Business
Personality Models
Personality models in business refer to frameworks or theories that aim to categorize and understand individual differences in personality traits and behaviors. These models are used to assess and predict how individuals may behave in various work situations, and can inform decisions related to hiring, team composition, and leadership development. Understanding personality models can help businesses optimize team dynamics and individual performance.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
6 Key excerpts on "Personality Models"
- Philip J. Corr, Gerald Matthews(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
As a person or an object, a model can function as example or ideal to imi- tate, to follow, or to portray; the original person or object may evoke in others a variety of (behavioral) expressions revolving around a common theme as seen in the model, or different themes as connoted by the observers. Such ambiguity is also found in scientific discourse, for example, where the Big Five model of traits (Goldberg, 1981; Norman, 1963) became a paradigm for research on the structure of personality. Models do not only represent people or objects, but also events, thoughts, or theories. There are models of learn- ing, models of rational choice, models of communication, models of political behavior, etc. (Lave & March, 1975). Models are most typically simple. A model is a device that can be reproduced, lived after, communicate a concept, and be tested for its adequacy. A model of personality may represent its characteristic traits, its mechanisms, its internal processes, at different levels of abstraction, and given form from different domains of interest (social, bio- logical, cognitive, etc.). In personality research, roughly two approaches are followed to arrive at a structuring of personality. The one is a top-down theoretical approach, most typically psycho- biological in character, exemplified in personality systems of Eysenck (1967), Zuckerman (1991), and Gray and McNaughton (2000), to be discussed briefly further on. The other is a bottom-up, empirically based, taxonomic approach. This taxonomic approach traces back to Allport and Odbert (1936), Cattell (1943, 1945), Norman (1967) and Goldberg (1981). An almost standard recipe to arrive at a structure in these different approaches involves the use of factor ana- lytic techniques. Also, in this chapter factor analysis is used as metonymy for structure, yet explicitly not in the sense of panacea. Other procedures to arrive at structure are certainly possible (Panter, Tanaka & Hoyle, 1994).
No longer available |Learn morePsychology Applied to Modern Life
Adjustment in the 21st Century
- Wayne Weiten, Dana Dunn, Elizabeth Hammer(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Cengage Learning EMEA(Publisher)
Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 64 CHAPTER 2 Key Ideas THE NATURE OF PERSONALITY ● The concept of personality explains the consistency in individu- als’ behavior over time and situations while also explaining their distinctiveness. Personality traits are dispositions to behave in certain ways. ● Some theorists suggest that the complexity of personality can be reduced to just five basic traits: extraversion, neuroticism, open- ness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The Big Five traits predict important life outcomes, such as grades, occupa- tional attainment, divorce, health, and mortality. PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVES ● Freud’s psychoanalytic theory emphasizes the importance of the unconscious. Freud described personality structure in terms of three components (id, ego, and superego), operating at three levels of awareness, that are involved in internal conflicts, which generate anxiety. ● According to Freud, people often ward off anxiety and other unpleasant emotions with defense mechanisms, which work through self-deception. He described five psychosexual stages that children undergo in their personality development. ● Jung’s analytical psychology stresses the importance of the col- lective unconscious. Adler’s individual psychology emphasizes how people strive for superiority to compensate for feelings of inferiority. BEHAVIORAL PERSPECTIVES ● Behavioral theories view personality as a collection of response tendencies shaped through learning. Pavlov’s classical condition- ing can explain how people acquire emotional responses. ● Skinner’s model of operant conditioning shows how conse- quences such as reinforcement, extinction, and punishment shape behavior. Bandura’s social cognitive theory shows how people can be conditioned indirectly through observation. He views self-efficacy as an especially important personality trait.
eBook - PDF- Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- BPS Blackwell(Publisher)
These comprehensive and up-to-date definitions refer to sta- ble, internal and causal processes, with both mental and physical aspects, that account for an individual’s typical manifestations of behavior, emotion, and thought in every- day life. In simple terms, then, we could define personality as that which makes a person different or similar to others. As Carver and Scheier (2000, p. 5) note, there are certain universal characteristics of the human race and particular features of individuals. We all for example experience stress, and the elevated cortisol that goes with it, and we all suffer the immune suppressive effects thereof. But each of us is unique too. FIGURE 2.1 Situational (states), idiographic, and nomothetic (types and traits) approaches to the study of personality (p = person) 1) Situational: personality as inconsistent states/behaviors. 2) Idiographic: describes different people in different terms. 3) Nomothetic: describes different people using same terms (extremes) or traits (continuum). p1 p2 p2 Types Traits p1 p1 p2 p2 28 PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES That means that some of us may be particularly likely to experience stress during university exams, while others may do so when meeting new people or traveling by plane. Furthermore, some of us may perform best under pres- sure, while others may only do well under relaxed conditions. What makes you anxious? Research on personality traits deals with the fundamental differences and similarities between individuals. Beginning with a general classification or tax- onomy of the stable and observable patterns of behavior, it goes on to assess the extent to which individuals differ on these variables or traits.
eBook - PDFPersonality
Theory and Research
- Daniel Cervone, Lawrence A. Pervin(Authors)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
How many and which trait dimensions are necessary for a basic description of personality? 2. What are the implications of individual differences in traits for career choice, physical health, and psychological well-being? 3. How stable are personality trait scores over time? 4. Is the nature of individual differences in personality consistent or variable across cultures? 5. What contemporary developments have advanced the traditional trait theories? On Taxonomies of Personality Any field of study may benefit from a taxonomy, that is, a system for classifying the objects of study. Is the living thing a plant or an animal? Is the chemical compound organic or inorganic? The economy: planned or free market? The painting: impressionist or expressionist? Personality psychology is no exception. An agreed-upon taxonomy of personality traits would be a boon. With a simple taxonomic structure of personality traits in hand, researchers anywhere in the world could focus on a small set of personality trait categories rather than sifting through thousands of potential individual-difference variables. So, does the field have one of these in hand: a consensually accepted, universally applicable, taxonomic structure of personality traits? It depends who you ask: in Ancient Greece, philosophers attempted to capture and organize individual differences . . . only in the past few decades has a consensus emerged regarding the basic structure of personality in the form of the Big-5 [or] Five-Factor model. Gerlach et al. (2018, p. 735) Although the Five Factor Model of personality continues to find cross-cultural support, new research suggests that the model may be difficult to replicate in less educated or preliterate groups . . . two or three broad dimensions may replicate better across cultures. Church (2016, p. 22) with a thousand words, there would be considerable redundancy (e.g., perfect and flawless mean pretty much the same thing), permitting us to reduce the size of the list.
eBook - PDFPersonality
Theory and Research
- Daniel Cervone, Lawrence A. Pervin(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
When researchers represent the diversity of human experience in their data sets, the number of universal trait dimensions drops in half. Authors of the third quote go further. They do not even expect that any single universal structure of personality exists. Individuals and cultures may be too diverse, complex, and idiosyncratic for that. (It is noteworthy that the authors of the third quote were a team of 19 internationally renowned personality scientists.) How, then, shall we proceed? This chapter begins by summarizing a taxonomy of personality traits that has been known to the field for more than a half-century and that came to great promi- nence in the latter decades of the 20th century: the five-factor or Big Five model. As you will see, substantial bodies of evidence indicate that individual differences can be usefully organized in terms of five broad, bipolar trait dimensions (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2008). We will discuss where the model came from, how the five traits are measured, and how trait scores change or remain stable over time. We then will consider a deeply significant concep- tual question: What are these traits – psychological structures that compose the core of human nature or merely efficient, handy descriptions of some ways in which people differ from one another? The chapter then (a) reviews research indicating that six, rather than five, dimensions are needed to describe significant differences among individuals; (b) presents a contemporary development in personality theory, Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, that challenges aspects of the five-factor model; and (c) addresses the question of whether people’s behavior is consistent across situations – a question crucial to trait theories since, as you saw in Chapter 7, accounting for consistency in behavior was an original raison d’être of the trait approach. The five-factor model is a factor-analytic trait approach, just like the theories of Eysenck and Cattell.
- Louise Kelley(Author)
- 1992(Publication Date)
- North Holland(Publisher)
Managers attending an assessment center early in their careers were measured on 37 different personality and motivation characteristics. These measures were used to predict level of 96 Lillibridge and Williams progress in the company 20 years later. Factor analyses were conducted on the 37 measures in an attempt to identify an underlying personality structure. Six factors emerged from this analysis: Self- Esteem, Leadership Motivation, Positiveness, Impulsivity, Affability, and Ambition. Impulsivity and Ambition showed the strongest rela- tionships with managerial progress, with correlations ranging from .25 to .37. A major contributionof Howard and Bray's (1988) research is the identification of broad personality domains related to managerial success. One limitation, however, is that their factor structure does not correspond to a coherent trait structure that has emerged in recent personality research, i.e., the Big Five robust domains of personality. ROBUST DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY THE BIG FIVE Personality researchers have established a five-factor model of trait ratings which has substantial convergent and discriminant validi- ty (Conley, 1985; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Digman & hkemoto- Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1990; McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986). These dimensions are usually labeled Surgency (or Extraversion), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness (Impulse Control), Neuroticism vs. Emotional Stability, and Intellectual Interests. These non-overlap- ping trait domains show significant relationships to relevant behavior patterns, both concurrently and longitudinally, and have been found in studies utilizing self-report inventories (McCrae et al., 1986), ratings by peers (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981), and ratings by trained observers (Digman & Inouye, 1986). Defining terms for the five factors are presented in Bble 2.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
