Personality Theories - Copiar

7/18/2019 Personality Theories - Copiar

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/personality-theories-copiar 1/6

The Generalist’s Corner

Personality Theories for the 21st Century

Robert R. McCrae1

Abstract

Classic personality theories, although intriguing, are outdated. The five-factor model of personality traits reinvigorated personalityresearch, and the resulting findings spurred a new generation of personality theories. These theories assign a central place to traits

and acknowledge the crucial role of evolved biology in shaping human psychology; they also address the modifying influences of the social and cultural environment. Teachers can and should teach ‘‘personality theories’’ as a science course, not a historycourse.

Keywords

personality traits, five-factor model, life narratives, personality research

Personality theory is a perennially popular topic for two rea-

sons. First, it deals with issues of great concern to many stu-

dents: Who am I? How well do I really understand myself?

How did I get this way? Can I change and how? Second, theor-

ists in the personality pantheon were very creative thinkers and

often gifted writers. Psychoanalysis makes a fascinating story,

which is why it became so central to 20th-century literary crit-

icism. The works of Jung, Maslow, and Horney are engaging

and thought provoking. It is not surprising that courses in per-

sonality theory devote most of their time and attention to these

grand theorists.

Unfortunately, these theories have little to do with contem-

porary personality psychology. Conceptualizations from

‘‘depth psychology’’ are often so vague or convoluted as to

be untestable. Researchers who have examined hypotheses

central to classic personality theories (Domhoff, 1999; McCrae

& Costa, 1989) have found little support for them, and most

personality researchers simply ignore grand theories in favor

of studying more tractable problems—for example, develop-

mental changes in self-control or personality determinants of

pain perception (Mendelsohn, 1993). Even theorists such as

Carl Rogers, who advocated and encouraged empirical studies,

had a limited impact on research (perhaps because most

Rogerians are clinicians and most clinicians are not research-ers). In psychiatry, objective diagnostic criteria (American

Psychiatric Association, 1980) replaced dynamic theoretical

formulations of the etiology of mental disorders, and from

midcentury until the 1990s, personality theory and research

were largely separated, if not formally divorced.

There are three important exceptions to this generalization:

Trait theories, such as those of Allport and Eysenck (Funder,

1991), led to personality scales used in countless studies;

social–cognitive theories, such as those of Bandura and Rotter,

stimulated both experimental and observational personality

research (Cervone & Shoda, 1999); and interpersonal theories,

based on the work of Sullivan and Bowlby, continue to guide

empirical work (Strack & Horowitz, 2011). These approaches

typically appear in later chapters of personality theory text-

books (e.g., Allen, 2006) and often get short shrift. They

deserve priority. A contemporary course on personality the-

ories might begin with these theories and return to their historic

predecessors if time permits.

But this is not the ideal course outline, because by now,

Eysenck, Bandura, and Bowlby have themselves become clas-

sics, superseded by a new generation of personality theories

(McCrae & Costa, 1996). A few textbooks have begun to

include these newer theories (e.g., Feist & Feist, 2006), but

journals and scholarly books remain the chief source on current

thinking.1 Recent theories are characterized by reconceptuali-

zations of the nature of personality necessitated by new

research findings, and they show a surprising degree of agree-

ment on fundamentals. At the same time, they highlight impor-

tant differences in views on the origins and functioning of

personality characteristics and thus point to fruitful avenues

of research.

The Impact of the Five-Factor Model

By the 1970s, personality psychologists had largely given up

the idea of formulating grand theories of personality. Indeed,

as a result of Mischel’s (1968) critique, many psychologists

came to believe that personality was a fiction and that behavior

1 Baltimore, Maryland

Corresponding Author:

Robert R. McCrae, 809 Evesham Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21212

Email: [email protected]

Teaching of Psychology

38(3) 209-214

ª The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0098628311411785

http://top.sagepub.com

at CATOLICA BRASILIA on March 19, 2015top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://top.sagepub.com/






could be understood entirely in terms of the social environ-

ment. Defenders of personality psychology countered with

stronger arguments and new data (Block, 1977; Epstein,

1979; M. W. Eysenck & H. J. Eysenck, 1980), and by the late

1980s, person variables had been reinstated in mainstream psy-

chology (Kenrick & Funder, 1988).

