Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dispositionales Paradigma

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Persönlichkeitspsychologie: Paradigmen – Strömungen – Theorien

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

  • 29k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Das dispositionale Paradigma liefert einen Großteil an wichtigen Ansätzen in der Persönlichkeitspsychologie. So gut wie jeder Persönlichkeitspsychologe muss sich der Frage stellen, was Eigenschaften sind und wie sie funktionieren. Daher häuften sich im Laufe der Zeit zahlreiche Ansätze an, die heute den Kern der Persönlichkeitspsychologie ausmachen. Dieses Kapitel liefert einen ersten Einblick in diese Ansatzvielfalt.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lat. dis-pōnere ordnen, einrichten, einteilen; dis-positio Anlage, Anordnung, Bestimmung, Aufstellung.

  2. 2.

    Altgr. τύπος [túpos] Schlag, Muster, Vorbild.

  3. 3.

    Altgr. ὁρμᾶν [hormān] antreiben, erregen; vgl. „Motivation“ von lat. motum bewegt zu movēre bewegen, erregen, veranlassen.

  4. 4.

    Altgr. ἔργον [érgon] Arbeit, Werk, Tat, Handlung, Verrichtung.

  5. 5.

    Altgr. τάξις [táksis] Ordnung; νόμος [nómos] Gesetz(mäßigkeit).

  6. 6.

    http://ipip.ori.org/.

    Tab. 8.18 Aspekte und Facetten der Big Five-Domänen
    Full size table
  7. 7.

    Altgr. ὀξύς [oksús] spitz, scharf und μωρός [mōrós] stumpf. Oxy-moron = spitz-stumpf.

  8. 8.

    Altgr. ἄνθρωπος [ánthrōpos] Mensch.

  9. 9.

    ANOVA = ANalysis Of Variance.

  10. 10.

    Diese Bezeichnungen gelten für Wahrnehmungen. Wenn Verhaltensweisen erfasst werden, dann spricht man von actor, partner und actor × partner interaction.

  11. 11.

    http://www.icd-code.de/icd/code/ICD-10-GM-2016.html.

  12. 12.

    Die englische Version findet sich frei verfügbar auf https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/dsm-5/online-assessment-measures. Die offizielle Website des DSM-5 (http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx) gibt generelle Informationen über Geschichte und Entstehungsprozess des DSM-5.

  13. 13.

    http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm5/online-assessment-measures#Personality.

Literatur

  • Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 195–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achenbach, T. M. (1966). The classification of children’s psychiatric symptoms: A factor-analytic study. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1931). What is a trait of personality? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 368–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1970). Gestalt und Wachstum in der Persönlichkeit. Meisenheim: Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G., & Odbert, H. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amelang, M., & Borkenau, P. (1982). Über die faktorielle Struktur und externe Validität einiger Fragebogen-Skalen zur Erfassung von Dimensionen der Extraversion und emotionalen Labilität. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 3, 119–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, B. (2002). HPI. Hamburger Persönlichkeitsinventar. Das NEOCAR Basisfaktor-System. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angleitner, A., & Riemann, R. (2005). Eigenschaftstheoretische Ansätze. In H. Weber & T. Rammsayer (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Differentiellen Psychologie (S. 93–103). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    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., & Neyer, F. J. (2012). Psychologie der Persönlichkeit (5. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Goldberg, L. R., & de Vries, R. E. (2009). Higher-order factors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139–152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Back, M. D., Baumert, A., et al. (2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25, 90–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 855–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Back, M. D., & Nestler, S. (2016). Accuracy of judging personality. In J. A. Hall, M. Schmid Mast, & T. V. West (Hrsg.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (S. 98–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 533–548.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communication in western man. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Hrsg.), Handbook of social psychology (S. 680–740). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (Hrsg.). (1999). The self in social psychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgarten, F. (1933). Die Charaktereigenschaften. In F. Baumgarten (Hrsg.), Beiträge zur Charakter- und Persönlichkeitsforschung (Heft 1, S. 1–81). Bern: A. Franke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, P. (2003). Trierer Integrierte Persönlichkeitsinventar (TIPI). Manual. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, N., Wood, R. E., & Minbashian, A. (2010). It depends how you look at it: On the relationship between neuroticism and conscientiousness at the within- and the between-person levels of analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 593–601.

