User:Complexity1/sandbox

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) is a test to measure biologically based traits of a person.

Purpose and format
The Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) is a self-report (for adult versions) or observer-administered (for children) questionnaire measuring 12 biologically-based characteristics of behavior. These characteristics are the most consistent aspects of behavior of an individual across his or her lifespan and are relatively independent of the content of the situation. Initially all versions of the STQ were validated on adult samples and were designed for the purposes of organizational, educational and clinical psychology. Now there are Child versions of the Short and Compact STQ, for administration by observers and guardians of the child in question. Items in all versions of the STQ are given in the form of a statement, with a response following the Likert scale format: "strongly disagree (1)," "disagree (2)," "agree (3)," "strongly agree (4)".

Experimental background of the STQ models
The STQ is based on the Pavlovian tradition of experiments investigating the types and properties of nervous systems. This tradition is the longest (110 years old) among all traditions of temperamental research. It started from extensive experiments on several species of mammals, and then continued with human adults and children within the Pavlovian Institute of Highest Nervous Activity (Pavlov, 1941, 1957). It also continued within the Laboratory of Differential Psychophysiology and Differential Psychology (Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences), supervised by Teplov (1963), then Nebylitzyn (1972), and then Rusalov (1979). Since the beginning of the 20th century the following dynamical aspects of behavior were considered within this tradition to be temperament traits: "strength" (endurance), mobility, lability and balance (as an opposite of impulsivity and reactivity, commonly considered as an emotionality trait). These components of temperament are included in Rusalov`s and Trofimova`s models of temperament. All versions of the STQ are based on the Activity-specific approach in temperament research. This approach differentiates between the traits related to 3 aspects of behavior: social-verbal, physical and mental. All models and all modern versions have 12 temperament scales.

Models and versions of the STQ
The STQ has several versions, which are based on two models of the structure of temperament: Rusalov`s model and Trofimova`s model.

Rusalov`s versions of the STQ
Rusalov`s model, presented in The Extended and Short versions of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire  (Rusalov, 1997, 2004, Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007) uses 12 scales, which are grouped by 3 types of activities and 4 dynamical aspects of activities:



There are two versions based on this model: an Extended STQ (STQ-150) and a Short STQ (STQ-26). The Extended STQ is a 150-item self-report measure that assesses 12 temperament characteristics of an adult person. It consists of 144 items assigned to 12 temperament scales (12 items each), 1 validity scale (6 items), and 6 indexes, which combine these scales. The values on each of 12 temperament scales vary between 12 and 48. The validity scale is designed to measure a social desirability tendency. The value on this scale varies from 6 and 24, and protocols having a score higher than 17 on this scale are considered to be invalid. There was an initial version of Rusalov`s model, STQ-105 (Rusalov, 1989), which used the same items and scales as the 9 scales of the STQ-150 (Extended) version, with the exception of the scales related to intellectual aspects of activities. Rusalov upgraded his model to 12 (4 x 3) components implemented in his Extended Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ) in the mid-1990-s (Rusalov, 1997, 2004). Administration of the Extended STQ in practice was rather time-consuming, so Rusalov and Trofimova agreed to develop shorter, more compact versions of the STQ, which would be more suitable for screening purposes in clinical, organizational, vocational and educational settings. The items with the highest item-total correlations were selected for these versions. Rusalov developed the Short version of the STQ, and Trofimova developed the Compact version of the STQ (STQ-77). The Short STQ (STQ-26) is composed of 2 out of 12 items on each scale of the Extended STQ, including the validity scale. This version was adapted for the assessment of adults, teenagers, preschool and early school children (Rusalov, 2004).

Trofimova`s (Compact) versions of the STQ
Trofimova re-worked the arrangement of the dimensions of temperament into functional groups, based on the ideas of the leading European and American psychologists and the latest findings in neurophysiology. The temperament traits in Trofimova`s model (Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007; Trofimova, 2010b, 2010c, Trofimova & Sulis, 2010, 2011) are presented as regulatory subsystems playing specific functional roles in various aspects of the construction of an action:



This model is called the Functional Ensemble of Temperament, because it considers temperament traits as reflecting functional aspects of behavior in a diversity of situations:


 * three dynamical aspects of the construction of an action (energetic, lability and directionality), presented here as three columns. Separation of these aspects is in line with the separation between energetic and mobility aspects of temperament noted within the experiments of the Pavlovian tradition (Pavlov, 1941, 1957; Teplov & Nebylizyn, 1963, Rusalov, 1989; Strelau, 1999). Regulatory traits of directionality/orientation are in line with Jung`s (1921) model of temperament, which describes several types of sensitivity and Zuckerman`s concept of sensation seeking (1994). The choice of these three aspects is also based on Luria`s (1966) model of neuroanatomic regulation of human behaviour, which consists of three `blocks`: `programming block`, `energetic block` (which includes two arousal systems: ARAS and limbic system) and `informational`, or sensory block.


 * two levels of situational emergency, associated with the degree of involvement of emotional response (whether or not an emotional amplifier is needed in the case of insufficient capacity to resolve the situation); these two levels divide the traits into the groups of Emotionality (the lower row with 3 traits) and Activity (the top 9 traits). These two aspects of behaviour (emotionality and executive/energetic aspects) were identified as being major components of temperament explaining Hippocrates` four types in the work of Kant, Heymans, Wundt, Stern, Pavlov, Adler, Spranger, Lasursky, Kretschmer and Sheldon (references were removed). After the functions of the ARAS and limbic systems were linked to physical and emotional arousal, Eysenck named this golden pair `Extraversion` and `Neuroticism`, followed by Thayer, Watson and Tellegen and the Big Five model of personality. Two emotional dispositions, Neuroticism and Self-Confidence were described from the 1970-80s in a number of Approach/Withdrawal (A/W) models (Akiskal, Gray, Simonov, Thomas & Chess, Windle & Lerner).


 * two levels of situational complexity: high level, which requires a greater probabilistic tuning of behavior using higher cortical functions, in comparison to low complexity situations, which allow an individual to use well-learned habits (deterministic situations). The top row with three traits addresses probabilistic situations (high uncertainty), and the two middle rows of 6 traits relate to the dynamics of well-defined actions of high certainty. These two aspects of behavioural regulation were linked to the roles of the neurotransmitters noradrenalin (which increases in novel and uncertain situations) and serotonin (which takes over in routine situations).


 * similarly to Rusalov`s model, this model differentiates between physical and verbal-social aspects of well-determined activities, and considers the probabilistic traits of temperament (3 top traits) as related to the mental, intellectual aspects of activities. Such differentiation is in line with the neuroanatomic localization of control over motor coordination (via parietal cortex), verbal functions (via left temporal cortex) and mental functions (via frontal cortex).

Note: It is simplistic to associate the performance of social, physical and intellectual activities with precisely demarcated anatomic structures in the brain, given that any activity is performed by an ensemble of structures. It is reasonable, however, to suggest that `membership` in these ensembles changes with a change in the primary type of activity.

Trofimova`s model of the structure of temperament is presented in the Compact version of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ-77), which consists of 12 temperament scales (6 items each), and a validity scale (5 items), i.e. in total 77 items. STQ-77 has adult and Early Childhood versions.

The STQ-77 is not just an abbreviated version of the Extended STQ-150. The STQ-77 uses 6 items with the highest item-total correlations out of 12 items in 5 scales of the Extended STQ: the 3 scales of Ergonicity (renamed as the scales of Endurance) and 2 scales of Tempo were not renamed. Three scales of Emotionality of the STQ-150 were re-worked to separate out a scale of Neuroticism (several factor analytic studies of the STQ consistently showed that three former Emotionality scales were not as activity-specific as other scales and constituted basically one factor: Bishop, et al., 1993; Bishop & Hertenstein, 2004; Dumenci, 1996; Stough et al., 1991; Rusalov, 2004; Trofimova, 2010a, 2010c; Trofimova & Rusalov, 2007), a scale of Empathy and a scale of Self-Confidence. Three scales of Plasticity were united in one scale of Plasticity, which measures a general ability of an individual to create and initiate a new program of actions under changing circumstances. Three completely new scales (6 items each) were added: Sensation Seeking, Impulsivity and Sensitivity to Probabilities (intellectual ability for causal thinking and knowledge processing).

Versions in other languages
The Extended and the Compact versions were adapted to five languages: English, Russian, Chinese, Polish and Urdu (Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007). There is work in progress on the French and Korean versions of STQ-77. Compact STQ

Validation history of the STQ-105 and STQ-150
Evidence for construct, concurrent and discriminatory validity of the STQ-105 and STQ-150 was demonstrated through significant correlations with the following measures:
 * Pavlovian Temperamental Survey (PTS)
 * Big Five Questionnaire (NEO-PI)
 * Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)
 * Rogers adaptivity scale
 * Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS)
 * Rosenzveig Test
 * Motivation in Achievements Test
 * Motivation of professional choices measure
 * Liri Interpersonal Relations Test
 * Cattell 16 Personality Factors Test (16PF)
 * Wechsler IQ test
 * Gotshield IQ test
 * Shepard IQ test
 * Speed of reading
 * Auditory and visual sensitivity
 * Alcohol impact
 * Torrance Nonverbal Test of Creative Thinking
 * Dembo-Hoppe Level of aspiration
 * Dissociative Experiences Scale
 * Rotter Locus of Control Scale (LOC)
 * EEG data
 * 25 measures of Mobility and Plasticity
 * Verbal activity measures

More specifically, during the experimental validation of the Extended STQ the performance by participants on the following measures was compared with scores on STQ scales in a series of studies in the 1980’s-90’s: speed of writing, reading and speed of generation of words, maximal and optimal tempo of performance in sensory-motor tasks and intellectual (including unsolvable) tasks, performance on nonverbal tasks, with which participants were unfamiliar, rigidity of perception in tactile and visual modalities, duration of the switch between one way of solving the task and another, mobility in attention, variability in line drawing (Rusalov, 1979, 1997, 2004; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007).

Ergonicity scales of the STQ correlated positively with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire`s Extraversion scale (Rusalov, 1989; Brebner & Stough, 1993, Zin`ko, 2006), with the Big-Five Extraversion scale (Bodunov, Bezdenezhnykh & Alexandrov, 1996; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007), with Strelau`s PTS Strength of Excitation scale (Ruch, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1991; Bodunov et. al., 1996; Strelau, 1999), with Torrance`s Nonverbal Tests of Creative Thinking (Rusalov & Poltavtzeva, 1997), Rotter`s Locus of Control scale (Byzova, 1997), with goal-driven choice of profession as opposed to accessibility of profession (Rusalov, Rusalova, & Strel`nikova, 2000), and with the Motivation for Achievement scale (Vorobieva, 2004).

Plasticity scales of the STQ were found to have significant positive correlation with Strelau`s PTS Mobility scale (Ruch et.al, 1991, Bodunov et. al., 1996, Strelau, 1999; Rathee & Singh, 2001), with adaptivity of behaviour in Dembo-Hoppe Level of Aspiration experiment (Zin`ko, 2006), with 20 behavioral and experimental measures of plasticity (Rusalov & Kalashnikov, 1988), with 8 measures of plasticity (Biryukov, 1992), with Torrance Nonverbal Tests of Creative Thinking (Rusalov, Poltavtzeva,1997), Rogers Adaptivity scale (Drozdov, 1998), Rotter`s Locus of Control scale (Byzova, 1997) and with Motivation for Achievement scale (Vorobieva, 2004). Rathee and Singh (2001) reported a comparison of 25 measures of Mobility, including English STQ Plasticity and Tempo scales. The authors found a high correlation of the Plasticity scales of the English version of the STQ with the Alteration task, Flexibility of attention, proof-reading ability, and the number of trials needed for a subject to reach the optimal reaction time after alteration of stimulus. Plasticity scales also positively correlated with Eysenck`s EPQ Extraversion scale (Rusalov, 1989, Brebner & Stough, 1993, Zinko, 2006), with Big-Five Extraversion scale (Dumenci, 1995, Bodunov et. al., 1996), with PTS Strength of Excitation scale (Ruch et.al, 1991, Strelau, 1999).

Tempo scales of the STQ were reported to have significant positive correlation with Strelau`s PTS Mobility scale (Ruch et.al, 1991, Bodunov et. al., 1996, Strelau, 1999), and multiple Mobility measures used by Rathee and Singh (2001) and by Rusalov and Kalashnikova (1992). In Rathee and Singh (2001) study, the scores on the scale of Motor Tempo of the STQ were correlated with EEG α-general speed, with the time taken to generate simultaneous contrast, duration of `after-image` reaction, with critical flicker fusion and with a size of uncertainty interval.

Scores on Emotionality scales of the STQ correlated positively with those on the Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Rusalov, 1989; Brebner & Stough, 1993; Zin`ko, 2006), with the Big-Five Neuroticism scale (Dumenci, 1995; Bodunov, et. al., 1996), on the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Popov, 2006), with Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Popov, 2006; Zin`ko, 2006), and use of alcohol (Bodunov, et. al. 1996), and correlated negatively with scores on the Dissociative Experiences Scale (Beere & Pica, 1995; Eputaev et al, 2003; Vasyura, 2008), the Rosenzveig test (Zin`ko, 2006), PTS Strength of Excitation and Strength of Inhibition scales (Ruch et. al, 1991; Strelau, 1999), scores on A, H, Q2 and Q4 factors of the Cattell`s16-PF inventory (Vasyura, 2008), Torrance`s Nonverbal Tests of Creative Thinking (Rusalov & Poltavtzeva, 1997), and the Motivation for Achievement scale (Vorobieva, 2004).

The STQ scales, which measure dynamic aspects of intellectual activity, had positive correlations with such measures of intelligence as the Wechsler, Shepard and Gotshield Figure tests, including the tasks measuring classification abilities (`Excluding the third`) and plasticity in nonverbal thinking (Rusalov & Dudin, 1995; Rusalov & Naumova, 1999). Intellectual activity scales had positive correlations with scores on the Locus of Control scale (Byzova, 1997), and goal-oriented choice of profession (Rusalov et.al., 2000), and negative correlations with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Popov, 2006), Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Popov, 2006; Zin`ko, 2006) and the access-oriented choice of profession (Rusalov et. al., 2000). Intellectual plasticity also correlated with the PTS-mobility scale (Trofimova, 2009), with 25 measures of mobility in Rathee and Singh`s study (2001) and with the school grades of high-school students (Gritzenko, 1996).

In terms of the scales measuring the social-verbal aspects of activities, the STQ-150 scales were compared to the experimentally measured time of performance on a task involving the classification of common words. The most significant correlations between the speed on this task and the scales were found for the scales of Social Tempo, Social Endurance and Social Plasticity (r = -.20, -.18, and -.14, respectively) (Trofimova, 2009).

In an experimental study of the content validity of the STQ-150, the scales of this test were compared to the semantic perception of participants, via comparisons of contrast temperament groups. Participants with higher Motor Endurance or Social Endurance gave significantly more positive ratings to common abstract concepts used in the Semantic Projective method, in comparison to those participants with lower Endurance. Participants with high scores on the three Emotionality scales demonstrated significantly more negative estimations of common abstract objects than their contrast temperament group. Moreover, people with high emotionality did not have a universal negative bias in their perception, and their negative affect was specific to words describing potential areas of failure: people with higher Social Emotionality perceived social objects more negatively than other objects; people with higher Motor Emotionality perceived time-related objects more negatively than other objects (Trofimova, 1999, 2013)

Factor structure of the STQ-150
Factor analysis of the Russian version of the STQ-150 consistently showed four factors: Motor-physical activity (which includes Motor Ergonicity, Motor Plasticity, Motor Tempo), Social-Verbal activity (which includes Social Ergonicity, Social Plasticity, Social Tempo), Intellectual Activity (which includes Intellectual Ergonicity, Intellectual Plasticity, Intellectual Tempo) and Emotionality (3 scales of Emotionality) (Rusalov, 1997, 2004, Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007).

The administration of the English version of the STQ to American, Australian, and Canadian samples showed that the factor structure of this version is similar to the Russian language version, and that the English version possesses good reliability and internal consistency (Stough, Brebner & Cooper, 1991; Bishop, Jacks & Tandy, 1993; Dumenci, 1995, 1996; Bishop & Hertenstein, 2004; Rusalov, 2004; Rusalov & Trofimova, 2007; Trofimova, 2009).

Chinese (STQ-C), Urdu (STQ-U) and Polish (STQ-P) Extended versions of the STQ, administered among corresponding populations, showed reliability coefficients in the range 0.70-0.86, item-total correlations in the range 0.42-0.73, and all versions demonstrated robust factor structures similar to those of the original version (Trofimova, 2010a).

Validation of the STQ-77
Evidence for construct, concurrent and discriminatory validity of the STQ-105 and STQ-150 was demonstrated through significant correlations with the following measures: During the experimental validation of the Compact STQ (STQ-77) the studies of reliability and content, concurrent and discriminant validity showed that the reliability of these scales is in the range of .70-.86.
 * Hamilton Depression Inventory (HDI)
 * Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)
 * Symptom Checklist (SCL-90)
 * high-school grades
 * Pavlovian Temperamental Survey (PTS)
 * State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
 * Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS)
 * I7 Impulsiveness Questionnaire (Eysenck, S. et al., 1985) (I-7)
 * Verbal activity measures

Due to the composition of the STQ-77, being partially based on the items and scales of the Extended STQ, which were already validated (see above), most efforts in validation of the STQ-77 were focused on the validity of new scales, discriminant validity of all scales and on the factor structure of the STQ-77.

