Whole Trait Theory

By William Fleeson, Eranda Jayawickreme. Journal of Research in Personality, 2014

722 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Personality researchers should modify models of traits to include mechanisms of differential reaction to situations. Whole Trait Theory does so via five main points. First, the descriptive side of traits should be conceptualized as density distributions of states. Second, it is important to provide an explanatory account of the Big 5 traits. Third, adding an explanatory account to the Big 5 creates two parts to traits, an explanatory part and a descriptive part, and these two parts should be recognized as separate entities that are joined into whole traits. Fourth, Whole Trait Theory proposes that the explanatory side of traits consists of social-cognitive mechanisms. Fifth, social-cognitive mechanisms that produce Big-5 states should be identified.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f3bc01f8ae3ad362c17243b1bbd9f83526bd38a3

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

Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations (2018, background): “For example, although self-ratings of personality traits are moderately heritable (40–55% range; Bouchard & McGue, 2003), personality expression varies across contexts (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015) and trait levels of personality change over time (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006).”
A Psychometric Network Perspective on the Validity and Validation of Personality Trait Questionnaires (2019, background): “From a Whole Trait Theory perspective (Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015), people’s responses to items in self-report questionnaires correspond to their locations and maximums of their density distributions for the respective within-person states (Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009).”
Whole Trait Theory: An integrative approach to examining personality structure and process (2019, positive): “Importantly, this resolution of the person-situation debate is premised on a reconceptualization of traits as density distributions of traitrelevant behaviors or states (Fleeson, 2001), as well as a more precise understanding of behavioral consistency (Fleeson & Noftle, 2009).”
Understanding personality development (2018, neutral): “…processes—the dynamic patterns of how people feel, think, strive for, and behave in specific situations (e.g. Cervone, 2005; Denissen & Penke, 2008; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Mischel & Shoda, 1998; Robinson, 2007, Robinson & Wilkowski, 2015; Wood, Gardner, & Harms, 2015; Wright & Hopwood,…”
Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice (2015, background): “Fleeson and Jayawickreme ( 2015 ) , in their Whole Trait Theory , explain that people experience between - and within - individual variation in personality .”
The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World: Knowns and Unknowns (2020, background): “As argued by proponents of density-distribution models for understanding individual differences in personality (e.g., Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015), trait wisdom may be represented through data-intensive longitudinal observations of states.”
Serving You Depletes Me? A Leader-Centric Examination of Servant Leadership Behaviors (2020, background): “Consistent with cognitive-affective personality systems (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), trait activation (Tett & Guterman, 2000), and whole trait (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015) theories, the personality states, motives, and strivings that drive individuals to engage in servant leadership behaviors can…”
Assessing Personality States: What to Consider when Constructing Personality State Measures (2020, methodology): “One of its central claims is that ‘traits can be conceptualized as density distributions of states’ (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015, p. 82).”
Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders (2018, background): “…van Aken, Penke, & Wood, 2013; Denissen, Wood, & Penke, 2012; DeYoung, 2015; Durbin & Hicks, 2014; EbnerPriemer & Trull, 2009; Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Funder, 1991; Geukes et al., 2018; Hennecke, Bleidorn, Denissen, & Wood, 2014; Huprich & Nelson, 2015; McCrae & Costa…”
To talk or not to talk : a review of situational antecedents of willingness to communicate in the second language classroom. (2018, background): “…witness a rekindled interest in the dynamic, more state related, aspects in personality research (e.g., Anonymous, 2017a; Anonymous, 2017b; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Rauthmann et al., 2015; Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016a), we aim to explore in this review how an inclusion of a dynamic…”
The psychological roots of populist voting: Evidence from the United States, the Netherlands and Germany (2016, background): “Future research should identify the exact nature of the causal relations between personality traits, individual needs, motivations and support for populist parties, and remain open to theories that differ in conceptualisation and causal order (Denissen & Penke 2008; Fleeson & Jayawickreme 2015).”