Download Chapter 2 - Personality, Part I and more Study notes Personality Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
..
Personality, Part I
Key Terms
biopsychological neuropsychology
correlation nomothetic paradigm
dispositional approach psychometrics
factor analysis reliability
Five Factor Model situational approach
Gigantic Three taxonomy
idiographic paradigm trait
lexical hypothesis validity
meta-analysis
Chapter Outline
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 OVERVIEW AND APPROACHES
2.3 DEFINITION OF PERSONALITY TRAITS
2.4 HISTORY OF PERSONALITY
2.5 PERSONALITY TRAITS AND STATES: DISPOSITIONAL VS. SITUATIONAL APPROACHES
2.6 EYSENCK’S GIGANTIC THREE AND THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF PERSONALITY TRAITS
2.7 SELF-REPORT INVENTORIES
2.8 THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF PERSONALITY
2.9 GRAY’S PERSONALITY THEORY
2.10 CATTELL’S 16PF AND THE LEXICAL HYPOTHESIS
2.11 THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL (BIG FIVE)
2.12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
14 Personality, Part I
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As with many topics in psychology, definitions of personality are more complex than everyday uses of the term. Psychologists are often faced with the difficult and seemingly unnecessary task of providing theoretical definitions for words that appear not to need one. And yet it would be difficult to investigate any concept with rigorous scrutiny without first defining the variable prop- erly. Moreover, in psychology it is important to “define away” personality from lay connotations of the concept. Accordingly, a scientific approach to the study of individual differences should begin by giving a clear definition of personality, beyond the dis- crepancies of pre-scientific knowledge and the lay uses and mis- uses of what is usually understood by the term. The Latin root of the word “personality” is persona , which means “mask” and is also the origin of the word “person” in several languages, such as English, Spanish, and German. Thus the classic connotation of personality is associated with the “dis- covery” of the real causes of individuals’ feelings and thoughts, expressed or projected through the mask of behavior. In plain English, “personality” is used to refer to several differ- ent but often overlapping ideas. Consider, for instance, the fol- lowing examples:
a) Martin is a good friend of mine, but we have very different personalities. b) I don’t find Jade very attractive, but she has an amazing personality. c) If there is one thing I can’t stand in people, it’s their lack of personality. d) Zoe and Sarah have such different personalities , I sometimes wonder whether they really are sisters. e) Joe has such a difficult personality , I don’t understand how you get along with him.
Now consider the following examples, which despite not men- tioning the word “personality” seem to be referring, albeit impli- citly, to similar concepts:
f) Jennifer and Paul are very different, and yet they seem so compatible. g) I would like you to accept me as I am. h) Clever people always get along with each other. i) Mrs. Jones is a very reliable customer. I’m very surprised she forgot to send us the check.
As can be seen, personality seems to have various connota- tions, some more interchangeable than others. In the first set of examples, the term is used to emphasize: (a) general styles and preferences; (b) positive internal attributes; (c) passiveness or lack of initiative, i.e., conforming to the norm; (d) genetically influenced psychological similarities; and (e) bad temper, i.e., not getting along with others. In the second set of examples, where personality is only impli- citly referred to, we can see how (f) individuals are compared on the basis of apparent preferences and styles (they can be similar or not); (g) people use implicit autobiographical descriptions, i.e., “as I am” (self-descriptors that include the word “I” are typically representative of personality characteristics; Schultz & Schultz,
1994, p. 8); (h) people can be rated as clever or not; and (i) we are surprised when people act in an unexpected or different than usual manner. But how do these uses compare with the psycho- logical definitions of personality?
2.2 OVERVIEW AND APPROACHES
In psychology, “personality” has been used to refer to different and often opposite ideas. Indeed, some definitions seem to ques- tion the very idea that personality exists. Let us examine a few examples of approaches to the conceptualization of personality. One major distinction is that between nomothetic and idio- graphic paradigms. The nomothetic paradigm assumes that individual differences can be described, explained, and predicted in terms of pre- defined criteria or attributes. Accordingly, each individual’s personality can be repre- sented in terms of different levels of the same “vectors,” just as every city in the world can be geographically located by using the same coordinates of latitude and longitude. Conversely, the idiographic paradigm assumes that every individual is unique, to the extent that we cannot describe two different people by means of the same concepts or terms. Instead, different “vectors” or coordin- ates would be needed to account for each person’s individuality. Idiographic approaches are at the heart of psychodynamic theories, such as psychoanalysis (see chapter 4), and emphasize the unique nature of individuals’ life experiences. In this book, they will be mentioned only briefly. Another distinction is that between dispositional and situ- ational approaches , which differ on the basis of whether they conceptualize personality in terms of largely invariable and consistent dispositions to act, think, and feel in similar ways relatively independently of the context or, rather, in terms of a series of largely unrelated states that are pre- dominantly a function of situational factors. Strictly speaking, the notion of per- sonality as it refers to the essential and unchanging characteristics of an individual (what makes us who we are) is encompassed only by the dispositional approach to personality, whereas situational approaches are pretty much in conflict with the idea of a continu- ity or “essence” describing every individual. Instead, situational approaches argue that individuals behave differently in different contexts, making it impossible to capture the “core” psychological attributes of a person. (The antithesis between situational and dispositional approaches is further discussed in 2.5 below.)
nomothetic paradigm assumes that individual differences can be de- scribed, explained, and predicted in terms of predefined attributes
idiographic paradigm assumes that individuals are unique and that two different people cannot be described using the same concepts or terms
dispositional approach views per- sonality in terms of consistent and unchanging dispositions to act, think, and feel, regardless of context
situational approach views person- ality in terms of unrelated states or behaviors determined by situational factors
16 Personality, Part I
personality derived from Hippocrates (460–370 bc), a Greek philosopher who is also credited with the invention of medicine. However, it was another Greek physician, Galen (130–200 ad), who documented – and probably further developed – this theory,
which is thus referred to as the Hippocrates/Galen personality or temperament theory. The Hippocrates/Galen theory was based on a classification of the major types of temperament as a function of both psycholo- gical and biological differences. As seen in 2.2, traits and types represent the dispositional approach for classifying and describing individuals’ patterns of behavior, thought, and emotionality. Whilst traits conceptualize personality variables in terms of a continuum, types refer to an “all-or-nothing” distinction between two opposite extremes of a bipolar variable. In terms of types, then, you are either extraverted or introverted, pretty much in the same way you are either pregnant or not. The Greek classification of personality types assumed that biological differences (in physiological complexion) would cause behavioral differences (in psychological complexion), an idea that many centuries later would set the foundations of scientific psychology. In the late nineteenth century, William James (1842–1910), one of the founders of modern psychology, referred to this physio-psychological interaction as one of the major principles of psychology. The four different types of temperament in Hippocrates/ Galen’s theory described biological differences in the level of specific fluids of the human body, or “humors,” which would, in turn, determine individual differences in everyday behavior (see Figure 2.4). The sanguine temperament described enthusiastic, optimistic, and cheerful individuals, satisfied with life and generally enjoying good physical and mental health. This type of temperament was believed to be related to high levels of blood supply or the “strength” of the blood itself ( sanguis is the Latin word for blood). Sanguine people, then, are usually in a good mood, tend to be
Traits
- continuous
- degree ( how? )
- quantitative
- ordinal
- score on x – y factor
x y
Types
- discontinuous
- discrete ( what? )
- qualitative
- categorical
- x or y
x y
Figure 2.3 Dispositional approaches to personality: traits and types.
Sad, depressed, reflective, asocial, pessimistic Dull, lazy, apathetic, slow, controlled, careful
mucus phlegmatic (calm)
choleric (angry)
bile
melancholic (depressed)
“black bile”
blood levels
sanguine (happy)
Aggressive, tense, volatile, impulsive, restless
Enthusiastic, positive, cheerful, satisfied
Figure 2.4 Ancient Greek classification of humors and temperament types (after Hippocrates and Galen).
WHAT ARE PERSONALITY TRAITS?
- General descriptions of individuals.
- Internal characteristics of the individual.
- Causal determinants of repetitive behaviors.
- Explain and predict systematic differences as well as similarities between individuals.
3 EXAMPLES a) Pete is a selfish guy. b) Lea is a happy girl. c) Sven is incredibly obsessive.
Figure 2.2 Personality traits as psychological determinants of consistent behaviors.
Personality, Part I 17
happy, and are also fun to be with (I wish I were more sanguine sometimes!). A second type of temperament, the choleric type, referred to aggressive, volatile, and temperamental individuals. This type of temperament was believed to be caused by high levels of the “yellow bile,” a chemical released by the gall bladder during digestion. Although this hypothesis no longer stands, the descrip- tion of irritable, emotional, bad-tempered individuals can still be applied to many people (including myself !). A third temperament type, the phlegmatic type, described calm, relaxed, and slow-paced individuals and was originally attributed to the “phlegm” or mucus of the lungs typical during ’flu or lung infections. Again, nobody today would think that boring, static, and unenergetic people have larger quantities of mucus in the lungs, but we can probably all think of people who may be rep- resentative of a phlegmatic temperament (for obvious reasons, I will not mention any particular cases here). The fourth type of temperament, the melancholic type, as you may guess from the everyday connotation of the term described sad, depressed, reflective, and pessimistic individuals. The biolo- gical origin of melancholy was believed to be the malfunctioning of an organ called “black bile,” but this idea was probably aban- doned after the Middle Ages. As will be seen in chapter 4, melan- cholia is nowadays associated with abnormal rather than normal personality (see 4.7.2 for a modern psychopathological approach to depression). It is also important to note that, while we may all feel sad or “melancholic” at times – especially after experiencing upsetting events like a relative’s or friend’s death – melancholic individuals tend to feel sad or empty most of the time. Despite the pre-scientific nature of the ancient Greek theory of temperament, several aspects of Hippocrates/Galen’s classifica- tion had a significant impact on eminent intellectual figures of the modern era, notably the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Influenced by the Greek theory of temperament, Kant published his Anthropology from the Pragmatic Viewpoint (1796), echoing the classification of the four types of tempera- ment as an accurate description of individuality. In the early 1800s, an entire discipline that attempted to link physical and psychological traits was developed by Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828). This discipline was called phrenology and studied the shape of human physical parts such as the skull. Phrenologists even modulated children’s heads in an attempt to raise their intel- lectual capabilities! As obscure and unethical as this technique may seem today, phrenology was a highly fashionable science in 1830s England, where there were almost 30 societies dedicated to it. Although phrenology no longer constitutes a respectable scientific discipline, modern psychophysiological research pro- vided evidence for established links between most brain regions and specific psychological processes. The most notable psychologist to be influenced by the Greek classification of humors was Hans Eysenck (1916–97), who developed a biologically based personality theory for the assess- ment of temperament dimensions that were quite similar to those proposed by Hippocrates/Galen. These dimensions are Neuroticism and Extraversion , and still persist in most personality models today, though sometimes under different labels. Figure 2.
represents the theoretical overlap between Eysenck’s two early dimensions of temperament and the ancient classification of Hippocrates/Galen. As shown in Figure 2.5, Eysenck conceptualized Extraversion as a combination of choleric and sanguine temperaments (now I feel relieved as this trait also represents some of the more positive aspects of my personality!), whilst Introversion would represent both phlegmatic and melancholic types. The other major trait in Eysenck’s theory was Neuroticism/Emotional Stability, which could be represented by a combination of melancholic and cho- leric types, whilst Emotional Stability would represent a mix of sanguine and phlegmatic types. Other dispositional approaches conceptualizing personality in terms of types have included William Sheldon’s (1899–1977) somatotype theory, Carl Jung’s (1875–1961) psychoanalytical types, the Type A and Type B personality theory, and Block’s (1971) personality types. Because of their relatively minor import- ance with regard to established trait taxonomies and wider per- sonality theories, these alternative typologies will be discussed only briefly. Sheldon’s somatotype theory associated psychological disposi- tions and patterns of behavior with external, that is, physical features. According to Sheldon’s theory, there were three major personality types, namely, endomorph , mesomorph , and ectomorph. Endomorphic individuals tend to be sociable, peaceful, tolerant, and are generally overweight. Mesomorphic individuals are assertive, proactive, vigorous, and muscular. Ectomorphic people, on the other hand, are usually insecure, sensitive, and quiet; they are delicate and have weak muscles too. Although there has been much speculation about the causal processes by which psychological features may be influenced by physical traits and vice versa, Sheldon’s typology remains largely anecdotic and is commonly regarded as a late exponent of early phrenological paradigms. Furthermore, independent researchers have failed to replicate Sheldon’s typology, suggesting his evidence was largely flawed.
melancholic
high Neuroticism
Sad, depressed, reflective, asocial, pessimistic
Enthusiastic, positive, cheerful, satisfied
sanguine
Aggressive, tense, volatile, impulsive, restless
Dull, lazy, apathetic, slow, controlled, careful
phlegmatic choleric
low Extraversion
low Neuroticism high Extraversion
Figure 2.5 Ancient Greek and Eysenck’s early personality traits.
Personality, Part I 19
meta-analysis (analysis of previous studies) by Mischel (1968), which reported an aggregated correlation of r = .30 between traits and behavior, though this value was later revised and in- creased to r = .40 (Funder, 2001). Accordingly, personal- ity traits would on average account for as little as 16 percent of the variance in behavior (this value is calculated by squaring the correlation between two variables). If, however, we consider the 50 percent likelihood of predicting behavior by chance (e.g., will p do x , yes [50 percent] or no [50 percent]?), the 16 percent of additional variance accounted for by traits provides useful infor- mation for predicting behavior in a given situation. Traits may also determine the choice of a situation and are expressed across different behavioral patterns, constituting better predictors of general than specific behaviors. For example, measures of trait anxiety will be more accurate to predict whether an individual will experience stress during the next five years than during a specific exam. Although the debate between situational and dispositional theories represents an important phase in the development of personality theory, it has been pointed out that such a debate “can at least be declared 98 percent over” (Funder, 2001). Thus, rather than fur- ther emphasizing this point, let us briefly examine how states and traits are associ- ated in the psychometric assessment of personality
traits. For those interested in the dispositional vs. situational debate, I recommend Brody’s (1988) review of the topic. Figure 2.6 graphically represents the trait of Extraver- sion as derived from a set of observable and correlated states, i.e., smile , touch , move , and talk. These states can be observed across different situations and interpreted as a consequence of Extraversion, which is the common underlying or latent factor. Accordingly, traits are conceptualized or inferred from a series of related states. Although trait models have been questioned on the basis of the poor validity and reliability of specific questionnaires (Block, 1971), studies with reliable instruments provide sufficient evidence for the invariance of major personality traits across the adult lifespan. These studies have examined not only self- but also other- reports of personality traits and concluded that there is little change in the major personality dimen- sions throughout an individual’s life, particularly after the age of
- For example, Costa, McCrae, and Arenberg (1980) report cor- relations for males of r > .70 over a 6- to 12-year period (notably for Neuroticism and Extraversion), and similar correlations have been reported for female samples, though it has also been noted that, in late adulthood, women tend to become more confident, dominant, and independent (Helson & Moane, 1987). Overall, personality traits show little change throughout the lifespan, which means that at the age of 80 (if we ever get there), we are still essentially the same person we were at the age of, say, 22... just a lot older. Further evidence for the stability of traits has been provided by behavioral-genetic studies (see chapter 7), which suggest that there is a substantial genetic influence on personality traits. This
meta-analysis a review of previous research that involves statistical analyses combining the results of many studies
correlation the extent to which two variables, e.g., traits and behavior, are related; a correlation of +1 indi- cates a perfect positive association, a correlation of −1 a perfect nega- tive association
psychometrics literally, measure- ment of the mind; the theory and measurement of psychological variables such as IQ (intelligence quotient) and personality via tests or questionnaires
reliability the extent to which a given finding will be consistently reproduced on other occasions
validity (psychometric) the extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure
Extraversion
observable smile behavior
inferred trait
touch move talk
Situations 1, 2, 3...
Situations 1, 2, 3...
Situations 1, 2, 3...
Situations 1, 2, 3...
Latent traits
States
Figure 2.6 Traits and states psychometrically and conceptually represented.
20 Personality, Part I
influence persists even in adulthood and undermines the import- ance of environmental factors, which only seem to play a minor role in personality development (Cooper, 1998). Thus Costa and McCrae (1988) have argued: Many individuals will have undergone radical changes in their life structure. They may have married, divorced, remarried. They have probably moved their residence several times. Job changes, layoffs, promotions, and retirement are all likely to have occurred for many people. Close friends and confidants will have died or moved away or become alienated. Children will have been born, grown up, married, begun a family of their own. The individual will have aged biologically, with changes in appearances, health, vigor, memory, and sensory abilities. Internationally, wars, depressions, and social movements will have come and gone. Most subjects will have read dozens of books, seen hundreds of movies, watched thousands of hours of television. And yet, most people will not have changed appreciably in any of the personal- ity dispositions measured by these tests. (p. 61) After decades of theoretical debate on the nature of personal- ity structure, psychometric evidence has led most researchers to conceptualize individual differences in personality in terms of traits rather than states. As I have argued above, this does not by any means rule out the possibility of situational factors mediating or moderating the relationship between latent traits and actual states. It does, however, mean that it is more useful to predict a wider range of behaviors – irrespective of the situation – by assessing traits. Differences between individuals can therefore be encompassed by referring to a general descriptive classification of behaviors, where different individuals are expected to show different levels of traits as well as different predispositions to act. As will be seen, the idea that latent traits are the major and most general determinants of individual differences in behavior has not produced immediate consensus on the way these traits should be assessed. Most of the debate has centered around the identification of the major personality dimensions (e.g., which ones, and how many) that may best represent general differences between individuals. Hence the reference to three, 16, or five traits, though virtually any number of personality dimensions have been proposed.
2.6 EYSENCK’S GIGANTIC THREE
AND THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF
PERSONALITY TRAITS
The Gigantic Three derives from Eysenck’s systematic empirical investigations on personality and individual differences (Eysenck, 1947, 1957, 1967, 1991) and is one of the major theories and instruments for assessing personality traits. This theory posits that there are three major dimensions according to which every individual can be classified, namely Neuroticism , Extraversion , and Psychoticism (only added to the taxonomy in 1976).
Eysenck provided several psychometric instruments to assess the Gigantic Three, including the original Maudsley Medical Questionnaire (MMQ), the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), and the most recent Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) and Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP) (Jackson, Furnham, Forde, & Cotter, 2000), which also include a Lie scale to detect extreme responses or “faking good.” Eysenck’s inventories are self-report questionnaires comprising items about typical behavior (preferences and dispositions), which are answered on a two-point Likert-type scale (yes/no). Thus people report whether they agree or not with a variety of statements, indicating whether these are representative of the way they usually behave. Theoretically, the three dimensions assessed by the EPQ-R are orthogonal or independent. This means that high scores on, say, Neuroticism do not provide any information about scores on the other two traits, and vice versa. Thus, you can be stable and ex- traverted, or stable and introverted, and so on. Accordingly, the description of an individual would not be fulfilled unless the three personality traits are assessed. At the same time, the Gigantic Three model implies that no more than these traits are needed to describe individuals, though an increasing number of researchers have argued otherwise (see 2.10 and 2.11 below). A brief descrip- tion of high and low scorers on each trait is presented in Table 2.1. Neuroticism refers to an individual’s level of emotionality and tendency to worry, be moody, touchy, and anxious. Thus the Neuroticism/Emotional Stability trait is a continuum of upset and distress. People high on Neuroticism are generally anxious, stressed, pessimistic, and fearful and tend to have lower self- esteem. Conversely, people low on Neuroticism are emotionally stable, calm, and optimistic. Extraversion assesses the degree to which individuals show a tendency to be talkative, outgoing, and energetic. Thus the Extraversion/Introversion factor represents a continuum of sociability, liveliness, and dominance. Extraverts tend to enjoy the company of others and express their feelings and emotions; they are energetic and optimistic, outgoing and confident. Conversely, introverts (low Extraversion scorers) are resilient to interpersonal contact, reserved, and quiet; they tend to be shy and lack confidence.
Table 2.1 Eysenck’s Gigantic Three (characteristics of high and low scorers)
High
Low
Source : Based on Eysenck & Eysenck (1991).
Neuroticism
Anxious, moody, depressed, pessimistic, tense, shy, low self- esteem Stable, positive, calm, optimistic, confident, relaxed
Extraversion
Energetic, sociable, lively, active, assertive, confident, dominant
Asociable, passive, slow, reflective, introspective, unconfident
Psychoticism
Unempathetic, creative, sensation-seeking, aggressive, cold
Altruistic, rational, patient, conformist, organized, down- to-earth, empathic
Gigantic Three theory derived from Eysenck’s investigations on personality and individual differ- ences which posits three major per- sonality dimensions – Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Psychoticism – for classifying individuals
22 Personality, Part I
interpretation by which different people assess their preferences: “a lot” may represent more to some individuals than to others. Asking friends and relatives may overcome the problems of impression management, faking, and lying, though equally there is no reason to suppose that the person’s friends and relatives are more likely to tell the truth, particularly if the person has managed to “fool” them. Hiding in the person’s house to observe how often she listens to classical music may be more effective, but also illegal. Phoning the person’s bank to enquire about her spending would also require legal authorization, and even so the bank or credit card company is unlikely to have details about the products she purchased. Testing the person’s knowledge of classical music may only be an indirect measure of how much she likes classical music: the person could be extensively trained in classical music, but prefer to listen to R&B, pop, or jazz. Another more practical and reliable option can be found in the psychometric approach, which consists of asking different, sup- posedly related questions to the person or anyone who knows her well. In the case of preference for classical music, we could, for instance, ask the following questions:
a) Do you like Bach? b) Do you often listen to Beethoven? c) Do you regularly buy classical music CDs? d) Would you find it difficult to spend more than a week with- out listening to classical music? e) Do you usually go to the opera? f) Do you think young people should spend more time listen- ing to Chopin than Eminem?
Once these questions have been answered (and I should emphas- ize that the choice of questions is entirely subjective in this case), not by one but by, say, 100 individuals, factor analytical tech- niques such as principal components analysis can be used to determine whether these questions have something in common.
If they do, we should be able to identify an underlying factor or component, which explains general patterns of responses. Depending on the meaning of the questions, we can then label the factor accordingly. In this case “preference for classical music” seems to be an obvious choice, though labeling will always remain more or less subjective. Despite relying on self-reported information, the psychometric method “produces” on the other hand more variability between individuals’ levels of preferences. On the other hand, the use of multiple items allows us to assess different aspects of preference for classical music through simple and specific questions. Thus, the statistical technique of data reduction provides a robust indicator of whether different behaviors or preferences we enquire about are related to a common underlying dimension. If so, it is also possible to ask others to rate the person and calculate an overall score for each individual to represent their level of preference for classical music. That score can also be compared with other information, for example, number of classical CDs owned, amount of money spent on opera tickets, and knowledge of classical music. Personality inventories (see Figure 2.7) follow essentially the same principles as in our music example.
2.8 THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF
PERSONALITY
Another central element in Eysenck’s theory is that it explains individual differences in personality in biological terms. Thus, different levels of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Psychoticism are thought to be caused by genetic factors, which explains why personality remains largely unchanged throughout the lifespan (see chapter 7). In particular, differences in temperament would be a consequence of individuals’ level of cerebral arousability or the extent to which their brain is sensitive to stimulation. According to Eysenck (1967; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), there are two major systems accounting for physiological and
b12 (^) b10 b14 b7 b
b
b b5 b
b
b21 b
b
b b23 b
b
b36 b
b
b b42 b
b
Neuroticism b1 (^) b11 b
b
b16 (^) b26 b
b15 (^) b27 b
b
b33 (^) b31 b
b34 (^) b32 b
b
Extraversion
Psychoticism
Figure 2.7 Eysenck’s Gigantic Three psychometrically assessed. Each of the diamonds b1... b42 represents self-reported behaviors or preferences (e.g., “do you enjoy loud parties?”). Correlated behaviors are located within the same psychometric space (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, or Psychoticism, the three independent/orthogonal traits).
Personality, Part I 23
psychological differences between individuals, namely, the reticulo- cortical , located in the brain-stem reticular formation, and reticulo- limbic , situated in the visceral area, composed of the amygdala, hippocampus, septum, cingulum, and hypothalamus (see Fig- ure 2.8). Whereas the former is in charge of controlling the cortical arousal produced by each incoming stimulus, the latter regulates responses to emotional stimuli. Eysenck argued that Extraversion is the psychological conse- quence of physiological differences in the reticulo-cortical system, which determines levels of motivation, emotion, and condition- ing according to either inhibitions or excitations of the cerebral cortex. These consistent patterns of arousability would also deter- mine the extent to which an individual is extraverted or intro- verted; specifically, introverts would have a greater tendency to be cortically aroused than their extraverted counterparts, and vice versa. Thus, under equal conditions of external stimulation (i.e., in exactly the same situation), introverts will generate greater arousal than extraverts (Gale, 1973). It follows that introverts need more time and effort to adapt to external stimuli and benefit from quiet environments. Conversely, extraverts, who have a greater need to compensate for their lower levels of arousal, tend to seek external stimulation and are more comfortable and able to deal with distracting envir- onments or arousing activities. Studies on sensory deprivation, where extraverts seem to compensate for the lack of stimulation by moving around the room, appear to illustrate the interplay of physiological and psychological processes with external stimuli (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Thus introverts’ and extraverts’ arousability levels would lead the former to avoid stimulus inten- sity and the latter to seek it. This search or avoidance would in turn enhance or reduce extraverts’ and introverts’ innate levels of habituation to stimuli, resulting in a biopsychological feedback. On the other hand, Eysenck explained individual differences in Neuroticism in terms of the arousability of the limbic system, which generates acti- vation perceived as arousal. Levels of arousability are
induced by emotional stimuli, and the arousing activities in the brain of neurotic individuals can be translated into a predisposition to experience intense emotions, notably anxiety. Thus Neuro- ticism is explained by the relationship between an individual’s level of excitability and emotional responsiveness, reflected in the autonomic activation of the neurotic system. Just as differ- ences in Extraversion/Introversion are more evident in stimulus- intense environments, differences in autonomic activation leading to Neuroticism are more clearly observed under stressful or anxiety-evoking conditions (Matthews & Gilliland, 1999). In fact, Eysenck (1967, p. 3) noticed that “the concept of fatigue in relation to extraversion-introversion takes the place of the concept of emotion in relation to neuroticism-stability.” Because neurotic individuals are characterized by a hyper- arousable visceral system (the area of the brain involved in emotional regulation), they are more sensitive to reproducing emotional reactions than are stable/low Neuroticism individuals. Accordingly, the same event may elicit an intense emotional reac- tion in neurotic but not stable individuals, and observable indica- tors such as sweat or galvanic skin response, as the experience of intense negative emotions, are believed to be the consequence of the visceral-brain activation and its consequent activation of the nervous system. Although Eysenck did not provide a detailed account of the biological basis of Psychoticism, he suggested that individual differences in Psychoticism may be caused by the dopamine neurotransmitter, a chemical brain messenger associated with the experience and regulation of emotionality. Despite the wide replication of Neuroticism and Extraversion as major dimensions of personality, Psychoticism remained the focus of a largely unre- solved psychometric dispute that opened the field to other import- ant taxonomies (see 2.10 and 2.11 below). Other problems with Eysenck’s psychobiological theory were its complexity, the physiological interdependence of the processes underlying the two supposedly unrelated traits of Neuroticism and Extraversion, and the lack of sufficient technological instru- ments – especially at the time – to test his hypotheses. Because of fast-paced technological advances in neuropsychology , several of the concepts underlying Eysenck’s theory seem now as outdated as those used by Hippocrates and Galen at the time of Eysenck’s prelimin- ary theoretical developments. Some interesting research in this line is still being conducted, and there are some, notably Robinson (1996), who are concerned with reinterpreting and reexamining Eysenck’s biological theory of temperament with state-of-the-art neuropsychological equipment. Yet the physio- logical part of Eysenck’s theory is by and large disconfirmed, and most personality research has since been based on questionnaire rather than biological models.
2.9 GRAY’S PERSONALITY THEORY
Another influential personality theory, largely based on Eysenck’s theory though pioneering in many aspects, was developed by
Figure 2.8 Reticular activating system. Source : H. Gleitman, A. J. Fridlund, and D. Reisburg, Psychology, Fifth Editon (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), p. 27, Fig. 2.13.
biopsychological interaction be- tween biological factors and psy- chological factors
neuropsychology the area of psy- chology that studies how the brain relates to specific psychological processes
Personality, Part I 25
existing words. This assump- tion is known as the lexical hypothesis. The first documented lex- ical study was conducted by Allport and Odbert (1936), who found as many as 17, words to describe psychological aspects by which individuals may be compared. These words may be thought of as personality adjectives, for instance “happy,” “shy,” “quiet,” “stupid,” “aggres- sive,” and so on. Because there are often different words to describe the same trait or aspect of personality, the total number of descriptors can be reduced substantially. Starting from a list of 4,500 words, Cattell obtained 180, then between 42 and 46, and eventually 16 personality traits. Factors from Cattell’s taxonomy, the 16PF, are presented in Table 2.4. Despite the wide range of behaviors covered by Cattell’s 16 factors, moderate and high intercorrelations between several of these dimensions make it possible to reduce the taxonomy to fewer, higher-order factors, namely QI, QII, and QVIII. This can be achieved through oblique rotation , a technique championed by Cattell that allows different factors to be correlated. Despite the technical jargon, the idea underlying oblique rotation is rather simple. Many variables that refer to everyday events happen to be oblique or related. For instance, alcohol and drug consumption in adolescents refer to different but related behaviors; another example is religious and political views. QI (exvia-vs.-invia) and QII (adjustment-vs.-anxiety) are com- parable to Extraversion and Neuroticism, respectively, whilst QVIII (superego) seems to overlap with Eysenck’s Psychoticism trait, referring to levels of ego-strengths, discipline, and self-
concepts. However, several researchers – including Cattell himself – failed to replicate both the primary and secondary traits of the 16PF. Besides, Cattell argued that intelligence should be conceptualized as part of personality and assessed through self- report inventories, though most intelligence theories demand that abilities are measured through objective performance tests (see chapters 5 and 6).
2.11 THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL
(BIG FIVE)
If personality psychology were to advance from a preliminary classification of traits to the prediction of real-life outcomes and other psychological constructs, it would be essential to establish a consensus concerning the number and nature of traits that are necessary to describe the basic psychological differences between individuals. The system that appears to have won the vote of most differential psychologists (including mine and, I hope, yours by the time you finish reading this book) is the Five Factor Model , also referred to as the Big Five personality traits. Like Cattell’s 16PF, the Big Five personality framework originated from the lexical hypothesis, that is, the assumption that the major dimensions of individual dif- ferences can be derived from the total number of descrip- tors in any language system. After Cattell’s initial version of a lexical-based personality model, Norman (1967) – based on Tupes and Christal (1961/1992) – identified 1,431 major descrip- tors, which could be collapsed into a more fundamental list of 75 adjectives. Thus the Big Five model of personality is the result of statistical rather than theoretical or experimental research, and offers a descriptive rather than causal classification of individual differences, although in recent years behavioral-genetic studies have provided evidence for the biological influences of the Big Five personality dimensions (discussed in chapter 7). Despite the lack of theoretical rationale for the etiology or origin of traits identified by the Five Factor model, and some isolated but persistent opposition (notably Block, 1995, 2001), there has been a good deal of consensus and empirical evidence to support the identification of the Big Five as the major dimen- sions of personality (Funder, 2001). Differential psychologists have also seemed to agree on the psychometrical advantages of the Big Five taxonomy proposed by Costa and McCrae (1985, 1992), often concluding that the Five Factor Model is “universal.” According to the Five Factor taxonomy, there are five major personality traits or factors, namely, Neuroticism, Extraversion (as we have seen, these two dimensions are also present in Eysenck’s, Gray’s, and Cattell’s systems), Openness to Experi- ence (added by Costa & McCrae, 1978), Agreeableness, and Con- scientiousness. Hence the widely used abbreviations of NEOAC or OCEAN. Table 2.5 presents the complete supertraits and primary traits (facets) of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory
lexical hypothesis the idea that the major dimensions of personality can be derived from the total num- ber of descriptors in any language system
Five Factor Model a trait theory of personality which posits that there are five major and universal factors of personality, namely, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeable- ness, and Conscientiousness (also known as the Big Five )
Table 2.4 Factors in Cattell’s 16PF
No. Factor
1 Factor A Warmth (Reserved vs. Warm) 2 Factor B Reasoning (Concrete vs. Abstract) 3 Factor C Emotional Stability (Reactive vs. Emotionally Stable) 4 Factor E Dominance (Deferential vs. Dominant) 5 Factor F Liveliness (Serious vs. Lively) 6 Factor G Rule-Consciousness (Expedient vs. Rule-Conscious) 7 Factor H Social Boldness (Shy vs. Socially Bold) 8 Factor I Sensitivity (Utilitarian vs. Sensitive) 9 Factor L Vigilance (Trusting vs. Vigilant) 10 Factor M Abstractedness (Grounded/Practical vs. Abstracted/Imaginative) 11 Factor N Privateness (Forthright vs. Private) 12 Factor O Apprehension (Self-Assured vs. Apprehensive) 13 Factor Q1 Openness to Change (Traditional vs. Open to Change) 14 Factor Q2 Self-Reliance (Group-Oriented vs. Self-Reliant) 15 Factor Q3 Perfectionism (Tolerates Disorder vs. Perfectionistic) 16 Factor Q4 Tension (Relaxed vs. Tense)
Source : Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka (1970).
26 Personality, Part I
(NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) with their respective checklist. Sample items for each primary facet are presented in Table 2.6. The first major personality trait is Neuroticism and can be described as the tendency to experience negative emotions, notably anxiety, depression, and anger. Neurotic individuals can be characterized by their tendency to experience anxiety, as opposed to the typically calm, relaxed personalities of low Neuroticism or emotionally stable individuals. The primary facets of Neuroticism are anxiety , angry hostility , depression , self- consciousness , impulsiveness and vulnerability. Are you more stable or neurotic?
The second major personality dimension is Extraversion and refers to high activity, the experience of positive emotions, impul- siveness, assertiveness, and a tendency towards social behavior. Conversely, low Extraversion or Introversion is characterized by rather quiet, restrained, and withdrawn behavioral patterns. The primary facets of Extraversion are warmth , gregariousness , assertiveness , activity , excitement-seeking , and positive emotions. Are you more extraverted or introverted? A third dimension, Openness to Experience, is derived from the ideas of Coan (1974) and represents the tendency to engage in intellectual activities and experience new sensations and ideas.
Table 2.5 NEO-PI-R supertraits and primary traits (facets) with checklist items
Traits (facets) Checklist items
N1: anxiety anxious, fearful, worrying, tense, nervous, – confident, – optimistic
N2: angry hostility anxious, irritable, impatient, excitable, moody, – gentle, tense N3: depression worrying, – contented, – confident, – self-confident, pessimistic, moody, anxious
N4: self-consciousness shy, – self-confident, timid, – confident, defensive, inhibited, anxious N5: impulsiveness moody, irritable, sarcastic, self-centered, loud, hasty, excitable
N6: vulnerability clear-thinking, – self-confident, – confident, anxious, – efficient, – alert, careless
E1: warmth friendly, warm, sociable, cheerful, – aloof, affectionate, outgoing E2: gregariousness sociable, outgoing, pleasure-seeking, – aloof, talkative, spontaneous, – withdrawn
E3: assertiveness aggressive, – shy, assertive, self-confident, forceful, enthusiastic, confident E4: activity energetic, hurried, quick, determined, enthusiastic, aggressive, active
E5: excitement-seeking pleasure-seeking, daring, adventurous, charming, handsome, spunky, clever E6: positive emotions enthusiastic, humorous, praising, spontaneous, pleasure-seeking, optimistic, jolly
O1: fantasy dreamy, imaginative, humorous, mischievous, idealistic, artistic, complicated
O2: aesthetics imaginative, artistic, original, enthusiastic, inventive, idealistic, versatile O3: feelings excitable, spontaneous, insightful, imaginative, affectionate, talkative, outgoing
O4: actions interests wide, imaginative, adventurous, optimistic, – mild, talkative, versatile O5: ideas idealistic, interests wide, inventive, curious, original, imaginative, insightful
O6: values conservative, unconventional, – cautious, flirtatious
A1: trust forgiving, trusting, – suspicious, – wary, pessimistic, peaceable, – hard-hearted A2: straightforwardness complicated, – demanding, – clever, – flirtatious, – charming, – shrewd, – autocratic
A3: altruism warm, soft-hearted, gentle, generous, kind, tolerant, – selfish A4: compliance stubborn, – demanding, – headstrong, – impatient, – intolerant, – outspoken, – hard-hearted
A5: modesty show-off, – clever, – assertive, – argumentative, – self-confident, – aggressive, – idealistic A6: tender-mindedness friendly, warm, sympathetic, soft-hearted, gentle, – unstable, kind
C1: competence efficient, self-confident, thorough, resourceful, confident, – confused, intelligent
C2: order organized, thorough, efficient, precise, methodological, – absent-minded, – careless C3: dutifulness defensive, – distractible, – careless, – lazy, thorough, – absent-minded, – fault-finding
C4: achievement-striving thorough, ambitious, industrious, enterprising, determined, confident, persistent C5: self-discipline organized, – lazy, efficient, – absent-minded, energetic, thorough, industrious
C6: deliberation hasty, – impulsive, – careless, – impatient, – immature, thorough, – moody
N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. Source : Adapted from Costa & McCrae (1992).
28 Personality, Part I
factor includes the primary facets of competence , order , dutifulness , achievement-striving , self-discipline , and deliberation. Conscientious individuals are best identified for their efficiency, organization, determination, and productivity. No wonder, then, that this personality dimension has been reported to be significantly associated with various types of performance (Chamorro- Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). Thus there are three novel personality traits identified and included in the Big Five taxonomy that are not present – although arguably represented – in the Eysenckian model. Specifically, Eysenck’s idea of Psychoticism would be conceptualized in terms of low Agreeableness, high Openness to Experience, and low Conscientiousness (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Goldberg, 1982; McCrae, 1987), but Eysenck considered Openness as an indicator of intelligence or the cognitive aspect of personality rather than of temperament. On the other hand, Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) conceptualized Agreeableness as a combination of low Psychoticism, low Neuroticism, and high Extraversion rather than as a personality dimension in its own right. Table 2.7 reports a psychometric comparison between the Gigantic Three and Five Factor taxonomies. As shown, Neuroticism and Extraversion are overlapping dimensions in both systems, suggesting that the Big Five and Gigantic Three are assessing two pairs of almost identical traits. However, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are only moderately cor- related with Psychoticism ( r = −.45 and r = −.31, respectively), and Openness is uncorrelated with Psychoticism ( r = .05). Thus both systems seem to differ in their assessment of traits other than Neuroticism and Extraversion. As mentioned, the Five Factor Model has been criticized for its lack of theoretical explanations for the development and nature of the processes underlying some of its personality factors, in particular Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (see Matthews & Deary, 1998, for a detailed discussion on this topic). This means that, even if the Big Five factors represent an accurate description of individuals, it is not known where differences in these traits arise from. Another more recent criticism regards the relationship among the Big Five traits. Although the five factors are meant to be orthogonal or unrelated, when Neuroticism is reversed and scored in terms of Emotional Stability several studies reported all five traits to be positively and significantly intercorrelated. Although these intercorrelations are usually modest, they may suggest that personality could be further simplified to more
“basic” underlying traits, perhaps even one general factor. On the other hand, differential psychologists (such as Digman, 1997) have speculated on the possibility that these positive intercorrela- tions among the Big Five factors may be a reflection of sociably agreeable responding (or “faking good”), as high scores on the Big Five, at least in the United States and Western European countries, are more “desirable” than low scores (remember, this rule only applies when Neuroticism is reversed). However, the Five Factor Model has shown good validity and reliability, leading most researchers to agree on the existence of five major personality dimensions as well as the advantages of assessing these dimensions through the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992). Perhaps the most obvious advantage of this consensus is the agreement itself, which allows researchers to compare and replicate studies on personality and other variables, providing a shared or common instrument to assess personality. Thus the Big Five are the “latitude and longitude” (Ozer & Reise, 1994, p. 361) along which any behavioral aspects can be consen- sually mapped. In that sense, the choice of a unique instrument to assess individual differences in personality may be compared to that of a single and universal currency, software, or language, which provides a common ground for the trading and decoding of goods, information, or knowledge. Besides, the advantage of the NEO-PI-R Five Factor Model is that it accounts not only for a lay taxonomy of personality (based on the lexical hypothesis), but also for other established systems, which can be somehow “trans- lated” into the Five Factor system. Thus findings on other scales may be interpreted in terms of the Big Five personality traits, just as other currencies can be converted into dollars or euros according to a given exchange rate. For example, self-monitoring, or the extent to which an individual evaluates his/her behavior and the way this may be perceived by others (Snyder, 1987), could be largely explained in terms of high Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. On the other hand, authoritari- anism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) may be partly understood as a combination of low Openness and Agreeableness.
2.12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter I have introduced the concept of personality, reviewing definitions, historical roots, and dominant classifica- tions of personality types and traits. As noted:
- The idea that there are consistent patterns of thought, emo- tion, and behavior that may be ascribed to latent variables or traits is as old as medicine, though modern psychology has provided reliable and empirical methods to investigate such variables in a scientific manner.
- Although some personality theorists have questioned the very idea of internal traits, this concept represents the essence of personality research and differential psychology as a robust empirical discipline is grounded upon it. Furthermore, without the notion of traits it would be difficult to understand and predict human behavior across a
Table 2.7 Correlations between the Gigantic Three and Big Five personality traits
Neuroticism Extraversion Psychoticism
Neuroticism .75 −.05. Extraversion −.18 .69 −. Openness .01 .15. Agreeableness −.18 .04 −. Conscientiousness −.21 −.03 −.
Source : Based on Costa & McCrae (1985).
Personality, Part I 29
variety of contexts. Thus Funder (2001, p. 213) has noted that: “Someday a comprehensive history will be written of the permanent damage to the infrastructure of personality psychology wreaked by the person-situation debate of the 1970s and 1980s.”
- Debate on the number of personality traits that are needed to classify individual differences has dominated research since the early days of Eysenck and Cattell, two major figures in the field whose contributions to personality theory and research are unmatched. Eysenck’s biological theory of personality comprised three main dimensions, Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Psychoticism, and is still widely used in differential research, although the biological aspects of the theory seem outdated and the conceptualization of Psycho- ticism remains contested. Cattell’s approach, based on the lexical hypothesis (the assumption that all aspects of person- ality can be mapped onto existing words and language), was abandoned on psychometric grounds, but gave birth to the current reigning taxonomy, the Five Factor or Big Five model.
- Despite the lack of explanatory power of the Big Five frame- work (in particular compared to Eysenck’s more causal theory), the robust psychometric properties of self-report inventories such as the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1985,
- have persuaded most differential psychologists to conceptualize personality in terms of five supertraits, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, as well as their underlying primary facets.
However, are personality traits useful for predicting and explain- ing different psychologically relevant constructs such as cognitive performance, health, and happiness? Chapter 3 will attempt to answer this question.
KEY READINGS
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to person- ality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117 , 187–215. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 , 853–863. Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12 , 773–790. Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , 197–221.
