Talk:Trait theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Have improved the detail somewhat and improved the referencing. Would be nice to tidy it up a bit (headings, content, justify the text (?) etc...). I am not so hot with the Wiki code! --Neuropsychology 14:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources??? matturn 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad article, but I have two suggestions :

   - Cattell's 16 factors is really worth mentionning here
   - Maybe it would be best to make separate section for the three main versions of the trait theory, which are : Gigantic Three, Cattel's 16 PF and the Big Five.


--Guillaume777 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


This is a really nice article, but I sorely miss the Gray model here (a variation of the Eysenck model for those who don't know it). Especially in the detailed critique of the 3F at the bottom. I feel that Gray's model performs a lot better here and the model fits rather well to evidence from neuro science. Hirsch.im.wald 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hirsch.im.wald and matturn, it would be good to see the Gray model and Cattel's 16 in here. Although I was sufficiently knowledgable to write the article I do not know the Gray or Cattel model in any great depth. I'd invite anyone who does to make a contribution. --Neuropsychology 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


This page seems to have POV issues... Though it makes considerable discussion of the debates between different trait theories, it treats the validity of SOME model in the vein as an axiom, which it certainly isn't for psychology as a whole. There needs to be more treatment of the general theory's relation with other psychological models. Nentuaby 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

a small thing, but shouldn't the words be positive AFFECT and negative AFFECT? The word effect doesn't make sense in this context. 134.226.1.229 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)TC