Individual Differences

That people differ from each other is obvious. How and why they differ is less clear and is the
subject of the study of Individual differences (IDs). Although to study individual differences
seems to be to study variance, how are people different, it is also to study central tendency, how
well can a person be described in terms of an overall within-person average. Indeed, perhaps the
most important question of individual differences is whether people are more similar to
themselves over time and across situations than they are to others, and whether the variation
within a single person across time and situation is less than the variation between people. A
related question is that of similarity, for people differ in their similarities to each other. Questions
of whether particular groups (e.g., groupings by sex, culture, age, or ethnicity) are more similar
within than between groups are also questions of individual differences.

Personality psychology addresses the questions of shared human nature, dimensions of

individual differences and unique patterns of individuals. Research in IDs ranges from analyses
of genetic codes to the study of sexual, social, ethnic, and cultural differences and includes
research on cognitive abilities, interpersonal styles, and emotional reactivity. Methods range
from laboratory experiments to longitudinal field studies and include data reduction techniques
such as Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis, as well as Structural Modeling and
Multi-Level Modeling procedures. Measurement issues of most importance are those of
reliability and stability of Individual Differences.

Research in Individual Differences addresses three broad questions: 1) developing an adequate

descriptive taxonomy of how people differ; 2) applying differences in one situation to predict
differences in other situations; and 3) testing theoretical explanations of the structure and
dynamics of individual differences.

Taxonomies of individual differences:

Taxonomic work has focused on categorizing the infinite ways in which individuals differ in
terms of a limited number of latent or unobservable constructs. This is a multi-step, cyclical
process of intuition, observation, deduction, induction, and verification that has gradually
converged on a consensual descriptive organization of broad classes of variables as well as on
methods for analyzing them. Most of the measurement and taxonomic techniques used
throughout the field have been developed in response to the demand for selection for schooling,
training, and business applications.

Test Theory

Consider the case of differences in vocabulary in a particular language (e.g., English). Although
it is logically possible to organize people in terms of the specific words they know in English, the
more than 2^(500,000) possible response patterns that could be found by quizzing people on
each of the more than 500,000 words in English introduces more complexity rather than less.
Classical Test Theory (CTT) ignores individual response patterns and estimates an individual's
total vocabulary size by measuring performance on small samples of words. Words are seen as
random replicates of each other and thus individual differences in total vocabulary size are
estimated from observed differences on these smaller samples. The Pearson Product Moment
Correlation Coefficient (r) compares the degree of covariance between these samples with the
variance within samples. As the number of words sampled increases, the correlation of the
individual differences within each sample and with those in the total domain increases
accordingly.

Estimates of ability based upon Item Response Theory (IRT) take into account parameters of the
words themselves (i.e., the difficulty and discriminability of each word) and estimate a single
ability parameter for each individual. Although CTT and IRT estimates are highly correlated,
CTT statistics are based on decomposing the sources of variance within and between individuals
while IRT statistics focus on the precision of an individual estimate without requiring differences
between individuals. CTT estimates of reliability of ability measures are assessed across similar
items (internal consistency), across alternate forms, and across different forms of assessment as
well as over time (stability). Tests are reliable to the extent that differences within individuals are
small compared to those between individuals when generalizing across items, forms, or
occasions. CTT reliability thus requires between subject variability. IRT estimates, on the other
hand, are concerned with the precision of measurement for a particular person in terms of a
metric defined by item difficulty.

The test theory developed to account for sampling differences within domains can be generalized
to account for differences between domains. Just as different samples of words will yield
somewhat different estimates of vocabulary, different cognitive tasks (e.g., vocabulary and
arithmetic performance) will yield different estimates of performance. Using multivariate
procedures such as Principal Components Analysis or Factor Analysis, it is possible to
decompose the total variation into between domain covariance, within domain covariance, and
within domain variance. One of the most replicable observations in the study of individual
differences is that almost all tests thought to assess cognitive ability have a general factor (g) that
is shared with other tests of ability. That is, although each test has specific variance associated
with content (e.g., linguistic, spatial), form of administration (e.g., auditory, visual), or
operations involved (e.g., perceptual speed, memory storage, memory retrieval, abstract
reasoning), there is general variance that is common to all tests of cognitive ability.

Personality and Ability

Although to some the term personality refers to all aspects of a person's individuality, typical
usage divides the field into studies of ability and personality. Tests of ability are viewed as
maximal performance measures. Ability is construed as the best one can do on a particular
measure in a limited time (speed test) or with unlimited time (power test). Personality measures
are estimates of average performance and typically include reports of preferences and estimates
of what one normally does and how one perceives oneself and is perceived by others.

The same procedures used to clarify the structure of cognitive abilities have been applied to the
question of identifying the domains of personality. Many of the early and current personality
inventories use self-descriptive questions (e.g., do you like to go to lively parties; are you
sometimes nervous) that are rationally or theoretically relevant to some domain of interest for a
particular investigator. Although there is substantial consistency across inventories developed
this way, some of this agreement could be due to conceptually overlapping item pools. Other
researchers have advocated a lexical approach to the taxonomic problem, following the basic
assumption that words in the natural language describe all important individual differences. This
shifts the taxonomic question from how are individuals similar and different from each other to
how are the words used to describe individuals (e.g., lively, talkative, nervous, anxious) similar
and different from each other.

Dimensional analyses of tests developed based on lexical, rational, or theoretical bases suggest
that a limited number (between three and seven) of higher order trait domains adequately
organize the thousands of words that describe individual differences and the logically infinite
way that these words can be combined into self or peer report items. The broadest domains are
those of introversion-extraversion and emotional stability-neuroticism, with the domains of
agreeableness, conscientiousness and intellectual openness or culture close behind. These
domains can be seen as asking the questions that one wants to know about a stranger or a
potential mate: are they energetic and dominant (extraverted), emotionally stable (low neurotic),
trustworthy (conscientious), loveable (agreeable), and interesting (intelligent and open).

Measures of ability and personality reflect observations aggregated across time and occasion and
require inferences about stable latent traits thought to account for the variety of observed
behaviors. However there are other individual differences that are readily apparent to outside
observers and require little or no inference about latent traits. The most obvious of such variables
include sex, age, height, and weight. Differences that require some knowledge and inference are
differences in ethnicity and social economic status. These obvious group differences are
sometimes analyzed in terms of the more subtle measures of personality and ability or of real life
outcomes (e.g, sex differences in neuroticism, mathematics ability, or income).

Predictive Validity

Individual differences are important only to the extent that they make a difference. Does
knowing that people differ on a trait X help in predicting the likelihood of their doing behavior
Y? For many important outcome variables the answer is a resounding yes. In their review of 85
years of selection in personnel psychology, Frank Schmidt and John Hunter (Psychological
Bulletin, 1998, 124, 262-274) show how differences in cognitive ability predict differences in job
performance with correlations averaging about .50 for mid complexity jobs. These correlations
are moderated by job complexity and are much higher for professional-managerial positions than
they are for completely unskilled jobs. In terms of applications to personnel psychology, a
superior manager (one standard deviation above the mean ability for managers) produces almost
50% more than an average manager. These relationships diminish as a function of years of
experience and degree of training. General mental ability (g) also has substantial predictive
powers in predicting non-job related outcomes, such as likelihood of completing college, risk for
divorce and even risk for criminality.

The non-cognitive measures of individual differences also predict important real life criteria.
Extraversion is highly correlated with total sales in dollars among salespeople. Similarly,
impulsivity can be used to predict traffic violations. Conscientiousness, when added to g
substantially increases the predictability of job performance. Although the size of the correlation
is much lower, conscientiousness measured in adolescence predicts premature mortality over the
next fifty years.

Sources of individual differences

The taxonomic and predictive studies of individual differences are descriptive organizations of
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that go together and how they relate to other outcomes. But this
categorization is descriptive rather than causal and is analogous to grouping rocks in terms of
density and hardness rather than atomic or molecular structure. Causal theories of individual
differences are being developed but are in a much earlier stage than are the descriptive
taxonomies.

Descriptive taxonomies are used to organize the results of studies that examine genetic bases of
individual differences. By applying structural modeling techniques to the variances and
covariances associated with various family constellations it is possible to decompose phenotypic
trait variance into separate sources of genetic and environmental variance. The most common
family configurations that are used are comparisons of identical (monozygotic) with fraternal
(dizygotic) twins. Additional designs include twins reared together or apart, and biological
versus adoptive parents, children and siblings. Conclusions from behavioral genetics for most
personality traits tend to be similar: Across different designs, with different samples from
different countries, roughly 40-60% of the phenotypic variance seems to be under genetic control
with only a very small part of the remaining environmental variance associated with shared
family environmental effects. Additional results suggest that genetic sources of individual
differences remain important across the lifespan. However, this should not be taken to mean that
people do not change as they mature but rather that the paths one takes through life are similar to
those taken by genetically similar individuals.

Genes do not code for thoughts, feelings or behavior but rather code for proteins that regulate
and modulate biological systems. Although promising work has been done searching for the
biological bases of individual differences it is possible to sketch out these bases only in the
broadest of terms. Specific neurotransmitters and brain structures can be associated with a broad
class of approach behaviors and positive affects while other neurotransmitters and structures can
be associated with a similarly broad class of avoidance behaviors and negative affects. Reports
relating specific alleles to specific personality traits emphasize that the broad personality traits
are most likely under polygenic influence and are moderated by environmental experience.

Subtle differences in neurotransmitter availability and re-uptake vary the sensitivity of

individuals to cues about their environment that predict future resource availability and external
rewards and punishments. It is the way these cues are detected, atttended to, stored, and
integrated with previous experiences that makes each individual unique. Current work on the
bases of individual differences is concerned with understanding this delicate interplay of
biological propensities with environmental opportunities and constraints as they are ultimately
represented in an individual's information processing system. With time we can expect to
increase our taxonomic and predictive power by using these causal bio-social theories of
individual differences.
References:

 Brody, N. and Ehrlichman, H. (1997) Personality Psychology : Science of Individuality.

Prentice Hall Press; A thoughtful introduction to the broad field of personality. Cooper,
C. (1997) Individual Differences: London: Arnold A broad overview of the field that
includes a review of measurement methodologies.
 Eysenck, H.J. (1994) Personality: Biological foundations. In P.A. Vernon (Ed.) The
neuropsychology of individual differences. London: Academic Press.
 Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, M.W (1985) Personality and individual differences: a natural
science approach. Plenum: New York. Although dated, perhaps the best treatment of the
scientific method as applied to the study of personality and individual differences.
 Hogan, R., Johnson, J. & Briggs, S. (Eds) (1997) Handbook of Personality Psychology.
San Diego: Academic Press. The definitive handbook of the field includes chapters on
evolutionary, biological, and social bases of individual differences.
 Jensen, A.R. (1998) The G Factor : The science of mental ability. Westport, Conn.
Praeger Review of the importance of general intelligence for performance on tasks.
 Loehlin, J.C. (1992) Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park,
Ca. Sage. A concise tutorial on genetic modeling and personality taxonomies.
 Saklofske, D. H. & Zeidner, M. (1995). International handbook of personality and
intelligence. New York: Plenum.

http://www.personality-project.org/revelle/publications/ids.html
 Introduction to Individual Differences
Individual differences is a cornerstone subject area in modern psychology.  In many
ways, it is the "classic" psychology that the general public refers to - it refers the
psychology of the person - the psychological differences between people and their
similarities.

Plato stated more than 2000 years ago:

�No two persons are born exactly alike; but each differs from the other in natural
endowments, one being suited for one occupation and the other for another.�

Individual difference psychology examines how people are similar and how they differ
in their thinking, feeling and behaviour.  No two people are alike, yet no two people
are unlike.  So, in the study of individual differences we strive to understand ways in
which people are psychologically similar and particularly what psychological
characteristics vary between people.

In the Western psychology approach to individual differences, it is generally assumed 

that:

 People vary on a range of psychological attributes

 It is possible to measure and study these individual differences
 individual differences are useful for explaining and predicting behaviour and
performance

We can classify people psychologically, according to their intelligence and personality

characteristics, for example, with moderate success, however people are complex and
much is still left unexplained.  There are multiple and often conflicting theories and
evidence about individual difference psychology.

Human beings have been aware of individual differences throughout history, e.g.

 Gender differences -hunters=men, gatherers=women

 Intelligence differences - caste, class, education, etc.
 Personality differences - job specialisations

Early study of individual differences

We have come a long way since Franz Gall invented phrenology in the early 1800s.
Phrenology is the study of an individual's bumps on the skull, which supposedly reveal
character traits and mental abilities.

Phrenology had such vogue that by 1832 there were 29 phrenological societies in
Britain and many journals in both the UK and US devoted to the study of phrenology.
It was seriously proposed to select Members of Parliament from their "bumps". Some
phrenologists even moulded children's heads to accentuate good qualities and minimise
bad ones!

Despite the theory being incorrect one of its assumptions holds true: the idea that
various brain regions have particular functions.

Darwin suggested that nature selects successful traits through the �survival of the
fittest�. His cousin, Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) concluded that he could apply the
principle scientifically. Why not measure human traits and then selectively breed
superior people? He assumed human traits, everything from height and beauty to
intelligence and ability, to personality traits such as even-temperedness, were inherited.

Modern psychology has formalised the study of individual differences over the last
100 years.  Individual differences psychology is still a young science and a relatively
recent development in modern psychology.  There are still many debates and issues.
Current knowledge will change and evolve.  So, have an open-minded, but critical
perspective as we go along!

Since there are multiple and controversial viewpoints, it is necessary to move beyond
reliance on personally preferred viewpoints to also embrace alternative perspectives,
particularly those which are utilized in psychological practice and which have solid
research support.

http://wilderdom.com/personality/L1-1Introduction.html

Individual Differences
Citation: Huitt, W. (1997). Individual differences. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta
State University. Retrieved [date], from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/instruct/indiff.html

Return to | Overview of Instruction | EdPsyc Interactive: Courses |

There are a variety of individual differences that must be of concern to classroom teachers. Some
of the most prominent are academic ability (or intelligence), achievement level, gender, learning
style, and ethnicity and culture.

In general, there are three different approaches for dealing with individual differences among
students. First, you can develop events of instruction that take them into account as part of the
instructional process. This is the approach used by Bernice McCarthy, developer of the 4MAT
system. The second approach is to provide some sort of grouping, either between classes or
within the classroom itself, in order to reduce or accomodate for the variability with respect to
student background, achievement, ability or some other characteristic. Leveling or tracking,
classroom grouping, cooperative learning, and individualized instruction are examples of this
approach. Third, you can modify the conditions within which instruction is taking place. This is
the approach used in mastery learning.

Modifying Events of Instruction

One strategy for dealing with individual differences is to develop or modify the events of
instruction so that they specifically address individual differences. This is exemplified by the
4MAT system developed by Bernice McCarthy. The 4MAT system is a direct instruction
approach to teaching that utilizes research on brain lateralization dominance and learning style to
identify specific instructional events that will be attractive to a specific type of student. The
4MAT system seems to have considerable face validity, although there is not the a widespread
research base to support it.

Grouping

There are four major approaches to grouping: between-class ability grouping (often referred to as
leveling or tracking), within-class ability grouping, cooperative learning, and individualized
instruction.

Between-class Ability Grouping. With respect to between-class ability grouping, research does
not support this strategy in terms of learning for all students. Students assigned to the top level
(perhaps the top 10 to 15%) seem to benefit from this type of grouping, but middle- and lower-
ability students do not. And although this is still a popular practice in Ameican education, some
school systems are opting to eleminate it. You might ask the question "Why do we use an
educational practice that only benefits a small number of students but is detrimental for most?"
The answer probably lies more within the realm of politics and expediency and therefore most
likely will need to be dealt with on those terms.

The major problem with between-class ability grouping may lie more with the method of
grouping than with the concept itself. For the most part, ability groups are determined by a
composite score on a standardized test of basic skills or on the subtest scores for
reading/language arts and mathematics. However, student knowledge and aptitude may not be
uniform across all areas of the content being studied. Perhaps multiple regroupings based on
specific prerequisite skills might provide a different picture of the viability for between-class
grouping.

Another problem that research has found with between-class grouping is that teacher
expectations and the quality of instruction are often lower for lower-track groups. Researchers
have observed the same teachers in both lower- and upper-level groups and have observed a
measurable difference in the performance in these classes. Teachers are generally not as well
organized and they use different strategies for questionning when they have entire classrooms
composed of lower-ability students.

A final problem with between-class grouping is that students may begin to lower their own
expectations when they are placed in a lower-level class. This in turn impacts there achievement
which in turn impacts their self-concepts with respect to academic achievement (particularly in
that specific class) which consequently negatively impacts the teacher's expectations and so on. It
is this cyclical nature of the impact of ability-grouping that may be most detrimental.

Within-class Ability Grouping. On the whole, research tends to support within-class ability
grouping as beneficial to the learning of most students. It seems to be more flexible and,
consequently, less stigmatizing. However, this research is based on a small sample of classes
(mostly mathematics) and, therefore, needs considerable additional research. In addition, the
specific method seems to be important. The ability-grouped active teaching (AGAT) discussed
by Slavin (1994, pp. 319, 323) is an example of an effective method. In general, if within-class
ability grouping is going to be considered, the teacher may want to have only two groups since it
will make the grouping process easier to manage.

Cooperative Learning. Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy in which students are

placed in heterogeneous groups. In my opinion, cooperative learning is one of the best
researched educational innovations of the last two decades. When implemented properly, it can
have dramatic effects on student achievement.

Individualized Instruction. While individualized instruction is logically the best way to deal
with individual differences, in practice it is very difficult to accomplish. One innovation that may
change that is computer-assisted instruction (CAI). On the whole, CAI has not yet delivered on
its promise to revolutionize teaching and instruction. However, my expectations are that with the
more powerful computers now available at reasonable prices we will begin to see an impact on
achievement in the near future.
Mastery Learning. A third strategy for dealing with individual differences among students is to
change the system within which instruction is provided. This is the strategy used by mastery
learning. In mastery learning, the teaching environment is structured so that students develop
mastery of prerequisite skills before they begin a new lesson. In practice, mastery learning has
not demonstrated any superiority over traditional instruction when it is implemented on an
individual classroom basis. However, it has been shown to dramatically improve student
achievement when it is successfully implemented on a school- or district-wide basis.

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/instruct/indiff.html