Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodik

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychologie der Persönlichkeit

Part of the book series: Springer-Lehrbuch ((SLB))

Zusammenfassung

Anwendungen der empirischen Persönlichkeitspsychologie in beruflicher Praxis und Wissenschaft setzen voraus, dass die Persönlichkeitsvariation, d. h. Persönlichkeitsunterschiede in einer oder mehreren Persönlichkeitseigenschaften, empirisch beschrieben wird. Dazu müssen Personen nach ihrer Persönlichkeit klassifiziert oder ihre Persönlichkeitseigenschaften gemessen werden. In diesem Kapitel wird zunächst eine Übersicht über Methoden gegeben, die das leisten. Anschließend werden zwei anspruchsvollere Methoden der empirischen Persönlichkeitsforschung skizziert, die zunehmend Verwendung finden: Mehrebenenmodelle und Kreuzkorrelationsdesigns. Wie auch bei der Darstellung von Faktoren- und Clusteranalysen werden nur Grundprinzipien anhand konkreter Beispiele geschildert, um Ergebnisse, die mithilfe dieser Methoden gewonnen werden, interpretieren zu können.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Achenbach, T.M., McConaughy, S.H. & Howell, C.T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of crossinformant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allik, J., Realo, A., Mottus, R., Borkenau, P, Kuppens, P. & Hrebickova, M. (2010). How people see others is different from how people see themselves: A replicable pattern across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 870–882.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G.W. & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1 (Whole No. 211).