Extraversion, as measured by the Big Five (NEO-FFI), correlates with the Social Endurance and the Impulsivity scales (r= .46 and .52, respectively). The Neuroticism scales of the NEO-FFI and the STQ-77 have positive correlation of r = .38, and all these values show large effect sizes (Trofimova, 2010b). The Openness to Experience scale of Big Five correlates most significantly with the STQ-77 scales of Intellectual Endurance (r =.31), Sensitivity to Probabilities (r =.40), Impulsivity (r =.25) and Empathy (r =.52). The scale of Agreeableness of Big Five correlates most significantly with the Empathy scale of the STQ-77 (r =.46). The scale of Conscientiousness of Big Five has the most significant correlation with the STQ-77 scales of Motor Endurance (r =.35) and Intellectual Endurance (r =.34).

Statistically significant positive correlations were found between the new STQ-77 scales of Impulsivity, Sensitivity to Sensations, Empathy and the corresponding scales of Impulsiveness (r = .51), Venturesomeness (.64) and Empathy (.73) of Eysenck`s I-7 questionnaire (Trofimova and Sulis, 2009).

STQ-77 Sensitivity to Sensation scale showed significant positive correlations with the Impulsivity scale (r =.68) of the of Eysenck`s I-7 questionnaire (Trofimova & Sulis, 2009) and with the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale (r =.37) (Trofimova, 2010b).

STQ-77 scales showed activity-specific correlations with high school grades (Trofimova & Sulis, 2009): the grades in athletics have significant positive correlations with the STQ-77 scales of Motor Endurance and Motor Tempo (r = .53 and .45, respectively), the grades in verbal assignments correlate positively with Social Endurance and with Social Tempo scales (r = .28 and r = .27, respectively), and the grades in math and science correlate with the scales of Intellectual Endurance and Plasticity (r = .26 and .22, respectively) (Trofimova and Sulis, 2009).

In an experimental study of the content validity of the STQ-77 using the Semantic Projection Method, the scales of this test were compared to the semantic perception of participants, via comparisons of contrast temperament groups (Trofimova, 1999, 2014). Similarly to the results of validation of the STQ-150, participants with higher Motor and Social Endurance gave significantly more positive ratings to abstract common concepts than participants with lower Endurance scores. Significant positive bias in estimations of men with higher Motor Tempo (TMM) was found in their evaluation of `timing` concepts. People with high scores on the Neuroticism scale demonstrated significantly more negative estimations of common abstract objects than their contrast temperament group, and their negative affect was specific to words describing potential areas of failure. Moreover, in this experimental study people with higher scores on the Sensitivity to Sensation (SS) scale of the STQ-77 gave more negative estimations of routine-related (work- and reality-related) concepts, than participants with lower SS scores.

In another study, the Social Tempo scale of the STQ-77 was found to have a statistically significant correlation with the time that people spent on completing two personality questionnaires (r = -.31) (Trofimova & Sulis, 2009). This scale, as well as the Self-Confidence scale of the STQ-77, also had significant negative correlations with the time of performance on a task involving the classification of common verbal material (r =-.36 and -.29, respectively) (Trofimova, 2010c).

Factor structure of the STQ-77
The Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Compact STQ (STQ-77) using data from a Canadian sample shows a satisfactory fit of the traditional 4-factor STQ activity-specific model, grouping the scales to the factors of Motor, Social, Intellectual activity and Emotionality and having 2 correlated residuals (from the new scale of Sensitivity to Sensations to Impulsivity and Neuroticism scales) with the CFI > .90, RMSEA < .07 and RMSR < .06 (Trofimova, 2010b).

Temperament vs. Personality
There is often confusion, even among psychologists, on the differences between temperament and personality. Such confusions are more often observed in the North American literature than in the European literature, perhaps due to historical reasons.

Historically the concept and the study of temperament emerged in the European (UK included) tradition within the discipline of medicine about 2500 years ago, and then in differential psychophysiology from the beginning of the 20th century. The European tradition primarily used experimental methods on adult human subjects, human child subjects and animals. This tradition started from the work of Hippocrates and Galen and continued in the work of Kant, Pavlov, Heymans, Wundt, Stern, Lasursky, Jung, Adler, Kretschmer, Spranger, Teplov, Nebylizyn, Eysenck, Thayer, Gray, Tellegen, Rusalov, Netter, Watson and Tellegen, Strelau and Zavadsky, etc (references were removed). The majority of these authors suggested that temperament has at least two major dimensions, Emotionality (reactivity) and Activity (energetic aspect).

The North-American tradition of temperament research was scattered within three different disciplines: developmental psychology, psychiatry and personality theory using a lexical approach. Child temperament was studied within developmental psychology from the 1970s and is based on the parental and guardian observations of children (Thomas & Chess, Buss & Plomin, Windle & Lerner, Derryberry & Rothbart). Since then North American psychologists, especially in California, often consider temperament as applicable primarily to children. Adult temperament was analyzed within clinical research, uncovering a consistency of neuroticism (Kagan, Cloninger, Akiskal), sensation and novelty seeking (Zuckerman, Cloninger) and energetic traits (Cloninger, Akiskal) (references were removed).

A third line of temperament research in N.America emerged in the lexical approach to studying personality, which, after the use of factor analysis of personality descriptors, described 5 dimensions (factors) of personality (Fiske 1949; Tupes & Christal, 1961; Norman, 1963; Borgatta, 1964; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Since the appearance of the Big Five, Eysenck noted that the two largest factors in the Big Five model of personality were similar to the two basic temperament dimensions (i.e. Extraversion and Neuroticism) and overall just reflect aspects of socialization, rather than dynamical aspects of behavioral regulation. Lexical approach theorists, however, hesitate to admit that their approach did not bring anything new that temperament researchers had not known already for decades, at least in Europe. They continue promoting the two largest factors in the Big Five model as dimensions of personality, and not temperament, but naming it `biologically based personality traits.

Here are the arguments in favour of a differentiation between the concepts of temperament and personality:


 * Age should not matter in the separation between these concepts. There are no reasons to use a concept of temperament only in reference to children, as people at any age have little control over biological factors determining the consistency of the dynamical characteristics of their behavior (such as endurance, plasticity, emotional reactivity, etc). Similarly, there are no reasons to use different concepts for humans of different ages in reference to personality: human personality starts developing from early childhood during social interactions with other humans, and therefore a concept of personality is applicable to children as well as to adults..

‘’...There is also confusion between personality and the factors underlying personality. Tests for physique, for intelligence, or for temperament are not tests of personality... If, then, personality is the object of inquiry, traits of personality should not be confused with qualities or quantities of intelligence, physique, or temperament.`’’
 * These concepts refer to two different consistent aspects of individuality. The concept of personality is often confused with the concept of individuality. Personality is, however, only one component of individuality. It is a product of socialisation and comprises the content-related characteristics of human behaviour (i.e. system of values, beliefs, social skills, cultural background, self-perception, relationships with other people, attitudes, personal history, etc.). In contrast to personality, temperament, as another component of individuality, refers to the consistent dynamical (content-independent) aspects of behaviour (energetic, plasticity, emotionality aspects), which are based on biological factors, such as neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters and hormones. Both sets of characteristics are relatively stable across situations, building the core of someone`s individuality. Allport (1927) warned about the danger of mixing temperament with personality:


 * Interaction between temperament and personality does not mean their overlap. Personality theorists often argue that social development cannot be separated from a person`s body and therefore temperament cannot be separated from personality and should be considered only `under the umbrella of personality`. Such a position implies that content-related characteristics of personality (values, beliefs, self-perception, etc.) develop in a direct and unambivalent correlation with `biologically based personality traits` (temperament), or that dynamical properties of nervous systems (energetic, mobility, emotionality) determine only one type of personality values, goals, behavioural attitudes, self-perception, etc. We all know that this is not true, even though there is some interaction between temperament and meaning attribution, or personality types (Postman, Bruner, & McGinnies, 1946); Trofimova, 2013). Overall various temperament types are accompanied by a very diverse system of values, and the interaction between dynamic and content-related aspects of individuality (i.e. between temperament and personality) results in an enormous diversity of individuality. In short, diversity of combinations between people with different temperament and their personal values shows a relative independence of temperament and personality.
 * Integrity of science. The concept of temperament was employed in the medical and social sciences for 2500 years and was a subject of intense experimental studies during all of the 20th century. There is no reason to make a confusing overlap of this concept with the personality concept now only because its use would otherwise compromise the fame of the Big Five model. After all, the Big FIve model is based not on experiments, but rather on language descriptors, which by definition are created through social interaction and designed for social interaction. As we have far more words describing the degree of engagement of an individual in social interactions than we have words describing other important tasks, the main dimensions in factor analysis of social descriptors will be biased in favour of social compliance vs. withdrawal differentiation.

References (only STQ-related)

 * Beere, D., & Pica, M. (1995) The predisposition to dissociate: the temperamental traits of flexibility/rigidity, daily rhythm, emotionality and interactional speed. Dissociation, VIII (4), 236-240.
 * Bishop, D., & Hertenstrein, M. (2004) A confirmatory factor analysis of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 1019-1029.
 * Bishop, D., Jacks, H., & Tandy, S. B. (1993) Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ): Results from a US sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 485-487.
 * Bodunov M. V., Bezdenezhnykh B. N., & Alexandrov Yu. I. (1996) Charakteristika otvetov na testovie zadania psihologicheskih metodik i structura individual`nogo opita [Peculiarities of psychodiagnostic test item responses and the structure of individual experience].Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 17(4), 87-96 [in Russian].
 * Brebner, J., & Stough, C. (1993). The relationship between the Structure of Temperament and Extraversion and Neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences. 14, 623-626.
 * Byzova, V.M. (1997). Samoactualizacia predstaviteley Komi i russkogo etnosov [Self-actualization in representatives of Komi and Russian ethnic groups]. Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 18(1), 61-69 [in Russian].
 * Dumenci, L. (1995) The relation between the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire and other personality domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 850-857. CA: Sage
 * Dumenci, L. (1996) Factorial validity of scores on the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement,56, 487-493. CA: Sage.
 * Dumenci, L. (1996) Factorial validity of scores on the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement,56, 487-493. CA: Sage.
 * Eputaev E. Y., Ikonnikova M. E., Agarkov B. A., & Tarabrina N. V. (2003) Dissociative states and formal-dynamical properties of individual. Materials of 7th Multidisciplinary Conference `Stress And Behavior`, 121-123. Moscow: IPRAN Press.
 * Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968) Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
 * Gray, J. A (1964) Pavlov`s typology; recent theoretical and experimental developments from the laboratory of B. M. Teplov. New York: Macmillan.
 * Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford University Press.
 * Nebylitsyn, V. D. (1972) Fundamental properties of the human nervous system. New York: Plenum.
 * Pavlov, I. P. (1941) Lectures on conditioned reflexes, v. IIi: types of the higher nervous activity, their interdependence with neuroses and psychoses and the physiological mechanism of neurotic and psychotic symptoms. NY: International Publishers.
 * Pavlov, I. P. (1957) General Types of Animal and Human Higher Nervous Activity. Experimental Psychology and other Essays. Philosophical Library, Inc., New York.
 * Postman, L.., Bruner, J. S., & McGinnies, E. M. (1946) Personal values as selective. factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 142-154
 * Popov Yu. A. (2006) Trevojnost` v psycho-pedagogocheskom portrete studenta kolledga [Anxiety in psycho-pedagogical portrait of a College student]. Professional`noye obuchenie [Professional Education]. 8, 24-25. Moscow, Russia. [in Russian]
 * Rathee N., & Singh, R. (2001) Mobility or/and Lability of the Nervous Processes as Temperamental Trait(s). Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1091-1104.
 * Ruch, W., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1991) The Strelau Temperament Inventory � Revised (STI-R): Validity studies. European Journal of Personality, 5, 287-308.
 * Rusalov, V. M. (1979) Biologicheskiye osnovi individual`no-psichologicheskih razlichiy. (Biological basis of individual psychological differences) Nauka: Мoscow. [in Russian]
 * Rusalov, V. M. (1989) Motor and communicative aspects of human temperament: a new questionnaire of the structure of temperament.Personality and individual differences, 10, 817-827.
 * Rusalov, V. M. (1997) Oprosnik formal`no-dynamicheskih svoystv individual`nosti. Rukovodstvo. [Questionnaire of formal-dynamical properties of individuality. Manual]. Russian Academy of Sciences, IPAN Press: Moscow. [in Russian]
 * Rusalov, V. M. (2004) Formal`no-dynamicheskiye svoystva individual`nosti (temperament) [Formal-dynamical properties of individual (temperament)]. Russian Academy of Sciences, IPAN Press: Moscow. [in Russian]
 * Rusalov, V. M., & Dudin C. I. (1995) Temperament i intellect: obchie b specificheskiye factori rasvitiya [Temperament and Intelligence: general and specific factors of development]. Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 16 (5), 12-23. [in Russian]
 * Rusalov, V. M., & Kalashnikov, S. V. (1988) On the correlation of psychic plasticity with the integral factors of human brain bioelectrical activity. In: Rusalov, V. M. (Ed.) Individual`no -psikhologicheskie razlichiya i bioelektricheskaya aktivnost` mozga cheloveka (Individual Psychological Differences and Human Brain Bioelectrical Activity), 5-55. Moscow: Nauka.
 * Rusalov, V. M., & Kalashnikova I. G. (1992) Psychological testing of temperament. Zhurnal Vysshey Nervnoy Deyatel`nosti (Journal of Higher Nervous Activity), 42(1), 44.
 * Rusalov, V. M., & Naumova E. R. (1999) On the relationship between general abilities and "intellectual" scales of temperament.Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 20 (1), 70-77
 * Rusalov, V. M., & Poltavtzeva, L. I. (1997) Temperament as a prerequisite of creative abilities. Pavlov Journal of Higher Nervous Activity, 47, 3, 451-460.
 * Rusalov, V. M, Rusalova, M. N., & Strel`nikova, E. V. (2000) Temperament cheloveka i osobennosti vibora mejdu veroyatnostyu dostijeniya tseli i ee tzennostyu [Temperament of man and peculiarities of choice between the probability of goal achievement and its value. Zhurnal Vysshey Nervnoy Deyatel`nosti [Journal of Higher Nervous Activity], 50(3), 388. [in Russian]
 * Rusalov, V. M., & Trofimova, I. N. (2007) Structure of Temperament and Its Measurement. Toronto, Canada: Psychological Services Press.
 * Rusalov, V. M., Trofimova, I. N. (2011). О представленности типов психической деятельности в различных моделях темперамента.Психологический журнал, 32, 3, 74-84.
 * Stough, C., Brebner, J., & Cooper, C. (1991) The Rusalov Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (STQ): results from an Australian sample.Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1355-1357.
 * Strelau, J. (1999) The Pavlovian Temperament Survey (PTS): An international handbook. Germany: Hogrefe, & Huber.
 * Strelau, J., & Angleitner, A. (Eds.) (1991) Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement. N.Y.: Plenum.
 * Teplov, B.M. & Nebylitsyn, V.D. (1963) Experimental study of properties of the nervous system in man. Journal of Highest Nervous Activity, 13: 789-797.
 * Trofimova I. (1999). How people of different age, sex and temperament estimate the world. Psychological Reports. N 85/2, pp.533-552.
 * Trofimova I.N. (1997) Interconnections of characteristics of temperament with some peculiarities of cognitive activity of human // Questions of psychology, N 1. Pp. 74-82..
 * Trofimova, I. (2009) Exploration of the benefits of an activity-specific test of temperament. Psychological Reports, 105, 643-658.
 * Trofimova, I. (2010a). Exploration of the activity-specific model of temperament in four cultures. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 10, 1, 79-95.
 * Trofimova, I. (2010b) Questioning the `general arousal` models. Open Behavioral Science and Psychology, 4, 1-8.
 * Trofimova, I. (2010c). An investigation into differences between the structure of temperament and the structure of personality. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 4, 467-480
 * Trofimov, I. (2013) Functionality of evolutional bi-sexual partitions of species might determine psychological sex differences. Submitted toJournal of American Psychology.
 * Trofimova, I. (2014) Observer bias: how temperament matters in semantic perception of lexical material. PLOS ONE, 9(1): e85677. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085677
 * Trofimova, I. (2014) Functional differentiation between neurochemical systems emerges in the "activity"-related traits of temperament. Submitted to Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
 * Trofimova, I. & Sulis W. (2010). An investigation of temperament in adults with comorbid depression and anxiety. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, 1, 3, 190-199. DOI: 10.4236/abb.2010.13027
 * Trofimova, I. & Sulis W. (2011). Is temperament activity-specific? Validation of the Structure of Temperament Questionnaire - Compact (STQ-77). International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11(3), 389-400.
 * Vasyura, S. A. (2008) Psychology of male and female communicative activity. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 289-300.
 * Vorobieva E. V. (2004) Modern psychogenetic studies of intelligence and theory of motivation for achievements. Journal of Applied Psychology. 3, 53-59.
 * Watkins D., Sachs J., Balev J., Dahlin B., Fleming J., Klis M., Lopez L.W., Mortazavi S., Trofimova I., Sunar D., Tam Sing-fai A. & Van der Vijver F. (2000). Culture, gender, and the nature of self-concept: further evidence. International Journal of Psychology.
 * Watkins D., Mortazavi S. & Trofimova I. (2000). Independent and interdependent conceptions of self: an investigation of age, gender and culture differences in importance and satisfaction ratings. Cross Cultural Research. Vol. 34, N2, pp.113-134.
 * Zin`ko E. V. (2006) Kharakteristiki samootcenki i urovnya dostijeniy i ih sopolojenie [Characteristics of self-image and of level of aspiration and its relationships]. Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 3, 18-30; 4, 15-25.