PERSONALITY
The literal meaning of personality is derived from the Latin word persona, the mask
used by actors in the Roman theatre for changing their facial make-up. After putting
on the mask, the audience expected the person to perform a role in a particular
manner. It did not, however, mean that the person enacting the given role
necessarily possessed those qualities. Personality refers to our characteristic ways
of responding to individuals and situations.
Different personality scientists employ subtly different definitions of the word
personality. The differences reflect their differing theoretical beliefs. However, there is
a strongly shared sense of what personality means among personality scientists. All
personality psychologists use the term personality to refer to psychological qualities
that contribute to an individual’s enduring and distinctive patterns of feeling, thinking,
and behaving. Having stated that definition, let’s elaborate on it a bit:
By “enduring,” we mean that personality characteristics are qualities that are at least
somewhat consistent across time and across different situations of a person’s life.
People tend to have styles of functioning that are reasonably stable.
By “distinctive,” we mean psychological features that differentiate people from one
another.
By “contribute to,” we mean that the psychological factors that causally influence,
and thus at least partly explain, an individual’s distinctive and enduring tendencies.
Finally, by saying “feeling, thinking, and behaving,” we merely mean that the notion
of personality is comprehensive; it refers to all aspects of persons: their mental life,
their emotional experiences, and their social behavior.
FACTORS INFLUENCING PERSONALITY:
● GENETIC OR HEREDITARY DETERMINANTS
Genetic factors contribute strongly to personality and individual differences (Kim, 2009).
[Contemporary advances enable the personality psychologist to pinpoint specific paths
through which genes affect personality. One main path is through temperament, a term that
refers to biologically based emotional and behavioral tendencies that are evident in early
childhood. Temperament characteristics that have been studied in depth are fear reactions
and inhibited behavior. People differ considerably in the degree to which they respond
fearfully, especially when encountering unfamiliar, novel situations (e.g., a social setting with
many strangers). Genes contribute to individual differences in brain systems that are
involved in this fear response. These biological differences, in turn, produce psychological
differences in behavior and emotion. Since genetic factors contribute to the development of
the brain, in this work the psychologist can identify a precise link from genes to biological
systems to temperament, as expressed in emotion and behavior. An interesting feature of
this work is that it points to the impact not only of genes, but of the environment. Some
evidence indicates that temperamentally shy children change, becoming less shy, when they
experience daycare in which they encounter large numbers of other children every day,
though data on this point are somewhat mixed. Genetic bases of personality also are
explored by evolutionary psychologists, that is, psychologists who study the evolutionary
basis of psychological characteristics. Evolutionary psychologists propose that contemporary
humans possess psychological tendencies that are a product of our evolutionary past.
People are predisposed to engage in certain types of behavior because those behaviors
contributed to survival and reproductive success over the course of human evolution.] In an
evolutionary analysis, investigators are interested in searching for the genetic basis of
human universals, that is, psychological features that all people have in common. Most of
our genes are shared. Even so-called racial differences involve merely superficial differences
in features such as skin tone; the basic structure of the human brain is universal. The
evolutionary psychologist suggests, then, that we all inherit psychological mechanisms that
predispose us to respond to the environment in ways that proved successful over the course
of evolution. Such responses might come into play when we attract members of the opposite
sex, take care of children, act in an altruistic manner toward members of our social group, or
respond emotionally to objects and events. Research on emotions suggests that a number
of basic emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, joy, disgust, fear) are experienced, and expressed
in facial expressions, in a similar manner across cultures (Ekman; Izard, 1994).
● ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINANTS
Even the most biologically oriented of psychologists recognizes that personality is shaped, to
a significant degree, by the environment. If we did not grow up in a society with other people,
we would not even be persons in the way in which that term commonly is understood. Our
concept of self, our goals in life, and the values that guide us develop in a social world.
Some environmental determinants make people similar to one another, whereas others
contribute to individual differences and individual uniqueness. The environmental
determinants that have proven to be important in the study of personality development
include culture, social class, family, and peers.
[Link]
Culture Significant among the environmental determinants of personality are experiences
individuals have as a result of membership in a particular culture: “Culture is a key
determinant of what it means to be a person” (Benet-Martinez & Oishi, 2008). Each culture
has its own institutionalized and sanctioned patterns of learned behaviors, rituals, and
beliefs. These cultural practices, which in turn often reflect long-standing religious and
philosophical beliefs, provide people with answers to significant questions about the nature
of the self, one’s role in one’s community, and the values and principles that are most
important in life. As a result, members of a culture may share personality characteristics.
Culture, then, may exert an influence on personality that is subtle yet pervasive. The culture
we live in defines our needs and our means of satisfying them, our experiences of different
emotions and how we express what we are feeling, our relationships with others and with
ourselves, what we think is funny or sad, how we cope with life and death, and what we view
as healthy or sick.
[Link] Class
Certain patterns of behavior develop as a result of membership in a particular social class
within a given culture. Many aspects of an individual’s personality can only be understood by
reference to the group to which that person belongs. One’s social group—whether lower
class or upper class, working class or professional—is of particular importance. Social class
factors help determine the status of individuals, the roles they perform, the duties they are
bound by, and the privileges they enjoy. These factors infl uence how individuals see
themselves and how they perceive members of other social classes, as well as how they
earn and spend money. Research indicates that socioeconomic status influences the
cognitive and emotional development of the individual (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Like
cultural factors, then, social class factors influence people’s capacities and tendencies and
shape the ways people define situations and respond to them.
[Link]
One of the most important environmental factors is the influence of the family. Parents may
be warm and loving or hostile and rejecting, overprotective and possessive or aware of their
children’s need for freedom and autonomy. Each pattern of parental behavior affects the
personality development of the child. Parents infl uence their children’s behavior in at least
three important ways:
1. Through their own behavior, parents present situations that elicit certain behavior in
children (e.g., frustration leads to aggression).
2. Parents serve as role models for identification.
3. Parents selectively reward behaviors.
At first, we may think of family practices as an influence that makes family members similar
to one another. Yet family practices also can create differences within a family. For instance,
Consider differences between male and female family members. Historically, in many
societies, male children have received family privileges and opportunities that were
unavailable to female children. These differences in how families have treated boys and girls
surely did not make boys and girls similar to one another; rather, they contributed to
differences in male and female development. In addition to gender, other family practices
that may produce differences between family members involve birth order. Parents
sometimes express subtle preferences toward firstborn children (Keller & Zach, 2002), who
tend to be more achievement oriented and conscientious than later-born siblings.
[Link]
Peer is one of the environmental features outside of family life that is most important to
personality development. Perhaps, this is one factor which answers the query of dissimilarity
amongst children of the same family; the reason being, because they have different
experiences outside the home and because their experiences inside the home do not make
them more alike. Peer groups socialize the individual into acceptance of new rules of
behavior. These experiences may affect personality in an enduring manner. For example,
children who experience low-quality friendships that involve a lot of arguing and conflict tend
to develop disagreeable, antagonistic styles of behavior (Berndt, 2002).
Morphological (body type) theory- Kretschmer
Related to the biochemical theories are those that distinguish types of personalities on the
basis of body shape (somatotype). Such a morphological theory was developed by the
German psychiatrist Ernst Kretschmer. In his book Physique and Character, first published
in 1921, he advanced the theory that certain mental disorders were more common among
people of specific physical types. Kretschmer posited three chief constitutional groups:
1. the tall, thin asthenic type
2. the more muscular athletic type and
3. the rotund pyknic type.
He wrote that among his patients a frail, rather weak (asthenic) body build as well as a
muscular (athletic) physique were frequently characteristic of schizophrenic patients, while a
short, rotund (pyknic) build was often found among manic-depressive patients. Kretschmer
extended his findings and assertions in a theory that related body build and personality in all
people and wrote that slim and delicate physiques are associated with introversion, while
those with rounded heavier and shorter bodies tend to be cyclothymic—that is, moody but
often extroverted and jovial.
Carl Jung [ pronounced Yooong ]
The Attitudes: Extraversion and Introversion Much of our conscious perception of and
reaction to our environment is determined by the opposing mental attitudes of extraversion
and introversion. Jung believed that psychic energy could be channeled externally, toward
the outside world, or internally, toward the self. Extraverts are open, sociable, and socially
assertive, oriented toward other people and the external world. Introverts are withdrawn and
often shy, and they tend to focus on themselves, on their own thoughts and feelings.
According to Jung, everyone has the capacity for both attitudes, but only one becomes
dominant in the personality. The dominant attitude then tends to direct the person’s behavior
and consciousness. The non-dominant attitude remains influential, however, and becomes
part of the personal unconscious, where it can affect behavior. For example, in certain
situations an introverted person may display characteristics of extraversion, wish to be more
outgoing, or be attracted to an extravert.
As Jung came to recognize that there were different kinds of extraverts and introverts, he
proposed additional distinctions among people based on what he called the psychological
functions. These functions refer to different and opposing ways of perceiving or
apprehending both the external real world and our subjective inner world. Jung posited four
functions of the psyche: sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling (Jung, 1927).
Sensing and intuiting are grouped together as non-rational functions; they do not use the
processes of reason. These functions accept experiences and do not evaluate them.
Sensing reproduces an experience through the senses the way a photograph copies an
object. Intuiting does not arise directly from an external stimulus; for example, if we believe
someone else is with us in a darkened room, our belief may be based on our intuition or a
hunch rather than on actual sensory experience.
The second pair of opposing functions, thinking and feeling, are rational functions that
involve making judgments and evaluations about our experiences. Although thinking and
feeling are opposites, both are concerned with organizing and categorizing experiences. The
thinking function involves a conscious judgment of whether an experience is true or false.
The kind of evaluation made by the feeling function is expressed in terms of like or dislike,
pleasantness or unpleasantness, stimulation or dullness. Just as our psyche contains some
of both the extraversion and introversion attitudes, so do we have the capacity for all four
psychological functions. Similarly, just as one attitude is dominant, only one function is
dominant. The others are submerged in the personal unconscious. Further, only one pair of
functions is dominant—either the rational or the irrational—and within each pair only one
function is dominant. A person cannot be ruled by both thinking and feeling or by both
sensing and intuiting, because they are opposing functions.
Jung proposed eight psychological types, based on the interactions of the two attitudes
and four functions.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE CHARACTERISTICS
Extraverted thinking They live strictly in accordance with society’s rules.
These people tend to repress feelings and emotions, to
be objective in all aspects of life, and to be dogmatic in
thoughts and opinions. They may be perceived as rigid
and cold. They tend to make good scientists because
their focus is on learning about the external world and
using logical rules to describe and understand it.
Extraverted feeling They tend to repress the thinking mode and to be
highly emotional. These people conform to the
traditional values and moral codes they have been
taught. They are unusually sensitive to the opinions
and expectations of others. They are emotionally
responsive and make friends easily, and they tend to
be sociable and effervescent.
Extraverted sensing They focus on pleasure and happiness and on seeking
new experiences. These people are strongly oriented
toward the real world and are adaptable to different
kinds of people and changing situations. Not given to
introspection, they tend to be outgoing, with a high
capacity for enjoying life
Extraverted intuiting They find success in business and politics because of
a keen ability to exploit opportunities. These people are
attracted to new ideas and tend to be creative. They
are able to inspire others to accomplish and achieve.
They also tend to be changeable, moving from one
idea or venture to another, and to make decisions
based more on hunches than on reflection. Their
decisions, however, are likely to be correct.
Introverted thinking do not get along well with others and have difficulty
communicating ideas. These people focus on thoughts
rather than on feelings and have poor practical
judgment. Intensely concerned with privacy, they prefer
to deal with abstractions and theories, and they focus
on understanding themselves rather than other people.
Others see them as stubborn, aloof, arrogant, and
inconsiderate.
Introverted feeling They repress rational thought. These people are
capable of deep emotion but avoid any outward
expression of it. They seem mysterious and
inaccessible and tend to be quiet, modest, and childish.
They have little consideration for others’ feelings and
thoughts and appear withdrawn, cold, and self-assured
Introverted sensing They appear passive, calm, and detached from the
everyday world. These people look on most human
activities with benevolence and amusement. They are
aesthetically sensitive, expressing themselves in art or
music, and tend to repress their intuition.
Introverted intuiting They focus so intently on intuition that they have little
contact with reality. These people are visionaries and
day dreamers—aloof, unconcerned with practical
matters, and poorly understood by others. Considered
odd and eccentric, they have difficulty coping with
everyday life and planning for the future.
Allport’s Trait Theory
Allport considered personality traits to be predispositions to respond, in the same or
a similar manner, to different kinds of stimuli. In other words, traits are consistent and
enduring ways of reacting to our environment. Initially, Allport proposed two types of
traits: individual and common. Individual traits are unique to a person and define his
or her character. Common traits are shared by a number of people, such as the
members of a culture. It follows that people in different cultures will have different
common traits. Common traits are also likely to change over time as social standards
and values change. This demonstrates that common traits are subject to social,
environmental, and cultural influences.
Because Allport realized that some confusion could result from calling both of these
phenomena traits, he later revised his terminology. He relabeled common traits as
traits and individual traits as personal dispositions. Our personal dispositions do not
all have the same intensity or significance. They may be cardinal traits, central traits,
or secondary traits.
A cardinal trait is so pervasive and influential that it touches almost every aspect of a
person’s life. Allport described it as a ruling passion, a powerful force that dominates
behavior. He offered examples of sadism and chauvinism.
Not everyone has a ruling passion, and those who do may not display it in every
situation. Everyone has a few central traits, some 5 to 10 themes that best describe
our behavior. Allport’s examples are aggressiveness, self-pity, and cynicism. These
are the kinds of characteristics we would mention when discussing a friend’s
personality or writing a letter of recommendation.
The least influential individual traits are the secondary traits, which appear much less
consistently than cardinal and central traits. Secondary traits may be so
inconspicuous or weak that only a close friend would notice evidence of them. They
may include, for example, a minor preference for a particular type of music or for a
certain food.
Cattell’s Personality factors
Cattell distinguished between common traits and unique traits. A common trait
is one that is possessed by everyone to some degree. Intelligence, extraversion, and
gregariousness are examples of common traits. Everyone has these traits, but some
people have them to a greater extent than others. Cattell’s reason for suggesting that
common traits are universal is that all people have a similar hereditary potential and
are subject to similar social pressures, at least within the same culture. People differ,
as we said, in that they possess different amounts or degrees of these common
traits. They also differ because of their unique traits, those aspects of personality
shared by few other people. Unique traits are particularly apparent in our interests
and attitudes. For example, one person may have a consuming interest in
genealogy, whereas another may be passionately interested in Civil War battles or
baseball or Chinese martial arts.
A second way to classify traits is to divide them into ability traits, temperament
traits, and dynamic traits. Ability traits determine how efficiently we will be able
to work toward a goal. Intelligence is an ability trait; our level of intelligence will affect
the ways in which we strive for our goals. Temperament traits describe the general
style and emotional tone of our behavior; for example, how assertive, easygoing, or
irritable we are. These traits affect the ways we act and react to situations. Dynamic
traits are the driving forces of behavior. They define our motivations, interests, and
ambitions.
A third class of traits is surface traits versus source traits according to their
stability and permanence. Surface traits are personality characteristics that correlate
with one another but do not constitute a factor because they are not determined by a
single source. For example, several behavioral elements such as anxiety, indecision,
and irrational fear combine to form the surface trait labeled neuroticism. Thus,
neuroticism does not derive from a single source. Because surface traits are
composed of several elements, they are less stable and permanent and, therefore,
less important in describing personality. Of greater importance are source traits,
which are unitary personality factors that are much more stable and permanent.
Each source trait gives rise to some aspect of behavior. Source traits are those
individual factors derived from factor analysis that combine to account for surface
traits
Source traits are classified by their origin as either constitutional traits or
environmental mold traits. Constitutional traits originate in biological conditions but
are not necessarily innate. For example, alcohol intake can lead to behaviors such
as carelessness, talkativeness, and slurred speech. Factor analysis would indicate
that these characteristics are source traits. Environmental-mold traits derive from
influences in our social and physical environments. These traits are learned
characteristics and behaviors that impose a pattern on the personality. The behavior
of a person reared in an impoverished inner-city neighborhood is molded differently
from the behavior of a person reared in upper-class luxury. A career military officer
shows a different pattern of behavior from a jazz musician. Thus, we see that Cattell
recognized the interaction between personal and situational variables.
