4
$\begingroup$

There are a several theories on personality: the Big Five personality traits, Watson en Clark's extraversion en neuroticism, Grey's Behavioural Inhibition & Behavioural Activation (BIS/BAS), Eysecks Psychotocism, Extraversion and Neuroticism (PEN) model, the Socionics & Information Metabolism theory discussed in this related question, the list goes on.

But are there any theories proposing 'translations' from a personality described according to one theory, to the same personality described according to one of the others?

I would expect that this translation would be mediated through latent variables. However i have not found any research that does this, while there are papers on the relatioships between test-results. That is, there is empirical research that describes the correlations between the scores on questionnaires that are designed to measure personality according to different theories.

For example: From BIS/BAS to the big five - Smits and Boeck - European Journal of Personality Vol 20, no 4, 255–270

The reason i ask, is because i have a dataset of some 460 subjects who took several personality questionnaires (big 5 as well as BIS/BAS), in addition they completed the Adjective Check List (ACL). Test subjects also did tests which measure impulsiveness: a Response Inhibition task, a Reversal Learning task and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task.

I think it would be interesting to compare a model based on literature to the correlations found in this dataset. Specifically i would try to predict certain approach/avoidance measurements (test-subjects also completed an approach-avoidance task) from the rest of the test data and the theoretical connections between the different factors that are supposed to underlie the measurements.

Other related questions:

What is the support for a global personality factor?

What is understood about interactions between personality types or traits?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It's unclear if the idea of 'translation' from one personality framework to another is a meaningful concept. A score on any given personality factor represents some weighted combination of measures - usually endorsement of questionnaire items like "I am the life of the party", etc.

As such, every factor score is a unique variable that probably doesn't reflect some underlying property of the human brain, but is a scientifically convenient construct

Though personality theories are usually based on how different trait scores factor analyse, and so they often have a lot of overlap. Eysenck's Neuroticism and Extroversion factors are very similar to the Big Five N and E factors, because those emerge very strongly when you look at the common clusters of human traits. But they aren't identical, because they're comprised of different items and exist in a different multidimensional test structure with different cross-loadings.

The different theories are different because they cannot be translated to one another, though similarities can always be drawn.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Apparently i made a category mistake in thinking the factors are measures for underlying concepts - like for example in time-spent-studying and class-attendence cound be percieved as measures of how motivated someone is for a course. $\endgroup$ – Ivana Nov 5 '14 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ I thought that the point of science was to come to generally applicable conclusions? Is this the point of the remark that all science is "either Physics or Stamp-collecting"? I would rather see physics. Meaning, not Physics in itself, but creating knowledge that is generally useful beyond its own theory. $\endgroup$ – user9634 Oct 24 '15 at 15:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.