    Google Scholar 

  • Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F. & John, O.P. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 4, 89–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anusic, I., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R.T. & Lockwood, P. (2009). The nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The halo-alpha-beta model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1142–1156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. (1989b). Soziale Gehemmtheit und ihre Entwicklung. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J. (1991a). Die differentielle Sichtweise in der Psychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. (1991b). Development of inhibited children’s coping with unfamiliarity. Child Development, 62, 1460–1474.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B., Banse, R. & Mücke, D. (2002a). Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 380–393.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F. & van Aken, M.A.G. (2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B., Caspi, A. & Hofstee, W.B.K. (2002b). The puzzle of personality types. European Journal of Personality, 16 (Special Issue S1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B., Denissen, J.J.A. & van Aken, M.A.G. (2008). Inhibited and aggressive preschool children at 23 years of age: Personality and social transitions into adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 44, 997–1011.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. & Ostendorf, F. (1998). Is self-enhancement healthy? Conceptual, psychometric, and empirical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 955–966.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. & Scherer, K.R. (1983). The discrepant repressor: Differentiation between low anxiety, high anxiety, and repression of anxiety by autonomic-facial-verbal patterns of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1334–1346.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. & van Aken, M.A.G. (1993). Deutsche Versionen der Selbstkonzeptskalen von Harter. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 64–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. & van Aken, M.A.G. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and the trait/type issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 815–832.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. & van Aken, M.A.G. (2003a). Validity of Big Five personality judgments in childhood: A 9-year longitudinal study. European Journal of Personality, 17, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. & van Aken, M.A.G. (2003b). Personality – relationship transaction in adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629–666.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asendorpf, J.B. & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R.E., Di Blas, L., … & De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bagby, R.M., Costa, P.T.Jr,., Widiger, T.A., Ryder, A.G. & Marshall, M. (2005). DSM-IV personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: A multi-method examination of domain- and facet-level predictions. European Journal of Personality, 19, 249–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benet, V. & Waller, N.G. (1995). The Big Seven factor model of personality description: Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 701–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesanz, J.C., Human, L.J., Paquin, A.C., Chan, M., Parisotto, K. L., Sarracino, J. & Gillis, R.L. (2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? Evidence for realistic accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 452–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–215.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J.H. & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, N. & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890–902.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borkenau, P. & Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings, and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F.M. & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borkenau, P. & Ostendorf, F. (2008). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) (2. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigham,J.C., Maass, A., Snyder, L.D. & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, R. (1980). Nonverbal behavior and the theory of emotion: The facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 811–824.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buse, L. & Pawlik, K. (1991). Zur State-Trait-Charakteristik verschiedener Meßvariablen der psychophysiologischen Aktivierung, der kognitiven Leistung und der Stimmung in Alltagssituationen. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 38, 521–538.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J.T. Uchino, B.N., Crites, S.L., Snydersmith, M.A., Smith, G., Berntson, G.G. & Lang, P.J. (1992). Relationship between facial expressiveness and sympathetic activation in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 110–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T.E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I.W., Taylor, A. & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R.B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. Yonkers, NY: World Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittaranjan, G., Blom, J. & Gatica-Perez, D. (2013). Mining large-scale smartphone data for personality studies. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17, 433–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B.S. & Ones, D.S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The NEO PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P.T.,Jr. & Widiger, T.A. (Eds.) (2002). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Montjoye, Y.A., Quoidbach, J., Robic, F. & Pentland, A.S. (2013). Predicting personality using novel mobile phone-based metrics. In A.M. Greenberg, W.G. Kennedy & N.D. Bos (Eds.), Social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction (pp. 48–55). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Raad, B., Barelds, D.P.H., Levert, E., Ostendorf, F., Mlačić, B., Blas, L.D., … Katigbak, M.S. (2010). Only three factors of personality description are fully replicable across languages: A comparison of 14 trait taxonomies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 160–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Neumann, M. & Lüdtke, O. (2010). Aspekte von Wissenschaftspropädeutik. In U. Trautwein, M. Neumann, G. Nagy, O. Lüdtke & K. Maaz (Hrsg.), Schulleistungen von Abiturienten (S. 243–265). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, C.G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multiinformant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Digman, J.M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Digman, J.M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dilling, H., Mombour, W., Schmidt, M.H. & Schulte-Markwort, E. (2004). Internationale Klassifikation psychischer Störungen: ICD-10, Kapitel V (F): Diagnostische Kriterien für Forschung und Praxis (3. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilling, H., Mombour, W. & Schmidt, M.H. (2015). Internationale Klassifikation psychischer Störungen: ICD-10, Kapitel V (F): Klinisch-diagnostische Leitlinien (10. Aufl.) Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H.W., Reither, F. & Stäudel, T. (Hrsg.) (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudek, F.J. (1979). The continuing misinterpretation of the standard error of measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 335–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Gollwitzer, M. & Schmitt, M. (2015). Statistik und Forschungsmethoden (4. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Lischetzke, T. & Nussbeck, F.W. (2006). Structural equation models for multitrait-multimethod data. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 283–299). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1983). A research paradigm for the study of personality and emotions. In M.M. Page (Ed.), Personality: Current theory and research: 1982 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 91–154). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H.J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1969). Personality structure and measurement. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkai, P. & Wittchen, H.-U. (Hrsg.). (2014). Diagnostisches und Statistisches Manual Psychischer Störungen DSM-5®. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992a). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, P. & Herpertz, S. (2016). Persönlichkeitsstörungen (7. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W. & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097–1114.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fraley, C. & Raftery, A. (2011). MCLUST Version 3.4.10 for R. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D.C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 177–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D.C. & Dobroth, K.M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409–418.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiser, C. & Eid. M. (2006). Profilanalyse. In F. Petermann & M. Eid (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Psychologischen Diagnostik (S. 318–331). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlitz, J.-Y. & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP (Research Notes No. 4/2005). Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, A.J. Oberlander, J. & Austin, E. (2006). Rating e-mail personality at zero acquaintance. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 497–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexikons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative "Description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Göttert, R. & Asendorpf, J. (1989). Eine deutsche Version des California- Child-Q-Sort, Kurzform. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 21, 70–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J.P. (1964). Persönlichkeit. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, S.E., Goldberg, L.R. & John, O.P. (1987). Category-breadth and social-desirability values for 573 personality terms. European Journal of Personality, 1, 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne, H. & May, M.A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character. Vol. 1: Studies in deceit. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, M.G. & Funder, D.C. (2006). The evolution of accuracy and bias in social judgment. In M. Schaller, J.A. Simpson & D.T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 15–38). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S.R. & McKinley, J.C. (1972). MMPI Saarbrücken (5. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzberg, P.Y. & Roth, M. (2006). Beyond resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers? An extension of personality prototype research. European Journal of Personality, 20, 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstee, W.K.B., Brokken, F.B. & Land, H. (1981). Constructie van een Standaard-Persoonlijkheids-Eigenschappenlijst (S.P.E.L.). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 36, 443–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossiep, R. & Paschen, M. (2003). Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung – BIP (2. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human, L.J. & Biesanz, J.C. (2013). Targeting the good target: An integrative review of the characteristics and consequences of being accurately perceived. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 248–272.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, I. & Scholl, W. (2005). Interpersonale Adjektivliste (IAL). Diagnostica, 51, 145–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, O.P., Angleitner, A. & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, O.P., Caspi, A., Robins, R.W., Moffitt, T.E. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The “Little Five”: Exploring the nomological network of the Five-Factor Model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160–178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K.J. (1984). Kontentvalidität. Diagnostica, 30, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohnstamm, G.A., Mervielde, I., Besevegis, E. & Halverson, C.F.,Jr. (1995). Tracing the Big Five in parents' free descriptions of their children. European Journal of Personality, 9, 283–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasky, J.J., Hover, G.L., Smith, P.A., Duffendack, S.C. & Nord, C.L. (1959). Post-hospital adjustment as predicted by psychiatric patients and their staff. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letzring, T.D. (2008). The good judge of personality: Characteristics, behaviors, and observer accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 914–932.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Livesley, W.J. & Jang, K.L. (2005). Differentiating normal, abnormal, and disordered personality. European Journal of Personality, 19, 257–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loranger, A.W., Sartorius, N., Andreoli, A., Berger, P., Buchheim, P., Channabasavanna, S.M., … & Regier, D.A. (1994). The International Personality Disorder Examination. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 215–224.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lück, H.E. & Timaeus, E. (1969). Skalen zur Messung Manifester Angst (MAS) und Sozialer Wünschbarkeit (SDS-E und SDS-CM). Diagnostica, 15, 134–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. & Rovira, M. (1982). Response bias in eye-gaze perception. Journal of Psychology, 110, 203–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T.,Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–595.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Jr., de Lima, M.P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., … & Piedmont, R.L. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466–477.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, M.R., Gosling, S.D. & Pennebaker, J.W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 862–877.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (2012). The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 221–237.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, P.C.M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2, 201–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mombour, W., Zaudig, M., Berger, P., Gutierrez, K., Berner, W., Berger, K., … & von Bose, M. (1996). International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). Göttingen: Hogrefe Testzentrale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, P., Jenkins, R., Tylee, A., Blizard, R. & Mann, A. (2000). The prevalence of personality disorder among UK primary care attenders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 52–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L.C., Waugh, M.H. & Blashfield, R.K. (1985). MMPI scales for DSM- III personality disorders. Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245–251.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, D.S. & Schwarz, J.C. (1982). Validity comparison of behavior counts and ratings by knowledgeable informants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 518–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musch, J., Brockhaus, R. & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit. Diagnostica, 48, 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestler, S. & Back, M.D. (2013). Applications and extensions of the lens model to understand interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 374–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netzlek, J.B. (2012). Diary methods for social and personality psychology. London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, T. (1967). 