Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:27:41.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Convergence of Internal and External Structure for the California Child Q-set

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

David Bimler ,
John Kirkland ,
Hiram E. Fitzgerald  and
Robert A. Zucker
David Bimler*
Affiliation:
Massey University (New Zealand)
John Kirkland
Affiliation:
Massey University (New Zealand)
Hiram E. Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
Michigan State University (USA)
Robert A. Zucker
Affiliation:
University of Michigan (USA)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David Bimler. School of Arts. Development and Health Education. MUCE. Massey University. Private Bag 11-222. Palmerston North. (New Zealand). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The language of personality traits includes single-word trait descriptors, and longer phrases or sentences. Evidence has accumulated that abstract, semantic relationships among single words have the same underlying structure as the empirical relationships when words are applied to individuals. The present study examines whether these two kinds of structure are also isomorphic for longer trait descriptors. Empirical descriptions and judgements of semantic similarity were collected among the descriptors comprising the California Child Q-set, or CCQ, and analysed with multidimensional scaling. Canonical correlation showed the solutions to be closely related to one another, and to independent sets of ratings available for the CCQ items. Informants' similarity judgements were not affected by the context in which they were made. The dominant dimensions of the solutions reproduce dimensions found previously for the single-word personality lexicon, indicating the two trait-descriptive languages to be closely parallel.

El lenguaje de rasgos de personalidad incluye a descriptores de rasgo de una sola palabra y frases u oraciones más largos. Hay evidencia acumulada de que las relaciones semánticas abstractas entre estas palabras tienen la misma estructura subyacente que las relaciones empíricas cuando las palabras aisladas se aplican a individuos. Este estudio explora si estas dos clases de estructuras son también isomorfas para descriptores de rasgo más largos. Se registraron las descripciones y los juicios empíricos de similitud semántica de los descriptores incluidos en el California Child Q-set (CCQ) y se analizaron con escalamiento multidimensional. La correlación canónica mostró que ambas soluciones  están estrechamente relacionadas entre sí y con conjuntos independientes de puntuaciones disponibles para los ítems del CCQ. Los juicios de similitud de los informantes no estuvieron afectados por el contexto en el que fueron hechos. Las dimensiones dominantes de las soluciones reproducen otras dimensiones encontradas previamente en el léxico de personalidad de palabras únicas, indicando que los dos lenguajes de descripción de rasgos son cercanamente paralelos.

Keywords

big fivetrait perceptioninternal structuremultidimensional scalingCalifornia Child Q-setcinco grandespercepción de rasgoestructura internaescala multidimensionalCalifornia Child Q-set
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , May 2010 , pp. 461 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*John Kirkland is currently at Royal University for Women, Bahrain.

References

Bimler, D.L.& Kirkland, J. (2007). Constructing personality maps, mapping personality constructs: Multidimensional scaling recovers the ‘Big Five’ factors from internal and external structure. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychological research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas (reprinted 1978, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, J.& Block, J.H. (1980). The California Child Q-set. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, S.R. (1992). Assessing the five-factor model of personality description. Journal of Personality, 60, 253–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caspi, A., Block, J., Block, J.H., Klopp, B., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T.E.& Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1992). A “common-language” version of the California Child Q-set for personality assessment. Psychological Assessment, 4, 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 38, 476–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A.T.& Katigbak, M.S. (1989). Internal, external, and self-report structure of personality in a non-Western culture: An investigation of cross-language and cross-cultural generalizability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 857–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabady, M., Bell, M.& Kihlstrom, J. F. (1999). Person memory: organization of behaviors by traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, H.E., Zucker, R.A.& Yang, H.-Y. (1995). Developmental systems theory and alcoholism: Analyzing patterns of variation in high-risk families. Journal of Addictive Behaviors, 9, 8–22.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodhill, G.J., Simmen, M.W.& Willshaw, D.J. (1995). An evaluation of the use of multidimensional scaling for understanding brain connectivity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 348, 265–280.Google ScholarPubMed
Green, D.E.& Walkey, F.H. (1980). A nonmetric analysis of Eysenck's Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Analysis, 15, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurtman, M.B.& Pincus, A.L. (2000). Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Confirmation of circumplex structure from multiple perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. (1966). Order analysis of correlation matrices. In Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology (ed. Cattell, R.B.), 438–458. Chicago: Rand McNally.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J.A, & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Clarification of the Five-Factor Model with the Abridged Big Five Dimensional Circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogan, N.& Block, J. (1991). Independence from early childhood through adolescence: Personality and socialization aspects. In Field Dependence-Independence: Cognitive style across the life span (eds. Wapner, S. & Demick, J.), pp. 177–207. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lanning, K. (1994). Dimensionality of observer ratings on the California Adult Q-set. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorr, M. (1978). The structure of the California Q-set. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13, 387–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maraun, M.D. (1997). Appearance and reality: Is the Big Five the structure of trait descriptors? Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 629–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R.R.& Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R.R.& Costa, P.T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T.& Busch, C.M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-set and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 54, 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C.E. (1971). Explorations in semantic space: A personal diary. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peabody, D.& Goldberg, L.R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesinger, I.M.& Guttman, L. (1969). Smallest space analysis of intelligence and achievement tests. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, R.C. (1972). Individual differences in perceived trait relationships as a function of dimensional salience. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 7, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sneed, C.D., McCrae, R. R.& Funder, D.C. (1998). Lay conceptions of the five-factor model and its indicators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lieshout, C.F.M.& Haselager, G.J.T. (1994). The Big Five personality factors in Q-sort descriptions of children and adolescents. In: Halverson, C.F., Kohnstamm, G.A. and Martin, R.P. (eds.), The Developing Structure of Temperament and Personality (pp. 293–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vaughn, B.E.& Martino, D.G. (1988). Q-sort correlates of visual regard in groups of young pre-school children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 589–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, E., Garber, J., Gornal, M.& Vaughn, B.E. (1983). Q-sort correlates of visual regard among preschool peers: Validation of a behavioral index of social competence. Developmental Psychology, 19, 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, E., Noyes, D.M., Vaughn, B.E.& Ricks, M. (1985). Q-sort definitions of social competence and self-esteem: Discriminant validity of related constructs in theory and data. Developmental Psychology, 21, 508–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, J.S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zucker, R.A., Fitzgerald, H.E., Refior, S.K., Puttler, L.I., Pallas, D.M.& Ellis, D.A. (2000). The clinical and social ecology of childhood for children of alcoholics: Description of a study and implications for a differentiated social policy. In: Fitzgerald, H.E., Lester, B.M., & Zuckerman, B.S. (eds.), Children of addiction: Research, health and policy issues (pp. 109–141). New York: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar