<p>There are several personality tests which have dominance as trait or type as result.
In addition to this question: <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3285/how-to-measure-dominance-and-submissiveness">How to measure dominance and submissiveness?</a></p>

<ol>
<li><p>How are dominant types constructed in tests?</p></li>
<li><p>Does it consist of one factor or multiple factors?</p></li>
<li><p>Is there any neurobiology research as to what is dominance or what parts of brain is in charge of it?</p></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-16T03:29:11.267Z
To clarify, is this question about (a) dominance as a personality trait (i.e., "tendency or desire to exert power over other people") or (b) [dominant functions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Dominant_function) (i.e., a particular trait or type which is used in a more confident or certain way)?
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-16T07:02:17.833Z
(a) dominance as a personality trait
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-16T11:06:36.903Z
In what sense would you think that a neurobiological finding of any kind would make it any less of an “hypothetical construct”?
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-16T11:51:17.357Z
it is matter of measurement. if it is hypothetical construct you can measure it indirectly if it is neurobiology you can measure directly. i can tell you analogy in extraversion trait - when C. G. Jung popularized extravesion it was hypothezed as trait, as hypothetical construct, after that scientist try to find neurobiological basement: ie. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web1/Mintzer.html
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-16T18:23:45.973Z
There is no way a “neurobiological measure” (be it functional imaging, some chemical marker or anything else) is more direct. In fact, inference in neuroscience is extremely complicated. Crucially, associating a particular structure or property of the brain with a trait *requires* some way to define, identify or measure the trait in the first place. So far from being more direct, it is one step more removed from directly observable behavior. You need a some working model at a functional of behavioral level before you can even contemplate neuroscience research on a topic.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-16T18:32:00.480Z
You can already judge if a trait is “real” by looking a regularities in behavior across time and situations. If people tend to repeatedly behave in a particular way (even if only in answering self-report scales), then you have a “real” trait. Its exact meaning or pratical import can be debated but this is a “hard” fact, not some hypothesis waiting for confirmation. If there were no regularities in behavior to begin with, it would be difficult to see how you could do any neuroscience research on the phenomenon.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-16T18:41:25.793Z
Furthermore, except if you believe in some kind of mind-body dualism, the mere observation of a behavior (and by extension the existence of any kind of behavioral measure including questionnaires) implies some differences in the brain. Being able to pinpoint what exactly these differences might be is interesting in itself but it would not “validate” the existence of a trait or prove the behavior to be “real”. Conversely, some vague correlation of the kind that can be obtained in imaging or lesion study are hardly definitive evidence for or against any particular theory of personality.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-22T09:12:49.550Z
I know for several ways to determine dominance as a trait. I asked this question because of S-O-R paradigm and this document: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/index.shtml Altough it will be very interesting to determine what is logic (or minimum) to conclude if some behavior is hardwired in brain or DNA.
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-25T15:42:15.137Z
Now, I think I just misunderstood your question. Having a neurobiological basis and being hardwired/innate are two different things. Memory has a (pretty well understood) neurobiological basis but the things you can recall aren't encoded in your DNA, obviously. I still think that the talk of functional/behavioral constructs being “hypothetical”, while pretty common, is not helpful and I am not sure if I agree that a neurobiological (or, why not, genetic) measure would necessarily be “more direct”, though.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-19T22:43:09.623Z
@GaëlLaurans I think your series of comments provides a good "question the assumptions" answer, you should consider submitting it as an answer. Alternatively, we could create a general "Is X a hypothetical construct or is it based in neurobiology?" to use as a reference to many similar questions we get on the site, with your answer as a good starting point for people.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-02T18:27:21.137Z
Very interested comment
ICanFeelIt
<neuroscience><measurement><personality>
Is personality dominance a hypothetical construct or is it based in neurobiology?
ICanFeelIt
# Is personality dominance a hypothetical construct or is it based in neurobiology?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-07-15)

There are several personality tests which have dominance as trait or type as result.
In addition to this question: [How to measure dominance and submissiveness?](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3285/how-to-measure-dominance-and-submissiveness)

1. How are dominant types constructed in tests?
2. Does it consist of one factor or multiple factors?
3. Is there any neurobiology research as to what is dominance or what parts of brain is in charge of it?

**Tags:** neuroscience, measurement, personality

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: To clarify, is this question about (a) dominance as a personality trait (i.e., "tendency or desire to exert power over other people") or (b) [dominant functions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Dominant_function) (i.e., a particular trait or type which is used in a more confident or certain way)?  
> **username_0**: (a) dominance as a personality trait  
> **username_2**: In what sense would you think that a neurobiological finding of any kind would make it any less of an “hypothetical construct”?  
> **username_0**: it is matter of measurement. if it is hypothetical construct you can measure it indirectly if it is neurobiology you can measure directly. i can tell you analogy in extraversion trait - when C. G. Jung popularized extravesion it was hypothezed as trait, as hypothetical construct, after that scientist try to find neurobiological basement: ie. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web1/Mintzer.html  
> **username_2**: There is no way a “neurobiological measure” (be it functional imaging, some chemical marker or anything else) is more direct. In fact, inference in neuroscience is extremely complicated. Crucially, associating a particular structure or property of the brain with a trait *requires* some way to define, identify or measure the trait in the first place. So far from being more direct, it is one step more removed from directly observable behavior. You need a some working model at a functional of behavioral level before you can even contemplate neuroscience research on a topic.  
> **username_2**: You can already judge if a trait is “real” by looking a regularities in behavior across time and situations. If people tend to repeatedly behave in a particular way (even if only in answering self-report scales), then you have a “real” trait. Its exact meaning or pratical import can be debated but this is a “hard” fact, not some hypothesis waiting for confirmation. If there were no regularities in behavior to begin with, it would be difficult to see how you could do any neuroscience research on the phenomenon.  
> **username_2**: Furthermore, except if you believe in some kind of mind-body dualism, the mere observation of a behavior (and by extension the existence of any kind of behavioral measure including questionnaires) implies some differences in the brain. Being able to pinpoint what exactly these differences might be is interesting in itself but it would not “validate” the existence of a trait or prove the behavior to be “real”. Conversely, some vague correlation of the kind that can be obtained in imaging or lesion study are hardly definitive evidence for or against any particular theory of personality.  
> **username_0**: I know for several ways to determine dominance as a trait. I asked this question because of S-O-R paradigm and this document: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/index.shtml Altough it will be very interesting to determine what is logic (or minimum) to conclude if some behavior is hardwired in brain or DNA.  
> **username_2**: Now, I think I just misunderstood your question. Having a neurobiological basis and being hardwired/innate are two different things. Memory has a (pretty well understood) neurobiological basis but the things you can recall aren't encoded in your DNA, obviously. I still think that the talk of functional/behavioral constructs being “hypothetical”, while pretty common, is not helpful and I am not sure if I agree that a neurobiological (or, why not, genetic) measure would necessarily be “more direct”, though.  
> **username_3**: @GaëlLaurans I think your series of comments provides a good "question the assumptions" answer, you should consider submitting it as an answer. Alternatively, we could create a general "Is X a hypothetical construct or is it based in neurobiology?" to use as a reference to many similar questions we get on the site, with your answer as a good starting point for people.  
> **username_0**: Very interested comment  

---

## 0 answers

