See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/49912582

Current research in personality traits and individual differences

Article · January 2010

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

4 21,320

1 author:

Gregory J. Boyle
University of Melbourne
237 PUBLICATIONS 5,500 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregory J. Boyle on 20 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 1

Chapter
1
Current Research
in Personality Traits
and Individual Differences

Gregory J. Boyle

P ersonality traits have been a central part of the study of personality

for 70 years or more, from early studies by personologists to more
recent studies by Cattell and Eysenck, and their associates. Most of the
research has used data from self-report inventories and rating scales
and these have posed problems, such as response distortion, that have
become the focus of further research. Currently, there are attempts to
assess personality traits through other means than self-report invento-
ries, such as through genetic-biological analyses and from computer-
generated approaches. A review of the history of personality traits, the
recent attempt to define and limit personality structure to the ‘Big
Five’, and the influence of these and related traits on behaviour is
given in this chapter, which also details the theoretical emphases asso-
ciated with the various approaches, especially in the current century.

Personality trait constructs are typically viewed as enduring dispositions

that persist and remain relatively stable over time (see Boyle & Saklofske,
2004; Boyle, Matthews, & Saklofske, 2008). Historically, trait constructs
were proposed by personologists such as Allport, Cattell and Eysenck.
Allport (1937) defined a trait as ‘a generalised neuropsychic structure’.
Personality traits are believed to filter incoming stimuli such that, for
example, a high A-Trait (Anxiety Trait) individual may interpret a multi-
tude of diverse stimuli as threatening. Personality trait research has stim-
ulated much controversy as to the optimal measurement framework, the
causal effects of traits on behaviour, as well as the influences of sociocul-
tural factors on traits (Boyle et al., 2008). Nomothetic approaches that
seek to identify common personality traits have become predominant
(see the works of Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck).

| 1
Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 2

2 | Personality and Individual Differences: Current Directions

Cattell was an early proponent of the nomothetic approach that

described personality in terms of discrete common factors (Cattell, 1978,
1980). The Cattellian psychometric model (Cattell, Boyle, & Chant, 2002;
cf. Boyle, 2006, 2008b) was derived from a programmatic series of factor
analyses of data from self-report questionnaires and rating-scales (e.g.,
Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor [16PF] Questionnaire). Cattell (1973, 1980)
viewed traits as causal latent constructs (source traits) to be distinguished
from more superficial surface traits. In Cattell’s hierarchical personality
trait model, higher-stratum factors were defined by combinations of
primary traits. In Cattell’s model (also see Nesselroade & Cattell, 1988),
the variance explained by the personality sphere is regarded as being
mostly discrete from that accounted for by ability, motivation and mood-
state domains. As well, situational influences on behaviour are believed to
be moderated by traits. These features of Cattellian theory remain as
central tenets of contemporary trait theory in the 21st century.
Historically, personality trait measures have consisted mainly of intro-
spective self-report questionnaires (Q-data), or subjective reports of
others via rating scales (L-data), which have been limited by problems of
item transparency, motivational/response distortion, outright dissimula-
tion, conscious/unconscious faking (good/ bad), inadequate self-insight,
and/or distorted perceptions of others. Use of objective (T-data) person-
ality tests, where it is not possible for the respondent to detect what traits
are being measured, would certainly help to minimise
motivational/response distortion (see compendium of objective personal-
ity tests compiled by Cattell & Warburton, 1967). While the objective–
analytic test battery (OATB) (Schuerger, 1986, 2008) comprises such
objective tests, nevertheless, a major deterrent to its use is the length of
time needed for administration (taking longer than 5 hours). Thus, con-
struction of truly objective, computer-interactive T-data personality tests
will be a major challenge for personality research in the years ahead.
In contrast to Cattell’s hierarchical trait model (e.g., 16 obliquely-
rotated primary factors and 5–6 second-order 16PF factors), Eysenck
focused on just three broad dimensions of extraversion, neuroticism and
psychoticism as measured in the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire or
EPQ-R (see Eysenck, 1981; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; O’Connor, 2008). At
the second-order 16PF level, the Cattellian and Eysenckian factors were
similar, prompting Eysenck to acknowledge that ‘The Cattell and Eysenck
constructs and theories should be seen, not as mutually contradictory, but
as complementary and mutually supportive’ (1984, p. 336). However,
whereas Eysenck (1994) suggested a gradation from normal to abnormal
Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 3

Current Research in Personality Traits and Individual Differences | 3

personality (e.g., EPQ-R Psychoticism scale), Cattell (1995) maintained

that abnormal traits extend beyond the normal trait sphere into the
abnormal personality trait domain. In the factor-analytically constructed
clinical analysis questionnaire (CAQ), Part A measures the 16 normal per-
sonality trait dimensions. In addition, Part B measures 12 abnormal trait
factors. Unlike other personality instruments (such as the California
Psychological Inventory [CPI], the 16PF, the Revised NEO Personality
Inventory [NEO-PI-R], the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
[MMPI], or the Personality Assessment Inventory [PAI]), administration
of both Parts A and B of the CAQ provides coverage of both the normal
and abnormal personality trait spheres.
Two broad strategies for investigating personality structure have been
employed (Matthews, 2004). First, biological reductionism attempts to
explain trait constructs in terms of underlying brain function. Thus,
genetic variation is believed to impact directly on brain systems such as
Eysenck’s Reticulo-Cortical Activation Model (cf. Gray’s Reinforcement
Sensitivity Theory [RST]), which in turn influences behaviour (Pickering
& Corr, 2008). While traits are presumed to modulate the processing of
incoming stimuli, Gray’s RST model attributes traits to motivational
rather than arousal systems. Second, the cognitive science approach relates
personality traits to brain function (hardware), virtual symbolic software
(information-processing), and self-knowledge (intentions, motives, goals;
see Matthews, 2008). Progress in understanding traits is signaled by (1)
greater understanding of the biological bases of traits, (2) increased inte-
gration of trait research within mainstream psychology, and (3) increased
use of trait assessment in real-life contexts (e.g., measurement of traits in
occupational selection; Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003).

Models of the Structure of Personality

Although the five-factor model (FFM) has been promoted strongly (see
McCrae & Costa, 2008), a slightly different five-factor structure has been
discovered empirically from factor analyses of 16PF data on over 17 000
respondents (Krug & Johns, 1986). This 16PF data has been verified
across males and females separately, providing solid evidence that the
higher-stratum 16PF factors are robust. In addition, Zuckerman’s five-
factor model (Zuckerman, 1995, 2005) incorporates biological, compara-
tive, experimental, and trait approaches extending beyond mere
descriptive accounts of traits as, for example, in the currently popular
lexical FFM (cf. Fraley & Roberts, 2005). Thus, Zuckerman argued that
personality traits arise from multiple underlying neurophysiological and
Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 4

4 | Personality and Individual Differences: Current Directions

biochemical processes. In addition, Boyle, Stankov, and Cattell (1995)

suggested that the currently popular FFM was derived from methodologi-
cally flawed factor-analytic analyses. They also reported empirical evi-
dence suggesting that the FFM does not provide coverage of more than
40% of the known trait variance within the normal personality sphere
alone, let alone the abnormal trait sphere, which is virtually ignored.
Further limitations of the FFM relate to the validity of dimensional
models generally (McAdams, 1992; Roberts, 2006), the presumed stability
of traits over the lifespan (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006a, 2006b),
and associated psychometric limitations (Block, 1995; Boyle, 2008a).
Since theoretically, the personality sphere can be divided into any number
of factors, it remains to be seen whether or not a consensus can be
reached as to a universally accepted taxonomy of personality traits.

Genetic Factors and Culture in Personality

Johnson, Vernon, and Feiler (2008) concluded that genetic factors appear
to play a critical role in shaping interactions with the environment (also
see Rutter, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2006). If personality traits reflect universal
brain physiology, then they should emerge as common factors across
diverse cultures. It is hoped, new brain-imaging studies using functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI; Congdon & Canli, 2008) may
permit mappings of traits onto specific brain structures, enabling better
theories of personality traits to emerge (Pickering & Corr, 2008). On the
other hand, if personality structure is a function of cultural variations,
then trait structures found within different cultures should differ signifi-
cantly (see Chiu, Kim, & Wan, 2008).

Abnormal Personality Traits

Abnormal personality traits are receiving increased attention (Malik,
Johannsen, & Beutler, 2008). Constructs underlying cognitive–behaviour
therapy (e.g., see Fernandez, 2008; Fernandez & Boyle, 2008) such as the
self-schema, attentional and memory bias, and dysfunctional coping
appear to be related to traits such as neuroticism (Matthews, 2008).
Likewise, personality trait measurement is central to children’s psycho-
educational assessment (Andrews, Saklofske, & Janzen, 2001). Trait psy-
chology has also played a prominent role in the area of ‘emotional
intelligence’ (EI; e.g., Rivers, Brackett, & Salovey, 2008; Roberts & Schulze,
2008). However, it is important to note that some uncertainty remains as
to the construct validity of currently available EI measures (see Matthews,
Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002).
Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 5

Current Research in Personality Traits and Individual Differences | 5

Conclusion
In conclusion, the notion of personality traits has received widespread
acceptance in light of the universal consistencies shown in individuals’
behaviours and responsivities to situational stimuli. In terms of the peer-
reviewed journal literature, both Cattell and Eysenck were listed among
the top 10 most highly cited psychologists of the 20th centur y
(Haggbloom et al., 2002, p. 142), leaving little doubt as to the prominence
and influence of both these giants of personality research. Debates about
factor analytic methodology have often served to obscure the fact that
both Cattell and Eysenck were in much agreement in relation to their tax-
onomic findings into human personality structure. More recently, the
FFM has become prominent as a putative framework for organising per-
sonality trait data. Although the FFM has generated much empirical data,
substantive objections to the FFM have been raised in relation both to the
validity of dimensional models generally (and to the psychometric evi-
dence more specifically). However, progress in understanding traits is evi-
denced by a better understanding of the biological bases of traits, an
increased integration of trait research within mainstream psychology, and
an increased focus on assessing traits. Although the major focus to-date
has been on introspective (subjective) self-report questionnaires and
rating scales, there are indications that research into the construction of
computer-interactive objective personality tests will become more promi-
nent during the 21st century.

References
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Andrews, J.J.W., Saklofske, D.H., & Janzen, H.L. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of psy-
choeducational assessment: Ability, achievement, and behavior in children. San
Diego, CA: Academic.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality
description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.
Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five-factor approach to personality
description 5 years later. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 98–107.
Boyle, G.J. (2006). Scientific analysis of personality and individual differences
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland.
Boyle, G.J. (2008a). Critique of the Five-Factor Model of personality. In G.J. Boyle,
G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assess-
ment. Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp. 295–312). Los Angeles: Sage.
Boyle, G.J. (2008b). Simplifying the Cattellian psychometric model. In G.J. Boyle, G.
Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assess-
ment. Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp. 257–272). Los Angeles: Sage.
Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 6

6 | Personality and Individual Differences: Current Directions

Boyle, G.J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D.H. (2008). (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
personality theory and assessment (Vols. 1–2). Los Angeles: Sage.
Boyle, G.J., & Saklofske, D.H. (2004). (Eds.), Sage benchmarks in psychology: The
psychology of individual differences (Vols. 1–4). London: Sage.
Boyle, G.J., Stankov, L., & Cattell, R.B. (1995). Measurement and statistical models
in the study of personality and intelligence. In D.H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence. New York: Plenum.
Cattell, R.B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Cattell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sci-
ences. New York: Plenum.
Cattell, R.B. (1980). Personality and learning theory, Vol. 2: A systems theory of mat-
uration and learning. New York: Springer.
Cattell, R.B. (1995). The fallacy of five factors in the personality sphere. The
Psychologist, May, 207–208.
Cattell, R.B., & Nesselroade, J.R. (Eds.) (1988). Handbook of multivariate experi-
mental psychology (Rev. 2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.
Cattell, R.B., & Warburton, F.W. (1967). Objective personality and motivation tests:
A theoretical introduction and practical compendium. Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Cattell, R.B., Boyle, G.J., & Chant, D. (2002). The enriched behavioral prediction
equation and its impact on structured learning and the dynamic calculus.
Psychological Review, 109, 202–205.
Chiu, C.-Y., Kim, Y.-H., & Wan, W.W.N. (2008). Personality: Cross-cultural per-
spectives. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and assessment. Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp.
124–144). Los Angeles: Sage.
Congdon, E., & Canli, T. (2008). Genomic imaging of personality: Towards a
molecular neurobiology of impulsivity. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H.
Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2.
Personality measurement and testing (pp. 334–351). Los Angeles: Sage.
Eysenck, H.J. (1981). General features of the model. In H.J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model
for personality, pp. 1–37. Berlin: Springer.
Eysenck, H.J. (1984). Cattell and the theory of personality. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 19, 323–336.
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A
natural science approach. New York: Plenum.
Fernandez, E. (2008). The angry personality: A representation on six dimensions
of anger expression. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.),
Handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2. Personality measurement
and testing (pp. 402–419). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 7

