a meta-analysis of
hundreds of studies that compared all age groups and other American minorities,
Jean Twenge and Jennifer Crocker (2002) confirmed the African American advantage
in self-esteem relative to whites but found that Latinx, Asian, and Native American
minorities have lower self-esteem scores. As illustrated in Figure 8.9, a longitudinal
study on self-esteem among Black, white, and Hispanic Americans revealed a
different pattern that was dependent on age (Erol & Orth, 2011). At age 14, white and
Black adolescents had similar levels of self-esteem, but Hispanics had the lowest
level. By age 30, whites had the lowest level of self-esteem, Hispanics were in the
middle, and Black Americans had the highest level. Some researchers have
suggested that perhaps Black Americans protect their self-esteem in the face of
adversity through a shared sense of identity. This shared sense of identity might be
the reason Zuckerman and colleagues (2016) found a greater gender difference in
self-esteem among whites than Black Americans. When we investigate the impact of
sexual orientation on self-esteem, the results demonstrate a different trend. It is
important to note that self-esteem of persons who identify as a sexual minority does
tend to be lower than persons who identify as heterosexual (Bridge, Smith, & Rimes,
2019).
https://t.me/medicina_free
Description
Figure 8.9 Longitudinal Self-Esteem in U.S. Minorities
Adapted from Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2011). Self-esteem development
from age 14 to 30 years: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101(3), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024299
Variations in self-esteem have also been observed among people from different
parts of the world. As described in the chapter on social and cultural influences,
inhabitants of individualistic cultures tend to view themselves as distinct and
autonomous, whereas those in collectivist cultures view the self as part of a larger,
interdependent social network. Do these different orientations have implications for
self-esteem? Steven Heine and others (1999) believe that they do. They compared
the distribution of self-esteem scores in Canada and Japan and found that whereas
most Canadians’ scores clustered in the high-end range, the average Japanese
respondent scored in the center of that same range. This result has led researchers
to wonder: Do the Japanese truly have less inflated self-esteem than do North
Americans, which can be seen in their tendency to speak in self-effacing terms? Or
do Japanese respondents, high in self-esteem, simply feel compelled by the
collectivist need to “fit in” rather than “stand out” to present themselves modestly to
others? To answer this question, researchers have tried to develop indirect, “implicit”
tests that would measure a person’s self-esteem without his or her awareness. In a
timed word-association study, for example, Anthony Greenwald and Shelly Farnham
(2001) found that despite their noninflated scores on self-esteem tests, Asian
Americans—like their European American counterparts—were quicker to associate
themselves with positive words such as happy and sunshine than with negative
words such as vomit and poison.
Does this mean that collectivists think highly of themselves but don’t admit it? Not
necessarily. Trafimow and colleagues (1991) and others have demonstrated that we
can see ourselves in more individualistic or collectivistic terms based on
environmental cues. Hannover and colleagues (2006) decided to apply Trafimow and
colleagues’ finding to self-esteem. They defined self-esteem as the outcome of a
comparison between how you truly consider yourself to be versus the ideals that
have been ingrained into your definition of self. To test this definition, they divided
German participants into two groups—those who were more collectivistic and those
who were more individualistic. When collectivists were environmentally cued with
individualistic prompts, their self-esteem decreased. When individualists were
environmentally cued with collectivistic prompts, their self-esteem decreased.
Debrosse and colleagues (2017) found a similar result in their research. Within
participants who were collectivistic and minorities, differences between their group
identity and personal identity negatively correlated with anxiety and depression.
These findings suggest that self-esteem is related to how close or how far we are
from our ideal self, and that closeness can depend on environmental cues.
Environmental cues can include social media. Each time you flip through your
social media feed, do you wonder why other people look so perfect? It is common to
ask this question. Photo after photo features white teeth, flawless makeup, salongroomed hair, smooth figures, and lighting that appears to come from the heavens.
What you see in your social media feed, you might not see in yourself. As a result,
you might feel out of shape and frumpy. These feelings could then lead to a decline in
mood and self-esteem. Facebook, and other social media, are environmental cues
that have been well studied in this domain (Ahadzadeh, Sharif, & Ong, 2017; Kim &
Chock, 2015; Tiggemann & Slater, 2013).
https://t.me/medicina_free
Influencers are known for their fashionable personas, ability to set trends, and
flawless looks. But these media posts require a lot of effort, such as special lighting,
carefully selected décor, and professional makeup techniques.
iStock.com/Brothers91
One such explanation for the reaction described above is self-discrepancy theory.
