โ Scribed by Boele de Raad; Henri C. Schouwenburg
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
In this Special Issue personality sets foot on momentous ground. The field of learning and education forms a great challenge to personality psychology because central issues with personality are fought out right there. Though the mere question of whether personality matters in the field of learning and education is answered (see Sternberg's commentary), many aspects regarding the exact role personality should play and the required proper ties to stage personality remain unclear. The recent 'recuperation' of human behavioural genetics, for example, unarguably poses restraints on the malleability orientation of the field of learning and education (cf. Loehlin, 1992). Many educational programmes may have to be rewritten, if taking into account basic facts about the genetic basis of personality.
All of the Big Five factors of personality are found to be related to educational outcomes, but the extent to which this is the case and especially the way they determine educational outcomes have yet to be established. Two basic trait factors deserve special attention. Conscientiousness, because its typical task-colouring makes it particularly apt theoretically, but, more so, because it is hard to find empirical studies that do not give prominence to this basic trait in education and learning (see, for example, Wlickle and De Fruyt and Mervielde, this Issue); Agreeableness, because of its more elusive place amidst the myriad indicators of educational performance. This basic trait possibly captures to a large extent the substance of interpersonal relations and communication constituting the system of transfer of ideas, knowledge, skills, and values. Not only do these two basic traits mark the different sorts of complexity that are met when basic research joins an applied field, but also their roles teach us about the scope of the use of a small set of abstract constructs for predictive purposes in applied settings. This conclusion is reinforced by the more telling and field-tailored behavioural constructs such as styles and strategies (cf. Blickle, Boekaerts and Messick, this Issue). Alternative clues may be provided at the facet level of the Big-Five model (cf. Costa and McCrae, 1992; De Raad and Schouwenburg, this Issue).
Though the choice of an optimal level of constructs (cf. Briggs, 1989) is an issue deserving permanent attention., we feel a reserved attitude is in order here from both personality researchers and applied researchers. When, for example, personality researchers give way to demands of applied researchers to invest in proximate rather than basic measures, predictive validities may be increased indeed, even drastically,
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
During the last few decades the personality domain has witnessed several major controversies, including the personยฑsituation debate and the debates on accurate reยฏection versus systematic distortion, on nomothetic versus idiographic approaches, on natureยฑnurture, etc. Within these controversies seve
The field of health psychology encompasses both person and environment variables. In the study of persons, health psychologists explore who stays healthy, who becomes sick, who successfully manages disease, and who recovers (Adler and Mathews, 1994). In the study of environments, health psychologist
From the beginnings of research on personality, the natureยฑnurture debate has been a central issue in theorizing about the causes of individual dierences. The metaphor of a pendulum, swinging back and forth between nature and nurture, is frequently used to characterize the opinion of the majority or