Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both children and adults

By Jens B. Asendorpf, P. Borkenau, F. Ostendorf, M. V. van Aken. 2001

493 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d3f02dadf5c47b8113c5428e8fe992d99a434b7

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

Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school (2010, background): “The average kappa value for the two halves was .88, far above the .60 threshold of acceptability (Asendorpf et al. 2001).”
The replicability and utility of three personality types (2002, methodology): “These might well be considered artifacts in type identification, yet Asendorpf et al. (2001) explicitly recommend the analysis of raw scores because, in their experience, ARC types are more reliably obtained under these conditions.”
Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence (2005, background): “A positive score on the Big Five factors has been associated with a well adjusted personality profile (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Rammstedt et al., 2004) and resilience (Riolli et al.”
Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Student Diversity and Proposed Instructional Practices (2013, background): “Cohen’s kappa of .83 and .85 in the two crossclassified subsamples indicate a very good fit for the threecluster solution (Asendorph et al., 2001).”
Head‐to‐head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions (2003, methodology): “In the analysis by Asendorpf et al. (2001) of the data, five scales produced significant between-type differences: contact frequency (six-point scale 0–5, ‘less than once a month’–‘daily’), closeness of the relationship (five-point scale 1–5, ‘very distant’–‘very close’), available support…”
Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: identifying the most optimal motivating style (2018, background): “The two resulting Kappas were averaged and an agreement of at least .50 was considered acceptable (Asendorpf et al. 2001).”
Adolescent Personality Types and Subtypes and Their Psychosocial Adjustment (2005, methodology): “, 1996, 1998) or cluster analyses on Big Five scales (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Dubas et al., 2002; Schnabel et al., 2002; van Lieshout et al., 1995).”
Resilients, Overcontrollers, and Undercontrollers: The replicability of the three personality prototypes across informants (2004, methodology): “In the only other study also investigating ratings by others (namely parents’ ratings of their children) on scales based on the Big Five (Asendorpf et al., 2001), the three-cluster solution also differed from the expected pattern: next to an unambiguous Resilient type, an Overcontroller prototype…”
Predictive Validity of Personality Types Versus Personality Dimensions From Early Childhood to Adulthood: Implications for the Distinction Between Core and Surface Traits (2006, methodology): “For example, in terms of their Big Five profile, undercontrolled individuals are characterized by low agreeableness and conscientiousness (see Asendorpf et al., 2001).”
The consistency of personality type classification across samples and five‐factor measures (2002, methodology): “Inspection of the mean FFM cluster profiles in the study of Asendorpf et al. (2001) shows a first group, labelled as the resilients, with below average mean scores for Neuroticism (about one half of a standard deviation), and average scores on the more socially desirable traits, i.e. Extraversion, O”
Validity of Big Five personality judgments in childhood: a 9 year longitudinal study (2003, result): “This finding may be specific to the sample because other studies have consistently found an association between both high neuroticism and low extraversion with internalizing difficulties in childhood ( Asendorpf, Borkenau, Ostendorf, & van Aken, 2001; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993).”
Identifying Configurations of Perceived Teacher Autonomy Support and Structure: Associations with Self-Regulated Learning, Motivation and Problem Behavior. (2012, methodology): “A Cohen’s kappa of at least .60 was considered acceptable (Asendorpf et al., 2001).”
A developmental propensity model of the origins of conduct problems during childhood and adolescence. (2003, background): “…classified as “undercontrolled,” which shares many characteristics with our high-risk temperament profile, had lower intelligence scores, on average (Asendorpf et al., 2001; Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996), suggesting that our temperament dimensions may also be linked to lower…”
The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable‐ and a person‐centred approach (2003, methodology): “Focusing on the three-cluster solution, which has been shown to be the most meaningful and replicable in previous research (e.g. Asendorpf et al., 2001; Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Boehm et al., 2002; Rammstedt et al., in press; Schnabel et al., 2002), we present the Big Five profile means…”