According to E. Tory Higgins’s (1989) self-discrepancy theory, our self-esteem is
defined by the match between how we see ourselves and how we want to see
ourselves, as illustrated in Figure 8.10. It is possible that you do not see yourself the
way you want to—like the perfectly posed and styled people of Instagram. Fardouly
and colleagues (2015) found scientific evidence that demonstrates many people feel
this way. Fardouly and colleagues exposed 112 females, scored for an appearance
comparison tendency, to 10 minutes of browsing their Facebook account, a magazine
website, or a control website. All females were randomly assigned to one of the three
conditions, so they did not get to pick what they had to browse. When the 10 minutes
were over, the participants completed surveys that measured mood, body
dissatisfaction, and weight, face, hair, and skin-related appearance discrepancies.
Participants who were randomly assigned to the Facebook condition were in a worse
mood than the other participants. Those who scored high in appearance comparison
tendency who were in the Facebook condition reported more discrepancies between
theirs and others’ weight, face, hair, and skin, in comparison to participants in the
control and magazine conditions.
self-discrepancy theory. The notion that discrepancies between one’s selfconcept and “ideal” and “ought” selves have negative emotional consequences.
Description
Figure 8.10 Self-Discrepancy Theory
What’s Your Prediction?
In exercising the scientific method, Popper (1963) has suggested that scientists
pit theories or hypotheses against one another so that the best one can win. It’s like
playing king of the hill. The strong theory remains on the top of the hill and the weak
theory is pushed off the hill. Steiger and colleagues (2015) decided to play this
scientific game with two models for self-esteem: the vulnerability model and the scar
model. Research using the vulnerability model argues that self-esteem is quite stable
and can serve as a predictor of future depressive symptoms (Steiger, Fend, &
https://t.me/medicina_free
Allemand, 2015). Competing research using the scar model argues that depressive
episodes wound individuals and, thus, deteriorate the sufferer’s self-esteem, leaving
permanent scars in its wake. Which model do you think is correct?
To answer this question, Steiger and colleagues (2015) annually followed
participants beginning at age 12 until age 16. Two additional measurements were
taken when the participants were in early adulthood (approximately 35 years old) and
then middle adulthood (approximately 45 years old). Children who were born to their
original set of participants were also included in the study to see if intergenerational
effects existed. The original set of participants’ self-esteem and depressive symptoms
were compared between ages 16 and 45. Results demonstrated that individuals
suffer from the consequences of low self-esteem and depressive symptoms as they
move through stages of their life. Adolescence was a developmental marker for selfesteem in that it prospectively predicted early adult depressive symptoms. Low
adolescent self-esteem was substantially related to adult depressive symptoms.
Now, the researchers also compared the children’s depressive symptoms with
their parent’s depressive symptoms. Do you predict a connection? The researchers
found that parental and child depressive symptoms were related. They referred to this
as “intergenerational transmission” (p. 244). The researchers offered possible
explanations such as the passing on of depressive symptoms via genetics or
environmental factors such a parent-child discord or a negative family atmosphere.
While more research is necessary to determine the cause, this study is evidence that
self-esteem is quite stable and that self-esteem in adolescence is a good predictor of
depressive symptoms in adulthood. Thus, the vulnerability model is the winner.
Abraham Maslow
Abraham Maslow was the second influential spokesperson for the humanistic
approach to personality. Oddly enough, Maslow started out as a behaviorist
conducting learning experiments with monkeys. Then came the birth of his first child.
As most parents would agree, this was an eye-opening experience. Said Maslow, “I
was stunned by the mystery and by the sense of not really being in control. I felt small
and weak and feeble before all this. I’d say anyone who had a baby couldn’t be a
behaviorist.” Over the years, Maslow (1954, 1968) went on to formulate a
motivational theory of personality, focusing on how people strive to fulfill their utmost
potential.
Maslow’s Theory
Have you ever met someone who seems to have it all—great looks, good financial
status, successful career, nice home and car, loving partner, and wonderful wit—and
yet seems unsatisfied, searching for more? If so, then you’ll appreciate the essence
of Maslow’s theory. As described in the chapter on motivation and emotion, Maslow
(1954) theorized that all people are motivated to fulfill a hierarchy of needs, from the
physiological needs basic to survival to the needs for safety and security,
belongingness and love, and esteem-related needs for achievement, status, and
recognition. In short, said Maslow, each of us strives in our own way to be biologically
content, safe, loved, and respected. Only when these needs are met are we ready,
willing, and able to strive for self-actualization.
