The Experts below are selected from a list of 91398 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anna Baumert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
towards an explanatory Personality psychology integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
Personality and Individual Differences, 2019Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Marco PeruginiAbstract:Abstract Structural approaches to Personality have brought about considerable progress in description and prediction of interindividual differences in thoughts, feelings, and behavior. However, in order to move towards Personality psychology as an explanatory science, we argue that structural, Process-oriented and developmental approaches to Personality have to be integrated. We summarize the main propositions of a theoretical framework published in a target article in the European Journal of Personality (Baumert et al., 2017a), and highlight the resulting challenges for future Personality research.
-
integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
European Journal of Personality, 2017Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Wendy Johnson, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William FleesonAbstract:In this target article, we argue that Personality Processes, Personality structure, and Personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide compreh...
-
integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
European Journal of Personality, 2017Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Wendy Johnson, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William FleesonAbstract:In this target article, we argue that Personality Processes, Personality structure, and Personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide comprehensive responses to the key questions of Personality psychology. The psychological Processes and mechanisms that explain concrete behaviour in concrete situations should provide explanation for patterns of variation across situations and individuals, for development over time as well as for structures observed in intra-individual and inter-individual differences. Personality structures, defined as patterns of covariation in behaviour, including thoughts and feelings, are results of those Processes in transaction with situational affordances and regularities. It cannot be presupposed that Processes are organized in ways that directly correspond to the observed structure. Rather, it is an empirical question whether shared sets of Processes are uniquely involved in shaping correlated behaviours, but not uncorrelated behaviours (what we term ‘correspondence’ throughout this paper), or whether more complex interactions of Processes give rise to population-level patterns of covariation (termed ‘emergence’). The paper is organized in three parts, with part I providing the main arguments, part II reviewing some of the past approaches at (partial) integration, and part III outlining conclusions of how future Personality psychology should progress towards complete integration. Working definitions for the central terms are provided in the appendix. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology
William Fleeson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
European Journal of Personality, 2017Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Wendy Johnson, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William FleesonAbstract:In this target article, we argue that Personality Processes, Personality structure, and Personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide compreh...
-
integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
European Journal of Personality, 2017Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Wendy Johnson, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William FleesonAbstract:In this target article, we argue that Personality Processes, Personality structure, and Personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide comprehensive responses to the key questions of Personality psychology. The psychological Processes and mechanisms that explain concrete behaviour in concrete situations should provide explanation for patterns of variation across situations and individuals, for development over time as well as for structures observed in intra-individual and inter-individual differences. Personality structures, defined as patterns of covariation in behaviour, including thoughts and feelings, are results of those Processes in transaction with situational affordances and regularities. It cannot be presupposed that Processes are organized in ways that directly correspond to the observed structure. Rather, it is an empirical question whether shared sets of Processes are uniquely involved in shaping correlated behaviours, but not uncorrelated behaviours (what we term ‘correspondence’ throughout this paper), or whether more complex interactions of Processes give rise to population-level patterns of covariation (termed ‘emergence’). The paper is organized in three parts, with part I providing the main arguments, part II reviewing some of the past approaches at (partial) integration, and part III outlining conclusions of how future Personality psychology should progress towards complete integration. Working definitions for the central terms are provided in the appendix. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology
Elliroma Gardiner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
integrating the context appropriate balanced attention model and reinforcement sensitivity theory towards a domain general Personality Process model