Current Research in Personality Traits and Individual Differences | 7

Fernandez, E., & Boyle, G.J (2009, October). An expanded cognitive behavioral
program for treatment of dysfunctional anger. Paper presented at Faculty of
Psychology, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Fraley, R.C., & Roberts, B.W. (2005). Patterns of continuity: A dynamic model for
conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological con-
structs across the life course. Psychological Review, 112, 60–74.
Gray, J.A. (1991). Neural systems, emotion and personality. In J. Madden IV (Ed.),
Neurobiology of learning, emotion and affect, pp. 273–306. New York: Raven.
Haggbloom, S.J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J.E., Jones, V.K., Yarbrough, G.L., Russell,
T.M. et al. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.
Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152.
Johnson, A.M., Vernon, P.A., & Feiler, A.R. (2008). Behavioral genetic studies of
personality: An introduction and review of the results of 50+ years of
research. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp.
145–173). Los Angeles: Sage.
Krug, S.E., & Johns, E.F. (1986). A large scale cross-validation of second-order per-
sonality structure defined by the 16PF. Psychological Reports, 59, 683–93.
Malik, M.L., Johannsen, B.E., & Beutler, L.E. (2008). Personality disorders and the
DSM: A critical review. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.),
Handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1. Personality theories and
models (pp. 599–619). Los Angeles: Sage.
Matthews, G. (2004). Designing personality: Cognitive architectures and beyond.
Proceedings of the American Artificial Intelligence Society Symposium on
Architectures for Modeling Emotion: Cross-Disciplinary Foundations, pp. 83–
91. Menlo Park, CA: AAIS.
Matthews, G. (2008). Personality and information processing: A cognitive-adap-
tive theory. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp.
56–79). Los Angeles: Sage.
Matthews, G., Deary, I.J., & Whiteman, M.C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd edn.).
New York: Cambridge.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science
and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McAdams, D.P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal.
Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the Five-
Factor Model of personality traits. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H.
Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1.
Personality theories and models (pp. 273–294). Los Angeles: Sage.
 Chapter 1:Chapter 1 13/7/10 12:31 PM Page 8

8 | Personality and Individual Differences: Current Directions

O’Connor, K.P. (2008). Eysenck’s model of individual differences. In G.J. Boyle, G.

Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assess-
ment: Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp. 215–238). Los Angeles: Sage.
Pickering, A.D., & Corr, P.J. (2008). J.A. Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory
(RST) of personality. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.),
Handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1. Personality theories and
models (pp. 239–256). Los Angeles: Sage.
Rivers, S.E., Brackett, M.A., & Salovey, P. (2008). Measuring emotional intelligence
as a mental ability in adults and children. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H.
Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2.
Personality measurement and testing (pp. 440–460). Los Angeles: Sage.
Roberts, B.W. (2006). Personal communication. October 21.
Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006a). Patterns of mean-level
change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitu-
dinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.
Roberts, B.W., Walton, K.E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006b). Personality traits change
in adulthood: Reply to Costa and McCrae (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132,
29–32.
Roberts, R.D., Schulze, R., & MacCann, C. (2008). The measurement of emotional
intelligence: A decade of progress? In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.H.
Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2.
Personality measurement and testing (pp. 461–482). Los Angeles: Sage.
Rutter, M., Moffitt, T.E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Gene-environment interplay and psy-
chopathology: Multiple varieties but real effects. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 47, 226–261.
Schuerger, J.M. (1986). Personality assessment by objective tests. In R.B. Cattell &
R.C. Johnson (Eds.), Functional psychological testing: Principles and instru-
ments. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Schuerger, J.M. (2008). The Objective-Analytic Test Battery. In G.J. Boyle, G.
Matthews, & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and assess-
ment: Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 529–546). Los Angeles:
Sage.
Zuckerman, M. (1995). Good and bad humors: Biochemical bases of personality
and its disorders. Psychological Science, 6, 325–32.
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality (2nd Rev. ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

View publication stats