Maslow’s primary interest was in self-actualization, which he considered the
ultimate state. Thus, he went out of his way to study happy, healthy, and productive
individuals who embody the best that human nature has to offer. He interviewed a
select group of acquaintances, and he used biographies to examine the lives of great
historical figures such as Ludwig van Beethoven, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein,
and Eleanor Roosevelt. What did these self-actualized people have in common?
Maslow (1968) saw self-actualization as a rare state of being in which a person is
open to new experiences, spontaneous, playful, loving, realistic, accepting of others,
creative, energetic, independent rather than conforming, and problem-focused rather
than self-centered. If you think that this set of traits sounds almost too good to be
true, you’re right. Maslow estimated that less than 1 percent of the world’s adults are
truly self-actualized. The rest of us are too busy trying to overcome obstacles in order
to satisfy lower, more basic needs.
https://t.me/medicina_free
Self-actualization is a state of mind that we achieve on a temporary basis—during
peak experiences.
iStock.com/South_agency
https://t.me/medicina_free
The State of Self-Actualization
Is it possible to determine how self-actualized one is? Based on Maslow’s theory,
Shostrom (1965) developed the Personal Orientation Inventory, a lengthy
questionnaire designed to assess various aspects of self-actualization—such as the
capacity for intimate contact, spontaneity, and self-acceptance. This scale was
endorsed by Maslow and used in clinical settings. Research shows that people with
high scores are psychologically healthier than those who receive low scores
(Campbell, Amerikaner, Swank, & Vincent, 1989; Knapp, 1976). A sample of 10
statements from the Personal Orientation Inventory is given in Table 8.1. How many
of the values thought to be associated with self-actualization do you possess?
Table 8.1
Adapted from E. Shostrom (1965)
If you’re wondering what it feels like to be self-actualized, at least temporarily, try
this: “Think about the most wonderful experiences of your life; happiest moments,
ecstatic moments, moments of rapture, perhaps from being in love, or from listening
to music or suddenly ‘being hit’ by a book or a painting, or from some great creative
moment” (Maslow, 1968, p. 71). Maslow claimed that self-actualized individuals have
more moments like these than other people do. Still, each of us enjoys an occasional
peak experience, defined as a fleeting but intense moment of self-actualization in
which we feel happy, absorbed, and capable of extraordinary performance. In a
classic experiment by Privette (1983), music, sexual love, religion, nature, running,
sports, creative pursuits, childbirth, and reminiscing are the most common situations
people cited when asked about their peak experiences.
peak experience. A fleeting but intense moment of self-actualization in which
people feel happy, absorbed, and extraordinarily capable.
CNN journalist David Allan (2018) revisited peak experiences in “The Wisdom
Project.” He recollected a moment when he had a peak experience and reflected on
how to make such experiences more accessible. Allan found that jotting down any
perfect moment in a journal on a daily basis made these peak moments tangible and
his attention to them more frequent. At the end of his first year of journaling peak
experiences, Allan had 125 moments. He then placed them in categories and learned
something about himself. The most prevalent experiences in his life were categorized
as “Family,” “Nature,” and “Music.” Take a moment now to jot down any perfect
moment you had this week. Then, we urge you to do what Allan did: Keep a journal of
daily perfect moments. When things seem overwhelming, or you find a moment when
you wish to reflect, read your journal. You might be surprised at the number of perfect
moments you have been lucky enough to experience.
Working from Maslow’s writings, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990) has studied a
pleasant state of engagement he calls flow, an “optimal experience.” Under what
conditions, Csikszentmihalyi asks, do we tend to become so fully immersed in an
activity that we lose all track of time and all awareness of the self, forget our worries,
and concentrate our energy on what we’re doing, much to our benefit and
enjoyment? We sometimes have this exquisite experience when we write, play a
sport, cook, have an intellectual conversation, or listen to music. Csikszentmihalyi
interviewed athletes, dancers, rock climbers, artists, factory workers, chess masters,
surgeons, sailors, elderly Korean women, Japanese motorcyclists, Navajo
shepherds, and farmers in the Italian Alps. He found that people from all parts of the
world and all walks of life describe a similar kind of experience—when what they’re
https://t.me/medicina_free
doing seems effortless and perfect, when they’re so completely tuned in that nothing
else seems to matter. In a demonstration of this point, Regina Conti (2001) found that
college students who scored high rather than low on a measure of their intrinsic
motivation checked time less often during the day, lost track of time more often, and
perceived time as passing more quickly. Additionally, Wittmann (2015) argues that a
decreased awareness of the self is associated with a diminished awareness of time.