    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 

  • Benet-Martínez, V., & Waller, N. G. (2002). From „adorable“ to „worthless“: Implicit and self-report structure of highly-evaluative personality descriptors. European Journal of Personality, 16, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benet-Martínez, V., Donnellan, M. B., Fleeson, W., Fraley, R. C., Gosling, S. D., King, L. A., Robins, R. W., & Funder, D. C. (2015). Six visions for the future of personality psychology. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Hrsg.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 4: Personality processes and individual differences (S. 665–689). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesanz, J. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885.

    PubMed  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. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollich, K. L., Johannet, P. M., & Vazire, S. (2011). In search of our true selves: Feedback as a path to self-knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 312. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00312.

  • Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Das NEO Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar (NEO-FFI): Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. Psychological Review, 50, 255–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1984). Acts, dispositions, and personality. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Hrsg.), Progress in experimental personality research (Bd. 13, S. 241–301). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personal development. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, E. N., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Meta-accuracy: Do we know how others see us? In S. Vazire & T. D. Wilson (Hrsg.), Handbook of self-knowledge (S. 242–257). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Furr, R. M. (2011). Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 831–846.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical and factual study. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1973). Die empirische Forschung der Persönlichkeit. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, F. W. (1967). Objective personality and motivation tests. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Wada, S., & Zhang, J. (2003). Indigenous measures of personality assessment in Asian countries: A review. Psychological Assessment, 15, 280–289.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Hrsg.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (S. 265–286). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

    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. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa: 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: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1993). Bullish on personality psychology. The Psychologist, 6, 302–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (Hrsg.). (2001). Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on „understanding of others“ and „assumed similarity.“ Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, J. P., & Cattell, R. B. (1976). Manual for the Eight State Questionnaire. Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Clercq, B., de Fruyt, F., van Leeuwen, K., & Mervielde, I. (2006). The structure of maladaptive personality traits in childhood: A step toward an integrative developmental perspective for DSM-V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 639–657.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five personality factors: The psycholexical approach to personality. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Raad, B., Barelds, D. P. H., et al. (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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Raad, B., Barelds, D., Timmerman, M., De Roover, K., Mlacic, B., & Church, A. T. (2014). Towards a pan-cultural personality structure: Input from 11 psycholexical studies. European Journal of Personality, 28, 497–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Raad, B., Mulder, E., Kloosterman, K., & Hofstee, W. K. B. (1988). Personality-descriptive verbs. European Journal of Personality, 2, 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denissen, J. J. A., & Penke, L. (2008). Individual reaction norms underlying the five factor model of personality: First steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1285–1302.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

    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. (2009). Internationale Klassifikation psychischer Störungen: ICD-10, Kapitel V (F): Klinisch-diagnostische Leitlinien (7. Aufl.). Bern: Huber.

