性格心理學

出自維基百科,自由嘅百科全書
跳去導覽 跳去搵嘢
齋靠日常觀察經已可以知道,人與人之間喺行為認知情緒等嘅心理特性上有個體差異。

性格心理學粵拼sing3 gaak3 sam1 lei5 hok6英文personality psychology)係心理學嘅一門子領域,專門研究性格相關嘅問題:喺最基本上,性格係指一啲能夠喺人同人之間有差異、而且喺個體內大致穩定嘅行為認知或者情緒特徵;數學性啲噉講,一個噉嘅特徵係一個心理變數,唔同個體喺呢個變數上嘅數值都唔同,而是但攞個個體嚟睇,個個體喺個變數上嘅數值會趨向穩定,唔會喺短時間內有明顯嘅變化[1]

舉個具體嘅例子,外向度係一個好出名嘅性格特質。簡單講,外向度係反映緊一個人有幾鍾意同第啲人交流[註 1][2];抽象啲噉諗,外向度可以想像成一個變數,數值係 1 至 10 分,唔同人喺外向度上嘅數值都唔同,有啲人係(例如)7 分有啲人係 4 分,數值愈高愈係表示嗰個人鍾意同第啲人交流(喺人同人之間有差異);另一方面,一個人嘅外向度傾向喺短時間(起碼幾個月)之內係唔會變嘅,一個外向度 7 分嘅人傾向喺多數情況下都會展現反映外向嘅行為(喺個體內大致穩定)[3][4]

性格心理學可以話係心理學當中比較「基礎」嘅一門領域,因為佢係為其他幾個心理學領域定立咗一部份嘅理論根基:好似性格障礙(personality disorder)嘅概念噉,性格障礙泛指一啲俾人認為係病態嘅性格[5],例如有心理病態呢種性格嘅人俾人指會零舍缺乏同理心,會成日做出傷害其他人嘅行為,而性格心理學上對呢啲性格障礙嘅研究有助心理輔導員等嘅應用心理學工作者處理呢啲性格有問題嘅人[6]

定位[編輯]

講嘢係一種觀察得到嘅行為,有啲人比較鍾意講嘢有啲人比較靜,而且唔同人講嘢嗰陣啲肢體語言都唔同。

"Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought." (「性格係一個個體內部嗰啲心理物理系統嘅動態組織,決定嗰個人特有嘅行為思緒。」)[7]

Gordon Allport (哥頓·奧波特),俾人譽為係開創咗現代性格心理學嘅著名美國心理學家

性格[編輯]

內文:性格
睇埋:心理建構分析層次同埋時間序列

性格心理學係心理學嘅一門。現代嘅心理學係科學嘅一門,用科學方法(scientific method)研究人類行為認知情緒特性,而性格心理學就係心理學當中研究性格嘅部份。因為噉,性格心理學最根基要做嘅係解答以下呢條定義上嘅問題:

何謂性格?

喺廿一世紀初嘅心理學上,「性格」呢個詞係一啲描述一個個體特有嘅行為、認知或者情緒嘅變數,而呢啲變數要具有兩大特徵先可以算係性格嘅一部份[8]

  • 會喺人同人之間有差異(between-person variability):想像一個性格變數 實係會喺人同人之間有差異嘅; 可以係一個行為上嘅變數(例如反映一個人有幾常做「主動噉同人講嘢」呢樣行為),可以係一個認知上嘅變數(例如反映一個人傾向將注意力擺喺啲乜嘢嗰度[9]),又可以係一個情緒上嘅變數(例如話一個人細膽表示佢容易[10]),重點係研究者可以搵個數表示每一個人喺 呢個變數上嘅數值;舉個簡單嘅例子說明,「主動噉同人講嘢」係一種容易觀察到嘅行為,所以研究者可以搵一班受試者返去實驗室嗰度,影住佢哋嘅行為,並且數吓每位受試者有幾多次出現「主動噉同人講嘢」嘅行為,得出嗰個數就係每位受試者嘅 ,個數值反映一個人有幾常做「主動噉同人講嘢」呢樣行為,亦都好可能反映每個人有幾外向(一個唔能夠直接量度心理建構),而且呢個數值個個人都唔係好同[11]
  • 會喺一個個體內部穩定(within-person stability):性格嘅另一個重要特點係喺一個人內部有返咁上下穩定;想像一個性格變數 反映一個人「有幾鍾意講嘢」,可能數值係 1 至 10 分,愈高分表示佢愈鍾意講嘢,家陣阿 A 君喺 上嘅數值係最高嘅 10 分,佢係一個好鍾意講嘢嘅人,但佢未必係無時無刻都鍾意講嘢,例如如果家陣觀察佢喺一個月之內嘅行為,發覺有兩日佢情緒低落搞到佢冇心機講嘢(講嘢嘅次數喺嗰兩日之間明顯低咗一橛),不過喺成個月之內,佢每日講嘢次數嘅平均值依然係高過一般人好多-「一個人喺 上得分高嘅話,佢傾向會喺唔同情境下都展現出 得分高反映嘅行為」[12];而且性格一般喺短時間之內都唔會變[13]

方程式表達嘅話,可以噉樣想像[12]

行為、認知或者情緒

當中 係個人嘅特性(Personality;可以喺人之間有差異),而 係情境(Situation;令一個個體就算性格唔變,都會喺唔同時間出現唔同嘅行為、認知或者情緒)[14][15];條式即係話「行為、認知或者情緒取決於個人特性同情境」。

Arch(1) time series.svg

而用圖像化啲嘅方式表達嘅話,「性格」呢個概念可以用好似上圖噉嘅時間序列(time series)嚟思考。一段時間序列簡單講就係指描述一個變數點樣隨時間上上落落嘅線,家陣設打橫條軸做時間(以計),打戙條軸做行為變數 ;因為 會變化,一個人喺唔同時間點嘅 都會唔同,不過佢嘅 平均值(反映佢嘅 )會同第啲人嘅唔同(人同人之間有差異),而且响多數時間,佢都唔會偏離自己個平均 太遠(個體內部大致上穩定)[16]

範疇[編輯]

睇埋:心理學

性格心理學正正就係專門研究性格嘅心理學子領域,會思考以下嘅問題:

  • 描述性:人與人之間可以喺邊啲行為情緒認知特性上有個體差異?原則上,人可以喺無數咁多嘅行為情緒認知特性上有個體差異,不過呢啲可以有個體差異嘅特性有部份會對一個人嘅行為比較有影響力,例如係五大性格特質就描述包括外向度在內嘅五個性格因素,主張呢五個因素雖然唔係唯一能夠有個體差異嘅行為情緒認知特性,但就零舍會影響到一個人嘅運作[17]
  • 實用性:要點樣量度人嘅性格?性格心理學家會嘗試用各種心理測量學(psychometrics)方法,嘗試建立出一啲可以攞嚟喺應用上量度性格嘅架生,簡單嘅例子有用心理測量學方法造出能夠量度外向度嘅問卷,而研究又指,外向度喺某啲情況下能夠預測一個員工嘅工作表現,噉呢個問卷就會喺管理學上有用[18][19]
  • 理論性:性格呢家嘢可以點樣用心理學理論思考?好似係強化敏感度理論噉,就運用咗強化懲罰呢兩個基礎嘅心理學概念(詳情可以睇埋行為論),指出性格好大程度上可以想像成對強化以及對懲罰嘅敏感度嘅個體差異,例如一個人嘅膽量可以想像成佢對懲罰(會對人造成危險嘅刺激)有幾咁敏感[20]

... 等等。

研究方法[編輯]

內文:心理測量學
睇埋:心理實驗神經造影同埋體驗抽樣方法

因素分析[編輯]

內文:因素分析
睇埋:結構方程式模型

因素分析(factor analysis)係性格心理學上成日用嘅一種統計學技術。因素分析係一系列用嚟將大量變數轉化成少量因素(factor)嘅方法。因素分析有好多種做,不過做法一般都係由若干個直接觀察到嘅變數嗰度推想一個能夠解釋呢啲變數嘅變化嘅因素出嚟,而最後得出呢個因素能夠一定程度上反映嗰柞變數嘅變化[21]。即係話:

  1. 想像家陣手上個數據庫有若干個被觀察咗(observed)嘅隨機變數 ,而呢柞變數嘅平均值係
  2. 想像有 冇被觀察到(latent;數值冇直接被紀錄落去數據庫嗰度)嘅隨機變數 (呢柞 係所謂嘅因素)[註 2]
  3. 喺做因素分析前, 嘅數值係未知,而因素分析做嘅嘢就係搵出以下呢啲式當中嘅參數
;當中
係參數;
誤差,平均值係 0,而變異數係一個有限數值,唔同 變異數數值可以唔同[22]
Congeneric measurement model.png

想像好似上圖噉,家陣研究者想量度 呢個唔能夠直接睇得到嘅因素(想像 膽量),於是佢就對受試者做一連串嘅觀察,量度咗 咁多個行為變數,... (例如 係睇恐怖片嗰陣嘅心跳率 係日常生活當中出現表情嘅頻率...),當中每個 都有個誤差值 以及 簡單講係反映 有幾強嘅相關)。因素分析可以幫手搵出啲 嘅數值,幫性格心理學家窺探唔同嘅外顯行為反映緊啲咩內部心理過程[23][24]

性格測驗[編輯]

內文:性格測驗

性格測驗(personality test)係指量度性格嘅心理測驗。喺嚴格嘅心理學上,心理測驗定義係指攞嚟量度心理變數嘅架生,包括用嚟量度性格嘅架生都屬心理測驗嘅一種[25][26];同一般坊間嗰啲心理測驗唔同嘅係,心理測量學上嘅心理測驗會俾心理學家用嚴謹嘅方法評定佢哋嘅信度(reliability)同效度(validity)-信度指用嗰個方法對一樣嘅現象進行重複觀察之後係咪可以得到相同嘅結果,而效度係指個方法有幾量度到佢理應要量度嗰樣嘢-評定完覺得掂,先會俾人採用[27][28]

廿世紀性格測驗嘅常見做法係用李卡特量表(Likert scale),指每一條題目都係一句句子,而受試者要做嘅係睇每條題目,用數字答自己有幾同意嗰句句子講嘅嘢[29]。例如量度一個人有幾容易嘅李卡特式性格測驗望落會似係噉嘅[30]

 If approached by a suspicious stranger, I run away.(翻譯:「如果有個可疑嘅陌生人行埋嚟,我會走佬。」)
 If the fire alarm rings, I immediately rush out of the building.(翻譯:「如果火警鐘響,我會即刻跑出去棟建築物外面。」)
 每一條題目受試者都係要填一個 1 至 5 嘅數字,當中 1 分表示好唔同意嗰句句子,5 分表示好同意,3 分表示中立。
 ...

假設多數受試者都係願意同有能力俾準確資訊嘅話,呢個性格測驗上嘅分數理應會一定程度上噉反映一個人幾容易驚,而性格心理學家跟手仲可以對呢啲問卷數據做因素分析等嘅統計分析。同「觀察受試者嘅行為或者腦活動」比起嚟,呢類噉嘅性格測驗好處係容易做(唔使擺個受試者喺實驗室入面),亦都相當有用-例如有個能夠「多數時候都準確噉量度」到外向度嘅問卷,而研究又發現外向度喺某啲情況下能夠預測一個員工嘅工作表現,噉呢個問卷就會喺管理上就有可能可以攞嚟幫手度請員工上嘅考量[18]

特質理論[編輯]

內文:特質理論性格特質

特質理論(trait theory)係性格心理學上最重要嘅理論之一,建基於性格特質(personality trait)嘅概念。一個性格特質包含一個人會習慣性噉有嘅行為、諗法或者情緒,例如外向呢個特質可以想像成一個人習慣性噉有「講嘢講得多過人」嘅行為、「想主動去識新朋友」嘅諗法或者「識到新朋友嗰陣覺得開心」嘅情緒[註 3];而一個人嘅性格抽象啲講可以描述做佢喺每一個性格特質上嘅分數,每個分數表示佢有幾咁強嘅傾向展現出嗰個特質相應嘅行為、諗法同情緒(例:外向度 1 至 10 分,分數愈高表示一個人愈有外向對應嘅嗰柞行為、諗法同情緒)[31][32]

除此之外,特質理論仲好睇重研究「邊啲性格特質比較緊要」嘅問題:原則上,人可能具有嘅性格特質有數唔嗮咁多個;不過廿一世紀初嘅特質理論研究者一般都認為,有一部份嘅性格特質係零舍緊要嘅,意思即係話呢啲特質會對一個人嘅人生成敗造成零舍大嘅影響-例如想像做一份研究,俾一班人做性格測驗,發現某啲性格特質同精神健康有特別大嘅統計相關[33]。當中五大性格特質就出嗮名有講到五個俾人認為係對一個人影響特別大嘅性格特質[34]

五大性格特質[編輯]

五大性格特質嘅圖解;OCEAN 呢個名取自嗰五個特質嘅英文名嘅開頭字母。
內文:五大性格特質

五大性格特質(Big Five personality traits,B5)係廿一世紀初最出名嗰套特質理論,建基於自我報告性格測驗:喺 1980 年代,有班研究者搵咗班受試者返嚟,叫佢哋填一份性格測驗,份測驗有一大柞描述自己性格嘅句子(例如「我鍾意秩序」呀噉),受試者每句句子都要填自己有幾同意嗰句句子講嘅嘢;跟住班研究者對得出嘅數據做因素分析,發覺啲受試者喺啲題目上嘅分數可以用五個因素解釋嗮,而班研究者最後就按照每個因素對應嗰啲句子喺語義上似係反映緊咩嚟幫每個因素改名,而且打後第啲研究者都得出相同嘅結果。呢五個因素就係所謂嘅五大性格特質,人稱 OCEAN [35][36]

  • 經驗開放度(openness to experience,O):一般俾人認為係反映一個人有幾鍾意享受唔同嘅體驗;經驗開放度高嘅人會鍾意藝術、鍾意冒險而且充滿好奇心,一般認為呢啲人會比較有創造力想像力,亦都有學者話經驗開放度高嘅人容易因為貪新鮮而走去做出一啲冒險嘅行為,例如係貪新鮮吸毒噉。喺英文當中,俾人指係反映經驗開放度嘅句子有以下呢啲[37]
    • I have a rich vocabulary.(「我詞彙量好豐富。」)
    • I have a vivid imagination.(「我想像嘢想像得好生動。」)
    • I have excellent ideas.(「我諗到啲計仔好正。」)
  • 盡責度(conscientiousness,C):一般俾人為係反映一個人嘅計劃自控能力;盡責度高嘅人做起嘢上嚟會集中精神,而且能夠有自控能力,壓抑自己嘅衝動,行事嗰陣傾向會事先計劃好而唔係吓吓都抱住「船到橋頭自然直」嘅態度;順帶一提,盡責度呢樣嘢會隨住年紀上升,然後到咗老年開始下降。俾人指係反映盡責度嘅句子有以下呢啲[38]
    • I am always prepared.(「我不溜都做定準備。」)
    • I get chores done right away.(「我有親家務就會即刻做好佢。」)
    • I like order.(「我鍾意秩序。」)
  • 外向度(extraversion,E):一般俾人為係反映一個人嘅有幾傾向對外界嘅嘢投入;外向度高嘅人鍾意同人互動[註 1],而且成日都俾人形容係「充滿咗能量」,講嘢多,傾向喺社交環境當中有主導性嘅地位;相對嚟講,內向(introverted)嘅人就啱啱相反,會少講嘢少同人互動[39]。俾人指係反映外向度嘅句子有以下呢啲:
    • I start conversations.(「我會帶頭傾偈。」)
    • I talk to a lot of different people at parties.(「開 party 嗰陣我會同好多唔同嘅人傾。」)
    • I do not talk a lot. (Reversed)(「我講嘢唔多。」;掉轉計,即係話呢句嘢分數高反映外向度低。)
  • 親和度(agreeableness,A):一般俾人為係反映一個人「心地有幾好」;親和度高嘅人鍾意和諧,想同其他人和睦共處,會做出傾向做出利他嘅行為,肯同其他人作出妥協,而且想同身邊嘅人建立信任嘅關係,亦都傾向容易信任其他人。俾人指係反映親和度嘅句子有以下呢啲[35]
    • I feel others' emotions.(「我感受到其他人嘅情緒。」)
    • I make people feel at ease.(「我令人覺得輕鬆。」)
    • I insult people. (Reversed)(「我會鬧人。」;掉轉計,即係話呢句嘢分數高反映親和度低。)
  • 神經質(neuroticism,N),又有叫情緒不穩度(emotional instability):一般俾人為係反映一個人「情緒有幾唔穩定」;神經質高嘅人對於心理壓力嘅容忍能力比較低,好容易郁啲咦有少少壓力就出現強烈嘅囉囉攣等嘅負面情緒;相對嚟講,神經質低嘅人情緒傾向穩定,就算遇到巨大嘅壓力都唔會點出現明顯嘅負面情緒。俾人指係反映神經質嘅句子有以下呢啲[40][41]
    • I get stressed out easily.(「我好易就覺得壓力好大。」)
    • I worry about things.(「我會擔心一啲嘢。」)
    • I am relaxed most of the time. (Reversed)(「我好多時都幾放鬆下。」;掉轉計,即係話呢句嘢分數高反映神經質低。)

五大性格特質取得咗一定嘅成功,但廣受人批評:實證嘅研究表明,五大性格特質的確能夠預測[註 4]好多重要嘅變數[36],例如係工作表現[35];不過有好多心理學家都質疑五大性格特質係咪可以攞嚟做一個性格心理學理論-呢啲心理學家主張,五大性格特質靠嘅係睇啲人用語言對性格嘅描述,而唔係靠(例如)對行為或者腦活動嘅觀察,即係話五大性格特質反映嘅唔淨只係人喺行為、認知同情緒上嘅個體差異(實際上嘅性格),仲反映咗人對呢啲差異嘅感知同埋佢哋點樣用言語嚟描述呢啲感知(後者呢點俾人覺得屬語言學或者語言心理學嘅範疇);基於呢點,呢班心理學家覺得好難說服人話五大性格特質真係反映緊「實際嘅性格由呢五大特質主宰」,認為五大性格特質頂嗮櫳只可以算係反映緊「人零舍在意身邊嘅人嘅呢五個特質,所以零舍傾向用言語描述呢五個特質」或者類似嘅嘢。因為噉,有好多性格心理學家都覺得理論性嘅性格心理學研究唔可以靠五大性格特質[42]

黑暗三角特質[編輯]

內文:黑暗三角特質
睇埋:反社會行為同埋利他主義

黑暗三角特質(The Dark Triad personality traits)係指三個反映反社會行為(簡單講即係傷害其他人嘅行為)嘅性格特質-黑暗(俾好多人覺得係得人驚甚至乎係邪惡)嘅性格特質[43]

  • 自戀(narcissism):自戀程度高嘅人極之在意自己嘅同埋滿足自己嘅需要;噉嘅人好多時都好睇重想喺社交情境當中佔有優勢嘅地位,所以會想喺其他人面前建立一個理想嘅形象(所以會在意自己嘅樣),會做反社會行為(例如踩低其他人令自己望落勁啲),不過做起反社會行為上嚟唔會做得好出樣(唔想身邊嘅人對自己印象太過唔好);自戀同外向度以及經驗開放度正相關,並且同親和度負相關[43][44]
  • 馬基雅維利主義(Machiavellianism):馬基雅維利主義程度高嘅人傾向操縱身邊嘅人同埋對道德冷淡;馬基雅維利主義傾向對身邊嘅人缺乏信任,覺得身邊嘅人都信唔過,會靠心理操縱術嚟呃身邊嘅人同搵身邊嘅人老襯,做起反社會行為上嚟唔會做得好出樣(偏好呃人等比較鬼祟嘅做法);馬基雅維利主義同親和度以及盡責度負相關[45]
2010 年一架火車上面有座位俾人破壞;有啲人成日都硬係會做出一啲忽視其他人嘅利益嘅行為(反社會行為)。
  • 心理病態(psychopathy):心理病態俾好多人認為係黑暗三角當中最反社會嗰個特質;有心理病態嘅人傾向衝動自私無情,而且做咗反社會行為之後完全唔會自責,冇乜同理心。根據心理學研究,呢啲人最大嘅特徵係唔識-有心理學研究試過搵班受試者返嚟,用生理方法(量度心跳率同埋表情呀噉)嚟睇住啲受試者嘅情緒,發現一般人喺見到自己以外嘅人或者驚嗰陣,都會或多或少噉出現驚嘅反應(同理心),所以唔會想做出令其他人痛或者驚嘅行為;相比之下,心理病態程度高嘅人就缺少咗呢種反應,佢哋傾向咩都唔驚,即係話就算佢哋明知自己做緊嘅嘢(例如係操縱人、攻擊人甚至殺人)會令其他人覺得受苦或者驚,佢哋都唔會有咩特別嘅感覺,事後更加唔會因為做咗傷害人嘅嘢而自責(不過有可能會為咗呃身邊嘅人而扮自責)[46];進一步嘅神經研究仲發現,同正常人比起嚟,心理病態程度高嘅人嘅杏仁核(amygdala;一個有份處理驚嘅情緒嘅腦區)對於驚嘅反應異常咁弱,意思即係話正常人嘅杏仁核會因為驚而活動起變化,但心理病態程度高嘅人嘅杏仁核冇呢種反應[註 5][47]
一個人腦由左面(左圖)同前面(右圖)望嘅立體圖解;紅色嗰兩粒就係左腦右腦杏仁核,同正常人比起嚟,有心理病態嘅人嘅杏仁核對嘅反應異常咁弱[48]

喺理論層面上,黑暗三角特質可以用博弈論(game theory)嘅角度嚟諗:博弈論係一套應用數學上嘅理論,研究決策者之間嘅互動,即係例如「想像家陣有兩位決策者要喺噉噉噉嘅規則下對局,每位決策者手上有噉噉噉嘅選擇,呢個可能結果(例:博弈者 A 揀咗選擇 A 而博弈者 B 揀咗選擇 B)會分別為 A 帶嚟咁多咁多利益...」噉嘅思考;喺博弈論上,博弈成日都會有合作嘅機會,即係啲博弈者有得事先夾好大家一齊揀某啲選擇,等大家齊齊利益最大化,但呢啲博弈好多時又會有機會俾其中一位博弈者搵第啲博弈者老襯,即係例如事先講好要合作但佢臨郁手做決擇之前先至變節(令自己利益最大化),而噉做會令俾佢呃嗰啲博弈者利益受損(可以睇監犯困境[49];呢類忽視身邊嘅人嘅利益嘅行為就係反社會行為,而黑暗三角特質就係指三個俾人認為零舍會引起反社會行為嘅性格特質[43][50]

第啲特質[編輯]

  • 衝動(impulsivity):大致上指一個人自控能力唔夠;人有自控嘅能力,即係如果覺得「即刻做某樣嘢對自己長遠嚟講不利」(例:有人叫自己試毒品,但自己心知吸毒追求短期快感對自己長遠有害;可以睇埋前額皮層犒賞系統),佢就會停手唔去做;如果有個人嘅自控功能唔夠強,就可能會明知追短期快感對自己長遠嚟講不利都照樣去追(例:明知啲毒品對自己長遠有害,都照樣走去吸)。呢種現象就係現代心理學上所講嘅衝動性格[51]。有關點樣用自我報告以外嘅方法量度衝動,可以睇吓去-唔去(Go/no go)呢種心理實驗方法[52]
  • 感覺追求(sensation seeking):唔同人可能會鍾意做唔同嘅嘢;有啲人可能覺得一啲低風險低刺激性嘅活動(例:坐喺電視前面一路食雪糕一路睇合家歡嘅)夠嗮快感,但又有一啲人硬係比較鍾意高風險高刺激性嘅活動(例:攀岩);如果話一個人有感覺追求嘅傾向,意思係話佢接觸到新同刺激嘅事物嗰陣零舍會有快感,而樣嘢嘅體現又可以視乎佢嘅第啲性格特質而有異-舉兩個例說明,如果個人有感覺追求傾向得嚟又衝動,佢就好有可能會為咗貪新鮮而吸毒,但如果佢有感覺追求傾向得嚟又有返咁上下自控能力,就可能會比較傾向用「去玩極限運動」等冇咁有害嘅方法嚟展現佢嘅感覺追求傾向[53][54]
  • 認知需要(need for cognition,NFC):係指一個人有幾鍾意認知活動,用行話講可以想像成一個人有幾咁將認知活動當係犒賞,簡單講即係反映個人有幾鍾意用腦筋諗嘢;認知需要程度高嘅人傾向鍾意思考好奇心強,會花好多時間用腦筋解決複雜嘅問題,而相比之下,認知需要程度低嘅人就傾向比較鍾意用簡單嘅啟發法(簡單噉講即係認知上嘅捷徑)解決問題,唔鍾意嘥好多時間嚟解難;認知需要同五大性格特質當中嘅經驗開放性有相當強嘅正統計相關[55][56]

... 等等。

認知需要嘅展現:呢個人喺度嘗試解一粒扭計骰;如果俾佢自由噉揀,佢會肯用幾多腦筋同時間嚟解決呢一條複雜嘅問題呢?

神經科學研究[編輯]

一個人腦由下面睇嘅樣;紅色嗰兩嚿係海馬體,一般認為海馬體前部係 BIS 嘅所在[57]
內文:性格神經科學
睇埋:強化敏感度理論同埋脾性

喺廿一世紀初嘅性格心理學上,性格呢家嘢可以用嘅特性嚟想像(性格神經科學;personality neuroscience),當中強化敏感度理論(RST)係一個喺廿世紀尾興起嘅基於腦系統性格心理學理論。研究 RST 嘅心理學家實驗室入面做咗觀察,睇大鼠等嘅動物响遇到唔同事物嗰陣有點樣嘅行為,然後仲做埋神經造影嚟剖析呢啲行為係由邊啲腦區主宰嘅。根據 RST 研究得出嘅結果,一隻動物嘅腦有三個重要嘅系統[58][59]

  • 行為趨近系統(behavioral approach system,BAS):呢個系統會對表示強化(簡單講,就係嘢食或者同伴等令隻動物得到快感嘅嘢)嘅刺激有反應,一旦啟動就會傾向令隻動物行埋去向個刺激嗰度(趨近行為);可以睇埋犒賞系統
  • 戰鬥定逃走系統(fight-flight system,FFS):呢個系統會對表示懲罰(簡單講,就係獵食者等有危險嘅嘢)嘅刺激有反應,一旦啟動就會引致戰鬥定逃走反應,令隻動物進入等能夠幫佢避開危險嘅情緒狀態(例:一個覺得驚嘅人會心跳加速,而呢點令佢更加能夠快速奔跑);
  • 行為壓抑系統(behavioral inhibition system,BIS):呢個系統會對一啲唔明確嘅刺激有反應,反映咗 BAS 同 FFS 同時啟動,例如個個體遠睇到有隻生物,嗰隻生物有可能係同伴,但又有可能係獵食者(唔明確);BIS 傾向引起焦慮嘅情緒-焦慮情緒反映個個體對未來感到不確定性,傾向令個個體進入所謂嘅慎重趨近(cautious approach)狀態,即係會作出趨近,但同時將注意力變成集中於留意周圍有冇危險,以便一旦真係有危險就可以即刻發覺同進入戰鬥定逃走狀態[57][60]

除此之外,RST 仲進一步提出,無論係人定第啲動物,唔同個體喺呢幾個系統嘅敏感度(sensitivity)上有差異:例如有啲人嘅 FFS 敏感度高,所以佢哋稍為感覺到危險,就會即刻出現驚等嘅反應,而另一啲人嘅 FFS 敏感度低,所以就算真係遇到危險嗰陣都唔會有太巨大嘅反應-前者會比較細膽;有啲人嘅 BAS 敏感度高,所以容易進入趨近狀態(見到新朋友會比較傾向主動行埋去,比較外向)... 等等;根據 RST,性格呢樣嘢可以想像成局部反映緊呢三個系統嘅敏感度上嘅個體差異[61][62]

廣義化啲噉睇,RST 嘅諗頭仲可以引申出「性格特質普遍都可以當做『嗰個特質相應嗰啲腦區嘅敏感度』噉嚟睇」[63],例如正話提到,心理病態其中一個重要嘅特點係個人情緒上唔識好似正常人噉驚,而神經研究表明咗,心理病態嘅行為最少一部份係源於杏仁核恐懼嘅敏感度低得滯[48]

進化論嘅思考[編輯]

睇埋:多型性先天定後天行為遺傳學同埋進化博弈論

性格心理學上嘅理論仲有用到進化論上嘅思考。進化論嘅基礎係遺傳學-因為基因漂變等嘅原因,同一個生物種群嘅唔同個體之間喺遺傳特性上會有差異,呢啲差異會令佢哋身體嘅結構有個體差異,簡單例子有其中一啲個體生得[64];除咗身體上嘅特徵之外,遺傳因素仲有可能影響一個人嘅性格-孖胎研究等嘅實證研究(可以睇吓先天定後天嘅爭論)表明,遺傳因素可以影響一隻動物腦部特性,而呢樣嘢跟住會影響佢嘅行為。行為遺傳學(behavioral genetics)係遺傳學同心理學嘅一個結合領域,會研究遺傳因素同性格之間嘅啦掕[65][66]

性格呢樣嘢嘅進化過程可以用物競天擇(natural selection)嘅概念嚟諗:根據物競天擇嘅諗法,一個生物種群會生存喺一個環境裏面,環境會影響「邊啲身體特性對生存繁殖嚟講最有利」,例如喺凍嘅地方皮下脂肪厚啲可以幫到身體保暖,所以係一種比較有利於生存同繁殖嘅特性;同一道理,一個人嘅心理特性(同埋引起呢啲心理特性嘅腦部特性)都可以影響佢生存繁殖嘅能力,例如喺撞到獵食者嗰陣識得驚同走佬嘅個體同唔識做呢樣嘢嘅個體比起嚟,會有比較大嘅機率能夠成功生存落嚟同埋生後代(將嗰啲令佢有呢種行為嘅基因傳去下一代嗰度)[67]

性格俾人認為係多型性(polymorphism)嘅心理版本:多型性係進化生物學上嘅一個概念,指一個物種有多過一個唔同嘅款,簡單例子有同一個物種嘅蝴蝶當中有一啲係藍色有一啲係紅色,但兩隻款之間嘅遺傳差異好細,細到算係同一個物種[68];由物競天擇嘅角度諗即係話,對嗰一個物種嘅生物嚟講,有多過一套可行嘅生存繁殖策略-對於嗰種蝴蝶嚟講,佢哋無論係藍色定紅色都會生存得到;性格呢樣嘢都可以噉諗-對於人嚟講,外向有好處(例如可以識到更多嘅朋友),但內向都有好處(例如可以有多啲時間攞嚟睇書或者學技能),兩者都有可能幫到個人生存同繁殖,所以都分別係可行嘅策略,都通過到物競天擇嘅考驗留存到落嚟,令到人類喺心理上有多樣性[67][69]

左圖:一班人喺度煮嘢食右圖:一個人喺度整車;有啲人鍾意煮嘢食,又有啲人寧願攞啲時間嚟學整車,不過呢兩樣活動都係對佢哋有益(學到有用嘅技能)嘅,而且對(例如)學整車嗰個人嚟講,學整車仲有「唔使同學煮嘢食嗰班人爭地方」呢個好處。

睇埋[編輯]

  • 性格類型(personality types):指一啲將人分做離散類別嘅性格理論,例子有廿世紀喺坊間好出名嘅九型性格[70];到咗廿一世紀初,性格類型嘅諗法冇乜性格心理學家仲會用,噉係因為實證嘅研究表明咗,人好少可能夠清楚噉分做一個個離散嘅類別,反而特質理論(每個人喺每一個特質上都有個數值)嘅做法比較能夠恰當噉描述現實[71]
  • 鐘形曲線(bell curve):指常態分佈(normal distribution)畫出嚟成嘅嗰條;簡單講,鐘形曲線講緊嘅係,包括各性格特質同智商在內嘅心理變數多數都係「趨向平均值,愈極端嘅數值就出現得愈少」嘅,即係例如攞智商嚟睇,智商呈常態分佈,意思即係話多數人喺「智商」呢樣特性上都近全人類嘅平均值(100),100 係出現得最密嗰個數值,智商極端高或者極端低嘅人的確存在,但愈極端嘅數值出現頻率就愈低[72];畫做圖嘅話,就會好似下圖噉,下圖打橫嗰條軸做智商(或者攞第個心理特性都得),打戙嗰條軸做嗰個智商數值喺人類當中出現嘅頻率:
IQ curve.svg

相關領域[編輯]

註釋[編輯]

  1. 1.0 1.1 技術性啲噉講,即係話外向度反映一個人有幾將「同第啲人交流」視為一種心理犒賞
  2. 」意思係「 呢個入面」。
  3. 用返因素分析嚟諗,即係話一個性格特質係一個因素,而個特質相應嘅行為、諗法同情緒係反映嗰個因素嘅可觀察變數
  4. 迴歸分析等嘅統計方法
  5. 順帶一提,又有研究發現,心理病態程度高嘅人亦都唔會好似正常人噉,喺覺得有嘢唔公平嗰陣皮膚電導明顯上升(皮膚電導上升反映強烈嘅情緒)。

文獻[編輯]

理論文獻[編輯]

  • Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Beckmann, N., & Wood, R. E. (2017). Dynamic personality science. Integrating between-person stability and within-person change (PDF). Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1486.
  • Buss, D.M.; Greiling, H. (1999). "Adaptive Individual Differences". Journal of Personality. 67 (2): 209–243.
  • Cooper, C. (2019). Pitfalls of personality theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109551.
  • De Raad, B. (2000). The big five personality factors: the psycholexical approach to personality. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
  • De Young, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass (PDF), 4(12), 1165-1180.
  • Eysenck, S. B., Barrett, P. T., & Saklofske, D. H. (2020). The Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences, 109974.
  • Eysenck H., & Eysenck M.: Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. Plenum Press New York, (1985).
  • Hofmans, J., Debusscher, J., Dóci, E., Spanouli, A., & De Fruyt, F. (2015). The curvilinear relationship between work pressure and momentary task performance: the role of state and trait core self-evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1680.
  • Kwon, Paul (August 1999). "Attributional Style and Psychodynamic Defense Mechanisms: Toward an Integrative Model of Depression". Journal of Personality. 67 (4): 645–658. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00068.
  • Prunas, Antonio; Di Pierro, Rossella; Huemer, Julia; Tagini, Angela (January 2019). "Defense mechanisms, remembered parental caregiving, and adult attachment style". Psychoanalytic Psychology. 36 (1): 64–72. doi:10.1037/pap0000158.

應用文獻[編輯]

  • Christiansen, N., & Tett, R. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of personality at work. Routledge.
  • Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Schurer, S. (2012). The stability of big-five personality traits (PDF). Economics Letters, 115(1), 11-15.
  • Guy, S. J., Kim, S., Lin, M. C., & Manocha, D. (2011, August). Simulating heterogeneous crowd behaviors using personality trait theory (PDF). In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation (pp. 43-52).
  • Landis, B. (2016). Personality and social networks in organizations: A review and future directions (PDF). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S107-S121.
  • Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58-63.
  • Rothmann, S., & Coetzer, E. P. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1), 68-74.

[編輯]

  1. Corr, P. J., & Matthews, G. (Eds.). (2020). The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Fairbairn, C. E., Sayette, M. A., Wright, A. G., Levine, J. M., Cohn, J. F., & Creswell, K. G. (2015). Extraversion and the rewarding effects of alcohol in a social context (PDF). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(3), 660.
  3. McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2012). What is extraversion for? Integrating trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the purpose of extraversion. Psychological science, 23(12), 1498-1505.
  4. Zhang, J., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Neuroticism and extraversion are differentially related to between-and within-person variation of daily negative emotion and physical symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 138-142.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Tyrer, P., & Alexander, J. (1979). Classification of personality disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 135(2), 163-167.
  6. Nadelhoffer, T., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. P. (2013). Is psychopathy a mental disease. Neuroscience and legal responsibility, 229-255.
  7. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. Fort Worth TX: Harcourt College Publisher. p. 28.
  8. Beckmann, N., & Wood, R. E. (2017). Dynamic personality science. Integrating between-person stability and within-person change (PDF). Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1486.
  9. Wu, D. W. L., Bischof, W. F., Anderson, N. C., Jakobsen, T., & Kingstone, A. (2014). The influence of personality on social attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 25-29.
  10. Garfinkel, S. N., Minati, L., Gray, M. A., Seth, A. K., Dolan, R. J., & Critchley, H. D. (2014). Fear from the heart: sensitivity to fear stimuli depends on individual heartbeats. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(19), 6573-6582.
  11. Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., Funder, D. C., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2010). On the contextual independence of personality: Teachers' assessments predict directly observed behavior after four decades. Social psychological and personality science, 1(4), 327-334.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Wright, A. G., Beltz, A. M., Gates, K. M., Molenaar, P., & Simms, L. J. (2015). Examining the dynamic structure of daily internalizing and externalizing behavior at multiple levels of analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1914.
  13. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490.
  14. Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., ... & Funder, D. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677.
  15. Parrigon, S., Woo, S. E., Tay, L., & Wang, T. (2017). CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(4), 642.
  16. Richardson, M. J., & Chemero, A. (2014). Complex dynamical systems and embodiment (PDF). The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition, 39-50.
  17. Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and individual differences, 51(4), 472-477.
  18. 18.0 18.1 Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Wihler, A., Ewen, C., Merkl, R., & Missfeld, T. (2015). Extraversion and job performance: How context relevance and bandwidth specificity create a non-linear, positive, and asymptotic relationship. Journal of vocational behavior, 87, 80-88.
  19. Finnigan, K. M., & Vazire, S. (2018). The incremental validity of average state self-reports over global self-reports of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(2), 321.
  20. Corr, Phillip J. (2004). "Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and Personality". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 28 (3): 317–332.
  21. Thompson, B.R. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. American Psychological Association.
  22. Child, Dennis (2006), The Essentials of Factor Analysis (3rd ed.), Continuum International.
  23. Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., Bixler, E. O., & Zimmerman, D. N. (2009). IQ and neuropsychological predictors of academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 238-241.
  24. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
  25. Furr, R. M. (2017). Psychometrics: an introduction. Sage Publications.
  26. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). Sage publications.
  27. American Educational Research Association, Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  28. Robert F. DeVellis (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
  29. Likert, Rensis (1932). "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes". Archives of Psychology. 140: 1–55.
  30. Jackson, C. J. (2009). Jackson-5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 556-569.
  31. Eysenck H., & Eysenck M.: Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. Plenum Press New York, (1985).
  32. Jayawickreme, E., Zachry, C. E., & Fleeson, W. (2019). Whole trait theory: An integrative approach to examining personality structure and process. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 2-11.
  33. Oshio, A., Taku, K., Hirano, M., & Saeed, G. (2018). Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 54-60.
  34. Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 58-63.
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Rothmann, S., & Coetzer, E. P. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1), 68-74.
  36. 36.0 36.1 Roccas, Sonia; Sagiv, Lilach; Schwartz, Shalom H.; Knafo, Ariel (2002). "The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (6): 789–801.
  37. Ambridge B (2014). Psy-Q: You know your IQ - now test your psychological intelligence. Profile. p. 11.
  38. Toegel G, Barsoux JL (2012). "How to become a better leader". MIT Sloan Management Review. 53 (3): 51–60.
  39. Laney M.O. (2002). The Introvert Advantage. Canada: Thomas Allen & Son Limited. pp. 28, 35.
  40. Jeronimus B.F., Riese H., Sanderman R., Ormel J. (October 2014). "Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107 (4): 751–64.
  41. Norris C.J., Larsen J.T., Cacioppo J.T. (September 2007). "Neuroticism is associated with larger and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures". Psychophysiology. 44 (5): 823–26.
  42. Eysenck H.J. (1992). "Four ways five factors are not basic" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 13 (8): 667–73.
  43. 43.0 43.1 43.2 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (PDF). Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563.
  44. Twenge, Jean M. (2011). Campbell, W. Keith; Miller, Joshua D. (eds.). The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Findings, and Treatments. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  45. Furnham, Adrian; Richards, Steven C.; Paulhus, Delroy L. (March 2013). "The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review: Dark Triad of Personality". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 7 (3): 199–216.
  46. Marsh, A. A., & Cardinale, E. M. (2012). Psychopathy and fear: Specific impairments in judging behaviors that frighten others (PDF). Emotion, 12(5), 892.
  47. Van't Wout, M., Kahn, R. S., Sanfey, A. G., & Aleman, A. (2006). Affective state and decision-making in the ultimatum game. Experimental brain research, 169(4), 564-568.
  48. 48.0 48.1 Blair, R. J. R. (2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy (PDF). The British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(1), 5-7.
  49. Malesza, M. (2020). The effects of the Dark Triad traits in prisoner's dilemma game. Current Psychology, 39(3), 1055-1062.
  50. Robert M. Regoli; John D. Hewitt; Matt DeLisi (20 April 2011). Delinquency in Society: The Essentials. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 99.
  51. Maxwell, A. L., Gardiner, E., & Loxton, N. J. (2020). Investigating the relationship between reward sensitivity, impulsivity, and food addiction: A systematic review (PDF). European Eating Disorders Review, 28(4), 368-384.
  52. Bezdjian, S., Baker, L. A., Lozano, D. I., & Raine, A. (2009). Assessing inattention and impulsivity in children during the Go/NoGo task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 365-383.
  53. Harden, K. P., Mann, F. D., Grotzinger, A. D., Patterson, M. W., Steinberg, L., Tackett, J. L., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). Developmental differences in reward sensitivity and sensation seeking in adolescence: Testing sex-specific associations with gonadal hormones and pubertal development (PDF). Journal of personality and social psychology, 115(1), 161.
  54. Shulman, E. P., Harden, K. P., Chein, J. M., & Steinberg, L. (2015). Sex differences in the developmental trajectories of impulse control and sensation-seeking from early adolescence to early adulthood (PDF). Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(1), 1-17.
  55. Wu, C. H., Parker, S. K., & De Jong, J. P. (2014). Need for cognition as an antecedent of individual innovation behavior (PDF). Journal of Management, 40(6), 1511-1534.
  56. Woo, S. E., Harms, P. D., & Kuncel, N. R. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1635-1639.
  57. 57.0 57.1 Gray, J.A. and McNaughton, N., The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System, July 2003, (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  58. Corr, Phillip (2008). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality. Cambridge University Press.
  59. Gray, J. A. (1991). The neurophysiology of temperament. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement (pp. 105-128). New York, NY: Plenum.
  60. Gray, Jeffrey A.; Neil McNaughton (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system 互聯網檔案館歸檔,歸檔日期2017年8月9號,. (PDF). Oxford Psychology Series.
  61. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2009). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  62. Jackson, Chris J. (2009). "Jackson-5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real-world outcomes" (PDF). Journal of Research in Personality. 43 (4): 556–569.
  63. De Young, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1165-1180.
  64. Phillips, Patrick C. (November 2008). "Epistasis—the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems". Nature Reviews Genetics. London: Nature Publishing Group. 9 (11): 855–867.
  65. Loehlin J.C. (2009). "History of behavior genetics". In Kim Y. (ed.). Handbook of behavior genetics (1st ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
  66. Polderman, Tinca J. C.; Benyamin, Beben; de Leeuw, Christiaan A.; Sullivan, Patrick F.; van Bochoven, Arjen; Visscher, Peter M.; Posthuma, Danielle (2015). "Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies" (PDF). Nature Genetics. 47 (7): 702–709.
  67. 67.0 67.1 Buss, D.M. (1991). "Evolutionary personality psychology" (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology. 42: 459–491.
  68. Ford E.B. (1965). Genetic polymorphism. Faber & Faber, London.
  69. Michalski, R. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2010). Evolutionary personality psychology: Reconciling human nature and individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 509-516.
  70. Norcross, J. C., Koocher, G. P., & Garofalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 515-522.
  71. Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2005). Personality Traits, Types, and Disorders: An Examination of the Relationship Between Three Self-Report Measures. European Journal of Personality, 19, 167-184.
  72. Kohn, M. L. (1996, June). "The Bell Curve" from the Perspective of Research on Social Structure and Personality. In Sociological Forum (pp. 395-411). Eastern Sociological Society.
  73. Morse, S. J. (2008). Psychopathy and criminal responsibility. Neuroethics, 1(3), 205-212.

[編輯]