Personality Psychology: A New Perspective [2024 ed.] 3031553071, 9783031553073

Citation preview

Janek Musek

Personality Psychology A New Perspective

Personality Psychology

Janek Musek

Personality Psychology A New Perspective

Janek Musek Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana Ljubljana, Slovenia

ISBN 978-3-031-55307-3    ISBN 978-3-031-55308-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55308-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

v

Preface

The modern concept of personality has a long chain of predecessors in history. Notions of person, human nature, human essence, type, character, self, and others are among them. Already on first sight, personality is a dispositional term. Personality often refers to characteristics that are a part of our biological, evolutionary heritage and manifest themselves in our mind and behavior. Yet, the belief in the dispositional nature of personality was also a great obstacle to the acceptance of the personality concept in the eyes of science. The reason lies in prescientific psychology that insists on so-called faculties, inner and innate dispositions, responsible for our experience and behavior. The very concept of faculties was circular and therefore unscientific. This is an example of prescientific thinking. It is understandable therefore that the concept of personality has to be redefined in a scientifically acceptable way. This process did not take place until the twentieth century. The concept of personality evolved to the scientific psychological construct, not because it has lost dispositional meaning, but because it succeeded in scientifically redefining the very notion of disposition. Personality refers to dispositions, which are not magical forces but entities defined by hypothetical constructs, which are demonstrable by empirical, that is scientific methods used in psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and other sciences. It must be clear that the concept of personality discussed in this book is strictly limited to its scientific meaning. And this is of the greatest importance for humanity. The scientific knowledge of our personality is crucial in the process of human beings’ self-understanding. Why is our own personality so important in our life? Our personality is our destiny. Everything depends on it: our well-being, our happiness, our marital and life satisfaction, our relations with others, our job, our career, our school or academic success, our coping with stress, our physical and mental health, even our longevity, and often our death. Sincerely speaking, we are not always aware of the role and influence of our own personality. For example, we are convinced that our well-being and happiness are mainly affected by the stressors we experience, conflicts, loss of loved ones, injuries, illnesses, financial issues, humiliations, and similar. Yet, the scientifically proven truth is that our personality traits are responsible for our well-being to almost vii

viii

Preface

equal extent. Neuroticism is endangering our well-being more than the majority of stressors. Despite this, almost everybody will list the stressors to explain, which factors influence her or his well-being. Nobody will say “I am not happy because I am a neurotic person,” although this may be true. It is a fact, that we perceive the stressors much more than our personality traits. Why? The answer is obvious: we are living with our personality. Furthermore, the stressors—especially the major ones—have transient effects. They appear and they go. Our personality, on the other side, is always here. It is influencing our well-being in a sustainable way. If so, the tremendous scientific interest in the personality is understandable. Speaking scientifically about personality, we can easily find additional reasons for the importance of personality as a subject of science, especially psychology. All our behaviors and experiences are due to these factors, which can be classified into three groups: (1) the outer, situational, or environmental factors, (2) the inner, personality factors, and (3) the factors emerging from the interaction between person and situation. Thus, personality is obviously the major factor in our life in the eyes of psychology too. Finally, the personality subsumes and integrates almost all special psychological functions and processes: physical, emotional, motivational, and cognitive. Only for this reason, the personality deserves stronger emphasis in psychological research than any other subject. The book takes us into a world of personality and interpersonal differences. Since ancient times, man has been the most important part of reality, and at the same time the greatest riddle to himself. Therefore, attempts to understand personality have an honorable place in the history of human thought. The first systematic reflections on personality and interpersonal differences appear in the centuries before Christ, but the scientific history of these reflections is much shorter, only a good century old. This book talks about it. It describes and explains the results of scientific research on personality. It gives us the image of personality in an efficiently organized way offered to us by modern personality science. Since psychology is the science that is leading in the study of personality, our approach to personality will be predominantly psychological. This book deliberately concentrates on the most essential findings of personality psychology and omits all the innumerable non-essential data that do not contribute to the significant advancement of personality knowledge. Unfortunately, by far the largest part of empirical research in psychology (as well as in other sciences) is devoted to very specific problems, which does not contribute to the real progress of knowledge. Most psychological books are oversaturated with insignificant special findings in the authors’ desire to cite as much material as possible in the book, regardless of its significance. In what other ways this book is different from other textbooks about personality? First, it is written within a coherent scientific theoretical framework. Most personality textbooks offer contents that are non-critical mixture of old and recent, phenomenological and empirical, psychoanalytic and behavioristic, humanistic and cognitive. That is like a textbook of natural sciences, which would intermingle astrology and astronomy, alchemy and chemistry, relativity and quantum theory, Darwinism and creationism as equivalent theoretical platforms. In this book, all

Preface

ix

theories, models, and perspectives are reviewed and discussed within a unified theoretical framework of psychology in its recent scientific status. It means that historically and conceptually different models can be considered in their recent scientific form. For example, it is impossible to assess the scientific value of Freud’s original theory in comparison to the scientific value of the modern scientific model of personality structure. Yet, it is perfectly possible to compare scientific tests of Freudian hypotheses with scientific tests of hypotheses in recent structural personality models. Second, the book focuses on theories and models, which are developed by scientific methodological apparatus characteristic for empirical research. All other conceptions may be mentioned only due to historical reasons. Yet, again, if some model is based on empirically tested hypotheses that originated in the prescientific era, it has a place in this textbook. Third, this book concentrates on the results of the most important empirical research in personality. The scientific progress in the research of personality depends primarily on explorations that mostly contributed to it. In the text, we have given strong priority to important research and not only to research that is more recent. Of course, most of the attention is devoted to the research that is important and recent at the same time. Finally, this book omits the otherwise frequent practice of collecting different models of different authors that represent variations on the same theme, or, very frequently, introduce only new labels for the same content. Instead, we tried to insist on the core structure of explanations and concepts within a theoretical field. A serious approach to personality research requires that we extract the essence of particular theories and models and omit unimportant and distracting ornaments offered by authors. The first chapter of the book deals with the fundamentals of personality. It includes the definitions of personality, the concept of personality and individual (interpersonal) differences, and the perspectives of personality study and research. It also discusses the basic factors of personality (biological, sociocultural, and self-­ activated) and units of personality (traits, styles, dimensions, types, prototypes, states, moods, and roles). Especially enclosed is the role of personality as a source of our mind and behavior, pointing at theoretical positions of personalism, situationism, and interactionism, as well as traitedness and schematicity. The second chapter is dedicated to the theories and models of personality. It encompasses a review of type theories, psychodynamic theories, humanistic theories, trait theories, and social cognitive theories. The third chapter describes the structure of personality. It displays the results of the structural (mainly factor and cluster) analyses of personality. The outcome of these analyses clearly reveals a hierarchical structure of personality extending from personality items, personality facets, first-order dimensions of personality (five to seven) to higher-order dimensions including two-factor dimensions, introduced by Digman (1997), and, finally, the General Factor of Personality at the apex of personality hierarchy introduced by Musek (2007), yet anticipated by several authors (Rushton, 1985; Figueredo et al., 2004; Amigó, 2005; Amigó et al., 2008).

x

Preface

The fourth chapter focuses on personality dynamics. It reviews dynamic factors and characteristics including a short introductory section, basic biodynamic concepts (instinct, propensity, drive, incentive), dynamic traits (ergs, sentiments, motivation strength components), and dynamic dimensions, revealed by the author’s multivariate analyses. This chapter also deals with psychological aspects of motivation like goals and values, with situations as motivating forces, and finally with intrapersonal dynamics, states, moods, and roles. The fifth chapter concentrates on the development and changes of personality. First, the basic factors influencing the development of personality are discussed including genetics, environment, and gene-environment interactions. Then, it reviews the most important theoretical approaches to personality development. Finally, it describes major phases or stages in personality development extending from childhood to the senescence. The issues of stability and changeability of personality are especially addressed in this chapter. The sixth chapter focuses on the role of personality in human life. This chapter explains how personality influences human beings in different behavioral settings and different domains of life: academic life, professional life, partnership and family, leisure and friendship relations, recreation, sports, and others. In this chapter, special attention is devoted to the predictive role of personality in human life. The seventh chapter is dedicated to the relationships between personality and well-being. It describes different factors and processes that connect personality to well-being and its aspects or components (quality of life, pleasure, happiness, satisfaction with life, flow, etc.). In this chapter, special attention is focused on personality connections to stress, coping, and health including personality-related contributions of positive psychology and related areas. Ljubljana, Slovenia  Janek Musek

Contents

1

 undamentals of Personality������������������������������������������������������������������    1 F 1.1 What Is Personality? ������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1.1 Commonsense Notions of Personality����������������������������������    2 1.1.2 Concept of Personality in Western Culture��������������������������    3 1.1.3 Scientific Definitions of Personality ������������������������������������    4 1.1.4 Personality Descriptions and Attributes��������������������������������    6 1.1.5 Interpersonal Differences������������������������������������������������������    9 1.2 Study of Personality��������������������������������������������������������������������������   13 1.2.1 Variable-Centered Approach������������������������������������������������   15 1.2.2 Person-Centered Approach ��������������������������������������������������   16 1.2.3 Personality Assessment��������������������������������������������������������   17 1.2.4 Personality Research������������������������������������������������������������   35 1.3 Basic Factors of Personality��������������������������������������������������������������   53 1.3.1 Biological Factors ����������������������������������������������������������������   54 1.3.2 Sociocultural Factors������������������������������������������������������������   61 1.3.3 Self-Activity��������������������������������������������������������������������������   66 1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior������������������������������������   66 1.4.1 Personalism ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   67 1.4.2 Consistency Paradox ������������������������������������������������������������   68 1.4.3 Situationism��������������������������������������������������������������������������   68 1.4.4 Personalism Strikes Back������������������������������������������������������   71 1.4.5 Interactionism ����������������������������������������������������������������������   73 1.4.6 Attribution Error ������������������������������������������������������������������   75 1.4.7 Traitedness, Meta-Traits, and Schematicity��������������������������   76 1.4.8 Sensitivity to Situations as a Trait����������������������������������������   78 1.5 Units of Personality��������������������������������������������������������������������������   79 1.5.1 Traits, Styles, and Dimensions����������������������������������������������   80 1.5.2 States, Moods, and Roles������������������������������������������������������   83 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   84

xi

xii

Contents

2

Personality Theories��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   87 2.1 Dispositional Theories����������������������������������������������������������������������   87 2.1.1 Type Theories������������������������������������������������������������������������   88 2.1.2 Faculty Theories��������������������������������������������������������������������   92 2.1.3 Trait and Personality Dimension Theories����������������������������   93 2.1.4 Dimensional Types and Prototypes��������������������������������������  104 2.2 Psychoanalytic Theories ������������������������������������������������������������������  105 2.2.1 Psychoanalysis����������������������������������������������������������������������  107 2.2.2 Individual Psychology: Alfred Adler������������������������������������  121 2.2.3 Analytical Psychology: Carl Gustav Jung����������������������������  123 2.2.4 Neo-Analytic and Post-Analytic Theories of Personality������������������������������������������������������������������������  128 2.2.5 Socioanalytic Models of Personality������������������������������������  137 2.3 Behavioral-Social-Cognitive Theories����������������������������������������������  140 2.3.1 Behavioral Orientation����������������������������������������������������������  140 2.3.2 Learning Approach to Personality����������������������������������������  141 2.3.3 Social-Cognitive Approach to Personality����������������������������  142 2.4 Humanistic Models of Personality����������������������������������������������������  149 2.4.1 Humanistic Theories of Personality��������������������������������������  149 2.4.2 Personality in Positive Psychology ��������������������������������������  158 2.4.3 Narrative and Script Models of Personality��������������������������  160 2.5 Models of Self-Concept and Self-Esteem����������������������������������������  161 2.5.1 Self-Esteem ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  161 2.5.2 Self-Concept and Self-Construal������������������������������������������  162 2.6 Bio-evolutionary Theories����������������������������������������������������������������  165 2.6.1 First Biological Approaches to Personality��������������������������  166 2.6.2 Evolutionary Approach to Personality����������������������������������  170 2.6.3 Genetic Approach to Personality������������������������������������������  172 2.6.4 Neuroscience of Personality ������������������������������������������������  173 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  176

3

 tructure of Personality��������������������������������������������������������������������������  191 S 3.1 From the History ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  192 3.1.1 Typological Paradigm ����������������������������������������������������������  192 3.1.2 Psychodynamic Paradigm����������������������������������������������������  193 3.1.3 Behavioral Paradigm������������������������������������������������������������  194 3.1.4 Dimensional (Psychometric) Paradigm��������������������������������  194 3.1.5 Hierarchical Organization of Personality Structure��������������  196 3.2 The Personality Pyramid������������������������������������������������������������������  197 3.2.1 Personality Meta-Traits: Higher-Order Factors of Personality����������������������������������������������������������������������������  198 3.2.2 From Specific to General������������������������������������������������������  204 3.2.3 Studies of the Structural Hierarchy of Personality ��������������  206 3.2.4 Examples of Higher-Order Levels of Personality Hierarchy������������������������������������������������������������������������������  215 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  224

Contents

4

xiii

Personality Dynamics������������������������������������������������������������������������������  231 4.1 Introduction to Personality Dynamics����������������������������������������������  232 4.1.1 Homeostasis and Optimal Arousal����������������������������������������  233 4.1.2 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation����������������������������������������  234 4.1.3 Push and Pull������������������������������������������������������������������������  236 4.1.4 Approach and Avoidance������������������������������������������������������  237 4.1.5 Personality and Motivation ��������������������������������������������������  239 4.2 Biodynamics of Personality��������������������������������������������������������������  240 4.2.1 Psychodynamic Concept of Instinct�������������������������������������  240 4.2.2 Instincts and Propensities������������������������������������������������������  242 4.2.3 Ethology��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  244 4.2.4 Biosociology ������������������������������������������������������������������������  249 4.2.5 Drive Theory ������������������������������������������������������������������������  253 4.2.6 Incentive��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  256 4.3 Dynamic Traits����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  259 4.3.1 Ergs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  259 4.3.2 Sentiments����������������������������������������������������������������������������  261 4.3.3 Motivation Strength Components ����������������������������������������  262 4.4 Dynamic Dimensions������������������������������������������������������������������������  264 4.4.1 Hierarchical Model of Personality Dynamics����������������������  264 4.4.2 Ego Strength�������������������������������������������������������������������������  267 4.4.3 Determination ����������������������������������������������������������������������  269 4.4.4 Social Efficacy����������������������������������������������������������������������  270 4.4.5 Partnership����������������������������������������������������������������������������  270 4.4.6 Superego Strength����������������������������������������������������������������  271 4.4.7 Id Strength����������������������������������������������������������������������������  272 4.4.8 Achievement Motivation������������������������������������������������������  272 4.4.9 Present-Mindedness (Today Focus)��������������������������������������  273 4.4.10 Attachment����������������������������������������������������������������������������  274 4.4.11 External Validity of Dynamic Dimensions ��������������������������  274 4.5 Goals, Values, and Domains of Motivation��������������������������������������  277 4.5.1 From Push to Pull ����������������������������������������������������������������  278 4.5.2 Defining Values ��������������������������������������������������������������������  278 4.5.3 Toward the Comprehensive Theory of Values����������������������  280 4.5.4 Psychological Trilogy ����������������������������������������������������������  284 4.5.5 Values and Domains of Motivation��������������������������������������  285 4.6 Situation as Moving Force of Personality����������������������������������������  286 4.6.1 Situations������������������������������������������������������������������������������  287 4.6.2 Positive and Negative Situational Experiences��������������������  287 4.6.3 Situational Experiences and Personality������������������������������  288 4.6.4 Situational Experiences and Value Orientations ������������������  288 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  289

xiv

Contents

5

 evelopment and Change of Personality ����������������������������������������������  295 D 5.1 Personality Development������������������������������������������������������������������  296 5.1.1 The Basics of Personality Development ������������������������������  296 5.1.2 Changing Personality������������������������������������������������������������  299 5.1.3 Developmental Models and Theories of Personality������������  302 5.2 Personality in Life Periods����������������������������������������������������������������  305 5.2.1 Childhood������������������������������������������������������������������������������  305 5.2.2 Adolescence��������������������������������������������������������������������������  306 5.2.3 Adulthood ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  307 5.2.4 Personality Across the Life Span������������������������������������������  310 5.2.5 Periods of Acceleration and Stabilization ����������������������������  315 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  316

6

 ersonality in Life������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  321 P 6.1 Personality and Variables Important in Our Life������������������������������  322 6.1.1 Prosocial Behavior����������������������������������������������������������������  322 6.1.2 Social Effectiveness��������������������������������������������������������������  325 6.1.3 Spirituality and Religiosity ��������������������������������������������������  329 6.1.4 Wisdom ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  330 6.1.5 Values and Ethical Standards������������������������������������������������  331 6.1.6 Decision-Making������������������������������������������������������������������  333 6.2 Personality: A Powerful Predictor����������������������������������������������������  334 6.2.1 What in Our Life Can Be Predicted by Personality��������������  335 6.2.2 Social Relations��������������������������������������������������������������������  340 6.2.3 Educational and Occupational Attainment���������������������������  342 6.2.4 Delinquency and Criminality������������������������������������������������  346 6.2.5 Social Power: Leadership, Politics, and Socioeconomic Status������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  347 6.2.6 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities��������������������������������������  347 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  350

7

Personality and Well-Being ��������������������������������������������������������������������  357 7.1 Personal Welfare ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  358 7.1.1 Concept of Well-Being����������������������������������������������������������  358 7.1.2 Affect, Emotionality, and Personality ����������������������������������  363 7.1.3 Personality, Well-Being, Happiness, and Quality of Life�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  364 7.2 Between Personality and Well-Being������������������������������������������������  369 7.2.1 Connections Between Well-Being and Personality��������������  370 7.2.2 Structural Models of Personality and Well-Being����������������  372 7.3 Personality in Stress��������������������������������������������������������������������������  382 7.3.1 Motivation and Coping ��������������������������������������������������������  383 7.4 Personality, Health, and Psychopathology����������������������������������������  387 7.4.1 Personality and Health����������������������������������������������������������  387 7.4.2 Personality and Psychopathology ����������������������������������������  388 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  394

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  403

Chapter 1

Fundamentals of Personality

The study of personality is a very important part of psychology, maybe even the most important. In this chapter, we will adopt the essential introductory elements for the study of personality. First, we will define and describe the notion of personality and related concepts. Then, we will explain the methods, which are used for the assessment of personality characteristics and research methods applied in the scientific investigations of personality. Next, we will discuss the sources and determinants of personality, evolutionary, biological and sociocultural, as well as the general sources that influence our behavior, the persons, the situations and their interactions, focusing on the role of personality as such sources. Finally, we will introduce the units of personality including traits, styles and dimensions, types and prototypes, states, moods, and roles.

1.1 What Is Personality? We perceive each other neither as mere objects nor as mere living creatures. We perceive each other as persons and personalities. Yet, what is personality? Certainly, there exists a commonsense notion of personality in our and in other cultures. It refers to the characteristics, by which an individual person is recognizable: his or her physical appearance, typical behavior, abilities, knowledge, skills, aspirations, emotions, desires, etc. Our personality means a whole psychophysical entity that comprises all these personal characteristics. Personality is one of the fundamental determinants of our experience and behavior. It is no wonder, then, that it is a privileged subject of study in psychology. This book deals with psychological, i.e., scientific explanations of personality. At the forefront is the concept of personality, which is acceptable from a scientific point of view. With the concept of personality, we also begin the first chapter of the book.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 J. Musek, Personality Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55308-0_1

1

2

1  Fundamentals of Personality

1.1.1 Commonsense Notions of Personality As said before, commonsense or intuitive notions of personality exist in all cultures. These concepts are characteristic of lay or implicit theories of personality (Plaks et al., 2009). It would be unproductive to enumerate the vast set of commonsense notions of personality. Instead, we may classify them into the most meaningful categories. According to the abovementioned authors, lay theories of personality can be divided into two major groups: • Entity theories, which assume that personality in general and particular traits are fixed phenomena that cannot be changed despite efforts or motivation to change them. Obviously, entity theories are associated with the belief in the stability of human nature: “Everyone has a certain personality, and there cannot much be done to change that.” • Incremental theories, which assume that personality and traits are changeable or malleable. These theories are compatible with the belief that human nature is dynamic: “Everyone can change even his/her most characteristic properties.” Although no systematic cross-cultural research of lay theories of personality has been performed, the existing empirical data confirmed the entity versus incremental commonsense conceptualizations of personality. Plaks et al. (2009, p. 1071) reported “similarly conceived entity and incremental theories of personality” for samples in Hong Kong (Chiu et al., 1997), Mexico (Church et al., 2003), and Norway (Silvera et al., 2000). The basics of the lay theory of personality can be seen in the vocabularies of all the languages we know. Different languages know thousands and even tens of thousands of terms that mean personality traits, adjectives, and nouns. Extensive research literature shows that people from different cultures similarly conceive and connect personality terms. It seems as if there is an innate implicit personality structure, according to which members of different cultures combine personality traits into five large dimensions (Schneider, 1973): • Surgency or extraversion, inferred by correlation between characteristics such as sociable, outgoing, lively, assertive, and talkative • Agreeableness (kind, friendly, sympathetic, helpful) • Conscientiousness (responsible, organized, thorough, hardworking) • Emotional lability or neuroticism (moody, worrying, nervous, anxious) • Open-mindedness or culture (imaginative, creative, intelligent, broad-minded) Moreover, people further implicitly unite these groups into one superior personality (super)-dimension: a good (positive, adapted, socially effective) personality versus a problematic personality. On the basis of this implicit personality superdimension, in all languages and cultures, the expressions such as “he/she is a good person” or “he/she is a difficult person” can be found. Later, we will discuss the implicit structure of personality in detail. Also, we will see how the dimensions of the implicit structure of personality are related to the

1.1 What Is Personality?

3

personality dimensions, which are identified and confirmed in the scientific research of personality.

1.1.2 Concept of Personality in Western Culture Few things seem as important in life as our own personality and the personality of others, especially the people closest to us. Yet, it seems that in the Western culture, the concept of personality is especially important and deep-­rooted. The concept of personality is a central concept, a central idea of Western cultural tradition. Personality is a fundamental concept not only in psychology or philosophy, yet also in our culture in general. We share a personological look at reality: We see the world inhabited by people who have “their own essence and nature, characteristics, inclinations and history and who act as causal actors” (Chris Brand, cited by Musek, 2010). Thus, the concept of personality is the premise of Western civilization, it is the premise of the Judeo-Ancient-Christian tradition. In this tradition, the personal mode of being is the highest mode of existence, and it is even the way of being of the God himself. No wonder then that in this tradition philosophical and then psychological study of personality developed. The awareness of personality as (sometimes hidden) force besides the environment and education can be clearly deciphered from the ancient texts such as Characters of Theophrastus: I’ve wondered before when I thought about this—and maybe I’ll never stop wondering— how come we don’t have the same habits, even though Greece has the same climate and all Greeks are raised the same way. Because I’ve been researching human nature, Polycles, and I am now ninety-nine years old, further, because I have been in contact with many people of different natures and carefully compared good and bad people, I have decided to describe what some groups among them are doing. showed how many kinds of characters there are among them and what they do in everyday life. I think, Polycles, that our sons will be better off if we keep them written documents of this kind. If they follow their examples, they will constantly stay in the company of the most educated, only so as not to lag behind them. And now I turn to the matter only … So I will start with hypocrisy and give its definition, then I will outline the hypocrite, his nature and the state to which he descends. Then I will, as I planned, try illustrate other mental inclinations. (Theophrastus, from the preface to the book Characters; see Teofrast, 1973)

It is evident that Theophrastus pointed to something that influences individual behavior and properties in addition to the effects of education and climate. This factor was labeled character by Theophrastus, and it is one of the ancient predecessors of the modern term personality. Thus, two essential parts of personality, temperament and character, emerged already in ancient times. Later in the development of psychology, the area of cognitive abilities, especially intelligence, and the area of bodily characteristics also entered the focus of interest. Regarding the personality in its wider sense, the consistent characteristics can be found in the fields of:

4

1  Fundamentals of Personality

• Intellect, the psychological field of mental abilities and aptitudes including intelligence • Temperament, the field of dispositions for the emotional experience and behavior • Character, the field of personality, especially motivational characteristics developed by learning and experience • Constitution, the field of enduring physical characteristics; human physique The modern term of personality refers mainly to the notions of temperament and character. In this fashion, contemporary psychology distinguishes personality, containing traits belonging to traditional fields of temperament and character, and mind or intellect, containing intelligence and other cognitive abilities.

1.1.3 Scientific Definitions of Personality A good definition is the first step in the scientific approach to the personality. The scientific definition must satisfy three criteria: • Definition should be distinctive: It must delineate the defined phenomenon from others. A definition of personality should be different from definitions of “person,” “self,” “type,” “character,” “individual,” and other concepts. • Definition should have empirical content: It must refer to a phenomenon, which is empirically testable. Therefore, no metaphysical terms can be used in scientific definitions. • Definition must be logical and noncontradictory: It must contain concepts, which do not contradict each other, and must not include unclear or metaphorical terms (e.g., “personality is the helmsman of the boat of human destiny”). Also, in the scientific context, we must omit the emphatic and expressive use of terms such as “he is such a personality,” “she is a great personality,” and “she has no personality.” Psychology has always been interested in how individual physical, behavioral, and mental characteristics combine within each individual into a whole personality system. Personality is therefore an integral, relatively enduring, and individually distinctive pattern or system of our mental and behavioral characteristics. In psychological textbooks, we find many definitions of personality (Musek, 1982, 1993, 2005), which—more or less—represent a variation of abovementioned description. It is true, however, that the definitions of the personality differ in emphasizing the essential aspects or components of personality. Allport (1937), for example, divided the personality definitions into five large groups: • “Omnibus” definitions that speak of personality as the sum of all psychophysical components of an individual. • Definitions that emphasize the orderliness and integrity of personality. • Hierarchical definitions that look at the personality from the perspective of hierarchically arranged layers. • Definitions that emphasize adaptation or adjustment.

1.1 What Is Personality?

5

• Definitions dealing with personality from an individual and distinctive point of view. Some years ago, I classified an even considerably larger list of the definitions of the personality, which have been accumulated since Allport’s analysis. This classification was based on the essential aspects of personality, which are mostly emphasized by particular definitions. Personality definitions emphasize in particular the following personality aspects (Musek, 2005, pp. 4–5): • Essentiality of personality: personality as the essence of a human nature. • Individuality of personality: personality as an individual whole of psychophysical properties. • Personality as structure of components: personality as a complex of many constitutive parts. • Personality as an integrated system: personality as an organized system of psychophysical properties. • Personality as a process: personality as the process of shaping the individual’s psychophysical identity. • Relation to (social) environment: personality as a result of the exchange between the individual and the environment, in particular social. The definitions of personality are so numerous in the professional literature that we could only write a thick book about them (Allport, 1961; Carson, 1989; Cattell, 1946, 1975; Eysenck, 1947, 1952, 1967, 1970; Fulgosi, 1981; Guilford, 1959; Hall & Lindzey, 1983; Murray, 1936, 1938; Musek, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1999; Revelle, 1995). Thus, when we talk scientifically about personality, we mean psychophysical characteristics of human beings, which are organized into a relatively stable and individually distinctive system. This system occurs subjectively at the level of experience and objectively at the level of behavior. For the sake of completeness, we can list some other of the most known definitions of personality: • Allport (1961, p. 28) defined personality as: “Dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his or her characteristic behavior and thought.” • Carver and Scheier (2000, p. 5) defined personality in a similar way: “Personality is a dynamic organization, inside the person, of psychophysical systems that create an individual’s characteristic patterns of behavior, thoughts, and feelings.” • Eysenck adopted a somewhat classical composite definition (1947, after Musek, 1982): “Personality is a more or less stable and enduring organization of a person’s character, temperament, intellect, and physique which determines his or her unique adaptation to his or her environment.” • Maddi (1976, p. 9): “Personality is a stable set of characteristics and tendencies that determine those commonalities and differences in psychological behavior (thoughts, feelings, and actions) of people that have continuity in time and that may not be easily understood as the sole result of social and biological pressures of a moment.”

6

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Two further definitions of personality should be mentioned because they draw attention to aspects that are extremely important from a scientific point of view. Cattell (1965) stated that personality is “that on the basis of which we can predict what a person will do in a given situation.” Why is this so important? Simply because it is telling us that personality predicts our behavior. The predictive power is extremely important in the scientific look at personality. Another important aspect of personality was pointed out by Guilford (1959): As he says, personality is “a set of relatively enduring ways of behaving by which an individual differs from others.” Guilford also noted something very important. Practically, we conceptualize only those personal characteristics, by which we differ. In our personality vocabulary, it is difficult to find qualities by which we do not differ at all.

1.1.4 Personality Descriptions and Attributes Apart from the definitions, which attributes can be applied in order to describe human personality? Four attributes come to mind as crucial descriptors of personality (see also Fig. 1.1). Thus, personality can be described as something that is: • Consistent. The psychological concept of personality refers to traits that occur relatively consistently, characteristically for an individual person in different situations. If a characteristic appears inconsistently with the same person, then it

CONSISTENT

ORGANIZED

Personality

DISTINCTIVE

COMPLEX

Fig. 1.1  Personality is characterized by four major attributes: It is consistent, distinctive, complex, and organized

1.1 What Is Personality?

7

is not denoting his or her personality. If someone acts boldly and risky in one situation and prudently and cautiously in another, then we cannot label him as daring or prudent. Only those characteristics that appear consistently across situations can be labeled as personality traits. • Distinctive. Further, for thinking in terms of personality, those characteristics are important in which we differ from each other. Being alive is a trait by which all living people do not differ from each other. Yet, we differ in vivacity, eloquence, impulsiveness, aggression, honesty, perseverance, intelligence, and many other qualities. Distinctiveness and individuality are extremely important psychological determinants of personality. Indeed, if we wanted to emphasize how psychological definitions of personality differ most from, say, philosophical, anthropological, and sociological ones, we should think primarily of individuality as a key psychological determinant of personality. • Complex. Personality researchers, however, have always been particularly fascinated by the complexity of personality. Personality is formed by a multitude of characteristics and traits, yet these are interconnected. Within personality, we can see a hierarchical network of components that appear at different levels of generality. ­Moreover, personality is among the most complex systems we know. The complexity of the personality was emphasized by the oldest thinkers, e.g., Hippocrates, and even more emphasized by the modern psychology of personality. In early scientific personality research, we find a “classical” division of personality into four areas: constitution, temperament, character, and intellect. The constitution encompasses bodily characteristics, temperament encompasses the characteristics of emotions and affect, the character encompasses motivational and volitional features, and the intellect encompasses cognitive abilities, especially intelligence. The last three areas can be combined further. Thus, temperament and character form conative and the intellect the cognitive aspect of personality. • Organized. Personality is complex, yet also organized. It is a system with a high level of organization, so it works as a whole. It can be considered as a hierarchically organized system (Fig. 1.2) or, more specifically, as a self-­regulatory system, as conceived by Bandura in close connection with self-efficacy (Bandura, 1988). A holistic and organized functioning of the personality would not be possible without the necessary personality structures and functions. They could be called integral structures and functions of personality. In psychology, we associate them especially with the concepts of self, self-image, self-esteem, self-activity, and self-regulation.

8

1  Fundamentals of Personality

PERSONAL STABILITY

EMOTIONAL STABILITY

Courage

INTEGRITY

Honesty

Resilience

Fairness

Fig. 1.2  Hypothetical hierarchy of personality traits. Personal stability represents a higher-­order trait or dimension of personality. Emotional stability and integrity are subordinated to personal stability, yet are mutually coordinated traits, and, for example, honesty and fairness are subordinated to Integrity, yet mutually coordinated Table 1.1  Consistency and distinctiveness of behavior

Situations

Same Different

Individuals Same Similar behavior Similar behavior

Different Different behavior Different behavior

Consistency refers to permanence, continuity, and identity of personality. Consistency of personality is most pronounced in cases where the same people behave similarly, even though they find themselves in different situations (Table 1.1). The concept of consistency can be further illustrated by an example. Imagine that you visited the twentieth anniversary of graduation. You can see some people for the first time after 20 years, yet, despite considerable changes, you may recognize them. Moreover, you can freely say: “the same Paul”; “the same Mary.” This is possible because of personality, the enduring pattern of characteristics that allows us to identify it even after a long time. Thus, the personality is probably the strongest pillar of our identity. Distinctiveness refers to diversity, differentiability, and individuality of personality. It is most evident when different individuals behave differently in the same situations (see Table 1.1). Personality therefore causes different individuals to respond differently to the same situations and for the same individuals to respond similarly to

1.1 What Is Personality?

9

different situations. Distinctiveness is crucial for the meaning of personality. Already in the first models of personality in the history, the interpersonal differences were major subject of interest. The classical typology of Hippocrates focuses on differences in temperament (choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic, and melancholic), while the typology of Theophrastus focuses on character differences. Since this time, the individual differences remain the leading theme of research in personality. Complexity refers to multiplexity, compositeness, and multi-aspectivity of personality. Personality is a compound of a large variety of elements, fields, and aspects. It comprises innumerable characteristics, properties, and traits. However, they may be coordinated by integral structures of personality like self and integrative function like self-­regulation. Most important, personality unites two very different aspects, subjective and objective: First represents “personality in first person” (namely phenomenological aspects), while second represents “personality in third person,” namely behavioral aspects. Organization refers to inner connectedness and association of personality components. Personality traits are connected or correlated and form a hierarchical system with units at different levels of generality (superordinated and subordinated units) and also units at the same levels of generality (coordinated units). Figure 1.2 depicts an example of such a structure. Thus, personality works as a whole in spite of its complexity. The organized functioning of personality is due to the dynamic forces within the human organism, such as genetic factors, social learning and education, or self-activity, for example, self-regulation. It follows clearly from the mentioned why personality is such an important concept in psychology. Personality is an entity that unites all psychic processes, functions, and characteristics into an organized whole. Mental processes and functions do not take place in isolation; incoherently and separately, they are connected and integrated. Personality means the organizing whole of these processes, functions, and related behaviors. We have already said how important it is for any science to try to explain the causal factors of everything it studies. This, of course, also applies to psychology.

1.1.5 Interpersonal Differences Our reality is a mosaic of similarities and differences. They are essential in our understanding of the world. Everything we perceive is apprehended in relation to something else. Our concepts or constructs are formed on the basis of similarities and differences between objects, as the American psychologist George Kelly (1955) pointed out. When we see two objects, e.g., two stones, we can conceive them only

10

1  Fundamentals of Personality

with the help of a third object, and only if that object, say a third stone, is in a certain respect similar to one of the two and differs from the other. Only then, we will be able to say that one of the two stones is larger, the other smaller, one lighter, the other darker, and so on. Our personal or interpersonal concepts are also based on the observed similarities and differences. We may assess a person as talkative only when he or she seems similar to other persons, who talk a lot, and different from persons who talk little. Without similarities and differences, there would be no change, no evolution, and no life. 1.1.5.1 Personality Differences Everywhere All of this also applies to our nature and our personality. We all clearly differ in our behavior. Yet, why? Do we differ because we find ourselves in different situations and circumstances? Or do we differ because we have different personalities? Something is evident: Our behavior is variable, yet, situations and personalities are also variable. However, the variability of personality is a rather complicated phenomenon. As Kluckhohn and Murray (1938, 1953) accurately stated, we are in certain respects like all other people, in certain respects like some other people, and in certain respects like no other human being. We possess some generic traits, like all other people. However, there are group similarities and differences between us and there are individual differences between us. In our life, we are especially sensitive to interpersonal differences. There are no two people who are completely similar or even identical. Even identical twins (“identical” twins), who are really strikingly similar, are individually different; they have different personalities. If nothing else, each of them feels like a separate, individual personality. Despite the discomfort or even rejection when facing some interpersonal differences, we expect that everyone should be different from others to some extent. Musil’s “man without characteristics” is simply impossible. Individual characteristics ensure that we live in a world where it is possible to know what someone is and what place he or she has among us. What’s more, we seem to barely notice traits in which we do not differ. As said before, we do not even have a name for them. There are many terms in dictionaries that mean personality traits, but we will hardly find a term for a trait where we do not differ from each other. We can agree with Guilford (1959) that such non-differentiating traits do not exist in our vocabulary. We can therefore conclude that interpersonal differences are an extremely important aspect of personality.

1.1 What Is Personality?

11

12

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Interpersonal differences represent only one big aspect of variability in personal characteristics, namely the variability from person to person or inter-variability. However, there is another important form of variability, variability within the person or intra-variability. Apart from the interpersonal differences, our characteristics vary also from time to time and from situation to situation. Just think of oscillations and fluctuations in mental states and moods. Later, both types of variability will be discussed when speaking of traits, which are representative of inter-­variability and states and representative of intra-variability. 1.1.5.2 Interindividual and Intraindividual Variability Personality traits can vary in several ways (see also Fig. 1.3). They can vary between people. Someone is more extraverted, emotionally stable, conscientious, aggressive, intelligent, honest, etc., than someone else. Such variability is called interpersonal variability (also interindividual) or inter-variability. We are dealing with it when we compare the positions of individuals along some personality characteristic, e.g., IQ of different persons along the dimension of intelligence from the lowest to the highest value. If the distribution of a characteristic is normal, i.e., in terms of the Gaussian curve, we can easily measure the positions of different persons and compare them. We can calculate the average position, e.g., arithmetic mean, or dispersion measures (standard deviation, variance, etc.). However, the personality traits and other characteristics can also vary within persons. The same individual may be in a good mood in the morning and in a bad mood in the evening (or vice versa), he responds to one situation with fear, to another with joy, and he may be in the role of a family member gentle and attentive, yet, in the professional role of auditor strict and uncompromising. This form of variability is labeled intrapersonal (also intraindividual) variability or intra-variability. Intra-variability may be more systematic (e.g., periodic variation), or it may be unsystematic, depending on circumstances and situations. Both aspects of variability do not exclude each other. In fact, they usually correlate with each other. The correlation between trait and state anxiety is quite

YOU

ME

SHE

ME AT HOME

ME AT WORK

Fig. 1.3  Interpersonal variability and intrapersonal variability. Differences in the characteristics of various persons represent interpersonal variability (left). Differences in characteristics within the same person (as, e.g., the same person in different roles) represent intrapersonal variability (right)

1.2 Study of Personality

13

substantial, and this is certainly not surprising. It is understandable that, on average, more anxious people will also experience stronger states of anxiety. What seems logical, then, is Fleeson’s (2001) opinion that traits can be viewed as a summation (frequency distribution) of corresponding states. The author also empirically confirmed his assumption that the average values of states in the distribution of the five major personality dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness) are very stable in different persons. Interpersonal differences in average value states are consistent and apparently very closely match the interpersonal difference in the same personality dimensions measured as traits. The author also notes that intrapersonal variability of the five major dimensions of personality is considerable, and it clearly reflects the responsiveness of individuals to a situational context. Finally, Fleeson found something even more interesting: Intravariability in individuals may also be consistent. A person who is more variable in one dimension is usually more variable in others as well. This agrees with the findings of other authors, namely, that intrinsic variability is thus also a kind of personality trait itself (Fiske, 1949; Larsen, 1989; Murray, 1938).

1.2 Study of Personality Research of personality and individual differences is one of the most important and interesting chapters in psychology. If we want to describe who we are and how we differ from each other, then we will most often try to do so by describing our personality traits. The psychology of personality and psychology of individual differences (differential psychology) thus focus on two related goals, the study of personality traits (traits, dimensions), and the study of individuals or idiographic study. We can say therefore that in the whole research of personality two orientations prevail, the variable-centered approach (orientation toward variables) and the person-centered approach (orientation toward persons). Both directions also emerge in the study of interpersonal differences. At the level of personality variables, we explore interpersonal differences along a dimensional continuum within which we can arrange individuals from one pole to another of the corresponding traits (Fig. 1.3). In the idiographic study of personality, however, we can classify individuals according to their holistic personality profiles into typological groups (Dahlstrom, 1972). Personality research can thus be imagined as a special space in which we place personality variables including traits, dimensions, other personal characteristics, and individual persons. Figures 1.4 and 1.5 present two aspects of this space, the universe of variables and the universe of individuals. What is the difference between the two universes? One comprises variables, personality traits, e.g., such that appear in personality questionnaires: eloquent, trusting, lazy, timid, full of imagination, and many others. The other means individuals who are defined by these variables. Obviously, both aspects of personality space are inextricably linked. If we want to describe individuals and place them in a personality space, we can achieve this only

14

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.4  An example of variables in personality space, defined by dimensions X and Y. Two clusters of variables are evident: The first comprises Big Five traits (emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness) and the second encompasses cognitive abilities (memory, mental fluency, and mental speed). Both clusters are clearly distinguished indicating thus different psychological meanings (personality traits versus cognitive abilities). It is also evident that among personality traits, openness is most close to cognitive abilities

Fig. 1.5  An example of individuals in personality space, defined by well-being and arousal. Medium-aroused persons are highest in well-being (4, 5, 6), while low-aroused (1, 2, 3) and higharoused (7, 8) persons have lower levels of well-being

with the help of variables that inhabit another universe of personality space. So there is no dilemma whether in personality research we should focus on variables or on persons or we should focus on both, on variables and on persons. The goal of personality psychology is to learn about the laws that should allow us to better understand an individual’s personality. Yet, this cannot be achieved if we do not find out what are those personality traits with which we can describe the personalities of different people, compare them with each other, and understand the similarities and

1.2 Study of Personality

15

differences between them. Understanding an individual’s personality is therefore the ultimate meaning of research on personality, and understanding personality variables is a prerequisite for this understanding. Figures 1.4 and 1.5 illustrate personality as a spatial system of personality coordinates. In that system of coordinates, the personality variables or the individual persons or groups can be located. The variables in Fig. 1.4 have different positions in the space which clearly distinguish five personality traits (lower left location) from three cognitive abilities (upper right location). The persons in Fig. 1.5 have also clearly distinct locations demonstrating that the highest well-being is characteristic for medium-aroused persons, while both extremely unaroused and extremely high-aroused individuals have lower levels of well-being.

1.2.1 Variable-Centered Approach A very important direction in the research of personality is therefore the study of personality variables, especially traits and basic dimensions of personality. Yet, which personality variables are most important? Logically, the most important are the variables that give us the most information about our personality, our experience, and our behavior. Psychological research revealed a vast number of personality variables. Let us think, for example, about variables such as sociability, kindness, honesty, anxiety, and imagination. Certainly, they give us a lot of information about our personality. Yet, personality research has revealed even more extensive and even more informative dimensions. Sociability, together with liveliness, activity, eloquence, and similar traits, is part of a very large personality dimension, which we call extraversion (introversion is its dimensional opposite). The same could be said for the other qualities listed earlier: Kindness is part of the great dimension of pleasantness or agreeableness, honesty is part of the great dimension of conscientiousness, anxiety is part of neuroticism, and imagination is part of open-mindedness or openness. The dimensions that give us the most information are called the basic dimensions of personality, and their discovery is one of the most important tasks of psychology. Yet, why the dimension of extraversion contains more information than, say, eloquence, sociability, or liveliness? These variables are substantially correlated, and they have much in common. Extraversion is a label for their common denominator, which summarizes a lot of their total information. In a similar way, other basic dimensions of personality are common denominators of their correlated components. Thus, agreeableness comprises kindness, trust, sincerity, altruism, modesty, etc. Conscientiousness is a dimension that combines honesty, diligence, perseverance, planning, thoroughness, and reliability. Neuroticism comprises traits such as anxiety, depression, nervousness, self-criticism, vulnerability, and hostility. Openness is the common denominator of imagination, creativity, curiosity, knowledge seeking, and sense of aesthetics. Personality variables are usually conceived as bipolar dimensions, where the individuals are arranged along. In the vast majority

16

1  Fundamentals of Personality

of personality variables, the individual persons are distributed among them according to a normal or Gaussian curve. Personality traits are therefore in most cases normally distributed, and this makes it very easy for us to measure and research them.

1.2.2 Person-Centered Approach If the orientation toward variables takes us into the personality space of traits, dimensions, and superdimensions of personality, the orientation toward persons leads us into the personality space of individuals. This was already before the eyes of the ancient researchers of human personality, long before scientific psychology emerged. The first typologies of personality are known from ancient times. Among them, the most important are Hippocrates typology of four temperaments, perfected by Galen (Musek, 2003), which deals with the choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic, and melancholic types of temperament, and Theophrastus typology of characters, which describes 30 negative character types. Hippocrates-Galen theory of temperaments did not change significantly until the arrival of modern psychology, even if we take into account the much later refinements we owe to Immanuel Kant and Wilhelm Wundt. Wilhelm Wundt tried to describe four types of temperament dimensionally, long before the dimensional approach prevailed over the typological one in modern psychology (Musek, 1999). Interestingly, many other prominent authors (e.g., Pavlov, Eysenck, Strelau) also retained the classical doctrine of the four temperaments in numbers even after new typologies and then dimensiologies of personality emerged. More recently, the typological approach was upgraded to the concept of prototypes. Prototypes are conceptual categories that can be classified into a given class on the basis of how closely they approach the ideal case, i.e., the prototype (Rosch, 1978). The falcon is more ideal bird than a hen because years, which is an essential feature of a “prototypical” bird. In our case, of course, we are not talking about chickens, but about the personalities of individual people, which can also be arranged in prototypes. Thus, we can adopt the concept of the personality prototype associated with the prototype theory of personality differences (York & John, 1992). As already said, we imagine personality traits as dimensional, bipolar dimensions, along which we are usually distributed in a form of a normal or Gaussian curve. Therefore, it will not surprise us that even modern typologies are based on these dimensional notions. Individuals can therefore be classified into classes, which are not qualitative “all or nothing” categories, but dimensional constructs called prototypes. If we look at the personality space of individuals (Fig. 1.5), this will be immediately understandable to us. In the space, individuals are grouped into groups in terms of their personality traits (well-being and arousal in our case). Such a cluster of individuals forms a type, but it is quite clear that some are located more in the middle of the cluster and others more on the periphery. Thus, some are more typical than others.

1.2 Study of Personality

17

RESEARCH APPROACH

VARIABLE CENTERED

Traits, dimensions, styles

States, moods, roles

PERSON CENTERED

Types

Prototypes

Fig. 1.6  Two major approaches in personality research. In the variable-centered approach, we study stable personality variables including interpersonal characteristics (traits, dimensions, styles), while in the person-centered approach we study personality types and prototypes

In sum, variable-centered research of personality yields relatively stable personality traits, dimensions, and styles, while person-centered research yields personality types and prototypes (Fig. 1.6).

1.2.3 Personality Assessment During our life, we steadily observe, assess, and evaluate each other. Nevertheless, our everyday observations and assessments are rarely accurate. Commonsense psychological diagnoses are subjective, imprecise, biased, and often tremendously fallacious. We are continuously erring in judging each other, especially in evaluating people we do not know very well. In psychology, we must assess human characteristics in an entirely different fashion. Our professional assessment should be based on scientifically proven methods that must have psychometric characteristics. The most important feature of the personality assessment and measurement is accuracy and precision. Therefore, we must describe personality characteristics not only in qualitative, but also in quantitative terms, whenever possible. The decisive criterion of the scientific value of a measuring instrument is the fulfillment of metric properties (metric characteristics): validity, reliability, objectivity, and precision (Fig. 1.7). Psychological tests, scales, questionnaires, and inventories must measure only the subject intended to be measured. For example, intelligence test should measure intelligence, not knowledge and skills acquired by education. Saying briefly, psychological diagnostic instruments must be valid. Further, these instruments ought to

18

1  Fundamentals of Personality

VALIDITY

PRECISION

Metric properties

RELIABILITY

OBJECTIVITY

Fig. 1.7  Metric characteristics. Psychological measures should be valid, reliable, objective, and sensitive. Details are in the text

be reliable rendering the same results under the same conditions. The test that would give different results for the same persons under consistent circumstances is unacceptable. In repeated use, the tests should yield the same results provided that the subject of measurement has not been changed. Also, psychological instruments must be objective, and their results should yield the same outcomes under different evaluators. This is in sharp contrast with the situation, when different teachers assess the same school test results with different marks or grades. Finally, the psychological instrument must be precise or sensitive, and they should measure as tiny differences in the subject measured as possible. 1.2.3.1 Psychometric Properties Psychological instruments must satisfy previously mentioned metric or psychometric properties. First of all, there is a requirement that the test must be objective. This means that the measurement should strictly reflect the factual value of the measured object not allowing any subjectivity, ambiguity, and bias. The data obtained by psychological measurement must be assessed in a completely unambiguous and uniform way. What good is it if we make a test of knowledge that each assessor will evaluate differently, just like teachers who evaluated the same task with all possible grades? Thus, in practice, objectivity can be defined as the extent of agreement among observers (Guilford, 1954, p. 251). Different assessors must give the same ratings of the same object; the convergence between ratings (inter-­rater correlation) must be perfect. It is also self-evident that the test should really measure the phenomenon we want to measure with it. We say the test must be valid. Thus, the validity is, in fact, concerned with what a test measures. An intelligence test that would

19

1.2 Study of Personality Table 1.2  Types and methods of determining and verifying metric properties Metric property Validity

Objectivity

Reliability

Sensitivity

Subtypes Content validity Construct validity Criterion validity Convergent validity Discriminant validity Assessment objectivity Evaluation objectivity Stability in time Equivalence Internal consistency

Methods for determining or confirming Subjective appraisal Deduction from construct; factor analysis Correlation with criterion Correlation with other measures of the same phenomenon Negative correlation with measures of opposite phenomenon Inter-rater agreement (inter-rater consistency) measures

Test-retest reliability Correlation with an equivalent test(s) Cronbach alpha, Kuder-Richardson coefficient, Split-half method Dispersion of results; standard deviation; other measures of variability

prove to measure school information more than mental ability would be invalid. The reliability of the test is also extremely important. Imagine a test that would give completely different results in one test than in another. If a student scores 85 points on a test on Monday and 50 points on a test on Thursday, then we are dealing with a useless test. Next, the test must be sensitive. It must be so constructed as to express any differences in the phenomena measured by the test. The test neither should not be too easy, so that all or most solve all the tasks, such a test does not discriminate between the more successful, nor should it be too difficult, for then it does not distinguish between the less successful, who, notwithstanding the diversity of their knowledge, solve nothing and get the same points. Table 1.2 shows the main methods used to provide the measurement characteristics of psychometric tests. We can try to achieve validity in several ways. Roughly speaking, we could distinguish between content, constructive, and criterion validity. The simplest way is to determine if our items match the content of the phenomenon we are supposed to measure (content validity). Thus, we will consider that the item “are you sociable” actually measures extraversion, while the item “do you like the Eiffel Tower” does not. Knowledge tests must be valid in terms of content, which means that they must “cover” information and links that cover a certain substance. It must measure the amount of targeted knowledge and nothing else. In many cases, however, simple content validation should not be satisfied. Content validity can be significantly supplemented by constructive validity: Here, the test includes items that are logically deduced from the precise definition and classification of the phenomenon we want to measure (e.g., extraversion, intelligence). Certainly, the measured psychological construct should be defined very thoroughly. Also, multivariate analyses, e.g., factor analyses, are very frequently applied in testing the validity. Here, we check whether the items are sufficiently saturated with the total latent

20

1  Fundamentals of Personality

dimensions (factors). If we assume that our construct is very homogeneous, all items that measure it should strongly correlate with each other. Therefore, a factor analysis that would reveal high actual saturation with a single common dimension would validate our instrument. However, if factor analysis shows that the items do not correlate with each other and are saturated with multiple factors, then either our construct is not valid or the instrument is not valid. We are often interested in how they correlate with some other criterion (criterion validity), e.g., how to differentiate the neuroticism questionnaire between people with varying degrees of neurotic disorder. Also, we often validate tests by determining whether they correlate sufficiently with other already known tests that measure the same phenomenon (convergent validity) or if they correlate negatively enough with tests that measure the opposite phenomenon (discriminant validity). Sometimes, our criterion of validity is some behavior or achievement that will only emerge in the future (predictive validity). Success in school can be a criterion for the validity of a knowledge test. Correlation with the criterion is usually expressed in the form of appropriate correlation coefficients, which are called validity coefficients. These must be relatively high if valid tests are to be used. Tests whose validity coefficients are lower than 0.60 are questionable in terms of criterion validity, and they have too little in common with the criterion. Objectivity is usually checked by the degree of agreement between different evaluators. A correlation of 1.00 between evaluators would represent an ideal level of objectivity (at least as far as the evaluation of test results is concerned). The lower limit of “good” objectivity should not fall below the limit of the correlation coefficient of 0.90. There are several options for checking the reliability of tests, because there are also more types of reliability. When we talk about reliability, we often think of the stability (consistency) of results over time. This type of reliability is best measured by test-retest method. The correlation between the first and second tests represents then a measure of reliability. However, such a determination of reliability is not possible when dealing with tests where the first testing would affect further testing (e.g., aptitude tests or knowledge tests). In this case, we can compare the results of a test with the results of other equivalent test (e.g., parallel or alternative test). A high correlation with parallel test would then indicate the validity of our test. Often, however, reliability means not only time consistency, but also internal matching between items. It can be logically concluded that random fluctuations that affect the answers are manifested in a similar way for the same items over time, for the parallel items and for other items within the test. Thus, reliability must be shown in within-test consistency. In this case, we are talking about reliability as the internal consistency (also homogeneity) of the test. Internal consistency is determined by various mathematical procedures, among the better known and used are e.g. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, Kuder-­Richardson’s formula, as well as a comparison of the two halves of the test, which was previously divided on the basis of equivalence (two-half method or split-half method). Reliability coefficients are expected to be high enough, at least around 0.90 or more in aptitude tests, and this limit is usually slightly lower for questionnaires and scales, but should not fall below 0.70 for still acceptable reliability. The sensitivity of the