    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 

  • Dunkel, C. S., van der Linden, D., Brown, N. A., & Mathes, E. W. (2016). Self-report based general factor of personality as socially desirable responding, positive self-evaluation, and social effectiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 143–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, W. L. (2015). Lives as the organizing principle in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 29, 353–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404–416.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1998). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In D. Barone & M. Hersen (Hrsg.), Advanced personality. The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (S. 211–238). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewen, R. (2011). An introduction to theories of personality (7. Aufl.). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1953). The structure of human personality. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1976). Sexualität und Persönlichkeit. Wien: Europa Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Kent: Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1987). Persönlichkeit und Individualität. München: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., & Wilson, G. D. (1991). The Eysenck Personality Profiler. London: Corporate Assessment Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J., Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. J. (1998). Eysenck-Personality-Profiler-V6. Mödling: Schuhfried.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrenberg, J. (1964). Objektive Tests zur Messung der Persönlichkeit. In R. Heiß (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Psychologie (Bd. 6: Psychologische Diagnostik, S. 488–532). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkai, P., & Wittchen, H.-U. (Hrsg.). (2013). Diagnostisches und statistisches Manual psychischer Störungen DSM-5. Hogrefe: Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R. (1985). Reflected appraisal and the development of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W. (2012). Perspectives on the person: Rapid growth and opportunities for integration. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (S. 33–63). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W., & Law, M. K. (2015). Trait manifestations as density distributions: The role of actors, situations, and observers in explaining stability and variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1090–1104.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2008a). Where does personality have its influence? A supermatrix of consistency concepts. Journal of Personality, 76, 1355–1385.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2008b). The end of the person-situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1667–1684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, P. (2001). Persönlichkeitsstörungen (5. Aufl.). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisseni, H.-J. (2003). Persönlichkeitspsychologie: Ein Theorienüberblick (5. unveränd. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, M. A., Di Domenico, S. I., Weststrate, N. M., Quitasol, M. N., & Dong, M. (2015). Toward a unified science of personality coherence. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 56, 253–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality Judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (1983). Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 107–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Hrsg.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (S. 141–165). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. de Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Hrsg.), Personality psychology in Europe (S. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, H. H. (1993). Temperament: Variability in developing emotion systems. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Hrsg.), Handbook of emotion (S. 353–364). New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, H. H., & Campos, J. (1982). Toward a theory of infant temperament. In R. Emde & R. Harmon (Hrsg.), Attachment and affiliative systems (S. 161–193). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, W. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 816–821.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 45–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (2008). First impressions based on the environments we create and inhabit. In N. Ambady & J. J. Skowronski (Hrsg.), First impressions (S. 334–356). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in non-human animals: A cross-species review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Judgments of personality based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379–398.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, W. (2000a). Psychologie des Selbst. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, W. (2000b). Die Psychologie des Selbst: Konturen eines Forschungsthemas. In W. Greve (Hrsg.), Die Psychologie des Selbst (S. 15–36). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 802–814.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilford, J. P. (1976). The Guilford-Zimmerman temperament survey handbook: Twenty-five years of research and application. San Diego: EdITS Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurtman, M. B. (2009). Exploring personality with the interpersonal circumplex. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 601–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 354–370.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Häcker, H. O. (2004). Eigenschaftstheorien der Persönlichkeit. In K. Pawlik (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie. Theorien und Anwendungsfelder der Differentiellen Psychologie (S. 225–275). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits „get outside the skin“. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hannover, B. (1996). Das dynamische Selbst. Zur Kontextabhängigkeit selbstbezogenen Wissens. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannover, B., Pöhlmann, C., & Springer, A. (2005). Selbsttheorien der Persönlichkeit. In K. Pawlik (Hrsg.), Theorien und Anwendungsfelder der Differentiellen Psychologie (S. 317–363). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S. M. (2012). The Personality Psychopathology-Five (PSY-5): Recent constructive replication and assessment literature review. Psychological Assessment, 24, 432–443.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, 104–114.

    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 (Hrsg.), Evolution and social psychology (S. 15–38). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstee, W. K. B. (2001). Intelligence and personality: Do they mix? In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Hrsg.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (S. 43–60). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146–163.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J. (1984). Summing up. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 337–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, S. E. (2010). The diagnosis of mental disorders: The problem of reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155–179.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin study: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556–1565.

    PubMed  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., Naumann, L., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Hrsg.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (S. 114–158). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., & Naumann, L. P. (2010). Surviving two critiques by block? The resilient big five have emerged as the paradigm for personality trait psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Hrsg.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (S. 102–138). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (Hrsg.). (1993). The narrative study of lives (Volume 1). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy. Temperament in human nature. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (2004). The long shadow of temperament. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145–161.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D., & Funder, D. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klages, L. (1926). Die Grundlagen der Charakterkunde. Leipzig: Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, T., Ortner, T. M., Eid, M., Caspers, J., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Evaluating the construct validity of objective personality tests using a multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion-(MTMM-MO)-approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 209–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2006a). Classification of psychopathology: Melding behavior genetics, personality, and quantitative psychology to develop an empirically-based model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 113–117.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2006b). Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2, 111–133.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM–5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamiell, J. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality. American Psychologist, 36, 276–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, F. R., Lüdtke, O., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Testgüte und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen. Diagnostica, 47, 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Coping from the perspective of personality. Zeitschrift für Difefrentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 19, 213–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76, 1001–1053.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leising, D., Scharloth, J., Lohse, O., & Wood, D. (2014). What types of terms do people use when describing an individual’s personality? Psychological Science, 25, 1787–1794.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2016 im Druck). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leising, D., & Zimmermann, J. (2011). An integrative conceptual framework for assessing personality and personality pathology. Review of General Psychology, 15, 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livesley, W. J., & Jackson, D. N. (2009). Manual for the dimensional assessment of personality pathology – basic questionnaire. Port Huron: Sigma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loranger, A. W., Sartorius, N., Andreoli, A., et al. (1994). The international personality disorder examination. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 215–224.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. In Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 858–866.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into identity. Homewood: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P. (2008). Personal narratives and the life story. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Hrsg.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (S. 241–261). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P., & Manczak, E. (2015). Personality and the life story. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Hrsg.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (S. 425–446). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2012). What is extraversion for? Integrating trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the purpose of extraversion. Psychological Science, 23, 1498–1505.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1985). Updating Norman’s „adequate taxonomy“: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Hrsg.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (S. 21–50). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Hrsg.), Handbook of personality (S. 139–153). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Hrsg.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (S. 159–181). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2010). NEO inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R): Professional manual. Lutz: PAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1982). Beyond deja vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review, 89, 730–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mõttus, R., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., & McCrae, R. R. (2016). Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the big one in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233.

    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 

  • Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, T. M., Horn, R., et al. (2007). Standortbestimmung und Zukunft Objektiver Persönlichkeitstests. Report Psychologie, 32, 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, T. M., Proyer, R. T., & Kubinger, K. D. (Hrsg.). (2006). Theorie und Praxis Objektiver Persönlichkeitstests. Bern: Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, T. M., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Advances and continuing challenges in objective personality testing (Editorial). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 163–168.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (1992). On the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model of personality: Evidence for five robust factors in questionnaire data. In G. V. Caprara, & G. L. van Heck (Hrsg.), Modern personality psychology. Critical reviews and new directions (S. 73–109). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar (revidierte Form, NEO-PI-R) nach Costa und McCrae. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozer, D. J. (1986). Consistency in personality. A methodological framework. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pace, V. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the „same“ construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 669–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paunonen, S. V., & Hong, R. Y. (2015). On properties of personality traits. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Hrsg.), The APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 4. Personality processes and individual differences (S. 233–259). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the big five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 21–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Persönlichkeitstheorien. München: Reinhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit. Diagnostica, 51, 195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauthmann, J. F. (2016). Implicit personality development. In J. Specht (Hrsg.), Personality development across the lifespan. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W., & Wilt, J. (2013) The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 493–504.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F. Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B. W., Bogg, T., Walton, K., Chernyshenko, O., & Stark, S. (2004). A lexical approach to identifying the lower-order structure of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 164–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socio-economic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2015). Personality processes and processes as personality: A cognitive perspective. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Hrsg.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Bd. 4, S. 129–145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122–135.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Serien Hrsg.), & N. Eisenberg (Bd. Hrsg.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6. Aufl., S. 99–166). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruch, W. (1999). Die revidierte Fassung des Eysenck Personality Questionnaire und die Konstruktion des deutschen EPQ-R bzw. EPQ-RK. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 20, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J. P. (1985). Differential K Theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 441–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366–385.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G. (2003). An alternative multi-language structure for personality attributes. European Journal of Personality, 17, 179–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Hrsg.), The five-factor model of personality: Perspectives (S. 21–50). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, G., Thalmayer, A. G., et al. (2014). A basic bivariate structure of personality attributes evident across nine languages. Journal of Personality, 82, 1–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, L. R. (1975). Objektive Persönlichkeitsmessung in diagnostischer und klinischer Psychologie. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., & Altstötter-Gleich, C. (2010). Differentielle und Persönlichkeitspsychologie KOMPAKT. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmukle, S. C., Back, M. D., & Egloff, B. (2008). Validity of the five-factor model for the implicit self-concept of personality. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 263–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneewind, K. A., & Graf, J. (1998). 16-Persönlichkeits-Factoren-Test Revidierte Fassung Test-Manual. Bern: Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneewind, K. A., Schröder, G., & Cattell, R. B. (1983). Der 16-Persönlichkeits-Faktoren-Test (16 PF). Bern: Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simms, L. J. (2007). The big seven model of personality and its relevance to personality pathology. Journal of Personality, 75, 65–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. K., Misra, G., & de Raad, B. (2013). Personality structure in the trait lexicon of Hindi, a major language spoken in India. European Journal of Personality, 27, 605–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2016, im Druck). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 8, 220–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1987). Reexamining basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Paper presented at the 95th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories in Guilford-Zimmerman temperament survey data: Results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 61, 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P., & Wood, J. V. (2015). Eighty phenomena about the self: Representation, evaluation, regulation, and change. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00334.

