DOCSLIB.ORG

Three-Dimensional Trait System 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Three-Dimensional Trait System 1 Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRAIT SYSTEM 1 Three-Dimensional Trait System: Binding Together the Main Sources of Diversity in Personality Traits Sergei Shchebetenko National Research University Higher School of Economics Perm State University Author Note Sergei Shchebetenko, School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia; Department of Developmental Psychology, Perm State University, Perm, Russia. The author is grateful to Juliana Patokina for her helpful assistance and recommendations while preparing this paper. The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The article was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2019—2020 (grant № 19-01-003) and within the framework of the Russian Academic Excellence Project “5-100”. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sergei Shchebetenko, School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 ulitsa Myasnitskaya, 101000, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRAIT SYSTEM 2 Abstract Why are there various personality traits and why are those traits revealed in widely- acclaimed models such as the Big Five? The Three-Dimensional Trait System (3D-TRASY) states that any personality trait can be defined in terms of three basic sources. The first source represents traits’ variability with regard to the brain’s functioning in terms of bottom- up and top-down processes. The second source connects to positive (rewards) and negative (punishments) social reinforcements of the trait. The third source reflects a multitude of situations in which a trait may unfold. Thus, Extraversion can be defined as a proximate bottom-up positive while Conscientiousness is a distal top-down positive. 3D-TRASY provides a framework for formal, non-tautological definitions of traits; it provides explanations for various phenomena in trait research including the super-traits of Stability and Plasticity and the maturity principle of lifespan development. 3D-TRASY presumes that some traits can occasionally closely correlate and thus establish an amalgam, which exemplifies itself in Eysenckian Psychoticism and the Big-Five’s Agreeableness. In the history of trait research, this amalgamation may explain controversies that would have facilitated emergence of novel models such as the Big Five or HEXACO. The paper contains empirical demonstrations on how 3D-TRASY can explain apparently empirical artifacts. Key words: personality structure; personality traits; individual differences; the Big Five; five- factor model. THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRAIT SYSTEM 3 Three-Dimensional Trait System: Binding Together the Main Sources of Diversity in Personality Traits We must guard ourselves against supposing that the moral faculties which we distinguish by different names, as courage, sociability, niggardness, are separate entities. On the contrary, they are so intermixed that they are never singly in action. Francis Galton Like sensation seeking, impulsiveness is a hybrid, neither clearly a trait nor clearly a type concept, lying in the hierarchical model rather uneasily between level 3 and level 4. Hans Eysenck Few would argue today that human personality is complex. One area in which personality researchers have achieved considerable success is structure. A five-factor solution or the “Big Five” (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1981) has dominated the field for decades, at least ‘as a useful working approximation of psychometric structure’ (Matthews, 2018). This structure was discovered in an empirical way, mainly inspired by the so-called lexical hypothesis (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Galton, 1884). Such a purely empirical approach addresses associations of observed behavior (or one’s thoughts about it) and in this respect derives surface traits as opposed to “needless” source traits (Cattell, 1945), i.e., cross- cutting parameters that may lie behind the Big Five, parameters that would organize and eventually explain the origin of this structure (Deary, 2009). Instead, the Big Five has been THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRAIT SYSTEM 4 consistently viewed as ‘an empirical fact, like the fact that there are seven continents or eight American presidents from Virginia’ (McCrae & John, 1992: p. 194). This leaves open the question on why exactly these traits comprise such models, and thereby offers great further opportunities for proposing alternative ones, from those trying to quest for a new, sixth (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Piedmont, 1999) and even more “continents” (Cheung, Cheung, Leung, Ward, & Leong, 2003; Jonason, Kaufman, Webster, & Geher, 2013). Moreover, the trait paradigm, being mostly exploratory, becomes vulnerable to severe criticism. Particularly, models such as the Big Five may be thought to merely describe the traits, giving neither proof of the existence nor explanation to the latter (Cervone, 2004; Deary, 2009). In this paper I propose a framework that mostly taps into the basic problems of the trait theory on why exactly particular traits constitute model such as the Big Five and what source traits exist beyond these surface traits. This framework is based on the idea that personality can be considered as a system, a set of interrelated units forming an integrated whole (Kreitler, 2019). The interconnectedness of these units, source traits, consequently provides a variation in the surface traits. Extant personality models have normally established the multidimensionality of traits, either across the hierarchical inclusiveness (facets, habitual and specific responses) of a trait (Eysenck, 1970; Goldberg, 1993) or across non-simplicity, circumplexity of personality structure (De Raad, 2000). Either way, the difference between the traits, which has been established in many models as “a horizontal dimension” of the personality structure, merely mirrors the fact of a principal distinction between them. This horizontal dimension ‘concerns the segmentation of categories at the same level of inclusiveness’ (De Raad, 2000: p. 71). As there is no definite sequence in this dimension of the traits, the order of elements therein is thus ‘completely arbitrary’ (Goldberg, 1993: p. 171). THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRAIT SYSTEM 5 In particular, within the Big Five nomenclature, the traits are normally defined descriptively (e.g., DeYoung, 2015; Matthews, 2018), which allows for defining them with regard to the following characteristics: 1) Extraversion, positive affect and rewards; 2) Neuroticism, negative affect, punishment, or handling of social threat; 3) Openness/Intellect, cognitive exploration and interpretation, self-directed reasoning, and curiosity against traditionally received knowledge and pragmatism; 4) Conscientiousness, systematic efforts, following rules and non-immediate goals; and 5) Agreeableness, coordination of goals, interpretations, and strategies with those of others and the pursuit of cooperation against competitive social strategies. These definitions need, in turn, their own definitions since they do not arrange the diversity of the traits but simply describe them (Hogan & Foster, 2016). Contrary to this view, much evidence has been provided on substantial associations between the traits within the Big Five (DeYoung, 2015; Digman, 1997; Musek, 2007). The framework presented in this paper takes into account these associations and calls into question the arbitrariness of the elements in that horizontal dimension. In a general sense, I presume that the basic personality traits result from an interaction between three cross-cutting sources which constitute a Three-Dimensional Trait System (3D-TRASY). In this regard, any personality trait can be defined in terms of these three dimensions which ultimately allows for giving formal, non-recursive definitions of any trait presented in models such as the Big Five. Three-Dimensional Trait System The first dimension represents the specificity of the brain’s functioning and its two fundamental processes. The former, bottom-up processes are presumably phylogenetically older and subcortical in their nature; they generate behavioral activity, impulsivity and overall regulation of personality and behavior by emotions. The latter, top-down processes are presumably phylogenetically more novel and cortical in their nature. They generate THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRAIT SYSTEM 6 inhibition, control and conscious or rational regulation of behavior. The second dimension represents the specificity of interactions between the individual and social environment, which expresses itself in positive (rewards) and negative (punishments) reinforcements of any personality trait. These two dimensions are entirely dichotomous in that they ensure the formation of a pair of opposing traits normally deemed as a single bipolar entity. The third dimension represents the diversity of situations in which the individual can find her/himself. This dimension is continuous as the diversity of situations is deemed to be indefinite. In the following sections I describe 3D-TRASY in greater depth and provide some initial empirical evidence for it. As a basis for examining 3D-TRASY, I will employ the Big Five model and its outcomes. Dimension 1: Bottom-Up/Top-Down Streams 3D-TRASY states that the diversity in personality traits primarily results from the dual, automatic/controlled (Norman & Shallice, 1986), or bottom-up/top-down (Evans & Stanovich,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hans Eysenck's Interface Between the Brain and Personality: Modern Evidence on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Personality
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.009 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Mitchell, R. L. C., & Kumari, V. (2016). Hans Eysenck’s interface between the brain and personality: Modern evidence on the cognitive neuroscience of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.009 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Schizophrenia Symptoms, Schizotypy, and Normal Personality
    Schizophrenia Bulletin doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz005 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/schbul/sbz005/5310427 by [email protected] on 27 August 2019 Common Taxonomy of Traits and Symptoms: Linking Schizophrenia Symptoms, Schizotypy, and Normal Personality David C. Cicero*,1, Katherine G. Jonas2, , Kaiqiao Li2, Greg Perlman2, and Roman Kotov2 1Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI; 2Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY *To whom correspondence should be addressed; tel: 808-956-3695, fax: 808-956-4700, e-mail: [email protected] The associations among normal personality and many Introduction mental disorders are well established, but it remains Trait-based paradigms, which have treated psychopa- unclear whether and how symptoms of schizophrenia and thology as fully dimensional, have been useful in under- schizotypal traits align with the personality taxonomy. standing psychopathology, particularly internalizing and This study examined the joint factor structure of nor- externalizing disorders.1–3 The Hierarchical Taxonomy mal personality, schizotypy, and schizophrenia symptoms of Psychopathology (HiTOP) seeks to improve on tra- in people with psychotic disorders (n = 288) and never- ditional diagnostic systems, such as the Diagnostic and psychotic adults (n = 257) in the Suffolk County Mental Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and Health Project. First, we evaluated the structure of International Classification of Diseases (ICD), and con- schizotypal (positive schizotypy, negative schizotypy, and ceptualize psychopathology dimensionally.4 A major mistrust) and normal traits. In both the psychotic-disor- dimension within HiTOP is the psychotic spectrum, der and never-psychotic groups, the best-fitting model had which ranges from normal personality to schizotypal 5 factors: neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, traits to frank psychosis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genetic and Environmental Sources of Resemblance Between Normative Personality and Personality Disorder Traits K
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Psychiatry Publications Dept. of Psychiatry 2017 The Genetic and Environmental Sources of Resemblance Between Normative Personality and Personality Disorder Traits K. S. Kendler Virginia Commonwealth University, [email protected] S. H. Aggen Virginia Commonwealth University Nathan Gillespie Virginia Commonwealth University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/psych_pubs Part of the Psychiatry and Psychology Commons © 2017 The uiG lford Press Downloaded from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/psych_pubs/75 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Dept. of Psychiatry at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychiatry Publications by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors K. S. Kendler, S. H. Aggen, Nathan Gillespie, M. C. Neale, G. P. Knudsen, R. F. Krueger, Nikolai Czajkowski, Eivind Ystrom, and T. Reichborn-Kjennerud This article is available at VCU Scholars Compass: http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/psych_pubs/75 Journal of Personality Disorders, Volume 31(2), 193-207, 2017 © 2017 The Guilford Press RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN NORMATIVE PERSONALITY AND PD TRAITS KENDLER ET AL. THE GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES OF RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN NORMATIVE PERSONALITY AND PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS K. S. Kendler, MD, S. H. Aggen, PhD, Nathan Gillespie, PhD, M. C. Neale, PhD, G. P. Knudsen, PhD, R. F. Krueger, PhD, Nikolai Czajkowski, PhD, Eivind Ystrom, PhD, and T. Reichborn-Kjennerud, MD Recent work has suggested a high level of congruence between normative personality, most typically represented by the “big five” factors, and abnor- mal personality traits.
    [Show full text]
  • Hans J. Eysenck: Introduction to Centennial Special Issue
    Personality and Individual Differences 103 (2016) 1–7 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Hans J. Eysenck: Introduction to centennial special issue Philip J. Corr City University London, Department of Psychology, London EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom first to criticise his views on the efficacy of psychotherapy (Eysenck, article info 1952, 1965) — perhaps there is something to Freudian projection after all! Lastly, it would be shamefully remiss not to acknowledge the pro- Article history: Received 13 July 2016 duction staff at Elsevier for their support and constant hard work, and Accepted 16 July 2016 Tony Vernon, Editor-in-Chief of PAID, for guiding the special issue to fruition. Such vital behind-the-scenes work is rarely seen and all too Keywords: often under-appreciated. Hans Eysenck There are 34 papers in the special issue, and although they span a History Academic and professional psychology wide range of topics and opinions, they fall into thematic groups that allow the convenient structuring of this Introduction. 1. Papers in special issue The year 2016 marks the centenary of the birth of Hans Juergen Eysenck (4 March 1916–4 September 1997). This special issue devoted Sybil Eysenck opens the special issue with reflections on her to his work and life is very timely and its publication in Personality and husband as a scientist, psychologist and family man. She shows the Individual Differences (PAID) most appropriate as this was the influential breadth of Hans's interests and the ways in which he was often journal he founded in 1983 — the year of his de jure, but certainly not de misunderstood.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Personality and Cognitions Underlying Entrepreneurial Intentions Benjamin R. Walker a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment O
    1 Personality and Cognitions underlying Entrepreneurial Intentions Benjamin R. Walker A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Management UNSW Business School March 30, 2015 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 6 Originality statement .................................................................................................................. 7 Publications and conference presentations arising from this thesis ........................................... 8 List of abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 9 Thesis Abstract......................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2: Assessing the impact of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ...................... 20 Table 1: Articles with original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST) and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) measures .......................................................... 26 Table 2: Categorization of original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (o-RST) and revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) studies in the five years from 2010-2014 ........ 29 Chapter 3: How
    [Show full text]
  • Article in Press + Model
    ARTICLE IN PRESS + MODEL International Journal of Psychophysiology xx (2006) xxx–xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpsycho The role of theory in the psychophysiology of personality: From Ivan Pavlov to Jeffrey Gray ⁎ Philip J. Corr , Adam M. Perkins Department of Psychology, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK Received 16 June 2005; received in revised form 24 October 2005; accepted 5 January 2006 Abstract Psychophysiological approaches to personality have made significant progress in recent years, partly as a spin-off of technological innovation (e.g., functional neuroimaging) and partly as a result of an emerging theoretical consensus regarding the structure and biology of basic processes. In this field, Jeffrey Gray's influential psychophysiological theory of personality – now widely known as Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) – owes much to Pavlov, who devoted a large proportion of his later life to personality differences and their implications for psychiatry. In this article, we trace the influence of Pavlov on Hans Eysenck's and Jeffrey Gray's work, and then provide a brief description of RST in order to highlight some of the central problems – as well as some tentative solutions – in the psychophysiology of personality. Specifically, the importance of theory in personality research is stressed by the contrast of Gray's theoretically driven model with less fertile atheoretical (i.e., exploratory–inductive) approaches. The fecundity of RST, which has been in continual development over a period of thirty years, is discussed in the light of Karl Popper's views on the nature of science, especially the formulation of the ‘problem situation’, which sets up the theoretical and operational conditions under which hypotheses may be challenged and tested to destruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Personality and Self-Determination of Exercise Behaviour David K
    Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1921–1932 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Personality and self-determination of exercise behaviour David K. Ingledew a,*, David Markland b, Kate E. Sheppard b a School of Psychology, University of Wales, Brigantia Building, Bangor LL7 2AS, UK b School of Sport, Health, and Exercise Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK Received 13 January 2003; received in revised form 30 June 2003; accepted 11 August 2003 Abstract There is extensive evidence that personality traits are associated with health-related behaviours, but less evidence regarding the underlying mechanisms. In this study, we examined the relationships between personality and self-determination of exercise behaviour. Users of a sports centre completed personality scales (the NEO Five Factor Inventory supplemented with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Psych- oticism scale) and exercise self-determination scales (Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire which measures extrinsic, introjected, identified and intrinsic forms of regulation). Analyses were restricted to 182 individuals in the maintenance stage of exercise participation. Partial correlation analysis was used to examine the relationships between each personality scale and the self-determination scales, controlling for other personality scales, gender and age. Neuroticism was associated with more introjected regulation, extraversion with more identified and intrinsic regulation, openness with less external regulation, consci- entiousness with less external regulation and more intrinsic regulation, and psychoticism with more external regulation. Relating these findings to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), it is speculated that extraverted individuals are able to feel self-determined because exercise can satisfy the need for relatedness, conscientious individuals because exercise can satisfy the need for competence.
    [Show full text]
  • Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Psychoticism: Distinctive Influences of Three Personality Dimensions in Adolescence
    481 British Journal of Psychology (2013), 104, 481–494 © 2012 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and psychoticism: Distinctive influences of three personality dimensions in adolescence Patrick C. L. Heaven1*, Joseph Ciarrochi2, Peter Leeson3 and Emma Barkus3 1Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, Australia 2University of Western Sydney, Australia 3University of Wollongong, Australia Researchers have suggested that the psychoticism (P) personality dimension of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire may be largely redundant with the agreeableness (A) and conscientiousness (C) constructs of the five-factor model. Little research has examined the distinctiveness of these constructs. We utilized a multi-wave, multi- method design to examine the ability of C, A, and P to uniquely predict a number of important outcomes amongst high school students. A total of 778 students (391 males, 387 females; mean age 15.41 years.) completed personality measures in Grade 10. Self- reported self-esteem, social support, health-related behaviours, religious values as well as teachers’ assessments of students, were collected 1 and 2 years later. A, C, and P were distinctive in their ability to predict these outcomes, after controlling for gender and socio-economic status as well as Grade 10 extraversion, openness, and neuroticism. The individual P items explained unique variance over and above that explained by A and C. It was concluded that P is not merely the opposite of A and C. Implications for interventions are raised. As it has been claimed that personality has important consequential outcomes (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006), an important question for personality and individual difference researchers therefore is to what extent personality dimensions differ in their ability to predict outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Ffamous Psychologists
    4/13/2012 Famous Psychologists G. Stanley Hall • G. Stanley Hall's primary interests were in evolutionary psychology and child development • Perhaps his greatest contribution was to the development and growth of early psychology. • By the year 1898, Hall had supervised 30 out of the 54 Ph.D. degrees that had been awarded in the United States • First APA President. • First Lab in USA 1 4/13/2012 Edward Titchner • Leader of Structuralism • Used Introspection • Studied under Wundt • With the goal to describe the structure of the mind in terms of the most primitive elements of mental experience. This theory focused on three things: the individual elements of consciousness, how they organized into more complex experiences, and how these mental phenomena correlated with physical events. The mental elements structure themselves in such a way to allow conscious experience. William James • Functionalism James opposed the structuralism focus on introspection and breaking down mental events to the smallest elements. Instead, James focused on the wholeness of an event, taking into the impact of the environment on behavior. • Stream of conscio u sness • Wrote Principles of Psychology. 2 4/13/2012 Edward Thordike-Behaviorism The law of effect basically states that “responses that produce a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation, and responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that situation.” Original puzzle boxes with animals. Ivan Pavlov- Classical Conditioning Phobias, involuntary learning, CNS 3 4/13/2012 John Watson-Behaviorism • According to John Watson, psychology should be the science of observable behavior • Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavior Therapy Is Behavioristic
    BEHAVIORTHERAPy ( 1972 ) 3, 609-613 I~ESPONSES AND I~EJOINDER Behavior Therapy Is Behavioristic HANS J. EYSENCK1 University of London This article tries to answer an objection sometimes raised by critics of behavior therapy, namely, flaat it is not "behavioristic." The objection is shown to be ungrounded and dependent on an outmoded use of the term "behaviorism." "Is "behavior therapy" behavioristic?" asked Locke (1971), and con- cluded that the answer is in the negative. One feels inclined to quote in reply Sir Francis Bacon (Dicks, 1955, p. 182), who wrote that it is "The first distemper of learning, when men study words and not matter." Locke brought into juxtaposition two terms, "behavior therapy" and "behavior- ism"; in order to form a judgment of their compatibility, one must first arrive at a definition of both which would not be arbitrary, but widely agreed. By using his own arbitrary definitions Locke was able to make a case; I shall try to show just how arbitrary the definitions are. According to Locke, the term "behavior therapy" was coined by Skinner and Lindsley (1954), and "has since been widely promulgated by Eysenck (1960, 1964)." This is incorrect; the term was "coined" inde- pendently by at least three people or groups, namely, the two mentioned above, and by Lazarus (1958). Its use by Skinner and Lindsley was con- fined to a Status Report to the Office of Naval Research, and never pub- lished; it was not familiar to either of the other two authors. Furthermore, it referred entirely to operant methods of treatment, a restriction which makes it clear that its use was quite different from that intended by Eysenck (1959), who explicitly established its present usage as referring to all methods of therapy which are based on modern learning theory-- thus including both the Skinnerian operant methods and Wolpe's desen- sitization method, as well as many others (Eysenck, 1960).
    [Show full text]
  • The Adaptive Significance of Personality Traits It Is Clear That in Order for a Trait to Have Survived, It Must Have Had Some Degree of Functionality
    The Adaptive Significance of Personality Traits It is clear that in order for a trait to have survived, it must have had some degree of functionality. This suggests that shifting environmental pressures, particularly social ones, encouraged a range of variation on a number of traits (Buss, 1991). Furthermore, traits that were at one time adaptive, may be maladaptive in the present environment. We shall now examine the three and five factor models to discuss how they might have been adaptive. Neuroticism is associated with the ability to perceive and respond to environmental warnings associated with impending punishment. Being elevated on this trait makes people more vulnerable to spurious and inappropriate contingencies associated with being too sensitive to future punishment. A person who scores high on this trait, for example, might be more likely to develop a phobia. In some situations persons who score high on this trait would have a reproductive advantage. They might be more likely to avoid dangers. On the other hand, persons who scored low might be more likely to engage in reproductive behaviors that were accompanied by a risk. Males low in neuroticism could also gain reproductive advantage by engaging in high risk behaviors that increased their social status and consequently their level of attractiveness to females. Extraversion or surgency is related to the need for cortical stimulation (Eysenck, 1997). People who are extraverted become more bored more quickly. They also demonstrate faster habituation to a stimulus, especially intense stimuli. Being extraverted might be reproductively advantageous in males by motivating them to mate with many different partners, a quantitative strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13. Measures of Sensation Seeking
    Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This chapter was originally published in the book Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who know you, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial From Marvin Zuckerman and Anton Aluja, Measures of Sensation Seeking. In: Gregory J. Boyle, Donald H. Saklofske and Gerald Matthews, editors, Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. Oxford: Academic Press, 2014, pp. 352-380. ISBN: 978-0-12-386915-9 Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Academic Press. Author’s personal copy CHAPTER 13 Measures of Sensation Seeking Marvin Zuckerman1 and Anton Aluja2 1University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA 2University of Lleida, Lleida, Catalonia, Spain The sensation seeking construct is defined as: ‘A trait defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experience’ (Zuckerman, 1994, p. 27).
    [Show full text]