2,800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population (Tech. Rep.). Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Persönlichkeitsstruktur: Zur Validität des Fünf-Faktoren-Modells der Persönlichkeit. Regensburg: Roderer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostendorf, F. & Angleitner, A. (2003). NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar (revidierte Form, NEO-PI-R) nach Costa und McCrae. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, C.J., Curtin, J.J. & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14, 150–163.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D.L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, F. (2002). A comparison of world-wide web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34, 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, R.W., John, O.P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157–171.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W.S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 245–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackeim, H.A. & Gur, R. (1978). Self-deception, self-confrontation, and consciousness. In G.E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research (Vol. 2, pp.pp. 139–197). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sameroff, A.J., Seifer, R., Baldwin, A. & Baldwin, C. (1993). Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors. Child Development, 64, 80–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. & Goldberg, L.R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847–879.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saulsman, L.M. & Page, A.C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055–1085.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, K.R. (1978). Personality inference from voice quality: The loud voice of extroversion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 467–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönbrodt, F.D. & Asendorpf, J.B. (2011). Virtual social environments as a tool for psychological assessment: Dynamics of interaction with a virtual spouse. Psychological Assessment, 23, 7–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, P. (2002). Wealth of nations, individual income and life satisfaction in 42 countries: A multilevel approach. Social Indicators Research, 60, 5–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simms, L.J., Zelazny, K., Yam, W.H. & Gros, D.F. (2010). Self-informant agreement for personality and evaluative person descriptors: Comparing methods for creating informant measures. European Journal of Personality, 24, 207–221.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Skodol, A.E., Oldham, J.M., Bender, D.S., Dyck, I.R., Stout, R.L., Morey, L.C., … & Gunderson, J.G. (2005). Dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders: Relationships to functional impairment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 1919–1925.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, C.J., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D. & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Specht, J., Egloff, B. & Schmukle, S.C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stemmler, G. (1992). Differential psychophysiology: Persons in situations. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemmler, G. (2005). Biologische Ansätze. In H. Weber & T. Rammsayer (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Differentiellen Psychologie (S. 181–192). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, W. (1911). Die differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen. Leipzig: Barth (Reprint 1994, Bern: Huber).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stöber, J. (1999). Die Soziale-Erwünschtheits-Skala-17 (SES-17): Entwicklung und erste Befunde zu Reliabilität und Validität. Diagnostica, 45, 173–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szirmak, Z. & De Raad, B. (1994). Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 8, 95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Yperen, N.W. & Snijders, T.A.B. (2000). A multilevel analysis of the demands-control model: Is stress at work determined by factors at the group level or the individual level? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 182–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vazire, S. & Mehl, M.R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1202–1216.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, P.E. (1933). Some characteristics of the good judge of personality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 42–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, D.A., Schwartz, G.E. & Davidson, R.J. (1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive coping styles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 369–380.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T.A., Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (2002). A proposal for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the five-factor model. In P.T. CostaJr,. & T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp.431–456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T.A., Frances, A.J., Pincus, H.A., Davis, W.W. & First, M.B. (1991). Toward an empirical classification for the DSM-IV. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 280–288.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J.S. & Pincus, A.L. (2002). Personality structure and the structure of personality disorders. In P.T. CostaJr,. & T.H. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor-model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 103–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J.S., Trapnell, P. & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 517–530.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, O. (2002). Ability and achievement testing on the world wide web. In B. Batinic, U.D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online social sciences. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmann, W.W. (1987). Grundlagen erfolgreicher Forschung in der Psychologie: Multimodale Diagnostik, Multiplismus, multivariate Reliabilitäts- und Validitätstheorie. Diagnostica, 33, 209–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrzus, C. & Meehl, M.R. (2015). Lab and/or field? Measuring personality processes and their social consequences. European Journal of Personality, 29, 250–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wundt, W. (1903). Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (5. Aufl.; Bd. 3). Leipzig: Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarkoni, T. (2010). Personality in 100,000 words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 363–373.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Youyou, W., Kosinski, M. & Stillwell, D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1036–1040.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Deutschland

    Franz J. Neyer

  2. Institut für Psychologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Jens B. Asendorpf & Jens B. Asendorpf

Authors
  1. Franz J. Neyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jens B. Asendorpf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jens B. Asendorpf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Neyer, F.J., Asendorpf, J.B., Asendorpf, J.B. (2018). Methodik. In: Psychologie der Persönlichkeit. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54942-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54942-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54941-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54942-1

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation