Distinction between the “variable-” and “person-oriented approach” originates from Jack Block [1] who defined variable-oriented approach as a methodology focusing on relations between variables, and person-oriented approach as another methodology unfolding the typical configuration and systematic connection of a dynamic set of variables. Raufelder and colleagues [2] describe person-oriented approach as a methodology, in which the analytical unit is a pattern of operating factors, rather than individual variables. We have to note that there are variable-oriented methods that apply pattern analyses and meet interactionist, dynamic and holistic principles of person-oriented approach (such as growth mixture models, dynamic factor analysis). Also, pattern analyses can be referred to pattern of covariations and also to typical configurations of distinct scores. There is some overlap between the approaches and integration of different approaches are more and more emphasized [3]. Laursen and Hoff [3] highlight that integration of person-oriented and variable-oriented approaches can lead to a deeper understanding of the processes and patterns of human development.
However, in order to clarify the distinction between the two approaches this article aimed to compare, an important difference in basic assumptions should be highlighted: Morin and colleagues [4] describe the differences between variable-centered and person-centered approaches as follows: ‘Whereas variable-centered approaches ...assume that all individuals from a sample are drawn from a single population for which a single set of “averaged” parameters can be estimated, person-centered approaches ...relax this assumption and consider the possibility that the sample might include multiple subpopulations characterized by different sets of parameters.’ (p. 8).
Although mathematically both approaches work with “variables”, there is big difference in preferred methods of the two approaches. Most frequently applied variable-oriented analyses include different linear models, such as factor-analyses, regressional analyses, structural equational modelling. On the other hand, most preferred person-oriented methods are different cluster analyses. This latter approach is therefore named frequently as cluster-analytic approach (a cluster-analyses unfold different configural types). Thus, variable-oriented methods unfold groups of variables (factors, aggregated dimensions), whereas person-oriented analyses unfold groups of similar individuals (clusters, types). With regards to personality psychology, personality dimensions can be regarded as basic units of variable-oriented approach, and personality types as units of person-oriented approach. It has to be noted that incremental of configural types over dimensions can be demonstrated only in a very few cases [5], therefore variable-oriented dimensional approach has become more widespread in personality research.
In the last few decades, trait psychology has emerged as the theoretical basis of individual differences in personality [6], based on variable-oriented methodology, namely examining relations between variables through factor analyses. Personality factors are regarded as basic personality dimensions. International comparative studies with the already validated questionnaires have portraited that personality traits are in many respects universal [7]. Zuckerman and colleagues [8] aimed to create a psychobiologically based, culture-invariant personality model (AFFM, Alternative Five Factor Model) and much research has been devoted to test the cultural invariance of its factors. Rolland [9] concluded that cross-cultural stability of the factorial structure stands for the evidence of the identification of human universals, and in fact cross-cultural personality largely focused on the cross-cultural invariance of personality’s factor analytic model.
As a psychobiological model of personality, the Alternative Five Factor Model has received attention in medical/ psychiatric settings as well. Its latest questionnaire (ZKA-PQ: Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire [10] was found to be a useful tool in clinical practice to aid the psychological explanation and the diagnosis of personality disorders [11-12]. Neuroticism was linked to most personality disorder scales, aggressiveness and sensation seeking correlated with antisocial personality disorder, extraversion negatively correlated to avoidant and dependent personality disorders. Also, all five of the personality factors were found to be at least partially related to depression [13]. In particular, lower sensation seeking, extraversion and activity, and higher levels of aggression and neuroticism were associated with higher depression scores, either directly or indirectly through sense of coherence. All these research aimed to demonstrate the usefulness and validity of the factor-analytic personality approach in clinical settings.
Other research results [14-15] provided evidence for meaningful cross-cultural comparisons of national mean profiles made with the personality factors (Big Five or alternative Big Five factors). The aggregate personality profile of a culture is usually calculated as the average of the factors of all individuals within the culture. Some studies found that countries with similar profiles on multidimensional scaling map were also geographically located close to each other in reality [16]. According to another point of view [17-19], the revealed results were controversial and the validity of such claims for real differences in mean levels has to remain tentative. Also, more cross-cultural research on AFFM (Alternative Five Factor Model) showed that cross-cultural differences in mean profiles were weak [20].
All these cross-cultural research followed the methodology of comparing mean scores of factors. However, aggregation of scores has received a number of critiques from person-oriented researchers. It has been proposed by Bergman and colleagues [21] that variable-oriented approach falsely assumes interrelations between variables to be the same for all individuals. In the cross-cultural psychology, for example, it means that cultural differences cannot be applied to all individuals at the same level, but the individual holistic patterns of cultural and individual variables should be examined. Bergman and colleagues [22] suggest the methodology to apply cluster analyses in order to unfold the typical holistic patterns and to form subgroups within the samples.
Person-oriented methodology proposes that unfolding the typical individual holistic patterns of all variables, gives opportunity to more person-centered medical practices. For example, person-centered medicine has been promoted in area of prenatal screening stating that not all women above 35 should be strictly categorized into “high-risk” category, but individual risk-assessment should be applied based on a combination of the maternal age, nuchal translucency measurement and the biochemical markers [22].
In the last ten years importance of person-oriented approach has been emphasized in psychotherapy research [23], nursing research [24], medical education research [25-27] and clinical cardiology research [28] as well.
Aims of the study
The overarching aim of our study was to compare Thai-Hungarian AFFM personality profiles with variable-oriented mean comparison of factors and with examining the typical personality patterns (typical subtypes) of the different cultures with cluster analyses.
Hypotheses
As far as our present knowledge, no previous study has investigated Thai-Hungarian comparison in light of AFFM model so far. However, Thai students showed lower scores on the Sensation-Seeking Scale (SSS) than American students and Buddhist monks had even lower SSS scores than Thai students [29]. Other previous Western-Eastern cultural differences [14] found that main difference between the individuals of the different cultures lies in their level of extraversion. We therefore hypothetize Hungarians will score higher on Extraversion and Sensation Seeking, based on variable-oriented mean comparison of factor scores. However, based on previous research, we expect only negliagable differences in mean personality [30] across cultures.
We also hypothesize that differences between cultures emerge as a consequence of more typical underlying profiles rather than a result of a single Thai and a single Hungarian typical profile. Thus, we hypothesize that cultural differences do not hold for all individuals at the same level.