Apparently, time does fly when you’re having fun—and “in the zone.”
What precipitates flow? From his research, Csikszentmihalyi theorizes that this
state arises when people engage in activities at which they are skilled and at levels
that are challenging in relation to their ability. As depicted in Figure 8.11, tasks that
are too easy result in boredom, whereas those that are too difficult cause anxiety. For
students who are intrinsically motivated, checking and thinking about the time
happens less often (Conti, 2001). These types of students also feel as if time flies by
and are more susceptible to losing track of time. Those who were not intrinsically
motivated felt that time moved slowly, overestimated the amount of time that had
passed, and reported more negativity.
Description
Figure 8.11 Flow, the Optimal Experience
Also important is the capacity of these activities to present clear goals and
immediate feedback. The desire to strike up a conversation presents such a goal
that, by nature, provides immediate feedback. Imagine you are striking up a
conversation with a stranger. They smile at you, quickly respond to your prompt with
feedback, but follow up their feedback with an intellectual question. If this question is
challenging, but not too difficult, and the conversation that ensues is enjoyable, how
quickly does time fly? Now, it’s time to make a prediction. Does time fly by faster, and
do you perceive the conversation as more enjoyable, if the conversation is with an
attractive person? Or do looks not matter?
In a study by Dong and Wyer (2013), participants were partnered up to have an
acquaintance meeting via Skype. The partners were strangers and never saw one
another’s real face. However, pictures of the partners were provided. The picture
provided was deceptive; the photos were of either an attractive face or an
unattractive face. The photos were not representative of the real conversation
partner. All conversations were limited to 8 minutes. When the time was up,
participants rated their conversation partner on attractiveness, the enjoyableness of
the conversation, and how long they thought the conversation lasted. Participants
who rated their partner as attractive estimated their conversation shorter and more
enjoyable than those who rated their partner as unattractive. So, enjoying a
conversation with an attractive partner can make time fly.
https://t.me/medicina_free
When we enjoy what we are doing or are incredibly focused, it can feel as if time
is flying by. You might have experienced this when studying for your favorite class.
iStock.com/Sisoje
The feeling that time has flown by and you’re entrenched in the moment can be
applied to many domains, including sports. In all sports, it seems, athletes who are
hot and playing at the top of their game often talk about being focused in mind and
body, and “in the zone.” In studies of amateur tennis players, basketball players, and
golfers, for example, researchers found that this state occurs in all sports (“My
attention was focused entirely on what I was doing,” “I felt in control of my game,” “My
performance felt effortless,” “Everything clicked”) and that the conditions that produce
it vary—depending on the competitive nature of the activity and the importance of
winning. When good athletes are motivated but relaxed, their performance is fluid,
almost without conscious thought or effort (Beilock, Carr, MacMahon, & Starkes,
2002). Research by Jackman and colleagues (2016) added mental toughness to the
equation. The athletes interviewed described a need for toughness to control flow
(“Don’t dwell on the mistakes,” “Overcome the fatigue and see the big picture,” “Have
confidence in my abilities”). Thus, people may be able to create for themselves the
conditions that will unleash this optimal state of performance (Jackson &
Csikzentmihalyi, 1999).
Perspectives on the Humanistic Approach
When Carl Rogers (1974) looked back on his career and on his impact on
psychology, counseling, and education, he concluded that “[he] expressed an idea
whose time had come.” The idea he referred to was that people are inherently good,
that conscious mental experience is important, and that the self-concept lies at the
heart of personality.
Humanistic psychologists have received praise for drawing our attention to this
idea, for providing an alternative perspective on personality, and for sparking interest
among researchers in previously neglected topics related to the self. At the same
time, they have been severely criticized for naively taking people’s self-report
statements at face value and for painting too rosy a picture of human nature while
ignoring our demonstrated capacity for evil. Focused on the quest for selfactualization, humanistic psychologists have also been accused of inadvertently
promoting a self-indulgent, “be true to yourself” approach to life. Sure, the self is
important, say the critics, but where does the rest of the world fit in?
