Jerry S. Wiggins

Construction of Circumplex Scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems

We constructed a set of circumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988). Initial scale construction used all 127 items from this instrument in two samples of university undergraduates (n = 197; n = 273). Cross-sample stability of item locations plotted against the first two principal components was high. A final set of eight 8-item circumplex scales was derived from the combined sample (n = 470) and cross-validated in a third university sample (n = 974). Finally, we examined the structural convergence of the IIP circumplex scales with an established measure of interpersonal dispositions, the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R; Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988). Although both circumplex instruments were derived independently, they shared a common Circular space. Implications of these results are discussed with reference to current research methods for the study of interpersonal behavior.

Psychometric and Geometric Characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R)

Previous research has suggested that the Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS) have properties that are compatible with the substantive, structural, and external characteristics required by the circumplex-based interpersonal theory which guided scale construction procedures. In the present study, we describe an item-analytic procedure that identifies and selects items in terms of their estimated geometric location within a circumplex model and we apply the procedure to the task of reducing the 128-item IAS to a 64-item short form version (IAS-R). Scales constructed to conform to a circumplex model are evaluated by somewhat different structural criteria than are those developed to conform to other multivariate models and these differences are illustrated. The resultant IAS-R was found to have improved substantive and structural characteristics and acceptable reliability. We discuss possible applications of this highly efficient measure of interpersonal behavior.

Personality Structure: The Return of the Big Five

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the history of the big five dimensions of personality structure. It suggests a cumulative convergence of thought that constitutes the longest, and quite possibly the most important. There are many citations that are meant to highlight significant issues that have occurred in the evolution of the contemporary five-factor model. Taxonomies of trait-descriptive terms may be employed for a variety of purposes by lexicographers, psycholinguists, cognitive psychologists, and other students of language. These may also serve as a basis for the construction of instruments in the development of multivariate models of personality structure. The 1950s was a period of interrupted development in the history of the big five model and it was not until the end of that decade that the importance of Fiskes demonstration was recognized. It was also a period in which factor of analytic approaches to personality structure flourished. From the relatively crude criterion of topical citation counts, it might appear that interest in, and advocacy of, the Big Five model suffered a number of false starts over the years and then exploded in the eighties. The development was more gradual.

A geometric taxonomy of personality scales

Previous taxonomies of personality traits have been lexical in nature and have been concerned primarily with the meaning of adjectives in personality description. The taxonomy presented in this article employed personality scales as the units to be classified and was guided by theoretical, rather than lexical, considerations. A priori distinctions among different domains of trait‐descriptive terms identified a distinctive domain of interpersonal traits within which a preliminary conceptually‐based taxonomy was developed. The Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS) were constructed to provide geometrically precise semantic markers of that domain in the form of a circumplex model organized around the orthogonal coordinates of dominance and nurturance. In the course of a decade of research, some 172 personality scales were classified with reference to the IAS by computational procedures described in detail. Advantages and limitations of the current geometric taxonomy of personality scales are discussed, and future research directions are indicated.

Clinical and statistical prediction: Where are we and where do we go from here?☆

Abstract In the years following the publication of P.E. Meehls monograph, our understanding of clinical and statistical prediction has been enriched by both empirical and conceptual analyses. The highlights of this period are reviewed with an emphasis on prediction models, in order to illustrate the basic features held in common by these two literatures. We appear to be on the threshold of an era of parsimonious prediction models. That being the case we can now return our attention to the problems of developing better assessment devices and more meaningful criterion measures and of developing procedures that will increase the accuracy of clinical judgment and prediction.

Further Evidence on Androgyny and Interpersonal Flexibility.

Abstract The component scales from which Bems index of psychological androgyny is derived are better thought of as measures of dominance and nurturance, rather than “masculinity” and “femininity.” When the Bem scales were administered to 202 male and female college students, along with eight scales that form an interpersonal circumplex, it was once again found that stereotyped, near-stereotyped, and androgynous classifications on the Bem index generalized to sex-role stereotype classifications on other dimensions of interpersonal behavior, as well. Moreover, the Bem index was found to be based on the best available combination of orthogonal interpersonal scales for measuring sex-role stereotypy. In this recent sample of college students, the hypothesis that Bems index of androgyny reflects the more general construct of interpersonal flexibility was confirmed for both male and female subjects. The recognition that Bems index of androgyny is specific to the interpersonal domain should encourage others to develop androgyny indices in other domains such as temperatment, interests, and cognitive styles.

In Defense of Traits

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the theories and the viewpoints of personality. For a number of reasons, it is convenient to consider “personality” as the general psychology of individual differences. In attempting to account for individual differences, a variety of viewpoints must be brought to bear on a common subject matter. A viewpoint is an approach to the empirical study of personality that is based on assumptions concerning the importance of certain kinds of constructs. The term “viewpoint” is used instead of the term “method” to emphasize that methods involve constructs and that they impose constraints upon observations. The viewpoints of personality study are established in their own right because they represent traditional and respectable areas of psychological investigation— such as biological psychology, experimental psychology, social psychology, and psychometrics. A theory is an extended construct system of broad range and scope that typically attempts an integration of constructs from several viewpoints. A theory of personality achieves a certain prestige by emphasizing a particular viewpoint. The methods of the viewpoint cannot be substituted for the propositions of the theory. A theory can be discredited without discrediting the method that it espouses. The psychometric-trait viewpoint has recently been judged guilty in virtue of its association with certain personality theories.

Paradigms of Personality Assessment: An Interpersonal Odyssey

It’s hard for me to express how much receiving this award means to me. I’ve been working on a book called Paradigms of Personality Assessment and one of the features of the book is an appendix that describes the different professional organizations that are associated with each of the five paradigms covered in the book. In my description of the Society for Personality Assessment, I listed all the winners of the Klopfer Award since its inception. So, when I received a phone call from Barton Evans informing me that I was a recipient of the award, I immediately visualized my own name in this distinguished list of previous recipients and thought “Wow!” ... or a vulgar equivalent of such an expression. Although it is hard for me to describe how honored I am, I would like to convey to you how very grateful I am (see Figure 1). For those of you who know me or are familiar with some of my work, I would like to provide you with a brief update of what I’ve been up to. In June of 1996, I “retired” from the University of British Columbia (UBC) and married Krista Trobst (see Figure 2), my principal collaborator and best friend. We were married in our tiny little house in Vancouver and, although a bit crowded, we were able to make room for three friends of mine who have each had an important influence on my career (see Figure 3). On my right is Paul Costa, who had earlier given an address in my honor to the Psychology Department at the University of British Columbia on the occasion of my retirement. A year after our wedding, Krista and I joined Paul in his Laboratory of Personality and Cognition at the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore for 2 very productive years of collaboration. On my left is David Nichols, who in addition to being a good friend of Krista’s and mine, saved my Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Content Scales from being a mere psychometric exercise in scale construcJOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 80(1), 11–18 Copyright