PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Chang Weir, Gjerde / PRESCHOOL PERSONALITY PROTOTYPES
Preschool Personality Prototypes:
Internal Coherence, Cross-Study Replicability, and
Developmental Outcomes in Adolescence
Rosy Chang Weir
Per F. Gjerde
University of California, Santa Cruz
This study classified for resemblance 102 preschool children,
who were described by their nursery school teachers using the California Child Q-sort. Inverse (Q) factor analysis identified three
personality prototypes initially defined in terms of ego resiliency
and ego undercontrol: overcontrolled resilient, resilient undercontrolled, and brittle. These personality prototypes showed
strong to moderate similarity with typologies obtained in comparable studies and theoretical meaningful relations with experimental measures of ego functioning and IQ. Ten years later, as
adolescents, overcontrolled resilients were shy and restrained yet
conscientious and intelligent; resilient undercontrollers were
extraverted, assertive, and impulsive; and brittles were relatively
unintelligent. The discussion focused on the several meanings of
person-centered methods, the sample-dependence of personality
typologies, and the complementary contributions made by person
versus variable-centered analytical strategies in the study of
human development.
Research on personality development has mostly been
governed by a variable-centered analytical strategy. This
approach examines relations among variables (most
commonly conceptualized as traits) and individuals’ relative (or rank-order) standing on one or several trait variables. Although variable-centered studies have provided
invaluable knowledge, it has—as any other method—
limitations. For example, it is restricted to providing information on aggregates of individuals, or on what
Lewin (1931) once called the mythical “average child.”
Mishler (1996) also has criticized reliance on group
means, arguing that these “inferences lead to an idealized, universal child” (p. 78) and called for case-based
studies that, in his view, maintain greater respect for
agency, history, and intentionality.
Recently, a complementary approach to the study of
personality has been receiving renewed attention (e.g.,
Cairns, Kagan, & Bergman, 1998). This orientation—
typically referred to as person centered—uses both
quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Examples
include inverse factor analysis (Block, 1971), narrative
methodologies (Hauser, 1999; McAdams, 1999), and
biographical studies of lives (Runyan, 1982). The personcentered approach has a long tradition; it can be traced
back at least as far as to Murray’s (1938) personology, the
ideographic approach of Allport (1937), and more
recent critiques for not using the individual as the unit of
analysis (Carlson, 1971).
Recent person-centered studies have attempted to
identify homogeneous and replicable typologies of individuals (e.g., Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Hart,
Hofmann, Edelstein, & Keller, 1997; Robins, John,
Caspi, Moffitt, & Stauthamer-Loeber, 1996). Robins,
John, and Caspi (1998), in particular, argued strongly
for the existence of three basic personality types:
resilients, undercontrollers, and overcontrollers. Important, albeit not incontestable, support for these types has
been obtained in samples differing both in age and
Authors’ Note: The National Institute of Mental Health (Grant MH
16080) supported this research. Portions of this article, based on the
master’s thesis completed by the first author under the supervision of
the second author, were presented at the biennial meeting of the 1998
Society for Research on Adolescence. We are grateful to Jens
Asendorpf, Dan Hart, and Rick Robins for letting us analyze their personality typology scores and to Rick Robins and Avril Thorne for their
insightful comments on an earlier draft. We thank Oliver John for letting us use his criterion definitions of the Big Five constructs. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to either Rosy
Chang Weir or Per F. Gjerde, Department of Psychology, Social Sciences II, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064;
e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].
PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 9, September 2002 1229-1241
© 2002 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
1229
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
1230
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
national origin (e.g., Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Caspi
& Silva, 1995; Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996).
Conceptual Framework: Ego Resiliency and Ego Control
Several recent person-centered studies (Asendorpf &
van Aken, 1999; Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996)
have defined their typologies in terms of two personality
constructs: ego resiliency and ego control (Block &
Block, 1980). Ego resiliency refers to an individual’s ability to adapt flexibly to changing environmental circumstances. In contrast, ego control refers to an individual’s
threshold of impulse expression and ranges from
overcontrol (i.e., high threshold) to undercontrol of
impulse expression (i.e., low threshold). Overcontrol
refers to “excessive containment of impulses, delay of
gratification, inhibition of action and affect, and insulation from environmental distractors,” whereas undercontrol refers to “insufficient modulation of impulse,
inability to delay gratification, and immediate and direct
expression of motivation and affects, and vulnerability to
environmental distractors” (Block & Block, 1980, p. 43).
To compare our personality prototypes with those
obtained in previous studies, this study also initially
defined each personality prototype in terms of ego resiliency and ego control.
Personality Typologies: Discrete Categories Versus
“Fuzzy” Entities
Most person-centered studies have assigned individuals to nonoverlapping groups based on their highest factor loading (e.g., Robins et al., 1996), thereby assuming
that personality typologies are best considered as discrete, mutually exclusive, and nonoverlapping categories. In contrast, York and John (1992) argued that “category membership need not be ‘all or none’ but is a
matter of degree: individuals differ in their degree of fit
to the category personality prototype, with some being
more prototypical instances than others” (p. 495). This
procedure is consistent with Rosch’s view (1978) of natural categories as “fuzzy” entities and Meehl’s (1995) argument that latent taxons need not have clear-cut “surface”
indicators. This study adopted this latter procedure.
Because our typologies are therefore not mutually exclusive and the category boundaries not discrete, we use the
term “personality prototype” rather than “personality
type” (see York & John, 1992, for a detailed description
of this approach).
The Aims of the Current Study
With few exceptions (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999;
Caspi, Henry, McGee, Moffitt, & Silva, 1995; Hart et al.,
1997), current typologies are based on participants ranging in age from adolescence through middle age (e.g.,
Block, 1971; York & John, 1992). Typologies, however,
may not be independent of age. For example,
Magnusson’s (2000) holistic notion of individuals as
organized wholes implies the presence of “personality
crystallization,” whereby increasing age leads to clearer
resemblance within groups of persons and clearer distinctions among groups of persons across time. Thus, it
is uncertain whether typologies developed early in life
are as psychologically coherent as those based on older
individuals for whom greater differentiation in personality structure can be expected.
Overview of the Current Study
Coherence and replicability. This study consists of three
parts. The first part examined two issues: (a) Can psychologically coherent personality prototypes be discerned
as early as in preschool (i.e., coherence)? and (b) Do our
preschool personality prototypes converge with those
identified in other samples (i.e., replicability)? To
address these issues, we (a) derived preschool personality prototypes by means of inverse factor analysis, (b)
examined their replicability within the current sample,
(c) interpreted the psychological content of the personality prototypes, and (d) studied their similarity vis-à-vis
personality types obtained in three other studies that
also used inverse factor analysis to identify their
typologies and defined them in terms of ego resiliency
and ego control (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Hart
et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996).
Evaluating construct validity using laboratory procedures.
The second part focused on the construct validity of the
personality prototypes obtained in this study. If different
measures based on different kinds of data converge in
their implications, greater confidence can be invested in
the validity of a construct. Thus, we evaluated whether
the three personality prototypes—based on observer
observations provided by nursery school teachers—
showed theoretically meaningful relations to performance on standardized, objective laboratory procedures
specifically devised to index ego resiliency and ego
undercontrol.
Developmental implications a decade later. The third part
investigated the developmental outcomes of each personality prototype a decade later once the participants
had reached adolescence. Very few longitudinal studies
have examined the developmental implications of preschool personality prototypes. In their German sample,
Asendorpf and van Aken (1999) reported that although
the overcontrolled type scored high as preschoolers on
IQ, school performance, and self-esteem, they declined
on all three attributes over time. In their New Zealand
sample, Caspi and Silva (1995) found undercontrolled
preschoolers to be impulsive, aggressive, and lacking
good interpersonal relations as adolescents; inhibited
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Chang Weir, Gjerde / PRESCHOOL PERSONALITY PROTOTYPES
preschoolers to be low on aggression and impulsivity as
adolescents; and well-adjusted preschoolers to be resilient and self-confident as adolescents. In their study of
Icelandic children, Hart et al. (1997) reported that the
resilient type improved in academic performance, the
undercontrolled type showed increased aggressive problems, and the overcontrolled type tended to withdraw
from social interaction over time. The current study is
the first to examine the developmental implications of
preschool personality prototype membership in a North
American sample.
1231
METHOD
undercontrol, cognitive maturity, and socioemotional
functioning (see Block & Block, 1980, for an overview of
the measures administered and the CCQ). Each child
was seen 10 times for a period between 15 and 25 min at
the Harold Jones Child Study Center associated with the
University of California at Berkeley. The procedures,
conducted in rooms specially equipped for the testing of
preschool children, were introduced as games or fun
activities. The examiners were paid research assistants
and Ph.D. psychologists, all of whom had received careful training in administering the tasks. The experimental data reported in this study were collected when the
children were 3 years old.
Participants and Procedures
Measures
The participants who took part in the Block Longitudinal Project (Block & Block, 1980; Gjerde, 1995) were
recruited in preschool while attending either a parent
cooperative or a university-run nursery school. The participants in this particular study were selected from 116
children who were recruited at age 3 and an additional
group of 41 children who were added at age 4. Observer
ratings in the Q-sort format were available for 102 of
these 157 participants both in preschool and in young
adulthood. This core longitudinal sample was later
assessed at ages 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 23, and 32, with observer
ratings obtained at all ages with the exception of ages 5
and 32. At each age, the participants were seen at multiple occasions and completed a variety of tasks.1 Both as
preschoolers and adolescents, most participants lived in
urban settings. About two thirds of the participants are
European American, one quarter are African American,
and one twelfth are Asian American. Although this sample is heterogeneous with respect to social class and
parental education, it is skewed toward middle-class
socioeconomic status. For the core longitudinal sample
included in this study, the average Duncan (1961) socioeconomic status score for fathers was 642.88 (SD =
215.95) when the participants were 3 years old.
To ensure that the sample used in the present study
did not differ substantially from the age 3 sample of 116
children, we compared the participants in this study with
those excluded from the larger sample on ego resiliency,
ego undercontrol, and parental socioeconomic status.
Identical analyses were conducted for the age-4 sample
that contained 41 additional children. None of these
comparisons revealed significant differences.
Nursery school teachers described the participants’
personality using the California Child Q-sort (CCQ) at
ages 3 and 4 (Block & Block, 1980). Examiners used the
California Adult Q-sort (CAQ) to describe the participants’ personality at age 14 (Block, 1961/1978). The
participants also completed a variety of experimental
procedures assessing four themes: ego resiliency, ego
Measuring child personality: The CCQ. Three nursery
school teachers used the CCQ (Block & Block, 1980) to
evaluate each participant at age 3. Three different nursery school teachers evaluated the children at age 4. Each
teacher had known the child for at least 6 months. The
CCQ is widely used in developmental and personality
psychology (e.g., Gjerde, 1995; Hart et al., 1997; Robins
et al., 1996). The assessors were provided with 100 statements about the characteristics of children, each printed
on a separate card. The assessors described each child by
arranging the CCQ items into a forced distribution using
nine categories, ranging from highly uncharacteristic to
highly characteristic of the child being described. The
CCQ descriptions were aggregated for each child separately at each of the two ages. The two aggregates were
then aggregated and this final age-3/age-4 aggregate was
used in subsequent analyses. The alpha of the CCQ item,
based on correlations among nursery school teachers,
averaged .65 both at age 3 and age 4. The average CCQ
item reliability was .72.
The CCQ is an ipsative procedure; there is a “scale for
every individual and a population of an individual trait
score is distributed about that individual’s mean”
(Guilford, 1952, p. 30). A Q-item reflects the salience
relative to other Q-items with reference to a particular
person. Thus, the Q-sort can be said to provide personcentered rather than variable-centered information
(Block, 1971).
All assessors sorted the CCQ items into a forced distribution that stipulates the number of cards included in
each of the nine piles. The use of this identical scaling
method provides all participants with identical means
and standard deviations across the 100 items. Thus, in
inverse factor analysis, standardizing the columns in the
transposed matrix is unnecessary. This is important
because correlations among persons are influenced by
differences among variable means (e.g., Waller & Meehl,
1998). In sum, the forced distribution Q-sort method is
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
1232
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
uniquely suited for inverse factor analysis (Asendorpf &
van Aken, 1999).
Measuring Preschool Ego Resiliency Using Laboratory
Measures
Measuring preschool ego resiliency and ego undercontrol
using the CCQ. Three psychologists used the CCQ to
describe a prototypical ego resilient child (α = .91) and a
prototypical ego undercontrolled child (α = .90). Each
participant’s CCQ profile was then correlated separately
with each of the two personality prototype definitions. If
this correlation was high, the participant could be
described in terms of this construct; if this correlation
was low or negative, the participant was dissimilar from
this construct (see Onishi, Gjerde, & Block, 2001, for a
detailed description of this method). For the participants included in this study, the average ego resiliency
score was .45 (SD = .32) and the average ego undercontrol score was .08 (SD = .32). These scores—based on
the average correlation of the two prototype definitions
with each participant’s overall Q-sort profile across the
sample—are comparable to those reported by Robins
et al. (1996) and Hart et al. (1997): .40 and .36 for ego
resiliency and .06 and .09 for ego undercontrol,
respectively.
The motor inhibition task. This task (Maccoby, Dowley,
Hagen, & Degerman, 1965) measured the child’s ability
to change from a modal tempo to a slower tempo according to instructions. The child was first asked to draw a
line, walk, and wind a toy without instructions, followed
by instructions to perform these activities “very, very
slowly, just as slowly as you can.” The final inhibition
score is a composite regression-adjusted score that
reflects how long it took the child to complete the task
under the slow-speed instruction conditions, controlling
for the child’s speed under the regular (or noninstruction) conditions. Estimated time was approximately
12 min.
Measuring adolescent personality: The CAQ. The CAQ
shares the same psychometric principles as the CCQ, but
the 100 items are written to reflect characteristics of adolescents and adults. At age 14, five advanced graduate
students used the CAQ (Block, 1961/1978) to describe
the personality characteristics of each participant. Prior
to the assessment, the graduate students received thorough training in the Q-sort methodology and the content of each item was discussed. The assessors described
the participants after having observed them performing
in a variety of experimental procedures on four occasions, each lasting between 2 and 3 hr, in a laboratory setting. An interview also was conducted by one of the assessors. These five independent CAQ descriptions were
averaged for each participant and this aggregate was
used in subsequent analyses.
Developing adolescent personality constructs using the CAQ.
Knowledgeable psychologists used the CAQ to provide
definitions of the following personality constructs: ego
resiliency, ego undercontrol, shyness, and activity level.
Shyness and activity level were included because they
relate directly to ego undercontrol. Expert descriptions
also were obtained for the Big Five trait dimensions:
Agreeableness, Extroversion, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. No psychologist defined more than one construct. Scores for
each participant on each of these personality constructs
were developed using the method described above for
the CCQ-based measures of ego resiliency and
undercontrol. The alpha reliabilities exceeded .85 for all
constructs.
The egocentrism task. This task (Flavell, Botkin, Fry,
Wright, & Jarvis, 1968) assessed a child’s ability to predict
which objects other persons can or cannot see. The
examiner covered different parts of a double-sided picture board and asked the child what the examiner could
see. An egocentric response was defined as one in which
the child chose a picture that could be seen from his or
her side but not from the experimenter’s side. Estimated
time was approximately 5 min.
The Lowenfeld mosaics test. This task (Lowenfeld, 1954)
assessed the aesthetic quality of mosaic constructions.
The child was given a tray and 132 geometric shapes and
asked to “do something with the pieces on this tray.” The
mosaics were evaluated both for imaginativeness and
structure. In this study, we only used the imaginativeness
ratings thought to reflect ego resiliency. Four judges,
whose ratings were subsequently composited, scaled the
mosaic photographs for imaginativeness using a sevencategory Q-sort. Estimated time was approximately 12
min.
Measuring Preschool Ego Undercontrol Using Laboratory
Measures
The actometer task. This task (Schulman & Reisman,
1959) was designed to measure activity level. An
actometer is a self-winding watch activated by a child’s
movements. The participants wore the actometer on the
wrist of the nonfavored hand for 2 hr. Four actometer
measurements, each separated by 1 week, were conducted and then composited.
The delay-of-gratification task. In this task (Funder,
Block, & Block, 1983), the child received an enticingly
wrapped gift. He or she was then given a puzzle task and
told that she or he could have the gift later. The delay-ofgratification score is a composite based on (a) the number of verbal behaviors toward the gift, (b) the number
of physical behaviors toward the gift, (c) the time before
the child took the present, and (d) the swiftness of
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Chang Weir, Gjerde / PRESCHOOL PERSONALITY PROTOTYPES
opening the present. Estimated time was approximately
5 min.
Wechsler intelligence tests. The Wechsler Preliminary
and Preschool Scale of Intelligence Test (WPPSI) was
administered at age 4, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children (WISC) was administered at age 11, and the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-R (WAIS-R) was
administered at age 18 (Wechsler, 1981).
Drug usage. The videotaped age-14 interview included
questions about a wide variety of issues (e.g., family relations, peers, and schoolwork). The participants also
were asked about their usage of illegal drugs, including
both marijuana and “harder drugs,” such as heroin and
cocaine. Marijuana use was measured on a 6-point scale:
never used marijuana (0) to used more than once a week (6).
“Harder drugs” was measured on a 2-point scale: never
used (1) to used once or more (2). Two raters who showed
near exact agreement separately coded drug use. (Block,
Block, and Keyes [1988] provide a complete description
of the development of the drug measures and relevant
descriptive statistics.) We initially conducted separate
analyses of marijuana and harder drugs use. Because the
relations between the personality prototypes and the two
drug measures were virtually identical, we composited
the two drug measures (α = .91).
RESULTS
Because this study consists of three separate parts and
the anticipations for Part 2 and Part 3 depend on the
results obtained in Part 1, the Results section necessarily
will include some theoretical hypotheses.
Part 1: Coherence, Replicability, and Psychological Nature of
Preschool Personality Prototypes
Determining the Number of Replicable Preschool Personality Prototypes
Inverse (Q) factor analysis followed by varimax rotation was employed to identify the personality prototypes.
This procedure results in a factor loading for each participant and a (person) factor score for each CCQ item. A
prototypical individual loads highly on one factor only
(Gorsuch, 1983).
Factor loadings were used to measure individual differences; a loading “indexes the degree to which the
individual’s particular personality configuration resembles that captured by the factor and thus provides a
normed index of membership in each personality prototype category for each individual” (York & John, 1992,
p. 495). In contrast, factor scores were used to interpret
each personality prototype. Vectors of 100 factor scores
(one for each CCQ item) can be correlated and the
TABLE 1:
1233
Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Loadings on the Three Preschool Personality Prototypes When
Assigned to Nonoverlapping Groups
Participants’ Group Assignment
Personality Prototypes
1st
2nd
3rd
1
.78 (.11)
.13 (.25)
.01 (.31)
2
3
.11 (.19)
.72 (.09)
–.04 (.23)
.05 (.18)
–.01 (.18)
.66 (.09)
NOTE: Standard deviations are included in parentheses.
resulting correlation denotes the degree of factor
similarity.
The number of personality prototypes was determined by factor replicability analysis (see Everett, 1983).
The sample was randomly divided into two nonoverlapping subsamples and each random half was subjected
to inverse factor analysis. The 100 factor scores independently identified in each half were then correlated,
the assumption being that only factors identified in each
half were replicable. The traditional criterion for acceptable factor replicability is a congruence correlation of
.80 or greater (e.g., Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999). Three
of our personality prototypes (or person factors) met or
exceeded this criterion and were retained for further
analyses.
Fifty-six individuals (55%) received their highest
loading on the first personality prototype, 35 (34%) on
the second, and 11 (10%) on the third. The three factors
explained 65% (Factor 1 = 41%, Factor 2 = 17%, and Factor 3 = 7%) of the total variance in the CCQ evaluations.
This factor solution is comparable to the one reported
for German children by Asendorpf and van Aken
(1999). Consistent with our results, these authors also
reported that the factors did not differ for the sexes.2
To ensure that the participants were sufficiently pure
representatives of only one personality prototype, they
had to load at least .40 on one personality prototype and
their second highest loading had to be at least .20 lower
than their highest loading. Participants with loadings of
.40 or higher on more than one prototype were
excluded. These criteria successfully classified 83 (39
boys and 44 girls) of the 102 participants, or 84%. Subsequent analyses are based on these 83 participants.
To ensure that the three personality prototypes were
sufficiently different, the participants were assigned to
nonoverlapping groups based on their highest loading
(see York & John, 1992). The means and standard deviations of the loadings for each factor were then calculated. As Table 1 shows, the mean factor loadings were
substantially higher and the mean standard deviations
were substantially lower when the participants were
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
1234
TABLE 2:
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
California Child Q-sort (CCQ) Items Most and Least Characteristic of the Three Preschool Personality Prototypes
Personality Prototype 1
(Overcontrolled Resilients)
Score
CCQ Item Text
(item number)
Personality Prototype 2
(Resilient Undercontrollers)
Score
CCQ Item Text
(item number)
Personality Prototype 3
(Brittles)
Score
CCQ Item Text
(item number)
Most characteristic items
1.67 Responds to reason (25)
1.66 Is dependable (76)
2.01 Is self-assertive (82)
1.93 Vital, energetic (28)
1.64 Attentive, able to
concentrate (66)
1.51 Is helpful (6)
1.47 Gets along well with others (4)
1.39 Arouses liking in adults (30)
1.36 High intellectual capacity (68)
1.32 Is reflective (99)
1.82 Is stubborn (90)
1.30 Proud of his
accomplishments (16)
1.23 Is competent, skillful (89)
1.76
1.58
1.55
1.53
1.42
Physically attractive (26)
Is aggressive (85)
Emotionally expressive (58)
Rapid personal tempo (63)
Expresses negative feelings
directly (18)
1.28 Behaves in a dominating
manner (93)
1.27 Tries to stretch limits (13)
2.35 Shy and reserved (98)
2.13 Immature behavior
under stress (12)
1.79 Prefers nonverbal
communication (1)
1.58 Proud of accomplishments (16)
1.54 Looks to adults for help (71)
1.53 Easily offended (78)
1.50 Withdraws under stress (45)
1.49 Fearful and anxious (91)
1.42 Keeps thoughts, feelings to
self (8)
1.35 Is stubborn (90)
Least characteristic items
–1.71 Generally stretches
limits (13)
–1.70 Tries to take advantage
of others (20)
–1.59 Emotionally labile (54)
–2.19 Tends to give in (44)
–1.56 Overreacts to minor
frustrations (95)
–1.53 Feels unworthy (77)
–1.70 Shy and reserved (98)
–1.87 Inhibited, constricted (35)
–1.72 Obedient, compliant (62)
–1.53 Sulky and whiney (94)
–1.52 Is aggressive (85)
–1.43 Dramatizes mishaps (57)
–1.68 Victimized by other
children (100)
–1.63 Indecisive, vacillating (53)
–1.63 Readiness to feel guilty (72)
–1.58 Physically cautious (52)
–1.41 Jealous, envious (56)
–1.41 Cries easily (33)
–1.50 Likes to be alone (86)
–1.50 Is reflective (99)
–2.07 Shows concern for moral
issues (15)
–2.05 Verbally fluent (69)
–1.86 Tries to be center of
attention (21)
–1.62 Calm and relaxed (64)
–1.59 Is a talkative child (84)
–1.58 Empathic (31)
–1.54 Protective of others (29)
–1.48 Tries to take advantage
of others (20)
–1.48 Is self-reliant (88)
–1.47 Manipulate by ingratiation (22)
NOTE: Item descriptions are abbreviated. Item number is in parentheses. The most dominant component of person factors involving both ego resiliency and ego undercontrol is in bold.
assigned to the prototype on which they had received
their highest loading.
Interpreting the Psychological Nature of the Three Personality Prototypes
The correlations of the personality prototypes with
ego resiliency were .79, .33, and –.33; their correlations
with ego undercontrol were –.29, .89, and –.11. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed a significant interaction between the three personality prototypes and the two personality constructs (F = 38.03, p <
.001), indicating that the three factors were defined by
distinctly different configurations of ego resiliency and
ego undercontrol. The three personality prototypes
were labeled overcontrolled resilients, resilient undercontrollers, and brittles, respectively.
To further evaluate the potential effects of attrition,
personality prototypes were developed using all 157 children in the age-4 sample, not only the 102 participating
in the current study. Also in this larger sample, three
replicable prototypes were discerned. The correlations
between these prototypes, based on the partly overlapping samples, were also very high, ranging from .99 to
.96. The correlations with the ego resiliency and ego
undercontrol measures were also virtually identical for
the two sets of prototypes.
The 10 most and least characteristic CCQ items are
displayed in Table 2 separately for each personality prototype. The first personality prototype, overcontrolled
resilient, was characterized by CCQ items such as
dependable, attentive, helpful, reasonable, and personable, and not by items indicative of aggression, unworthiness, or stress reactivity. This personality configuration
portrays a socially well-adjusted preschooler likely to
adapt well to a broad range of situations. Block and
Block (1980) noted, “For the overcontrolling child, the
presence of ego resiliency results in a high degree of
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Chang Weir, Gjerde / PRESCHOOL PERSONALITY PROTOTYPES
socialization that fits and feels well, a relative absence of
anxiety and intimidation in reacting to and acting on the
world” (p. 88).
The second personality prototype, resilient undercontrol, was characterized by CCQ items such as energetic, assertive, aggressive, expressive, sociable, and able
to stand up for themselves. This personality prototype
portrays a lively, assertive, and socially outgoing preschooler who is unlikely to withhold his or her thoughts
and emotions from others. Consistent with the finding
reported by Hart et al. (1997), our undercontrolled factor did not include the elements of interpersonal exploitation reported by Robins et al. (1996) for their
undercontrolled type. Robins et al. (1998) subsequently
distinguished between two subtypes: the antisocial and
the impulsive undercontroller. The resilient
undercontroller, largely free of antisocial and interpersonally antagonistic tendencies, appears similar to the
impulsive type. The relatively high level of resiliency may
explain this absence of undercontrol-related problems.
Finally, the third personality prototype, brittles, was
characterized by CCQ items such as shyness, hypersensitivity, and anxiety, and not by items indicative of a calm,
empathic, and self-reliant mode of relating to others.
Replicability of the Personality Prototypes Across Studies
Next, we compared our three preschool personality
prototypes with the typologies identified by Asendorpf
and van Aken (1999), Hart et al. (1997), and Robins
et al. (1996).3 To obtain a reliable estimate and to reduce
the influence of sample fluctuations, we averaged, separately for each type, the person factor scores obtained in
these three other studies and then correlated the resulting three mean person factor scores with our three personality prototype scores. The resulting convergence
correlations were .81 for the first, .71 for the second, and
.53 for the third personality prototype. The declining
size of the convergence correlations is consistent with
previous studies; the highest correlation has always been
obtained for the first factor and the lowest correlation
has always been obtained for the third factor. This
decline in size may result from the lower reliability and
poorer definition that can be expected to characterize
later extracted factors (e.g., Hart et al., 1997). In sum,
good convergence was found with other studies,
although our first factor was slightly more overcontrolled, our second factor slightly more resilient, and
our third factor slightly less overcontrolled than the factors reported by Asendorpf and van Aken (1999), Hart
et al. (1997), and Robins et al. (1996).
SUMMARY
Consistent with previous studies that used inverse factor analysis to derive personality typologies, this study
1235
also identified three preschool personality prototypes.
Strong to moderate replicability was obtained. This
study provides further evidence for the existence of
three reasonably similar personality (proto)types, the
nature of which transcends age and national origin.4
The types identified by Robins et al. (1996) in 13-yearsolds may be present in some form already in preschool.
Part 2: The Construct Validity of the Preschool Personality
Prototypes: Testing Directional Hypotheses Using Laboratory
Test Data
The three personality prototypes were characterized
by various configurations of ego resiliency and ego
undercontrol. This configurality may reduce the correlations between the prototypes and procedures developed
to represent relatively pure indices of each ego construct. For example, although children typifying the
resilient undercontrolled personality prototype should,
theoretically, show low impulse control on ego
undercontrol tasks, the degree of undercontrolled
behavior might be tempered by their level of ego resiliency. Nonetheless, each personality prototype is largely
defined by one ego construct and predictions were
therefore made on the basis of this dominant ego component. Given that ego resiliency and IQ overlap conceptually (Block & Kremen, 1996), predictions also were
advanced for IQ. Thus, children typifying the
overcontrolled resilient personality prototype were
expected to perform well on ego resiliency and IQ measures but show no (or only moderate) relations to ego
undercontrol procedures, children typifying the resilient undercontrolled personality prototype were
expected to score high on ego undercontrol procedures
and show no (or only moderate) relations to ego resiliency or IQ measures, and children typifying the brittle
personality prototype were expected to perform poorly
on ego resiliency and IQ measures. Table 3 presents the
correlations between the participants’ loadings on the
three personality prototypes and the measures of ego
resiliency, ego undercontrol, and IQ.
THE OVERCONTROLLED RESILIENT
PERSONALITY PROTOTYPE
As anticipated, this personality prototype correlated
positively (p < .05, or beyond, two-tailed) with the motor
inhibition, Lowenfeld mosaics, and IQ procedures.
Although the correlation with egocentrism was in the
anticipated direction, it was not significant. The negative
correlation with the inability to delay gratification task
was not expected, but the direction of this correlation
was consistent with the overcontrolling aspect of this
prototype.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
1236
TABLE 3:
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Correlations of the Personality Prototypes With Experimental Procedures Measuring Ego Resiliency and Ego Undercontrol
Preschool Personality Prototype
Overcontrolled Resilient
ad1
Resilient Undercontrolled
ad1
Brittle
ad1
–.14
–.27*
ns
ns
.47***
.12
+
+
–.39**
.03
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
–.19
–.24*
–.32*
–.26*
–
–
–
–
Ego undercontrol tasks
Actometer
Inability to delay gratification
Ego resiliency tasks
Motor inhibition
Egocentrism
Lowenfeld mosaics test
WPPSI full scale IQ
.36**
.18
.35*
.43***
+
+
+
+
–.20
.08
–.04
–.08
NOTE: ad1 = anticipated direction of correlation, + = positive and significant, – = negative and significant, ns = low and nonsignificant. The most
dominant component of prototypes involving both ego resiliency and ego undercontrol is in bold.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
THE RESILIENT UNDERCONTROLLED
PERSONALITY PROTOTYPE
As anticipated, this personality prototype correlated
positively (p < .05, or beyond, two-tailed) with the
actometer task but the correlation with inability to delay
gratification, although positive, was not significant. As
expected, this prototype was unrelated to measures of
ego resiliency and intelligence.
THE BRITTLE PERSONALITY PROTOTYPE
As anticipated, this personality prototype correlated
negatively (p < .05, or beyond, two-tailed) with the
egocentrism, Lowenfeld mosaics, and IQ procedures.
Against predictions, it correlated negatively with the
actometer task.
SUMMARY
Relations between the three personality prototypes—
based on observer data—and the laboratory procedures
indexing resiliency, undercontrol, and IQ showed substantial but not perfect convergence. A directional prediction (r = – or +) was developed for 10 of the 18 possible
relations. Of these 10 relations, 7 were statistically significant (p < .05, or beyond) and in the predicted direction.
For 8 of the 18 relations, a nonsignificant correlation was
expected. Of these 8 relations, only 2 achieved statistical
significance: The overcontrolled resilient prototype correlated negatively with the inability to delay gratification
task and the brittle prototype correlated negatively with
the actometer task.
Part 3: Developmental Implications of Preschool
Personality Prototypes for Adjustment in Adolescence
The participants typifying the overcontrolled resilient personality prototype were anticipated to remain
intelligent and overcontrolling in adolescence. They
also were expected to be less resilient in adolescence
than in preschool, mainly because the overcontrolling
component of this personality prototype was hypothe-
sized to reduce their ability to cope with adolescent challenges (Block & Gjerde, 1986). Undercontrol of impulse
has been found to remain relatively longitudinally consistent (Block & Gjerde, 1986; Caspi et al., 1995). The
participants typifying the resilient undercontrolled prototype were therefore expected to remain undercontrolled in adolescence. Finally, participants typifying
the brittle personality prototype were expected to
remain maladjusted and relatively unintelligent; their
lack of resiliency was anticipated to minimize their ability to cope with the challenges that characterize adolescence. To determine the relations between preschool
personality prototypes and adolescent adjustment, correlations were computed between the personality prototype loadings and (a) the 100 age-14 CAQ items, (b) the
personality constructs, (c) the age-11 and age-18 IQ, and
(d) the age-14 drug use measure. The number of sex differences in the correlation patterns did not exceed the
number to be expected by chance. We therefore only
report results for the total sample.
The overcontrolled resilient prototype was significantly associated (p < .05 or beyond) with 33 CAQ items,
the resilient undercontrolled prototype with 34 CAQ
items, and the brittle prototype with 6 CAQ items.5 The
significant items were grouped using principal component analysis. The resulting components were not introduced as replicable factors but only to aid the reader in
assimilating the findings; the aim is data reduction not
“dimensional discovery” (Lykken, 1971). In principal
component analysis, the components are merely linear
combinations of the observed variance; thus, underlying
hypothetical factors should not be postulated. We therefore refer to the CAQ item correlates of each prototype
grouped by means of principal component analysis as
“themes,” not as “factors.” The CAQ-based personality
themes rendered a psychologically coherent portrait of
the first two personality prototypes. Table 4 presents the
relations between the three personality prototypes and
the personality constructs, IQ, and drug use.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Chang Weir, Gjerde / PRESCHOOL PERSONALITY PROTOTYPES
TABLE 4:
1237
Prospective Adolescent Correlates of the Three Preschool Personality Prototypes
Preschool Personality Prototype
Construct
Overcontrolled Resilient
CAQ personality constructs
Ego resiliency
Ego undercontrol
Activity level
Shyness
Big Five prototypes
Agreeableness
Extraversion
Emotional stability
Conscientiousness
Openness to experience
Intelligence
Age-11 WISC total IQ
Age-18 WAIS-R total IQ
Drug use
Composite drug use score
Resilient Undercontrolled
Brittle
–.14
–.50***
–.41***
.39***
.19
.49***
.35**
–.37***
–.08
–.01
–.08
.05
–.06
–.44***
.11
.31**
.01
–.00
.46***
–.16
–.26*
.12
.05
–.10
.09
–.09
–.08
.32**
.37***
.15
.01
–.21†
.28*
–.36***
–.28**
.01
NOTE: The most dominant component of personality prototypes involving both ego resiliency and ego undercontrol is in bold. CAQ = California
Adult Q-sort, WISC = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, WAIS-R = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-R.
†p < .06. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
LONGITUDINAL PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF THE
OVERCONTROLLED RESILIENT PROTOTYPE
Three CAQ themes, reclusiveness (16 items, α = .95),
introspective acquiescence (7 items, α = .92), and
dependable resourcefulness (10 items, α = .85), summarized the CAQ correlates of the overcontrolled resilient
prototype. Reclusiveness was positively defined by such
observer assessments as “is emotionally bland,” “communicates through action,” and “tends to ruminate” and
negatively defined by such CAQ items as “is a talkative
individual,” “initiates humor,” and “is facially, gesturally
expressive.” Introspective acquiescence was positively
defined by such observer assessments as “overcontrols
needs, impulses,” “introspective, concerned with self as
an object,” and “has readiness to feel guilt” and negatively defined by such CAQ items as “is assertive” and
“tends to proffer advice.” Dependable resourcefulness
was positively defined by such observer assessments as
“has high degree of intellectual capacity,” “favors conservative values,” and “is calm, relaxed in manner” and negatively defined by such items as “unable to delay gratification,” “tries to stretch limits,” and “is self-indulgent.”
The more the participants fit the overcontrolled resilient personality prototype as preschoolers, the more
likely they were, as adolescents, to be shy and conscientious and less likely they were to be undercontrolling,
active, and extraverted. The correlations with age-11 and
age-18 IQ were positive, whereas the correlation with
drug use was negative and marginally significant.
Summary of the overcontrolled resilient personality prototype.
The adolescent attributes associated with this prototype
portrayed a relatively well-adapted yet emotionally bland
and socially reclusive youth characterized by little overt
psychological conflict. These adolescents were solitary,
conscientious, and cautious; they were not vivacious or
socially at ease. They were nonetheless resourceful, intelligent, and receptive to their own feelings. There was
some evidence that their bland social stimulus value concealed access to a differentiated inner life.
Why the absence of ego resiliency in the adolescents
who typified this preschool personality prototype?
Overcontrolled resilience may have served the participants well in the relatively predictable niches of early
childhood. Yet, the overcontrolling component may
have reduced their ability to cope resourcefully with the
challenges and emotional turbulence during the transition from childhood into adolescence. Second, due to
their behavioral inhibition in preschool, the individuals
typifying this prototype may have gradually withdrawn
from social participation. Their reclusiveness may have
limited their opportunity to learn new coping skills relevant to the adolescent adaptation, leading to a decline in
their level of resiliency. This pattern exemplifies proactive interaction, whereby individuals select or create
their own environments (Caspi & Bem, 1990). Third, the
nursery school teachers also may have overestimated the
level of resiliency of these children because of their
dependability, helpfulness, and compliance. This pattern may be less advantageous later in life (see also
Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Gjerde, 1995). Although
we are not able to decide among these explanations,
undercontrol showed, as anticipated, greater longitudinal consistency than resiliency.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
1238
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
LONGITUDINAL PERSONALITY CORRELATES
OF THE RESILIENT UNDERCONTROLLED
PERSONALITY PROTOTYPE
The CAQ correlates of the resilient undercontrolled
personality prototype were summarized by three CAQ
themes: sociability (15 items, α = .95), assertive independence (10 items, α = .92), and inability to delay gratification (9 items, α = .91). Sociability was positively
defined by such observer assessments as “skilled in social
techniques,” “initiates humor,” and “is self-dramatizing,
histrionic” and negatively defined by such CAQ items as
“does not vary roles,” “is emotionally bland,” and
“uncomfortable with uncertainty.” Assertive independence was positively defined by such observer assessments
as “is assertive,” “tends to proffer advice,” and “values
independence, autonomy” and negatively defined by
such CAQ items as “submissive, accepts domination,”
“has a readiness to feel guilt,” and “vulnerable to threat.”
Inability to delay gratification was positively defined by
such observer assessments as “unable to delay gratification,” “tries to stretch limits,” and “tends to be rebellious,
nonconforming” and negatively defined by such CAQ
items as “overcontrols needs, impulses,” “favors conservative values,” and “dependable, responsible person.”
The more the participants fit the resilient
undercontrolled personality prototype as preschoolers,
the more likely they were, as adolescents, to be
undercontrolled, active, and extraverted and less likely
they were to be shy and conscientious. The correlations
with age-11 and age-18 IQ were insignificant, whereas
the correlation with drug use was moderately positive.
Summary of the resilient undercontrolled personality prototype. The adolescent attributes associated with this prototype indicated continuation of low impulse control. As
adolescents, individuals typifying this personality prototype were sociable, assertive, extraverted, and somewhat
lacking in conscientiousness. This pattern resembles the
lack of control type (Caspi et al., 1995). Ego
undercontrol also may have temperamental underpinnings (e.g., Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994).
Although undercontrol is sometimes associated with
vulnerability (e.g., Block’s, 1971, description of unsettled and vulnerable undercontrollers), the resilient
undercontrolled prototype emphasized the positive
aspects of this attribute, including energy and social
skills. Preschool children typifying this factor did not
turn into antisocial adolescents but rather into youth
who functioned well interpersonally; they did not show
the behavior problems that characterized Robins et al.’s
(1996) undercontrolled type. Although the correlation
with drug use was positive, it was low. This difference may
result from the large representation of high-risk boys in
the sample used by Robins et al. (1996). High self-esteem
and relative absence of antisocial tendencies also characterized Hart et al.’s (1997) undercontrolled children. In
adolescence, as in preschool, the individuals typifying
this personality prototype illustrated the impulsive
rather than the antisocial component of undercontrol
(see Robins et al., 1998, for a further description of this
distinction). In sum, the individuals typifying this prototype may have adjusted to the world in a manner not pulling them toward change.
LONGITUDINAL PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF
PRESCHOOL BRITTLE PERSONALITY PROTOTYPE
The very few significant age-14 CAQ correlates associated with this prototype may be due to chance and were
not interpreted. The correlations with IQ remained
negative.
Summary of the brittle personality prototype. This prototype predicted few developmental outcomes with the
exception of relatively low intelligence. Hart et al.
(1997) also reported relatively weak results for their
third type. As noted above, factors extracted late may be
conceptually less well defined and less reliable than factors extracted early. In addition, relatively few individuals received high loadings on this personality prototype
and the rank order of the many low loadings may not be
reliable. Correlations involving this factor might, therefore, for psychometric reasons, not be strong. Internalizing problems—akin to those characterizing brittle and
overcontrolled individuals—are also likely to fluctuate
over time (Ollendick & King, 1994). Both psychometric
and theoretical issues may therefore have contributed to
the weak developmental outcomes for this prototype.
DISCUSSION
This study examined four issues: (a) Could psychologically coherent personality prototypes be discerned as
early as in preschool (i.e., the issue of coherence)? (b)
Did our preschool personality prototypes converge with
personality prototypes identified in samples of slightly
older participants (i.e., the issue of replicability)? (c)
Did individuals typifying each personality prototype
show theoretically meaningful relations to performance
on experimental tasks (i.e., the issue of construct validity)? and (d) Did individuals typifying each personality
prototype show different developmental outcomes (i.e.,
the issue of developmental implications)?
Three psychologically coherent personality prototypes were identified. Strong to moderate convergence
with typologies from other studies was observed.
Children typifying each personality prototype showed
theoretically meaningful, although less than perfect,
relations to experimental procedures of ego resiliency,
ego undercontrol, and IQ. Preschool children typifying
the overcontrolled resilient factor were, as adolescents,
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Chang Weir, Gjerde / PRESCHOOL PERSONALITY PROTOTYPES
shy and inactive, but also dependable, conscientious,
and intelligent. In contrast, preschool children typifying
the resilient undercontrolled personality prototype
were, as adolescents, active, sociable, nonconforming,
and extraverted. As expected, impulse control showed
greater longitudinal consistency than resiliency. This
study adds to a growing literature indicating that
typologies developed as early as preschool anticipate
adolescent adjustment (e.g., Asendorpf & van Aken,
1999; Caspi & Silva, 1995).
We recognize that the size of the correlations between
the preschool personality prototypes and the personality
outcomes at age 14 were moderate. Caspi and his colleagues in their typological study of 3-year-old children
also reported relatively small effect sizes over time
(Caspi, 2000). However, in evaluating these longitudinal
results, two points should be recognized. First, personality outcomes in adolescence are likely to be influenced
by factors other than the constellation of personality
attributes in preschool. Ahadi and Diener (1989)
showed why effect sizes, by mathematical necessity, often
have to be small when the outcome variable is
multidetermined. Second, “because the effects of personality differences accumulate over a lifetime, a focus
on a single point in time will result in an underestimate
of the extent of continuity in behavioral development”
(Caspi, 2000, p. 168).
Is There a Replicable Typology of Persons?
Although this study identified personality prototypes
comparable to those found in other studies, personality
prototypes must not be prematurely reified as sampleindependent personality descriptors or as authentic substantive entities. The Q-factor approach is sensitive to
the sampling of persons and the results may therefore
describe samples as much as individuals. Even though
similar verbal labels are used in different studies, the
exact nature of corresponding types nonetheless varied.
For example, although the undercontrol label has been
used in several studies to identify a specific type (e.g.,
Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996), its most defining
personality attributes still differed across studies despite
moderately high convergence correlations. This lack of
complete content overlap occurred even for the first and
most replicable factor. Although our first factor correlated .75 with Robins et al.’s (1996) first factor, only 5
CCQ items were included among the 10 most and 10
least characteristic items that defined this factor in both
studies. Even high factor convergence correlations may
conceal tangible differences.
The strongest evidence for the existence of these
three personality prototypes comes from studies that
have used the California Child Q-sort. The CCQ was
developed to provide extensive coverage of ego resil-
1239
iency and ego control. It is therefore encouraging that
three personality prototypes were closely recaptured by
Harrington, Chin, Rickey, and Mohr (1999), who used
Gough and Heilbrun’s Adjective Check List (Gough &
Heilbrun, 1965). Thus, the three personality prototypes
(resiliency, undercontrol, and overcontrol) do not seem
uniquely dependent on the CCQ (see also Asendorpf &
van Aken, 1999, p. 830). Nonetheless, the argument that
these three types constitute the basis for any typology of
persons may prematurely foreclose search for different
typologies.
Similar to most other person-centered studies (e.g.,
Asendorpf & van Aken, 1999; Hart et al., 1997; York &
John, 1992), this study examined typologies identified in
a single point in time: at the beginning of the study. This
approach is useful when the goal, as in this research, is to
predict outcomes based on early existing attributes. A
typology developed at a single point in time—either at
the beginning or at the end of the study—has limitations. First, the nature of the typology itself may depend
too strongly on the time period during which it was
developed—early childhood typologies may not be identical to adult typologies. Second, the “single-point”
approach does not build life trajectories into the very
definition of the typologies themselves. Gjerde, Chang,
and Kremen (1998) developed typologies simultaneously identified at three separate ages, each a decade
apart. These developmental typologies, simultaneously
based on data from different developmental periods,
provide more differentiated portrayals of life trajectories
and illustrate how the person-centered approach may
bridge personality and developmental research.
Methodological Caveats
Consistent with the majority of person-centered studies, inverse factor analysis was employed to generate the
personality prototypes. In contrast to R factor analysis,
inverse factor analysis requires more variables than participants (Bailey, 1994). This assumption is seldom satisfied. Given the high number of participants relative to
variables in most person-centered studies, the high
replicability of the three personality prototypes across
studies is promising. These findings notwithstanding,
students of person typologies might benefit from multiple classification methods to avoid placing “all research
eggs . . . in the same methodological basket” (Nunnally,
1978, p. 625). Other methods have shown promise (e.g.,
Fraley & Waller, 1998).
This study identified personality prototypes at a single
time period. It can therefore not estimate the continuity
of the personality prototypes or the stability of group
membership across time. Type membership may change
over time (e.g., Gjerde et al., 1998). The emergence of
personality types is also a crucial issue for future
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
1240
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
research. The identification of the conditions under
which group membership changes (or remains stable)
may help us understand the developmental unfolding of
different types (e.g., Hart et al., 1997).
Coda
focus on individuals in their life context—with the
approach taken in this study. Greater reliance on narrative methodologies appears to be a particularly promising avenue to pursue to achieve this aim.
NOTES
Developmental and personality research would seem
to benefit from a greater focus on (a) the person as a
basic analytical unit and (b) the diverse developmental
pathways characterizing different homogeneous groups
of individuals. However, the person-centered concept
carries different meanings to different researchers. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Asendorpf & van
Aken, 1999; Hart et al., 1997; Robins et al., 1996; York &
John, 1992), this study used inverse factor analysis to
identify coherent and replicable personality prototypes.
But once these prototypes were identified, they were—as
in similar studies—used in a variable-centered way in
that person loadings were correlated with other variables. Hart et al. (1997) noted that once personality
types have been identified, intellectual inquiry necessarily must return to a variable-centered approach. For
example, is “the undercontrolled child’s aggressiveness
primarily the consequence of a need to defend
extremely high self-esteem?” (p. 204). This study may
therefore be viewed as combining both person-centered
and variable-centered analytical strategies.
In general, the relationship between variable-centered
(or nomothetic) laws, which holds for groups, and ideographic laws, which holds for specific individuals, may be
both more complex and less contradictory than generally believed. Meehl suggested in 1954 that “behavioral
laws are (a) nomothetic in their form for a given group,
(b) ideographic in their parameters, and (c) strongly
ideographic in their end terms, which refers to response
properties of the organism” (Wiggins, 1973, pp. 148149). Allport (1937), as well, did not argue that general
laws precluded uniqueness. Wiggins (1973, Chap. 4)
provides an excellent discussion of these issues.
Some psychologists may not consider this study as
truly person centered. We grouped participants into
three homogenous personality prototypes. Future studies, however, might do well to include case examples of
each personality prototype. Two individuals who both
received high loadings on the same personality prototype may still have different life stories to tell, construct
their lives differently, or hold different personal goals.
Future research might benefit from integrating personality typologies with personal concerns and narrations of
the self (i.e., Level II and Level III of personality, as
described by McAdams, 1995). Furthermore, identification of personality prototypes in combination with
in-depth case studies representative of each prototype
might bridge the personological tradition—with its
1. An overview of the measures used at the different ages can be
obtained from the second author.
2. The factor replicability analyses were repeated separately for
boys and for girls. These analyses indicated three replicable factors for
each sex (M r = .84). The correlations between the three gender prototypes were .91, .87, and .49, respectively. Despite the moderately low
correlations for the third prototype, significantly different correlates
were not obtained for the sexes. It was therefore decided to use the
same personality prototypes for both genders.
3. The young children studied by Caspi and Silva (1995) and Caspi,
Henry, McGee, Moffitt, and Silva (1995) were grouped by means of
cluster analysis, thus preventing direct comparisons with our personality prototypes.
4. Asendorpf and van Aken’s (1999) German participants ranged in
age from 4 to 6; Hart et al.’s Icelandic participants were 7 years old, and
the North American participants examined by Robins, John, Caspi,
Moffitt, and Stouthamer-Loeber (1996) were approximately 13 years
old. These time periods refer to the age when the personality prototypes were generated.
5. The full list of age-14 CAQ correlates is available from the
authors.
REFERENCES
Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. (1989). Multiple determinants and effect size.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 398-406.
Allport, G. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled,
and undercontrolled personality prototypes in childhood:
Replicability, predictive power, and the trait-type issue. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 815-832.
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (Original work published 1961)
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Block, J. H., Block, J., & Keyes, S. (1988). Longitudinally foretelling
drug usage in adolescence: Early childhood personality and environmental precursors. Child Development, 59, 336-355.
Block, J., & Gjerde, P. F. (1986, August). Ego resilience from early
childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. In N.
Garmezy (Chair), Roots and correlates of resilience under adversity.
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego resiliency: Conceptual
and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 349-361.
Cairns, R. B., Kagan, J., & Bergman, L. (Eds.). (1998). Methods and
models for studying the individual. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carlson, R. (1971). Where’s the person in personality research? Psychology Bulletin, 75, 203-219.
Caspi, A. (2000). The child is the father or man: Personality continuities from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 158-172.
Caspi, A., & Bem, D. J. (1990). Personality continuity and change
across the life course, In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (pp. 549-575). New York: Guilford.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
Chang Weir, Gjerde / PRESCHOOL PERSONALITY PROTOTYPES
Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. O., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1995).
Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: From age three to age fifteen. Child Development, 66, 55-68.
Caspi, A., & Silva, P. A. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age 3 predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence
from a birth cohort. Child Development, 66, 486-498.
Duncan, O. D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In
A. J. Reis, Jr. (Ed.), Occupations and social status (pp. 109-138). New
York: Free Press.
Everett, J. E. (1983). Factor congruence as a criterion for determining the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18,
197-218.
Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L., Wright, J. W., & Jarvis, P. E.
(1968). The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York: John Wiley.
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test
of the typological model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77-114). New York:
Guilford.
Funder, D., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1983). Delay of gratification:
Some longitudinal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1198-1213.
Gjerde, P. F. (1995). Alternative pathways to chronic depressive symptoms in young adults: Gender differences in developmental trajectories. Child Development, 66, 1277-1300.
Gjerde, P. F., Chang, R., & Kremen, A. M. (1998, February). Gender
differences in life paths through adolescence: A study of developmental personality prototypes. In P. F. Gjerde (Chair), The person
as a focus of research on adolescence: Developmental pathways of types
within and across cultures. Symposium conducted at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego,
CA.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983) Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1952. When to factor analyze. Psychological Bulletin, 49,
26-37.
Harrington, D. M., Chin, T., Rickey, A., & Mohr, J. (1999, April). Relationships between adolescent attachment styles and three increasingly
replicable personality types. Presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research on Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
Hart, D., Hofmann, V., Edelstein, W., & Keller, M. (1997). The relation of childhood personality types to adolescent behavior and
development: A longitudinal study of Icelandic children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 195-205.
Hauser, S. T. (1999). Understanding resilient outcomes: Adolescent
lives across time and generations. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
9, 1-24.
Lewin, K. (1931). Environmental forces in child behavior and development. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (pp.
590-625, 2nd ed.). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Lowenfeld, M. (1954). The Lowenfeld mosaic test. London: Newman
Neame.
Lykken, D. T. (1971). Multiple factor analysis and personality
research. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5, 161-170.
Maccoby, E. E., Dowley, E. M., Hagen, J. W., & Degerman, R. (1965).
Activity level and intellectual functioning in normal preschool
children. Child Development, 36, 761-770.
1241
Magnusson, D. (2000). The individual as the organizing principle in
psychological inquiry: A holistic approach. In L. R. Bergman, R.
Cairns, L. Nilson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.), Developmental science and the
holistic approach (pp. 33-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person?
Journal of Personality, 63, 365-396.
McAdams, D. P. (1999). Personal narratives and the life story. In L. A.
Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (2nd ed., pp. 478-500). New York: Guilford.
Meehl, P. E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification
problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266-275.
Mishler, E. (1996). Missing persons: Recovering developmental stories/histories. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry
(pp. 73-99). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in psychology. New York. Oxford University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ollendick, T. H., & King, N. J. (1994). Diagnosis, assessment, and
treatment of internalizing problems in children: The role of longitudinal data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,
918-927.
Onishi, M., Gjerde, P. F., & Block, J. (2001). Personality implications
of romantic attachment patterns in young adults: A multi-method,
multi-informant study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
1097-1110.
Robins, R. W., John, O. P., & Caspi, A. (1998). The typological
approach to studying personality. In R. B. Cairns, J. Kagan, & L.
Bergman (Eds.), Methods and models for studying the individual
(pp. 135-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
R o b i n s , R . W. , J o h n , O . P. , C a s p i , A . , M o f f i t t , T. E . , &
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and
undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157-171.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B.
Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 55-66.
Runyan, W. M. (1982). Life histories and psychobiography. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Schulman, J. L., & Reisman, J. M. (1959). An objective measure of
hyperactivity. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 64, 455-456.
Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures:
Distinguishing types from continua. Advanced quantitative techniques in
the social sciences series (Vol. 9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction. New York:
Addison-Wesley.
York, K. L., & John, O. P. (1992). The four faces of Eve: A typological
analysis of women’s personality at mid-life. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 494-508.
Received February 26, 2001
Revision accepted February 8, 2002
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016