Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Hochwälder, J. (2000, January 1). Assumptions about human nature: Comparison of implicit and explicit personality theories. Psychological Reports, 87(2), 611–22.

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pr0.2000.87.2.611

Learning Objective: 1 & 2

Summary: Abstract: Hjelle and Ziegler (1981) believe that people's positions on nine fundamental dimensions of human nature affect their personality theories, and that differences between people on these dimensions contribute to differences between their personality theories. The present study was conducted in order to obtain information about the ordinary person's position on these dimensions and to compare the ordinary person's position with 10 personality theorists' positions. 84 subjects rated their positions on each of nine 11-step bipolar dimensions. The following results were obtained: (1) According to the ordinary person, the human being is free, changeable, influenced by the subjective world of experience, a product of the environment, and best understood from a holistic perspective; (2) The position of the ordinary person is most similar to Allport's position, and least similar to Skinner's position. The results are discussed in light of the relation between implicit (lay) and explicit (scientific) theories of personality.

Questions to Consider:

1. Can there actually be a science of personality? Some might object that in their efforts to be scientific, personality psychologists might fail to capture subtle aspects of human behavior. Explain your position on this. Cognitive Domain: Analysis
2. Identify and discuss the implicit assumptions in the field of personality psychology while also emphasizing the unique gains that can be made by a scientific, data-based analysis of personality. Cognitive Domain: Knowledge
3. What is personality? Begin with a definition of personality and then discuss alternative definitions that can be considered. Cognitive Domain: Comprehension
4. Name six criteria this article claims can be used in evaluation of a personality theory. Cognitive Domain: Knowledge
    

Article 2: Swann, J., William B., & Seyle, C. (2005). Personality psychology's comeback and its emerging symbiosis with social psychology. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 155–165. doi:10.1177/0146167204271591

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167204271591

Learning Objective: 1 & 2

Summary: Abstract: Psychology’s early allegiance to behaviorism and experimental methods led many to disparage personality approaches throughout much of last century. Doubts about personality psychology’s viability culminated in Mischel’s assertion that measures of personality account for modest amounts of variance in behavior. In the years immediately following this critique, interest in personality research waned and many psychology departments dropped their training programs in personality. Throughout the past two decades, however, personality psychology has enjoyed a resurgence. The authors discuss several possible explanations for personality’s comeback and then describe the emergence of a promising symbiosis between personality psychology and its sister discipline, social psychology. The article concludes by noting that although this emerging symbiosis is likely to continue bearing considerable theoretical fruit, the traditional distinction between personal, situational, and interactional determinants of behavior continues to be useful within appropriate contexts.

Questions to Consider:

1. Compare and contrast the authors’ explanations to account for the resurgence of personality psychology. Cognitive Doman: Knowledge
2. How are personality psychology and social psychology related? Cognitive Domain: Analysis
3. Why is the traditional distinction between personal, situational, and interactional determinants of behavior considered useful within appropriate contexts? Cognitive Domain: Analysis
4. What contexts would you posit that these traditional distinctions are most appropriate and why? Cognitive Domain: Application
    

Article 3: Dorahy, M. J., Brand, B. L., Şar, V., Krüger, C., Stavropoulos, P., Martínez-Taboas, A., . . . Middleton, W. (2014). Dissociative identity disorder: An empirical overview. London, England: SAGE Publications. doi:10.1177/0004867414527523.

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004867414527523

Learning Objective: 1 & 2

Abstract Objective: Despite its long and auspicious place in the history of psychiatry, dissociative identity disorder (DID) has been associated with controversy. This paper aims to examine the empirical data related to DID and outline the contextual challenges to its scientific investigation.

Questions to Consider:

1. Can DID be accurately discriminated from other disorders? Why or why not? Cognitive Domain: Analysis
2. Explain how developmental and cultural factors can be aetiologically associated with DID. Cognitive Domain: Application
3. Discuss the scientific validity of this study. What methods were used, and how well supported is the research? Cognitive Domain: Analysis