The Experts below are selected from a list of 42297 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

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, 2017
    Co-Authors: Wendy Johnson, Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William Fleeson
    Abstract:

    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

  • toward a structure and process integrated view of Personality traits as density distributions of states
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001
    Co-Authors: William Fleeson
    Abstract:

    Three experience-sampling studies explored the distributions of Big-Five-rele vant states (behavior) across 2 to 3 weeks of everyday life. Within-person variability was high, such that the typical individual regularly and routinely manifested nearly all levels of all traits in his or her everyday behavior. Second, individual differences in central tendencies of behavioral distributions were almost perfectly stable. Third, amount of behavioral variability (and skew and kurtosis) were revealed as stable individual differences. Finally, amount of within-person variability in extraversion was shown to reflect individual differences in reactivity to extraversion-reievant situational cues. Thus, decontextualized and noncontingent Big-Five content is highly useful for descriptions of individuals' density distributions as wholes. Simultaneously, contextualized and contingent Personality units (e.g., conditional traits, goals) are needed for describing the considerable within-person variation. The purpose of this article is to identify aspects of individuals' everyday trait-relevant behavior over time that are relevant to and explainable by Personality Psychology. The presumption is that, because the same individual behaves differently on different occasions, an individual's behavior over time forms a distribution; the central proposal is that the entire distribution and its several components are relevant to—and to be explained by—Personality Psychology. Specifically, on the basis of a view of individuals as actively reacting to context (Allport, 1937; Brown & Moskowitz,

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, 2019
    Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Marco Perugini
    Abstract:

    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, 2017
    Co-Authors: Wendy Johnson, Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Gabriela Blum, Peter Borkenau, Giulio Costantini, Jaap J A Denissen, William Fleeson
    Abstract:

    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

Timothy J Pleskac - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Christopher J Hopwood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Marco Perugini - 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, 2019
    Co-Authors: Anna Baumert, Manfred Schmitt, Marco Perugini
    Abstract:

    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.

  • the definition of components and the use of formal indexes are key steps for a successful application of network analysis in Personality Psychology
    European Journal of Personality, 2012
    Co-Authors: Giulio Costantini, Marco Perugini
    Abstract:

    Conceiving Personality as a network provides an interesting theoretical framework and a promising methodological perspective. The application of network analysis to Personality Psychology however is not straightforward, and some issues require careful consideration. We argue that the definition of components within networks cannot be limited to single items, and more work is needed to reflect the inherently hierarchical and indefinite nature of components. Additionally, we argue that formal empirical indexes must be clearly defined and consistently used to describe properties of Personality networks. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.