Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T17:15:14.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Traits and Dynamic Processes

from Part V - Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives: Dynamic Processes of Personality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Eranda Jayawickreme  and
Corinne E. Zachry
Edited by
Philip J. Corr  and
Gerald Matthews
Philip J. Corr
Affiliation:
City, University London
Gerald Matthews
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Get access

Summary

The study of human behavior in psychology has been shaped by the two competing perspectives that make up the Lewinian equation – the person and situation perspectives (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2018). Whereas Lewin emphasized the importance of both the person and the situation as determinants of individual behavior, these two perspectives on behavior have historically been examined separately in the fields of personality and social psychology. As a field, personality science has a long and distinguished history, and has accrued a deep and robust evidence base for describing individual differences, assessing their stability over time, and showing their predictive functionality for a range of positive life outcomes (Jayawickreme et al., 2014). More recently, this focus on description has given way to sustained interest in the question of why, how, when and where individual differences (e.g., in traits, goals, values) originate, manifest in daily lives, and entail important personal, social, occupational and societal consequences.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology , pp. 352 - 363
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, T. A., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Personality neuroscience and the Five Factor Model. In Widiger, T. A. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 319–352) New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Oxford, UK: Holt.Google Scholar
Back, M. D. (2018). Continued quality, openness, and curiosity at the European Journal of Personality. European Journal of Personality, 32, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, B., Le, K., & Lucas, R. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 512–527.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In Pervin, L. & John, O. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Baumert, A., Schmitt, M., Perugini, M., Johnson, W., Blum, G., & Borkenau, P., … Wrzus, C. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31, 503–528.Google Scholar
Blackie, L. E., Roepke, A. M., Forgeard, M. J., Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2014). Act well to be well: The promise of changing personality states to promote well‐being. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions (pp. 462–474). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2009). Patterns and sources of adult personality development: Growth curve analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in a longitudinal twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 142–155.Google Scholar
Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Hülsheger, U., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. (2010). Nature and nurture of the interplay between personality traits and major life goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 366–379.Google Scholar
Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Genetic and environmental influences on personality profile stability: Unraveling the normativeness problem. Journal of Personality, 80, 1029–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Block, J. (1993). Studying personality the long way. In Funder, D. C., Parke, R. D., Tomlinson-Keasy, C. & Widaman, K. (Eds.), Studying lives through time (pp. 9–41). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Borgatta, E. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9, 8–17.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126.Google Scholar
Cattell, R., Cattell, A., & Rhymer, R. (1947). P-technique demonstrated in determining psychophysiological source traits in a normal individual. Psychometrika, 12, 267–288.Google Scholar
Corr, P. J. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST): Introduction. In Corr, P. J. (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Concurrent validation after 20 years: Implications of personality stability for its assessment. In Butcher, J. N. & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 31–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2017). The NEO Inventories as instruments of psychological theory. The Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 11–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cramer, A., Waldorp, L., van der Maas, H., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Comorbidity: A network perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 137–150.Google Scholar
de Raad, B., & Mlačić, B. (2017). The lexical foundation of the Big Five Factor Model. In Widiger, T., The Oxford handbook of the Five-Factor Model (pp. 191–216). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2018). A cybernetic theory of psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 117–138.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Fujita, F. (1992). Extraversion and subjective well-being in a U.S. national probability sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 205–215.Google Scholar
Digman, J., & Takemoto-Chock, N. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149–170.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues on the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, 360–392.Google Scholar
Fiske, D. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329–344.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 825–861.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097–1114.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole Trait Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W., & Jolley, S. (2006). A proposed theory of the adult development of intraindividual variability in trait-manifesting behavior. In Mroczek, D. K. & Little, T. D. (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 41–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W., Malanos, A., & Achille, N. (2002). An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as “good” as being extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1409–1422.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2008). The end of the person–situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1667–1684.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of Big Five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? Journal of Personality, 78, 1353–1382.Google Scholar
Fridhandler, B. (1986). Conceptual note on state, trait, and the state-trait distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 169–174.Google Scholar
Friedman, H., Tucker, J., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J., Wingard, D., & Criqui, M. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 176–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.Google Scholar
Gerpott, F., Balliet, D., Columbus, S., Molho, C., & de Vries, R. (2017). How do people think about interdependence? A multidimensional model of subjective outcome interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 716–742.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. Advances in Personality Assessment, 1, 203–234.Google Scholar
Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In Leary, M. R. & Hoyle, R. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 46–61). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hampson, S. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin.” Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, M. (2019). Situational perception and affect: Barking up the wrong tree. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, N., & Fraley, R. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 490–507.Google Scholar
Hudson, N., Roberts, B., & Lodi-Smith, J. (2012). Personality trait development and social investment in work. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 334–344.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. J., Hill, P. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2012). Misconceptions of traits continue to persist: A response to Bandura. Journal of Management, 38, 745–752.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. J., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Conscientiousness. In Widiger, T. A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Five-Factor Model Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. (2014). Post-traumatic growth as positive personality change: Evidence, controversies and future directions. European Journal of Personality, 28, 312–331.Google Scholar
Jayawickreme, E., Meindl, P., Helzer, E., Furr, R., & Fleeson, W. (2014). Virtuous states and virtuous traits: How the empirical evidence regarding the existence of broad traits saves virtue ethics from the situationist critique. Theory and Research in Education, 12, 283–308.Google Scholar
Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2017). Does Whole Trait Theory work for the virtues? In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Miller, C. B. (Eds), Moral Psychology, Volume V: Virtue and Happiness (pp. 75–103). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayawickreme, E., Zachry, C. E., & Fleeson, W. (2019). Whole Trait Theory: An integrative approach to examining personality structure and process. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 2–11.Google Scholar
Jensen-Campbell, L., Adams, R., Perry, D., Workman, K., Furdella, J., & Egan, S. (2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 224–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In Buss, D. M. & Cantor, N. (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261–271). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W. & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (p. 114–158). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Zimmermann, J., & McAdams, D. P. (2014). Core and surface characteristics for the description and theory of personality differences and development. European Journal of Personality, 28, 231–243.Google Scholar
Kern, M., & Friedman, H. (2008). Do conscientious individuals live longer? A quantitative review. Health Psychology, 27, 505–512.Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847–861.Google Scholar
Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, G. (2011). A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 620–637.Google Scholar
McCabe, K., & Fleeson, W. (2012). What is extraversion for? Integrating trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the purpose of extraversion. Psychological Science, 23, 1498–1505.Google Scholar
McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2012). What is extraversion for? Integrating trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the purpose of extraversion. Psychological Science, 23, 1498–1505.Google Scholar
McCabe, K., & Fleeson, W. (2016). Are traits useful? Explaining trait manifestations as tools in the pursuit of goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 287–301.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W. & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
McNiel, J., & Fleeson, W. (2006). The causal effects of extraversion on positive affect and neuroticism on negative affect: Manipulating state extraversion and state neuroticism in an experimental approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 529–550.Google Scholar
McNiel, J., Lowman, J., & Fleeson, W. (2010). The effect of state extraversion on four types of affect. European Journal of Personality, 24, 18–35.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (2009). From personality and assessment (1968) to personality science. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 282–290.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality: Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within the Cognitive-Affective Processing System (CAPS). In John, O. P., Robins, R. W. & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality (3rd ed., pp. 208–241). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Noftle, E., & Fleeson, W. (2010). Age differences in Big Five behavior averages and variabilities across the adult life span: Moving beyond retrospective, global summary accounts of personality. Psychology and Aging, 25, 95–107.Google Scholar
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parrigon, S., Woo, S., Tay, L., & Wang, T. (2017). CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 642–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauthmann, J., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E., Todd, E., Nave, C., & Sherman, R., … Todd, E. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 677–718.Google Scholar
Rauthmann, J., & Sherman, R. (2018). The description of situations: Towards replicable domains of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 482–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, S., Monroe, B., Brownstein, A., Yang, Y., Chopra, G., & Miller, L. (2010). A neural network model of the structure and dynamics of human personality. Psychological Review, 117, 61–92.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. (2017). A revised Sociogenomic Model of personality traits. Journal of Personality, 86, 23–35.Google Scholar
Roberts, B., & DelVecchio, W. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. W., Hill, P. L., & Davis, J. P. (2017). How to change conscientiousness: The sociogenomic trait intervention model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8, 199–205.Google Scholar
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Oppenheim, S., Elster, A., & Gal, A. (2014). Integrating content and structure aspects of the self: Traits, values, and self‐improvement. Journal of Personality, 82, 144–157.Google Scholar
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sherman, R., Rauthmann, J., Brown, N., Serfass, D., & Jones, A. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 872–888.Google Scholar
Shoda, Y., LeeTiernan, S., & Mischel, W. (2002). Personality as a dynamical system: Emergence of stability and distinctiveness from intra- and interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 316–325.Google Scholar
Snyder, M. (2006). Building bridges between personality and social psychology: Understanding the ties that bind persons and situations: The benefits of transdisciplinary approaches. In Van Lange, P. A. M. (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: The benefits of transdisciplinary approaches (pp. 187–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.Google Scholar
Soto, C., & John, O. P. (2016). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143.Google Scholar
Soto, C., John, O. P., Gosling, S., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348.Google Scholar
Spielberg, J., Miller, G., Engels, A., Herrington, J., Sutton, B., Banich, M., & Heller, W. (2011). Trait approach and avoidance motivation: Lateralized neural activity associated with executive function. Neuroimage, 54, 661–670.Google Scholar
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961) Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61–97, Lackland Airforce Base, TX: US Air Force.Google Scholar
Van Der Maas, H., Dolan, C., Grasman, R., Wicherts, J., Huizenga, H., & Raijmakers, M. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113, 842–861.Google Scholar
Widiger, T. A. (Ed.) (2017). The Oxford handbook of the Five-Factor Model. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2017). A personality perspective on situations. In Funder, D., Rauthmann, J. & Sherman, R. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of psychological situations. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2019). The Big Five, everyday contexts and activities, and affective experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 140–147.Google Scholar
Wood, D., & Wortman, J. (2012). Trait means and desirabilities as artifactual and real sources of differential stability of personality traits. Journal of Personality, 80, 665–701.Google Scholar
Wright, A. G. (2017). Factor analytic support for the five-factor model. In Widiger, T. A. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 217–242). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, A., & Hopwood, C. (2016). Advancing the assessment of dynamic psychological processes. Assessment, 23, 399–403.Google Scholar
Wrzus, C., & Roberts, B. (2016). Processes of personality development in adulthood: The TESSERA framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 253–277.Google Scholar
Zelenski, J., Whelan, D., Nealis, L., Besner, C., Santoro, M., & Wynn, J. (2013). Personality and affective forecasting: Trait introverts underpredict the hedonic benefits of acting extraverted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 1092–1108.Google Scholar
Ziegler, M. (2014). Stop and state your intentions!: Let’s not forget the ABC of test construction [Editorial]. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 239–242.Google Scholar
Zillig, L., Hemenover, S., & Dienstbier, R. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847–858.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×