Narrow Traits Research Articles

Personality traits in the domestic dog ( Canis familiaris)

The domestic dog ( Canis familiaris) has been subjected to a huge range of selection pressures during domestication that has resulted in a considerable diversity in morphology and behaviour. This, together with the many uses the dog is put to in our society, makes the dog an interesting model for studies of animal personality. However, only a few attempts have been done to study individual differences in dogs. In this study, behavioural data from 15,329 dogs of 164 different breeds were used to investigate the existence of personality traits in dogs. The data were collected at a personality test that tested the dogs’ reactions to strangers, “fleeing” prey-like objects, and several potential fear- and aggression-eliciting stimuli. Factor analyses revealed the existence of five narrow traits: “Playfulness”, “Curiosity/Fearlessness”, “Chase-proneness”, “Sociability” and “Aggressiveness”. Higher-order factor analyses showed that all factors except “Aggressiveness” were related to each other, creating a broad factor that influences behaviour in a range of situations. Both narrow and broad factors were found in a dataset including data from a large number of breeds, as well as within eight of Fédération Cynologique Internationale’s (FCI’s) 10 breed groups. This indicates that the personality dimensions found in the study are general for the dog as a species. The finding of a major behavioural dimension in different groups of dog breeds, together with comparable results previously found for wolves ( Canis lupus), suggests that the dimension is evolutionarily stable and has survived the varied selection pressures encountered during domestication. The broad factor is comparable to the shyness–boldness axis previously found in both humans and animals, and to human “supertraits” (a combination of Extraversion and Neuroticism). The results of this study can be used to describe and compare individual dogs, as well as breeds. This, in turn, can be used in applications like selection of service dogs and breeding animals, as well as predicting behaviour problems in pet dogs.

Big Five Predictors of Academic Achievement

A large-sample study (N = 717) is described in which two broad Big Five factor measures were compared with two narrow personality trait measures in the prediction of final grades in an undergraduate psychology course. The Big Five factors evaluated as predictors were Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience (or Intellect). The traits evaluated, which were constituents of the respective factors, were need for Achievement and need for Understanding. In each comparison, the lower level trait measure did better than its higher level factor measure in the prediction of course grades. We conclude that the aggregation of narrow trait measures into broad factor measures can be counterproductive from the points of view of both behavior prediction and behavior explanation.

Who responds how and when to anger? The assessment of actual anger response styles and their relation to personality

Actual anger response styles during anger encounters may well diverge from self-reported habitual anger response styles, such as anger - in, anger - out, or anger control. Also, the relationship of actual anger response styles to broad personality traits is not well known. We obtained anger self - reports, physiological reactivity (diastolic blood pressure, skin temperature at the forehead, and EMG extensor digitorum), and ratings of facial anger expression, and defined actual anger response style dimensions of “intensity”, “suppression”, “repression”, and “denial” as particular patterns of discrepancies among these responses. A total of 80 female subjects were randomly assigned to a treatment (Tr) and a control (Co) group. Anger was induced through real - life provocations. Compared to Co, Tr subjects showed larger physiological responses and reported more anger. Habitual anger response styles did not predict actual styles, whereas extraversion and neuroticism did. Control subjects scoring low on extraversion or high on neuroticism reacted with high denial, that is, with stronger physiological and behavioural than experiential anger, whereas the opposite pattern of low denial was found for treatment subjects low on extraversion or high on neuroticism. These results suggest that both the particular situation and broad but not narrow personality traits exert an influence on actual anger response styles.

Personality and job performance: the importance of narrow traits

In a recent discussion of the bandwidth–fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection, Ones and Viswesvaran (1996) concluded that ‘broader and richer personality traits will have higher predictive validity than narrower traits’. In this paper, the arguments made by Ones and Viswesvaran in favor of the exclusive use of broad personality dimensions are discussed. New data are presented that contradict Ones and Viswesvaran's claim of the existence of a general, integrity-related personality factor, and that show two narrow measures—the Responsibility and Risk Taking scales of the Jackson Personality Inventory—to have higher validities than the Big Five dimensions with respect to job performance criteria based on self-reported workplace delinquency in a sample of 127 entry-level employees. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Personality and job performance: the importance of narrow traits

Personality and job performance: the importance of narrow traits

Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior.

Two studies evaluated personality trait measures and Big Five factor measures for their accuracy in predicting important behavior criteria. The results of both studies showed that the narrower traits and the broader factors, thought to define 2 levels of a hierarchy of personality variables, separately predicted most criterion variables. However, the incremental validity of the personality trait measures (the degree to which the traits increased the criterion prediction achieved by the factors) was generally much larger than the incremental validity of the Big Five factor measures. It was concluded that aggregating personality traits into their underlying personality factors could result in decreased predictive accuracy due to the loss of trait-specifi c but criterion-valid variance.

Prediction of mood and risk appraisals from trait measures: Two studies of simulated driving

Two contrasting hypotheses concerning the relationship between personality and mood are distinguished. First, broad traits may relate to emotional temperament, and so predict mood across situations. Second, the interactionist approach to personality implies that narrow, context specific traits may sometimes be the most powerful predictors of mood within situations. This article reports correlations between mood and broad and narrow trait measures, the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1964) and the Driving Behaviour Inventory (DBI; Gulian, Matthews, Glendon, Davies and Debney, 1989), within the context of vehicle driving. Mood was measured with the UWIST Mood Adjective Checklist (UMACL; Matthews, Jones and Chamberlain, 1990), in two samples before and after a simulated drive. One sample (N = 73) performed a ‘passive’ drive, in which little interaction with other traffic was required. The second sample (N = 93) performed an ‘active’ driving task, in which subjects had to decide when to overtake other vehicles. Results showed that the DBI traits were more strongly related to mood than EPI traits, particularly following the active drive. The DBI Dislike of Driving scale was the strongest single predictor of post‐drive mood. Prior to the drive, subjects also rated accident risk, driving skill, and judgement, for themselves and for a ‘peer’ driver of similar age and sex. Analysis of these data in the combined sample (N = 166) showed that the DBI was the more consistent predictor of self‐ratings of risk and driving competence, although some relationships between ratings and the EPI were found. Again, the DBI Dislike of Driving scale was the strongest single predictor of self‐ratings. Drivers scoring high on this scale seem immune to drivers' general bias towards rating themselves as safer and more competent than their peers. It is concluded that narrow traits are more predictive than broad traits within the driving context. Data are consistent with the transactional model of driver stress, which proposes that dislike of driving is derived from negative secondary appraisals.

Fundamental topics in the personality disorders: Candidate trait dimensions from lower regions of the hierarchy.

Many assessment approaches for the personality disorders use upper regions (small number of broad traits) of the personality hierarchy. These studies examined lower regions (larger number of more narrow traits). In Study 1 judges translated personality disorder diagnostic criteria into lay language and verified translation quality. Study 2 analyzed 55 lay Ss' organization of those descriptors to derive 39 groupings of diagnostic criteria, with a corrected Rand agreement index of .94 across divergent analytic methods. Study 3 checked those methods on a problem with a known solution and 50 new Ss, finding a .80 agreement index with the known solution. Finally, to prevent subsjectivity in factor naming, Study 4 used pools of judges to name the content groups and 12 lay Ss for a recapture test of the meaning and discriminability of the names

Article Commentary: Levels of Analysis and Personality: Lessons from the Person-Situation Debate?

In a recent article, Funder (1991) contends that global as opposed to narrow personality traits provide appropriate level of at which personality research should begin. heuristic value of generalized personality dispositions as exemplified by fivefactor model of personality (Digman, 1990) is considerable. Yet, Funder's preemptive assertions bring to mind polemic exaggeration of person-situation debate. Although such rhetoric may stimulate productive inquiry, it seems unlikely that scientific monism will, in itself, promote richest possible understanding of important issues facing personality psychology. Brevity precludes of each of Funder's assertions. Instead, this commentary examines central epistemological claims. 1. For purposes of explanation, most important traits are global but for purposes of prediction, narrower better (p. 35). Funder accords global traits superior ontologic status on grounds that they alone provide bona fide power to explain behavioral consistency. More narrow traits, by contrast, are dismissed as tautological. By illustration, Funder differentiates between global trait of social skills which explains behavior across a wide range of settings and narrow trait of social skill at parties which describes (but does not explain) behavior. This distinction possesses a certain prima facie appeal. It may be inaccurate to claim, however, that either global or narrow traits as defined in this manner possess explanatory power. Rather, they constitute descriptions of apparent consistency at differing of specificity. Although Funder has countered that of regularity is not distinct from of regularity (p. 35), this position seems itself circular. An alternative view of levels of analysis issue focuses not on distinction between explanation and description but on that between bandwidth and fidelity (Cronbach & Gleser, 1957). From this vantage point, selection of an optimal level of always requires some compromise between applicability and specificity. Interestingly, recent research on structure of trait hierarchies has indicated that people show preferences for midlevel personality constructs rather than those that exist at either narrow or highly global of (John, Hampson, & Goldberg, 1991). 2. The source of trait constructs should be life and clinical experience, as filtered by insightful observers (p. 36). Funder contends that construct development should stem from ordinary intuition inasmuch as common sense provides roughly accurate organizations, whereas mechanical procedures like factor can result in esoteric, nonintuitive constructs (p. 36). This assertion has several problematic aspects. First, although common sense merits attention in construct development, veracity of folk wisdom is routinely overestimated. It is possible to cite numerous, if not innumerable, examples of common sense gone awry (see Locke & Latham, 1991). Moreover, many of putatively esoteric, narrow traits cited by Funder, e.g., subjective expectations, praxernia, might be more aptly viewed as instances of arcane labeling rather than evidence of nonintuitive nature of narrow traits. In practice, terms used to denote global traits can also be impenetrable to uninitiated. By way of example, term surgency (one of five o-called fundamental dimensions of personality) is quite likely more abstruse to lay public than many of its subordinate constructs. Similarly, extraversion (an alternative label for same general domain) is deceptively nonintuitive in that it encompasses far more than lay notion of outgoingness. Finally, it is noteworthy that five-factor model of personality favored by Funder was identified via factor of narrowly defined terms, attesting to potential value of mechanical procedures as well as research programs that begin at narrow of analysis. Ironically, Funder's own conclusions regarding person-situation debate may be equally germane to incipient controversy (e.g., Briggs, 1989) regarding level of question: the time has passed . . . when it (is) useful to make invidious comparisons . . . such arguments are as between straw men, and more constructive issues remain to be explored (Funder, 1983, p. 288).

Biological markers for the components of the psychopathy (P-impulsive, unsocialized sensation seeking) dimension of personality

Recent factor analytic studies have confirmed Eysenck’s broad P dimension of personality, as well as the long established supertraits of extraversion and neuroticism. The component narrower traits of P-ImpUSS are: autonomy, sensation seeking, impulsivity, aggression, and lack of socialization and responsibility. Biological markers related to at least one of these component traits include: augmenting of the cortical evoked potential (EP) , high levels of gonadal hormones, and low levels of the enzymes monoamine oxidase (MAO) and dopamine-beta-hydroxylase (DBH), the serotonin metabolite 5-HIAA, and norepinephrine (NE) and cortisol in the cerebrospinal fluid. The personality traits show evidence of moderate heritability, while some of the biological markers like MAO and DBH show very high genetic determination. Cortical arousal and conditionability may be low in persons high on impulsivity. Both human and animal studies suggest that low levels of serotonin and an EP augmenting pattern are related to the inability to restrain approach behavior in a conflict situation, deficiency in passive-avoidance learning, and inability to delay gratification. The psychopath (antisocial personality) is seen as the extreme case on this psychobiological dimension of personality.

Personality in the third dimension: A psychobiological approach

An attempt is made to define the P dimension of personality in terms of its constituent traits, biological correlates, genetic bases, and relation to forms of psychopathology. Factor analyses revealed a coherent P supertrait incorporating the narrower traits of impulsivity, sensation seeking, lack of socialization and responsibility, autonomy, and aggression. Biological correlates of P dimension traits and some of the related types of psychopathology include poor conditionability, augmenting of the cortical evoked potential (EP), and low levels of the monoamine regulating enzymes monoamine oxidase (MAO) and dopamine-β-hydroxylase (DBH), the serotonin metabolite (5-HIAA), norepinephrine in the cerebrospinal fluid, and cortisol. P is related to high levels of gonadal hormones in males. More than half of the variance in P psychological traits and more than 80% of the variance in the correlated enzymes MAO and DBH is determined by heredity.

Traits, states, situations, and uncertainty

The shift of paradigm from psychodynamic therapy to behavior modification has changed the views of assessment and challenged traditional broad trait concepts. Behavioral assessment has used narrow, situation-specific trait tests, state self-report tests given in situations, and behavioral observations and performance ratings. Comparison of these types of measures are reported from a study of fear reactions in three situations. Narrow trait measures are generally more predictive of behavior than broad trait measures. State measures are even more predictive when given just before the performance. But only a sampling of such state measures can be used to define a trait because of the lower reliability of states. It is argued that behavior in situations is only predictable when an adequate number of behavioral samples is used.