Personality and Individual Differences
About: Personality and Individual Differences is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Personality & Big Five personality traits. It has an ISSN identifier of 0191-8869. Over the lifetime, 12866 publication(s) have been published receiving 528979 citation(s). The journal is also known as: Personality and individual differences : an international journal of research into the structure and development of personality, and the causation of individual differences & Personality and individual differences : an internat. journal of research into the structure and development of personality, and the causation of individual differences.
Topics: Personality, Big Five personality traits, Neuroticism, Extraversion and introversion, Anxiety
Papers published on a yearly basis
Abstract: The present project utilized the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1990 ) to clarify the multi-faceted nature of impulsivity. The NEO-PI-R and a number of commonly used impulsivity measures were administered to over 400 young adults. Exploratory factor analyses identified four distinct personality facets associated with impulsive-like behavior which were labeled urgency, (lack of) premeditation, (lack of) perseverance, and sensation seeking. Each of these traits was marked by a different facet of the FFM. Following the initial factor identification, scales to measure each of the personality facets were created and combined to form the UPPS Impulsive Behavior scale. Implications for the understanding of impulsive behavior and the FFM are discussed, as are future applications of the UPPS impulsive behavior scale.
Abstract: This series of studies describes the development of a measure of emotional intelligence based on the model of emotional intelligence developed by Salovey and Mayer [Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.]. A pool of 62 items represented the different dimensions of the model. A factor analysis of the responses of 346 participants suggested the creation of a 33-item scale. Additional studies showed the 33-item measure to have good internal consistency and testretest reliability. Validation studies showed that scores on the 33-item measure 1. (a) correlated with eight of nine theoretically related constructs, including alexithymia, attention to feelings, clarity of feelings, mood repair, optimism and impulse control; 2. (b) predicted first-year college grades; 3. (c) were significantly higher for therapists than for therapy clients or for prisoners; 4. (d) were significantly higher for females than males, consistent with prior findings in studies of emotional skills; 5. (e) were not related to cognitive ability and 6. (f) were associated with the openness to experience trait of the big five personality dimensions.
Abstract: The five-factor model has recently received wide attention as a comprehensive model of personality traits. The claim that these five factors represent basic dimensions of personality is based on four lines of reasoning and evidence: (a) longitudinal and cross-observer studies demonstrate that all five factors are enduring dispositions that are manifest in patterns of behavior; (b) traits related to each of the factors are found in a variety of personality systems and in the natural language of trait description; (c) the factors are found in different age, sex, race, and language groups, although they may be somewhat differently expressed in different cultures; and (d) evidence of heritability suggests that all have some biological basis. To clarify some remaining confusions about the five-factor model, the relation between Openness and psychometric intelligence is described, and problems in factor rotation are discussed.
Abstract: In view of certain psychometric deficiencies of the original Psychoticism scale, an attempt was made to improve the scale by adding new items. It was attempted to increase the internal reliability of the scale, improve the shape of the distribution and increase the mean and variance score. Two different studies are discussed. Reliabilities are now somewhat improved, distributions are closer to normal and mean scores are higher than on the old scale. Four new short 12-item scales for the measurement of P, E, N and L are also given.
Paul Barrett1•Institutions (1)
Abstract: For journal editors, reviewers, and readers of research articles, structural equation model (SEM) fit has recently become a confusing and contentious area of evaluative methodology. Proponents of two kinds of approaches to model fit can be identified: those who adhere strictly to the result from a null hypothesis significance test, and those who ignore this and instead index model fit as an approximation function. Both have principled reasons for their respective course of action. This paper argues that the chi-square exact-fit test is the only substantive test of fit for SEM, but, its sensitivity to discrepancies from expected values at increasing sample sizes can be highly problematic if those discrepancies are considered trivial from an explanatory-theory perspective. On the other hand, suitably scaled indices of approximate fit do not possess this sensitivity to sample size, but neither are they “tests” of model fit. The proposed solution to this dilemma is to consider the substantive “consequences” of accepting one explanatory model over another in terms of the predictive accuracy of theory-relevant-criteria. If there are none to be evaluated, then it is proposed that no scientifically worthwhile distinction between “competing” models can thus be made, which of course begs the question as to why such a SEM application was undertaken in the first place.
Related Journals (5)