Psychological Bulletin, 2017Co-Authors: Michael D. Collins, Ben R Walker, Peter J Oconnor, Chris J Jackson, Elliroma GardinerAbstract:Over the last 40 years or more the Personality literature has been dominated by trait models based on the Big Five (B5). Trait-based models describe Personality at the between-person level but cannot explain the within-person mental mechanisms responsible for Personality. Nor can they adequately account for variations in emotion and behavior experienced by individuals across different situations and over time. An alternative, yet understated, approach to Personality architecture can be found in neurobiological theories of Personality, most notably reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST). In contrast to static trait-based Personality models like the B5, RST provides a more plausible basis for a Personality Process model, namely, one that explains how emotions and behavior arise from the dynamic interaction between contextual factors and within-person mental mechanisms. In this article, the authors review the evolution of a neurobiologically based Personality Process model based on RST, the response modulation model and the context-appropriate balanced attention model. They argue that by integrating this complex literature, and by incorporating evidence from Personality neuroscience, one can meaningfully explain Personality at both the within- and between-person levels. This approach achieves a domain-general architecture based on RST and self-regulation that can be used to align within-person mental mechanisms, neurobiological systems and between-person measurement models. (PsycINFO Database Record
-
integrating the context appropriate balanced attention model and reinforcement sensitivity theory towards a domain general Personality Process model
QUT Business School, 2017Co-Authors: Michael D. Collins, Ben R Walker, Peter J Oconnor, Chris J Jackson, Elliroma GardinerAbstract:Over the last 40 years or more the Personality literature has been dominated by trait models based on the Big Five (B5). Trait-based models describe Personality at the between-person level but cannot explain the within-person mental mechanisms responsible for Personality. Nor can they adequately account for variations in emotion and behavior experienced by individuals across different situations and over time. An alternative, yet understated, approach to Personality architecture can be found in neurobiological theories of Personality, most notably reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST). In contrast to static trait-based Personality models like the B5, RST provides a more plausible basis for a Personality Process model, namely, one that explains how emotions and behavior arise from the dynamic interaction between contextual factors and within-person mental mechanisms. In this article, the authors review the evolution of a neurobiologically based Personality Process model based on RST, the response modulation model and the context-appropriate balanced attention model. They argue that by integrating this complex literature, and by incorporating evidence from Personality neuroscience, one can meaningfully explain Personality at both the within- and between-person levels. This approach achieves a domain-general architecture based on RST and self-regulation that can be used to align within-person mental mechanisms, neurobiological systems and between-person measurement models.
-
how Process models of Personality based on revised reinforcement sensitivity theory suggest a way to organize Personality structure
QUT Business School, 2016Co-Authors: Ben R Walker, Peter J Oconnor, Michael D. Collins, Elliroma Gardiner, Chris J JacksonAbstract:We distinguish within-person, Process models of Personality from the more widely researched between-person models of Personality. The primary difference between these two model types is that Process models provide an understanding of the dynamic Processes at the individual level, whereas between-person models only advance knowledge of differences between people. We argue that revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory provides an excellent building block for Process models of Personality in which temperament is re-expressed through socio-cognitive mechanisms. We review four Personality Process models based on revised or original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and demonstrate how such Process models address research questions beyond the scope of between-person models. We advocate that Process models of Personality improve theoretical knowledge compared to between-person Personality models and deserve greater attention.
Michael D. Collins - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
integrating the context appropriate balanced attention model and reinforcement sensitivity theory towards a domain general Personality Process model
Psychological Bulletin, 2017Co-Authors: Michael D. Collins, Ben R Walker, Peter J Oconnor, Chris J Jackson, Elliroma GardinerAbstract:Over the last 40 years or more the Personality literature has been dominated by trait models based on the Big Five (B5). Trait-based models describe Personality at the between-person level but cannot explain the within-person mental mechanisms responsible for Personality. Nor can they adequately account for variations in emotion and behavior experienced by individuals across different situations and over time. An alternative, yet understated, approach to Personality architecture can be found in neurobiological theories of Personality, most notably reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST). In contrast to static trait-based Personality models like the B5, RST provides a more plausible basis for a Personality Process model, namely, one that explains how emotions and behavior arise from the dynamic interaction between contextual factors and within-person mental mechanisms. In this article, the authors review the evolution of a neurobiologically based Personality Process model based on RST, the response modulation model and the context-appropriate balanced attention model. They argue that by integrating this complex literature, and by incorporating evidence from Personality neuroscience, one can meaningfully explain Personality at both the within- and between-person levels. This approach achieves a domain-general architecture based on RST and self-regulation that can be used to align within-person mental mechanisms, neurobiological systems and between-person measurement models. (PsycINFO Database Record
-
integrating the context appropriate balanced attention model and reinforcement sensitivity theory towards a domain general Personality Process model
QUT Business School, 2017Co-Authors: Michael D. Collins, Ben R Walker, Peter J Oconnor, Chris J Jackson, Elliroma GardinerAbstract:Over the last 40 years or more the Personality literature has been dominated by trait models based on the Big Five (B5). Trait-based models describe Personality at the between-person level but cannot explain the within-person mental mechanisms responsible for Personality. Nor can they adequately account for variations in emotion and behavior experienced by individuals across different situations and over time. An alternative, yet understated, approach to Personality architecture can be found in neurobiological theories of Personality, most notably reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST). In contrast to static trait-based Personality models like the B5, RST provides a more plausible basis for a Personality Process model, namely, one that explains how emotions and behavior arise from the dynamic interaction between contextual factors and within-person mental mechanisms. In this article, the authors review the evolution of a neurobiologically based Personality Process model based on RST, the response modulation model and the context-appropriate balanced attention model. They argue that by integrating this complex literature, and by incorporating evidence from Personality neuroscience, one can meaningfully explain Personality at both the within- and between-person levels. This approach achieves a domain-general architecture based on RST and self-regulation that can be used to align within-person mental mechanisms, neurobiological systems and between-person measurement models.
-
how Process models of Personality based on revised reinforcement sensitivity theory suggest a way to organize Personality structure
QUT Business School, 2016Co-Authors: Ben R Walker, Peter J Oconnor, Michael D. Collins, Elliroma Gardiner, Chris J JacksonAbstract:We distinguish within-person, Process models of Personality from the more widely researched between-person models of Personality. The primary difference between these two model types is that Process models provide an understanding of the dynamic Processes at the individual level, whereas between-person models only advance knowledge of differences between people. We argue that revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory provides an excellent building block for Process models of Personality in which temperament is re-expressed through socio-cognitive mechanisms. We review four Personality Process models based on revised or original Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and demonstrate how such Process models address research questions beyond the scope of between-person models. We advocate that Process models of Personality improve theoretical knowledge compared to between-person Personality models and deserve greater attention.
Manfred Schmitt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
towards an explanatory Personality psychology integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
Personality and Individual Differences, 2019Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Marco PeruginiAbstract:Abstract Structural approaches to Personality have brought about considerable progress in description and prediction of interindividual differences in thoughts, feelings, and behavior. However, in order to move towards Personality psychology as an explanatory science, we argue that structural, Process-oriented and developmental approaches to Personality have to be integrated. We summarize the main propositions of a theoretical framework published in a target article in the European Journal of Personality (Baumert et al., 2017a), and highlight the resulting challenges for future Personality research.
-
integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
European Journal of Personality, 2017Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Wendy Johnson, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William FleesonAbstract:In this target article, we argue that Personality Processes, Personality structure, and Personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide compreh...
-
integrating Personality structure Personality Process and Personality development
European Journal of Personality, 2017Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Wendy Johnson, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William FleesonAbstract:In this target article, we argue that Personality Processes, Personality structure, and Personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide comprehensive responses to the key questions of Personality psychology. The psychological Processes and mechanisms that explain concrete behaviour in concrete situations should provide explanation for patterns of variation across situations and individuals, for development over time as well as for structures observed in intra-individual and inter-individual differences. Personality structures, defined as patterns of covariation in behaviour, including thoughts and feelings, are results of those Processes in transaction with situational affordances and regularities. It cannot be presupposed that Processes are organized in ways that directly correspond to the observed structure. Rather, it is an empirical question whether shared sets of Processes are uniquely involved in shaping correlated behaviours, but not uncorrelated behaviours (what we term ‘correspondence’ throughout this paper), or whether more complex interactions of Processes give rise to population-level patterns of covariation (termed ‘emergence’). The paper is organized in three parts, with part I providing the main arguments, part II reviewing some of the past approaches at (partial) integration, and part III outlining conclusions of how future Personality psychology should progress towards complete integration. Working definitions for the central terms are provided in the appendix. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology