Studies Of Personality Structure Research Articles

Tableplot

In the debate over null hypothesis significance testing, Paul Meehl strongly advocated appraising theories through the generation and evaluation of precise predictions (e.g., Meehl, 1978 ). The study of personality structure through the five-factor model (FFM; McCrae & John, 1992 ) is an important area of research where one encounters many precise predictions. Extant methods of assessing such predictions, however, do not allow researchers to examine the outcome of the predictions in great detail. That is, it may be difficult to determine how estimates fail to match predicted values. As Meehl argued, one must examine how a theory fails to predict in order to refine and improve the theory. To promote better theory appraisal in FFM research, we present a powerful new tool, called a tableplot ( Kwan, 2008a ), that can summarize and clarify factor analytic results. Specifically, we illustrate how the tableplot enables detailed appraisal of precise predictions in the FFM.

Anthropology and the Social Sciences

ion. Conversely, middle range theory which boasts of testable hypotheses must have some underlying assumptions and basic conceptions if it is to be a theory and in this respect it must parallel the elements of a general theory. At best, the distinction between general theory and middle range theory is an outmoded argument about the priority of formal analysis versus empirical research; at worst, it is a form of marginal intellectual differentiation. This is not to imply that anthropology as a converging discipline should be related to the arbitrary boundaries that exist within the social science disciplines although such an approach has at least the advantage of facilitating scientific communications. At a minimum, we are dealing with different intellectual problems when we speak of linking anthropology with economic analysis or with the study of personality structure or with the sociological analysis of societal organization. My concern will be mainly with this last issue, if only because of the overriding. limitations of my interest and competence. There can be no doubt that a more profound interpenetration of economics and of the anthropological approach to the problems of economic development would be of great theoretical interest and of some practical importance. But economics is a highly developed and internally closed system. As a result in some areas economic analysis of development is not likely to incorporate anthropological concepts. However, the questions that anthropologists raise are helping economists to move away from short-term equilibrium analysis to the study of longer-term economic processes. Conversely, of more interest to us at the moment, is the question, which for me is still open, whether anthropologists will find it possible to incorporate significant aspects of economic theory into their work. The empirical findings of the economics of development is certain to enrich the details of the monographic approach of anthropological research. But this is not to be confused with a theoretical convergence between anthropology and eco-