1 / 25

Central Arguments

Taking Developmental Perspectives on Personality Traits Seriously M. Brent Donnellan Michigan State University donnel59@msu.edu. Central Arguments. 1) Traits predict consequential outcomes. Traits matter. 2) Traits change over the life span. Traits develop.

sezja
Télécharger la présentation

Central Arguments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Taking Developmental Perspectives onPersonality Traits SeriouslyM. Brent DonnellanMichigan State Universitydonnel59@msu.edu

  2. Central Arguments 1) Traits predict consequential outcomes. Traits matter. 2) Traits change over the life span. Traits develop. 3) Life experiences may impact trait development. Thus… A developmental perspective requires long-term studies with repeated measures of both traits and outcomes.

  3. Outline • Basic Definitions • Evidence for why traits matter • Developmental findings for traits • Future Directions

  4. What are personality traits? Relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that make people different from one another.

  5. The Big Five Domains • Extraversion (Talkative, Energetic, Outgoing) • Agreeableness (Helpful, Trusting, Cooperative) • Conscientiousness (Reliable, Hardworking) • Neuroticism/Emotional Stability (Anxious, Tense, Moody) • Openness to experience (Curious, Values artistic experiences)

  6. Tellegen’s “Big Three” Dimensions (Tellegen & Waller, 2008; Clark & Watson, 2008) Positive Emotionality: Readily experience positive emotions (Enthusiasm, Social Warmth, Zest) - PEM Negative Emotionality: Readily experience negative emotions (Distress, Anger, Hostility) – NEM Constraint: Self-Control and the endorsement of Social Norms - CON

  7. Why Should Anyone Care about Traits? Traits statistically predict important life outcomes (e.g., Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Roberts et al., 2007) Allport wrote that personality was “what lies behind specific acts” and thus served as “determining tendencies” (e.g., Allport, 1937, p. 48-49)

  8. Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples) Why Should Anyone Care? Traits and Relationships I Married Couples (Middle-Age Couples) Women’s Negative Emotionality -.24 Women’s Relationship Adjustment -.10 -.10 Men’s Negative Emotionality Men’s Relationship Adjustment -.24 N = 1,805 couples. Source: Humbad, Donnellan, et al. (2010)

  9. Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples) Why Should Anyone Care? Traits and Relationships II National Sample from Australia Women’s Neuroticism -.18 Women’s Relationship Satisfaction -.15 -.15 Men’s Neuroticism Men’s Relationship Satisfaction -.18 N = 2,639 Couples Source: Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, & Lucas (2010) Similar results in a sample from the United Kingdom. Similar results for Life Satisfaction in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom

  10. Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples) Why Should Anyone Care? Conscientiousness in the Classroom (Corker, Oswald, & Donnellan, 2012) Predicting Total Points from Day 1 Reports Note: Statistical effects of Conscientiousness were largely mediated by Study Strategies (e.g., Tenacity and Organization) and Exam-Specific Effort. Meta-Analytic Result for ACT based on Study 2 in Sackett et al. (2009; k = 17, N ≈ 17,000) Meta-Analytic Result for C from Table 1 in Poropat (2009; k = 138, N ≈ 71,000)

  11. Negative Emotionality and Marital Adjustment (N = 1,805 Couples) Why Should Anyone Care? Adolescent Traits and Adult Counterproductive Work Behaviors - 18 Years Later (Le, Donnellan et al., R & R) CWBs assessed in 2007 and 2010 using Bennett and Robinson (2000) Measure. Effects hold controlling for adolescent academic achievement, gender, and current job satisfaction. Meta-analytic result for Antisocial Behavior from Table 1 in Jones et al. (2011; k = 29 & 30 for A & C, respectively; Ns ≈ 10,000)

  12. Developmental Findings Related to Traits

  13. Illustrations of the Maturity Principle Maturity Principle: • Focus on Mean-Levels

  14. Iowa: Mean-Level Change from 18 to 27 - Expressed in Standardized Units (Donnellan et al., 2007)

  15. Minnesota. Mean-Level Changes from 17 to 29 (N = 626 Twins; Hopwood, Donnellan, et al., 2011)

  16. Age Differences in Conscientiousness – United States (2006 GSS Data; Anusic, Lucas, & Donnellan, 2012 ) Quadratic Term Significant in Regression-Based Analyses. No Evidence of Moderation by Gender. Total N ≈1,500. Average Group n = 188.

  17. Illustrations of the Cumulative Continuity Principle • Focus on test-retest correlations

  18. Australia (N ≈ 8,700 to 9,600) (Wortman, Lucas, & Donnellan 2012)

  19. Evidence for Corresponsive Principle

  20. Relationship Quality and Relative Changes in NEM from 1994 to 2003M from 1994 to 2003 Relationship Quality in 2001(Couple) NEM in 1994 -.21 -.25 .46 NEM in 2003 N = 323. Effect Also Holds if ONLY Partner Reports of Relationship Quality are Used in 2001 (β = -.14, p < .05)

  21. Self-Determination and Relative Changes in Agentic PEM from 1994 to 2003 (Le, Donnellan, & Conger, in press) Self Determination in 2001 APEM in 1994 .17 .26 .48 APEM in 2003 N = 370.

  22. Summary Points On average, individuals report becoming more conscientious and less prone to negative emotions during the transition to adulthood. Rank-order consistency increases across the life span. It might decline at the end of life but more data are needed to test for this possibility. Traits are associated with future life conditions and contexts. These experiences and psychological contexts may further contribute to trait development.

  23. Future Directions(see Donnellan, Hill, & Roberts, in press) Need more repeated-measures studies covering developmentally significant spans of time. Applications of methods useful for isolating trait/state variance in assessments. Greater use of growth models to isolate individual differences in change. More studies of older participants to evaluate questions about differential stability at the end of life. Better integration of “adult” trait research with child temperament research. Theories about the nature of specific traits are valuable. Challenges with items and informants, however. Test interventions designed to change traits.

  24. Thanks Results from the Latent Variable STARTS Model Thanks! • NIA: 1 R01 AG040715-01 (Lucas & Donnellan). • NICHD: 1-R01-HD064687-01 (Conger, Donnellan, & Stallings) • Current/Former Students – Robert Ackerman, IvanaAnusic, Katherine Corker, Portia Dyrenforth, MikhilaHumbad, Kimdy Le, Kim McAdams, Edward Witt, and Jessica Wortman • Alex Burt & MTFS Crew • Rand D. Conger • Chris Hopwood • Debby Kashy • David A. Kenny • Richard E. Lucas • Fred Oswald • Brent W. Roberts • Richard W. Robins • Kali H. Trzesniewski

  25. M. Brent DonnellanMichigan State Universitydonnel59@msu.edu

More Related