CHAPTER PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DISCIPLINE Of all the problems that have faced human beings since the dawn of recorded history, perhaps the most puzzling has been the riddle of our own nature. Many avenues have been explored, utilizing a variety of concepts, yet a satisfactory answer still eludes us. One important reason for the difficulty in getting a clear answer is that there are so many differences among us. Human beings not only come in many shapes and sizes but also behave in exceedingly complex ways. OF the more than five billion people who presently inhabit our planet, no two are exactly alike. The vast differences among us have made it difficult, if not impossi- bee, to identify what we share in common as members of the human race Consider, for example, the serial killer, the dedicated scientist, the drug addict, the corrupt politician, the nun, and the chief executive officer. Except for the same bodily organs and systems, it is hard to imagine what “human nature” these persons have in common. And when we expand our horizons to include peuple of other cultures, we find even greater diversity in values, aspirations, and life- styles. Astrology, theology, philosophy, literatire, and the life sciences represent some of the many directions taken to understand the complexity of human behavior and of human nature itself. Some of these avenues have proved to be dead ends, while others are just beginning to flourish. Today the problem is more urgent than ever, since most of the world’s ils—zooming population, global warming, ecological pollution, nuclear waste, terorism, drug addiction, racial prejudice, poverty—are brought about by the behavior of people. Indeed, the ‘quality of human life in the future, probably our very survival, depends upon an increased understanding of the fundamental nature of ourselves and others. Psy- chology is deeply committed to this undertaking,2 cmeren ‘The Science of Persons Toeeloay » Sots cat be traced tothe ancient Greeks and Romars. Philosopher ated over two thousand years ago about some of the same questions tha! Psychologists erapple with today. But the formal beginning of psychology a8 * devoted line is set at 1879 (Fancher, 19), In that year the frst aborat0o a sin engine study of psyhoosal phenomena was exalt tan pen ‘undt in Leipzig, Germany. Throughout the ensuing years 5 fas Produced en Psvchology has evlied slong several lines of inquiry ees One impor CoteePual modes o guide and interpret the work cat oe Schone a ta eel f the gradual emergence of psychology nto a mode a Ahjectiveistocspnsn Buna® Personsiy. Today, personality psychology’ ai? ‘hiectiveis to explain why people behave es they do rom an eric, 2M 7 Foaues tte Scientific psychology prefers to work with relatively simple» eas forward concepts tha are open to empties. Italo uiizesresearoh Ca {iat 38 sound and precise as paste. This orientation necessatl” ‘aad ‘Kinds of concepts and methods that can legitimately be used in studying PTS any. Nevertheless, mast psycologits believe tata scene approach utimtely be most valuable in unraveling the complex aatureof man betaviC: ‘What characterizes moder personality psychology as a science isthe process of converting speculations about human nature into concepts that can DE Bircally studied, a8 opposed to relying on intuition, flkiore, or common seAS¢: For example rather than guess why teenagers dink and dive, researchers might delve into the nature of adolescence andthe personal fable concept At the Same time, the “scence of persons” isaccompanied by many hazards and is sometimes ‘Viewed with ambivalence. While it ay seem fascinating to try to gai insight into the cause of our behavior and development, we may actually resist such efor {0 see ourselves objectively. There is even a certain amount of resistance 10 “objectfyng” personality within the field of psychology; some psychologists ‘argue that going too far in this gtection undermines human uniqueness and ‘complexity. Instead, they urge us to concentrate onthe intangible qualities of human ‘eings—their struggles for personal and spiritual enlghtenment—as evoked in literary and artistic creations such asa Shakespearean play or a Goya Painting. Yet, while terature, at, fm, history, and religion may each provide ‘aluable insights into human behavior, tis necessary to distinguish such informa- tion from that obtained by scientific scrutiny. Moreover, while science currently does not provide al the answers (and perhaps never wi), we must make the most effective use of the empirical information we have while Keeping in mind a clear perspective on the limitations inherent inthe scientific method as applied to the study of human beings. This study is generally carried out by personologists, a term coined by Henry Murray (1938) 1 designate both personality researchers and theorists ‘A second objective of personality psychology is to help people live more satisfying lives. While stil pursuing theory and research, many personality psy. chologists today are concerned with findings ways to promote effective and Productive strategies of coping with life evens. These efforts include new formsaos PSYCHOLOGY GF PERSONALITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DISCIPLINE 3 of psychotherapy, various special learning programs, and changes inthe psycho- social environment that permit people to become the best they are capable of being, Research on these topics provides one ofthe sharpest testing grounds for ideas about constructive personality change ands discussed throughout the book The Meaning of Personality (The term “personality” has several different meanings reasonably distinct subfield of academic psychologyjthat encompasses 2 large number of differenVand often conflicting theoretical perspectives Furthermore, itisa discipline that Seeks {0 establish better ways of understanding personsythrough the "Various research strategies. In later chapters, we will describe many specific examples of hhow ideas, assumptions, and principles proposed by personologists to explain human behavior have been tested in empirical research, Another distinguishing feature of personality psychology is its emphasis on assessment methods o study, Understand, predict, and make valid decisions about individuals. Among these methods are interviewing, administering psychological tests, observing and ‘monitoring behavior, measuring physiological responses, and analyzing biograph- ical and personal documents. Virtually every perspective on personality that will be addressed in this text uses some assessment technique or another, Accord- ingly, we have devoted a part of the next chapter and portions ofthe theoretical chapters to personality assessment, Finally, as you will seein the pages to come, personality is afield of inquiry that has provided the groundwork for understand- ing and treating abnormal behavior. In fact, several personality perspectives (such as psychodynamic, cognitive, and phenomenological) suggest way’ to think about and deal with behavioral disorders. Nonetheless, modern personality psychology sould not be confused with abnormal or clinical psychology. To oversimplify somewhat, personologsts are much more inclined to focus attention on normal rather than abnormal functioning. Beyond this, personality psychology has tradi- tionally distinguished itself from other disciplines within psychology by emphasiz- ing individual differences in persons. Even though personologists recognize that there are similarities in the ways people behave, they are primarily concerned ‘with generating explanations of how and why people differ from one another. Tn addition to being a field of study, personality is an abstract concept which integrates the many aspects that characterize what the persons like. Such aspects include emotions, motivations, thoughts, experiences, perceptions, and actions. However, we should not equate personality asa concept with whatever aspect of the individual's functioning itis meant to describe. Instead, the conceptual mean- ing of personality is multifaceted, encompassing a wide spectrum of internal, imental processes that influence how the person acts across different situations. Given such a complex meaning, no one can expect to find simple definitions of personality as a concept. Even within the fieid of psychology we will find no generally agreed-upon single definition of the term. There may be as many different definitions ofthe concept of personality a there are psychologists who have tried to define itimage | pernono.’) "Mone"? Ke Ludmnoy Scupenkid 4 cweren The term “personaly is derived ftom the Lain word ‘parson, wtch tele to a mask vom by an actor in a Greek ama People tend to equate person: ality wih one's charm, populnty, ‘or public image. (rir TreesWooclin Camp & Assoo!- ates) ‘What !s Personality? Alternative Answers Qi wor Personality’ in English is derived from the Latin persona. Originally. s iTdenoted the masks worn by theatrical players in ancient Greek dramas; even- tually (the term came to encompass the actor's portrayal of a comic or ta {igure as well SThus, the initial conception of personality was that of a superficial & Social image that an individual adopts in playing life roles, a “public personality'"@ that people project toward those around them) This view coincides with that of the & contemporary layperson who equates personality with charm, social poise, popu larity, physical attractiveness, and a host of other socially desirable charac- teristics. It is this definition that results in such comments as “Mike has personality plus" and “Susan has an obnoxious personality." It is inthis sense, 00, that charm schools promise to enhance those who enroll with “more person- @ ality.”” Such a conception is generally outside the realm of scientific psychology because it its the number and kinds of behavior deemed worthy of inclusion in the study of personality, Personality has also been viewed as the individual's most striking or prominent & Chatteris. nth sense, a person may be said to have an “outgoing person- © ality” or a “shy personality,” meaning that his or her most distinctive attribute appears to be friendliness or shyness. In this instance, personality refers to the © ‘overall social impression that an individual conveys in interacting with others (Ge the Few salient characteristics that permeate most o all of the individual's © actions in various socal settings). Unfortunately, such popular usage of the term neglects the possiblity thatthe individual may be ether outgoing or shy depend ing on the situation. Furthermore, the term “personality” as itis used by all © personologists does not imply an evaluation of a person's character or social @ skills. When we describe Amy as having a “terrific personality,” we may be ; q ‘ €POYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DISCIPLINE 5 referring to her pleasant disposition, her sincerity, or her willingness to help thers, However, this evaluative use of the word (i.e, personalities as good or bad) is not employed by personality psychologists «An overview of the various meanings of personality in psychology can be tained by considering the views offered by afew recognized theorists inthe fel. For instance, Carl Rogers described personality in terms of self, an organized, permanent, subjectively perceived entity which is at the very heat ofall our experiences, Gordon Allport defined personality as that which an individual really is, an internal something” that determines the nature of the person's interactions ith the world. But for Erik Erikson, life proceeds in terms of a series of poychosocial rises, with personality a function oftheir outcome. George Kelly regarded personality asthe individual's unique way of “making sense” out of Ife taperiences, Sill another conception is that of Raymond Cattel}, who deseribed the core structure of personality as comprised of sixteen source traits. Finally, ‘Alber Bandura viewed personality as a complex pattern in which person, behav ior, and situation continually influence each other. These divergent conceptions Clearly indicate that the meaning of personality in terms of a psychological perspective extends far beyond the original superficial social image” concept. It Signifies something much more essential and enduring about a person. Beyond this basi point of agreement, most theoretical definitions of personality have the following features in common. 1 Most definitions emphasize the importance of individuality or distinctive- ness. Personality represents those distinct qualities that make one person stand cout from all others. Further, itis only through the study of individual differences that the special qualities or combination of qualities that distinguish one person from another can be understood. 2 Most definitions depict personality as some kind of hypothetical structure or organization. Overt behavior, atleast in part, is seen as being organized and integrated by personality. In other words, personality is an abstraction based on inferences derived from behavioral observation. 3, Most definitions focus attention on the importance of viewing personality in terms of a life history or developmental perspective. Personality represents an evolving process subject to a variety of internal and external influences, including ‘genetic and biological propensities, social experiences, and changing environmen- tal circumstances. 4 Most definitions construe personality as representing those characteristics of the person that account for consistent patterns of behavior. As such, personality is relatively enduring and stable over time and across situations; it conveys the sense of continuity within the person from time to time or from setting to setting ‘Aside from these common themes, personality definitions differ substantially from theorist to theorist. To understand what a particular theorist means by the term “personality,” the theory must be examined in considerable detail. Close scrutiny of a theory reveals the kinds of behavior on which the theorist focuses and the specific methods that are employed to study this behavior. We should add that definitions of personality are not necessarily true or false, but are more or lessPersonality As a Field of Study ~~ Norm 6 chapters Psetul to psychologists in pursuing research, in explaining regularities in human behavior, and in communicating thei conclusions. We sll consider aumeroUs {hcoretical conceptions of personaly in the ensuing chapters ofthis book. The Point to be noted here is that definitions of personality vary with the particular theoretical orientation of a given theorist, AAs any observant psychology student will note when flipping through a depart- { ‘ment catalog of course offerings, academic psychologists teach a wide variety of subjects, including social psychology, biopsychology, perception, developmental Psychology, and organizational behavior. These areas represent subfields of psy- | Chology; personality is one of these. What distinguishes personality from the other Psychological domains is its attempt to synthesize and integrate the principles of these other areas. For example, in the psychology of perception, the basic Structures and processes underlying the way people perceive and interpret the World around them are examined, As afield of study, research into perception has Uncovered important basic principles; the same is true for other content areas of Psychology, such as learning, motivation, and cognitive psychology. But it is Personality as a field of study that combines all these principles in an effort to understand the person as an integrated totality, ‘To understand the complexity of human behaviors tall order. Often there are different causes for the same behavior shown by two individuals atone time or by the same individual at different times. In the former instance, for example, consider two individuals who bomb an abortior clini. The fist may be motivated by strong religious convictions, whereas the second may be just a thrill seeker. Complexity also exists because behavior arises from two sources: internal causes and the situation in which the behavior occurred, Further, there are times when people cannot explain why they behave in ways contrary to their own expressed intentions. These and many other intricacies of human functioning underscore the fact that personality psychology must strive to be comprehensive in its account of behavioral processes. To be comprehensive, a personologist must incorporate all the principles of general psychology—and the dynamic interrelationships among these principles must be taken into account. We need to know how perception relates to learning, how learning relates to motivation, how motivation relates to development, and so on. Students of personality attempt to formulate theoretical concepts that describe and explain these kinds of complex relationships. All the factors that influence or determine an individual's behavior and experience fall within the domain ofthe personologist. With this in mind, itis evident that no other area of psychology attempts to be as comprehensive asthe field of personality. Indeed, the study of personality is at the crossroads of most other areas of psychology; it is the converging point of the study of social and intellectual development, of psychopathology and self-actu- alization, of learning and interpersonal relations, and a host of other important MM DR LALA In eo pe BOs Re Be Rete) PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY: AN INTRODUCTION T spune 7 : threads that constitute the fabric of modern-day psychology. For many psychol- ogists the breadth of the discipline is not surprising because the focus of study has , been nothing less than the “total individual.” Given such an ambitious goal, we can rightfully expect the study of personality to be an exciting and challenging undertaking since in many cases we have yet to learn the questions on which to base the answers. ‘THEORIES OF PERSONALITY Little agreement presently exists concerning the type of approach that person- ologists should employ to explain basic aspects of human behavior. In fact at this stage in the development of personology, there are a number of alternative > tnpe-ttelo Lick ialeo>theories to understand the person as an integrated totality as well as to discern the C differences between people. For this reason, we should give some attention to what a theory is and what functions it serves in the study and understanding of personsA theory is a set of interrelated ideas, constructs, and principles. pro ©. posed to explain certain observations of reality./A theory is always speculative in nature and therefore, strcily speaking, cannot be “right” or “wrong, However, a theory is generally accepted as valid or credible by the(Scientific community to the extent that factual observations of phenomena (usually based on data derived from formal experiments) are consistent with the explanation of the same phe- ! ‘nomena offered by a theory. ,If human behavior were fully understood in everyday. } settings, there would be no need for personality theories. )Such theories are actually elaborate speculations or hypotheses about what-People are like, how they became that way, and why they behave as they da This book will describe some of these theories, examine their underlying assumptions, report relevant i research related to each theory, and provide concrete applications of each to relevant aspects of human behavior. There is much to be gained from the study of personality theories. Our subject matter is human nature;[our goal is the under- standing of the diversity and complexity of the whole person functioning in the real world. Z ; Theories serve two main.functions: they explain and predict behavior. A 5 personality theory is explanatory in that jt serves to organize human behavior systematically-so as to render it intelligible) In other words, a theory provides a meaningful framework or map for simplifying and integrating what we know about a related class of events. For example, without the benefit of a theory, it would be difficult to explain why 5-year-old Raymond has a strong romantic attraction to his mother along with undue resentment toward his father. The problem would be compounded were we to earn that other young boys experience similar feelings. ‘Armed with a theory that posits the universality of these emotions at a certain stage of personality development (along with a rationale for their emergence), we would find it much easier to understand Raymond. We may or may not be correct, but at the very least we would be.consistent in making sense of these feelings in children. The explanatory function is especially significant when we consider thea mt. Poyy) wou. 8 ciueteny gan, enormous range of facts and observations associated with human behavior. A ood personality theory provides a meaningful context within which human be- havior can be consistently described and interpreted. A theory should not only explain past and present events but also predict future nes. It should provide a basis for the prediction of events and outcomes that have fot yet occurred. This purpose clearly implies that a theory's concepts must nol Oily be testable but also capable of being confirmed or disconfirmed. Thus, We Should be able to predict specific changes in Raymond's behavior as a function of Parental treatment. What will happen if his mother actively encourages Ray~ ‘mond’s romantic overtures or if his father rejects him because of these feelings? Not only should such general predictions be possible, but also, ideally, the concepts of a theory should be formulated to permit rigorous and precise em « pitical testing. A good personality theory directly stimulates psychological re- search. Conversely, the scientific value of theories that are untestable (i.e., unable {o generate predictions for research) is still unknown. Theories must have investi- gative appeal if they are to help us to understand human nature in all of its individually different manifestations. Personality theories, then, have distinct scientific functions in psychology. Specifically, theories enable us to explain what people are like (relatively enduring characteristics and how they are organized in relation to one another), how such f characteristics are developed over time and influence current behavior, and why people behave the way they do. Theories also allow us to predict new rela- tionships that have never been investigated before. Viewed in this light, theories suggest directions in which planned research may reveal new insights in a variety of areas that are yet unexplored. A crucially important point, however, is that all theories of human behavior are constructed by human beings. Personologists are people, and, like the rest of us, hold divergent views about human nature. Some | theorists, for example, believe that human actions have their roots in unconscious ys ‘motives whose true nature is outside the individual's awareness and whose i sources lie deeply buried in the distant past. Others believe that people are i! reasonably aware of their motives and that their behavior is primarily a result of present conditions. Whatever each theorist’s specific beliefS may be, itis evident that personologists have different basic assumptions about human nature, thereby distinguishing themselves from one another. A theorist may recognize and make | explicit these basic assumptions, fail to make them explicit, or simply incorporate them so fully that it becomes difficult to recognize them as assumptions. © ~ Basic assumptions profoundly affect a personologist’s ideas about the nature of personality. For example, Abraham Maslow believed that most of our actions result from reason and free choice. Thus, his theory focused on what he felt were the “higher” aspects of human nature, on what we could become, and he devel- ‘oped his personality theory accordingly. On the other hand, Sigmund Freud believed that behavior is largely determined by irrational, unconscious factors. His notion that human actions are predetermined resulted in a theory which emphasized the unconscious control of all behavior. Maslow and Freud proposed | = rk aeababab.in lod, le ee BP BP PT OF On erePSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DSCIPL ly different views concerning the fundamental nature of the human nism. This in itself is not the point being emphasized here. Rather, the simply that the foundations of a personality theory are deeply rooted i ane — personologist’s basic assumptions about human nature (ie., about what humans truly are), Indeed, as we shall see, the personality theories discussed inthis text deal with issues that go to the very core of what it means to be a human being. COMPONENTS OF A PERSONALITY THEORY \? ‘Thus far, we have noted that the most basic functions of a theory are to explain what is already known and to predict things not yet knovin to be true, Against the backdrop of the explanatory and predictive purposes of a theory, however, what are the pivotal issues and problems addressed by a personality theory? What does 2 personality theory actually theorize about? What are the basic components comprising a theory of personality and how are such components assembled in ‘order to create an integrated account of human behavior? These are some of the ‘questions inquisitive students ask when beginning a course of study in personality psychology. Given the significance accorded theories throughout this text, it seems only appropriate to identify at the outset the salient issues that have confronted all theorists. Simply stated, @ personality theory is comprised of various “minitheories,” each of which is focused on specific issues or questions pertaining to psychological functioning, This section will discuss six issues that a complete theory of personality must seek to resolve. These issues represent the conceptual domain ofa personality theory and reveal the nature of its content and the breadth of its coverage. 1 Personality Structure ‘A major feature of any personality theory, structural concepts refer to the rela- tively enduring characteristics that people exhibit across various circumstances and over time. They represent the basic building blocks of psychological life. In this sense they are analogous to concepts such as atoms and cells in the natural sciences, However, structural concepts are strictly hypothetital in nature. They cannot be microscopically observed like neurons in the brain. Personologists have proposed a patchwork of concepts by which to explain what people are like. One ofthe most popular examples of structural concept is a trait. A personality trait refers to a durable quality or Peston to bebave ina particular way in a variety of situations. It resembles the kind of concept layper- sons use when they make judgments about the stable characteristics of other people {Common examples of traits include impulsivity, honesty, sensitivity, and timidity. Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, and Hans Eysenck, three leading traitologists, theorized that personality structure is best conceptualized in terms cof hypothetical dispositional qualities that underlie behavior. Ona broader level of analysis, personality structure may also be deseribed inAA Personality Structure PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSNAIY: aN NRODUCTION TO THE OSCPLNE drastically Ir Aitleent views concerning the fundamental nature of the human org nism. This in itself i is not the point bei simply that the found: components = assembled in sk when beginning a course of study in personality Way Psychology. Given the signif t this text, = confteed TPOPae to identity atthe outset ie salon tere ene Confronted all theorists. Simply stated,“ Personality theory is comprised = perteitnguiticries,” cach of which is Tocused on spect Conceptual domain ofa per ature ofits content and > the breadth of its coverage. l concepts refer tothe rela. S~ And over time. They represent the basic buildin Blocks of psychological fen IMs Ses he) ae anal o concep Sich ws ams Ae So Seunces. However, structural concepts ar strcly hypothetical nec They cannot be microscopically observed like neurons in the brain.) oncepts by which to explain a the most popula examples ofa structural concept isa SS ref ality or disposition to behave ina Particular way ina variety of atin Trees nda s = Sons ie Wen they make judgmenis about the sible cheractcrnee oe other es people {Common examples of traits include impulsivity, honesty, sensitivity, and ticity. Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattel, and Hans Eyserck ten leading a CF porcus theorized that personality structure is best coneeptualied in eae of hypothetical dispositional qualities that u inderlie behavior. > On a broader level of analysis (personality structure may also be described in 4 > % % ic2 Motivation wr? Roses bY syed> Wy or 10 ‘chapter 1 terms of the concept of type, personality type refers to a clustering of several ous categories. Compared to trait concepts (of stricture, typological conceptions imply a greater degree of overall consistency and generality to behavior. Whereas people can have one or another degree of many traits, they are commonly described as being a specific type. For instance, Carl Jung held that people fall into one of two discrete categories: introverts and extroverts. In this view, a person is either one or the other. ) Personality theorists differ in both the kinds and number of concents they employ in characterizing the structure of personality./Some theorists propose a highly complex and elaborate structural system, one in which many component parts are linked to one another in a. myriad of ways) Freud’s tripartite division of personality intolid, ego, and superego illustrates an extraordinarily complex description of structure and its organization’ Other theorists, by contrast, propose 4 simpie structural system, in which a limited number of component parts are identified and have few connections to one another. [For example, Kelly, a prominent cognitive theorist, used the singular concept of personal construct to account for the relatively enduring dimensions of personality structure, In summary, any approach to personality that isto be considered useful must dealin some way with the issue of what are the stable, unchanging aspects of human behavior. The issue of structure and, most importantly, the nature of its ‘organization and influence on the functioning individual, is a key component of all personality theories, Aunified theory of personality must account for why people do the things they do. ‘Motivational concepts, otherwise known as the process aspects of individual functioning, focus on the dynamic, changing features of human behavior. Such questions as “Why do people choose particular goals for which they strive?” and “What specific motives energize and direct behavior?” illustrate the type of issues encountered in this second component of a personality theory. Efforts to understand the momentary, fluid aspects of behavior have resulted in numerous theoretical insights. Some theories propose that personality pro- cesses—ranging from sexual release 10 the enjoyment of humer—derive from the aii efforts to reduce tension. The sled Tension eduction mode of ‘motivation, originally formulated by Freud, suggests that an idual’s phys- iological (biogenic) needs s create tension tat compel the individual to seek ys , such as hunger, thirst, ‘tension reduction view of human motivation, by eae ae of personality dynamics emphasize the indivi striving toward mastery over the environment and the yearning for new e1 mae ‘ences for their own enjoyment. Proponents ofthis view maintain that as individ uals mature, more of their behavior becomes invested in developing skills merely for the sake of competency or for dealing effectively with the envir Tess-of their behavior is exclusively in the service of alleviating tension. ayPSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY: AN HNTAQDUGTION TO THE DISCIPLINE Some toot emphasize that sope are moored Wo incease tension trough new, chaeng: ing, and oven lesteatenng experiences in ero enhance thet personal lent. Francis de Richemand!/The Image : s Works) t ono Of course, we need not be restricted to cither a tension reduction or compe: {Aine tence motivation model of human motivation, Mesiow,a prominent motivations aaa theorist, suggested that at certain times the individual is governed by deficit needs and seeks to reduce tension, whereas at other ties, the individuals governed By “growth needs and secks to increase tr al fulfilment, Alihugh such an integrat ae ivates people to behave as they do. 3. Personality Development (Bpersonalty refers to stable, enduring characteristics, it becomes more than @ % imate of ide curiosity to understand how such characteristics develop. Develop- mental concepts focus on the issue of how the structural nd motivational aspects (of the person's functioning change from infancy to adulthood and old age. An ‘account of such change is a key component of what defines a personality theory. Personality development occurs throughout life. Accordiagly, some theorists ‘have proposed a stage model to account for the patterns of growth and change in a person's life. Freud's theory of how personality is developed in terms of a series of psychosexual stages is one example of this approach. Erikson’s formula » timed at helping people learn new behavior to replace the faulty patterns they have developed or unlearn their maladaptive responses. Change in personality or bebavior through therapeutic intervention encom- passes many possibilities: change in sel'image, interpersonal relationship styles, tive processes, emotional reactions, values, ie goals, and ime management “are but a sample of the far more numerous forms of sought-after change by people who undergo therapy. In turn, a thorough account of personality must indicate the means by which undesirable forms of behavior can be modified so that the -ingividual can be reinstated to more effective ways of functioning. ‘There are several different theoretical approaches to the understanding of personality. In spite of all the diversity, personality theories share a common | conceptual framework bounded by six issues concerning human behavior: struc: | ure, motivation, development, psychopathology, psychological health, and per- sonality change via therapeutic intervention. Taken collectively, the concepts16 coupren developed by a theory to explain each ofthese issues defines what a personality theory i all about. The ways in which theorists deal with these issues serve define the overall perspectives of each theoretical postion. ‘CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PERSONALITY THEORIES Given the vast number fatenatve personality theories, how do we evaluate the relative merits ofeach? Tats, above and beyond the explanatory and predictive functions a theory should serve, how are we to decide what makes one theory better than another? Six major criteria have been employed to evaluate person~ ality theories ina systematic fashion. There is consensus inthe scentiic commu nity hat personality theory should sls eath ofthese fteria to some extent it drder to receive a favorable overall evaluation, These criteria willbe discussed here and, nthe concluding chaper, the comparison of major theories discussed ‘throughout the text willbe evaluated in tems of these six eiteri >) eritabity ‘theory is positively evauated tothe extent that its concepts lend themselves fo “eset byindepedennvesizars. This meas tha theory must be stated “in such a way that ils concepts, propositions, and hypotheses are clearly and u iguously defined and logically ‘elated to one another. In this way, the Trial conseuences ofthe theory cn be logically deduced and realy tested 2 through formal research. ‘To illustrate, ‘et us imagine that we wish to validate "9 e “Alfred Adler's claim (Chapter 4) that first-borns tend to be more achievement- “oriented as adults than persons of other ordinal positions. Our initial step in vs site hypothesis would be to select an appropriate sample of subjects to 2 sty. Next we would sk each subject o indicate what his or er birth orders. ae F,) “Achievement sa far more dificult variable to measure. We might simpy ask oot sb linda te re i Se in academic set- 1° 206°" [ings Or we might observe subecs" achievement behavior” inthe work setting Or we might administer a self-report test which purports to assess individual ‘ences in achievement motivation. Although there are many possibilities, the important thing 10 note here is that a good theory should produce testable “hypotheses. A theory articulated in rei language makes that more likely. “Although thig requirement is easy to specify, jt has proved exceedingly difficult. for personality researchers to demonstrate even a moderate amount of empirical “Support for ther preferred theoretical postions. Theories of personality are ‘are not > ‘necessarily incapable of generating testable propositions, but there has been a paucity of crucial research with respectto most theoretical conce jonethe- should contain testable hypotheses about relationships among, Tess, a good theory show “phenomena. A theory that isnot open the possibilty of being confirmed as well is ais a poor theory. Iti rendered sterile forall practical purposes.SvOHL0GY OF FERONALTY: A MMROOUCTE TO TE OSC NE a tend a (L) Heuristic Value s/ ‘This criterion is of paramount significance to the empirically oriented perso ¢—=—~ ologist. The issue is the degree to which a theory stimulates rators to 60 ¢ further research, Personality theories differ immensely in their capacity to fulfill this goal. Some of the most provocative theoretical formulations of personality’ (e-g.,.Fromm’s-humanistic theory and Kelly's personal construct theory) have hhad only minimal impact on the work of investigators within psychology. This =. te of affairs usually resulls from the theorist’s failure to define his or her (> concepts operationally, i.c., in a manner whereby iley are linked (at some level) =~ {o some sort of measurement operation or some observable quality of behavior tan +2 | Of course, competent followers ofa theorist may enhance the heuristic value of 8 theory by translating the core concepts int the form which allows for enlightemiD& research act oo —_— S~ ©.) Internal Consistency o~ {Cree ‘This criterion stipulates that a theory should be free of internal contradictions. Cs That is, a good theory should account for varied phenomena in an internally consistent way. Likewise, a worthwhile theory should consist of assumptions and ®§~_ propositions that fit together in a coherent way. On the whole, theories of Personality fare reasonably well in meeting this standard, and whenever inconsis~ rey & {ent predictions do occur, they can usually be traced to a misunderstandin of he e5O [theory's concepts by the investigator. Given a set of assumptions about human <.- | ature, iC guite possible to construct a personality theory whose-concepts and Sp j0(°3 {propositions fang together ina sensible manner. Parsimony —~ ‘A theory may also be judged on the basis ofthe number of concepts required _— describe and explain events within its domain. ‘The principle of parsimony states —-~ ‘at a simpler and more straightforward explanation is peered (3 eS complex one. In other words, the fewer the number of concepts and assumptions ~~ iGuredaeo oan ork prone eso i. ain, the batierit In contrast, all other things being equal, a theory burdened by excess concepts > ‘and assumptions is generally viewed as a poor theory. An example may make the © > importance of this criterion clearer. Let us assume that countless observations’ ¢9) __.. | support the conclusions that depressed people (a) typically hold a negative view of themselves, (bare pessimistic about ther future, and (c) have a tendency to 5 interpret ongoing experience in negative manner. We might therefore theorize that low self-esteem is a prime cause of depression. Our self-esteem principle summarizes an otherwise long is of disparate observations concerning depressed @ peopl It provides more pasinonious vay by which oexpinunrelted facts and observations concerning depressed people. Sy e.18 cHweren Unfortunately, there are no hard-and-fast rules by which the parsimoniousness ‘ofa theory may be assessed. Parsimony isa subjective eiterion because current knowledge about the various aspects of personality is far from complete. More- ‘over, @ theory that looks parsimonious today may be unable to account for something that will be discovered tomorrow, whereas a theory that looks too ‘Complex today may be the only one that is capable of explaining tomorrow's discovery. Nevertheless, a good theory should not contain too much excess ‘theoretical baggage. - Comprehensiveness. This criterion refers to the breadth and diversity of phenomena encompassed by a theory. The more comprehensive a personality theory is, the more behavioral lerritory it covers. Thus, a comprehensive theory tends to be favored over @ narrow. more circumscribed theory. A further benefit ofa comprehensive theory is that it canbe used as a logical framework for the incorporation and integration of new discrete facts that have been established by observation or experiment. While some personologists have managed to erect grand-scale theories, other theorists fall short on this score. Relying on a set of assumptions about human nature helps to ensure internal consistency, but it aso tends to restrict the theorists attention to a limited range of behavioral events. In varying degrees, the ‘personologists included in this text emphasize biological, genetic, emotional, “cognitive, social, and cultural factors in accounting for human behavior. Bach of these approaches to personality inevitably restricts the comprehensive nature of the resulting theory. At the same time, it must be recognized that no current theory can account forall aspects of human functioning. Thus, one must decide ‘whether the phenomena accounted for By one theory are as important or central to human behavior as the phenomena encompassed by another theory. Regrettably, there is no litmus test tha allows us to determine the relative importance of each, ‘since itis often unclear just how critical any given phenomenon really is to our understanding of human behavior. Current work on a seemingly trivial problem may yield bold new insights at some point in the future. Accordingly, we must be cautious in making judgments about the worth of personality theories on the basis Functional Significance ‘Afinal criterion of a good theory is that it should help people understand everyday human behavior. It should also help ‘people overcome their problems. This is “hardly surprising, given the fact that virtually all of us are fascinated’ by and interested in knowing more about ourselves and other people. Indeed, the ult ‘mate value ofa personality theory forthe layperson ress ints ability to ilumine Goth the self and interpersonal relationships. Knowledge of the personal and “social insights provided by personality theorists can greatly enrich our under-18 PSYOHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY A WTRODUGTION TO THE DISCIPLINE (ne citron of a good theory is thal sould hep peopl find so- ‘tions to their day.to-day rodims, (Tn! Mechaels!The ‘mage Wor) ILITTTTITTI YY standing and appreciation of the nuances of human affairs. It is hoped that the: ~ reader will find something of functional signi n-each theoretical perspec~ tive presented in this text, ty, heuristic value, internal consistency, parsimony, ‘These criteria of verifia comprehensiveness, and functional significance provide a useful framework for evaluating theories of personality, as well as deciding why one theory might be preferable to another. In comparing the overall worth of theories, however, {Wo —— questions should be keptin mind, First, do the theories being compared deal with the same phenomena? Two theories that address the same kinds of behavior may. each be evaluated in terms ofthe six criteria noted above. At the same time, we ¢ need not choose one theory over another since both may bear fruitful insights in ~~ the future. There is also the possibility that both theories may eventually bey. integrated into single more al-encompassing theory. The second question _ y} tains to whether the two theories ae atthe same stage of development. A new ank siil evolving theory may be unable to explain many phenomena, whereas an old F®, and established theory may enlighten us about many issues and problems accom: . panying the study of personality, Nevertheless, a new theory may lead to signi. © ficant contributions in areas formeriy left unexplored and show promise tN becoming more comprehensive at some later time. In the final analysis, theories of personality shouldbe evaluated on the bass of how wel they explain things TONS are known vil allowing us freedom to explore intiguing possibilities that have rot yet been examined, Q20° cuapren 1 gral ‘ The different basic assumptions that personality theorists make < tan nature will now be discussed, These assumptions are of paramount signif ance in understanding and evaluating all personality theories; they will play an important part in the presentation of each theoretical perspective included in this 00h BASIC ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING HUMAN NATURE oS All thinking people entertain certain implicit assumptions about human nature Personality theorists are no exception to this principle. The suppositions that People make about the nature of human beings are, presumably, rooted in their personal experiences. Such basic assumptions profoundly influence the way that individuals perceive one another, treat one another, and, inthe case of personality theorists, construct theories about one another. The assumptions themselves may ‘or may not be fully recognized by the individual, whether a personologist or not. In this section cach of the basic assumptions thai one could hold about human nature will be made explicit. We are convinced that all major theories of person- ality are built upon different positions on these basic assumptions and that no ‘major personality theory can be fully or properly understood without reference to them. The differences among theories of personality, to some extent, reflect more fundamental differences among theorists on these essumptions, The basic assumptions concerning human nature fall within these polarities: 1 Freedom Determinism 2 Rationality Irrationality A Holism Elementalism 4 Constitutionalism~—— Environmentalism 5 Changeability Unchangeability _# Subjectivity Objectivity 7 Proactivity Reactivity A Homeostasis Heterostasis WF Knowability Unknowability ‘The assumptions are portrayed here as relatively continuous, bipolar dimen- sions along which any personality theorist can place himself or herself or be placed in terms of his or her basic position regarding that assumption, In other words, each assumption is depicted as a continuum with a pole, or extreme position, at its opposite end (e.g., freedom is at one pole of the first continuous dimension, while determinism is at the opposite pole or end), From a philosoph- ical viewpoint, the issues inherent in these assumptions might be considered dichotomous rather than continuous (e.g., people are either free or determined). However, among personologists there are varius diferences inthe extent (0 which basic assumption is perceived as chaacterisicof humanity. For example theorist A may view persons as less determined than does theorist B. Thus, itispune 21 PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DISC! TH desirable to concey — iat important ‘Plualize these assumptions as continuous so that ino iflerences among theorists may be more really apparent. A brief considertl of each assumption follows. 1 & ~y Freedom-Determinism One of the most basic questions that individuals can ask about themselves is wd Gegree of internal freedom, if any, they actually possess in directing and cont" ling their thoughts, feelings, and actions. How valid and to what extent is the o Subjective sense of freedom experienced by people in decision making? To what extent is their behavior actualy determined by factors that are partially or totallY ‘outside the sphere of their cons: ‘ous recognition? Philosophers and other thinkeIS = have debated this critical issue for centuries. Iti, therefore, not. surprising to find that itis by no means a dead issue in modern psychology (Deci & Ryan, 1985)- - ‘That major contemporary personality theorists differ sharply from one another Cn this basic assumption about human nature is quite clear. For instance, Roger stated that ‘man does not simply have the characteristics of a machine, he is not ‘simply in the grip of unconscious ‘motives, he is a person in the process of cred a- himself, a person who creates ‘meaning in his life, a person who embodies @ > dimension of subjective freedom” (Shlien, 1963, p. 307). By way of direct con= {rast, Skinner asserted that “autonomous man isa device used to explain what We ‘cannot explain in any other way. He has been Constructed from our ignorance, ‘and as our understanding increases, the very stuff of which he is composed Qi vanishes” (1971, p. 200). At this point neither ‘of these positions is established as. fact. Rather, they are philosophical assumptions about the nature of humanity. =~ | Ifa given personality theorist, based on personal experience and a host of other, Gy. influences impinging upon her inteliectual development, assumes that human. beings are genuinely capable of free choice, her theory will be profoundly af: Si fected. She will kely formulate a theory in which people ae seen as primarily Ss. 1 ig responsible for thei own actions and, atleast to some extent, capable of tran- | scending various environmental influences upon their behavior. Ske will tend to S ie see free choice asa quintessential part of what it means to be a human being. On, the other hand, if personcogist is inclined toward determinism, his theory Will Sab, depict human behavior as being controlled by definable factors. It then becomes ~< incumbent upon the personologis to specify these factors, and much of hs theory will involve this task. In point of fact, deterministically based personality theories _ ier markedly on the nature ofthese factors. For example, human behavior could be determined by unconscious motives, external reinforcements, carly NS experiences, physiological processes, genetic factors, cultural influences —each one open to various interpretations. In this context, the major source of agree: >=. Ment among these approaches to personality is that human behavior is deter: > ~ The pesion, te, ht persorlogist asses in the edon-determnism @ Aimension greatly influences the nature of his or er theory andthe ipiations 3) a ~~ &. N22 cuapren of the theory as to what humans are. This is equally true for the other basic assumption dimensions as well. A personality theory reflects the configuration of Positions that a theorist takes on the basic assumptions about human nature. Rationalty-Irrationality The issue underlying the rationality-irrationality dimension isthe degree to which our reasoning powers are capable of influencing our everyday behavior. Are humans primarily ational beings who direct their behavior through reason, or are they principally directed by irrational forces? While no major personality theorist holds that people are “purely” rational or “purely” irrational, there are clear-cut differences among personologists on this basic assumption. For instance, Kelly (1963) stressed the rational processes that people utilize as a mode! in constructing’ his theory of personality. He assumed that every person is a scientist" —as such, intellectual processes ae of paramount significance in understanding human behavior. In direct contrast to this view is Freud's psychodynamic theory, a basic tenet of which is the essential unconsciousness of mental activities. Freud held that “itis our inflated self-esteem which refuses to acknowledge the possibilty that we might not be undisputed master in the household of our own minds" (Kohut & Seitz, 1963, p. 118). Are we then the rational masters of our fate, the captains of our behavioral ships, or are we controlled by deep irrational forces whose very existence may be unknown to us? A personclogist’s position on this issue powerfully influences the nature of focus of his or her theory. For example, ifa theorist assumes that ration Particularly potent force in peopl, her personality theory would depict behavior as being largely governed by cognitive processes. Furthermore, it is quite likely that, at least to some degree, her theory would be concerned with the nature, variety, and development of cognitive processes in personality. Ifa personologist sravitated toward the opposite postion, his theory would tend to portray behavior 4 motivated primarily by irrational forces of which the person is partially or totally unaware, Depending on the theory's content, the relationship between conscious, rational processes and unconscious, irrational processes might be depicted as analogous to an iceberg, with the conscious, rational processes above the ever slightly flctuating waterline that separates them from the vast unrecog- nized depths below. The major focus of this theory would be the content of the “submerged” forces as well as their operation in human behavior. While both “rational-orinted” and “‘irrational-oriented” theorists may disagree among themselves regarding the nature of rational” or “irrational” factors in person- ality, the differences between them on the basic assumption of rational- ity-irrationality lead to opposing views of humanity, Holism-Elementalism The holistic assumption maintains that human nature is such that behavior can be ~£xplained only by studying persons as{integrated totalties| Conversely, the ele-Foe gor “) Constitutionalism-Envirenmentaliem ey _Testable ata more element ™ Al — “<= Se and its resulting behavior can be sycv0.06y OF PERSONAUTT: AN NTRODUCTIN TO THE DISCIPLINE a at human nature pas aa gah specific, fundamental aspect of it indepen- explained only by invest th J ely ofthe ses The key scientific sue here isthe level and unit of analysis to be Calva in sting individuals. Ae persons best studied as totlites or can x they be beter undetsood by examining each oftheir characteristics separately?” C= Disagreements about this research issue among personologiss reflect their more (Guu fundamental differences on this assumption. - Th holistic view assumes that persons can be understood any as loa ent — ‘To explain the elements, itis argued, does not account for the Loa 2 ig i Gk (or gestalt) which resulfs, Holists maintain that the more one fragmett organism, the more one is dealing with abstractions and not the living ~ ~ being.(As one personologist noted, "Half a piece of chalk is still a piece of chalk, ll a worm initse only smaller; halfa planarian worm is half of one worm, but half a man is nota a atall”)(Shlien, 1563 305). Thos of hoist persuasion, qa then, attempt to describe and study personality as a totality. : By way af cone advocates of elementalism argue that a systematic wale qe standing of human behav canbe achieved oaly by means of 3 det led analysis ey Constituent parts. Flementalists believe that just as one does Cgoeston “underlying reality of cellular structures in the study of 08 msl ne ce Should not deny thecal importance of studying the specifi factors underl¥ing the overall behavior of people. In fact, elementalists have long a : ‘ i wm vague and_untestble ata general behavioral level are | Thus, itis argued that a true scientific approach \ Ltt to personal unded upon specific, precise, and elementalistic concepts (¢ eon ete fde ote a ene atent © RS that are clearly open to-empi devise and research these types of ‘Students in personality courses often raise the question: “How much of what is called personality is the result of genetic make-up and how much is the result of| the environment?” This “nature-nurture” question has been asked in one form or another since ancient times. The issue is stil with us today; it has a surreptitious way of creeping into the thinking of contemporary personality theorists $0 as to influence their concepts of human nature and, hence, their conceptions of person- ality structere and development. Constitutionalism (or inherited traits) has along history in psychology. rates and Galen, two anci temperament resulted from his or her unique balance of four bodily humors. Their (wentieth-century counterparts have developed sophisticated techniques. by which to determine the influence of genetics on general behavioral dispositions oF ‘temperaments (Buss & Plomin, 1984). Additionally, the perspectives advanced by tion and physiological make-up in the development of basic personality traits. An individual's biological substrate is also an important factor in certain major