admin | 
11 19th, 2008| 
RESULTS
Because this study consists of three separate parts and the anticipations for Part 2 and Part 3 depend on the results obtained in Part 1, the Results section necessarily will include some theoretical hypotheses. Part 1: Coherence, Replicability, and Psychological Nature of Preschool Personality Prototypes Determining the Number of Replicable Preschool Personality Prototypes Inverse (Q) factor analysis followed by varimax rotation was employed to identify the personality prototypes. This procedure results in a factor loading for each participant and a (person) factor score for each CCQ item. A prototypical individual loads highly on one factor only (Gorsuch, 1983). Factor loadings were used to measure individual differences; a loading “indexes the degree to which the individual’s particular personality configuration resembles that captured by the factor and thus provides a normed index of membership in each personality prototype category for each individual” (York & John, 1992, p. 495). In contrast, factor scores were used to interpret each personality prototype. Vectors of 100 factor scores (one for each CCQ item) can be correlated and the resulting correlation denotes the degree of factor similarity.
The number of personality prototypes was determined by factor replicability analysis (see Everett, 1983). The sample was randomly divided into two nonoverlapping subsamples and each random half was subjected to inverse factor analysis. The 100 factor scores independently identified in each half were then correlated, the assumption being that only factors identified in each half were replicable. The traditional criterion for acceptable factor replicability is a congruence correlation of .80 or greater (e.g., Asendorpf&van Aken, 1999). Three of our personality prototypes (or person factors) met or
exceeded this criterion and were retained for further analyses.
Fifty-six individuals (55%) received their highest loading on the first personality prototype, 35 (34%) on the second, and 11 (10%) on the third. The three factors explained 65% (Factor 1 = 41%, Factor 2 = 17%, and Factor 3 = 7%) of the total variance in the CCQ evaluations. This factor solution is comparable to the one reported for German children by Asendorpf and van Aken (1999). Consistent with our results, these authors also reported that the factors did not differ for the sexes.2 To ensure that the participants were sufficiently pure representatives of only one personality prototype, they had to load at least .40 on one personality prototype and their second highest loading had to be at least .20 lower than their highest loading. Participants with loadings of .40 higher on more than one prototype were excluded. These criteria successfully classified 83 (39 boys and 44 girls) of the 102 participants, or 84%. Subsequent analyses are based on these 83 participants. To ensure that the three personality prototypes were sufficiently different, the participants were assigned to nonoverlapping groups based on their highest loading (see York & John, 1992). The means and standard deviations of the loadings for each factor were then calculated. As Table 1 shows, the mean factor loadings were substantially higher and the mean standard deviations were substantially lower when the participants were assigned to the prototype on which they had received their highest loading.
Interpreting the Psychological Nature of the Three Personality Prototypes The correlations of the personality prototypes with ego resiliency were .79, .33, and –.33; their correlations with ego undercontrol were –.29, .89, and –.11. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed a significant interaction between the three personality prototypes and the two personality constructs (F = 38.03, p < .001), indicating that the three factors were defined by distinctly different configurations of ego resiliency and ego undercontrol. The three personality prototypes were labeled overcontrolled resilients, resilient undercontrollers, and brittles, respectively. To further evaluate the potential effects of attrition, personality prototypes were developed using all 157 children in the age-4 sample, not only the 102 participating in the current study. Also in this larger sample, three replicable prototypes were discerned. The correlations between these prototypes, based on the partly overlapping samples, were also very high, ranging from .99 to .96. The correlations with the ego resiliency and ego undercontrol measures were also virtually identical for the two sets of prototypes. The 10 most and least characteristic CCQ items are displayed in Table 2 separately for each personality prototype. The first personality prototype, overcontrolled resilient, was characterized by CCQ items such as dependable, attentive, helpful, reasonable, and personable, and not by items indicative of aggression, unworthiness, or stress reactivity. This personality configuration portrays a socially well-adjusted preschooler likely to adapt well to a broad range of situations. Block and Block (1980) noted, “For the overcontrolling child, the presence of ego resiliency results in a high degree of socialization that fits and feels well, a relative absence of anxiety and intimidation in reacting to and acting on the world” (p. 88).
The second personality prototype, resilient undercontrol, was characterized by CCQ items such as energetic, assertive, aggressive, expressive, sociable, and able to stand up for themselves. This personality prototype portrays a lively, assertive, and socially outgoing preschooler who is unlikely to withhold his or her thoughts and emotions from others. Consistent with the finding reported by Hart et al. (1997), our undercontrolled factor did not include the elements of interpersonal exploitation reported by Robins et al. (1996) for their undercontrolled type. Robins et al. (1998) subsequently distinguished between two subtypes: the antisocial and the impulsive undercontroller. The resilient undercontroller, largely free of antisocial and interpersonally antagonistic tendencies, appears similar to the impulsive type. The relatively high level of resiliency may explain this absence of undercontrol-related problems. Finally, the third personality prototype, brittles, was characterized by CCQ items such as shyness, hypersensitivity, and anxiety, and not by items indicative of a calm, empathic, and self-reliant mode of relating to others. Replicability of the Personality Prototypes Across Studies Next, we compared our three preschool personality prototypes with the typologies identified by Asendorpf and van Aken (1999), Hart et al. (1997), and Robins et al. (1996).3 To obtain a reliable estimate and to reduce the influence of sample fluctuations, we averaged, separately for each type, the person factor scores obtained in
these three other studies and then correlated the resulting three mean person factor scores with our three personality prototype scores. The resulting convergence correlations were .81 for the first, .71 for the second, and .53 for the third personality prototype. The declining size of the convergence correlations is consistent with previous studies; the highest correlation has always been obtained for the first factor and the lowest correlation has always been obtained for the third factor. This decline in size may result from the lower reliability and poorer definition that can be expected to characterize
later extracted factors (e.g., Hart et al., 1997). In sum, good convergence was found with other studies, although our first factor was slightly more overcontrolled, our second factor slightly more resilient, and our third factor slightly less overcontrolled than the factors reported by Asendorpf and van Aken (1999), Hart et al. (1997), and Robins et al. (1996).
Read the rest of this entry »