Unit 11: Personality PDF

Unit 11: Personality Learning Objectives: Describe the major theories of personality and identify important differences between them. Analyze the different perspectives to personality. Demonstrate awareness on the different methods in assessing personality. What is Per...

Unit 11: Personality Learning Objectives: Describe the major theories of personality and identify important differences between them. Analyze the different perspectives to personality. Demonstrate awareness on the different methods in assessing personality. What is Personality? Psychologists differ among themselves as to the meaning of personality. Most agree that the word “personality” originated from the Latin persona, which referred to a theatrical mask worn by Roman actors in Greek dramas. These ancient Roman actors wore a mask (persona) to project a role or false appearance. This surface view of personality, of course, is not an acceptable definition. When psychologists use the term “personality”, they are referring to something more than the role people play. Personality defined: Personality is the pattern of enduring traits and unique characteristics that produce consistency and individuality in a given person. As such, personality motivates people to consistently think, feel and react in particular ways. Over time, these patterns strongly drive personal expectations, perceptions, values, and even attitudes. While the complete set of characteristics that make up someone’s personality may be unique, there are also attributes that we all share with each other. Traits contribute to individual differences in behavior, consistency of behavior over time, and stability of behavior across situations. Traits may be unique, common to some group, or shared by the entire species, but their pattern is different from each individual. Thus each person, though like others in some ways, has a unique personality. Characteristics are unique qualities of an individual that include such attributes as temperament, physique, and intelligence. Psychologists are interested in understanding human behavior and qualities that define our own unique experiences and our relatedness to others. Therefore understanding personality and how it predicts behavior is a cornerstone of psychology that shares growing clinical and research interests. The Origins of Personality Psychology Personality has been studied for over 2000 years, beginning with Hippocrates in 370 BCE. Hippocrates was a physician in Greece who theorized that personality traits and human behaviors are based on four temperaments associated with four distinct bodily fluids known as ‘humors.’ This theory, known as humourism or humoral theory of personality, proposed that an individual’s personality was the result of the balance of these four humors. The following table describes these humor-based personality types. DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALITY: NATURE VS. NURTURE The nature vs. nurture debate on whether genetics or environment is more influential in human development also extends into our study of personality. The biological perspective on personality emphasizes the internal physiological and genetic factors that influence personality. It focuses on why or how personality traits manifest through biology and investigates the links between personality, DNA, and processes in the brain. Twin studies examining similarity in personality traits between adult monozygotic (100% genetic similarity) and fraternal (50% genetic similarity) twins reared together (shared environment and apart (no shared environment) are commonly used to examine the relative contribution of ‘nature’ vs. ‘nurture’ to the overall development of personality. Many of these studies generally show that while identical twins may have some similar personality traits; they still have distinct personalities, suggesting that genetics are not the only factor in determining personality. Research has demonstrated that personality is the outcome of a bidirectional interaction between inherited tendencies and life experiences. Environmental influences on personality include culture, parenting styles, socioeconomic status, access to education and other experiences that determine our diversity of exposure to human interactions and resulting outcomes. Theories of Personality: Past to Present In this particular unit, we will consider a number of approaches to personality. For historical reasons, we begin with psychodynamic theories of personality, which emphasize the importance of the unconscious. Next, we consider approaches that concentrate on identifying the most fundamental personality traits; theories that view personality as a set of learned behaviors; biological and evolutionary perspectives on personality; and approaches, known as humanistic theories, that highlight the uniquely human aspects of personality. At the end of this chapter, we will focus our discussion on how personality is measured and how personality tests can be used. PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY Psychodynamic approaches to personality are based on the idea that personality is primarily unconscious, and motivated by inner forces and conflicts about which people have little awareness. The most pioneer of the psychodynamic approach was Sigmund Freud. A number of Freud’s followers, including Carl Jung, Karen Horney, and Alfred Adler, refined Freud’s theory and developed their own psychodynamic approaches. Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory: Mapping the Unconscious Mind Sigmund Freud, an Austrian physician, developed psychoanalytic theory in the early 1900s. According to Freud’s theory, conscious experience is only a small part of our psychological makeup and experience. He argued that much of our behavior is motivated by the unconscious, a part of the personality that contains the memories, knowledge, beliefs, feelings, urges, drives, and instincts of which the individual is not aware. Like the unseen mass of a floating iceberg, the contents of the unconscious far surpass in quantity the information in our conscious awareness. Freud maintained that to understand personality, it is necessary to expose what is in the unconscious. But because the unconscious disguises the meaning of the material it holds, the content of the unconscious cannot be observed directly. It is therefore necessary to interpret clues to the unconscious— slips of the tongue, fantasies, and dreams—to understand the unconscious processes that direct behavior. To Freud, much of our personality is determined by our unconscious. Some of the unconscious is made up of the preconscious, which contains material that is not threatening and is easily brought to mind, such as the knowledge that 2 + 2 = 4. But deeper in the unconscious are instinctual drives— the wishes, desires, demands, and needs that are hidden from conscious awareness because of the conflicts and pain they would cause if they were part of our everyday lives. The unconscious provides a “safe haven” for our recollections of threatening events. STRUCTURING PERSONALITY: ID, EGO, AND SUPEREGO To describe the structure of personality, Freud developed a comprehensive theory that held that personality consists of three separate but interacting components: the id, the ego, and the superego. Freud suggested that the three structures can be diagrammed to show how they relate to the conscious and the unconscious. Although the three components of personality Freud described may appear to be actual physical structures in the nervous system, they are not. Instead, they represent abstract conceptions of a general model of personality that describes the interaction of forces that motivate behavior. Id. Consists of primitive, instinctual cravings and longings. It is the raw, unorganized, inborn part of personality. From the time of birth, the id attempts to reduce tension created by primitive drives related to hunger, sex, aggression, and irrational impulses. Those drives are fueled by “psychic energy,” which we can think of as a limitless energy source constantly putting pressure on the various parts of personality. The id operates according to the pleasure principle in which the goal is the immediate reduction of tension and the maximization of satisfaction. However, in most cases, reality prevents the fulfillment of the demands of the pleasure principle: We cannot always eat when we are hungry, and we can discharge our sexual drives only when the time and place are appropriate. To account for this fact of life, Freud suggested a second component of personality, which he called the ego. Ego. Begins to develop soon after birth, strives to balance the desires of the id and the realities of the objective, outside world. In contrast to the pleasure-seeking id, the ego operates according to the reality principle in which instinctual energy is restrained to maintain the individual’s safety and to help integrate the person into society. In a sense, then, the ego is the “executive” of personality: It makes decisions, controls actions, and allows thinking and problem solving of a higher order than the id’s capabilities permit. Superego. The superego is the final personality structure to develop in childhood. According to Freud, the superego is the personality structure that harshly judges the morality of our behavior. It represents the rights and wrong of society as taught and modeled by a person’s parents, teachers, and other significant individuals. The superego includes the conscience, which prevents us from behaving in a morally improper way by making us feel guilty if we do wrong. The superego helps us control impulses coming from the id, making our behavior less selfish and more virtuous. Both the superego and the id are unrealistic in that they do not consider the practical realities imposed by society. The superego, if left to operate without restraint, would create perfectionists unable to make the compromises that life requires. An unrestrained id would create a primitive, pleasure-seeking, thoughtless individual seeking to fulfill every desire without delay. As a result, the ego must mediate between the demands of the superego and the demands of the id. Developing Personality: Psychosexual Stages Freud also provided us with a view of how personality develops through a series of five psychosexual stages during which children encounter conflicts between the demands of society and their own sexual urges (in which sexuality is more about experiencing pleasure and less about lust). According to Freud, if we are not able to resolve the conflicts that occur at a particular psychosexual stage, we may become locked in that conflict throughout life—something he called fixation. Fixations are conflicts or concerns that persist beyond the developmental period in which they first occur. Such conflicts may be due to having needs ignored, such as weaning the child too early or being too strict during toilet training. Alternatively, fixation may occur if children are overindulged during an earlier period, such as when parents are overly attentive to a child or provide lavish rewards during toilet training. The sequence Freud proposed is noteworthy because it explains how experiences and difficulties during a particular childhood stage may predict specific characteristics in the adult personality. This theory is also unique in associating each stage with a major biological function, which Freud assumed to be the focus of pleasure in a given period. The child’s ability to resolve these internal conflicts determines their future ability to cope and function as an adult, according to Freud. Failure to resolve a stage can lead one to become fixated in that stage, leading to unhealthy personality traits. By contrast, successful resolution of the stages leads to a healthy well-adjusted adult. Defense Mechanisms. Freud’s efforts to describe and theorize about the underlying dynamics of personality and its development were motivated by very practical problems that his patients faced in dealing with anxiety, an intense, negative emotional experience. According to Freud, anxiety is a danger signal to the ego. Although anxiety can arise from realistic fears—such as seeing a poisonous snake about to strike—it can also occur in the form of neurotic anxiety in which irrational impulses emanate. Freud believed that people develop a range of defense mechanisms to deal with it. Defense mechanisms are unconscious strategies that people use to reduce anxiety by distorting reality and concealing the source of the anxiety from themselves. The Neo-Freudian Psychoanalysts: Building on Freud Freud laid the foundation for important work done by a series of successors who were trained in traditional Freudian theory but later rejected some of its major points. These theorists are known as neo-Freudian psychoanalysts. The neo-Freudians placed greater emphasis than Freud on the functions of the ego by suggesting that it has more control than the id over day-to-day activities. They focused more on the social environment and minimized the importance of sex as a driving force in people’s lives. They also paid greater attention to the effects of society and culture on personality development. JUNG’S COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS Carl Jung (pronounced “yoong”), one of the most influential neo-Freudians, rejected Freud’s view of the primary importance of unconscious sexual urges. Instead, he looked at the primitive urges of the unconscious more positively. He argued that they rep- resented a more general and positive life force that goes back to the dawn of the existence of life, motivating creativity and positive conflict resolution (Lothane, 2005; Cassells, 2007; Wilde, 2011). Jung suggested that we have a universal collective unconscious—an inherited set of ideas, feelings, images, and symbols that are shared with all humans because of our common ancestral past. This collective unconscious, which is in the deepest layer of the unconscious, is similar in everyone and is displayed in behavior that is common across diverse cultures—such as love of mother, belief in a supreme being, and even behavior as specific as fear of snakes (Drob, 2005; Hauke, 2006; Finn, 2011). Jung went on to propose that the collective unconscious contains archetypes, universal symbolic representations of particular types of people, objects, ideas, or experiences. For instance, a mother archetype, which contains reflections of our ancestors’ relationships with mother figures, is suggested by the prevalence of mothers in art, religion, literature, and mythology. (Think of the Virgin Mary, Earth Mother, wicked stepmothers in fairy tales, Mother’s Day, and so forth!) Jung also suggested that men possess an unconscious feminine archetype that affects how they behave, and women have an unconscious male archetype that colors their behavior (Jung, 1961; Bair, 2003; Smetana, 2007). To Jung, archetypes play an important role in determining our day-to-day reactions, attitudes, and values. For example, Jung might explain the popularity of the Harry Potter books and movies as being due to their use of broad archetypes of good (Harry Potter) and evil (Voldemort). Although no reliable research evidence confirms the existence of the collective unconscious—and even Jung acknowledged that such evidence would be difficult to produce—Jung’s theory has had significant influence in areas beyond psychology. For example, personality types derived from Jung’s personality approach form the basis for the Myers-Briggs personality test, which is widely used in business and industry to provide insights into how employees make decisions and perform on the job (Furnham & Crump, 2005; Wilde, 2011; Mills, 2013). HORNEY’S NEO-FREUDIAN PERSPECTIVE Karen Horney (pronounced “HORN-eye”) was one of the earliest psychologists to champion women’s issues and is sometimes called the first feminist psychologist. Horney suggested that personality develops in the context of social relationships and depends particularly on the relationship between parents and child and how well the child’s needs are met. She rejected Freud’s suggestion that women have penis envy; she asserted that what women envy most in men is not their anatomy but the independence, success, and freedom women often are denied (Horney, 1937; Smith, 2007; Coolidge et al., 2011). Horney was also one of the first to stress the importance of cultural factors in the determination of personality. For example, she suggested that society’s rigid gender roles for women lead them to experience ambivalence about success because they fear they will make enemies if they are too successful. Her conceptualizations, developed in the 1930s and 1940s, laid the groundwork for many of the central ideas of feminism that emerged decades later (Eckardt, 2005; Jones, 2006). ADLER AND OTHER NEO-FREUDIANS Alfred Adler, another important neo-Freudian psychoanalyst, also considered Freudian theory’s emphasis on sexual needs misplaced. Instead, Adler proposed that the primary human motivation is a striving for superiority, not in terms of superiority over others but in a quest for self-improvement and perfection. Adler used the term inferiority complex to describe adults who have not been able to overcome the feelings of inadequacy they developed as children. Early social relationships with parents have an important effect on children’s ability to outgrow feelings of personal inferiority. If children have positive experiences, they can orient themselves toward attaining socially useful goals. Other neo-Freudians included Erik Erikson, whose theory of psycho- social development we discussed in other modules, and Freud’s daughter, Anna Freud. Like Adler and Horney, they focused less than Freud on inborn sexual and aggressive drives and more on the social and cultural factors behind Trait, Learning, Biological and Evolutionary, and Humanistic Approaches to Personality TRAIT APPROACHES: PLACING LABELS ON PERSONALITY If someone asked you to characterize another person, like Anna and her friend, you probably would come up with a list of traits. Traits are consistent personality characteristics and behaviors displayed in different situations. Trait theory is the personality approach that seeks to identify the basic traits necessary to describe personality. Trait theorists do not assume that some people have a trait and others do not; rather, they propose that all people possess certain traits, but the degree to which a particular trait applies to a specific person varies and can be quantified. For instance, you may be relatively friendly, whereas I may be relatively unfriendly. But we both have a “friendliness” trait, although your degree of “friendliness” is higher than mine. The major challenge for trait theorists taking this approach has been to identify the specific primary traits necessary to describe personality. As we shall see, different theorists have come up with surprisingly different sets of traits. ALLPORT’S TRAIT THEORY When personality psychologist Gordon Allport systematically pored over an unabridged dictionary in the 1930s, he came up with some 18,000 separate terms that could be used to describe personality. Although he was able to pare down the list to a mere 4,500 descriptors after eliminating words with the same meaning, he was left with a problem crucial to all trait approaches: Which of those traits were the most basic? Allport eventually answered this question by suggesting that there are three fundamental categories of traits: cardinal, central, and secondary (Allport, 1961, 1966). A cardinal trait is a single characteristic that directs most of a person’s activities. For example, a totally selfless woman may direct all her energy toward humanitarian activities; an intensely power-hungry person may be driven by an all-consuming need for control. Most people, however, do not develop a single, comprehensive cardinal trait. Instead, they possess a handful of central traits that make up the core of personality. Central traits, such as honesty and sociability, are an individual’s major characteristics; they usually number from five to ten in any one person. Finally, secondary traits are characteristics that affect behavior in fewer situations and are less influential than central or cardinal traits. For instance, a reluctance to eat meat and a love of modern art would be considered secondary traits (Smrtnik- Vitulic ́ & Zupanˇciˇc, 2011; Kahn et al., 2013). CATTELL AND EYSENCK: FACTORING OUT PERSONALITY Later attempts to identify primary personality traits centered on a statistical technique known as factor analysis. Factor analysis is a statistical method of identifying patterns among a large number of variables. For example, a personality researcher might ask a large group of people to rate themselves on a number of individual traits. By statistically computing which traits are associated with each other, a researcher can identify the fundamental patterns of traits—called factors—that tend to be found together in the same person. Using factor analysis, personality psychologist Raymond Cattell (1965) suggested that 16 pairs of traits represent the basic dimensions of personality. Using that set of traits, he developed the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, or 16 PF, a person- ality scale that is still in use today (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 2000; Djapo et al., 2011). Another trait theorist, psychologist Hans Eysenck (1995), also used factor analysis to identify patterns of traits, but he came to a very different conclusion about the nature of personality. He found that personality could best be described in terms of just three major dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. The extraversion dimension describes a person’s level of sociability, whereas the neuroticism dimension encompasses an individual’s emotional stability. Finally, psychoticism is the degree to which reality is distorted. By evaluating people along these three dimensions, Eysenck was able to predict behavior accurately in a variety of situations. Figure 1 lists specific traits associated with each of the dimensions. THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS (OCEAN or CANOE) For the last two decades, the most influential trait approach contends that five traits or factors— called the “Big Five”—lie at the core of personality. Using factor analytic statistical techniques, a host of researchers have identified a similar set of five factors that underlie personality. The five factors are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (emotional stability). The Big Five (OCEAN) emerge consistently across a number of domains. For example, factor analyses of major personality inventories, self-report measures made by observers of others’ personality traits, and checklists of self-descriptions yield similar factors. In addition, the Big Five emerge consistently in different populations of individuals, including children, college students, older adults, and speakers of different languages. Cross-cultural research conducted in areas ranging from Europe to the Middle East to Africa also has been supportive. Finally, studies of brain functioning show that Big Five personality traits are related to the way the brain processes information (Schmitt, Allik, & McCrae, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2008; Vecchione et al., 2011). In short, a growing consensus exists that the Big Five represent the best description of personality traits we have today. Still, the debate over the specific number and kinds of traits—and even the usefulness of trait approaches in general—remains a lively one. LEARNING APPROACHES: WE ARE WHAT WE’VE LEARNED The psychodynamic and trait approaches we’ve been discussing concentrate on the “inner” person—the fury of an unobservable but powerful id, or a critical set of traits that describe the core of an individual. In contrast, learning approaches to personality focus on the external environment— the world in which a person lives—and how that determines personality. SKINNER’S BEHAVIORIST APPROACH According to the most influential learning theorist, B. F. Skinner (who carried out pioneering work on operant conditioning), personality is a collection of learned behavior patterns (Skinner, 1975). Similarities in responses across different situations are caused by similar patterns of reinforcement that have been received in such situations in the past. If I am sociable both at parties and at meetings, it is because I have been reinforced for displaying social behaviors—not because I am fulfilling an unconscious wish based on experiences during my childhood or because I have an internal trait of sociability. Learning theorists such as Skinner are less interested in the consistencies in behavior across situations than in ways of modifying behavior. To a learning theorist who subscribes to Skinner’s view, humans are infinitely changeable through the process of learning new behavior patterns. If we are able to control and modify the patterns of reinforcers in a situation, behavior that other theorists would view as stable and unyielding can be changed and ultimately improved. Learning theorists are optimistic in their attitudes about the potential for resolving personal and societal problems through treatment strategies based on learning theory. SOCIAL COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY Not all learning theories of personality take such a rigid view in rejecting the importance of what is “inside” a person by focusing solely on the “outside.” Unlike other learning approaches to personality, social cognitive approaches to personality emphasize the influence of cognition—thoughts, feelings, expectations, and values—as well as observation of others’ behavior, on personality. According to Albert Bandura, one of the main proponents of this point of view, people can foresee the possible outcomes of certain behaviors in a specific setting without actually having to carry them out. This understanding comes primarily through observational learning—viewing the actions of others and observing the consequences (Bandura, 1986, 1999). For instance, children who view a model behaving in, say, an aggressive manner tend to copy the behavior if the consequences of the model’s behavior are seen as positive. If, in contrast, the model’s aggressive behavior has resulted in no consequences or negative consequences, children are considerably less likely to act aggressively. According to social cognitive approaches, then, personality develops through repeated observations of others’ behavior. Self-Efficacy. Bandura places particular emphasis on the role played by self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief that we can master a situation and produce positive out- comes. Self-efficacy underlies people’s faith in their ability to successfully carry out a particular task or to produce a desired outcome. People with high self-efficacy have higher aspirations and greater persistence in working to attain goals. Furthermore, they ultimately achieve greater success than those with lower self- efficacy (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Betz, 2007; Dunlop, Beatty, & Beauchamp, 2011). How do we develop self-efficacy? One way is by paying close attention to our prior successes and failures. If we try snowboarding and experience little success, we’ll be less likely to try it again. However, if our initial efforts appear promising, we’ll be more likely to attempt it again. Direct reinforcement and encouragement from others also play a role in developing self-efficacy (Devonport & Lane, 2006; Buchanan & Selmon, 2008; Artistico et al., 2013). Compared with other learning theories of personality, social cognitive approaches are distinctive in their emphasis on the reciprocity between individuals and their environment. Not only is the environment assumed to affect personality, but people’s behavior and personalities are also assumed to “feedback” and modify the environment (Bandura, 1999, 2000). JULIAN ROTTER’S LOCUS OF CONTROL Julian Rotter viewed that the process of learning creates expectancies that guide future behaviour. He expanded upon Bandura’s ideas of reciprocal determinism, and he developed the term locus of control to describe how individuals view their relationship to the environment (“locus” is Latin for “place” or “location”). Distinct from self-efficacy, which involves our belief in our own abilities, locus of control refers to our beliefs about the power we have over our lives. Locus of control can be classified along a spectrum from internal to external, where those with an internal locus of control expect situations to be fully controlled by their own efforts, whereas those with external locus of control expect that events will be directed by environmental factors out of their control. HOW MUCH CONSISTENCY EXISTS IN PERSONALITY? Another social cognitive theorist, Walter Mischel, takes a different approach to personality from that of Albert Bandura. He rejects the view that personality consists of broad traits that lead to substantial consistencies in behavior across different situations. Instead, he sees personality as considerably more variable from one situation to another (Mischel, 2009). In this view, particular situations give rise to particular kinds of behavior. Some situations are especially influential (think of a movie theater, where everyone displays pretty much the same behavior by sitting quietly and watching the film). Other situations permit much variability in behavior (think of a party, for example, where some people may be dancing, while others are eating and drinking). From this perspective, personality cannot be considered without taking the particular context of the situation into account—a view known as situationism. In his cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) theory, Mischel argues that people’s thoughts and emotions about themselves and the world determine how they view, and then react, in particular situations. Personality is thus seen as a reflection of how people’s prior experiences in different situations affect their behavior (Shoda & Mischel, 2006; Mischel & Shoda, 2008; McCrae et al., 2011). SELF-ESTEEM. Our behavior also reflects the view we have of ourselves and the way we value the various parts of our personalities. Self-esteem is the component of personality that encompasses our positive and negative self-evaluations. Unlike self-efficacy, which focuses on our views of whether we are able to carry out a task, self-esteem relates to how we feel about ourselves. Although people have a general level of self-esteem, it is not unidimensional. We may see ourselves positively in one domain but negatively in others. For example, a good student may have high self- esteem in academic domains but lower self-esteem in sports (Salmela-Aro & Nurmi, 2007; Gentile et al., 2009; Gadbois & Sturgeon, 2011). Self-esteem is strongly affected by culture. For example, consider the characteristic of relationship harmony, which is a sense of success in forming close bonds with other people. For people living in Asian cultures, having high relationship harmony is more important to self-esteem than it is in more individualistic Western societies (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2004; Lun & Bond, 2006; Cheng & Kwan, 2008). Although almost everyone goes through periods of low self-esteem (for instance, after an undeniable failure), some people are chronically low in self-esteem. For them, failure seems to be an inevitable part of life. In fact, low self-esteem may lead to a cycle of failure in which past failure breeds future failure. For example, consider students with low self-esteem who are studying for a test. Because of their low self-esteem, they expect to do poorly on the test. In turn, this belief raises their anxiety level, which makes it increasingly difficult to study and perhaps even leading them not to work as hard. Because of these attitudes, they do, in fact, ultimately perform badly on the test. Ultimately, the failure reinforces their low self-esteem, and the cycle is perpetuated. In short, low self-esteem can lead to a self-destructive cycle of failure. On the other hand, high levels of self-esteem can also be troublesome if it is unwarranted. According to a growing body of data, an increasing number of college-age students have high levels of narcissism, in which people show self-absorption and hold an inflated view of themselves. For example, over the past three decades, thousands of American college students participating in a variety of psychological research studies were asked to take the Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI), a test of narcissistic tendencies. A summary of more than 100 such studies conducted over a 25-year period showed a significant increase in participants’ narcissism scores (Twenge & Foster, 2010; Dingfelder, 2011; Twenge & Kasser, 2013). Figure 3 The cycle of low self-esteem begins with an individual already having low self-esteem. As a consequence, the person will have low performance expectations and expect to fail a test, thereby producing anxiety and reduced effort. As a result, the person will actually fail, and failure in turn reinforces low self-esteem. BIOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES: ARE WE BORN WITH PERSONALITY? Approaching the question of what determines personality from a different direction, biological and evolutionary approaches to personality suggest that important components of personality are inherited. Building on the work of behavioral geneticists, researchers using biological and evolutionary approaches argue that personality is determined at least in part by our genes in much the same way that our height is largely a result of genetic contributions from our ancestors. The evolutionary perspective assumes that personality traits that led to our ancestors’ survival and reproductive success are more likely to be preserved and passed on to subsequent generations (Buss, 2001, 2009, 2011). The results of research studies conducted on twins who are genetically identical but raised apart illustrate the importance of genetic factors in personality. Personality tests indicate that in major respects, genetically identical twins raised apart are quite similar in personality, despite having been separated at an early age. Moreover, certain traits are more heavily influenced by heredity than others. For example, social potency (the degree to which a person assumes mastery and leadership roles in social situations) and traditionalism (the tendency to follow authority) had particularly strong genetic components, whereas achievement and social closeness had relatively weak genetic components (Tellegen et al., 1988; Bouchard et al., 2004; see Figure 4). Furthermore, it is increasingly clear that the roots of adult personality emerge early in life. Infants are born with a specific temperament, an individual’s behavioral style and characteristic way of responding. Temperament encompasses several dimensions, including general activity level and mood. For instance, some individuals are quite active, while others are relatively calm. Similarly, some are relatively easygoing, whereas others are irritable, easily upset, and difficult to soothe. Temperament is quite consis- tent, with significant stability from infancy well into adolescence (Wachs et al., 2004; Kagan et al., 2007; Evans & Rothbart, 2007, 2009; Hori et al., 2011). Some researchers contend that specific genes are related to personality. For example, people with a longer dopamine-4 receptor gene are more likely to be thrill-seekers than those without such a gene. These thrill-seekers tend to be extroverted, impulsive, quick-tempered, and always in search of excitement and novel situations. Furthermore, the structure of their brains may reflect their thrill- seeking tendencies (see Neuroscience in Your Life; Robins, 2005; Golimbet et al., 2007; Ray et al., 2009). Figure 4 The inherited roots of personality. The percentages indicate the degree to which 11 personality characteristics reflect the influence of heredity. (Source: Adapted from Tellengen et al., 1988.) More important, genes interact with the environment. As we see in discussions of the heritability of intelligence and the nature–nurture issue, it is impossible to completely divorce genetic factors from environmental factors. Although studies of identical twins raised in different environments are helpful, they are not definitive because it is impossible to assess and control environmental factors fully. Furthermore, estimates of the influence of genetics are just that—estimates—and apply to groups, not individuals. Finally, even if more genes are found to be linked to specific personality characteristics, genes still cannot be viewed as the sole cause of personality. For one thing, genetically determined characteristics may not be expressed if they are not “turned on” by particular environmental experiences. Furthermore, behaviors produced by genes may help to create a specific environment. For instance, a cheerful, smiley baby may lead the parents to smile more and be more responsive, thereby creating a supportive, pleasant environment. (Scarr, 1998; Plomin & Caspi, 1999; Kim- Cohen, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003; Kim-Cohen et al., 2005). Although an increasing number of personality theorists are taking biological and evolutionary factors into account, no comprehensive, unified theory that considers biological and evolutionary factors is widely accepted. Still, it is clear that certain personality traits have substantial genetic components and that heredity and environment interact to determine personality (Ebstein, Benjamin, & Belmaker, 2003; Bouchard, 2004; South & Krueger, 2008; South et al., 2013). HUMANISTIC APPROACHES: THE UNIQUENESS OF YOU In all the approaches to personality that we have discussed, where is an explanation for the saintliness of a Mother Teresa, the creativity of a Michelangelo, and the brilliance and perseverance of an Einstein? An understanding of such unique individuals—as well as more ordinary sorts of people who have some of the same attributes—comes from humanistic theory. According to humanistic theorists, all the approaches to personality we have discussed share a fundamental misperception in their views of human nature. Instead of seeing people as controlled by unconscious, unseen forces (psychodynamic approaches), a set of stable traits (trait approaches), situational reinforcements and punishments (learning theory), or inherited factors (biological and evolutionary approaches), humanistic approaches to personality emphasize people’s inherent goodness and their tendency to move toward higher levels of functioning. It is this conscious, self-motivated ability to change and improve, along with people’s unique creative impulses, that humanistic theorists argue make up the core of personality. ROGERS AND THE NEED FOR SELF-ACTUALIZATION The major proponent of the humanistic point of view is Carl Rogers (1971). Along with other humanistic theorists, such as Abraham Maslow, Rogers maintains that all people have a fundamental need for self-actualization, a state of self-fulfillment in which people realize their highest potential, each in a unique way. He further suggests that people develop a need for positive regard that reflects the desire to be loved and respected. Because others provide this positive regard, we grow dependent on them. We begin to see and judge ourselves through the eyes of other people, relying on their values and being preoccupied with what they think of us. According to Rogers, one outgrowth of placing importance on others’ opinions is that a conflict may grow between people’s experiences and their self-concept. Self-concept is the set of beliefs and perceptions people hold about their own abilities, behavior, and personality. If the discrepancies between what people experience and their self-concept are minor, so are the consequences. But if the discrepancies between one’s experience and one’s self-concept are great, they will lead to psychological disturbances in daily functioning, such as the experience of frequent anxiety. Rogers suggests that one way of overcoming the discrepancy between experience and self-concept is through the receipt of unconditional positive regard from another person—a friend, a spouse, or a therapist. Unconditional positive regard refers to an attitude of acceptance and respect on the observer’s part, no matter what a person says or does. This acceptance, says Rogers, gives people the opportunity to evolve and grow both cognitively and emotionally and to develop more realistic self-concepts. You may have experienced the power of unconditional positive regard when you confided in someone, revealing embarrassing secrets because you knew the listener would still love and respect you even after hearing the worst about you (Snyder, 2002; Marshall, 2007; Patterson & Joseph, 2013). In contrast, conditional positive regard depends on your behavior. In such cases, others withdraw their love and acceptance if you do something of which they don’t approve. The result is a discrepancy between your true self and what others wish you would be, which leads to anxiety and frustration. Figure 5 According to the humanistic view of Carl Rogers, people have a basic need to be loved and respected. If you receive unconditional positive regard from others, you will develop a more realistic self-concept; but if the response is conditional, it may lead to anxiety and frustration. ABRAHAM MASLOW AND HIS THEORY OF NEEDS Like Rogers, Abraham Maslow also believed in the human tendency towards growth and self- actualization. Specifically, he proposed that individuals are motivated to achieve certain needs either through a sense of deficiency (deficiency motivation) or a desire for personal growth (growth motivation). The ultimate goal in this hierarchy was towards need for attaining self-actualisation. The actualising tendency in his model represented the drive of every organism has to strive towards reaching their fullest potential. It’s worth noting that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is often criticised in scientific literature, and even Maslow subsequently changed his view regarding the need for linear movement through the levels of the hierarchy, with the main criticisms being: The theory was largely based on influential public figures rather than average individuals; Self-actualisation is described as ‘being the best that you can be’ but the concept of good is relative and varies between individuals and cultures The steps in this model are not strictly hierarchical as many individuals in impoverished nations can achieve ideals similar to self-actualisation whilst ‘lower’ needs are not met. COMPARING APPROACHES TO PERSONALITY. In light of the multiple approaches we have discussed, you may be wondering which of the theories provides the most accurate description of personality. That question cannot be answered precisely. Each theory is built on different assumptions and focuses on somewhat different aspects of personality. Furthermore, there is no clear way to scientifically test the various approaches and their assumptions against one another. Given the complexity of every individual, it seems reasonable that personality can be viewed from a number of perspectives simultaneously (Pervin, 2003). ASSESSMENT OF PERSONALITY: DETERMINING WHAT MAKES US DISTINCTIVE The ease with which we can agree with such imprecise statements underscores the difficulty in coming up with accurate and meaningful assessments of people’s personalities. Psychologists interested in assessing personality must be able to define the most meaningful ways of discriminating between one person’s personality and another’s. To do this, they use psychological tests, standard measures devised to assess behavior objectively. With the results of such tests, psychologists can help people better understand themselves and make decisions about their lives. Researchers interested in the causes and consequences of personality also employ psychological tests (Hambleton, 2006; Miller, McIntire, & Lovler, 2011; Hambleton & Zenisky, 2013). Like the assessments that seek to measure intelligence, all psychological tests must have reliability and validity. Reliability refers to a test’s measurement consistency. If a test is reliable, it yields the same result each time it is administered to a specific person or group. In contrast, unreliable tests give different results each time they are administered. For meaningful conclusions to be drawn, tests also must be valid. Tests have validity when they actually measure what they are designed to measure. If a test is constructed to measure sociability, for instance, we need to know that it actually measures sociability and not some other trait. Finally, psychological tests are based on norms, the average test performance of a large sample of individuals that permit the comparison of one person’s score on a test with the scores of others who have taken the same test. For example, a norm permits test-takers who have received a certain score on a test to know that they have scored in the top 10% of all those who have taken the test. Norms are established by administering a specific test to a large number of people and determining the typical scores. It is then possible to compare a single person’s score with the scores of the group, which provides a comparative measure of test performance against the performance of others who have taken the test. Self-Report Measures of Personality If someone wanted to assess your personality, one possible approach would be to carry out an extensive interview with you to determine the most important events in your childhood, your social relationships, and your successes and failures. Obviously, though, such a technique would take extraordinary time and effort. It is also unnecessary. Just as physicians draw only a small sample of your blood to test, psychologists can use self-report measures. In a self-report measure, people are asked questions about their own behavior and traits. This sampling of self-report data is then used to infer the presence of particular personality characteristics. For example, a researcher who was interested in assessing a person’s orientation to life might administer the questionnaire. One of the best examples of a self-report measure, and one of the most frequently used personality tests, is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2- Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Although the original purpose of this measure was to identify people with specific sorts of psychological difficulties, it has been found to predict a variety of other behaviors. For instance, MMPI-2-RF scores have been shown to be good predictors of whether college students will marry within 10 years of graduating and whether they will get an advanced degree. Police departments use the test to measure whether police officers are likely to use their weapons. Psychologists in Russia administer a modified form of the MMPI-2-RF to their astronauts and Olympic athletes (Butcher, 2005; Sellbom & Ben-Porath, 2006; Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath, 2007; Butcher, 2011). The test consists of a series of 338 items to which a person responds “true,” “false,” or “cannot say.” The questions cover a variety of issues ranging from mood (“I feel useless at times”) to opinions (“People should try to understand their dreams”) to physical and psychological health (“I am bothered by an upset stomach several times a week” and “I have strange and peculiar thoughts”). There are no right or wrong answers. Instead, interpretation of the results rests on the pattern of responses. The test yields scores on 51 separate scales, including several scales meant to measure the validity of the respondent’s answers. For example, there is a “lie scale” that indicates when people are falsifying their responses in order to present themselves more favorably (through items such as, “I can’t remember ever having a bad night’s sleep”) (Butcher, 2005; Stein & Graham, 2005; Bacchiochi, 2006). How did the authors of the MMPI-2-RF determine what specific patterns of responses indicate? The procedure they used is typical of personality test construction—a process known as test standardization. To create the test, the test authors asked groups of psychiatric patients with a specific diagnosis, such as depression or schizophrenia, to complete a large number of items. They then determined which items best differentiated members of those groups from a comparison group of normal participants and included those specific items in the final version of the test. By systematically carrying out this procedure on groups with different diagnoses, the test authors were able to devise a number of subscales that identified different forms of abnormal behavior. When the MMPI-2-RF is used for the purpose for which it was devised—identification of personality disorders—it does a good job. However, like other personality tests, it presents an opportunity for abuse. For instance, employers who use it as a screening tool for job applicants may interpret the results improperly by relying too heavily on the results of individual scales instead of taking into account the overall patterns of results, which require skilled interpretation. Furthermore, critics point out that the individual scales overlap, which makes their interpretation difficult. In sum, although the MMPI-2- RF remains the most widely used personality test and has been translated into more than 100 different languages, it must be used with caution (Forbey & Ben-Porath, 2007; Ben-Porath & Archer, 2008; Williams & Butcher, 2011). Figure 2 A MMPI-2-RF profile of person who suffers from obsessional anxiety, social withdrawal, and delusional thinking. Projective Methods The shape in the figure is representative of inkblots used in projective personality tests. Projective personality tests are personality tests in which a person is shown an ambiguous, vague stimulus and asked to describe it or to tell a story about it. The responses, which are scored and interpreted using a standardized scoring method, are considered to be “projections” of the individual’s personality. The best-known projective test is the Rorschach test. Devised by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach (1924), the test involves showing a series of symmetrical stimuli to people who are then asked what the figures represent to them. Their responses are recorded, and people are classified into personality types requiring a complex set of judgments on the part of the examiner. For instance, individuals who see a bear in one particular Rorschach inkblot are thought to have a strong degree of emotional control, according to the scoring guidelines Rorschach developed (Weiner, 2004b; Silverstein, 2007). The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is another well-known projective test. The TAT consists of a series of pictures about which a person is asked to write a story. The stories are then used to draw inferences about the writer’s personality characteristics (Weiner, 2004a; Langan-Fox & Grant, 2006). Tests with stimuli as ambiguous as those used in the Rorschach and TAT require a high degree of skill and care in their interpretation—too much skill and care, in the view of many critics. The Rorschach in particular has been criticized for requiring too much inference on the part of the examiner, and attempts to standardize the scoring of it have frequently failed. Despite such problems, both the Rorschach and the TAT are widely used, especially in clinical settings, and their proponents suggest that their reliability and validity are great enough to provide useful inferences about personality (Garb et al., 2005; Society for Personality Assessment, 2005; Campos, 2011). Behavioral Assessment If you were a psychologist subscribing to a learning approach to personality, you would be likely to object to the indirect nature of projective tests. Instead, you would be more apt to use behavioral assessment—direct measures of an individual’s behavior designed to describe characteristics indicative of personality. As with observational research, behavioral assessment may be carried out naturalistically by observing people in their own settings: in the workplace, at home, or in school. In other cases, behavioral assessment occurs in the laboratory under controlled conditions in which a psychologist sets up a situation and observes an individual’s behavior (Gladwell, 2004; Miller & Leffard, 2007; O’Brien & Young, 2013). Behavioral assessment is particularly appropriate for observing—and eventually remedying— specific behavioral difficulties, such as shyness in children. It provides a means of assessing the specific nature and incidence of a problem and subsequently allows psychologists to determine whether intervention techniques have been successful. Behavioral assessment techniques based on learning theories of personality have also made important contributions to the treatment of certain kinds of psychological difficulties. In addition, they are also used to make hiring and personnel decision in the workplace. ASSESSING PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS Many companies ranging from General Motors to Microsoft employ personality tests to help determine who gets hired. For example, potential Microsoft employees have been asked brainteasers like, “If you had to remove one of the 50 U.S. states, which would it be?” (Hint: First define “remove.” If you mean the death of everyone in the state, suggest a low-population state. If you mean quitting the country, then go for an outlying state like Alaska or Hawaii.) Other employers ask questions that are even vaguer (“Describe November”). With such questions, it’s not always clear that the tests are reliable or valid (McGinn, 2003). Before relying too heavily on the results of such personality testing in the role of potential employee, employer, or consumer of testing services, you should keep several points in mind: Understand what the test claims to measure. Standard personality measures are accompanied by information that discusses how the test was developed, to whom it is most applicable, and how the results should be interpreted. Read any explanations of the test; they will help you understand the results. Do not base a decision only on the results of any one test. Test results should be interpreted in the context of other information, such as academic records, social interests, and home and community activities. Remember that test results are not always accurate. The results may be in error; the test may be unreliable or invalid. For example, you may have had a “bad day” when you took the test, or the person scoring and interpreting the test may have made a mistake. You should not place too much significance on the results of a single administration of any test. In sum, it is important to keep in mind the complexity of human behavior—particularly your own. No single test can provide an understanding of the intricacies of someone’s personality without considering a good deal more information than can be provided in a single testing session (Gladwell, 2004; Paul, 2004; Hogan, Davies, & Hogan, 2007).