Psychology Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Trait differences: Trait differences in psychology refer to the variations in enduring characteristics or qualities that individuals exhibit consistently across different situations. These traits can influence behavior, thoughts, and emotions, contributing to each person's personality. See also Personality traits, Personality, Personality psychology, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeablenes, Neuroticism, Dimensional approach._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
William Fleeson on Trait Differences - Dictionary of Arguments
Corr II 231 Intrapersonal Personality Trait Differences/Density Distribution Approach/Study/Fleeson/Rauthmann/Schmitt: Fleeson’s (2001)(1) definition of traits as density distributions of states comes with several assumptions (…).The first assumption predicts that individuals express their personality trait-levels on all behavioral levels. This means, for example, that even a person with an extremely low extraversion trait-level (level 1 on a 7-point scale) sometimes shows extremely extraverted behavior (level 7). [This can occur] in reaction to pronounced differences between situations or because of different temporarily activated goal-processes within a person. Second (…) it was assumed that the average behavioral manifestation of a trait is highly stable and predictable even though each single behavioral manifestation is not. (…) intra-individual density distributions of states can be used to index the individual trait-level to some degree. [And third] the shape of the density distribution of states entails unique details of an individual’s personality. State variability (…) reflects a person’s responsiveness (sensitivity, reactivity) to situational cues and characteristics. >Situations, >Behavior, >Dimensional approach. II 232 [The first study by Fleeson (2001)(1)] revealed that the individual personality state variability was lower as compared to the total personality state variability, but not much, with the individual standard deviation roughly amounting to .90 and the total stand deviation roughly amounting to 1.20. This result clearly II 233 confirms Fleeson’s claim that personality states and their variability across situations contain important personality information over and above personality trait-levels. [The results also showed] that personality states can vary across situations as much as affective states do. [Fleeson also found] that ‘individuals differ from themselves over time at least as much as they differ from each other at the average level’ (Fleeson 2001(1), p. 1016). [Fleeson’s second assumption was also supported]. [He found that the] average correlation between randomly selected states ranged from .28 (Conscientiousness) to .54 (Intellect), with the average correlation across all Big Five constructs amounting to .39. The third assumption predicted that, in addition to the mean of the state density distribution, its shape as described by the standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis would vary systematically and in a stable manner between individuals. This assumption received mixed support. (…) the average correlation of state variability across traits was .38 suggesting that individuals differ not only in their trait-specific situational reactivity but also in their general reactivity. II 234 (…) Study 2 [by Fleeson (2001)(1) simply] replicated the results of Study 1. II 235 Study 3 tested whether high state variability, high stability of this variability and high stability of the average state were, at least partly, due to idiosyncratic scale usage. Despite differences in material, results were similar to those of Study 1 and 2. Importantly, average within-person state variability (quantified by the standard deviation) amounted to about 70% of the total variability across all participants and measurement occasions and was similar in size to the trait variability between individuals. Moreover, the two most important parameters of the individual state density distribution – level (mean) and variability (standard deviation) – were again very high (…) across individuals and constructs. II 236 VsFleeson: First, most research has used people’s self-reports of personality states in experience sampling. These may approximate, but are not actual behavior. Second, the exact underlying processes and mechanisms (which can be biophysiological, perceptual, cognitive, motivational, intentional, volitional, regulatory, behavioral, or social-interactional) that constitute, drive, generate, or explain density distributions are poorly understood as of yet. Third, it was initially not quite clear what exactly a trait is and how density distributions ‘capture’ traits. Lastly, while a density distribution approach is based on the same principles as Classical Test Theory (where a ‘true’ trait score may be buried in a distribution of scores measured at different occasions), it is not a formalized theory of traits, states, or their relations. >Personality traits. 1. Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027. Rauthmann, John F.; Schmitt, Manfred: “Personality Traits as State Density Distributions Revisiting Fleeson (2001)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 224-244._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Fleeson, William Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
||
> Counter arguments against Fleeson
> Counter arguments in relation to Trait Differences
