Personality Psychology Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Investigatory Domain

Chris Piotrowski

        The subfield Personality Psychology has been a major component of the core structure and knowledge base of the discipline of psychology (Yang & Chiu, 2009). Yet there is a dearth of bibliometric studies regarding the scope of investigatory emphasis reflected in extant research in this field, based on „topical‟ analysis of subject areas or domains across a pool of published literature. The current study addresses this gap by conducting a content analysis of research studies (i.e., articles) published in 2 prominent journals (i.e., Journal of Personality and Journal of Research in Personality) over the past 10 years. The major aim was to determine the scope and breadth of investigatory topical areas that are the major focus of study by researchers. Over this time frame (2010-2019), a total of 1367 articles from both these journals were published; of these, 1340 references were determined to be primary articles (27 comments, replies, erratum, editorials were excluded); thus, these 1340 articles served as the dataset for the current analysis. The author coded each article with a topical descriptor and maintained a scoring template based on frequency counts across subject categories. This analysis identified 45 topical categories which represented at least 1% of the total distribution. The top researched topics were: models/theory, interpersonal relationships, Big 5/Five Factor, statistical approaches/methods analysis, personality traits, well-being, narcissism, motivation, emotion, person perception, morals/values, and stability of personality. Moreover, a myriad of subject areas received limited investigatory attention in Personality Psychology, most noteworthy: unconscious processes, defense mechanisms, social desirability, race/ethnicity, somatization, cognitive (IQ) factors, coping mechanisms, creativity, leisure, and meaning of life. Overall, this descriptive analysis confirms that the field of Personality Psychology is robust in scope and reflects varied research interests, yet the breadth of investigatory and/or perhaps editorial topical coverage could be expanded to reflect salient, highly-researched areas noted in the general clinical literature. Several differences in research emphasis between these prominent personality journals were noted.

        The study of personality has a long-standing historical foundation as a core area of scholarship within both social and clinical psychology (Allik, 2013; Roivainen, 2016; Yang & Chiu, 2009). Indeed, coursework on the myriad of aspects of personality form a cornerstone of the general psychology curriculum at the undergraduate level (e.g., McCrae, 2011), as well as a key clinical component of graduate study in professional psychology (Piotrowski, 2015; Piotrowski& Belter, 1999). Despite the fact that comprehensive textbooks on the topic of „Personality‟ have harbored much academic and clinical attention over the years (John et al., 2010; Hogan et al., 1997; Pervin, 1990; Weiner & Greene, 2008), few studies have examined the breadth and scope of research attention in this specific area of study. Thus, the current study aims to provide an exploratory, contemporary perspective on the structure of scholarship evident in published research across the specialty area of personality psychology over the past decade.

Rationale for Study:

Bibliometric Studies in the Field of Personality Psychology:

        Bibliometric analysis is a recognized and valid means of gaining an objective perspective on research trends of the extant literature (De Bellis, 2009), including bibliometric study on a myriad of psychological topics in the mental health field (e.g., Piotrowski, 2012; Rusk & Waters, 2013). Moreover, several reports have examined the journal contents (i.e., contents analysis) of specific scholarly periodicals in the discipline of psychology (e.g., Gonzalez-Alvarez & Palomar-Garcia, 2014; Piotrowski, 2012, 2016). Yet few bibliometric-type studies with a focus on the area of personality psychology have been published.

        Johnson et al. (1980), in a study of articles from the Journal of Personality (1973-1976), concluded that the investigatory focus was on „micro-theories‟ exploring specific variable-behavior relationships as opposed to applications of traditional theories of personality. Ehrenreich (1997), in a content analysis of personality textbooks and journal articles in 2 „personality‟ journals, found that many salient topical domains were rather neglected (i.e., racial identity, cross-cultural factors). In a content analysis of the Journal of Personality (1970-1995), Mallon et al. (1998) reported on methodological issues (e.g., sampling, research design, main variables under study). Allik (2013), in an analysis on patterns of cited references across 9 personality psychology journals, found that American personality psychologists predominantly ignored relevant research from foreign countries. Recently, Piotrowski (2019) conducted a topical content investigation on the specific clinical area of personality assessment, in a bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Personality Assessment.