THE TRAIT APPROACH
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Identify the roles that nature and nurture are believed to play in trait development.
List the main goals in a trait approach to personality.
Define the Big Five.
Compare the strengths and weaknesses of personality tests.
Create an argument that supports the role of genetic factors in personality.
Juxtapose introverts with extraverts.
https://t.me/medicina_free
In 1919, a 22-year-old psychology student from Indiana handwrote a letter to
Sigmund Freud to say he’d be traveling in Europe and would like to meet. Freud was
the master, known worldwide, and the student, a fan, wanted to meet him. A time was
arranged, so the student took a train to Vienna, arrived on schedule, and entered the
master’s inner office. But Freud just sat there in silence, staring, waiting for his young,
wide-eyed admirer to state his mission. Desperate to break the awkward stalemate,
the student told about an incident he witnessed on the train that day involving a
young boy who appeared to have a “dirt phobia.” The boy complained that the seats
were soiled and pleaded with his mother to keep dirty passengers from sitting nearby.
The mother, it turned out, was a dominant, “well-starched” woman. When the student
finished telling his story, Freud paused, then leaned over and said in a soft voice,
“And was that little boy you?”
Freud’s young admirer was terribly embarrassed. Wishing he could disappear, he
nervously changed the subject, babbled a bit, then excused himself and left. It turns
out that the student was Gordon Allport, who went on to become one of the most
important personality psychologists of all time. In an autobiography published the
year he died, Allport (1967) reflected on his interaction with Freud, and the fallacy of
jumping to conclusions. Allport said that this experience convinced him that before
personality theorists search for deep and analytical explanations, as Freud had done
in their encounter, they should start by trying to describe and measure the basic units
of personality. In other words, first things first. This rule now guides what is known as
the trait approach.
The Building Blocks of Personality
Working from the ground up, Allport and Odbert (1936) combed through an
unabridged English dictionary and came up with a list of 18,000 words that could be
used to describe people. By eliminating synonyms, obscure words, and words
referring to moods and other temporary states, they brought the list down to 4,500
words, and then grouped words that were similar into about 200 clusters of related
traits. For Allport, these traits were the building blocks of personality (though he was
quick to point out that not all traits are relevant to all people, nor do they all have an
influence on behavior).
trait. A relatively stable predisposition to behave in a certain way.
To reduce Allport’s list to a more manageable size and construct a science of
personality, Cattell (1965) used factor analysis, a statistical technique designed to
identify clusters of items that correlate with one another. Cattell, who majored in
chemistry in college, wanted to uncover the basic units of personality, much like
chemistry’s periodic table of elements. Are individuals who are passive also
thoughtful, calm, and even-tempered? Do those who describe themselves as
sociable also say they’re easygoing, lively, and talkative? How many trait clusters are
needed to fully describe personality? To answer these questions, Cattell collected
people’s ratings of themselves and others on various attributes, crunched the
numbers through factor analysis, and found that personality consists of 16 distinct
units, which he called source traits. What distinguishes one individual from another,
said Cattell, is that each of us has a unique combination of traits—high levels of
some, and low levels of others—a pattern that is summarized by a personality
“profile.” To derive this profile, Cattell devised the Sixteen Personality Factors
Questionnaire (16 PF), a 187-item scale that yields 16 separate scores, one for each
factor.
As factor analysis became more sophisticated, researchers began to notice that
Cattell’s model (and other models as well) could be simplified even further—and that
five major factors often seemed to emerge from self-ratings, ratings of others, and an
assortment of personality questionnaires. This five-factor model of personality
(summarized in Table 8.2) has emerged consistently in studies of children, college
students, and older adults; in men and women; in different languages; and in testing
conducted in the United States, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Poland, China,
the Philippines, and other countries. Hence, these factors have been nicknamed the
Big Five (De Raad, 2000; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Wiggins, 1996).
five-factor model. A model of personality that consists of five basic traits:
neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Table 8.2
Not everyone agrees with the five-factor model. Cattell thought five factors were
too few. Eysenck, whom we will hear more about shortly, thought five was too many.
Others believe that five is the right number but disagree about how the factors should
be described. For the most part, however, evidence in support of the five-factor model
https://t.me/medicina_free
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана