Internal Coherence, Cross-Study Replicability, and Developmental Outcomes in Adolescence
This study classified for resemblance 102 preschool children, who were described by their nursery school teachers using the California Child Q-sort. Inverse (Q) factor analysis identified three personality prototypes initially defined in terms of ego resiliency and ego undercontrol: overcontrolled resilient, resilient undercontrolled, and brittle. These personality prototypes showed strong to moderate similarity with typologies obtained in comparable studies and theoretical meaningful relations with experimental measures of ego functioning and IQ. Ten years later, as adolescents, overcontrolled resilients were shy and restrained yet conscientious and intelligent; resilient undercontrollers were extraverted, assertive, and impulsive; and brittles were relatively unintelligent. The discussion focused on the several meanings of person-centered methods, the sample-dependence of personality typologies, and the complementary contributions made by person versus variable-centered analytical strategies in the study of human development.
Research on personality development has mostly been governed by a variable-centered analytical strategy. This approach examines relations among variables (most commonly conceptualized as traits) and individuals’ relative (or rank-order) standing on one or several trait variables. Although variable-centered studies have provided invaluable knowledge, it has—as any other method— limitations. For example, it is restricted to providing information on aggregates of individuals, or on what Lewin (1931) once called the mythical “average child.” Mishler (1996) also has criticized reliance on group means, arguing that these “inferences lead to an idealized, universal child” (p. 78) and called for case-based studies that, in his view, maintain greater respect for agency, history, and intentionality. Recently, a complementary approach to the study of personality has been receiving renewed attention (e.g., Cairns, Kagan, & Bergman, 1998). This orientation— typically referred to as person centered—uses both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Examples include inverse factor analysis (Block, 1971), narrative methodologies (Hauser, 1999; McAdams, 1999), and biographical studies of lives (Runyan, 1982). The personcentered approach has a long tradition; it can be traced back at least as far as to Murray’s (1938) personology, the ideographic approach of Allport (1937), and more recent critiques for not using the individual as the unit of analysis (Carlson, 1971). Recent person-centered studies have attempted to identify homogeneous and replicable typologies of individuals (e.g., Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Hart, Hofmann, Edelstein, & Keller, 1997; Robins, John, Caspi, Moffitt, & Stauthamer-Loeber, 1996). Robins, John, and Caspi (1998), in particular, argued strongly for the existence of three basic personality types: resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers. Important, albeit not incontestable, support for these types has been obtained in samples differing both in age and
national origin (e.g., Asendorpf&van Aken, 1999; Caspi & Silva, 1995; Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996). Conceptual Framework: Ego Resiliency and Ego Control Several recent person-centered studies (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996) have defined their typologies in terms of two personality constructs: ego resiliency and ego control (Block & Block, 1980). Ego resiliency refers to an individual’s ability to adapt flexibly to changing environmental circumstances. In contrast, ego control refers to an individual’s threshold of impulse expression and ranges from overcontrol (i.e., high threshold) to undercontrol of impulse expression (i.e., low threshold). Overcontrol refers to “excessive containment of impulses, delay of gratification, inhibition of action and affect, and insulation from environmental distractors,” whereas undercontrol refers to “insufficient modulation of impulse, inability to delay gratification, and immediate and direct expression of motivation and affects, and vulnerability to environmental distractors” (Block & Block, 1980, p. 43). To compare our personality prototypes with those obtained in previous studies, this study also initially defined each personality prototype in terms of ego resiliency and ego control.
Personality Typologies: Discrete Categories Versus “Fuzzy” Entities Most person-centered studies have assigned individuals to nonoverlapping groups based on their highest factor loading (e.g., Robins et al., 1996), thereby assuming that personality typologies are best considered as discrete, mutually exclusive, and nonoverlapping categories. In contrast, York and John (1992) argued that “category membership need not be ‘all or none’ but is a matter of degree: individuals differ in their degree of fit to the category personality prototype, with some being more prototypical instances than others” (p. 495). This procedure is consistent with Rosch’s view (1978) of natural categories as “fuzzy” entities and Meehl’s (1995) argument that latent taxons need not have clear-cut “surface” indicators. This study adopted this latter procedure. Because our typologies are therefore not mutually exclusive and the category boundaries not discrete, we use the term “personality prototype” rather than “personality type” (see York & John, 1992, for a detailed description of this approach). The Aims of the Current Study With few exceptions (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Caspi, Henry, McGee, Moffitt, & Silva, 1995; Hart et al., 1997), current typologies are based on participants ranging in age from adolescence through middle age (e.g., Block, 1971; York & John, 1992). Typologies, however,
may not be independent of age. For example, Magnusson’s (2000) holistic notion of individuals as organized wholes implies the presence of “personality crystallization,” whereby increasing age leads to clearer resemblance within groups of persons and clearer distinctions among groups of persons across time. Thus, it is uncertain whether typologies developed early in life are as psychologically coherent as those based on older individuals forwhomgreater differentiation in personality structure can be expected. Overview of the Current Study Coherence and replicability. This study consists of three parts. The first part examined two issues: (a) Can psychologically coherent personality prototypes be discerned as early as in preschool (i.e., coherence)? and (b) Do our preschool personality prototypes converge with those identified in other samples (i.e., replicability)? To address these issues, we (a) derived preschool personality prototypes by means of inverse factor analysis, (b) examined their replicability within the current sample, (c) interpreted the psychological content of the personality prototypes, and (d) studied their similarity vis-à-vis personality types obtained in three other studies that also used inverse factor analysis to identify their typologies and defined them in terms of ego resiliency and ego control (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996). Evaluating construct validity using laboratory procedures. The second part focused on the construct validity of the personality prototypes obtained in this study. If different measures based on different kinds of data converge in their implications, greater confidence can be invested in the validity of a construct. Thus, we evaluated whether the three personality prototypes—based on observer observations provided by nursery school teachers— showed theoretically meaningful relations to performance on standardized, objective laboratory procedures specifically devised to index ego resiliency and ego undercontrol.
Developmental implications a decade later. The third part investigated the developmental outcomes of each personality prototype a decade later once the participants had reached adolescence. Very few longitudinal studies have examined the developmental implications of preschool personality prototypes. In their German sample, Asendorpf and van Aken (1999) reported that although the overcontrolled type scored high as preschoolers on IQ, school performance, and self-esteem, they declined on all three attributes over time. In their New Zealand sample, Caspi and Silva (1995) found undercontrolled preschoolers to be impulsive, aggressive, and lacking good interpersonal relations as adolescents; inhibited preschoolers to be low on aggression and impulsivity as adolescents; and well-adjusted preschoolers to be resilient and self-confident as adolescents. In their study of Icelandic children, Hart et al. (1997) reported that the resilient type improved in academic performance, the undercontrolled type showed increased aggressive problems, and the overcontrolled type tended to withdraw from social interaction over time. The current study is the first to examine the developmental implications of preschool personality prototype membership in a North American sample.
Tags: analysis, approach, development, gratification, knowledge, Outcomes, personality, Replicability, resemblance, similarity, strategy, undercontrol