But the real turning point in the history of personality psychology was the establishment of the five-factor model

(FFM) as an adequate taxonomy of personality traits (John,

Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Although versions of the FFM had

appeared as early as the 1930s, it was not until the 1980s that

research showed the power and scope of this model. Funda-

mentally, the FFM is the observation that almost all personality

traits (designated in lay speech by such words as nervous,

enthusiastic, original , altruistic, and careful ) are aspects of one

or more of only five distinct factors, usually labeled Neuroti-

cism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness,

and Conscientiousness (McCrae & John, 1992).

The FFM brought clarity to the field of personality research

by resolving two long-standing problems. First, it specified thenumber of important factors. The two- and three-factor models

of the Eysencks (H. J. Eysenck & S. B. G. Eysenck, 1975) were

insufficient (completely omitting Openness to Experience), and

the 16-factor model of Cattell (1973) was needlessly complex.

Second, it showed the near identity of a host of ostensibly dis-

tinct individual-difference variables that other researchers had

proposed. Murray (1938) had catalogued psychological needs;

Gough (1987) had identified folk concepts; Jung (1923/1971)

had proposed psychological functions, such as thinking and

feeling; Leary (1957) had offered a circular arrangement of

interpersonal styles; Millon (1981) had conceptualized person-

ality disorders. All of these, at least as measured by validated

questionnaires, turned out to be different guises of traits that

one could readily classify in the FFM (McCrae, 1989). There

are, of course, other important individual-difference variables

that are not personality traits (e.g., physical attractiveness, ver-

bal intelligence; McCrae, 2010), but the FFM unified a host of

different concepts that were central to the concerns of person-

ality psychologists.

It was not, however, the FFM itself that spurred a new gen-

eration of personality theories; rather, it was the research find-

ings that the FFM made possible. Suddenly, it became feasible

to conduct systematic research on topics such as adult develop-

ment, trait heritability, and sex differences. Instead of arbitra-

rily selecting this need or that style to focus on, one could cover the full range of traits (and needs and functions and

styles) by measuring each of the five factors. Similarly,

researchers could use the FFM to structure reviews of the liter-

ature (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Saroglou, 2002), because

most of the scales used in personality research could be classi-

fied as measures of one of the five factors. The ascendency of

the FFM led to a period of extraordinary productivity in person-

ality research in which researchers asked and answered, at least

provisionally, a large number of basic questions. By the end of

the century, psychologists knew far more about personality

than what would have seemed possible a few years before.

What have researchers learned since the FFM brought

clarity to the field of personality psychology? First, studies

comparing self-reports to observer ratings showed substantial

cross-observer agreement (Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995;

McCrae et al., 2004). If people say they are kind, thoughtful,

and mature, the data—the independent assessments of knowl-

edgeable others—suggest that they probably are telling thetruth; conversely, if people are anxious, aggressive, or lazy,

they probably understand this full well. This finding was a

foundation of all subsequent work because it showed that the

self-reports on which most personality researchers rely are

credible. It also showed that most people are fundamentally

rational, not hopelessly blinded by defenses as psychoanalytic

perspectives had suggested.

Second, longitudinal studies spanning decades demon-

strated that traits show continuity across the life span and are

extraordinarily stable in adulthood, though of course not immu-

table (Caspi, 2000; Terracciano, Costa, & McCrae, 2006). Life

experiences such as raising children, divorce, physical illness,

and retirement apparently have little lasting impact on trait pro-files. This stability was in stark contrast to the fact that many

aspects of people’s lives—their jobs, their mates, their political

attitudes, their eating habits—often change markedly during

adulthood. Personality theory has to be able to reconcile these

findings about stability and change.