  • Thalmayer, A. G., & Saucier, G. (2014). The questionnaire big six in 26 nations: Developing cross-culturally applicable big six, big five and big two inventories. European Journal of Personality, 28, 497–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkins. S. S. (1979). Script theory: Differential magnification of affects. In H. E. HoweJr. & R. A. Dienstbier (Hrsg.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Bd. 26). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61–97). Lackland Air Force Base: U.S. Air Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uher, J. (2008a). Comparative personality research: Methodological approaches (Target article). European Journal of Personality, 22, 427–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uher, J. (2008b). Three methodological core issues of comparative personality research. European Journal of Personality, 22, 475–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uher, J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Personality assessment in the Great Apes: Comparing ecologically valid behavior measures, behavior ratings, and adjective ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 821–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uher, J., Asendorpf, J. B., & Call, J. (2008). Personality in the behaviour of great apes: Temporal stability, cross-situational consistency and coherence in response. Animal Behaviour, 75, 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, D., Dunkel, C. S., & Petrides, K. V. (2016). The General Factor of Personality (GFP) as social effectiveness: Review of the literature. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vazire, S., & Wilson, T. D. (Hrsg.). (2012). Handbook of self-knowledge. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, L., & de Clercq, B. (2014). Integrating oddity traits in a dimensional model for personality pathology precursors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 598–612.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (2008). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: II. Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure. Journal of Personality, 76, 1545–1585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A., Inoue-Murayama, M., King, J. E., Adams, M. J., & Matsuzawa, T. (2012). All too human? Chimpanzee and orang-utan personalities are not anthropomorphic projections. Animal Behaviour, 83, 1355–1365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A., & King, J. E. (2015). Great Ape origins of personality maturation and sex differences: A study of orangutans and chimpanzees. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 648–664.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A., King, J. E., & Murray, L. (2011). Personality and temperament in nonhuman primates. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (1994). Personality and personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 78–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (2012). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: The five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 80, 1471–1506.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., Frances, A. J., et al. (1991). Toward an empirical classification of the DSM-IV. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 280–288.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 110–130.

    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. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Hrsg.), Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality (S. 431–456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal adjective scales professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1996). An informal history of the interpersonal circumplex tradition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 217–233.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2015). Affect, behavior, cognition and desire in the Big Five: An analysis of item content and structure. European Journal of Personality, 29, 478–497.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (2015). Testing the lexical hypothesis: Are socially important traits more densely reflected in the English lexicon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 317–335.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., & Furr, R. M. (2016). The correlates of similarity estimates are often misleadingly positive: The nature and scope of the problem, and some solutions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 79–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Gardner, M. H., & Harms, P. D. (2015). How functionalist and process approaches to behavior can explain trait covariation. Psychological Review, 122, 84–111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. G. C., Calabrese, W. R., Rudick, M. M., Yam, W. H., Zelazny, K., Rotterman, J., & Simms, L. J. (2015). Stability of the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality traits and their longitudinal associations with functioning in personality disordered individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 199–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. G. C., & Simms, L. J. (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 951–957.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zentner, M., & Bates, J. E. (2008). Child temperament: An integrative review of concepts, research programs, and measures. European Journal of Developmental Science, 2, 7–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, J., Altenstein, D., et al. (2014a). The structure and correlates of self-reported DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits: Findings from two German-speaking samples. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 518–540.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, J., Masuhr, O., Jaeger, U., Leising, D., Benecke, C., & Spitzer, C. (2014b). Maladaptive Persönlichkeitseigenschaften gemäß DSM-5: Zusammenhänge mit psychischer Belastung und ICD-10 Diagnosen in einer klinischen Stichprobe. Persönlichkeitsstörungen: Theorie und Therapie, 18, 46–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1984). Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 413–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuroff, D. C. (1986). Was Gordon Allport a trait theorist? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 993–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1984). Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 413–471.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    John F. Rauthmann

Authors
  1. John F. Rauthmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rauthmann, J.F. (2017). Dispositionales Paradigma. In: Persönlichkeitspsychologie: Paradigmen – Strömungen – Theorien. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53004-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53004-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53003-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53004-7

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation