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,