Third, hundreds of studies of behavior genetics consistently

found that all FFM traits were moderately to strongly influ-

enced by genetics, whereas the shared environment (the experi-

ences common to all children in a family) had essentially no

influence on adult personality (Plomin & Daniels, 1987). Iden-

tical twins raised in different households strongly resembled

each other as adults, whereas adopted children who shared the

same parenting, diet, schools, and religious training bore no

more than chance resemblance to each other (Bouchard &

Loehlin, 2001). At the same time, studies of child-rearing prac-

tices failed to show substantial effects on personality traits that

lasted into adulthood (McCrae & Costa, 1988; see also Harris,

1998). These facts presented the strongest possible challenge to

almost all previous personality theories, which located the

origins of personality in childhood experiences.

Fourth, cross-cultural studies showed that many features of

personality traits are remarkably similar across a wide range of

cultures. The FFM structure itself has been replicated in more

than 50 cultures (Schmitt et al., 2007). Gender and age differ-

ences are much the same everywhere (McCrae, Terracciano, &78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project,

2005). Even the psychometric properties of personality mea-

sures appear to be universal (McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, &

Terracciano, 2011). Anthropological views that human nature

is plastic and readily shaped by the culture into which one is

born appear to be ill-founded. Certainly, beliefs, attitudes, and

customs reflect the surrounding culture, but in some sense, per-

sonality does not. Here is another striking phenomenon with

which personality theories must grapple.

Finally, we learned that personality traits are not incidental;

they are important influences on almost all aspects of people’s

210 Teaching of Psychology 38(3)








lives, from vocational interests to health habits to religious

affiliation to ways of coping (Ozer & Benet-Martınez, 2006).

Maddi (1980) described individual difference variables as the

periphery of personality, but new theories of personality will

need to treat FFM traits as core elements.

Five-Factor Theory

One of the first new theories of personality inspired by these

findings was the five-factor theory (FFT; Costa & McCrae,

1992). McCrae and Costa (1996) described the metatheoretical

assumptions behind trait theory and then proposed a model of

the personality system (see Figure 1) that could help explain the

results of FFM research. (Most contemporary views of person-

ality see it as a system [e.g., Mayer, 1993–1994; Mischel &Shoda, 1995] with inputs, outputs, feedback loops, and central

processing.)

In McCrae and Costa’s (1996) model, biological bases and

external influences (i.e., the environment) are inputs, and the

objective biography (i.e., the cumulative record of everything

a person has done or felt) is the output. There are two central

components to the model: basic tendencies and characteristic

adaptations. The distinction between these two is crucial. Basic

tendencies are innate abilities and predispositions—for exam-

ple, a child’s inborn ability to acquire language or an adoles-

cent’s emerging capacity for formal reasoning. The

fundamental assertion of the FFT is that FFM personality traits

are also basic tendencies, based directly in the structure and

functioning of the brain.

Most psychologists study what the FFT considers character-

istic adaptations: habits, skills, attitudes, beliefs, roles, relation-

ships, and the self-concept—the last of which is so important an

adaptation that it has its own special box in the model. Charac-

teristic maladaptations (e.g., irrational ideas, exaggerated fears,

self-destructive behaviors) are the focus of abnormal and clin-

ical psychology and are central to the FFT’s account of psycho-

pathology (McCrae, Lockenhoff, & Costa, 2005) and

psychotherapy (Harkness & McNulty, 2002). Characteristic

adaptations are not innate, but are acquired as basic tendencies

interact with external influences. Any healthy child has the

abstract capacity for language, but the specific language spo-ken is a function of the social environment in which the child

grows up. In the same way, the FFT proposes that all extraverts

have the same underlying disposition but express their extra-

version in jokes, friendships, activities, and sometimes prob-

lems that are culture and subculture specific.

The FFT has a formal set of postulates (McCrae & Costa,

2008) that describe the operation of the personality system—

the way that personality functions at any given moment and

over the course of a lifetime. The arrows in Figure 1, which

show causal pathways mediated by dynamic processes, reflect

many of these postulates. For example, the arrows from basic

Figure 1. A representation of the five-factor theory personality system. Core components are in rectangles; interfacing components are inellipses. Adapted from McCrae and Costa (2008).

McCrae 211








tendencies and external influences to characteristic adaptations

show how people acquire habits, skills, and so on, that are con-

sistent with their traits but allow them to adapt to their cultural

environment. The most distinctive feature of the FFT, however,

is the absence of any arrow leading directly from external influ-

ences to basic tendencies. According to Postulates 1b (Origin)

and 1c (Development) of the FFT, personality traits areaffected only by their biological bases: genetic influences,

intrinsic maturation, and events such as disease and drug expo-

sure that affect personality indirectly through their actions on

the brain. All theories are simplified models of reality, and this

premise of the FFT is surely an oversimplification, but it is a

powerful and surprisingly accurate one.

The FFT nicely accommodates findings from FFM research.

The biological basis of traits explains their high heritability.

The insulation of traits from external influences explains their

stability in the face of stressful life events and role transitions.

The separation of traits from attitudes, beliefs, and values

accounts for the fact that the same traits and trait structures are

present in vastly different cultures whose members have suchdifferent attitudes, beliefs, and values. The independence of

trait development from the environment explains why personal

upbringing (McCrae & Costa, 1994) and national history

(McCrae et al., 2000) leave so few marks on adult personality

traits. The FFT offers one way of making sense of the facts of

personality.

Other New Theories of Personality

In parallel with the development of the FFT, McAdams and col-

leagues offered another reconceptualization of personality

(McAdams, 1992; McAdams & Pals, 2006; Sheldon, 2004). Ini-

tially, McAdams (1992) conceived of personality in terms of

three discrete levels: Level 1, traits; Level 2, personal concerns;

and Level 3, life narratives. Level 1 variables were essentially

FFM traits, and Level 2 variables corresponded to the FFT’s

characteristic adaptations—indeed, McAdams and Pals (2006)

later adopted the same terminology to characterize that level.

Most distinctive was McAdams’s emphasis on Level 3, the life

narrative. The FFT would classify the life narrative as an aspect

of the self-concept, but McAdams stressed that a life narrative is

not simply a collection of beliefs or feelings about the self.

Rather, it is a story that people evolve about their own lives that

gives their lives coherence, meaning, and direction. This scheme

allowed McAdams to deal with findings on stability and change:Traits are predominantly stable, whereas personal concerns and

life narratives change across the life span.

McAdams and Pals (2006) argued that modern personality

psychology must be based on five principles that recognize the

importance of evolution, traits, characteristic adaptations, life

narratives, and the social and cultural context. When one recalls

that evolution is the origin of human biology, parallels between

these principles and the components of the personality system

shown in Figure 1 become clear. But there are also differences

between the two theories with regard to the importance of vari-

ous components and the details of their interrelations.

Hogan (1983, 1996) was among the first personality

psychologists to recognize the importance of the FFM. In his

socioanalytic theory, Hogan interpreted the factors as dimen-

sions of reputation (see Craik, 2009) because the FFM had orig-

inally been identified in peer ratings of personality (Tupes &

Christal, 1961/1992). In socioanalytic theory, evolved tenden-

cies to get along (affiliation) and to get ahead (status) motivate people, who manage the impressions they give of their own

personalities in an attempt to create reputations that will

advance these goals. Hogan’s theory, developed during the era

when personality traits were in disrepute, did not require any

assumption about whether traits were real or actually existed

in the person—they functioned solely as ways in which people

were seen by others. Socioanalytic theory is thus a precursor to

the new generation of theories that acknowledge the reality of

FFM traits.

The most direct successor to socioanalytic theory is the neo-

socioanalytic theory (NST; Roberts & Wood, 2006). Like the

FFT, the NST situates the person between inputs (called distal

causes) from biology and society/culture; it also sees traits as amajor domain of personality, along with motives and values,2

abilities, and narratives. The NST differs from the FFT in

several respects. It recognizes seven trait factors, adding positive

and negative evaluation to the descriptive FFM. It explicitly

includes components—namely, identity and reputation—that are

the basis of personality assessment (in the form of self-reports

and observer ratings, respectively). Most crucially, it does not

isolate traits from environmental influences: ‘‘All the paths

[in the NST model] have double-headed arrows, indicating that

no feature of personality is ultimately causally prior to any

other’’ (p. 18). These contrasts between theories should stimulate

useful research.

Debates and discussions comparing and contrasting these

new theories of personality have begun to appear: Roberts and

Wood (2006) critiqued the FFT; Mischel (1999) offered his take

on personality dispositions; and Costa and McCrae (2011) rein-

terpreted attachment theory. Such exchanges are an essential

part of digesting the wealth of information that the FFM (and

other recent personality research) has generated. Personality the-

ory and research are once again interacting in ways that illumi-

nate basic questions about human nature, and these new

approaches should continue to intrigue students.

Teaching Personality Theories

As noted previously, teachers of personality theories often

devote much of their course to historically important theories.

When Personality Theories is taught as a history course, the

focus of discussions (and examinations) is on the theories

themselves (e.g., ‘‘Why—according to Freud—does the child

develop a superego?’’) and their interrelations (e.g., ‘‘How did

Erikson modify Freud’s theory of psychosexual stages?’’).

When it is taught as a science course, however, the focus ought

to be on how theories relate to empirical findings (e.g., ‘‘How

does the FFT explain the observation that personality structure

is universal?’’). Almost any article in a current personality









research journal can be the stimulus for such a discussion: How

do its results square with various personality theories?

Especially at more advanced levels, teachers should encour-

age students to compare theories by identifying rival hypoth-

eses and designing studies that might test them. For example,

the FFT says that personality maturation is an intrinsic process,

whereas the NST says that it is driven by social pressure. It maynot be feasible to conduct an experiment to compare these two

hypotheses, but teachers should encourage students to think of

naturally occurring situations (e.g., cultural differences in the

age of marriage—does early marriage lead to early maturity?)

that would speak to the issue. This is what scientists do and

what theories are for.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. Recommended reading for instructors (and advanced students)

includes McAdams and Pals (2006), McCrae and Costa (2008), and

Roberts and Wood (2006). McCrae and John (1992) gave an over-

view of the five-factor model as background to the new theories.

McCrae and Costa (2003) provides a less technical account of

five-factor theory in the context of research on adult personality

development; the text is suitable for undergraduates.

2. Note that needs (e.g., need for achievement, need for affiliation),

construed as broad abstract propensities, are essentially traits;motives (or McAdams’s personal concerns) are concrete, contex-

tualized strivings, such as the goal of getting an academic degree

or the desire to find friends in a new city.

References

Allen, B. P. (2006). Personality theories: Development, growth, and

diversity (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality

dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 44, 1-26.Block, J. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradig-

matic shift or improving the quality of research? In D. Magnusson

& N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the cross-roads: Current issues

in interactional psychology (pp. 37-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and person-

ality. Behavior Genetics, 31, 243-273.

Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continu-

ities from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 78, 158-172.

Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (Eds.). (1999). The coherence of personality:

Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization.

New York, NY: Guilford.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992, August). ‘‘Set like plaster’’?

Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In J. Weinberger

(Chair), Personality in the life course. Symposium presented at the

American Psychological Association Convention, Washington,DC.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2011). The five-factor model, five-

factor theory, and interpersonal psychology. In S. Strack & L.

M. Horowitz (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology

(pp. 118-136). New York: Guilford.

Craik, K. H. (2009). Reputation: A network interpretation. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Domhoff, G. W. (1999). Drawing theoretical implications from

descriptive empirical findings on dream content. Dreaming: Jour-

nal of the Association for the Study of Dreams, 9, 201-210.

Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of

the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 37 , 1097-1126.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck

Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: EdITS.

Eysenck, M. W., & Eysenck, H. J. (1980). Mischel and the concept of

personality. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 191-204.

