Dimensions of Normal Personality as Networks in Search of Equilibrium: You Can't like Parties if you Don't like People

By A. Cramer, S. van der Sluis, A. Noordhof, M. Wichers, N. Geschwind, S. Aggen, Kenneth S. Kendler, Denny Borsboom. 2012

422 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/630c1a5872d3ddd505c6fd7b71c3949f17a94bb9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Understanding personality development (2018, background): “This individual network approach (Bringmann et al., 2016; Cramer et al. 2012; Schmittmann et al., 2013) is similar to other process-oriented models of personality, in that traits are defined as individual differences in state processes—the dynamic patterns of how people feel, think, strive for, and ”
Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research (2016, background): “Similar arguments have been made for stable personality traits, which routinely come up as clusters in an estimated network structure [45, 47, 48].”
Stability and variability of personality networks. A tutorial on recent developments in network psychometrics (2017, methodology): “Once the new dataset is created, one can easily compute a graphical lasso network with function EBICglasso from package qgraph (Epskamp, Costantini, et al., 2017; Epskamp, Cramer, Waldorp, Schmittmann, & Borsboom, 2012).”
What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks? (2019, background): “Such psychological networks are different from social networks, as the nodes in the network are not people but psychological variables, such as affect states or symptoms (Cramer et al., 2012; Fried & Cramer, 2017; Fried et al., 2017; Klippel et al., 2017; van Roekel, Heininga, Vrijen, Snippe, & Olde”
Descriptive, Predictive and Explanatory Personality Research: Different Goals, Different Approaches, but a Shared Need to Move beyond the Big Few Traits (2020, background): “However, excessive emphasis on broad all-purpose domains such as the Big Few impedes representing the personality processes or dynamics underlying the phenomena (e.g., Block, 1995; Mischel and Shoda, 1995; Cramer et al., 2012; Wood, Gardner, & Harms, 2015; van der Mass et al., 2006).”
Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders (2018, background): “…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., 2012; Schmittmann et al., 2013; Wood, Gardner, & Harms, 2015), general consensus about the nomothetic organization of traits is useful…”
Moving Forward: Challenges and Directions for Psychopathological Network Theory and Methodology (2017, background): “Early papers about the network approach in psychology (Cramer et al., 2012; Cramer et al., 2010) elicited responses in which one common thread concerned the question, “Where is the biology and/or psychology in the proposed network models?” After all, network parameters such as edges and thresholds a”
Critical slowing down as early warning for the onset and termination of depression (2013, background): “Our ﬁ ndings suggest the possibility of early warning systems for psychiatric disorders, using smart-phone-based mood monitoring. symptomatology, but not with a classical disease model that postulates the existence of a common cause (21).”
Cybernetic Big Five Theory. (2015, background): “…cause disturbances of sleep and appetite, which may cause fatigue and disruptions of attention, which may contribute causally to depression, etc.; Cramer et al., 2012), but it also acknowledges the existence of brain systems known to have broadly acting causal influences on many different types…”
Whole Trait Theory (2014, background): “Finally, situations, behaviors, and the links between them may cause each other (Cramer et al., 2012).”
Towards More Rigorous Personality Trait–Outcome Research (2016, background): “If one also interprets personality traits such as conscientiousness as collections of aetiologically and functionally autonomous behaviours, thoughts and feelings—albeit still often inter-correlated to varying degrees,(4) perhaps as a result of direct causal inter-relations with each other (Cramer e”
Principles of Situation Research: Towards a Better Understanding of Psychological Situations (2015, background): “…Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Baltes, 1997; Bandura, 1978; Buss, 1987; Caspi & Roberts, 2001; Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Chorpita & Barlow, 1998; Cramer et al., 2012; Fleeson, 2007, 2012; Funder, 2006, 2008, 2009; Gosling, Gaddis, & Vazire, 2008; Gross, 1998; Haase, Heckhausen, & Wrosch, 2013;…”
How well do network models predict observations? On the importance of predictability in network models (2016, neutral): “st applications are currently in the eld of clinical psychology [e.g. 13, 12, 2, 23, 4] but network models are also applied to other subelds such as health psychology [22] and personality psychology [9, 8]. While initially they were mostly used to model cross-sectional data, there is an increasing a”
The Gaussian Graphical Model in Cross-Sectional and Time-Series Data (2016, methodology): “This model is applied extensively to psychological data (e.g., Cramer et al., 2012; Fried, Epskamp, Nesse, Tuerlinckx, & Borsboom, 2016; Isvoranu et al., 2017; Kossakowski et al., 2015; McNally et al., 2015; van Borkulo et al., 2015).”