So what do you propose we use instead? A reply to Block.
So what do you propose we use instead? A reply to Block.
复制标题
那么你建议我们用什么来代替呢？
DOI：
10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.221
复制
发表时间：
1995
影响因子：
22.4
通讯作者：
Saucier,G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Goldberg,LR;Saucier,G
不幸的是，布洛克的精彩批评是非常偏颇的，就像一个法律的简报，只提出了一个方面的问题，在诉讼。它没有区分表型人格属性的大五模型和人格差异的因果基础的替代模型。具有讽刺意味的是，它试图将大五模型的大量证据解释为主要是数据预结构的结果，而不承认词汇方法对最小化这些问题的独特贡献。更严重的是，它忽略了大量有利于大五模型的关键证据，包括对布洛克自己的Q集的研究和对其他语言中与人格相关的术语的独立调查。可悲的是，布洛克的最后建议几乎没有提供他希望我们使用的替代方案的具体建议。
Unfortunately, Block's brilliant critique is terribly biased, much like a legal brief that presents only one side of the issues at suit. It does not distinguish between the Big Five model of phenotypic personality attributes from alternative models of the causal underpinnings of personality differences. Ironically, it attempts to explain away the extensive evidence for the Big Five model as largely the result of data prestructuring, with no acknowledgement of the unique contribution of the lexical approach to minimizing such problems. Even more seriously, it omits a good deal of crucial evidence favorable to the Big Five model, including studies of Block's own Q-set and independent investigations of personality-related terms in other languages. Sadly, Block's closing suggestions provide little in the way of specific proposals for alternatives that he would have us use instead.