Feist, G. J., & Feist, J. (2006). Theories of personality (6th ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A Neo-Allportian approach to

personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31-39.

Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement

among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity,

and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 69, 656-672.Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory

administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (2002). Implications of

personality individual differences science for clinical work on

personality disorders. In P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),

Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality

(2nd ed., pp. 391-403). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out

the way they do. New York, NY: Free Press.

Hogan, R. (1983). Socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page

(Ed.), 1982 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Personality—

current theory and research (pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor

model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:

Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163-179). New York, NY: Guilford.

John, O. P., Naumann, L., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the

integrative Big Five taxonomy: Discovery, measurement, and con-

ceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.,

pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford.

McCrae 213








Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (H. G. Baynes, Trans.; revised

by R. F. C. Hull). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Orig-

inal work published 1923).

Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy:

Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist ,

43, 23-34.

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality.

New York, NY: Ronald Press.

Maddi, S. R. (1980). Personality theories: A comparative analysis

(4th ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Mayer, J. D. (1993-1994). A system-topics framework for the study

of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13,

99-123.

McAdams, D. P. (1992, August). Levels of stability and growth in per-

sonality across the lifespan. In J. Weinberger (Chair), Personality

in the life course. Symposium presented at the American Psycho-

logical Association Convention, Washington, DC.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental

principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psy-

chologist , 61, 204-217.McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint

analyses of the NEO-PI and other instruments. In D. M. Buss &

N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emer-

ging directions (pp. 237-245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

McCrae, R. R. (2010). The place of the FFM in personality psychol-

ogy. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 57-64.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1988). Recalled parent–child rela-

tions and adult personality. Journal of Personality, 56 , 417-434.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor

model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57 , 17-40.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). The paradox of parental

influence: Understanding retrospective studies of parent–child

relations and adult personality. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell, &

M. Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and psychopathology

(pp. 107-125). New York, NY: Wiley.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of

personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model.

In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theo-

retical perspectives (pp. 51-87). New York, NY: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A

five-factor theory perspective (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of

personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159-181). New York, NY: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E.,

Rukavishnikov, A. A., Senin, I. G., . . . Urbanek, T. (2004). Con-

sensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of

Research in Personality, 38, 179-201.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A.,

Hr ˇebıckova, M., Avia, M. D., . . . Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over

nurture: Temperament, personality, and lifespan development.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173-186.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor

model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.

McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011).

Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for

personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 15, 28-50.

McCrae, R. R., Lockenhoff, C. E., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). A step

towards DSM-V: Cataloging personality-related problems in liv-

ing. European Journal of Personality

, 19

, 269-270.McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality

Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of person-

ality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561.

Mendelsohn, G. A. (1993). It’s time to put theories of personality in

their place, or, Allport and Stagner got it right, why can’t we? In

K. H. Craik, R. Hogan, & R. N. Wolfe (Eds.), Fifty years of person-

ality psychology (pp. 103-115). New York, NY: Plenum.

Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality: DSM III. Axis II. New

York, NY: Wiley.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.

Mischel, W. (1999). Personality coherence and dispositions in a

Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS) approach. InD. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality:

Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization

(pp. 37-60). New York, NY: Guilford.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory

of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions,

dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological

Review, 102, 246-268.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martınez, V. (2006). Personality and the predic-

tion of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57 ,

401-421.

Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family

so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10,

1-16.

Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the

context of neo-socioanalytic theory. In D. K. Mroczek & T.

D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development

(pp. 11-39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Saroglou,V. (2002). Religion and the five factorsof personality: A meta-

analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.

Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., Benet-Martınez, V.,

Alcalay, L., Ault, L., . . . Zupancic, A. (2007). The geographic dis-

tribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of

human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173-212.

Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Optimal human being: An integrated

multi-level perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Strack, S., & Horowitz, L.M. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of interperso-

nal psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.

Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Personality

plasticity after age 30. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

32, 999-1009.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors

based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225-251. (Original

work published 1961).







Documents

Personality Theories - Copiar