Investigatory Approach:

        In order to obtain a valid portrait of the scope of recent literature in the subject area of Personality Psychology, it was decided to target the review to primary articles published in the Journal of Personality (hereon, JoP) and Journal of Research in Personality (hereon, JoRP) over the past decade. Both journals are considered top-tier scholarly publication outlets for research dealing with the study of personality (see Allik, 2013; Hooper et al., 2017).

        An online search in PsycINFO, for this time span (i.e., 2010-2019), produced 613 peer-reviewed article references for the Journal of Personality and 754 articles for the Journal for Research on Personality. Of these, 27 references were omitted from the analysis as these are not considered „primary‟ research studies (editorials, comments/rebuttals, corrections/erratum, book reviews). Thus, the final dataset, combined, comprised a total of 1340 peer-reviewed articles.

        Based on extensive experience conducting bibliometric analyses on various research topics and individual journals, the author reviewed each study and determined the topical focus of the article. The specific aim was to determine the main topic/issue under study, not specific measures or tests in the investigation. Each article was coded with only 1 topical designation. A running-tab was maintained until all 1340 articles were categorized which culminated in a rank-ordering of the most frequently researched topics. Thereby, this procedure produced a descriptive „snapshot‟ of the major topical areas that represented the scope and breadth of investigatory domains that are the focus of study by personality psychology researchers in recent years.

Findings and Discussion:

        Table 1 displays, in rank order, the most emphasized topical areas (n=45) that represented at least 1% of the total dataset in the analysis. There appears to be prominent levels of investigatory emphasis and continuing research devotion to the study and application of psychological theory and a myriad of models across subject areas in personality psychology (Boyle et al., 2012; John et al., 2010, pp. 29-262; Mason et al., 2019). Interestingly, social and intimate relationships, particularly their functionality and impact on the individual are major investigatory domains which attract extensive research interests (see Caprara & Cervone, 2000, pp. 187-207; Cooper, 2002). Corroborating recent reviews of the psychological assessment literature (see Piotrowski, 2019), the current analysis shows that the Big Five/5-Factor theoretical and conceptual framework (Baranczuk, 2019; Costa & McCrae, 2009) seems rather dominant in the personality psychology field over the past decade. In addition, there appears to be extensive research interest on novel and improved methods and approaches to statistical analyses of research data, as well as variations in methodological approaches in the analysis of data (Coulacoglou & Saklofske, 2017; West et al., 2011). Not surprisingly, research on personality „traits‟ continue to be a traditional focus of scholarly investigation in the field (Bleidorn et al., 2019; Harkness, 2009).

        Perhaps a reflection of the positive psychology movement, the subject area of well-being is a predominant area of investigatory research. In this regard, the role of emotions and motivation continue to be predominant investigatory domains in recent years, particularly in the study of the maintenance of wellbeing and overall mental health (John et al., 2010, pp. 701-814; Lennard et al., 2019; Mohiyeddini et al., 2013). Not surprisingly, the central role of the social milieu in the formation of personality was quite evident in the current analysis, evidenced by the extensive research focus on the subject matter of person perception (see Table 1). From a research methods perspective, investigators in personality psychology have an avid interest in findings based on both longitudinal and cross-national research designs. Indeed, issues like personality or trait development across the lifespan continue to attract scholarly attention (Schwaba & Bleidorn, 2019; Wagner et al., 2019). Finally, readers are directed to Table 1 for a listing of the top 45 topical areas of investigatory emphasis in personality psychology research over the past decade.

Table 1. Topical Areas of Emphasis in Research Studies in Personality Psychology (2010-2019)

Areas of Limited Research Emphasis:

Topical analysis frequently provides evidence on areas of sparse research interest. Table 2 presents a myriad of topical subject areas that garnered minimal levels of visibility (<1%) in the current analysis. This limited attention is a bit surprising, given that several of these topical domains attract robust scholarly attention in the contemporary psychological literature.

Table 2. Areas with Limited Research Attention in the Study of Personality

        While gender has been, historically, a perennial methodological (i.e., sample selection) concern, most researchers do not focus exclusively on the impact of sex differences on study results (see Hartung & Lefler, 2019 for a discussion). Moreover, in recent years, gender identity and sexual orientation have captured extensive interest in the social sciences and popular media, yet it appears that these factors have not gained parallel attention in the study of personality.

Comparison of JoP vs. JRiP:

        This analysis indicated several topical areas that were more emphasized in one journal more than the other. Based on data presented in Table 1, JoP had more articles on neuroticism and self-regulation, and published more longitudinal studies than did JRoP. Conversely, JRoP had more emphasis across a myriad of topical areas, i.e., methods/statistical issues or alternatives, response style/format, person perception, „General‟ personality factor, social media/online applications, HEXACO, sex differences, emotions, and self-esteem.

In addition, JoP had 7 articles each on the topics of affiliation and obsession/passion, whereas JRiP had none. JoP had several on empathy (5) and burnout (3), but JRiP only had one. Conversely, JRiP had several articles across a myriad of topics, i.e., sensation-seeking (6), happiness (5), emotional IQ (5), stereotypes (4), Birth order (3), whereas JoP had none with a major focus on these topics. Interestingly, JRiP published 7 articles on both „Lexicon‟ factors and forgiveness; JoP had none in these subject areas.

Conclusion:

        The current bibliometric analysis, which provides a canvas of the literature, indicated that although the field of “personality psychology” publishes primary research reports across a broad-band scope of investigatory domains and subject areas, a myriad of salient research topics and mental health factors are under-represented by researchers in this area of study. Interestingly, this analysis showed that in the field of personality psychology there is more prominent investigatory emphasis on personality traits and stability than on the domain of personality disorders (Cierpialkowska, 2013; Widiger, 2012). Also, the JoRP has significantly more coverage of the „General‟ personality factor than does JoP (Schermer et al., 2019). Whether this finding is a function of journal policies or research interest remains an open question. Thereby, the current findings support the view that contemporary scholarship in Personality Psychology has a comprehensive scope, yet at the same time tends to focus on some select topics more than others. Perhaps, such a state-of-affairs confirms a healthy, but challenging, state of affairs regarding research attention in this study area.

        Noteworthy, there are several research streams that have attracted significant attention among personality scholars in the emerging literature, i.e., the role of emotions (Davis & Panksepp, 2018; Frankenhuis, 2019), the influence of well-being (Anglim et al., 2020), the intersection of personality and psychopathology (Krueger et al., 2019), and stability of personality over the lifespan (Damian et al., 2019; Rupprecht et al., 2019). Finally, these findings await further corroboration based on personality research indexed in auxiliary scholarly databases in both the social and health sciences (e.g., MEDLINE).

References:

Allik, J. (2013). Personality psychology in the first decade of the new millennium: A bibliometric portrait. European Journal of Personality, 27, 5-14.

Anglim, J., et al. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279-323.

Baranczuk, U. (2019). The five-factor model of personality and emotion regulation: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 217-227.

Bleidorn, W., et al. (2019).The policy relevance of personality traits. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1056-1067.

Boyle, G.J., Matthews, G., &Saklofske, D.H. (Eds.). (2012). The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality theories and models (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Caprara, G.V., &Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: Determinants, dynamics, and potentials. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cierpialkowska, L. (2013). Personality disorders in DSM classifications. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 1, 1-10.

Cooper, M.L. (2002). Personality and close relationships: Embedding people in important social contexts. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 757-782.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (2009).The five-factor model and the NEO inventories.In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (pp. 299-322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Coulacoglou, C., &Saklofske, D.H. (2017). Psychometrics and psychological assessment: Principles and applications. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Damian, R.I., et al. (2019). Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 117(3), 674-695.

Davis, K.L., &Panksepp, J. (2018).The emotional foundations of personality. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis. New York, NY: Scarecrow Press.

Ehrenreich, J.H. (1997). Personality theory : A case of intellectual and social isolation. Journal of Psychology : Interdisciplinary and Applied, 131(1), 33-44.

Frankenhuis, W.E. (2019). Modeling the evolution and development of emotions. Developmental Psychology, 55(9), 2002 -2005. Gonzalez-Alvarez, J., & Palomar-Garcia, M. (2014). Twenty-two years of psychological science in Psychological Science.

International Journal of Psychology, 49(1), 56-60.

Harkness, A.R. (2009). Theory and measurement of personality traits.In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality assessment (pp. 150-162). New York: NY: Oxford University Press.

Hartung, C.M., &Lefler, E.K. (2019). Sex and gender in psychopathology: DSM-5 and beyond. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 390-409.

Hogan, R., Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of personality psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Hooper, M.N., Wordofa, K.H., & Gibson, N.S. (2017). Information use in psychology research: A citation analysis of leading journals. The Serials Librarian, 73(4), 269-282.

John, O.P., Robins, R.W., &Pervin, L.A. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Johnson, W.G., Wildman, H.E., Downey, C., & Bell S. (1980). Personality: Trends in theory and research. Social Behavior and Personality, 8(2), 209-211.

Krueger, R.F., Watson, D., &Widiger, T.A. (2019).The vibrant intersection of personality and psychopathology research.Journal of Research in Personality, in press.

Lennard, A.C., Scott, B.A., & Johnson, R.E. (2019). Turning frowns (and smiles) upside down: A multilevel examination of surface acting positive and negative emotions on well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1164-1180.

Mallon, S.D., Kingsley D., Affleck, G., &Tennen, H. (1998). Methodological trends in Journal of Personality: 1970 -1995. Journal of Personality, 66(5), 671-685.

Mason, T.B., Smith, K.E., Engwall, A., et al. (2019). Self-discrepancy theory as a transdiagnostic framework: A meta-analysis of self-discrepancy and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 372-389.

McCrae, R.R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century.Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 209-214.

Mohiyeddini, C., Eysenck, M., & Bauer, S. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of psychology of emotions (Vol. 1): Recent theoretical perspectives and novel empirical findings. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Pervin, L.A. (Ed.). (1990). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Piotrowski, C. (2019). Current research emphasis in the field of psychological assessment: A panorama of investigatory domain.

North American Journal of Psychology, 21(3), 583-599.

Piotrowski, C. (2019). Contemporary research emphasis in personality assessment: A bibliometric analysis mapping investigatory domain (2009-2018). Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 26(2), 98-104.

Piotrowski, C. (2018). MMPI-related pain research through the lens of bibliometric analysis: Mapping investigatory domain. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 151-158.

Piotrowski, C. (2018). Assessment measures in research on eating disorders: Most prominent evaluation methods spanning the scholarly literature. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 25(2), 120-127.

Piotrowski, C. (2017). Rorschach research through the lens of bibliometric analysis: Mapping investigatory domain. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 24(1), 34-38.

Piotrowski, C. (2016). Mapping the research domain in the field of applied psychology: A bibliometric analysis of the emerging literature. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 11-17.

Piotrowski, C. (2015). Clinical instruction on projective techniques in the USA: A review of academic training settings, 1995-2014.

Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 22(2), 83-92.

Piotrowski, C. (2013). Bibliometrics and citation analysis for the psychologist-manager: A review and select readings. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 16(1), 53-71.

Piotrowski, C. (2012). Research areas of emphasis in professional psychology: Past and current trends. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(2), 131-135.

Piotrowski, C., & Belter, R.W. (1999). Internship training in psychological assessment: Has managed care had an impact?

Assessment, 6(4), 381-389.

Piotrowski, C., & Gallant, N. (2009).Research use of clinical measures for anxiety in the recent psychological literature. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(1), 84-86.

Roivainen, E. (2016). A folk-psychological ranking of personality facets. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 4(4), 187-195. Rupprecht, F.S., et al. (2019). The role of personality in becoming aware of age-related changes.GeroPsychology, 32(2), 57-67.

Rusk, R.D., & Waters, L.E. (2013).Tracing the size, reach, impact, and breadth, of positive psychology. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(3), 207-221.

Schermer, J.A., Krammer, G., &Goffin, R.D. (2019). The general factor of personality and faking: A cautionary note on the meaningfulness of the GFP under different response conditions. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 110-114.

Schwaba, T., &Bleidorn, W. (2019).Personality trait development across the transition to retirement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 651-665.

Wagner, J., Ludtke, O., &Robitzsch, A. (2019). Does personality become more stable with age? Disentangling state and trait effects for the Big Five across the life span using local structural equation modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 666-680.

Weiner, I.B., & Greene, R. (2008). Handbook of personality assessment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

West, S.G., Ryu, E., Kwok, O., & Cham, H. (2011). Multilevel modeling: Current and future applications in personality research. Journal of Personality, 79(1), 2-50.

Widiger, T.A. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of personality disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Yang, Y., & Chiu, C. (2009).Mapping the structure and dynamics of psychological knowledge: Forty years of APA journal citations (1970-2009). Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 349-356.