Talk:Trait theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eccrowe, Nmottar. Peer reviewers: Rlbritt79.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

"however, has demonstrated that particular clusters of traits reliably correlate together." Completely backwards. The whole point of the Big 5 is they are uncorrelated. 14.202.132.63 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have improved the pile of shit with great detail of somewhat and have improved the referencing. Would be nice to tidy it up a bit (headings, content, justify the text (?) etc...). I am not so hot with the Wiki code! --Neuropsychology 14:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources??? matturn 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad article, but I have two suggestions :

- Cattell's 16 factors is really worth mentionning here - Maybe it would be best to make separate section for the three main versions of the trait theory, which are : Gigantic Three, Cattel's 16 PF and the Big Five.

--Guillaume777 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nice article, but I sorely miss the Gray model here (a variation of the Eysenck model for those who don't know it). Especially in the detailed critique of the 3F at the bottom. I feel that Gray's model performs a lot better here and the model fits rather well to evidence from neuro science. Hirsch.im.wald 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hirsch.im.wald and matturn, it would be good to see the Gray model and Cattel's 16 in here. Although I was sufficiently knowledgable to write the article I do not know the Gray or Cattel model in any great depth. I'd invite anyone who does to make a contribution. --Neuropsychology 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to have POV issues... Though it makes considerable discussion of the debates between different trait theories, it treats the validity of SOME model in the vein as an axiom, which it certainly isn't for psychology as a whole. There needs to be more treatment of the general theory's relation with other psychological models. Nentuaby 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

a small thing, but shouldn't the words be positive AFFECT and negative AFFECT? The word effect doesn't make sense in this context. 134.226.1.229 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)TC[reply]

Vandalism

There's a lot of vandalism on this page in the past few months (almost to the exclusion of all other edits). Perhaps it should be semi-protected for a few months. --- Roidroid (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cattell

I see now this edit was probably in good faith, sorry for calling it vandalism. The reference "Personal communication by this editor with Cattell, 1969. personal communication Urbana, IL" had me confused. We can probably get good references from Raymond Cattell. --Wikiloop (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The" two taxonomies

The title of this section seems to imply that Eysenck's model and the Five Factor Model are "the" taxonomies, suggesting that they are the only relevant or notable ones. I think this needs to be toned down, as there are other notable taxonomies. Cattell's 16 factor model is of historical importance, and more recently the 6-factor HEXACO model[hexaco.org] has gained considerable prominence in academia. I think having a paragraph comparing rival taxonomies is important, but there needs to be a brief explanation of why these taxonomies in particular are considered the most important, and at least a mention of serious alternatives. Smcg8374 12:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about "clean up"

I have some questions about user:MathewTownsend's recent edits. Why was the word "major" deleted from the first sentence? Do you not consider the traits approach a major theory? If so why not? It seems to be a highly influential approach that features prominently in personality textbooks. And why was the paragraph about The Five Factor Model deleted from the list of personality traits? Can you provide a reason?--Smcg8374 (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, info about the Big Five was deleted, this time with the edit summary "should not be pushing the Big Five". How is this a justification for deleting this information altogether? The paragraph concerned is purely descriptive, so how is this pushing the Big Five? If you think that other trait models should be mentioned to provide balance, then by all means do so. The paragraph you removed did not say that the Big Five is the only model or the best so how is it biased? Your edit summary also said something about the Big Five traits are derived from other models. Two questions: what is your source for this? And if so, so what? The Big Five is currently a well-accepted model, there is no rule that it has to be totally original to be scientifically valid. The fact that you keep deleting info about the Big five suggests that you have a bias against the model and are trying to promote your own agenda. You have also not addressed why you deleted the word 'major' from the lede.--Smcg8374 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you mention the Big Five and its components when they are taken fro the 16 PF and other tests that came before it? Traits are "major" but they started to be used in the 1930s. To pretend that the "Big Five" invented them is hogwash. Since a list of "traits" are given, why is the only test mentioned the "Big Five. What about Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck and others who actually came up with these dimensions first, decades ago? The "Big Five" is a relatively recent test, taken from the work of others, that is being promoted for some reason that I don't understand. At least give the history before you promote this particular test. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, if you think that additional material, such as about the history of traits, needs to be added, then feel free to do so. Deleting material that contains valid references is considered by the Arbitration Committee to be disruptive editing [1]. I don't see the logic in your statement that "Traits are "major" but they started to be used in the 1930s." If you consider that they are "major" then why remove the word "major" from the lede statement, which refers to trait theory generally, rather than a specific model? I have nothing against Cattell and Eysenck per se. In fact, in an earlier section of this Talk page I suggested that the fact that there are other trait models besides Eysenck and the Big Five that ought to be mentioned. Where in the article does it say that "the Big Five invented" traits? You also claim that 'the "Big Five" is a relatively recent test, taken from the work of others' - what is your source for this statement? I have before me an authoritative undergraduate textbook, "Introduction to Personality", 4th ed. by Phares and Chaplin that states: "As early as 1938, Thurstone had factor analysed the descriptions of 1300 raters on 60 common personality adjectives and had found five independent common factors" (p. 449). It then goes on to say: "Roughly the same five factors have been discovered over the decades by a variety of investigators with a variety of stimuli" (p. 450). Since you say that you don't understand why the Big Five is being promoted, then I hope that it is now clear that the model is actually supported by decades of research. I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to "push" the Big Five or claiming that it is the "best" model. My point is that rather than deleting material and replacing it with nothing, it would be more constructive and more encyclopedic to include additional information. I have actually been considering doing this but have simply not got around to it yet. If you have any information to add about other models based on reliable sources then you are welcome to do so. --Smcg8374 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unreferenced content in lead section

I have removed this paragraph for now as it has been unreferenced since April and does not belong in the lead section although it might be incorporated elsewhere if references can be provided:

Trait theory is also useful in marketing for discovering more information about consumer behavior. As stated before, personality traits are identifiable characteristics that define a person. When regarding consumer behavior, marketers use quantitative measurement of these personality traits to discover more about their consumers, including why they make their purchases. The five main traits that are relevant to consumer behavior include: innovativeness, materialism, self-consciousness, need for cognition, and frugality. Innovativeness is the tendency to first buy new products, this is product category specific. For example, some individuals may always be first in line to consistently buy the latest Apple product that is released. Materialism is when individuals focus on buying and owning products, not just about spending money, but they focus on the material. The appeal of having "stuff" is greater than simply spending the money on it. The third trait is self-consciousness, or when individuals care more about the things that will be seen in public, for example, shoes and makeup. The need for cognition is aimed at consumers who need to think and want to have more information. The last trait is frugality. Being frugal is not necessarily paying the least, but making sure that the product is used resourcefully. These individuals want to use their product to the end of its life. These consumers tend to deny short term purchases and just make do. Mixed success has been seen when using this method to predict product choices using the standard personality trait quantitative measurements. The scales are not valid or reliable since each person may have a different idea for what each trait is or what it really means and there is really no thought of scale application. Constant ad hoc instrument changes also severely affect the accuracy of this method.

--Smcg8374 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I have just made some pretty major changes. In particular, (a) expanded the scope to cover more that just the 3 and 5-factor models, and (b) clarified the comparison of these two competing approaches.

While I believe it's big improvement, there will certainly be errors, so please feel free to improve it further. Snori (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of personality traits completitude and classification

It seems to me that, if temperament and character are two of the constituent elements of personality, this list must be longer. On the other hand, as this list is right now, I think most items are temperament traits except for honesty, humility and, self-esteem, which are character traits. A classified list would be a lot more helpful for people who want to understand several concepts such as temper, temperament, character and personality. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to get experts to update the models or taxonomies?

What is the best way to update the section of this article that Compares EPQ and the Big Five?

Looking through this Talk page, I see that this question has come up time and again without any resolution: why only focus on these two taxonomies? Do experts in the field even know to look to this Talk page to update the content? If not, then is there a way to edit the public page to invite experts to build out the model and taxonomy section?

Unfortunately, the current structure is (in my opinion) extremely misleading. I was armchair researching last night, and had only heard of the Big Five and Myers-Briggs before landing on this page. Wondering what EPQ is and how it's comparable to the Big Five--I spent arguably two to five hours falling down a rabbit hole about Hans Eysenck and how he has been criticized and denounced throughout much of today's psychological community. So to me as an outsider, the current article structure suggests that a handful of zealots edited this page to elevate his practice as a contemporary competitor to the Big Five, when in actuality it is simply a precursor. I don't know many people as curious/neurotic as me that would stay with this topic long enough to figure out the additional context.

Is it not dangerous to leave the article as-is?

Does anyone have any good resources they can point me to so I can update the article with Cattell's and Gray's models/taxonomies (if labor is the barrier)?

Thanks for your help!

OneRayMichels (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding statistics

There could be additional information regarding the frequency and the pairwise correlation of each trait, perhaps even a summary of pathologies an excess or lack of each trait may correlate to, as a detailed example is observed here. Ideally as well, there could be added a list of treatments related to such traits, an example of which is seen here. Perhaps adding these to the main article would render it tediously long, but a summary added to the final table may not be as bad. Existent human being (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]