How functionalist and process approaches to behavior can explain trait covariation.

Abstract

Factors identified in investigations of trait structure (e.g., the Big Five) are sometimes understood as explanations or sources of the covariation of distinct behavioral traits, as when extraversion is suggested to underlie the covariation of assertiveness and sociability. Here, we detail how trait covariation can alternatively be understood as arising from units common to functionalist and process frameworks, such as self-efficacies, expectancies, values, and goals. Specifically, the expected covariation between 2 behavioral traits should be increased when a specific process variable tends to indicate the functionality of both traits simultaneously. In 2 empirical illustrations, we identify a wide array of specific process variables associated with several Big Five-related behavioral traits simultaneously, and which are thus likely sources of their covariation. Many of these, such as positive interpersonal expectancies, self-regulatory skills, and preference for order, relate similarly to a broad range of trait perceptions in both studies, and across both self- and peer-reports. We also illustrate how this understanding of trait covariation provides a somewhat novel explanation of why some traits are uncorrelated. As we discuss, a functionalist understanding of trait covariation as arising through functionalist or process variables has implications for many basic issues in personality psychology, such as how personality traits should be measured, mechanisms for personality stability and change, and the nature of personality traits more generally.

Links between depression and openness and its facets

“…That said, after accounting for sex, age, Neuroticism and Extraversion, the Openness domain no longer predicted MINI Depression or PID-5 Depressivity, suggesting that the zero-order association of domain-level Openness with depression can be accounted for via Openness' covariation with Extraversion. 33,34 This result is similar to that found by Wolfenstein and Trull's 27 study, in which an initially significant correlation between Openness and depression was eliminated after accounting for Extraversion.…”

Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders

“…While it is likely that the organization of traits can deviate from this nomothetic structure across people or in certain contexts and thus room remains for inductive research on this issue (e.g. Cramer et al, ; Schmittmann et al, ; Wood, Gardner, & Harms, ), general consensus about the nomothetic organization of traits is useful in moving the field on from questions about which traits exist to questions about how the traits develop and function (Baumert et al, ).…”

“…By drawing upon individual differences research on the cross‐sectional structure of personality traits (DeYoung, ; Goldberg, ; Jonas & Markon, ; Markon et al, ; McCrae & Costa Jr, ), interpersonal theory differs from personality models that are agnostic (e.g. Shoda & Mischel, ) or inductive (Cramer et al, ; Schmittmann et al, ; Wood et al, ) about which individual difference dimensions constitute the terrain of personality. The synthesis of dynamic concepts with an evidence‐based model of individual differences permits a level of integration with other major streams in personality psychology not possible by more inductive approaches.…”

On Correlated Change in Personality

“…From a functional perspective, becoming more agreeable, conscientious, and emotional stable or put differently, becoming more mature-is adaptive for the individual and reflects qualities that serve to facilitate functioning in interpersonal relationships, social groups and communities (cf. Roberts & Wood, 2006;Wood & Denissen, 2015;Wood, Hensler Gardner, & Harms, 2015). Finally, DeYoung, Peterson, and Higgins (2002) point out that these three traits appear to reflect stability in emotional, social, and motivational domains.…”