An investigation into differences between the structure of ...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

An investigation into differences

10

between the structure of temperament

11 12

and the structure of personality

13

14

IRINA TROFIMOVA

15

McMaster University

16

17

This article analyzes the differences between an activity-specific temperament model and the

18

Big Five personality model using the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire?Compact (STQ-

19

77). The STQ-77 has 3 emotionality scales and 9 scales assessing 3 dynamic aspects (arousal,

20

lability, and sensory sensitivity) in 3 areas of activity (physical, verbal?social, and mental). The

21

results of administration of the Russian STQ-77, NEO-FFI, and SSS-V to 174 Russian participants

22

showed how components of temperament can represent the traits described in the Big Five

23

model. The confirmatory factor analysis of the English STQ-77 and the results of a study involv-

24

ing a prolonged word classification task with 221 Canadian participants showed the benefits

25

of the activity-specific approach, separating temperament traits in three areas of activity. Such

26

specificity of temperament traits differentiates them from personality traits.

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Personality assessment methods analyze the prod- personality and the factors underlying personality.

35

uct of interactions between the social and biological He noted that "tests for physique, for intelligence,

36

factors underlying individual differences. However, or for temperament are not tests of personality. ...

37

the concept of personality should not be viewed as If, then, personality is the object of inquiry, traits of

38

completely covering the concepts of individuality personality should not be confused with qualities or

39

or of the person, even though these concepts over- quantities of intelligence, physique, or temperament"

40

lap. The concept of personality refers to a product (Allport, 1927, p. 284).

41

of socialization, such as social skills, attitudes, self- Another topic of confusion is the nature of the

42

perception, and relationships to other people, and the relationship between temperament and personality.

43

concept of individuality includes not only personality Researchers in personality theory and developmental

44

but also abilities, limitations, and other biologically psychology tend to assign a leading role to personality

45

based properties of a person. Allport, who initiated as the main edifice of adult and socialized individuality

46

the lexical approach (so popular nowadays in per- and a submissive role to temperament as the founda-

47

sonality theory), pointed to the confusion between tion of this edifice, which plays a role only during the

48

American Journal of Psychology

Winter 2010, Vol. 123, No. 4 pp. 489?502 ? ? 2010 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

1

initial stage of construction (i.e., in childhood). Con- the concept of temperament refers mostly to the dy-

2

tinuing the building analogy, one should not forget namic properties of behavior, independent of content

3

that there are plumbing and electrical systems, which elements. "Emotionality" and "activity" (or "energy,"

4

run from the foundation. If something goes wrong or "strength of nervous system," i.e., the ability to stay

5

with these systems, or (as in the case of the Tower of active on a task) are two dimensions used by Kant

6

Pisa) there are problems with the underground sup- (1798/1974), Stern (1900; cited in Lamiell, 2003),

7

port of the foundation, the functioning of the whole Heymans (1929), and Pavlov (1941) to derive the Ga-

8

structure is affected. There is an overwhelming body len?Hippocrates four temperaments. Cholerics were

9

of evidence that a person's social behavior changes noted to be reactive and energetic, sanguines were

10

with biological factors, such as pain, intoxication, balanced in reaction and energetic, phlegmatics were

11

chemical imbalances, or even time of the day, with all balanced and weak, and melancholics were reactive

12

the social settings remaining intact.

and weak. Later, the neuropsychological correlates

13

It would be more realistic to treat social and of these two basic dimensions of temperament were

14

biological factors, personality and temperament, as found: The neuroendocrine functioning of the lim-

15

equal parties, having a continual interaction and mu- bic system was linked to emotionality, and projections

16

tual adjustment to one another. Such interaction is from the ascending reticular activation system were

17

more noticeable in childhood because of the larger linked to the level of activation and arousal. Therefore,

18

and faster changes in both the biological and social it is not surprising that the same two dimensions--

19

characteristics of individuality, but it does not end emotionality (perceived as neuroticism) and arousal

20

with adulthood. For example, people with a high level (perceived as extroversion)--are always found

21

tempo in physical activity or an ability to sustain in- in all personality models based on a lexical approach

22

tense physical activity become athletes not because and factor analysis.

23

of their socialization but because of their actual The oldest experimental tradition for studying the

24

physical abilities. The same mechanisms (i.e., the components of temperament belongs to the 100-year-

25

impact of the biologically based abilities) make the old Pavlovian school of psychophysiological stud-

26

same person withdraw from athletic activities in later ies of the properties of nervous systems and to the

27

life when these abilities change. Another example is worldwide tradition of the study of human abilities.

28

the decrease in extroversion and sociability with age Dozens of researchers supervised by Pavlov, Teplov,

29

(Labouvie-Vief, Diehl, Tarnowski, & Shen, 2000; Nebylitsyn, and Rusalov throughout the 20th century

30

Mortimer, Finch, & Kumka, 1982; Yang, McCrae, & conducted experiments with animals and with hu-

31

Costa, 1998; Zonderman, Siegler, Barefoot, Williams, man participants in various modalities, using variable

32

& Costa, 1993), accompanied by such biological fac- scheduling and difficulty of tasks, administration of

33

tors as an age-related decrease in energy level and an caffeine, provision of tasks with deterministic and

34

increase in emotionality. The best opinion on this probabilistic conditions, measurement of absolute

35

topic comes from Gray (2004), who said, "conscious- thresholds, evoked potentials, and electroencepha-

36

ness comes too late," meaning that a person often acts lography. These researchers came up with the fol-

37

first then thinks and assesses her or his own actions lowing findings, in addition to the description of the

38

from a social perspective afterwards.

two basic dimensions of temperament (Gray, 1964;

39

Sometimes there is a need in practice to focus pri- Nebylitsyn, 1972; Pavlov, 1941; Teplov & Nebylitsyn,

40

marily on either social factors (e.g., cultural expecta- 1963; Rusalov, 1979):

41

tions, acculturation factors, values, and opinions) or

Excitation and inhibition processes are regulat-

42

biological factors and not on the product of their inter-

ed by different neurophysiological systems, and

43

action. Consistent individual differences in behavior,

the relationships between these two systems

44

which are based on the physiology of the body, were

(their balance) are not the same for all people,

45

noted 25 centuries ago by Hippocrates and Galen

leading to consistent individual differences.

46

as temperament. Unlike the concept of personality

This idea was further developed by Gray in his

47

(which includes the content aspects of behavior, e.g.,

reinforcement sensitivity theory. Elucidating the

48

values, goals, attitudes, and a history of relationships),

relationships between various brain structures,

490 ? trofimova

Gray (1982) explained Hippocrates' four clas-

ated from general mobility, or plasticity, needed

1

sical temperaments in terms of the relationship

for putting together a new program of an action

2

between the Behavioral Approach System

under changed circumstances. Findings in neu-

3

(BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System

rophysiology linked lability, time keeping, rhyth-

4

(BIS). Impulsivity was explained by the domi-

micity, and tempo of activity to the basal ganglia,

5

nance of the BAS over the BIS, and neuroticism was attributed to the dominance of the BIS over

dentate nucleus of the lateral cerebellum, putamen, and thalamic projections to the sensorimo-

6

the weaker BAS. This approach was later adapt-

tor cortex, superior temporal gyrus, and inferior

7

ed by numerous approach?withdrawal models

frontal gyrus (Franz, Zelaznik, & Smith, 1992;

8

of temperament.

Franz, Ivry, & Helmuth, 1996; Ivry & Keele,

9

Mobility of activity, and not just the energetic component of activity, is also a very consistent and biologically based trait. Mobility appears as

1989; Harrington, Haaland, & Hermanowicz, 1998; O'Boyle, 1997; Rao et al., 1997).

Sensitivity is also a biologically based trait af-

10 11 12

plasticity of behavior (i.e., how easily the person

fecting the behavior of a person, and it is also

13

can start or stop activity and how flexible and

nonindependent on the energetic component of

14

adaptive the person is to new circumstances or

activity. Teplov and Nebylitsyn (1963) measured

15

instructions). Since the neuropsychological work

absolute visual and auditory thresholds and the

16

of Luria in the 1940s, mobility (plasticity) of be-

electrical sensitivity of the eye and found that

17

havior was linked to the functioning of the frontal

"weak" participants had a higher sensitivity (i.e.,

18

cortex and confirmed by numerous clinical cases

lower threshold). Similar results were found by

19

of brain damage. The important issue about

Eysenck's school (Stelmack & Michaud-Achorn,

20

mobility is that, since Pavlov's time, it has been

1985; Revelle, 1973; Gange, Geen, & Harkins,

21

found to have bifurcation (nonlinear) structure

2007). This meant that sensitivity and endurance

22

and therefore a nonindependent relationship to

of activity were not independent properties of

23

the energetic component of temperament. Pavlov classified nervous systems into weak and strong

individuality, even though they had different neurophysiological representation.

24

types and differentiated only the strong types by the mobility criterion, whereas the weak type was found in many studies to always have low mobility. As a result, mobility, as measured by the Pavlovian Temperament Survey (PTS), shows significant positive correlations with the Strength of Excitation scale of the PTS (Strelau, 1999) and with both the Ergonicity (power of arousal) and Lability (of the arousal) scales of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) administered by Strelau on Polish and German samples, by Ruch, Angleitner, and Strelau (1991) on a German sample, and by Trofimova (2009a, 2010b) based on a Canadian sample. Such interdependence of the mobility and energetic component of temperament implies that mobility should show up as an independent factor and hiding under the dimension of general arousal in factor analytic studies.

Nebylitsyn (1976) and then Rusalov (1979, 1989) concluded that the components of temperament are activity-specific; for example, the energetic level or tempo of performance might be different for the same person in physical, social, or intellectual activities, and therefore aspects of the performance of these activities should be assessed and analyzed separately. These findings were in line with neuropsychological descriptions of the role of the sensorimotor cortex in the regulation of physical activity, the role of the left temporal cortex in verbal behavior, and the role of the frontal cortex in intellectual activity. It would be simplistic to assign performance in social, physical, and intellectual activities to exact anatomic structures of the brain, given that any activity is performed by an ensemble of structures. However, it is reasonable to suggest that membership in these ensembles changes

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Lability (i.e., tempo of activity) was found to

with a change in the object of activity and that

43

be a dynamic property of activity separate from

at least for physical, verbal?social, and mental

44

flexibility and adaptivity. The concept of lability

activities, the consistent dynamic aspects of

45

described the speed of automatic performance

these activities (e.g., energetic level and tempo)

46

according to an existing program (or habit, or

are regulated by different neurophysiological

47

previously developed skill) and was differenti-

systems. Hebb (1980, p. 64) pointed out that

48

temperament and personality ? 491

1

the arousal system consists of 28 separate pairs original STQ scale of Intellectual Plasticity was re-

2

of nuclei, which make possible many different named Sensitivity to Probabilities. The STQ-77 also

3

patterns of activity, all with the same purpose of upgraded Rusalov's original model of temperament

4

activating the cortex but with different proper- by including the scales of Impulsivity, Sensitivity to

5

ties otherwise.

Sensations, and Empathy. The last two new scales

6

Based on his experiments, Rusalov (1979) pro- were included according to Luria's (1996) neuropsy-

7

posed the Structure of Temperament theory and chological description of a so-called sensory-informa-

8

developed his STQ. The Extended version of the tional block of brain structures controlling the tuning

9

STQ has 12 (4?3) scales consisting of 12 items each, of attention to certain types of stimuli and informa-

10

which analyze four temperamental traits: Ergonic- tion. The discovery of mirror neurons supported

11

ity (determined by endurance of activity), Plasticity, the hypothesis of the biological origin of empathy as

12

Tempo of activity, and Emotionality in three areas of a sensitivity to people's intentions and feelings, the

13

activity: social, physical, and intellectual (Rusalov, trait described by Rogers in the mid-1970s (Rogers,

14

1989, 1997; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007).1 A factor 1975). A person's attraction to activities of physical

15

analysis conducted on the data from 1,937 partici- danger or risk taking, described by Zuckerman (1979)

16

pants showed that scales grouped consistently into as sensation seeking, was linked to a deficiency in

17

four factors, organized around the type of activity dopamine regulation. Thus empathy and sensation

18

(physical or motor, social, intellectual) and emo- seeking were considered biologically based compo-

19

tionality. Studies of the English version of the STQ nents of individuality.

20

(STQ-E) using American, Australian, and Canadian In summary, the STQ-77 describes the structure

21

samples demonstrated that its scales have an activity- of temperament as having four dimensions related to

22

specific factor structure similar to that of the Russian emotionality and to three dynamic aspects of activ-

23

language version and that it has good reliability and ity--arousal (energetic aspect), lability, and sensory

24

internal consistency (Bishop, Jacks, & Tandy, 1993; preferences--all applied to intellectual, communi-

25

Bishop & Hertenstein, 2004; Dumenci, 1995, 1996 cative, and physical areas of activity Emotionality is

26

[using initial STQ]; Rusalov, 1997; Stough, Brebner, presented in this model as a limbic-driven amplifier

27

& Cooper, 1991; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007; Tro- of arousal, lability, and the sensory orientation aspects

28

fimova, 2010a). Chinese (STQ-C), Urdu (STQ-U), of activity (Table 1). In contrast to the Big Five model

29

and Polish (STQ-P) Extended versions of the STQ, of personality, this model includes not only aspects

30

administered among corresponding populations, of social activities but also consistent characteristics

31

demonstrated robust factor structures similar to those of behavior related to physical and mental activities.

32

of the original version (Trofimova, 2010a).

Also in contrast to the Big Five, the STQ-77 was de-

33

The compact version of the STQ (STQ-77) con- rived not from factor analysis but from experimen-

34

sists of 6 out of 12 items taken from each scale of the tal and psychophysiological studies of biologically

35

Extended STQ (Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007). In the based individual differences. The 12 components of

36

STQ-77, the initial items of the STQ's Emotional- temperament, which the STQ-77 measures, are not

37

ity scales were regrouped into the STQ-77 scales of all independent, as the background theory and re-

38

Empathy, Self-Confidence, and Neuroticism, based search of the STQ assumes nonlinear, feedback, and

39

on several factor analytic studies of the STQ that con- causal relationships between the psychophysiologi-

40

sistently showed that the three former Emotionality cal mechanisms underlying these dynamic aspects

41

scales (Motor Emotionality, Social Emotionality, and of behavior. Because of the complex nature of the

42

Intellectual Emotionality) were not as activity spe- relationships between the components of the STQ-

43

cific as the Ergonicity, Plasticity, and Tempo scales 77 model, we could expect that in a factor analysis

44

and basically constituted one factor (Bishop et al., these 12 components would collapse in structure to

45

1993; Bishop & Hertenstein, 2004; Dumenci, 1996; a smaller number of components. We could expect

46

Rusalov, 2004; Stough et al., 1991; Rusalov & Tro- a unification of the "medium 12" into a "Big 4 or 5,"

47

fimova, 2007; Trofimova, 2010a; Trofimova & Sulis, similar to the traditional four-factor activity-specific

48

2010; Watkins, Mortazavi, & Trofimova, 2000). The structure of the STQ (showing factors of Motor Ac-

492 ? trofimova

tivity, Social?Verbal Activity, Intellectual Activity, and The present study was designed to examine these

1

Emotionality). Such a structure reflects a stronger suggestions. The goals of the present study were as

