Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Personality Structure

  • Gerard SaucierEmail author
  • Kathryn Iurino
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_468-1

Synonyms

Definition

In the history of personality psychology, the main method to characterizing personality structure has been a trait-centered approach. Rather than sorting people into types, which entails loss of information (Felsenstein and Pötzelberger 1998), individuals are characterized on continuous dimensions. Informed by lexical studies and expert-derived models of what gives rise to personality traits, a variety of models characterizing the dimensions on which people vary have been used to characterize individual differences. This chapter takes a brief look at a few influential models of personality throughout the history of personality psychology, describes some strengths and limitations of each, and discusses the extent to which models of personality structure depend on methodological choices.

History of Structural Models Derived Using Lexical Approach

The lexical hypothesis has been particularly generative for defining the domain...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ashton, M., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang, L., Connelly, B., & Geeza, A. (2012). Separating method factors and higher-order factors of the Big Five: A meta-analytic multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 408–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Toward a theory of the Big Five. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Felsenstein, K., & Pötzelberger, K. (1998). The asymptotic loss of information for grouped data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 67, 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 59, 1216–1229.Google Scholar
  6. Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Metatraits of the Big Five differentially predict engagement and restraint of behavior. Journal of Personality, 77, 1085–1102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint factor analyses of the NEO-PI with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Revelle, W., & Condon, D. (2015). A model for personality at three levels. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Saucier, G. (2003). Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 695–708.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Saucier, G. (2009). Recurrent personality dimensions in inclusive lexical studies: Indications for a Big Six structure. Journal of Personality, 77, 1577–1614.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Saucier, G., & Srivastava, S. (2015). What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the Big Five and alternatives. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology. Vol. 3: Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 283–305). Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.University of OregonEugeneUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anna Czarna
    • 1
  1. 1.Jagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland