Abstract: Recent recognition that the dominance and nurturance dimensions of the interpersonal circumplex correspond closely to the surgency/extraversion and agreeableness dimensions of the five-factor model of personality provides an occasion for the closer integration of these two traditions. We describe the procedures whereby we extended our adjectival measure of the circumplex Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R) to include the additional Big Five dimensions of conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The resultant five-scale instrument (IASR-B5) was found to have excellent structure on the item level, internally consistent scales, and promising convergent and discriminant properties when compared with the NEO Personality Inventory and the Hogan Personality Inventory. The unique feature of the IASR-B5 is that it provides a highly efficient instrument for combined circumplex and five-factor assessment. We provide an example of such combined assessment. The current decade in personality psychology has been characterized by renewed interest in two structural models that have been well-established for almost 40 years: the five-factor model of personality and the circumplex model of interpersonal behavior. The five orthogonal factors that have been found within the former tradition are listed in Figure 1. These dimensions originated in the work of Cattell (1946), were developed by Tupes and Christal (1961), and were refined by Norman (1963). Recent extensions of this line of investigation may be found in the work of McCrae and Costa (1985a), Digman and Inouye (1986), Hogan (1983), and Peabody and Goldberg (1989).

Abstract: In recent years, much progress has been made by those advocating the trait perspective in personality in explicating an underlying dispositional structure to individual differences, to the attributes individuals \"have. \"' A cognitive perspective on personality can complement this description, providing a view of what Allport called the \"'doing\" side of personality, by focusing on how these dispositions are cognitively expressed and maintained in social interaction. This perspective shows how individuals interpret life tasks of work, play, intimacy, power, and health, in light of their most accessible schemas, envisaging alternative future selves, and devising cognitive strategies to guide behavior in relevant situations. Strategic problem solving typically has its benefits and its costs because an effective solution to one life problem often creates other new problems. Therefore, a central question about the adaptiveness of personality is raised by this approach. To what extent, under what circumstances, and through what channels do individuals work to modify their schemas, tasks, and strategies in light of experience? A structural approach to personality can indicate much about basic stabilities, and an emphasis on the \"doing\" side can contribute knowledge of the mutability of personality. Personality is something and personality does something . . . . The adjustments of men contain a great amount of spontaneous, creative behavior toward the environment. Adjustment to the physical world as well as to the imagined or ideal world--both being factors in the \"behavioral environment\"--involves mastery as well as passive adaptation. --Allport, 1937, pp. 48-50 Our great advantage over all other social animals is that we possess the kind of brain that permits us to change our minds. We are not obliged, as ants are, to follow genetic blueprints for every last detail of our behavior. Our genes are more cryptic and ambiguous in their instructions: Get along, says our DNA, talk to each other, figure out the world, be useful, and above all keep an eye out for affection. --Thomas, 1984, pp. 7 For quite some time now the dominant force in personality psychology, trait psychology, has been concerned with the structural basis of individual differences, that is, with Allport's (1937) \"having\" side of personality. There have been substantial and important advances in the taxonomic efforts to chart the major and stable dimensioas on which people can be said to differ (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman, 1963). We are also much closer than ever before to explicating genetic and biological bases for important differences in temperament, sociability, and the other \"big five\" personality factors (e.g., Tellegen et al., 1988). These advances are encouraging also because they pave the way for increasing attention to questions about how these individual differences are expressed and maintained in social interaction across the life course (Caspi, Bern, & Elder, 1989). Accordingly, there has been lately more and more emphasis in personality research on process (Larsen, 1989). In this trend, theorists are taking three complementary tacks to elucidating both the \"having\" and the \"doing\" sides of personality. First, such theorists have proposed \"middle level\" units of analysis--units that take an individual's standing on abstract dispositions of sociability or openness to experience and the like and give concrete form to their diverse expressions (Briggs, 1989). These middle level units of personality description are explicitly contextualized, with dispositional categories like impulsivity or sociability defined in terms of the if-then contingencies of specific situations (e.g., Wright & Mischel, 1987). Second, theorists have proposed mechanisms that selectively maintain and bolster these individual differences; mechanisms, for example, of \"selection, evocation, and manipulation\" that underlie person × environment transactions (Buss, 1987). Finally, theorists have paid increased attention to processes of change in dysfunctional behavior and in \"normal\" personality during life transitions (e.g., Stewart & Healy, 1985). I propose that a cognitive approach to personality has the potential to be especially useful at this juncture. It provides useful constructs and methods in the analysis of personality differences as they are diversely expressed and maintained in situ. It brings to this enterprise a central concern with cognitive mechanisms that can mediate the mapping of abstract dispositions onto specific outcomes; with processes that selectively give form to the blueprint of individuals' personalities. By explicating these processes of translation (and of construction) a cognitive June 1990 • American Psychologist Cop/right 1990 by the American Psychological Assoctation, Inc. 0003-066X/90/$00.75 Vol. 45, No. 6, 735-750 735 approach underscores the dynamic, transactional development of personality. By recognizing the power of intelligent beings to think in novel ways about themselves and others, it acknowledges a potential for creative adjustment that Allport and Thomas both claimed as central human virtues. In short, this perspective complements the trait approach and fits well with an ever-increasing attention to the \"doing\" side of personality expression and maintenance, and of personality growth. \"Having\" and \"Doing\" in Personality Julian Rotter (1954), in his seminal book Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, set the stage for current cognitive approaches to personality. He conceptualized outcomes as behavioral choices that individuals make in the light of their interpretations of situations and of likely reinforcements. For instance, in arguing against simple forms of reductionism in personality, he used examples of the following sort: Consider three individuals' different responses to the problem of low blood sugar, differences that follow from the individual meanings they give to the event. One person perceives the situation as under his or her control and directly confronts the problem by eating granola and running a mile several times a week; another decides that the problem is here to stay but that he or she can \"make the best of it\" by getting more rest and boosting energy with chocolate; and yet a third refuses to see it as a problem at all, pushing until all his or her reserves are depleted. Whereas one might reasonably contrast the adaptive responding of the first two persons with the destructive denial of the third, Rotter would be more likely to emphasize the differences between the first two, even though they both take an active response to the situation. He implored personality psychologists to pay less attention to where people begin and end and to accord at least equal weight to the differing ways in which they get there, that is, the strategies that move people from some interpretation of the situation toward their goals. Rotter did not intend to present a model of conscious choice, but he did say that people made choices, however automatically, by construing situations, tasks, or problems in particular ways, and he thought that those construals formed the basis for important behavioral differences that should not be ignored. Rotter's Ohio State colleague, George Kelly (1955), Preparation of this article was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (BNS 8718467 to Nancy Cantor and Julie K. Norem, and BNS 8411778 to Nancy Cantor and Harold Korn). I wish to thank several of my colleagues and students for their many helpful comments: David Buss, William Fleeson, James Hilton, John E Kihlstrom, Christopher A. Langston, Hazel Markus, Michael Morris, Julie K. Norem, Richard Nisbe~t, Christopher Peterson, Claude Steele, Abigail J. Stewart, Lynne Sutherland, and Sabrina Zirkel, as well as the editor and anonymous reviewers. Nancy G. Exelby provided invaluable technical assistance. Portions of these analyses and ideas were presented recently at the August 1989 meeting of the American Psychological Association in New Orleans. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nancy Cantor, Institute for Social Research, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248. provided a powerful and complementary analysis of the individual as a naive scientist, busy anticipating events in the light of personal constructs about the self and the social world. Kelly articulated two fundamental and enduring cognitive assumptions. First, he placed the interpretive process at the very center of his account of individual differences: People differ because they anticipate events in unique ways which, in turn, channel their behavioral responses. Feelings, thoughts, actions, and reactions in a situation follow from those initial anticipations, those meanings with which an event is infused. Second, and equally important, Kelly posited constructive alternativism, the potential for alternative interpretations of similar events, either by two people in one situation or even by the same person in repeated encounters with an event or task. Individuals' constructs firmly channel their behavioral responses; however, the rich diversity of those constructs preserve considerable flexibility in personality functioning. The Rotter-Kelly analysis has all of the central features of a cognitive approach. The challenge for current cognitive-personality psychology is to increasingly reveal and specify those processes that represent an individual's active attempts to understand the world, to take control, and to reach personal goals. At the heart of this approach is a strong respect for the power of cognition to generate choice or create freedom. Individuals overcome stimulus control at least in part by giving their own meanings to events, by cognitively transforming situations. In this sense, the work of Walter Mischel, one of Kelly's proteges, on children's strategies for delay of gratification provides a prototypic illustration: Y

Abstract: GENERAL CONCEPTUAL ISSUES. Personality and Disease: Overview, Review, and Preview (H. Friedman). Lessons from History: How to Find the Person in Health Psychology (S. Kobasa). Models of Linkages Between Personality and Disease (J. Suls & J. Rittenhouse). All Other Things Are Not Equal: An Ecological Approach to Personality and Disease (T. Revenson). STRESS, EMOTION, AND HEALTH. Stress, Coping, and Illness (R. Lazarus). Issues and Interventions in Stress Mastery (S. Maddi). Personality and Health: Testing the Sense of Coherence Model (A. Antonovsky). Disease--Prone Personality or Distress--Prone Personality? The Role of Neuroticism in Coronary Heart Disease (S. Stone & P. Costa). PERSONALITY, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, AND HOMEOSTASIS. On Attempting to Articulate the Biopsychosocial Model: Psychological--Psychophysiological Homeostasis (L. Temoshok). Individual Differences and Health: Gender, Coping, and Stress (J. Ratliff--Crain & A. Baum). Personality and Social Factors in Cancer Outcome (S. Levy & L. Heiden). CONCLUSION. Where Is the Disease--Prone Personality? Conclusion and Future Directions (H. Friedman). Author Index. Subject Index.

Abstract: This study was based on a nationwide sample of 778 family practice residents in the mid-1980s and was conducted to determine the personality types that were most common among those residents. The results showed that the single most common personality type was that in which the individual prefers to see the world in terms of challenges and future possibilities and to make decisions based upon his or her subjective values. These results showed that the sample differed significantly in Myers-Briggs personality type from both the general practitioners of the 1950s and the early family practice residents of the 1970s, who preferred to see the world in terms of the immediate facts of experience and to make decisions objectively. There were also significant differences between the civilian and military family practice residents, but not between the community-based and university-based residents. Implications regarding future practice styles, physicians' personal values, and manpower needs are discussed.

Abstract: During an informal presentation given for interested departmental colleagues several years ago, I characterized personality psychology as a discipline concerned to provide theoretically based explanations for and hence an understanding of the behavior/psychological functioning of individuals. Immediately, a colleague with scholarly interests in the area of sensation/perception challenged the adequacy of my circumscription of the field on the grounds that, in the final analysis, it would fail to differentiate the study of personality from various other subdisciplines of psychology. Conceding that he was probably correct on this point, I hastened to add that, for reasons once well put by Gordon Allport, that prospect did not particularly trouble me: Every mental function is embedded in personal life. In no concrete sense is there such a thing as intelligence, space perception, color discrimination, or choice reaction; there are only people who are capable of performing such activities and of having such experiences (Allport, 1937, p. 18).

Abstract: The aim of this research is to study the effective competencies and personality traits of secondary school counselers. A questionnaire was designed to measure counselor competencies, and a simple one way analysis of variance was used for each major competency area to test the differences between counselors who were rated high or low by their supervisors. The 16 Personality Factor Test was also administered to measure differences in personality traits between the two counselor groups. The results are consistent with previous research. It was also found that there are differences between high and low rated counselors in several personality traits.

Abstract: Summary.-According to McCrae and Costa, Norman's 1963 five-factor model of personality based on peer ratings provides a universal and comprehensive framework for describing individual differences in personality and also for interpreting different personality systems. This study tested the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model using Comrey Personality Scales and Jackson's 1984 Personality Research Form-E. Separate principal axis analyses of scales from each inventory indicated three factors for the Comrey scales and five for the Research Form-E. The three Comrey factors were similar to Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion in the five-factor model, and the five Research Form-E factors were similar to those in the five-factor model. These results provided strong empirical evidence for the genert Goldberg, 1981; Norman, 1963). Norman (1963) labeled the five factors as Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Culture. More recently, Digman and Inouye (1986) described them as Introversion-Extraversion, Friendly Compliance-Hostile Noncompliance, Will, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. According to Goldberg (1981), these five major factors focus on important individual differences in personality and are very robust and general. According to McCrae and Costa (1986, 1989), Norman's five-factor model offers a universal and comprehensive framework for describing personality and also for interpreting different personality systems. As Noller, Law, and Comrey (1987) pointed out, an important question is whether the five-factor model of personality based on peer ratings is generalizable to personality assessed through self-report. Noller, Law, and Comrey (1987) addressed this issue by conducting a combined factor analysis for the scales from the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell's 16 PF), the Comrey Personality Scales, and the Eysenck Personality Inventory and found support for all the factors except Culture in Norman's (1963) five-factor model of personality. However, an important limitation of Noller, et al.'s study involved the failure to test the generalizability issue directly by studying the factor structure of Cattell's 16 PF as well as of the

Abstract: The relationship between personality disorders, normality and healthy personality is discussed from a developmental and normative perspective. Psychological traits unique to the individual are seen as coexisting and continuing throughout the life span of personality development and across the traditional boundaries of personality disorders, normal personality, and healthy personality. This paper attempts to extend the pioneering work of Milton into the realm of healthy personality. Healthy personality is conceived of as an extension of a three factor model with: mystical, hardy, and self actualised personalities composing the healthy end of the spectrum.

Abstract: The relationship between seconaary school professional staff perceptions of school climate and their respective personalities is examined in this study. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Rutgers Secondary (OCDQ-RS) and the Heath Typology Assessment Instrument (HTAI) were administered to 232 secondary teachers to assess organizational climate and subjects' personality styles. Findings suggest that a school faculty with a significant proportion oZ teachers who share a particular personality type (X, Y, or Z) will affect the school's organizational climate. A school with a predominantly type X faculty reflects frustration; type Y, constraint; and type Z, alienation. A conclusion is that differences in individual personalities predispose differences in individual perceptions of environment. Three statistical tables and an extensive bibliography are included. (LMI) * Reproductions suppli,ad by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. *

Abstract: The association between personality and various living habits was investigated in a cross-sectional study of 2,892 residents of a town in Saitama prefecture. Living habits including dietary, smoking & drinking habits, degree of mental stress and personality type were surveyed from 1986 to 1988 by use of a self-administered questionnaire together with biochemical & immunological examination of peripheral blood samples. Personality in this study was classified into two types: extraversion which is characterized by persons who are active and emotionally stable; introversion characterized by suppression on emotional and behavioral expression. Our results can be summarized as follows. 1) The introversion type of persons showed higher susceptibility to mental stress, less regularity in meal time, lower intake frequency of animal protein foods (meat, fish and eggs), green & yellow vegetables, fruits, and cruciferous vegetables with statistical significance of p less than 0.05, as compared to the extraversion type. 2) The above association was further examined in each of the sexes and age groups. The association of the introversion type of personality with increased stress and low intake of high animal protein foods was observed for both sexes and all age groups; the association with low intake of eggs and irregularity of meal time was observed for both sexes for groups under 60 years old; that with low intake of fish & shellfish, fruits, cruciferous vegetables and green & yellow vegetables was observed more clearly among males than females. These results indicate that introversion type of personality appears to be associated with a life style that increases the risk for adult diseases such as cancer, ischemic heart disease etc.

Abstract: L'auteur examine les relations entre l'Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, l'Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised et le 17 Impulsivness Questionnaire

Abstract: Kelley, Byrne, Przybyla, Eberly, Eberly, Greenlinger, Wan, and Gorsky (1985) devised an inventory to measure general self-destructive tendencies, and Lester and Gatto (1989) reported scores on this inventory to be associated with suicidal ideation among male teenagers The present study was done to explore whether self-destructiveness might be associated with Type A personahty scores A questionnaire was given to 41 men and 47 women enrolled in undergraduate courses; their mean age was 234 yr (SD: 54) The questionnaire contained the female form of the self-destructiveness questionnaire (which is the nonsexist form that can be answered by both sexes) and a measure of Type A personality (Goldberg, 1978) Mean scores (and SDs) on self-destructiveness were 609 and 279 and on Type A personality were 604 and 113 Self-destructiveness scores were positively associated with sex (Pearson r = 018, p < 05) and age (r = 017, p < 05) but not with Type A personality (r = 008), even with partial correlation coefficients controlling for sex and age (partial r = 001) The Type A personahty scores did not, in this study, appear to be associated with habits of general self-destructiveness

Abstract: A growing consensus in the literature on personality disorders suggests that dysfunctional interpersonal behavior is either the defining feature or a major component of many personality disorders. Interpersonal psychologists have described personality-disordered individuals as displaying rigid maladaptive patterns of interaction with others that in turn elicit a limited class of responses that can perpetuate the dysfunctional pattern. The conception of interpersonal problems as interpersonal behavioral excesses and inhibitions (Horowitz, 1979) was proposed as an indicator of such rigid interaction patterns. Conceptions of personality disorders inherent in the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales and the Personality Adjective Check List were evaluated in this study within the context of a circumplex model of interpersonal problems. The data supported an interpersonal conceptualization of a number of personality disorders. The results are discussed with reference to Millon's theory of personality and the centra...