Descriptive, Predictive and Explanatory Personality Research: Different Goals, Different Approaches, but a Shared Need to Move Beyond the Big Few Traits

Mõttus, René, Dustin Wood, David M. Condon, Mitja Back, Anna Baumert, Giulio Costantini, Sacha Epskamp, et al. 2020. “Descriptive, Predictive and Explanatory Personality Research: Different Goals, Different Approaches, but a Shared Need to Move Beyond the Big Few Traits.” PsyArXiv. November 1. doi:10.31234/osf.io/hvk5p

Abstract: We argue that it is useful to distinguish between three key goals of personality science – description, prediction and explanation – and that attaining them often requires different priorities and methodological approaches. We put forward specific recommendations such as publishing findings with minimum a priori aggregation and exploring the limits of predictive models without being constrained by parsimony and intuitiveness but instead maximising out-of-sample predictive accuracy. We argue that naturally-occurring variance in many decontextualized and multi-determined constructs that interest personality scientists may not have individual causes, at least as this term is generally understood and in ways that are human-interpretable, never mind intervenable. If so, useful explanations are narratives that summarize many pieces of descriptive findings rather than models that target individual cause-effect associations. By meticulously studying specific and contextualized behaviours, thoughts, feelings and goals, however, individual causes of variance may ultimately be identifiable, although such causal explanations will likely be far more complex, phenomenon-specific and person-specific than anticipated thus far. Progress in all three areas – description, prediction, and explanation – requires higher-dimensional models than the currently-dominant “Big Few” and supplementing subjective trait-ratings with alternative sources of information such as informant-reports and behavioural measurements. Developing a new generation of psychometric tools thus provides many immediate research opportunities.

If it was possible to be presented with a comprehensive list of everyone who has thought about you while having sex, would you want to see it?; his guess is that the list would destroy us all

The Masturbation List - A thought experiment. Jack Pemment. Psychology Today, Oct 31, 2020. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/blame-the-amygdala/202010/the-masturbation-list

Here’s a thought experiment for you.

It’s both at once amusing and terrifying, but as it’s Halloween, it’s the perfect time to share it with you.

If it was possible to be presented with a comprehensive list of everyone who has thought about you, either while masturbating or having sex, would you want to see it?

There is no way to feel neutral about this list.

Just pausing to imagine what names you might see on the list could at once be validating, but at the same time, horrifying. What if someone you once had a crush on is on the list, but then also someone you really don’t or didn’t like all that much?

This list would change your life. You might not be able to look at many of your colleagues the same way again. Do you have the kind of personality where this knowledge wouldn’t get to you? If somebody has had a sexual fantasy about you, without you, is that their privilege? Is it okay, but just as long as you don’t know about it? But now you do.

Would you be okay looking at the list, but with the caveat of being protected by it only covering up to five years previous? Looking back might be amusing, but seeing anyone on the list you still interact with in the present might be awkward and borderline traumatic.

But looking back, would you want to know who thought about you in a sexual fantasy when you had not yet come of age? If someone had been the same age as you, maybe you’d be comfortable with that, but what if they’d been quite a lot older than you?

What about how many people were on the list? If it was minimal, would you feel [...]

[Full text at the link above.]