2

independence of biologically based abilities related follows:

3

to the three types of activities and an interdependence

To investigate the factor structure of the STQ-

4

of the dynamic aspects of activity (such as endurance,

77 and its relationships with other models of

5

lability, and sensitivity).

temperament and personality; the hypothesis

6

The inclusion of temperament components re-

was that the STQ-77 has an activity-specific

7

lated to several types of activity (and not just to so-

factor structure (i.e., the scales are grouped by

8

cial activity) into the analysis of the correspondence

the type of activity, not by the dynamic aspect

9

between temperament and personality traits expands

of activity), and the factor structure of tempera-

10

our understanding of the structure of individuality. For

ment models can be seen in the factor structure of personality models as multiple temperament

11

example, Eysenck pointed out the similarity between

components underlying a personality trait.

12

the temperament traits of extroversion and neuroticism

13

in his model and the same traits in the Big Five model

To analyze how the activity-specific scales of the STQ-77E can reflect the ability to carry out a

14

of personality. Several studies showed high positive

prolonged and repetitive verbal and intellectual

15

correlations between the Neuroticism scale of the Big

activity. The underlying hypothesis was that the

16

Five and of the EPQ with the Emotionality scales of

time needed for a person to complete such a

17

the STQ, between the Extraversion of the EPQ and

task would show stronger correlations with the

18

Social Ergonicity, Social Plasticity, and Tempo scales

dynamic aspects of verbal?social activity than

19

of the STQ (Brebner & Stough, 1993; Dumenci, 1995;

with the aspects of physical or intellectual activ-

20

Rusalov, 1989). In this study we wanted to explore the

ity, and therefore the temperamental traits (i.e.,

21

detailed relationships between personality traits in the

dynamic aspects of activity) are activity specific

22

Big Five model and the components of temperament as

(unlike personality traits).

23

presented in the STQ-77 model. The 12 components of

To investigate the relationships between the

24

the STQ-77 model have been shown to have different

STQ-77R scales (especially the scales of Sen-

25

neurophysiological and neurotransmitter correspon-

sitivity to Sensations, Impulsivity, Sensitivity

26

dences, but nonlinear, feedback, and causal relation-

to Probabilities, and Empathy) and the NEO-

27

ships between these components reveal the limited

FFI and Sensation Seeking Scales (SSS-V).

28

power of factor analysis in picking up the structure of

The hypothesis was that these four new scales of the STQ-77R would positively correlate

29

consistent individual differences. Therefore, in addi-

(correspondingly) with the General scale of

30

tion to factor analysis, a review of correlations between

SSS-V, the Disinhibition scale of the SSS-V,

31

the scales of these two questionnaires could provide

and the Openness to Experience and Agree-

32

information about these relationships. We suggest that

ableness scales of the NEO-FFI. The positive

33

temperament traits might contribute to personality

correlation of Social Ergonicity and Tempo of

34

traits in a spectrum manner rather than a one-to-one

STQ-R with NEO-FFI's Extraversion scale

35

correspondence, that is, that a personality trait could

and the correlation between the Neuroticism

36

result from the integration of several biologically based

scales of STQ-R and NEO-FFI were also the

37

temperament traits.

part of this hypothesis.

38

39

40

Table 1. The STQ-77 structure and its temperament scales

41

42

Energetic aspect

Lability

Sensitivity to

43

Mental activity

Intellectual Ergonicity (ERI)

Plasticity (PL)

Probabilities (PRO)

44

Physical activity

Motor Ergonicity (ERM)

Motor Tempo (TMM)

Sensations (SS)

45

Social?verbal activity

Social Ergonicity (ERS)

Social Tempo (TMS)

Others, Empathy (EMP)

46

Emotionality

Self-Confidence (SLF)

Impulsivity (IMP)

Neuroticism (NEU)

47

48

temperament and personality ? 493

1

STUDY 1

Russian (Kudryashev, 1992), with reliability coeffi-

2

cients varying in several samples between .53 and

3

METHOD

.75), which is the 60-item abbreviated version of

4

the NEO PI-R; and the Sensation Seeking Scales

5

Participants

(SSS-V). SSS-V includes subscales of Thrill and

6 7 8 9 10

Participants were 226 Canadian citizens and residents (92 men and 134 women, aged 17?54 years, M=25.4, SD=11.4), volunteers from the Greater Toronto Area (30%) and psychology students of McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario).

Adventure Seeking (TAS), Experience Seeking (ES), Disinhibition (DIS), and Boredom Susceptibility (BS). The General subscale is the largest scale (20 items), which examines the person's attraction to risky and sensation-seeking activities, and the Disinhibition subscale (18 items) assesses a person's de-

11

sire to exhibit uninhibited or unrestrained behaviors,

12

Procedure

including risk taking, heavy drinking, drug use, or

13 14 15 16 17 18

In 2006 each participant completed the Compact English STQ (STQ-77E; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007), and 221 participants (91 men and 130 women, aged 17?54 years, M=25.18, SD=11.3) completed the semantic task: Subjects were asked to estimate 25 abstract concepts (words) on 60 7-point bipolar scales (e.g., "warm?cold," "soft?hard," "interesting?

having a variety of sexual partners (Zuckerman, 1994; adapted to Russian by Egorova and Piankova, 1992), with reliability coefficients .70 and higher).

Each STQ-77 version had 77 statements, assigned to 12 temperamental scales (6 items each), and the validity scale (5 items, addressing social desirability bias). The protocols that had values of 15?20 on the

19

uninteresting"). Each word was presented on a com-

validity scale were considered invalid because the

20

puter monitor along with each of the scales. Partici-

respondents were likely to demonstrate a positive im-

21

pants were instructed to work as fast as possible, and

pression bias in their responses. The answers have

22

their time on this task was recorded. The computer

a 4-point Likert scale format: 1 (strongly disagree), 2

23

program Expan detected whether a participant was

(disagree), 3 (agree), 4 (strongly agree).

24 25

giving random or inconsistent answers. All participants received debriefing and signed an informed consent form before testing and participation in the

1?3: Scales of Motor, Social, and Intellectual Ergonicity (ERM, ERS, ERI)--the ability of an in-

26

study. University students received a practicum credit

dividual to sustain prolonged physical, social, or

27

for their participation.

mental activity, respectively.

28

29 30

STUDY 2

4?5: Scales of Motor and Social Tempo--preferred speed of manipulation with physical objects

31

32

METHOD

(TMM) and speed of speech and reading and of other verbal activities (TMS).

33

Sensitivity to Sensations (SS): sensitivity to basic

34

Participants

physical sensations and pleasures, a tendency for

35

Participants were 174 Russian citizens (63 men and

sensation-seeking and risk-taking behavior.

36

111 women, aged 17?55 years, M=24.8, SD=9.9),

Empathy (EMP): sensitivity to another person's

37

volunteers from the Moscow community (15%)

state and expectations. The maximum value on

38

and students of the Moscow Social University Department of Law, who took part in this study in

this scale indicates psychosocial dependency.

39

1994?1997.

Plasticity (PL): the ability to adapt quickly to

40

changes in situation, to change the program of ac-

41

tion, and to shift between different tasks.

42 43

Procedure All participants were debriefed and signed an informed consent form before testing and participation

Self-Confidence (SLF): a tendency to be optimistic and confident (sometimes overly optimistic) in

44

in the study. University students received a practi-

one's performance, to ignore other people's warn-

45

cum credit for their participation. Each participant

ings and criticism.

46

completed the Compact Russian STQ (STQ-77R;

Sensitivity to Probabilities (PRO): the ability to

47

Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007); the Five-Factor Inven-

develop adequate understanding and expecta-

48

tory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992, adapted to

tions of probable events, efficient extraction and

494 ? trofimova

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download