1.2 Study of Personality

21

test is greater the greater—assuming good reliability—the dispersion of its results. A sensitive test should also measure minor differences in the measured phenomenon. 1.2.3.2 Standardization and Norms Someone scored 16 points on a personality questionnaire that measures the dimension of extraversion. This result in itself means nothing to us. It can only be interpreted by comparing it with standardized data. What does that mean? We cannot know whether this achievement is “high,” “low,” or average if we do not know what it is like compared to the achievements of others. Test achievements need to be standardized and calibrated according to the achievements of a wider sample, which is representative of the population from which the tested individuals come. Standardization means determining the main statistical values of point achievements according to the distribution of these achievements. The majority of personality traits in the population are distributed according to the normal or Gaussian curve (see also Fig.  1.8); for such distributed achievements, it is possible to calculate useful statistical norms (hence the term standardization), especially arithmetic mean and standard deviation. We can see from the picture that the score of 18 on our scale is quite high. The maximum score is 24, but obviously this score is extremely rare. Score 16 is therefore well above average and indicates a high above-average degree of extroversion. What’s more, we can see much more from the characteristics of the distribution: This score is higher than that achieved by 91% of respondents (about 9% of people are even more extraverted). The bare, raw test achievement can therefore only be well evaluated if it is compared to the achievements of others expressed in terms of population norms. This not only means that we can determine whether an achievement is above or below average, but we can also determine the exact

Fig. 1.8  Scores on extraversion questionnaire in population distribution. Scores range from value 0 to 24 with an arithmetic mean 12. Population norms allow the evaluation of individual test achievements. Thus, score 16 means 1.33 on the scale of z-values (1.33 of standard deviation above the arithmetic mean) and 90.88 on the percentile scale

22

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.9  Steps in test standardization. After careful planning of the test, the construction of the test begins with the wide range of items that are supposed to indicate the object of measurement, e.g., personality trait. These items were then analyzed, and only those with best metric characteristic were retained for the final form of test. Finally, after the final form being tested on a large sample of the population, the norms were determined

percentage of all achievements that are between any deviations and positions above or below average. All psychological instruments intended for professional use must also be standardized. Standardization means, first and foremost, the provision of a uniform and unchanging instruction, test materials, and testing procedure. Furthermore, standardization means providing a uniform and standard way of scoring and evaluation. It begins with careful planning and ends with the final form of test and test norms (Fig. 1.9). A necessary part of standardization is therefore the testing of a diagnostic agent on a sample that is representative of the persons on whom we intend to use the device. This pattern allows us to standardize and interpret individual results. It is of maximal importance to know what our results mean in comparison to the results of the others. Are we in the range of average, above average or below average? How much we are above or below? In order to make such comparisons possible, we need to standardize our instruments. Fortunately, many psychological characteristics are normally distributed in the population, and this makes the standardization more comfortable. In the life and in the psychological research, we are interested in many things and we steadily ask questions about personality qualities in explicit or in more implicit ways. How much a trait is expressed in an individual? How many traits are there? Quantitative personality measurement is useful in comparing individual persons, as well as in comparing groups of people, as, for example, genders, age groups, national and ethnical groups. We wish to know how individuals or groups of people differ in regard to personality traits or dimensions. We wish to know how large are these differences. A test score means nothing unless it can be compared with norms. Norms are data that make it possible to determine the relative position of the tested in comparison to other tested individuals or groups. Thus, the individual test score can be meaningfully interpreted as high, low, average, etc. In essence, test norms are group standards, which represent a basis for comparing the individual with a group. Usually, norms comprise the values of important statistics of representative population samples: arithmetic mean, standard deviation, standard scores (z-scores and

1.2 Study of Personality

23

others), ranks, percentages (centiles or percentiles, deciles, and others), and many others. In some cases, the norms are representative of very large populations, e.g., national or even global. Creating representative samples of these populations is a heroic feat; it requires ransom sampling of an enormous number of participants. However, in a great majority of cases, we are not interested to compare the obtained results with such large group results. We may always compare our results with local norms, the group norms of participants in the available sample. Indeed, we often even do not know exactly for which population our sample is representative at all. Usually, local norms are sufficient: We wish to know, for example, what an individual or group result means in relation to the results of the rest of participants in the sample. The scientific research of personality and individual differences definitely requires the measurement of personality characteristics. No phenomenon can be properly researched without assessment and measurement. In natural sciences, we must be able to assess and measure physical, chemical, and biological properties, and in psychology, we must be able to assess and measure psychological properties including personality characteristics. We have already mentioned personality traits, dimensions, and prototypes: Now, we should know how to assess and measure them and how to accurately diagnose the state of personality. Personality assessment refers to the appraisal of personality characteristics by use of psychological measuring instruments: tests, scales, questionnaires, and other measuring techniques. Personality assessment involves the administration, scoring, and interpretation of these instruments. Since this book focuses on the scientific conception of personality, we will be primarily interested in the assessment methods used in the scientific research on personality. The most important personality assessment methods are the following, which will be briefly discussed in the next subsections: • • • • •

Observation and questioning Survey Rating scales Tests, questionnaires, and inventories Projective and performance-based techniques

1.2.3.3 Observation and Questioning (Interviewing) Observation and questioning are fundamental methods of obtaining data. It is true that the data obtained by questioning are often ultimately based on observation, namely self-observation combined with memory. In the situation of questioning, the respondents recollect the data by retrospection and communicate these data to the interviewer. Most frequently, observation and questioning are “broad-spectrum” methods with which we can obtain a wealth of information, but above all information of a qualitative type. When it comes to quantitative assessment, in observation and discussion, we can only talk about coarser quantitative categories, especially those with which we “operate” in everyday life and not about precisely measured quantities.

24

1  Fundamentals of Personality

However, bot observation and interview methods may be improved to the extent that allows higher accuracy and precision. Only in this way is it possible to obtain really important data that are essential for the further course of personality assessment, which means a diagnostic investigation of personality. The degree of freedom in observation and interview is thus somewhat variable: It ranges from complete infinity through a partially oriented interview to a strictly standardized topic of observation and interview, which is already reminiscent of the standardized form of questionnaires with prepared questions. In general, we may consider three special methods of improved or advanced basic assessment methods: • Systematic observation • Behavioral coding • Structured interview In systematic observation the observer records signs and behaviors based on precompiled lists (e.g., checklists). The lists usually contain behaviors, which indicate the qualities to be assessed. Behavior coding means the systematic recording of the behavioral acts according to a specially constructed coding scheme. Very often, behavioral coding is processing the audio-recorded or filmed material. Behavior coding allows us to obtain the data in a relatively objective, systematic, replicable, and therefore reliable way. It is especially useful for acquiring information concerning overt, complex behaviors that are difficult to be detected otherwise. A structured interview is a questioning procedure where the questioner asks predetermined questions in the same form and standard order. The responses are then analyzed by established methods of scoring and interpreting. 1.2.3.4 Survey The widely used survey method is also based on questioning. In the broadest sense of the word, a survey is any organized data collection in a wider circle of people. In a somewhat narrower sense, a survey can be defined as a process in which we use systematically selected questions answered by a larger number of people. Thus, a survey is a research method aimed at collecting data from a selected group of respondents. The goal of the survey is to obtain information about strictly determined multiple topics, areas, and fields of interest that may include personality characteristics. They can have multiple purposes, and researchers can conduct them in many ways depending on the methodology chosen and the study’s goal. In the year 2020, research is of extreme importance, and hence, it is essential for us to understand the benefits of social research for a target population using the right survey tool. The data are usually obtained through the use of standardized procedures to ensure that each respondent can answer the questions accurately and precisely. The survey procedure involves asking people for information through different methods or techniques, which can be in writing or orally, either online or offline, by

1.2 Study of Personality

25

telephone, email, social networks, and other digital media. Thus, several self-report methods were combined in the survey including checklists, structured interviews, rating scales, tests, and questionnaires. Surveys are very common and also powerful tools that are frequently used in psychological assessment and research. Unlimited information can be collected by surveys: demographic data, health, personal problems, quality of life, well-being, interpersonal relations, personality characteristics, and other psychological variables such as motives, emotions, attitudes, beliefs, values, and stressors. A very comprehensive survey was used in the frame of a longitudinal cohort study Midlife in the United States (MIDUS). It was applied to 7108 participants of both sexes in ages of 24–74 years. MIDUS comprises the instruments, which allow the collection of a long set of data including the following variables: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Demographics Anxiety Panics Life satisfaction Locus of control Somatic amplification Positive and negative affect Intellectual aging Psychological well-being Sense of control Self-esteem Personality Optimism Coping Generativity Sympathy Religiosity and many others

Even larger surveys have been constructed, for example, European Values Study (EVS) or World Values Study (WVS). The first contains instruments measuring several hundred variables and was applied in European countries in several waves (1981–2017) on about 70,000 participants, while the second, even larger, contains instruments measuring also several hundred variables and was applied worldwide in several waves on over 125,000 participants. 1.2.3.5 Rating Scales A rating scale is a set of levels designed to determine the quality or quantity of a phenomenon. School grades, with which we assess the acquired knowledge, are by far the most used rating scale. The scaling values in rating scales can be formulated numerically, descriptively (by verbal descriptions), graphically, or combined (see Fig. 1.10). In psychology, rating scales are used for the assessment of very different

26

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.10  Combined verbal, graphic, and numeric 1–10 rating scale

objects including knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs, values, motives, yet also personality characteristics. Rating scales are also included in surveys and other personality measures such as personality tests, questionnaires, and inventories. In the social sciences, particularly psychology, frequently used rating scales are the Likert rating scale (typically 1–5 degrees), 1–7 rating scales, and 1–10 rating scales, yet other types of rating scale have also been used. In these scales, the respondent selects the degree of scale which is considered to reflect the accurate quantitative level of the rated phenomenon (usually personality characteristic in personality assessments). Let us say that we rate the item “I’m a talkative person.” In a typical five-level Likert scale, the following ratings are provided: • • • • •

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Likert type of rating scale is popular because it assumes that the intensity of the measured subject (attitude, value, personality characteristic, etc.) increases in a linear fashion. Moreover, it also assumes equal intervals between the scale levels: For example, the distance between ratings 1 and 2 should be the same as the distance between 4 and 5. Usually, Likert-type rating scales are used for measuring quality, intensity, agreement, importance, frequency, and likelihood of the measured object (see also Table 1.3). 1.2.3.6 Psychological Testing Among the important groups of psychometric instruments, historical primacy goes to intelligence testing. Intelligence tests can be classified into the categories of aptitude tests and cognitive abilities tests. Measures of aptitudes and cognitive abilities are usually the most accurate of all psychological diagnostic methods, their objectivity and reliability being the highest. In the field of measuring ability, especially intelligence, scientific psychodiagnostics have even begun. The originator of the psychometric study of ability was already Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton and an

27

1.2 Study of Personality Table 1.3  Examples of Likert scales measuring different features of measuring object 1 Very poor None Strongly disagree Importance Not at all important Frequency Never Likelihood Definitely not Truthfulness Almost always true Approval Strongly disapprove Performance Far below standards Satisfaction Completely dissatisfied Quality Intensity Agreement

2 Poor Low Disagree

3 Fair Moderate Neutral

4 Good High Agree

5 Excellent Very high Strongly agree

Slightly important Rarely Probably not Usually true

Moderately important Sometimes Possibly Sometimes true

Disapprove

Neutral

Very important Often Probably Usually not true Approve

Under standards Dissatisfied

Meets standards Moderately satisfied

Extremely important Always Definitely Almost never true Strongly approve Far above standards Completely satisfied

Above standards Satisfied

important milestone in the history of personality diagnostics certainly represents the work of Alfred Binet and his first intelligence test (1908). Together with personality questionnaires, which will be addressed later, aptitude tests form the basis for psychometrically based diagnosis. We measure many abilities and talents with them, and especially tests of mental abilities are known, such as intelligence (general mental ability) and creativity. Ability tests often consist of problem tasks, which are usually graded by difficulty in a particular test. Most frequent intelligence test items belong to the types of questions such as finding analogies (numerical, verbal), following patterns, classifications, visual similarities, spatial relations, and logical relations. Below are examples of frequently used types of intelligence test items. • Which number should come next in order? –– 27, 24, 31, 18 • Find the right answer –– Book is to reading as spoon is to: Drawing Writing Stirring Eating • Which of the following can be arranged into a 5-letter English word? –– –– –– ––

HRGST RITNA WRGQS YTSEL

28

1  Fundamentals of Personality

The number of successfully completed tasks is a measure of the ability that the tasks measure. A milestone in the history of testing was set in 1908 by Alfred Binet, after he was given the task by the Ministry of Education to design a test to detect the mental abilities of students. Binet undertook the task with ingenious flashes and produced a test of general mental abilities, which is rightly considered to be the first modern test of intelligence. To test intelligence, he used a series of tasks (mental problems) that he arranged by difficulty level, from the easiest to the most difficult. Binet’s basic idea was ingeniously simple: If we manage to arrange mental problems by the level of difficulty, then the tasks of that level of difficulty that someone still manages to solve will be an accurate indicator of the level of individual abilities. The whole sum of solved tasks (the “raw” sum of points) was taken by Binet as a measure of natural, dispositional intelligence. Binet called this measure the “mental level”; as he tested a large number of children in the age range between 3 and 13 with the scale, it was possible to say for each achievement which age level it corresponded to. Suppose a child has solved as many tasks as 80–90% of 5-year-old peers do. Regardless of his actual (“chronological”) age, we can therefore attribute to him a mental age of 5 years. Therefore, the term mental age was soon introduced, which for some time was considered the basic measure of intelligence. A few years later, the German philosopher and psychologist William Stern suggested using the relationship between mental and chronological age as a measure of intelligence; this ratio multiplied by one hundred represents the known IQ:

IQ   Mental Age / Chronological Age   100



A value of 100 represents a pure average—regardless of age—where the mental age fits perfectly with chronological age The meaning of this quotient is primarily that it gives a measure of the relative level of intelligence regardless of age. For a person who has a quotient of 150, we know she is far above-average intelligent, even if we do not know how old she is at all. In population, intelligence is normally distributed and the distribution of IQ can therefore be easily constructed, as shown in Fig. 1.11. In the decades since Binet, a whole host of intelligence tests have been produced in various countries. Among the more important and better known are e.g. already mentioned the US Army Alpha and Army Beta Test, then the Wechsler intelligence test (WB, WAIS), and many others. Entire “batteries” of tests have been developed that measure mental and other abilities, talents, and their components. More recently, many psychological tests were developed in order to measure special cognitive and neuropsychological functions and abilities. They are used to measure psychological functions connected to particular brain structures or pathways. These measures are an essential tool in neuropsychological assessment, and they are indispensable both in neuropsychological research and in clinical diagnosis. There are tens of thousands of all psychological tests. Aptitude tests are not the only category of psychological tests, with the second type of tests we measure knowledge (attainment and knowledge or educational tests), creativity (creativity tests), talent, and skills (see Table  1.4). Personality tests represent the next most important category, which will be discussed in the next subsection.

1.2 Study of Personality

29

Fig. 1.11  Frequency distribution of IQ scores. Figure depicts percentages of the population in intervals between values of IQ across the distribution. Also, the levels of intelligence are added in terms of popular categories from mentally retarded to gifted. (Adapted from Anastasi & Urbina, 1997) Table 1.4  Main categories of psychological tests Category Intelligence tests

Measured area Intelligence

Ability tests

Specific abilities

Personality tests

Personality characteristics

Aptitude tests Achievement tests Performance tests

Aptitudes Achievements Performance level

Neuropsychological tests Attitude tests Attainment tests

Neuropsychological functions Attitudes, beliefs, values, and feelings Knowledge, proficiencies

Creativity tests Vocational tests

Creativity Professional adequacy

Interest tests

Interests

Examples of measured objects or characteristics Verbal and nonverbal intelligence; types of intelligence Reasoning, perception, memory, mathematical ability Traits, dimensions, types, conditions (like depression) Special aptitudes, talents, gifts Reading, spelling, mathematics Tasks or activities indicating the level of acquired skills Neuropsychological functions, neuropsychological disorders Attitudes, beliefs, values, feelings School and academic knowledge and skills, other learned contents Imagination, inventiveness Vocation adequacy, plaintiff’s employability Interests for jobs, careers, activities

30

1  Fundamentals of Personality

1.2.3.7 Personality Tests, Questionnaires, and Inventories When the United States entered World War I (1916), suddenly, a very large number of soldiers should be recruited. General recruitment has raised the question of whether all potential candidates are really fit for combat missions. Two relatively great groups of people have to be detected in a short time: the candidates with very low intelligence and emotionally disturbed, neurotic individuals. Thus, the experts for intelligence testing constructed first group tests aimed at detecting mentally retarded candidates (verbal Army Alpha Test and nonverbal Army Beta Test), while the eminent psychologist Woodworth produced a questionnaire called the Personal Data Sheet (PDS). It contained a set of 116 items indicating the psychoneurotic tendencies, i.e., signs that occur with pronounced emotional lability (Fig. 1.12). The questionnaire could be completed by all candidates for military service, at least those who were literate. Thus, for the first time in the history of psychological assessment, a set of self-report items was compiled, which together were supposed to represent a quantitative scale for measuring a personality trait. Woodworth actually realized the idea that a certain personality trait is measured by combining the individual characteristics contained in the items into a single scale, into a common dimension. In doing so, Woodworth had to act a little differently than constructors of intelligence tests. Namely, items in intelligence tests are about our performance in solving problems, while items in personality tests are about the answers we give to questions related to behaviors, feelings, and experiences on the basis of self-report. Therefore, the scores on the intelligence tests reflect the difficulty of the solved problems and the level of achievement. In a personality trait such as emotional lability, we cannot speak of difficulty and achievement; it is a dimension that reflects the level of intensity of the measured trait. In the decades after the emergence of PDS, thousands and thousands of personality measures were developed. Tests, questionnaires, and inventories are major personality diagnostics in contemporary psychology. These methods measure the expression of the basic dimensions of personality (extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, etc.) and personality traits (dominance, aggression, conscientiousness, depression, etc.). In addition to tests of ability and knowledge, personality questionnaires are a pillar of modern psychometrically designed diagnostics. They consist of individual questions (items) relating to the diagnosed area. The great majority of personality diagnostics, used in scientific research, represent self-report measures. From the number of symptomatic responses based on self-­assessment, we can measure the expression or level of a certain personality trait. Questionnaires are similar to rating scales used to measure the content and level of an individual’s interests, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and values. In the scientific research of personality, the most important are the instruments measuring big personality dimensions in the theoretical framework of the five-factor model and HEXACO model. Table  1.5 displays some of these instruments, which are frequently used in personality research.

1.2 Study of Personality

31

Fig. 1.12  From Woodworth’s PDS questionnaire, the original form

1.2.3.8 Projective/Performance-Based Techniques At the turn of the century, some other pioneering psychodiagnostic instruments also appeared. Thus, inspired by the use of the nonstandard procedure of free associations in Kraepelin, Freud, and Jung, psychologists produced standardized tests of free association. The method was extremely simple: The respondent answered the word read with the first word that came to mind. The idea of this diagnostic

1  Fundamentals of Personality

32

Table 1.5  Some frequently used self-report personality instruments Test, questionnaire, inventory NEO PI-R (Revised NEO Personality Inventory) BFI (Big Five Inventory) TIPI (Ten-Item Personality Inventory) FFMRF (Five-Factor Model Rating Form) FFPI-C (Five Factor Personality Inventory—Children)

Authors Costa and McCrae

Brief description 240 items measuring Big Five dimensions and their facets (30) John, Donahue 44 items measuring Big and Kentle Five dimensions Gosling, 10 items measuring Big Rentfrow and Five dimensions Swann Lynam and 30 facets, 6 facets for each Widiger of the Big Five factors McGhee, Ehrler and Buckhalt Goldberg

IPIP-NEO (International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO PI-R) IPIP-NEO—120 Johnson

HEXACO PI-R (HEXACO Ashton and Personality Inventory—Revised) Lee

Measures Big Five dimensions in children 300 items measuring Big Five personality dimensions and their facets 300 items measuring Big Five personality dimensions and their facets Measures 6 HEXACO dimensions of personality

Source references Costa and McCrae (1992) John et al. (1991) Gosling et al. (2003) Lynam and Widiger (2001) McGhee et al. (2008) Goldberg (1999) Johnson (2014) Ashton and Lee (2008)

procedure was that the automatism of free association is therefore a spontaneous thought process under the influence of the personality characteristics of the individual and therefore speaks in some way about these characteristics. Take terms related to sexuality: In persons who would respond to these terms in an unusual way or would not find any answer, they could infer inhibition or problems in relationships with the opposite sex. The idea of “projective” diagnostics is quite close to the idea of associative diagnostics. Have you ever observed clouds and noticed in them a shape that reminds you of something, for example, an object, an animal, or a face? Psychologists who put something into the process of projection would say that you were then “projecting,” introducing your perceptions and thoughts into some external object. The idea is again simple; it is that any such process of projection should be influenced by the personality characteristics of the individual projecting. “Projective” statements and “projections” are thus supposed to express the psychological and personality characteristics of individuals and make it possible to diagnose these characteristics. In the last years of the First World War, the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach developed the most well-known projection diagnostic technique (Fig. 1.13). The Rorschach test consists of ten thick cartons with symmetrical ink blots. Some of them are black and white, and some also have colors. The subject says in each picture what it reminds him of. Plenty of opportunities for all kinds of projections and psychological interpretations!

1.2 Study of Personality

33

Fig. 1.13  Example from original Rorschach Inkblot Test. What might this be?

Recently, some experts try to classify projection techniques together with the methods of performance assessment into the group of projective/performance-based techniques. Useful performance tests provide acceptable validity and can be found in psychophysiology, neurology, and neuropsychology, yet also in intelligence and personality testing. Projection techniques consist of more or less vaguely structured material; from the way one interprets this material, what one “sees” in it or creates by it, we infer personality traits that are supposed to be “projected” into the interpretation. A wellknown example of projection is the Rorschach Test, where the appearance of ten symmetrical ink stains must be interpreted. Another example is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), developed in the 1930s by Henry A. Murray and Christiana D. Morgan (see Fig. 1.14), where the story needs to be told to the painted scenes. However, we know a lot of other projection techniques, e.g., completing started sentences, drawing people, drawing a tree, and constructing objects. Projection techniques, of which there are many (see Table 1.6), are important in psychological diagnostics because they give us a lot of diverse information. They are a typical example of “broad-spectrum” techniques. However, their information is not as accurate, objective, and reliable as the information obtained through psychometrically based questionnaires, scales, and tests. Therefore, they should never be used as the main or even the only source of information and evaluation. 1.2.3.9 Item Analysis The construction of a psychological assessment instrument like a test or questionnaire is not an easy job. Usually, the psychological constructs (abilities, traits, or other characteristics) can be measured well by using numerous items, e.g., tasks, questions, or statements. Yet, we need to figure out which items will best measure

1  Fundamentals of Personality

34

Fig. 1.14  Example from original TAT Table 1.6  Most frequently used projective techniques Types of projective techniques Associative techniques Construction techniques

Description Subject responds to a stimulus by first association (word, image) Subject should construct or create something (story, setting)

Examples Free association tests, Rorschach Test

TAT; Animal Metaphor Test; other story creation tests; construction of situations, settings, or environments by figures or other materials (family, village, etc.) Sentence completion tests; story completion tests, argument completion tests; Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test (completion of blank boxes with answers, replies) Szondi Test (arrangement of images of persons); Picture Arrangement Test

Completion technique

Subject should complete uncompleted material (sentence, picture, story)

Choice and ordering techniques Expressive techniques

Subject should arrange or rearrange material (pictures, photographs) Subjects is are asked for Draw a Person Test; Draw a Man Test; expression (drawing, House-Tree-Person Test; Tree Test; Graphology; painting, writing, playing) Psychodrama; Sociodrama

1.2 Study of Personality

35

our subject. We must select the items that will measure this subject most accurately. Item analysis is the procedure for doing that. Item analysis comprises statistical methods used for selecting items that will be included in a psychological test. The purpose of item analysis is to determine a list of items that will finally constitute the test. The list should be comprehensive, the items must measure the psychological construct completely, yet, it should be also as short as possible. The item analysis is often an iterative procedure that will be finished when the criteria for good metric properties for the test will be met. In the usual procedure of item analysis, several steps must be taken: 1. First, a large number of starting items is applied to a great sample of participants, which is representative of the target population. At least ten times as many items should be selected at the start as the intended final number of items. Also, the sample of participants should exceed the number of items for several times. 2. Next, a variety of appropriate statistical analyses of participants’ responses is made in order to eliminate items, which do not meet the preset criteria. These criteria include the elimination of items that: • Show too little variability in the sample • Show perfect or too strong correlation with other items • Show a substantial increase in internal consistency (measured by Cronbach Alpha) if the item is eliminated from the test. All of the above applies to the classical item analysis model. In 1960, another model of item analysis was proposed by Georg Rasch. The Rasch model is focused on two parameters, the difficulty of test items, and the ability or competence of test respondents. Thus, the model is primarily used to measure latent psychological dimensions (attitudes and abilities). The model shows the probability of a correct response on a test item. The scale of correct responses is therefore dependent on the test item’s difficulty and the respondent’s ability (see Fig. 1.15). The proposed relationship seems evident, yet the point of the Rasch model is that no other factor can influence the correctness of responses if both parameters are determined. Also, as we can see from Fig. 1.15, the relationship curve is flattened at both extremes and is practically linear in the middle.

1.2.4 Personality Research Why do some students perform better in school than others? Why do some people develop personality disorders? Why do some persons tolerate stressful situations and crises well and others poorly? Why do we find some people more attractive than others? Why are some leaders more popular than others? We could still ask such and similar questions. We are obviously not only interested in certain phenomena (learning success, personality disorders, coping with stressful and crisis events,

36

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.15  Relationship between the position on the latent dimension (low to high) and the probability of answering the item correctly. The probability of correctness is low for persons with low ability and height for persons with high ability

attractiveness, popularity), but above all what influences these phenomena and what causes them. We are interested in what connection, in what relations these phenomena are to other phenomena. Such questions represent an introduction to functional research. The phenomena we are scientifically investigating are subject to a functional relationship, where the variable Y is functionally related to X:

Y  f X



In the personality research, we wish to explain, which personality characteristics are causal factors of various experiences and behaviors or connected to such factors. Further, we wish to explain which are causal factors of personality characteristics themselves. Finally, we wish to find the essential relationships between personality phenomena because causal determinants may often be inferred from these relationships. 1.2.4.1 Relationships Between Personality Variables In scientific research, we must label individual phenomena with values. For example, the length is marked by meters or inches, level of intelligence with IQ, etc. The values of a phenomenon marked in this way are called variables. The term itself points it is something that can take on different values. In personality realm, the

1.2 Study of Personality

37

Fig. 1.16 Causal relationship between independent and dependent variables

number of variables is frightening, and all traits, dimensions, styles, states, and all personality characteristics are variables, whose relationships must be investigated and possible causal connections should be revealed. Determining cause and effect is crucial in scientific research. Understanding personality means to know which is the cause and which is the effect among the plethora of personality characteristics. The variables of the hypothetical causal factor (Fig. 1.16) are called independent variables (IV), or, briefly, independents; they are “manipulated” by the experimenter to observe their effect on the variables, which are dependent on IV.  We call the latter dependent variables (DV) or dependents because we expect them to depend on the former, that is, the independents. In scientific research, we are particularly interested in relationships between independents and dependents, because they often reveal true causal connections. Therefore, scientific hypotheses are most often of a causal nature. Determination of causal relations is the most wanted result of functional research, a research of functional relationship defined above. There are, of course, several basic possibilities for functional research (Table 1.7). By a classical experiment and also quasi-experiment, we determine the relationships between two phenomena, between the one we are interested in (whose causes we are investigating) and the one that, according to our hypothesis, is supposed to act on it as a causal factor. A good example of a causal connection in psychology is the connection between a stimulus and a response (s-r connection). Therefore, we are talking about a causal (S-R experiment) or a bivariate experiment. Bivariate causal experiment is a method that is specifically designed to test the proper causal hypotheses; it is a fundamental method of determining causal dependence. In personality psychology, group experiments are especially frequent. In a true experiment, we compare the outcomes between the experimental and control groups with randomly assigned participants. In a quasi-experiment, however, the participants are not assigned to treatment and control groups by random (because it is not possible for natural or ethical reasons).

1  Fundamentals of Personality

38 Table 1.7  Types of functional research

Strict control and manipulation of conditions Emphasis on quantitative data Natural course of events Emphasis on qualitative data

Relationship between two variables Causal Correlational Correlational Experiment research Quasi-experiment R-R S-R experiment experiment Bivariate experiment

Relationship between more than two variables Causal Correlational Multivariate Multivariate causal correlational research research

Observation, clinical observation, natural or field experiment, action research, ethnographic and ethnomethodological research, and hermeneutic research

Yet, in personality psychology, we are very often interested in functional intervariable relationships that are not in direct causal connection. These variables correlate with each other. If many variables correlate with each other, then we can quite reasonably assume that their interdependence is caused by some third, deeper factor that causally influences them. Often, the problem is that this third factor cannot be simply observed; rather, it can be inferred from the correlations between other variables. The connections between personality phenomena are therefore often studied by correlational research: In this case, we establish correlations between two phenomena, i.e., the relationship of interdependence. Unlike S-R experiments, we are not interested in the relationship between stimuli and responses, but in the relationship between the responses themselves (R-R experiments). In the following subsection, we will discuss the causal and correlational relationships in more detail. The development of new methods and mathematical procedures has enabled us to simultaneously analyze the dependency and interdependence relationships between a large number of phenomena or variables. We are talking about multivariate research. From the relationships between a large number of variables, we can calculate the values of deeper (latent) factors that cause the obtained correlations. Multivariate research has become very popular in the field of personality psychology, which is not surprising given the huge number of personality phenomena and corresponding variables. 1.2.4.2 Causal and Correlational Relations The great Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote that all humans by nature desire knowledge. He also made it clear that knowledge means to comprehend the essence of things. What is essential, however, is what is constant or invariant in a phenomenon and by no means something that is changeable, superficial, and irrelevant to the phenomenon itself. The meat can be beef or veal, fresh, or lean, but it is still meat. What is it that is most essential and invariant? This is, above all, everything that causes a certain phenomenon. The English philosopher Francis Bacon said nicely

1.2 Study of Personality

39

that “we know the essence by its causes.” We get to know phenomena when we get to know their causes, the factors on which they depend. Once we know the causes, we can explain the phenomenon, we can predict it, and we can control it. Yet, what are the causes? Over the centuries, philosophers and scientists have dealt extensively with this issue, among them, e.g., David Hume (1748, translation 1974) and John Stuart Mill (1843). The latter has defined canons of causality, the main rules that allow us to logically determine the causes. According to Mill, there are as many as five such canons. The German psychologist and philosopher Wilhelm Wundt, one of the recognized “fathers of psychology,” managed to combine all these rules into a single definition of cause that is worth remembering: “Of the circumstances which accompany a phenomenon, the cause of that phenomenon must be regarded as those circumstances the removal of which also removes the phenomenon itself and the quantitative change of which provokes quantitative changes in that phenomenon.” Causal phenomena are undoubtedly in an invariant, functional relationship with consequent phenomena. Are all functional relationships also causal or dependent relationships? We know that this is not the case. Night and day are functionally connected, but it would be unwise to have a night as a consequence of the day or vice versa. The age of infants and the number of teeth are functionally related, but it is certainly not the age as such that causes tooth growth. Even the number of storks and the number of newborns can be functionally related—so at least was reported in some statistics made in England (maybe in times when the percent of newborns was greater in countryside). The two phenomena may be in a functional relationship, they are interdependent, but they are not in a direct causal relationship. It is very likely, however, that both are under the influence of some third phenomenon, which causally affects each of them. Many phenomena are therefore connected and interdependent, but there is no direct causal link between them. Usually, they are correlated. As we can see in Fig. 1.17, several forms of causal and correlation relationships are known. Causal relationships can be bivariate when one variable causally affects another, e.g., age on reaction times, divergent when one factor causally affects several others, and convergent when several variables causally affect one. However, interdependence or correlation is often the result of the causal action of a third variable on a correlated variable. Liveliness and eloquence are highly correlated, but there is no real causality between them (“false causality”) because they correlate due to dependence on a common causal factor, personality trait of extraversion. However, the correlation may also be due to an indirect causal relationship. Education and racism are in a (negative) correlation, but largely because education greatly reduces the dogmatism that affects racism. Education thus correlates with racism because it indirectly causally influences it through dogmatism. Of course, indirect and direct causal relationships can also be combined. For example, religiosity and racism may correlate, due to the causal effects of education on religiosity and indirectly through liberalism on racism (see Fig. 1.17). Let us say we find ourselves in a crowd of those who have seen or still see unresolved issues related to very high creativity. Ingenious achievements are and will be a problem for many researchers. What do they depend on? If we limit ourselves to

40

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.17  Different types of causal and correlational relationships. The first is depicted with arrows, the second with a dashed line. Religious beliefs and racism are slightly but significantly correlated although between them does not exist any true causal relationship. This, this is an example of false causality. However, this correlation may be a consequence of the true causal influence of education on religiosity, which is an example of direct bivariate causality and indirect causality due to the direct effect of education on liberalism and direct effect of liberalism on racism. Besides, the causal effect of education on religiosity and liberalism is an example of divergent causality, and the causal effects of education and openness on liberalism are an example of convergent causality

psychological causes, however, there are quite a few that can be considered as possible causal factors of superior creativity. Body height and weight are probably out of the question and not much else other physical characteristics. For some psychic and personality factors, we suspect they may be more closely related to genius. Let us first think about abilities, e.g., intelligence. It seems to us that genius should be associated with high intelligence. We could formulate the hypothesis that superior creativity depends on intelligence. The test could then be used to test this hypothesis, e.g., by determining in groups of differently intelligent persons whether more top achievements also occur in accordance with higher intelligence. Let us say our research has confirmed this connection. This would show that intelligence is in all likelihood a causal factor of genius. We would soon see that there are many very intelligent people who are not only not ingenious, but are not even averagely creative. All geniuses are highly intelligent, but not the other way around. Intelligence may therefore be a necessary but not a sufficient causal factor of genius. Perhaps genius is the result of the combined influence of many factors, and intelligence is just one of them. We will set new hypotheses, and this time we will look for possible personality traits (nonconformity, dominance, emotional stability, introversion, motivation). The research process will start again. Research is a dynamic process where solving a problem often leads to new questions, which in turn leads to new research. In doing so, we abandon hypotheses that have been shown to be

1.2 Study of Personality

41

inconsistent with the facts during the examination and retain those that do not contradict the established facts. The degree of correlation is most accurately determined by calculating correlation coefficients, for example, Pearson’s r, which is a measure of the interdependence between two variables. 1.2.4.3 Experimental Research An experiment is a central research method in many sciences. Why is the experiment considered the “royal path” to knowledge? Namely, it is explicitly intended to discover causal, dependent relationships. In the experiment, we systematically arrange the circumstances of the observation so that we can arrive at causal explanations: We change the presumed causal factor and observe whether the corresponding effects (consequences) will appear on the phenomenon of direct interest to us. At the same time, we try to prevent any other phenomenon from influencing the one we are interested in. In this case, any changes can be attributed only to the single operating factor, i.e., the alleged causal factor. This will allow us to actually determine whether or not this is the real causal factor. The experiment therefore tests a causal relationship, the relationship between the causal factor and the phenomenon we are investigating. Let us take a look at some more detailed definitions of the experiment. Wilhelm Wundt (1883/1913), one of the undisputed “fathers” of psychology, defines an experiment as “an observation in which the observer systematically influences the origin and course of the observed phenomenon.” Perhaps Lindworski’s (1931) definition is the most well-known: “An experiment is the deliberate and deliberate induction of a phenomenon in order to observe it.” An extended and detailed definition of the psychological experiment can be found in Preiser (1977), which is summarized after the slightly older Meili (1963): “Psychological experiment is an experiential fact-finding that takes place on the basis of a specific scientific question and in which the experimenter determines, changes (controls) and controls (controls) the observational conditions as accurately as possible and registers the reactions, behaviors, expressive phenomena or reports of experience; all with the aim of verifying certain assumptions about the dependence of these phenomena on their conditions by evaluating the data obtained.” The essence of experimental control is to create conditions when possible changes in the observed dependent variable cannot be attributed to anything other than to the independent variable, a hypothetical causal factor (condition) that we deliberately manipulate. All other factors, which may possibly affect the dependent variable are irrelevant (irrelevant factors) and must be eliminated or otherwise controlled. Thus, the isolation of the relationship between independent and dependent variables under the exclusion of the irrelevant factors is the goal of experimental control (Fig. 1.18). However, a direct elimination of irrelevant factors is not always possible. If we investigate the influence of intelligence on learning success, then it is not possible to simply eliminate other factors that affect learning success—motivation, work

42

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.18  Experimental control as isolation of experimental conditions. Isolation means that irrelevant factors cannot affect the dependent variable, so its changes can only be attributed to the changes or variations of the independent variable

habits, prior knowledge, diligence, etc. Instead, we can control their impact by holding them constant. If we compare the effects of students of different intelligence on learning success, we must ensure that they differ only in intelligence, not in terms of any other possible but irrelevant factor. In regard to them, the students should be matched. Psychological experiments usually take place in a large number of people. The reason for this is simple: We cannot generalize our results with too small number of participants. Individuals may always deviate from the rule that the experiment is intended to prove; but if there are many participants, then this danger is significantly smaller. Only exceptionally, the experiments with a small number of participants or even with one single individual are carried out in psychology, and the scientific value of such experiments is extremely limited. With a great number of participants, there is a very high probability that the results of the experiment will demonstrate the true relationship between observed variables and therefore can be generalized. It is characteristic of good experiments that we test participants in different conditions, which are determined by changing the independent variable. We can sometimes do this directly with the same people. If we explore how people will behave in a situation of group pressure, then we can observe the behavior of the same people in different conditions, e.g., when the group pressure is large, when it is medium, when it is small, and when it is actually absent (in this case we are talking about a zero condition—the independent variable has a zero value). Our task is to determine how the variable (a certain behavior of the participants, e.g., agreeing with the judgment of the group) will change depending on these conditions (Fig. 1.19). In this and similar cases, we talk about variation within the group and about direct (also active or intervention) variation of the independent variable and experimental conditions.

1.2 Study of Personality

43

Fig. 1.19  Direct manipulation of the independent variable (IV) with all participants (P1–P4) and effects on the dependent variable (DV). This, within the group design of the experiment, requires changing the independent variable (experimental conditions) and the dependent variable for the same persons. We test each person in all conditions

Many times, however, it is not possible to vary the conditions for the same people. Let us say we are interested in whether there are significant differences in interest in politics between men and women. It is impossible to be tested once as a man and the second time as woman. But we have another option. We may change the independent variable, the conditions, indirectly, by using different groups of people. We will compare what interest in political affairs will be shown by men (first condition) and women (second condition); it would be correct, of course, for both to be selected in such a way as to represent a representative sample of their gender and for both groups to be equal in all other factors that could still influence policy interests. In this case, of course, it is also not possible to talk about zero conditions, because we will probably not find enough people who are neither men nor women. In the case described, we see that we are not dealing with variation of conditions within a group, but rather with variation between groups (between-group design). In this and similar cases, we speak of indirect (also passive or noninterventional) variation of the independent variable and experimental conditions. Groups that perform an experiment under conditions where certain values of the independent variable occur are usually called experimental groups (EG 1, EG 2, and EG 3 in Fig. 1.20). Let us say we want to investigate how the amount of alcohol consumed affects the length of reaction times (reaction rate to different stimuli). Different groups of participants—volunteers of course—will consume different amounts of alcohol, from a minimal amount to significant amounts that are not yet exactly dangerous. Suppose we envisioned an experiment with three conditions; so we have three experimental groups. However, it is a good idea to always include in the experiment a group of people where the value of the independent variable is zero—that is, people who will drink the appropriate amount of soft nonalcohol drinks. Such a group is called control group (CS). The rule is to form a control group whenever possible (we have seen that this is not always the case: It is not possible, for example, to form control groups when we are interested in gender differences). In this experimental design, we can observe the effects of the independent variable by comparing the results of the control group with the results of the experimental groups.

44

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.20  Indirect (passive, noninterventional) manipulation of the independent variable (IV) between experimental groups (EG 1 to EG 3) and control group (CG) with effects on the dependent variable (DV). This, between the group design of experiment, requires changing conditions (independent variables) for persons in the groups. Each group is tested under one of the conditions

The purpose of experimental (and of course any other) research is to arrive at valid scientific findings. If we performed the experiment correctly and confirmed the experimental hypothesis, then we achieved the internal validity of our research. However, we would like our causal knowledge to be of a general nature so that we can generalize it to persons not involved in the experiment. In this case, we would speak of an external validity. External validity is ensured by the representativeness of the sample: It must correspond in all relevant respects to the characteristics of the population it represents. The representativeness of the sample is best achieved by random selection, i.e., by the selection of persons, where each member of the original population has the same opportunity to be selected. We make a random selection, e.g., by lottery method, using random numbers or some other random dialing. Therefore, the sampling procedure is very important in research. If the samples are not representative, then our conclusions are not generalized and our research has no external validity. If basketball players were chosen for the national population sample, then the external validity of our experiment is lost in advance. Also, note that in a true experiment, we must randomly classify participants into groups, experimental and control. Namely, the true experiment can be distinguished from a quasi-experiment precisely by random selection of participants. If we cannot do that, then we are talking about a quasi-experiment. Experimental research requires a detailed advance plan that will ensure appropriate control. Depending on the problem we are researching, we need to choose the appropriate form of experiment. Even experimentation knows its “designs”; especially that, for most research problems, appropriate, that is optimal experimental plans have already been made. The researcher must be familiar with them. Otherwise, it may happen that he will design his experiment in a way that is not the best. Let us say we want to experimentally test whether a particular therapeutic method has been effective. Experimental testing could be thought of as something like this: After completing the therapeutic treatment, we will determine whether there are fewer mental disorders in people who have completed psychotherapy than in people in the control group who were not in psychotherapy. We already know that the experiment would not be good if we did not have a control group, which will of course be equated with the experimental one in all important respects. Suppose, through

1.2 Study of Personality

45

observations and other diagnostic techniques, we actually find that there are fewer mental disorders in the experimental group than in the control group. Have we already proven with this that our therapeutic method is successful? Unfortunately, of course not; our experimental “design” shown in Fig. 1.21 is anything but perfect. “It’s true that people in the experimental group are less neurotic than those who haven’t received treatment,” one might remark, “but how do you know if your patients are less disturbed by the psychotherapeutic effects? Maybe, they had before the therapy even fewer disorders; the fact that they are better than those in the control group does not prove that they are better because of the therapy.” The comment is more than relevant. Our imperfect design tells us nothing about the degree of mental disorder before starting therapy. We can only speculate about that. The experiment should be better designed, by all means by testing the effects of performance not only after treatment but also before it. Exactly as shown in Fig. 1.22. Suppose we now really find that our clients were significantly more neurotic before psychotherapy than after therapy. Now, we may be tempted: Because it is great, we have proven the effectiveness of psychotherapy, and we have not even used any control groups yet! Our critical self, however, is not so enthusiastic. “Nice and right, the people in the experimental group have really progressed, but have they really progressed because of the therapy? What if they have progressed because of something else, maybe because something was happening to them at the time? What if it is just time did his thing and healed some mental problems?” Obviously it will not go without a control group; only a comparison with this group could resolve such concerns. If we found that there was progress in the experimental group, while there was no progress in the control group, we could quite reasonably conclude that the therapeutic procedure had positive effects and at the same time

Fig. 1.21  Incompletely designed experiment with control group (without pretest)

Fig. 1.22  Incompletely designed experiment: pretest and posttest but without control group

46

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Fig. 1.23  Pretest and posttest with control group design

these effects could not be attributed to other factors (which also worked in a control group that was equated with the experimental one). Thus, we finally came up with the appropriate design scheme for our experiment (Fig. 1.23). After measuring the values of the variables tested in the experiment, a decisive question arises: How big are the differences in the results obtained for different groups representing the main experimental conditions (e.g., between experimental groups, between experimental and control group, etc.)? Are the differences in the dependent variable between the groups significant, so that it could be inferred from them that the independent variable had a significant effect on the dependent one? It is essential that the differences found are greater than could be caused by random fluctuations; in this case, they can be attributed to the effect of a systematic factor, i.e., the effect of an independent variable. In psychology, we usually think this is the case when the probability that the difference would be accidental is less than 5% or—if we are stricter—even less than 1%. Usually, the testing the difference is performed by use of appropriate statistical methods such as t-test (if there are two groups) or analysis of variance (if there are several groups). 1.2.4.4 Correlational and Multivariate Research In the classical experiment, we check the causal (dependent) relationships and we have to specifically adjust the research conditions. We need to plan in advance and then select the experimental and control groups. We need to change the conditions of research by manipulation or intervention. Thus, we can achieve that we can reliably determine whether one phenomenon affects another phenomenon. However, we may be interested in how differences in one phenomenon quite naturally, without experimental manipulation, correlate with differences in another phenomenon. In this case, we find interdependence, e.g., correlation between two (or more phenomena). Table  1.8, which we will analyze as a starting point for multivariate research, especially in the next section, shows us all possible correlations between pairs of six value orientations. Correlation coefficients tell us the degree of interdependence between two variables, but not the direction of influence. As we have already seen, direct causal relationships can be hidden behind a correlation relationship, but they can also be only indirect or even completely random relationships (the latter is, of course, extremely rare).

1.2 Study of Personality

47

Table 1.8  Correlation matrix of 6 value orientations Values Sensual Security Status Democratic Social

Sensual

Security .488

Status .556 .290

Democratic .433 .619 .292

Social .444 .639 .259 .595

Traditional .325 .507 .257 .655 .573

Despite the fact that correlation research does not directly check whether there is a real causal effect of one variable on another, this type of research is very common. There are several reasons for this. It is often interesting to know whether there is an important connection between two phenomena. In the field of personality psychology, we are dealing with a large number of variables. It is useful to know what correlations between a wide variety of personality traits. There is a lot of correlation research, sometimes called R-R research, especially in the field of personality and ability research. The advantage of correlation research is also that it is more natural and usually less demanding and expensive compared to experimental research. However, it is also the starting point for the possibilities offered by multivariate analyses. They will be discussed in the next section. Sometimes, we already know or at least assume which phenomenon is the causal factor, and by correlation, we try to determine more precisely the degree of its influence. If we are interested in the relationship between attitudes and certain behaviors, we reasonably assume that attitudes are an independent, causal phenomenon, and appropriate behavior is a dependent phenomenon. However, we need to be careful when interpreting correlation research. So, we can never completely rule out the possibility of reverse and feedback effects. Let us say we discover a significant correlation between attitudes toward authority and dominant behavior. We cannot definitely conclude from that the correlation indicates the causal influence of attitudes on behavior. It is also possible that dominant people develop some attitudes as a consequence of their behavior. Of course, it is not excluded that some third factor causes a covariation between attitudes and behavior (e.g., parental influence and upbringing). Let us return to Table 1.8. What can we deduce from all the coefficients? Many things: Above all, we have a correlation for each pair of measured value orientations. First, we got measures for a set of inter-variable relationships. This is certainly much more than a relation between two variables that can be studied in a classical experiment. Thus, at the same time, we captured as much data in one study as we would get with no less than 15 conventional classical bivariate experiments. In addition, we did not force participants to meet stringent requirements in artificially arranged experimental conditions. We gave them a questionnaire, which they filled out in a situation that is already completely “natural” for modern man—as we have been getting used to it since school years. Thus, even with this simple example of multivariate correlation research, we have realized some significant advantages. As said before, we can study several

48

1  Fundamentals of Personality

relationships between variables at the same time, not just one relationship as in a classical experiment. Further, we could analyze the variables we observed or measured in a fairly natural situation and not in an experimental laboratory. Furthermore, we measured our variables as exactly as with any real experimental measurement. There is also another great advantage of multivariate research. Instead of controlling irrelevant factors by eliminating their influence and the use of a control group, we can simply include them be pulled into our multivariate research plan, e.g., gender, age, and intelligence. Their correlations with other variables would allow us to assess their potential effect, and, using a special method, we will also be able to assess how other variables would relate in the absence of this impact. Now, let us get back to our correlation matrix again. A look at the correlations tells us that there are significant positive correlations between some variables and lower correlations among others. A closer look may reveal something else. Obviously, some variables have relatively high mutual correlations, clearly higher than with other variables. Social, traditional, security, and democratic values correlate with each other higher than they correlate with sensory and status values. Thus, it seems that we might be able to classify our six value orientations into two groups, but how do we know that we are really entitled to this? Since the pioneering efforts of Galton, Pearson, and Spearman, psychologists (and not just psychologists) have managed to invent a whole range of mathematical procedures that can extract amazing things from correlations. Among others, they can tell us with mathematical accuracy whether there are deeper, latent variables behind the superficial, manifest correlations we see in the matrix. Indeed, latent variables can be calculated by different methods of multivariate analysis. It is true, however, that all such multivariate analyses were a time-consuming business until the computer age. Latent variables have some wonderful properties. For example, we can recalculate from them the whole multitude of surface correlations. What does that mean? The entire set of manifest correlations can be therefore actually explained by a significantly smaller number of latent variable correlations. This procedure might have another important implication: While manifest variables correlate with each other, we may extract latent dimensions that are independent on each other. This is one of the points of multivariate analysis: the extraction of fundamental, mutually independent latent variables (latent dimensions) that explain the interdependence of other variables. In our case, a calculation using one of the most important multivariate analyses, factor analysis, would actually show us that there are two important latent variables or dimensions (Table  1.9). The correlations of individual variables with both latent dimensions or factors (these correlations are also called factor saturations) are very telling: The first dimension highly saturates democratic, social, traditional, and security values, and the second dimension saturates status and sensory values. So we were right: We can really classify our six values into two groups; in the first group, we have values that could be labeled as Apollonian (they are related to moral and prosocial ideals), and in the second, we have values that could be labeled as Dionysian (they are related to enjoyment, power, achievement, and performance). Factor analysis also calculates how much the original variability (variance) of all manifest variables can be explained by latent

1.2 Study of Personality

49

Table 1.9  Loadings of values with two extracted latent dimensions (factors) Latent dimensions (factors) Values 1 2 Democratic .835 .207 Traditional .820 .010 Social .814 .206 Security .773 .287 Status .010 .902 Sensual .349 .799

variables. In our case, the two latent dimensions explain 73% of the original variance of the six variables. The latent dimensions undoubtedly have much greater average explanatory power than the original variables. Discovering latent variables is invaluable to science. Just think: If it turns out that you can explain the correlations of 100 variables by, say, 90% with ten latent dimensions, you have gained tremendous profit. With ten times fewer variables, you can interpret and predict almost as successfully as before! Suppose you have previously used 100 tests that measure different personality traits; now, you can replace them with only ten new ones that measure their latent dimensions. Thus, multivariate analyses very effectively reduce often nontransparent set of variables with which we have to deal in the study of personality. 1.2.4.5 Natural and Field Research However, the controlled, especially experimental, research might have some shortcomings. Often, we simply cannot or do not yet know how to manipulate some phenomena experimentally. Phenomena that would cause very unpleasant effects should not be experimentally promoted for purely ethical reasons. Other phenomena may occur only spontaneously (e.g., infatuation), and it is difficult to imagine any laboratory manipulation of them. Many phenomena change in the laboratory situation in such extent that it does not make sense to study them experimentally. For this reason, many methods of qualitative observation in the natural environment have become established in the research of personality phenomena. These methods are specially designed to provide as much objective and reliable data as possible, despite the subjectivity and other limitations of natural observation. Many surveys and other research are conducted in “natural” terrain and in the natural environment (natural or field research). An ethnographic and ethnomethodological approach often emerges in intercultural studies, e.g., in participant observation. The researcher settles in a new cultural environment for a long time (even for several years), until he gets to know it well and until he begins to understand it as his participant in about the same way as the locals. It is therefore a matter of embracing the appropriate cultural, i.e., ethnographic or ethnomethodological framework and its daily routine. In this way, the observer can begin to judge the conditions and phenomena in a

50

1  Fundamentals of Personality

cultural environment that is originally foreign to him. Another way of participation is practiced in action research: For example, the researcher joins the group of people he intends to research, as his participant and collaborator. In action research, the purpose of research is often no longer just fact-finding and data collection, but also “action”: an attempt to help and change the situation. 1.2.4.6 Clinical Method and Case Study In ordinary observation, reliable causal conclusions can only exceptionally be reached. Causal factors cannot be controlled as in experiment. If we see someone stumbling through the bar door to the sidewalk, we find it very likely that his behavior can be attributed to the influence of alcohol, but we cannot rule out other possible causal factors, e.g., illness, seizure, cerebral disturbance, and the effects of other drugs. In the natural situation, we cannot observe the assumed causal factors in isolation from other factors. It does not mean that natural observation is not the source of our hypotheses. If it is very precise, it can lead us to a large number of assumptions about causal relationships that interest us. Clinical method is an example of such close observation of a large number of factors. It is the basis of the findings of many pioneers of scientific psychology and psychiatry—Freud, Adler, Jung, Rogers, Frankl, and many others. In the clinical method, we try to determine through in-depth and focused observation of individuals, which factors have influenced (or are influencing) those aspects of behavior that interest us. The basic problem of the clinical method is that it rarely takes place in conditions where an effect of causal factor could be observed without being disturbed by other factors. The same deficiency can be generalized for most qualitative research methods. A particularly careful and accurate observation is performed in case studies. These focus on the study of an individual or a defined group, in order to obtain as much relevant information as possible to shed light on and explain the observed behaviors and actions. In the history of psychology, case studies performed by Sigmund Freud are famous. Psychologists studied various historical figures in their case studies, e.g., Leonardo da Vinci, Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler. Case studies are interesting, yet we can use them to create or illustrate hypotheses rather than confirm them. Again, we cannot generalize findings assumptions based on case studies. Therefore, the study on larger samples is strongly required in scientific psychological research. 1.2.4.7 Ethics in Personality Research The professional activity of psychologists is governed by strict ethical principles that are comparable to ethical standards in other profession (e.g., to medical ethical principles). The psychological ethical standards are written in codes of psychological ethics. These principles apply to the practical professional, educational (pedagogical), and research work of psychologists. It is understood that psychologists,

1.2 Study of Personality

51

like anyone, have a general obligation to take full account of all those ethical, moral, and legal principles that are written as positive regulations at the constitutional, statutory, and executive levels. These principles and requirements are moral and often also legal obligation with sanctions provided for violations. Some ethical principles are very basic and general, e.g., the request for the protection against any harm; some other are more specific. In their work, psychologists should respect the laws, yet should also follow all the principles of general human ethics and morals that apply in our civilization. Psychologists take legal and moral responsibility for their professional conduct. Psychological codes of ethics do not introduce new fundamental elements of ethics and morality into psychological work but apply ethical and moral principles to the characteristics of psychological work and especially to the characteristics of relationships with others that a psychologist establishes in his work. Ethical code sharpens moral obligations and responsibilities in professional work and sets the framework within which these obligations must be respected as a valid rule of professional work. Ethical principles concern in particular some of the central aspects of psychological work, where respect for personal rights could be most rapidly and easily jeopardized. Psychological ethics focuses mostly about: • • • •

Protection of personal inviolability and integrity The problem of getting to know and interfering with the personality Work with children Work with special groups

The central goal of psychological ethics is to ensure personal inviolability, integrity, and respect for personal rights, including the confidentiality and secrecy of personal information. All personal information in psychological professional work must be obtained on The same applies to the psychological and personal noninvasiveness in every other aspect. Even if, for example, intimate information is necessary for a more effective psychological diagnosis and help, it must be obtained on a voluntary basis with the assurance that it will be kept as a professional secret and must be protected from any abuse. When working with individuals, voluntary decision-making for participation should always be ensured. Psychological intervention is possible only in voluntary cooperation with its users (e.g., participants in research, psychological help seekers). The users of psychological help or participants in psychological research should be provided with the objectives and nature of cooperation and with a full understanding of these objectives. That implies full informed consent (personal or official proxy’s permission) before the psychological professional intervention. Deception of clients or participants is ethically unacceptable and legally punishable. Always when the nature of the research allows, participants should be informed of the purpose of the research. Occasionally, it is necessary to mislead the participants in a study in order to obtain unbiased information. In research where prior knowledge of the research problem could distort the authenticity of the results, the full debriefing of the participants must be provided immediately after the completion of

52

1  Fundamentals of Personality

study. Debriefing by the investigator includes explaining any deception or incomplete disclosure involved in research. In any psychological intervention, it must be ensured that there is no harm, distress or other disregard for clients, and other user of psychological help or participants in psychological research. Both research and professional work must be directed to the individual or group benefit. Working with individuals must be done in a fully fairway. This means that individuals should not obtain unjustified advantages to the benefits that can come from psychological help or research. Under no circumstances should non-privileged or special research groups (e.g., prisoners) be exploited. Particular attention should be paid to working with individuals or groups who cannot reckon or judge their participation to the same extent and as sovereignly as normal adults. This applies in particular to work with children, patients, and, in particular, psychiatric patients. Also, respect for nature, the living world and the environment must be ensured in psychological work. We must not forget that in psychology, much research is still being done on animals. Among the ethical principles that are specifically intended for psychological research and testing are the following: • When working with persons participating in experiments and with persons seeking psychological help, we must above all take into account their personal and human well-being, honor, and dignity. They must be protected from any mental, moral, or physical harm. • Participation in research and assistance must be voluntary. Cooperation without consent is not acceptable. No one should force a psychologist or his client to investigation or examination. The participant may terminate the cooperation at any time. • Research and assistance participants must be properly informed about the research or assistance. They must be aware of the possible consequences or risks of the research. Research, the nature of which requires only a subsequent acquaintance with the true purpose of the research, must be ethically acceptable and in all respects harmless. • Research data are protected. By the rule, the data obtained by research must be anonymous, and, if not, strict confidentiality of personal data must be guaranteed. Personal data may only be published with explicit consent. • The researcher is responsible for his/her behavior and for any damage he/she causes. The head of research is also responsible for the professionalism and ethics of the behavior of his colleagues and assistants, and at the same time, of course, they are also responsible for their own behavior. Professional psychological work is not only the subject of ethical and moral judgment dictated by the code of ethics, but in many cases, it is also regulated by law. Laws regulate in particular those areas of psychological professional work which are of greater interest to the public (including the state and its institutions) and where possible abuses would be particularly harmful. These include the following areas:

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality

• • • •

53

Testing Diagnostic categorization Selection on the basis of psychological tests and examinations Psychological counseling and psychotherapy

Legal regulations determine some established forms of psychological testing in the course of schooling and admission to school, in the process of choosing a profession and in the obstruction of certain other nonprofessional selection procedures. Similarly, they determine psychological participation in some special diagnostic categorization procedures (e.g., for special training, to determine the ability to work). Legal rules also regulate the conditions and competencies for performing psychological work, research, counseling, and psychotherapy.

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality The basis of human personality is biologically embedded in the genes. According to the international project Human Genome Project (Chial, 2008), the number of human genes is between 20,000 and 25,000. We may estimate that 700–10,000 genes and their interactions strongly influence personality traits and dimensions. Yet, in the personality functioning in the whole, much, much more genes are involved. However, in building human personality, genetic influences interact with the environmental effects, including social relations. The old dilemma of person-situation relationship and its forms (heredity-environment, nature-culture/“nature-­culture,” “nurture-culture”/) of course could not bypass psychology, as it has the most to tell us even in the psychological field. What is the problem? If Jim Carrey grew up in a different environment, could he become a top scientist or politician? Could Albert Einstein be another Charlie Chaplin? And US President Trump the author of the theory of relativity? What decides more about our destiny, our innate nature or the environment with its influences? Also, in psychology, we have strong proponents of nativism on the one hand and environmentalism on the other. Early researchers of mentality and personality—pretty much under Darwin’s influence—emphasized the role of instincts (instinctivists, e.g., McDougall, 1908, and psychoanalysts, e.g., Freud, 1905, 1910, 1915), innate abilities (e.g., Galton, 1869), temperament, and character (see Musek, 1993, 1999). A major turning point came when behaviorism started to dominate in psychology. After 1920, extreme environmentalism emerged in psychology, a doctrine that only the environment decides how an individual’s behavior develops (Watson, 1929). Anything can be made out of an individual by conditioning. The momentum of environmentalism was so great that it remained influential long after it became quite clear how excessively it ignored the role of heredity. In doing so, he was more or less successfully seconded by social psychology, especially proponents of social constructivism (Gergen, 1968, 1982). However, a good deal of personality psychology has always emphasized the role of dispositions (Allport, 1961; Eysenck, 1967,

54

1  Fundamentals of Personality

1970). Understandably, behavioral genetics (Plomin, 1986, 1989; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Plomin et  al., 1990) and evolutionary psychology (Buss, 1990, 1991) also strongly emphasize the role of heredity, without denying the importance of the environment.

1.3.1 Biological Factors The origin and development of living species including humans are a matter of biological evolution in the first place. Biological aspects of human personality have a common theoretical framework in the theory of evolution (Buss, 1991, 1997; Figueredo et  al., 2011, 2016; Musek, 2017, p.  167; Yarkoni, 2015). This basic framework includes behavioral genetics of personality (Bouchard & McGue, 2003; Harris, 2006; Loehlin et al., 1998), neuroanatomy of personality (Depue & Collins, 1999; DeYoung et al., 2001, 2005; Figueredo et al., 2011, pp. 378–381), and neurophysiology and neurochemistry of personality (Depue & Collins, 1999; Figueredo et al., 2011, pp. 381–385). Here, we will focus on the three most embracing biological facets of personality: the evolutionary, genetic, and neuroscientific. 1.3.1.1 Evolution The origins and development of personality are embedded in the evolution of human species. The evolution can be defined as a process of changing heritable features of living organisms over generations, which implies the characteristics of species, individual organisms, and genes. The main difference between classic Darwinian and modern (sometimes labeled neo-Darwinian) theories of evolution concerns the units of evolutionary processes. The classic Darwinian theory of evolution is focused on species and individual organisms, while the modern theories of evolution are focused on the molecular level of evolution including the genes. Nevertheless, the human characteristics including the personality are subject of both classic and modern theories of evolution. Since social life is an essential characteristic of human species, it is plausible to ascribe a strong evolutionary function to social selection pressures. Three types of social selection can be recognized in human evolution: • Correlational selection, which favors specific combination of traits. • Directional social selection, which fosters changes of intermediate phenotypic values of traits and other personality characteristics in one direction. Thus, a linear or curvilinear relationship is expected between phenotypic variation of a trait and fitness or adaptation. • Disruptive social selection, which favors the extreme phenotypic values of traits over the population average.

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality

55

In the realm of personality, all mentioned mechanisms of selection occurred very probably. During the evolution, the advantage had individuals with some combination of traits, for example, persons who are emotionally stable, kind, and conscientious (correlational selection). Some important traits (Big Five with Neuroticism reversed to Emotional Stability) are low but significantly correlated, which can be a result of directional social selection indicating that changes of these traits in one direction have evolutionary advantage. The theory of evolution in its recent form is still based on Darwinian principle of natural selection. Two mutually connected theoretical approaches can be derived from the abovementioned Darwinian conceptual frame: the Differential K Theory and Life History Model. Both describe the evolutionary strategy, which supposes the coevolution of different personality traits being oriented toward the social benefits of human species. According to Wilson (1975), two opposed reproductive strategies can be traced in the evolution: one producing large fast-growing offspring with minimal parental care (r-strategy) and, second, producing a small number of offspring with prolonged parental care and rearing (K-strategy). The organisms with r-strategy are smaller, short-lived, live in less stable, and predictable environments have high-level of fecundity and invest very little in the offspring. On the other side, the organisms with K-strategy live longer, live in more stable and predictable environments, produce only a few progeny, and invest much more time and energy in them (see Table 1.10). Obviously, the human beings occupy the very extreme of the K-strategy. Rushton et al. (2008, p. 1173) summarized the basic platform of Differential K Theory in the following formulation: “Twenty years ago, Rushton (1985, 1990) Table 1.10  Typical differences between characteristics of r- and K-reproductive strategy Characteristic Longevity

Energy Intelligence Litters Reproduction Maturation Progeny Care of offspring Sex-drive Birth size Social life Representative species

r-organisms Short-lived Small Weak Wasting energy Low Large Early age Fast Quantity Little Strong Small Nonsocial Small rodents Salmons Insects Bacteria

K-organisms Long-lived Big Strong Efficient energy handling High Small Late age Slow Quality Great Weak Large Social Humans Elephants Whales Arctic terns

56

1  Fundamentals of Personality

conjectured that ‘one basic dimension—K—underlies much of the field of personality’ (1985, p. 445). He proposed that human social behavior is best understood as being part of a life history—a suite of traits genetically organized to meet the trials of life—survival, growth, and reproduction. Building on Wilson’s (1975) theory of r-K-reproductive strategies, which explains how animals colonize islands and reach population equilibrium, Rushton postulated that diverse personality traits covary with altruism, intelligence, attachment styles, reproductive strategies, growth, longevity, and fecundity. Animals can adopt either of two strategies: produce a large number of fast-maturing offspring but devote little parental care to ensure their survival (the r-strategy), or invest in a few slower-maturing, high-quality offspring and devote considerable parental care to rearing them and ensuring that a much larger proportion survives (the K-strategy). Rushton dubbed his proposal ‘Differential K Theory’ in order to emphasize that all humans were at the K-end of the continuum when compared against other species.” In this context, the introduction of the general factor of personality or GFP (Musek, 2007) can be conceived as a confirmation of the general personality dimension, which was anticipated by Differential K Theory and corroborated also in the research in the line of Life History Model (Figueredo et  al., 2004, 2005, 2007, 2016). Indeed, the GFP is very substantially connected with different measures of prosocial orientation and social effectiveness (Musek, 2017, pp. 127–165) and represents a part of even more general Super-g factor, which embraces almost entire domain of noncognitive traits (Musek, 2017, pp. 205–265). In this respect, the GFP can be easily compared and identified with the personality factor discovered by Figueredo et al. (2007). The evolution of personality including the GFP can be thus saliently explained in terms of Differential K Theory, which is further a part of the broader theoretical model labeled Life History Theory (McArthur & Wilson, 1967; Wilson, 1975). Life History Theory is focused on the differences in the allocation of energy and material resources in the adaptation to environment. Different species and also individual organisms vary between the orientation toward efficient mating and production of offspring (Mating Effort and Reproductive Effort) and orientation toward efficient survival of individual organism and offspring (Somatic Effort and Parental Effort). Organisms with r-reproductive strategy (see above) typically exhibit Mating and Reproductive Effort, while organisms with K-reproductive strategy including humans manifest Somatic and Parental Effort. In the excellent introduction to the evolutionary aspects of personality and GFP, Figueredo et al. (2016, p. 949) formulated the basic theoretical position as follows: “Evolutionary models of personality, such as those based in life history theory, have gone further by integrating the GFP into a broader life history superfactor termed Super-K, which encompasses behavioral manifestations of life history strategy and global measures of physical and mental health (this being the aforementioned covitality factor…). The life history model posits that the high-functioning pole of GFP relates to prosocial or altruistic orientations necessary for optimum fitness under conditions of low extrinsic mortality and morbidity where organisms exist at the

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality

57

carrying capacity of their environment and conspecific densities are high (Figueredo & Rushton, 2009).” The research in biology and psychology confirmed many hypotheses derived from Life History Theory and Differential K Theory (see an extensive review in Figueredo et al., 2016). The traits that can be connected with the K-reproductive strategy correlate, and GFP represents a crucial dimension, which explains a lot of the shared variance in these traits (Figueredo et al., 2016, pp. 952–956). There is a convincing evidence that variables of parental behavior and parenting style correlate with the well-being of children (Ellis, 2004). Figueredo et al. (2007) extracted a common factor underlying a variety of variables representing K-reproductive strategy or slow life history strategy in the large set of MIDUS I scales (Brim et  al., 2000). The common slow life history factor (labeled the expanded K-factor) saturated variables like mother relationship quality, father relationship quality, marital relationship quality, children relationship quality, family support, altruism toward kin, friends’ close relationship quality, communitarian beliefs, religiosity, financial status, health control, agency, advice seeking, foresight/anticipation, insight into past, primary control/persistence, flexible/positive reappraisal, and self-directedness/planning (Figueredo et al., 2007, pp. 397–398). The expanded K-factor strongly correlated with the GFP (r = .66). In Chap. 8, we will report the results of the analysis of a large set of 32 MIDUS II variables (Ryff et al., 2007) where a very general common dimension was found (comprehensive factor of personality or CFP), which also strongly correlates with the GFP (r = .70). If the analyses include the larger set of 63 variables, another general factor labeled Super-g was found. Super-g substantially correlated with the CFP (r  =  .49) and modestly with the GFP (r  =  .25), although the larger set includes the variables, which are not so closely related than 32 variables in first set. In the larger set, we can find several variables that are not characteristic of the slow life history strategy. 1.3.1.2 Genetics and Heredity In the review of personality structure research so far, we have already pointed out the genetic conditionality of the most important personality dimensions in several places. Twin studies and adoption studies allow us to determine the proportions of variance in personality traits and behaviors that can be attributed to the functioning of hereditary conceptions on the one hand and the influence of the environment and our own activities on the other hand. In these studies, for methodological reasons, we need to change both the conditions of heredity (e.g., by studying the differences between identical and identical twins) and the environmental conditions (e.g., by studying the differences between the studied pairs growing up in a common environment and pairs growing up in different environment). Interestingly, estimates of heredity in twin studies are significantly higher than estimates of heredity in adoption studies (it is true that in twin studies, due to the undoubted genetic identity of identical twins, this estimate may be more reliable). Research on personality traits reliably shows that heredity is an important causal

58

1  Fundamentals of Personality

factor, but that this also applies to environmental influences. Studies by Tellegen et al. (1988) find that heredity factors explain, on average, about 50% of personality traits. The influence of common genes is therefore sufficiently proven, but it has about the same impact on the environment and one’s own activities. Much attention has been paid to finding the causal basis of Cattell’s 16 primary traits, Eysenck’s three fundamental dimensions (extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism) and the Big Five. For Cattell’s primary traits, the research has shown that they depend differently on hereditary dispositions and on environmental factors (Cattell, 1965, 1982). The coefficients of heredity are higher in some traits, indicating a strong influence of heredity (especially B/intelligence/), somewhat less (F/liveliness/, A/ warmth/, I/sensitivity/, and L/vigilance/). For some, the values are very low, indicating a strong dependence on the environment (especially Q1/openness to change/ and Q4/tension). For most traits, the values are medium. In twin studies, the heritability of the Big Five was convincingly detected (see Fig. 1.24). According to these studies, the percent of the heritable variance in Big Five is between 40 and 60 (Bouchard, 2003; Jang et al., 1996, 2001; Loehlin et al., 1998; Vernon et al., 2008). More detailed, the percent of genetic variation for “neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness was estimated at 41%, 53%, 61%, 41%, and 44%, respectively” (Jang et al., 1996, p. 577). However, the heritability measures yielded lower genetic influence in some studies, where the approaches other than twin research were applied. Power and Pluess (2015) found the significant heritability only for neuroticism and openness and not extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness in a study using the genomicrelatedness-matrix residual maximum likelihood analysis (GREML) approach to

Openness

Neuroticism

Conscientiousness

Agreeableness

Extraversion 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fig. 1.24  Hereditary or heritability coefficients for the Big Five. The coefficients range between .41 and .61 according to a large number of studies (for a review, see Jang et al., 1996, p. 577)

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality

59

genetic research. Yet, the heritability of extraversion was confirmed in another study using GREML (Vinkhuyzen et al., 2012). The mechanisms of evolution imply genetic effects on the involved characteristics. Personality dimensions are thus genetically shaped and heritable including the Big Five and GFP. In a large meta-analysis on the heritability of human traits, Polderman et al. (2015) reported 49% of heritable variance across 17,804 traits from 2748 publications including 14,558,903 twin pairs. Some (but not all) physical characteristics and cognitive abilities including intelligence have very high genetic components, while the heritability of values, attitudes, and beliefs is by the rule lower although often significant and even substantial (Eaves et al., 1999; Ludeke et al., 2013; Olson et al., 2001). According to Harris (2006), about 45% of the variance in personality is genetic, and very little is accounted for shared environment and up to 55% for non-shared environment. No mystery, therefore, that the GFP, which accounts for the shared Big Five variance, is heritable too. In the study, inaugurating the concept of the GFP (Musek, 2007), the heritability of the GFP was assumed but not directly measured. Very soon, Rushton et al. (2008) performed heritability analyses for 174 pairs of MZ twins and 148 pairs of DZ twins on the GFP extracted from 29 self-rating scales. In regard to the heritability of the GFP, the authors claimed: “For the GFP itself, calculated using factor scores, the MZr = 0.55 and the DZr = 0.14, indicating evidence of genetic dominance and a heritability of 82%. Factor analyses performed on the genetic variance-­covariance matrices (the G matrix) found a higher-order genetic GFP, which accounted for 32% of the genetic variance among the Big Five lower-order factors. (Going directly from the lower-order traits to the Big One accounted for 28% of the genetic variance among those traits.)” (Rushton et al., p. 1179). Other twin studies also demonstrated considerable heritability of the GFP. Veselka et al. (2009) conducted two studies, where the GFP was extracted from different personality scales. In both studies, the individual differences in the GFP were fully accounted for by genetic and non-shared environmental factors. Loehlin and Martin (2011) examined several thousand Australian twin pairs and confirmed the heritability of the GFP. The authors also demonstrated dominant effects of GFP, which were probably due to the dominance of the scales constituting the GFP. In the analysis of the MIDUS Twin sample, Figueredo et al. (2004, 2007; see also Figueredo & Rushton, 2009) compared the genetic correlations of three complex factors being found across a large set of variables in the MIDUS survey data (Brim et al., 2000). The higher-order general factor of personality (GFP) correlated with the expanded K-Factor (r = .66) and with the covitality factor (r = .36). All three factors have a very substantial genetic component, the GFP (h2 = .59), K-Factor (h2  =  .65), and covitality factor (h2  =  .52). The genetic correlations between all three factors based on a large scale of traits suggest the integration of the several genetically regulated behavioral elements into a consistent reproductive strategy (Figueredo et al., 2011). Therefore, the authors deduced two important conclusions: “First, the genetic correlations among traits within each multivariate construct suggest that the higher-order levels of aggregation proposed as having merely heuristic utility may be neither intellectual conveniences nor statistical artifacts, but instead

60

1  Fundamentals of Personality

reflect a genuine functional integration of adaptive traits at the genetic level. Second, the genetic correlations among the higher-order constructs (the K-Factor and the GFP) suggest that a correct application of Brunswik Symmetry identifies the level of biological organization at which the aggregates are functionally linked.” (Figueredo et al., 2011, p. 398). Reanalyzing the data from MIDUS Twin sample, Figueredo and Rushton (2009) found further evidence for the nonadditive effects in the genetic covariance between the GFP, general health factor, and life history factor. The authors summarized the evidence for shared genetic dominance among three factors as follows “We suggest these genetic correlations support the view that a slow (K-selected) life history strategy, good health and the GFP coevolved and are mutually coadapted through directional selection” (Figueredo & Rushton, 2009, p. 555). 1.3.1.3 Neuroscientific Factors Personality traits have been often examined by means of neuroscientific approaches including the research of neurological, neurophysiological, and neurochemical effects. For example, all Big Five dimensions have been extensively investigated in connection to the cortical and subcortical brain functioning including the functions of basic neural structures and their associations (Rodrigo et al., 2015). The connections of personality traits to the neurotransmitter systems with the respective neurophysiological and neurochemical aspects have been also investigated in many studies (Depue & Collins, 1999). However, the neuroscientific aspects of personality are very complex and far from being thoroughly investigated. In regard to the GFP, we should therefore focus on efficient strategy in order to identify possible neuroscientific correlates. Musek (2007) already speculated that the correlations among the Big Five, which underly the GFP, might be connected to the neural mechanisms that influence the activity of two great neurophysiological systems, the serotonergic and dopaminergic systems, respectively. Both systems are important in relation to inhibitory control, especially the combination of increased dopaminergic and suppressed serotonergic neural activation. According to the author (Musek, 2007, p. 1228), the GFP could be linked to the “biological mechanism combining low levels of the functioning of the central serotonergic system (Spoont, 1992; Tork, 1990) and higher levels of the functioning of ascending rostral dopaminergic system (Ashby et al., 1999; Davidson, 1995; Depue & Collins, 1999; Panksepp, 1999; Pauls et al., 2005). This combination has been implicated in the higher values of stability and plasticity factors (DeYoung et al., 2001) that, according to the present results, constitute the Big One. Given the heritability of the Big Five, it is possible that speculated covariation of dopaminergic and serotonergic system is genetically mediated.” Yet, which neural mechanism could be responsible for raising the emotional stability (lowering neuroticism), conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness? Exactly this question was posed by Rushton et al. (2008, p. 1181): “What neurological substrates might evolution lay down to increase the GFP and improve

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality

61

interpersonal efficiency? One straightforward possibility is adding neural tracts in the frontal cortex, which is responsible for self-control and forward planning. A large body of evidence now supports the “social brain-social complexity” hypothesis. For example, across species of primates, there is a strong positive correlation between the size of the neocortex (relative to body size) and the larger the group size, which is a function of how many individuals in a group can be recognized and how much information can be processed. It has been well known since the famous case of Phineas T. Gage that damage to the frontal cortex, reduces conscientiousness and disinhibits aggressive, impulsive, and antisocial behavior…, and also lowers fluid intelligence and judgment…” Among the neural structures, which are involved in personality characteristics (including Big Five and GFP), some can be mentioned with certainty: • Prefrontal cortex with function of inhibitory control (Aron et al., 2004; Chikazoe et al., 2007; Eisenberger et al., 2005; Forbes et al., 2014; Rodrigo et al., 2015; Sosic-Vasic et al., 2012) • Amygdala and other limbic and paralimbic brain regions balancing the negative and positive effects (Jin et al., 2015; Lindquist et al., 2016) • Some other cortical regions and structures (Swick et al., 2011). The activity of prefrontal cortex and inhibitory control in particular is connected to the frontal alpha asymmetry in EEG. Thus, we may emphasize the relevance of the EEG studies that demonstrated asymmetrical activation of alpha patterns in connection to Big Five dimensions and GFP (Musek, 2016; Uibo et al., 2012).

1.3.2 Sociocultural Factors Both dispositional and psychodynamic theories of personality focus primarily on internal, intrapersonal sources of personality: They see the main causal factors of personality organization within the person himself. Behavioral psychology and social psychology, on the other hand, divert attention from internal factors to external ones, to stimuli, to situations, and to the social environment. Here, therefore, the extrapersonal aspect of personality predominates. Behavioral researchers such as Dollard and Miller (1950), and Skinner (1938, 1953, 1957, 1961, 1971, 1974, 1978) engage in an objective approach to personality. According to behaviorism, internal psychic processes are a subjective and private matter and therefore cannot be the subject of scientific psychology. The subject of science can only be objectively approachable phenomena. For behaviorists, the real subject of psychology is only behavior, that is, the system of stimulus-response relationships. The stimulusresponse coupling is also the basis for behavioral theories of personality in general or behavioristic theories in more specific terms. The most important part of personality, according to these theories, is learned, acquired on the basis of new experiences (these, however, are nothing more than new connections between stimuli and responses). For socially oriented authors, personality is the resultant of social

62

1  Fundamentals of Personality

learning, socialization, and inculturation processes. Both the behavioral and social perspectives of the personality were later combined with an increasingly dominant cognitive perspective. The behavioral-­social-­cognitive paradigm is therefore one of the dominant orientation in modern psychology: It is important also in the theories and models of personality. Later, for example, we will discuss the personality models based on this paradigm, notably in the Social Learning Theory of Personality (SLT; see later) and in the debate over the role of person, situation, and their interaction in our mind and behavior (see the Sect. 1.4). 1.3.2.1 Environmental Factors The influences of the environment on the personality dimensions are certainly important. Somewhat surprising, the recent research has shown that the impact of the common or shared environment on personality development is weak. This is quite opposed to the opinion that a common environment (similar to common genes) can cause the same effects on individuals. There is a barely perceptible difference in correlations within pairs between identical twins growing together and those raised separately (Bouchard et al., 1990; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Tellegen et al., 1988). This means that “the common environment means little in determining common personality traits,” namely about no more than about 5% (Tellegen et al., 1988). A shared environment (common experiences of siblings during growing up) does not “make” individuals more similar and contributes little to personality similarity. Plomin and Daniels (1987) therefore argue that “the psychologically appropriate influence of the environment makes children in the family different and not similar” (p. 1) and that it makes more sense in research to take as “the socialization unit of an individual child rather than a family” (p. 15). Researchers agree that the impacts of a non-shared environment (separate experiences of siblings during growing up) are therefore significantly more important than the impacts of a shared environment (Betsworth et  al., 1994; Bouchard, 1994; Bouchard et  al., 1990; Bouchard & McGue, 1990; Loehlin & Nichols, 1976; Loehlin et al., 1985, 1987; Pedersen et al., 1988; Plomin & Daniels, 1987; Rowe & Plomin, 1981; Scarr, 1992). This does not mean, however, that the impact on the overall environment is quite negligible (Beer et al., 1998) (Fig. 1.25). The estimation is that the non-shared environment affects personality dimensions five to eight times more strongly than the shared one (Rowe, 1994). However, the contribution of non-shared environment in explaining personality variability interacts with age. The influence of the shared environment in early childhood is approximately equal to the influence of the non-shared environment, but does not increase later, while the influence of the non-shared environment increases and is significantly stronger in adolescents and adults than in early childhood. Thus, we can reasonably explain why are children in the same family so different. The parents, yet also teachers and peers may easily create different environments for different children. In that way, they may cause the differences much more than similarities between children personalities. Although the parental education may be responsible

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality Genetic Influence

63 Non-shared Environment

Shared Environment

6%

44%

50%

Fig. 1.25  Impact of genetic and environmental factors on development of personality differences. According to the research based on twin studies, the influence of shared environment is much weaker than the influence of non-shared environment

for personality differences, the common impact of shared parental attitudes may produce stronger effects of shared environment on the development of beliefs, attitudes, and values. Probably then, the influence of non-shared environment is greater for personality and the influence of shared environment is greater for beliefs, attitudes, and values. 1.3.2.2 Culture Given the historical development of scientific research in psychology, intelligence should be the first domain on the list. The universality of the basic dimensions of intelligence was self-evident or at least highly probable (Burt, 1941; Carroll, 1993; Cattell, 1987; Horn, 1988, 1994; Jäger, 1967; Jensen, 1998; Spearman, 1904, 1927; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002; Vernon, 1971, 1989). Next on the list is definitely the personality domain, which we will discuss a bit later. In other areas, intercultural stability of basic dimensions is almost unanimous, including areas of affect or emotion (Diener et al., 1995; Larsen & Diener, 1992; Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1993), motivation (Cattell, 1957; Cattell et al., 1963; Elliot & Thrash, 2002), selfesteem (Marsh, 1990; Marsh & Shavelson, 1985; Marsh et al., 1988), well-being (Diener, 1984, 2000; Musek, 2008; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), and values (Musek, 1993, 1998, 2000; Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). What

64

1  Fundamentals of Personality

about the basic dimensions of personality? As already mentioned, personality is traditionally seen as a psychological field at a very high level of cultural invariance, consistency, and stability. Yet is it really so? In the personality domain, several theoretical models of basic personality dimensions have been proposed. According to various theoretical models, the number of basic dimensions ranged from sixteen (Cattell, 1946, 1950, 1957, 1965, 1987) to ten (Guilford, 1959), five (five-factor model: Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987, 1998), three (Eysenck, 1952, 1970, 1986, 1991), or, more recently, two (DeYoung et al., 2001; Digman, 1997), and even one (Musek, 2007, 2017). In past decades, the five-factor model (FFM) has become the most popular and dominant dimensional theory of personality. It derives from a lexical approach to personality and encompasses five very broad dimensions of personality, the Big Five or B5: extraversion, kindness, conscience, neuroticism, and openness. Many authors agree that the basic personality dimensions in cultures are quite stable, probably due to the exceptional degree of their heredity; the list includes measurements from the Cattell (1950, 1957, 1965, 1987), Eysenck (1947, 1952, 1970, 1991), and FFM models (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hampson, 1988; Hampson et al., 1986; Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1998). There is a wide support for the universality of the Big Five, including studies testing the five-factor model on more than 50 national samples from all continents (McCrae, 2002; McCrae et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2007). The universality of the Big Five is often associated with evolutionary and/or genetic universality that transcends cultural variation (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997; Yamagata et al., 2006). In addition, some research results have shown the existence of a large five in subhuman species such as chimpanzees (King & Figueredo, 1997) or even dogs (Gosling et al., 2003). However, Gurwen et al. (2013) questioned the validity of FFM for small rural societies outside the so-called WEIRD environments (WEIRD for Western, educated, industrialized, wealthy, democratic; Henrich et  al., 2010). With a slightly modified version of the BFI questionnaire, they failed to replicate the structure of the Big Five in the Amazon Tsimane Bolivian people sample. Nevertheless, they found fairly large correlations between the BFI Big Five scales, indicating strong GFP in the same population. The first factor, based on these correlations, explains the 20.8% difference in the data, which is much more than the second factor, which represents 5.2% of the variance. The situation is therefore somewhat paradoxical: The Big Five scale works well among Tsimane people, although correlations between BFI items do not show a specific Big Five structure. In any case, any final conclusions on the validity of the Big Five in these environments require more research on FMF in culturally separated small rural or even hunting-gathering societies. A specific study was planned to verify the stability and consistency of GFP and other higher-order personality factors in data from different national and cultural sources. The five-factor structure has been tested and validated very widely worldwide (for a thorough review, see McCrae & Terraciano, 2008; McCrae et al., 2005; Saucier & Goldberg, 2003; Schmitt et  al., 2007). Some studies covered a very

1.3 Basic Factors of Personality

65

respectable number of national samples, such as the study by Schmitt et al. (2007) on 56 countries. In most of this study, the five-factor structure was confirmed and significant correlations between the Big Five were also found. Thus, at least hypothetically, we can expect significant transcultural stability of GFP based on stable correlations between the Big Five that have been replicated worldwide. Research to date has reported the existence of a fairly strong GDP for samples from Europe (Musek, 2007), the USA, and Asia (Rushton et al., 2008). This study will focus on available data with a particular interest in comparable results on a very large multinational or multicultural scale. An international study that clearly meets this requirement is the study of Schmitt et  al. (2007), which was performed on 56 national samples using BFI (John, 1990; John et al., 1991; John & Srivastava, 1999) as a Big Five measure. In addition, some other national samples from Europe, North America, and Asia were included in the study. 1.3.2.3 Social Learning and Social Cognition The last generations of psychologists were educated at a time when a strong behavioral orientation began to intertwine more and more with cognitive orientation, as well as with the findings of social and personality psychology. For example, even behaviorally oriented researchers began to reject animal research and focused almost exclusively on researching human behavior. Some believe that the link between behavioral, social, and cognitive psychology is one of the most important contemporary psychological orientations (previously mentioned behavioral-social-­ cognitive paradigm) (Mischel, 1973, 1976). Social Learning Theory (SLT), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), and Interaction Theory of Personality are most prominent representatives of this paradigm. The paradigm is based on two starting points: (1) The design, maintenance, and change of behavior are influenced by cognitive and learning processes, in particular social learning. (2) Behavior is the product of the interaction between a person and his characteristics (emotions, cognitions, moves) and the situation. Cognitively oriented authors such as Rotter, Bandura, and Mischel point out the importance of social learning and individual cognitions (perceptions, performances, stereotypes, ideas). In personal functioning, interactions between the situations in which the individual finds himself and his cognitive functioning are especially important. How we react depends on how we see the situations we are in. We often arrange situations in the way that suits our inner impulses and views. What is the difference between an aggressive and a nonaggressive personality? According to these theories, the difference is mainly that the first interaction between situations and cognitions led to her learning to create or at least see such life situations that encourage aggression. In some other person, by contrast, an interaction that inhibits aggression has taken hold. Suppose the first person is physically stronger: Her experience of aggressive behavior was more favorable than that of other person. Therefore, he or she also became selectively alert to signs that encourage aggression and learned how he or she can trigger them on her own. What’s more, he or she

66

GOALS ACHIEVEMENTS

1  Fundamentals of Personality

G>A

increased efforts

G=A

no change in behavior

G>A

abandonment of efforts

Fig. 1.26  Self-regulatory behavior. Our behavior regulates the discrepancy between goals and achievements. If we do not achieve the goals, our motivation and our efforts increase; if we achieve them, the behavior does not change significantly, but if we exceed them, then our motivation and efforts weaken. Self-regulation affects self-efficacy, the level of self-perceived competence in a field or situation. See also text

began to see them even where others did not notice them. The other person also learned only that her attention, due to negative experiences with aggressive behavior, is focused on signs that prevent aggression. In both cases, the interaction between personal characteristics (experiences of aggression) and life situations led to different behaviors, to a different lifestyle, and to a different personality.

1.3.3 Self-Activity Man acts as a being who, with all his dispositions and cognitive abilities, regulates his attitude toward the environment, adapts to it on the one hand and actively transforms it on the other hand in accordance with his self-efficacy, i.e., notions of how competent and effective he or she is in which field. In doing so, it acts self-regulating, guided by the coherence between goals and achievements. Self-regulation is “an attempt to reduce the discrepancy between achievements and goals and consequently set new and higher goals” (Bandura, 1988) and is the foundation of motivated behavior. By setting goals, we produce a discrepancy between what is planned and what has been achieved, and by achieving goals, we reduce this discrepancy (see Fig.  1.26). Feedback on the one hand and moral standards on the other are important, as this enables the evaluation of what has been achieved, on the basis of which further action follows.

1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior According to most definitions, psychology can be defined as the science of mind and behavior. Like any science, psychology wants to explain its subject by studying its causal factors. So what causes mental events (experiences) and behavior? All

1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior

67

causal factors of experience and behavior can be classified into only three major categories, factors of a person, factors of a situation, and factors of interaction between a person and a situation. Everything that affects an individual’s mentality and behavior can therefore originate either from the individual’s person, or from the situation in which he finds himself, or from the interactive functioning of the person and the situation. In a simple formula we can resume the constitutive factors of mind and behavior:

MIND & BEHAVIOR  f  PERSON,SITUATION,PERSON  SITUATION 



Thus, our mental experience and behavior, the subjects of psychology, are functions of person, situation, and interaction between person and situation. Consider a simple example. Our well-being undoubtedly depends on a wide variety of stressors, e.g., situations and events that negatively affect us. The fewer of them, the better we will feel, and the more of them, the worse we will feel. Stressors can be viewed as typical representatives of situational behavioral factors. However, there are also personality factors that affect our mental well-being. If we are emotionally sensitive and labile, our well-being will be worse than if we are emotionally stable and resistant to stress. What about the interaction between stressors and emotional stability? Is it possible that the same amount of stressors will have a smaller impact on the well-being of emotionally stable people than on the well-being of emotionally labile people? Also, with weak stressful events, the difference in well-being between emotionally labile and emotionally stable people will be only small, and with strong stressors, it will be significantly larger? In this case, we are dealing with interactive influence of personal and situational factors on our well-being. The task of psychology is to investigate and prove the significant influences of a person’s factors, situation, and interaction on behavior. Certainly, the personality factors of our behavior are at the forefront of psychological research. Personality and interpersonal differences have fascinated since ancient times and are still one of the most important areas of psychological research today. They are dealt with by personality psychology and differential psychology, two eminent and closely connected psychological disciplines.

1.4.1 Personalism According to Allport (1961, 1966), we need to look for the causes of our behavior both in the environment and in personality dispositions. Environmental influences are variable, and therefore, the environment, situations, and stimuli are the causal factors of our changing behavior, but an important from the point of view of psychology personality even the most important part of our behavior is consistent. Because the environment and stimuli are variable, they cannot be the cause of consistent behavior. However, causal factor of consistent behavior should be our

68

1  Fundamentals of Personality

personality dispositions, themselves being consistent. Thus, Allport argued that behaviorism has merit in explaining inconsistent behavior, while personality psychology must find consistently functioning behavioral factors, and these are personality traits and abilities in the first place. With this, Allport formulated the theoretical position of personalism. It is about the concept that the fundamental source of our consistent behavior is our personality. Our traits, traits, and our abilities are a generator of behavior that is relatively enduring and consistent.

1.4.2 Consistency Paradox In commonsense thinking, we take for granted that personality characteristics are consistent. If we say that someone is lively, then we usually do not mean that he is alive only now and here, but that in many situations he is more lively than someone who does not seem lively to us. Yet, day-to-day experience and research results demonstrate that we often overestimate the actual consistency. Maybe the same use of personality terms supports the belief in behavioral consistency. If someone says, for example, “he is sociable,” we tend to believe that he is sociable most of the time or even always. Yet, the facts may speak otherwise. Mischel (1984) used the term consistency paradox to refer to a conflict between a common belief in the consistency of personality traits and the actual state of affairs that does not confirm such a high consistency. According to Mischel, therefore, as far as the consistency of properties is concerned, the truth is at least somewhat “counterintuitive”; it does not correspond to the general opinion and beliefs. Mischel believes that situations are a particularly important predictor of our behavior, which is also reflected in the surprising inconsistency of behavior. The consistency of our behavior therefore itself depends on the situations. Thus, it is not said that someone we know at home as a lively person will be just as lively in other situations. For example, when parents talk to teachers about their children, they often discover that they know the same child from different perspectives. They hear from the teacher, “How calm your boy is, I don’t even know he’s in class,” and they respond in surprise, “Yeah, you should just see him at home, he’s completely different there, the whole house and the neighborhood are full of him.” Thus, in fact, apparently inconsistent behavior is situationally dependent: In one type of situation, someone will be lively and eloquent, and in another type of situation, the same person will be reserved and quiet.

1.4.3 Situationism If each of us has consistent personality dispositions, then we should expect everyone who knows us to agree with each other in the assessments of what we are and at least largely agree with our own self-assessment. Yet, it surprises us how such estimates can actually be very different. The biography of the famous singer and

1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior

69

actor Frank Sinatra was written at about the same time by two authors, his daughter Nancy Sinatra (1985) and journalist Kelley (1986). They both knew Sinatra well, of course, but their descriptions of him are diametrically opposed: Nancy Sinatra describes him as a sensitive, caring, and prudent person and Kelley as an emotional and aggressive person, as if it is not the same person. How can such differences occur? A fairly likely possibility is that Nancy knew her father primarily from situations where his fatherly role was expressed, and the journalist arguing with Frank knew him from quarrels and appearances in court and with attorneys. Personality is complex, and it can happen that someone knows one person mainly from one point of view, while someone other knows the same person from another point of view. So let us ask ourselves two things: First, why are our assessments of others so often expressed in terms of personality traits, and second, why are these assessments so often all too different. Mischel (1968) apparently questioned himself that way when he drew attention to the abovementioned consistency paradox. Also, he pointed out the fact that our assessments often do not confirm this belief in consistency. Not only lay people, but also experts believe that there are dispositions on which the trans-situational consistency of our behavior is based. However, psychological research does not show so. Measurements of our traits correlate high only with other measurements of these same traits, yet, they correlate low with the actual behavior that these traits are supposed to predict. Correlations rarely exceed a value of 0.30, which is therefore sometimes referred to as a “personality coefficient” or a “barrier of 0.30.” This means that traits have low predictive power for actual behavior: It is just under 10% (more precisely 0.09, which is the square value of the coefficient 0.30). If personality dispositions are an important factor in our consistent behavior, we would expect significantly more. Mischel (1968) encouraged situationism anew and strongly, arguing that situations (sets of stimuli) are better predictors of behavior than traits and other dispositions. Mischel believes this also applies to consistent behavior. Namely, Allport’s (1961) opinion that situations are only changeable and that they can only be the source of changing behavior is not true. On the contrary, in life we very often find ourselves in similar and even identical situations; therefore, situations can also be consistent and can therefore also be the source of consistent behavior. Situationism does not imply a unified theoretical doctrine, as Kenrick and Funder nicely demonstrated (1988, 1991; see also Kenrick & Dantchik, 1983; Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980). We know it in several variants, from the hardest to the softest. According to Kenrick and Funder (1991), the following levels of situationism could be listed, in order from the hardest to the softest position: • Personality exists only in the eyes (heads) of assessors, because there is no consensus between assessors of personality and personality traits. • Consensus in personality assessments does exist; yet, it is only a consequence of the basic range of traits that we all have (in terms of very general traits we can very well agree—all people move, for example). Thus, consent is not due to personality traits in proper sense. In fact, we assess personality traits indiscriminately. We can agree on personality labeling, but in fact we cannot distinguish

70

•

• •

•

1  Fundamentals of Personality

between the people we evaluate. If there were discriminatory personality traits, the evaluations should also be discriminatory. Consensus in assessments does exist, and assessments can also be discriminatory, but this is due to the generalized use of invalid stereotypes (e.g., facial scarring  =  aggression) rather than actual characteristics. People can differentiate rated individuals, but on the basis of inappropriate categorizations rather than on the basis of actual differences. Assessors match and discriminate not only because of invalid stereotypes, but also because of talking (“voice,” fame, gossip) about people and their characteristics, also not because of accurate observation of their actual characteristics. Assessors may go beyond basic range of traits, stereotypes, and fame in their assessments, yet they see people only to a limited extent and mistakenly attribute the observed behavior to traits instead of situations (as we saw previously in the case of Frank Sinatra). People base their assessments on observing behavior, but consistency in behavior is not the result of traits. Personality traits do exist and can be assessed, yet behavior is less influenced by situational factors. Strong consistencies do exist, but they are little important and irrelevant in comparison to situational ones.

Thus, finally, situationism can be reduced to its softest variant. Ratings of traits match, they are discriminatory, and they may even depend on internal conditions rather than situations. Yet, the impact of traits on behavior and its consistency is negligible when compared to the impact of situations and situational consistency. It is therefore about accepting Mischel’s challenge and his analysis of the predictive value of traits (correlations with external, behavioral criteria): Measures of traits correlate well only with other measures of these traits, yet they do not correlate substantially with actual behavior and do not predict it well. A value of 0.30 is the upper limit of the personality coefficient, and this limit is low. It is very clear that hard variants of situationism do not withstand criticism. Psychological research demonstrated that we can talk about consistent personality traits. Also, the observed behavior cannot be attributed only to the influence of basic traits, stereotypes, fame, and situational factors. Very soon after the emergence of situationism, personalism strikes back as we will see in the next subsection. However, situationism pointed out that the influence of personality traits on behavior must be assessed very precisely and critically and that situational consistency must also be taken into account in explaining consistent behavior. Situational influences are an important source of both variance and consistency in behavior. Situationism also drew attention to possible other factors influencing our personality assessments: stereotypes, assessment errors, implicit and other cognitive schemes, the basic scope or range of rated traits or behavior, the functioning of fame, and so on. Last but not least, situationism also strongly encouraged the improvement of research approaches.

1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior

71

1.4.4 Personalism Strikes Back The “hard” thesis of situationism that personality exists only in the eyes or heads of evaluators is interesting yet false. The assessment of personality traits is indeed influenced by a number of assessment errors, e.g., attribution error (Epstein, 1979; Jones & Harris, 1967; Ross, 1967, 1977), bias in estimates (Nisbett & Ross, 1980), implicit theories (Schneider, 1973), and schemes and scripts (Schank & Abelson, 1977). The assessment of personality traits is indeed often too unanimous (Dornbusch et al., 1965), so that assessments sometimes seem to depend more on who is judging than on who is being judged. However, neither the first nor the second statement can be generalized. Personality assessment can be fairly unanimous. Estimates are more relevant the more we know about the assessed people (Funder & Colvin, 1988; Norman & Goldberg, 1966). Self-assessments correlate significantly with the assessments of people we know well, especially when many items and assessors are considered (Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Cheek, 1982). All these research results cannot be explained by the mere operation of cognitive schemes. Even if our cognitive schemes influence personality assessments, these assessments also depend on the actual characteristics of the individual, and, in methodologically good research, they depend primarily on them. Personality traits are by no means just semantic artifacts that would only work in our heads, but are an actual reflection of our behavior. It is true that assessments of personality traits may correlate due to the implicit personality theory (Norman, 1961, 1963) and other semantic similarities (theory of systematic distortion and theory of semantic bias; see D’Andrade, 1974; Romer & Revelle, 1984; Shweder, 1975). Yet, assessments of traits also correlate with completely objective and independent measures of behavior (Wright, 1983, cit. after Musek, 1988; Mischel, 1984; Romer & Revelle, 1984). Questionnaire ratings are significantly more consistent with the ratings of spouses (McCrae, 1982). Also, in assessing the characteristics of identical twins, the agreement between assessors is much greater than in the assessment of unrelated persons (Rowe, 1982), although in both cases the internal cognitive schemes remain the same. Our ratings match more when we rate persons who we know well. This can be explained only because we actually know their personality traits better (Bem & Funder, 1978; Funder et al., 1983; Funder & Colvin, 1988; Gormly & Edelberg, 1974; Mischel, 1984; Monson & Snyder, 1977; Monson et al., 1980). However, we should not conclude that stereotypes can never be truly related to actual personality characteristics. Empirical research demonstrated that attractive people are indeed more friendly (Goldman & Lewis, 1977). Perhaps this is due to the effects of expectation: Because we treat attractive people more kindly, they actually develop kind behavior (Snyder et al., 1977). Perhaps, a friendly appearance is associated with behavioral and physical expressions that enhance the impression of attractiveness. It is also interesting to hypothesize that the assessors’ matching in personality ratings is due to conversations about the target people and not to their actual

72

1  Fundamentals of Personality

characteristics. The emergence of a socially mirrored personality image cannot be denied (“glass-looking self” Cooley, 1902). It happens that our personality ratings are under influence of reputation of rated persons and conversation about them (Funder, 1980; Funder & Colvin, 1988; McClelland, 1972). Yet, fame is far from being a key or even exclusive factor in assessment matching. Matching is greater in traits that are more noticeable than in traits that are less noticeable, e.g., in eloquence more than in emotionality (Amelang & Borkenau, 1986; Cheek, 1982; Funder & Colvin, 1988; Funder & Dobroth, 1987; Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980; McCrae, 1982). This, of course, would be not possible as a consequence of fame only. Further, trait assessments depend more on observed behavior than on verbal descriptions (Annabile & Kabat, 1982; Bryan & Walbek, 1970). Thus, if someone claims to be extraverted but behaves like an introverted person, we are more likely to rate him or her as an introvert. Matching also occurs between people who have not been able to communicate and create a fame or reputation. For example, ratings match well when, at summer camp, someone is judged by parents on one side and unfamiliar peers on other side (Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980). If the ratings of traits were mere artifacts of voice, fame, and reputation, then there could be no differences in matching in relation to observability of traits, and ratings could not be related to more behavior, which is more noticeable. The limited range or scope of observed behavior also cannot explain our personality ratings. The assessors often match in personality judgments even when they know people in different circumstances and situations (Bem & Allen, 1974; Cheek, 1982; Funder, 1980; Funder & Dobroth, 1987; Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980). Matching also occurs between people who know the target people in very different circumstances, e.g., between parents and peers, as already mentioned (Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980). Matching occurs even with behavior in completely new and unknown circumstances, e.g., between behavior at home and behavior in entirely new circumstances a few years later (Bem & Funder, 1978; Mischel, 1984). Situationism shook the belief in the importance of personality dispositions and further encouraged new research that greatly rehabilitated and renewed the personalist position. Research has shown that situations are not significantly better predictors of behavior than personality traits. Situational coefficients are also not significantly higher than personality coefficients (Funder & Ozer, 1983). Above all, however, new research has highlighted a number of methodological shortcomings in previous studies that examined the relationship between questionnaire-measured personality dispositions and actual behavior. The problem, then, is not in the weak predictive validity of personality traits, but in the inadequate research methodology. With better operationalization of traits, correlations can considerably increase, according to authors citing the results of studies that Mischel overlooked (Block, 1977; Hogan et al., 1977). Particularly problematic are studies in which they measured more states than traits. Even more accurate is methodological critique focused on behavior measures. Criteria of behavior were very often insufficiently operationalized: Usually, personality traits were correlated with a single external criterion, which is a very serious methodological flaw. Thus, the error is on the side of measuring external behavioral criteria, not on the side of measuring traits, which are

1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior

73

usually measured with a large number of items. Imagine, for example, that intelligence was measured by a single item! The use of a larger number of criteria often yielded significantly higher correlation and higher prediction values (Aries et al., 1983; Block et al., 1979). The aggregation of either items or evaluators or both has a similar incremental effect. If we average estimates from multiple assessment situations and with multiple assessors, correlations and predictions sometimes increase even drastically (Cheek, 1982; Epstein, 1979, 1983; Epstein & O’Brien, 1985; Rushton, 1979). Aggregation increases the reliability of estimates (Epstein, 1980) or at least their temporal stability (Mischel & Peake, 1982). The predictive value of dispositional categories can also be increased by introducing special techniques for assessing possible behaviors (e.g., the template matching technique, Bem & Funder, 1978). Thus, as the author says, we can be able to predict “more of the people more of the time” (see also Bem & Allen, 1974).

1.4.5 Interactionism Situationism is also the starting point of the third paradigm in views of the origins of our behavior. In addition to the independent influences of a person and a situation, we must not forget the interaction effects, where the influence of persons is tied to the influence of the situation and, vice versa, the influence of the situation depends on influence of persons. The described interaction is, according to researchers, often even the most important source of behavior (Endler, 1973; Endler & Magnusson, 1976a, b; Funder et al., 1984; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Mischel & Peake, 1983; see also Fig. 1.27). The interaction between a person and a situation is clearly seen in our cognitive functioning: people choose, create, and arrange situations according to their cognitions and traits (Bowers, 1973). The experimental paradigm in exploring all three sources of behavior ideally fits the model of analysis of variance, with the sources of variance being person, situation, and interaction between person and situation. Numerous studies have been conducted following this model. As a research paragon, we can mention a study in which the authors (Monson et  al., 1982; see Fig.  1.28) found that the choice of behavior depends on behavioral disposition (extraversion) and situation (reward for extroverted behavior) and the interaction between the two. The participants first filled the personality questionnaire, so that the experimenters received appropriate data on their dispositional trait: introversion or extroversion. The experimental conditions were the arranged by offering the participants a choice of extroverted or introverted activity in different situations. Situations were regulated so that individuals received greater or lesser stimulation for introverted activities (e.g., large or small earnings for a written report) and for extrovert activities (e.g., large or small earnings for performing in front of listeners). Figure 1.28 shows how extraverted and introverted participants chose extroverted behavior in different situations. The picture clearly shows that when situational pressure was greatest, they chose under the influence of the situation, regardless of trait extraversion. When stimulation for

74

1  Fundamentals of Personality Situations

Traits or dispositions

Interaction

Else and measurement error

10% 12%

57%

21%

Fig. 1.27  Variance in behavior as explained by situations, traits (dispositions), and interaction between both. After excluding random variations and other sources of error, the strongest influence is interaction, followed by traits and situations

Extraverts

Introverts

9.00

6.75

4.50

2.25

0.00

E++

E+

=

I+

I++

Fig. 1.28  Influence of situation, person, and interaction on behavior. The explanation is in the text

1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior

75

extroverted choices was greatest (E++), both extroverts and introverts chose primarily extroverted activities. Conversely, when the greatest stimulation was for introverted activities (I++), both groups chose a minimum number of extroverted activities, but when there was no stimulation (=), introverts and extroverts chose according to their personality trait: Introverts chose significantly fewer, extroverts significantly more extraverted traits. When stimulation was moderate (E+, I+), both the impact of the situation and the impact of personality were actually observed. The results thus convincingly show that behavior was influenced by both situations and traits and that the interaction between situations and traits was also effective: In one type of situation, the influence of personality was practically absent, but in another type of situation, it was very significant. Thus, it was evident that behavior is influenced by personality (personality traits), situation, and the interaction between personality and situation. The impact of interaction between the person and the situation is firmly established. Obviously, our dispositions come to the expression in certain situations more than in others. Further, in some respects, we behave more consistently than in others as we will discuss also later (Bem & Allen, 1974; Cloninger, 1996; Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1989). Even personality theories and models can be meaningfully classified according to how they are directed toward the fundamental three sources of behavior (see Musek, 1988, 1993, 1999). Interactionism is an important model in contemporary psychology representing a new theoretical approach to personality (Magnusson, 1981; Magnusson & Torestad, 1993). Psychology must explain both consistent and discriminative behavior. Personality traits can contribute to the understanding of the former and the latter, especially when it comes to differences in behavior between individuals, but in both cases, situations and interactions between situations and dispositions are also important. In fact, in our cognition, we have formed many schemes and prototypes of personality traits, which we then often automatically use in explaining interpersonal differences, personality structure, and also social behavior (Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Cantor et al., 1982). Such categorization is often schematic and stereotyped, and it does not take into account situational and interactional contexts and is therefore often incorrect. It works well in mass assessment and prediction of behavior; yet, in individual cases, it can be risky and mistaken. Therefore, caution is not superfluous: Some theories may reflect the authors’ cognitive constructs more than the actual categories of our behavior.

1.4.6 Attribution Error We like to attribute consistent characteristics to other people, often more than they are actually consistent. Our expectations and predictions about them were much easier if their think or behave consistently. If people are personally consistent, then it is easier to find ourselves in relationships with them; we know better what to expect from them and what not. Consistency means regularity, less variability, and

76

1  Fundamentals of Personality

thus more options for control and prediction. Interestingly, this does not apply to cases where we assess and interpret our own behavior. For example, if we see a child beating another child, we will tend to conclude that he is violent. Yet, if you were asking him why he is beating another child, he will certainly not say that because he is violent. He will explain his behavior with other, usually situational reasons: He behaves this way because the second one challenged him, because the second one hit him, and because the other one has stolen something from him, or similar. In short, we are dealing with a characteristic bias in attributions that Ross (1977; Ross & Nisbett, 1991) characterizes as a fundamental attribution error. As observers, we use to interpret the behavior of other persons with dispositional attributions (e.g., traits), yet as actors or subjects we tend to interpret own behavior with situational attributions. Again, it could be said that from the observer’s point of view, it is easier to interpret the behavior of other persons on the basis of dispositions that are consistent than on the basis of situational influences, which can be highly variable. Dispositional attributions make the behavior of other people more regular and therefore more predictable. However, fundamental attribution error may occur due to another reason too. Attribution error could result from different psychological position or perspective of the observer and the actor. The observer usually does not possess all the situational information that the actor has and can therefore use it to explain his behavior in terms of situation. Attribution error is a common occurrence. We are all victims of it from time to time. Imagine that you attend a lecture and the lecturer impresses you with his eloquence and lively communication. When you mention his sociability and extraversion later in the conversation, he looks at you in surprise: “Extroverted—me? Well, I’m not saying in the lecture hall or among good friends. Otherwise, I like to keep to myself and I am more reserved and scared in society.” Attribution of consistency is an important matter, because, as we know, attributions strongly influence our expectations, attitudes, and beliefs, and this in turn affects our behavior. Think, for example, on attributing exam failure. If we attribute it to our incompetence, our further behavior will be completely different than if we attribute it to a lack of learning and effort. We will be motivated in a completely different way, and we will in a completely different way judge the probability that this will happen to us in the future. Attribution styles are important from an early age. You can imagine what the difference will be if a child was told that he is making mistakes because he has low abilities or that he is making them because he has not tried hard enough. In the first case, the child will soon stop striving for better achievements, and in the second case, he will do the exact opposite.

1.4.7 Traitedness, Meta-Traits, and Schematicity We often feel that a trait is our consistent characteristic or not. Traits experienced as consistent seem to us more important than those that are not consistent. Research has confirmed that traits that seem more consistent to us are more likely to predict actual

1.4 Personality as Source of Mind and Behavior

77

behavior. Bem and Allen (1974) asked participants to rate how consistently they behave in terms of two traits, kindness and conscientiousness. They found that actual friendly and conscientious behavior could be predicted from the questionnaires only in those individuals who rated the traits as consistent, yet not in those who did not. The relevance of traits in this sense has been characterized by researchers as traitrelevance or traitedness (Cloninger, 1996, p. 80). Traits that we judge to be consistent are considered to have a greater impact on our behavior than other, less consistent traits (Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1989). If we have conscientiousness as our consistent trait, we will attribute to it more influence on our behavior. According to Tellegen (1988) and Paunonen (1988), it is very likely that such traits are precisely those that we associate more closely with our self-concept and self-­esteem. Traitedness can also be inferred from the consistency of responses to personality questionnaires (Reise & Waller, 1993). A low degree of variability between responses to questionnaires that measure a trait indicates higher traitedness. Lower degree of traitedness is indicated when the ratings of items measuring a trait are very variable, e.g., when high ratings were applied to some items and low ratings to others. Other researchers talk about traits that have a stronger and wider influence on behavior (and therefore also on other traits) as meta-traits (Baumeister, 1991; Baumeister & Tice, 1988; Britt, 1993). In sum, we can say that the behavior will be more dependent on personality in those individuals where a characteristic is more “traited,” while in “non-traited” individuals, the behavior will be more dependent on situational influences. For example, the individuals who score high on extraversion would act extraverted in different situations, if their extraversion is trait-relevant (in company, at a party, at home, in a meeting, on a date). If their extraversion were not trait-relevant, they would behave extraverted in some situations, yet not in others. Similarly, a person whose conscientiousness is trait-relevant will behave conscientiously regardless of the situation. Siem (1998) also finds a specific form of the relationship between the traitedness of a characteristic and the intensity of characteristic, namely a relationship in the form of an inverted U-curve. It means that, for example, conscientiousness as a trait will have a greater impact on work performance in people who are very conscientious or very unconscientious, while in people with moderate conscientiousness, the performance will be more dependent on other traits and situations. Traitedness reminds us of another modern psychological concept, namely the concept of schematicity. Schematicity denotes those qualities that we accept into our self-concept or—in terms of cognitive psychology—into our self-scheme. The properties that are part of the self-scheme are labeled schematic and those that are not part of the self-scheme are aschematic. It is very likely that we will integrate into our self-schema trait-relevant qualities, that is, those that we believe to be characteristic and consistent for us. In this respect, the concepts of traitedness and schematicity seem to be related. Schematicity and traitedness even affect our performance and achievements(Cross & Markus, 1994). For example, if we consider ourselves logical and analytical thinkers, we will be more successful in solving tasks that require logical and analytical thinking, even if we are no better at the actual abilities of logical and analytical thinking. We will also present ourselves in this light to

78

1  Fundamentals of Personality

others, and we will find easier to imagine ourselves in roles, activities, and “possible selves” that correspond to logical and analytical thinking. We can then imagine the practical significance of the influence of schematicity and traitedness: Parents, educators, teachers, and counselors can help to improve efficiency in different areas of behavior by encouraging schematicity and traitedness in these areas.

1.4.8 Sensitivity to Situations as a Trait Frequent neglect of the situational origins of our behavior can mean that we often underestimate situational influences and overestimate the influence of personality traits. By no means does this mean that the influence of personality traits on behavior is not significant. On the contrary, it is very important. Surprisingly, even the influence of situation itself can be a result of our traits. Psychology namely identified traits that indicate how sensitive we are and how much we react to situations. Thus, whether we will react to situations and how we will react to them also depends on our traits. It has long been known that some people adapt to situations faster and more intensely than others. Snyder (1974) conceptualized and explored the construct of the self-monitoring. People with a high level of self-monitoring adapt strongly to situational circumstances, while people with a low level of self-monitoring pay little attention to the situation. Let us say you find two equally bad-tempered people at a party. The first, who is very high on self-monitoring, will adapt quickly, start talking, and joking; yet, the second will remain grumpy not changing bad mood despite the situation. In short, whether we will behave more “situational” or more “dispositional” is also only a consequence of personal disposition. As Alker (1972) claimed, situational specificity is itself a personality variable. Thus, the debate about the role of situations and personality in causing our behavior brings us back into the fold of personality traits. Research has already shown to a large extent when we can expect a greater influence of situational or dispositional factors. Buss (1989) lists five categories in which significant differences often occur between the influence of situations and the influence of personality dispositions (see also Table 1.11):

Table 1.11  What determines the impact of situations and traits on behavior Circumstances Context Instructions Choice Duration Possible reactions

Stronger influence of situation New, formal, public Clear, specific, precise, complete Little or none Short Narrow range

Stronger influence of traits Known, informal, private General, weak, nonexistent Plenty Long Wide range

79

1.5 Units of Personality

• • • • •

Context Instructions Choice Duration Range of possible reactions

As Table 1.11 shows, the impact of situations is greater if we are in new, formal, and public situations, if we have precise and complete behavioral instructions, if we have little or no choice, and if there is only short time and narrow range of reactions available. If we are in familiar, informal, and private circumstances, if there are only general or no instructions, if we have many choices, longer time, and a wide range of behaviors available, then a greater impact of personality dispositions (traits) is to be expected. From the discussion so far, it is clear that personality is an extremely important source of our functioning. Our personality is the major source of the variability in our experience and behavior that cannot be attributed to the influences of situations. Of particular importance are traits and dimensions of personality, which may explain a great deal of our experience and behavior. Next parts of the book will be dedicated to them.

1.5 Units of Personality Undoubtedly, the ultimate goal of personality psychology is to understand human beings as an individual person, but this goal is achievable only through stages, which are characterized by the identification of personality characteristics. Thus, we could talk about two major directions of personality study (see Table 1.12). The first focuses on the study of variables discovers personality traits (personality traits and dimensions) and offers classifications and taxonomies of these traits on an abstract nomothetic level, i.e., between persons. All important gestural and dimensional models of personality fall into this direction of studying personality structure and interpersonal differences (Cattell, 1950, 1957; Digman, 1990; Eysenck, 1947, 1952, 1967, 1970, 1986; Goldberg, 1990, 1993; Guilford, 1959, 1975; John, 1990; McCrae, 1982; McCrae & Costa, 1987). The second direction is focused on the Table 1.12  Two approaches of personality research: toward variables and toward persons Units Approach Level of approaching Outcome Interpersonal differences

Toward variables Personality traits or dimensions Nomothetic Between persons Taxonomy of traits Along dimensional continuum

Toward persons Persons Idiographic Within person Individual pattern or personality Typological or prototypical differences

80

1  Fundamentals of Personality

study of the person, and it determines the structure of personality in the individual, i.e., the specific configuration of characteristics within the person, and conveys a unique, individual, and concrete, in short, idiographic image of the individual (Allport, 1958; Phares & Lamiell, 1977; Rorer & Widiger, 1983). However, both directions are connected, because we cannot imagine an idiographic understanding of an individual if it does not represent the intersection of his personality traits. Research into interpersonal differences has recently focused heavily on the study of personality traits and dimensions and their variability. The holistic personality approach has thus remained somewhat in the background, although there is a constant interest in studying the individual in a more idiosyncratic way, especially among personality researchers who have left clinical practice, e.g., in the form of a case study. Such an approach is characterized by Freud (1895), Rogers (1951), and Kelly (1955) and is also advocated by other important personality theorists, such as Allport (1938) and Murray (1937). Even in recent times, some warn that a movable differential psychological approach should not crowd out a holistic study of the individual. As Runyan (1982) says, understanding the individual person is sooner or later among the most important tasks of personality psychology. Carlson (1971) wonders, “where is the person in personality research.” Similarly, Block (1995) advocates an approach that would be an alternative to dimensional personality research, but critics immediately criticized him for failing to say what that alternative was supposed to be (Goldberg & Saucier, 1995). It is really difficult to figure out how one could get to know an individual’s personality well without knowing his traits and comparing them to the traits of others.

1.5.1 Traits, Styles, and Dimensions Exploring interpersonal differences is a traditional field of personality psychology and practically overlaps with the field of differential psychology. It is a question of how and why we differ from each other. We can talk about these differences on a holistic level when we are interested in how individuals as personalities differ from each other, but this is most often achieved by finding out how we differ from each other in individual personality traits. When we talk about personality, we mean a unique combination of characteristics that are characteristic of an individual and by which this individual differs from others. Of course, we cannot compare individuals with each other and look for differences between them if we do not know what we are comparing and what they should be different about. We need to know how their personality is structured. We need to know the characteristics in which we see similarities or differences between individuals. Personality traits form the structure of personality, in them we can see the structural units of personality (Musek, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1999). The study of personality structure and interpersonal differences has a long history. It begins with typological theories that can be traced back to ancient times (Hippocrates, Plato, Theophrastus; see Musek, 1993, 1999). Even in the beginnings of scientific psychology, a typological approach prevailed in this

1.5 Units of Personality

81

Fig. 1.29  Typological versus dimensional concept of personality traits. According to the typological conception, all individuals are classified into existing qualitative categories, e.g., between introverts (I) and extroverts (E). According to the dimensional conception, they are distributed along the continuum from the introvert to the extrovert pole. Many personality traits are distributed normally, i.e., according to the Gaussian curve (most cases have mean values of traits, and the number of cases decreases toward both extremes)

field, e.g., in German characterology, as well as with James (1890), Freud (1932), Jung (1921), Spranger (1930), Kretschmer (1921), Sheldon (1940, 1942), and other authors (more on this in Musek, 1993, 1999). Later, however, the dimensional approach became more and more established, which then completely prevailed in the psychology of personality. The vast majority of the most important theories today that explain interpersonal differences are dimensional. These include the most important structural or tangential theories of authors such as Guilford (1959, 1975), Eysenck (1947, 1952, 1967, 1970), Cattell (1950, 1957), and the protagonists of the five-factor theory of personality (Goldberg, 1990, 1993; John, 1990; McCrae, 1982; McCrae & Costa, 1987; McCrae & John, 1992) (Fig. 1.29). In modern psychology, the concepts of personality trait and personality dimension denote the main and scientifically most sound conceptualizations of personality units, the basic elements of personality structure. Usually, the traits are considered very basic units, while the dimensions mean more complex or compound units. Sometimes, we meet also other concepts of personality units, such as personality styles or personality types. However, both personality styles and personality types can be fully explained by the scientifically more elaborated trait or dimensional models. Thus, we will mention some (rare) scientifically justified conceptions of styles, types and prototypes of personality in this book when appropriate and also for historical reasons. Otherwise, we will focus on the trait and dimensional models, especially five-factor model or Big Five Model. Personality traits can be briefly defined as the enduring characteristics by which individuals differ from each other. We can practically talk about an unlimited number of personality traits. In each individual, these qualities are combined into a characteristic pattern, unique and unrepeatable, into his personality. Gordon Allport (1937, 1961) defines the concept of personality trait as follows: “A personality trait is a generalized and focused neuropsychological system that is characteristic of the individual and that is capable of functionally equalizing many stimuli and of enabling and directing the course and form of established modes of behavior and expression.” This is obviously a dispositional definition, including the belief that a personality trait is a neuropsychic system, that is, an internal disposition manifested in inner experience and in manifest behavior. According to Allport, it allows us to act differently than we would have acted if this disposition did not exist. A trait of

82

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Extraversion

.34

Agreeableness

.31

.44 .29

.34 Conscientiousness

.34

Openness

-.54

-.53 -.29

Neuroticism

-.44

Fig. 1.30  Structure of personality. The structure of personality is formed by personality units (Big Five traits in our example) and relationships between them (correlations in our example)

timidity allows us to treat certain stimuli in a special, characteristic way—as Allport says, we will functionally equate these stimuli. For example, we will not expose ourselves to dangerous situations, and we will avoid conflicts and public appearances. Personality traits form the structure of a personality. They can therefore be understood as structural units of personality. The structure itself is determined not only by the units but also by the relationships between them (see Fig. 1.30). These relationships can be different. Some properties are more complex than others, they are more general, and others are more specific. Intelligence, extraversion, and honesty are fairly general, complex properties encompassing a larger number of others and more specific characteristics. Intelligence includes verbal and nonverbal mental abilities, both with many more specific mental abilities. Extraversion includes among others traits such as activity, outgoingness, sociability, liveliness, self-confidence, impulsivity, and all comprising many more specific characteristics. Some other authors emphasize in particular that with the help of personality traits, we can more easily distinguish individuals from each other, compare, and classify them. According to Guilford (1959), a personality trait is “any identifiable relatively enduring aspect of behavior by which an individual is distinguished from another.” This definition can be characterized as differentiating (differential) and aspectivic: It says that personality traits most often mean an aspect of behavior according to which we can distinguish people from each other. Someone is more bright, honest, and lively than others. Raymond Cattell (1965, 1980, 1987) classified psychological traits into three categories:

1.5 Units of Personality

83

1. Ability traits that represent abilities and aptitudes reflect how well an individual accomplishes tasks 2. Temperament/stylistic traits that indicate various ways in which a person tends to behave 3. Dynamic traits that explain why people engage in certain types of behavior, regardless of how well or in what specific way they typically do things There are many personality traits, but there are also big differences between them. Some properties are very specific, while others are general and complex. Extroversion covers a range of characteristics that are more specific but related to each other (e.g., sociability, activity, impulsivity). Thus, personality traits can be classified from the most specific, which are very numerous, to the most general and complex, which are relatively few yet somehow connect a multitude of all the more specific traits. This leads to the hierarchical models of personality traits proposed by Eysenck (1952), Cattell (1952), Guilford (1959) and finally to the Big Five Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987; McCrae & John, 1992) and Pyramidal Model of Personality (Musek, 2017). Again, other psychologists believe that personality traits are nothing more than our label for actions that may occur more often in some individuals than in others. A dominant person simply more often does things that we label as signs of dominant behavior. According to this notion, personality traits are a designation of frequency, the frequency of a particular type of action (act frequency theory; Buss & Craik, 1980, 1983, 1989). In fact, this is an old problem. Is it better to talk about personality traits than dispositional structures or is it better to think of them merely as behavioral sets? Arguments are found for both the first and the second position. In formulating dispositional concepts, we are always in danger of assuming internal structures and phenomena that may not exist at all. However, we have to ask ourselves, what is the basis of our manifest actions, if they are not some latent disposition or inner quality? Is it not plausible, as Guilford (1959) believes, that “we observe behavior and infer traits from observations”?

1.5.2 States, Moods, and Roles In personality characteristics, we differ between ourselves and within ourselves. A person can feel in a given situation and at a certain moment better than in a different situation or time. In addition to traits, dimensions, styles, or types representing interpersonal variability, there is intrapersonal variability, i.e., represented by the variations in our mental states, moods, and roles. Almost every personality characteristics can appear as a trait and as a state. The traits have a dispositional basis, while the states are transient. For example, anxiety appears as a trait: Someone is more anxious than others consistently, regardless of time or situation. Yet, it also appeared as state: Someone is more anxious in one

84

1  Fundamentals of Personality

situation or moment than in other situation or moment. The anxiety I feel at a given moment is labeled state anxiety, and we need to distinguish it from trait anxiety, which is a personality trait that occurs consistently. Anxiety is probably a personality characteristic that was most investigated as a trait and a state (Spielberger, 1988; Spielberger et al., 1970); yet, we also find research on both aspects in other characteristics such as anger and depression. For many characteristics, we can speak of both aspects of variability, inter-variability and intra-variability. Thus, many characteristics can emerge as consistent traits and as intra-variable states. In this regard, researchers have paid great attention to anxiety. The difference between the trait and the state aspects of the personality requires different approaches to measurement. In the measurement of a trait, we try to find out how often the signs of some characteristic appear in the individual in comparison to other persons, and in the case of the measurement of a state, we examine how strongly these signs are present in a given situation or moment in comparison to other. So if I say “I’m scared now and I’m tense,” it is a sign of state anxiety, but if I say “I feel tense and nervous more often than other people,” it is a trait anxiety. Spielberger (1983) and Spielberger et al. (2017) have long ago developed instruments to measure both state and trait anxiety. In principle, similar distinction can be made in regard to many other characteristics and traits, e.g., anger, kindness, and honesty. Both forms of variability deserve the attention of researchers. Often, we study lasting and consistent personality traits mainly from the point of view of inter-variability, simply because we assume that the moment of consistency is especially important. However, intrapersonal variation may be also extremely important. This is especially true of states, roles, and moods (Cattell, 1965). The fact is that someone in a certain state, mood, or role behaves completely differently than in another. An otherwise optimistic person may commit suicide in a depressed mood, a completely peaceful person may be aggressive in the ring, and a well-reasoned person may in a rush of romantic mood do irrational things. Intrapersonal variations of different states, moods, and roles can have great impact on our behavior.

References Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bandura, A. (1988). Self regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Erlbaum. Buss, D.  M., & Craik, K.  H. (1980). The frequency concept of disposition: Dominance and prototypically dominant acts. Journal of Personality, 48(3), 379–392. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00840.x Buss, D.  M., & Craik, K.  H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90(2), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.2.105 Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1989). On the cross-cultural examination of acts and dispositions. European Journal of Personality, 3(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410030104 Carson, R. C. (1989). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 227–248.

References

85

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Perspectives on personality (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. World Book. Cattell, R. B. (1952). Factor analysis: An introduction and manual for the psychologist and social scientist. Harper. Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Penguin Books. Cattell, R. B. (1980). Two basic models for personality–environment interaction and the need for their substantive investigation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 15(3), 243–247. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1503_1 Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. North-Holland. Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. Church, A. T., Ortiz, F. A., Katigbak, M. S., Avdeyeva, T. V., Emerson, A. M., Vargas Flores, J., et al. (2003). Measuring individual and cultural differences in implicit trait theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 332–347. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1521/ pedi.1992.6.4.343 Dahlstrom, W. G. (1972). Personality systematics and the problem of types. General Learning Press. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221 Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of personality. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Charles C. Thomas. Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd ed.). Methuen. Fiske, D.  W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329–344. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0057198 Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality. Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027. Fulgosi, A. (1981). Psihologija ličnosti. Školska knjiga. Goldberg, L.  R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. McGraw-Hill. Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1983). Teorije ličnosti (Theories of personality). Nolit. John, O.  P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66–100). The Guilford Press. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. A theory of personality. Routledge. Kluckhohn, C.  E., & Murray, H.  A. (Eds.). (1938). Personality in nature, society, and culture. Alfred A. Knopf. Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H. A. (1953). Personality formation: The determinants. In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray, & D. M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in nature, society, and culture (2nd ed., pp. 53–69). Alfred A. Knopf. Larsen, R. J. (1989). A process approach to personality psychology: Utilizing time as a facet of data. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 177–193). Springer. Maddi, S. R. (1976). Personality theories: A comparative analysis. Dorsey Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

86

1  Fundamentals of Personality

Murray, H.  A. (1936). Basic concepts for a psychology of personality. Journal of General Psychology, 15, 241–268. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford University Press. Musek, J. (1982). Osebnost (Personality). DDU Univerzum. Musek, J. (1988). Teorije osebnosti (Theories of personality). Univerza v Ljubljani. Musek, J. (1993). The universe of human values: A structural and developmental hierarchy. Studia Psychologica (Bratislava, Slovakia), 35(4–5), 321–326. Musek, J. (1999). Psihološki modeli in teorije osebnosti (Psychological models and theories of personality). Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Musek, J. (2003). Zgodovina psihologije (History of psychology). Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Musek, J. (2005). Psihološke in kognitivne študije osebnosti (Psychological and cognitive studies of personality). Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete. Musek, J. (2010). Psihologija življenja (Psychology of life). Inštitut za psihologijo osebnosti. Musek, J. (2017). The general factor of personality. Elsevier Academic Press. Plaks, J.  E., Levy, S.  R., & Dweck, C.  S. (2009). Lay theories of personality: Cornerstones of meaning in social cognition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00222 Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 295–328. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Erlbaum. Schneider, D.  J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79(5), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034496 Silvera, D. H., Moe, S., & Iversen, P. (2000). The association between implicit theories of personality and the attributional process. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 107–111. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-trait anxiety inventory for adults (STAI-AD) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06496-000 Spielberger, C. D. (1988). State-trait anger expression inventory (STAXI) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t29496-000 Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). STAI manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press. Spielberger, C.  D., Gonzalez-Reigosa, F., Martinez-Urrutia, A., Natalicio, L.  F., & Natalicio, D.  S. (2017). The state-trait anxiety inventory. Revista Interamericana De Psicología/ Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 5(3 & 4). https://doi.org/10.30849/rip/ijp.v5i3&4.620 Teofrast (Theophrastus). (1973). Karakteri (Characters). Veselin Masleša. York, K. L., & John, O. P. (1992). The four faces of eve: A typological analysis of women’s personality at midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 494–508.

Chapter 2

Personality Theories

Our knowledge of personality is very extensive. It is understandable that we try to substantiate this knowledge in a scientific way. This means that we have to connect it and make sense of it with explanations. Such explanations are called models or theories. This chapter is devoted to the presentation of the most important psychological models and theories of personality. There are more of them. We divide them into several groups in which they are discussed. Within these groups you will find dispositional theories and models, psychoanalytic models and theories, behavioral-­ social-­cognitive models and theories, humanistic models and theories, self-concept models and theories, and bio-evolutionary models and theories.

2.1 Dispositional Theories Psychology has a rather short scientific past, yet it has a long history. However, the true story of psychology and, especially, the psychology of personality begins with Hippocrates and his theory of four temperaments (see Musek, 2003, pp. 50–51; see also Musek, 2017, pp.  6–7, 37–38). That was also the beginning of typological approach to personality. This approach dominated in all prescientific era of psychology and was replaced by dimensional approach only in the twenty-first century. Personality traits and dimensions became leading theoretical models of personality since then. However, new, dimensional models of psychological types were proposed in modern times, introducing the models of dimensional types and prototypes.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 J. Musek, Personality Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55308-0_2

87

88

2  Personality Theories

2.1.1 Type Theories Old Greek philosopher Empedocles (about −440) formulated the theory of four elements or roots, which was very influential in the ancient times. It encompasses the elements fire, earth, water, and air (see Fig. 2.1), each combining two of four qualities, dry, wet, hot, and cold. Fire is hot and dry, earth is dry and cold, water is cold and wet, and air is wet and hot. According to Empedocles, all phenomena existing in the world are a mix of four basic elements and their properties. Hippocrates only implies this theory on the human beings: every single individual is therefore a mix of four basic elements. Thus, human psychological characteristic, the human temperament, is based on the prevailing one of the four elements. Hippocrates also posed the question, which are the representatives of four elements in the human body. He identifies these representatives in four cardinal body fluids or humors: bile for fire, black bile for earth, mucus or phlegm for water, and blood for air. Thus, Hippocrates believed that human moods, emotions, and behaviors are affected by body fluids (humors) causing the type of our temperament: choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine (see Fig. 2.2 and further text). Later, Galen (129–about 200) elaborated the Hippocratic typology of temperament in the book De temperamentis. The same word “temperament” is derived from Latin “temperare,” “to mix”; hence the term “temperamentum” literally means “the mix” or “the mixture.” In the ideal temperament, the individual characteristics are balanced between properties of body fluids, hot-cold and dry-wet. Yet, one of the four fluids can dominate over the others. In this case, we can speak of typical four temperaments, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine.

Fig. 2.1 Four elements (roots) and four qualities (properties) according to Empedocles. Hippocrates classical typology of four temperaments is based on this model of Empedocles

2.1  Dispositional Theories

89

Fig. 2.2  Four temperaments as illustrated in a book from the seventeenth century. Sanguine (above left), phlegmatic (above right), choleric (below left), and melancholic (below right)

As we can see, it was believed that the characteristics of temperament are already manifested in the physiognomy of the individual. See, for example, “fiery” strands of hair in the choleric type. In Table 2.1, the four temperaments are briefly described. They are defined by the basic elements (fire, air, water, and earth), qualities (hot, cold, wet, and dry), body fluid (bile, blood, phlegm, and black bile), and brief description of behavior. The Hippocrates-Galen typology of temperament remained a domineering model of personality until the twenty-first century. It was accepted and modified by authors like Kant, Wundt, and Pavlov. According to Pavlov (1955), the sanguine type is characterized by high strength, mobility, and balance of the nervous system in discrepancy to the melancholic type, which has a weak, rigid, and unstable nervous system. Both remaining types, phlegmatic and choleric, have a strong nervous system but differ concerning mobility (phlegmatic rigid, choleric mobile) and balance (phlegmatic balanced, choleric unstable) (Musek, 2017, p. 7).

2  Personality Theories

90 Table 2.1  Description of four temperaments Elements and qualities Fire Hot, dry

Body fluid Bile

Air Hot, wet

Blood

Water Cold, wet

Phlegm

Earth Cold, dry

Black bile (probably spleen fluid)

Type of temperament and description of behavior Choleric Independent, ambitious, decisive, passionate, short-tempered, violent, vengeful Sanguine Enthusiastic, energetic, optimistic, talkative, active, sociable, entrepreneurial Phlegmatic Stable, reliable, cold-blooded, relaxed, easy-going, peaceful, sympathetic Melancholic Deeply thinking and feeling, analytical, pessimistic, reserved, timid, unhappy

Behavioral description of four temperaments can be easily associated to basic personality traits in modern personality models, especially to extraversion (extraversion versus introversion) and neuroticism (emotional lability versus emotional stability). Moreover, the description of four temperaments can be connected to the concept of the general factor of personality (GFP; see Fig. 2.3). The sanguine type is emotionally stable and extraverted, the phlegmatic type is also stable but introverted, the choleric type is unstable and extraverted, and the melancholic type is unstable and introverted, according to the so-called Eysenckian circle (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Therefore, we can imagine that all of us can be located on a very general dimension extending from the sanguine type to the melancholic type (phlegmatic and choleric type being in between). This dimension is close to the GFP, provided that high GFP is represented by emotional stability and extraversion and low GFP is represented by low emotional stability and introversion (Musek, 2017, p. 6; see Fig. 2.3). Also, the Pavlovian sanguine type is representative for the high GFP and melancholic type for the low GFP; the phlegmatic and choleric types are being again in between. Aside from Hippocrates-Galen typology of temperament, other typologies were proposed in the history of psychology. Among them, we may mention the following: 1. Typology of character by Theophrastus (1973). It describes 30 negative characters (“The Ironical Man,” “The Flatterer,” “The Garrulous Man,” “The Reckless Man,” and many others). 2. Typology of mainstream European philosophy by William James (Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking, 1907; The writings of William James). James distinguishes between “tender-minded” approach (rationalistic, idealistic, religious, monistic, dogmatic, committed to freedom) and “toughminded” approach (empirical, materialistic, irreligious, pluralistic, fatalistic, skeptical). 3. Typology of men by Eduard Spranger (1914/1930). Spranger describes six types of personality based on value orientations: theoretical (truth as dominant value), economic (utility), aesthetic (beauty), social (love), political (power), and religious (religion).

2.1  Dispositional Theories

91

HIGH GFP • SANGUINIC

• PHLEGMATIC

stable, extravert

emotional, extravert

• CHOLERIC

stable, introvert

emotional, introvert

• MELANCHOLIC

LOW GFP

Fig. 2.3  Hypothetical projection of the GFP across the space of four types of temperament, described by Hippocrates, Galen, Pavlov, and Eysenck. GFP represents a continuum extending from the sanguine type (high GFP) to the melancholic type (low GFP), phlegmatic and choleric type lying in between. (Modified after Musek, 2017, p. 6)

4. Typology of mental functions by Carl Gustav Jung (1921). Jung suggested that human personality can be powerfully influenced by one or more of four main mental functions: sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling. 5. Typology of mental energy direction and related attitudes by Carl Gustav Jung (1921). In this very influential typology, Jung distinguishes between extraverted type, oriented toward the outer world, other people, and social relations, and introverted type, oriented toward the inner experience and self-concern. In the combined mental functions and mental direction typology, he determines eight typological categories: extraverted sensation type, introverted sensation type, extraverted intuition type, introverted intuition type, extraverted thinking type, introverted thinking type, extraverted feeling type, and introverted feeling type. Jung also proposed that behaviors expressed by personality types may dominate at the level of consciousness, while the opposite types of behavior occupy our unconscious. Thus, while the extraversion prevails at the level of consciousness, the

92

2  Personality Theories

introversion prevails at the level of unconsciousness. Similarly, when a functional type dominates in the conscious ego (e.g., thinking), others remain unconscious (sensation, intuition, feeling) yet can prevail in unconsciously directed behavior. 6. Constitutional typology developed by Ernst Kretschmer (1921/1967). Kretschmer distinguishes between three types of body constitution, asthenic (thin, weak), athletic (muscular, large bones), and pyknic (fat, stocky). Later, Kretschmer added a dysplastic type of constitution (disproportional body). He also proposed a correlation between the types of constitution and psychological characteristics, especially temperament and psychological disorders. Thus, the asthenic type should be connected with schizothymic temperament (introversion, timidity) and inclination toward schizophrenia, pyknic type with cyclothymic temperament (extraversion, friendliness), and inclination toward manic-­ depressive psychosis.

2.1.2 Faculty Theories The Latin term facultas means an inherent mental or physical power. Both Plato and Aristotle, the Neo-platonists, and the Christian and Islamic philosophers mentioned the powers or the faculties of the soul, including the basic faculties such as growth, movement, digestion, perception, memory or imagination, and more elaborate faculties of will and intellect, characteristic for human beings. Aristotle (384–322 BC) should be seen as the main founder of the concept of faculties (Aristotle, 1987). In the early Christian medieval philosophy, this concept was not emphasized because of the Augustinian belief that the soul in indivisible. However, the idea of faculties was reinforced by Arab philosophers, especially Avicenna (Ibn Sina, c. 980–1037) (Ibn Sina, 2023). Leading Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) adopted the idea of faculties wholeheartedly, and this idea became dominant for centuries (Thomas Aquinas, 2013). In the later medieval time and in the beginning of the new era, the concept of faculties remains very influential. The faculties or also the potencies refer to specific “forces” of the human mind such as perception, attention, memory, judgment, emotions, compassion, and consciousness including also character, temperament, and other segments of our personality. Thus, the faculties were conceptualized as innate mental function that, as segments of our mind, can be localized in our brain. The idea of faculties was later adopted by disciplines like phrenology and physiognomy, which were influential in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century (Musek, 2003, pp. 82–83). Bot disciplines assume that our mental facilities including personality traits can be predicted by observable physical characteristics, especially by the skull shape and physiognomy of the head. Phrenology was developed by the German physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828) (see Phrenology, 2023). It claims that our mental capacities (faculties) have their centers in specific locations in the brain. The relative power of these centers causes the bulges or bumps on the skull, which can be traced and mapped (see Fig. 2.4). The phrenological conception

2.1  Dispositional Theories

93

Fig. 2.4  A phrenologists’ view of faculties. According to phrenology (Franz Joseph Gall, 1758–1828), the mind’s faculties can be located at different positions inside our head. The bumps on the skull indicate the expression of particular faculties, which, therefore, can be localized. The scientific empirical research has discredited this conception entirely, yet the idea of brain function localization has later been adopted in neuroscience on the basis of the discoveries that some brain functions can be traced to some brain areas (e.g., Broca’s area for the function of speech)

was acceptable as hypothesis, for it is based on a causal assumption like other scientific hypotheses. However, the phrenologists were unable to test their hypotheses empirically. Instead, they relied on unverified conclusions, and phrenology was soon discredited as a pseudoscience. Physiognomy (2023) was founded by Italian scholar Giovanni Giambattista della Porta (1535–1615) and Swiss philosopher and writer Johann Caspar Lavater (1741–1801). According to physiognomists, the character of an individual can be revealed on the basis of his physiognomic contours, e.g., based on his profile (see Figs. 2.2 and 2.5). Both phrenology and physiognomy, however, influenced the later development of neurology and neuroscience. The concept of brain centers was later accepted at least to some extent in neuropsychology.

2.1.3 Trait and Personality Dimension Theories Personality mainly refers to our psychophysical dispositions, the characteristics that are a part of our biological, evolutionary heritage and manifest themselves in our mind and behavior. Yet, in the past, the belief in the dispositional nature of

94

2  Personality Theories

Fig. 2.5  Physiognomic portrait of “sheep man”: according to physiognomists, physiognomic similarity between a man and a sheep should indicate the sheep-like characteristics of the portrayed person. See also Fig. 2.2 showing the physiognomic portraits of four types of temperament. According to the physiognomists, the temperament and character of a person can be elucidated from his physiognomic traits, especially from his physical profile

personality was also a great obstacle to the acceptance of personality concept in the eyes of science. In the era of scientific psychology, the concept of personality was redefined in scientifically acceptable way. It evolved to the scientific psychological construct, not because it has lost dispositional meaning but because it succeeded to scientifically redefine the very notion of disposition. Personality refers to dispositions, which are not magical forces but entities defined by hypothetical constructs, which are demonstrable by empirical methods used in psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and other sciences. In further discussion here, I will limit myself to those dimensions of personality space that personality researchers have discovered on the basis of a scientific approach. This means that they started from a conceptual model of personality that enables scientific research and used the most appropriate available method in the research itself. Specifically, it is a methodology of multivariate research, which is an appropriate way of scientific research of complex relationships between a set of more or less correlated variables, the traits and dimensions that constitute the content of human personality. Personality traits, as units of personality structure, have already been defined previously in this book (see Sect. 1.5). Two hierarchical models of personality structure were proposed approximately in the same time, one by Eysenck (1952) and one by Guilford (1959). As can be seen from Fig. 2.6, both models comprise four levels of generality. At the lowest level are very specific personality characteristics (this is

2.1  Dispositional Theories

95

Fig. 2.6  Hierarchical model of personality traits (personality structures; modified after Eysenck, 1952, and Guilford, 1959). The explanation is in the text

the level of specific reactions according to Eysenck and the level of specific actions according to Guilford). These characteristics often correlate with each other, forming thus more complex and general personality properties: habitual reactions according to Eysenck and hexes (plural of hexis) according to Guilford. Similarly, based on their correlations, we can obtain even more general characteristics and thus arrive at a relatively small number of very complex and informative personality traits. They still correlate, and the latent dimensions (factors) that explain the correlations between the traits are already the most general dimensions of personality (types of basic dimensions of personality according to Eysenck or types according to Guilford). It should be noted that only multivariate analysis methods (e.g., factor analysis) made the determination of higher-order personality characteristics possible. Using factor analysis, for example, we can identify latent dimensions that can be interpreted as more complex or more general personality properties. Also, for the sake of brevity, one-word labels are used for personality dimension, for example, extraversion instead of introversion-extraversion (often only abbreviations, such as E for extraversion). Extraversion (E) thus means a dimension with low scores representing introversion and high scores representing extraversion. Similar logic concerns the dimensions of neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P). Discovering fundamental dimensions of personality is extremely important because they cover a common variance of more specific traits. This means that a small number of basic dimensions can capture, for example, 50–70% of the variance of tens and hundreds of more specific traits. Fundamental dimensions give us concentrated information about personality and interpersonal differences. Therefore, their discovery is crucial for the psychology of personality, especially for the personality structure. Methodologically, the search for basic personality dimensions allows us to use multivariate analyses such as factor analysis, multidimensional scaling (facet analysis), cluster analysis, and others. Factor analysis has become very popular, so that the prevailing structural theories models of personality are characterized by factor models. Using a factor-analytical approach, Eysenck (1947, 1952, 1967, 1970) first identified two and then three basic dimensions of personality (see Fig. 2.7). The first

96

2  Personality Theories

Fig. 2.7  Eysenck PEN model of personality. It includes introversion versus extraversion, emotional stability versus neuroticism, and non-psychoticism versus psychoticism

dimension, which explained the greatest variance in the set of questionnaires, was so similar in its psychological content to Jung’s (1921) description of the extroverted and introverted type that Eysenck kept the name and described it as the dimension of introversion versus extraversion. The second dimension explaining an almost equal amount of the variance was labeled emotional stability versus neuroticism. It was saturated with items that measure emotional lability and which in their extreme form represent neurotic symptoms. Later, Eysenck added a third dimension to both, interpreting it as non-psychoticism (socialized personality) versus psychoticism. It saturates items that mean hard, “masculine,” aggressive versus mild, “feminine,” non-aggressive mindsets and behaviors (this dimension, according to Eysenck, is reminiscent of James dimension of tender versus tough mindedness). In extreme, the items on the psychoticism scale approach the symptoms of psychosis, hence the name of dimension. These three dimensions explain 30–40% of the variance in the personality questionnaire items. Apart from them, Eysenck did not find any further approximately equivalent and at the same time relatively independent dimension. Thus, only three fundamental dimensions emerge in Eysenck’s model of personality in conative domain, not including cognitive abilities. In the cognitive field of personality, according to Eysenck, general intelligence appears as a primary or fundamental dimension, which does not correlate with any of the three mentioned conative dimensions of personality.

2.1  Dispositional Theories

97

Eysenck’s model of fundamental personality dimensions or PEN model (see Fig. 2.7) seems extremely parsimonious and robust. Extraversion and neuroticism are found in all important taxonomies and models of personality, so there can be almost no doubt that they are indeed very fundamental dimension of personality. There is also more than enough evidence that they are culturally stable and probably universal: they are found in all cultures where they were sought at all (Bond et al., 1975; Eysenck & Saklofske, 1983; McCrae & Costa, 1998). Regarding psychoticism, things are not so clear. While for some psychoticism is a fundamental dimension of personality (Eysenck, 1991, 1992; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975, 1976), according to others it is not a single dimension (Bishop, 1977; Block, 1977a, b; Claridge, 1981; Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Heath & Martin, 1990). The core of the dispute is whether psychoticism is sufficiently uniform and internally homogeneous that it makes sense to speak of a single dimension or whether it makes more sense to speak of two or more dimensions. Table 2.2 shows the components of the three basic dimensions. Different authors cite different numbers of these components. Eysenck himself and his co-workers listed seven components in the first and nine in the second version of PEN model (Eysenck, 1990; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). The main change is related to the Table 2.2  Components of basic dimensions of Eysenck PEN model Basic dimensions E (extraversion)

Components in the first version Active Sociable Risk taking Impulsive Expressive Non-reflective Lack of responsibility

N (neuroticism)

Low self-esteem Unhappy Anxious Obsessive Lack of autonomy Hypochondriacal Guilt feelings

P (psychoticism)

Aggressive Dominant High aspirations Manipulative Adventurous Dogmatic Masculine

Components in the second version Sociable Lively Active Assertive Stimulation seeking Carefree Dominant Surgent Venturesome Anxious Depressed Guilt feeling Low self-esteem Tense Irrational Shy Moody Emotional Aggressive Cold Ego-centric Impersonal Impulsive Asocial Unempathic Creative Tough-minded

98

2  Personality Theories

component of impulsivity, which Eysenck first classified as a subset of extraversion and then classified it into psychoticism in the belief that its impulsiveness correlates with it even more. Similar changes have taken place with regard to the components of dominance and adventurism, which are also associated with both extroversion and psychoticism. 2.1.3.1 Cattell: Stylistic Dimensions of Personality In the 1940s, English psychologist Raymond B.  Cattell began his systematic research, which eventually covered all areas of personality, from temperament and personality dynamics to intellect and cognition. He also tried to determine the main dimensions in different areas of personality. Here we will be particularly interested in the results of Cattell’s explorations of traits related to narrower areas of personality, particularly temperament (Cattell, 1946, 1950, 1957, 1965). Cattell described these personality characteristics as stylistic traits. Like Eysenck and Guilford, Cattell assumed a hierarchy of personality space in which he separated a set of specific observable surface traits from which factor analysis could identify a smaller number of latent source traits (see Fig. 2.8). Factor analyses of the questionnaire data revealed 16 latent dimensions that can be interpreted as original personality traits or primary factors of personality. Since there are still correlations between the original primary factors, it is possible to determine higher-order secondary factor dimensions, or even more general dimensions of personality, by further factor analyses. The secondary personality factors can be roughly compared to Eysenck’s fundamental personality dimensions. Cattell’s (1957, 1965) factor-analytical and other multivariate studies have shown that there are some 16 important latent dimensions that can be interpreted in the vast majority as stylistic traits (temperament traits). Only one of these, primary factor B, is essentially a factor of intelligence. Table 2.3 briefly describes the rest of the 15 primary personality traits.

Fig. 2.8  Source and surface traits. R.  B. Cattell distinguished observable, manifest behavioral traits (e.g., sociability and activity or nervousness and restlessness) and source traits as their hidden underlying causal factors. Source traits for these surface traits were labeled by Cattell as exvia and anxiety

2.1  Dispositional Theories

99

Table 2.3  Primary factors of personality according to R. B. Cattell Primary factor Sizia—affectia (A)

Brief description Reserved, impersonal, distant—warm, kind, caring, attentive to others Weak—strong ego (C) Reactive, easily affected, immature—emotionally stable, adapted, mature Submissiveness—dominance Deferential, cooperative, avoiding conflicts—dominant, (E) forceful, assertive Desurgence—surgence (F) Serious, restraint, careful—enthusiastic, lively, talkative, spontaneous Weak—strong superego (G) Expedient, non-conforming—conscientious, dutiful, persistent Rhrectia—parmia (H) Shy, timid, touchy—socially bold, venturesome, thick-skinned Harria—premsia (I) Tough, objective, unsentimental—sensitive, aesthetic, tender-minded Alaxia—protensia (L) Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting—vigilant, suspisious, jealous Praxernia—autia (M) Practical, grounded, down-to-earth—abstracted, imaginative, idea-oriented Artlessness—shrewdness (N) Forthright, genuine, artless—private, discreet, shrewd, sophisticated Untroubledness—guilt Self-assured, unworried, complacent—apprehensive, proneness (O) self-doubting, worried Conservatism—radicalism (Q1) Traditional, attached to familiar, conservative—liberal, open to change, experimenting Group adherence—self-­ Group oriented, affiliative, collectivistic—self-reliant, sufficiency (Q2) solitary, individualistic Low—high self-control (Q3) Undisciplined, flexible, disorganized—perfectionist, self-disciplined, organized Low—high ergic tension (Q4) Relaxed, placid, patient—tense, driven, high energy

Secondary personality factors are latent dimensions that explain many correlations between primary factors. They are factors of the “second” order: the latent dimensions of the latent dimensions. Different factor analyses of primary factors gave somewhat different results and also different number of “second-order” factors. At least for the first two factors, however, this is not the case: they correspond almost entirely to Eysenck’s dimensions of introversion (extroversion) and emotional stability (neuroticism). Cattell labeled them as invia versus exvia (which corresponds to introversion and extroversion) and integration versus anxiety (corresponding to stability and neuroticism). The following two factors also seem relatively stable, namely, cold rational balance versus subtle affectivity and meekness versus independence. Other second-order factors are already less reliable and less important.

100

2  Personality Theories

2.1.3.2 Lexical Approach: Implicit Theory of Personality In all languages we find a multitude of words denoting personality traits. But we quickly discover that some personality traits are more common as well as more informative. They give us more essential information about the individual. It is also interesting to note that important trait terms were probably early “encoded” into different languages: these personality traits were coded with short and uncompounded words. Linguistic “economics” requires that frequently used terms be as short and easy to remember as possible. Another thing is professional and scientific coinage, which may sound humorous or artificial, but it is necessary precisely in order to unambiguously define the relevant meanings, which are often too changeable and volatile in everyday terminology. As early as in 1884, Francis Galton introduced the idea that aspects of human character can be examined by “counting in an appropriate dictionary the words used to express them” (Galton, Measurement of Character). Then, in the 1930s, some German researchers suggested that linguistic analysis may improve the knowledge of personality. The proposal was made by Ludwig Klages (1927), and Franziska Baumgarten (1933/1936) tackled the task directly: she tested a series of words that denote personality traits in German. American psychologists then proceeded. Allport and Odbert (1936) included in their analysis the personality expressions contained in Webster’s famous English vocabulary. The initial selection included an appalling number of personality expressions: 17953! After eliminating lesser-­ known and insignificant personality traits, a large number of synonyms, and semantically overlapping terms, the researchers focused on a significantly smaller but still respectable number of the most important personality traits. R. B. Cattell and his collaborators selected the final list of personality traits for their studies directly from this thesaurus. American psychologist Fiske (1949) correlated and, using factor analysis, dissected 21 personality traits used to describe personality in Cattell’s research. At Fiske’s best will, he failed to find more than five common factor dimensions. Given the content of personality labels that correlated with each other and that were saturated with the same factor dimension, Fiske interpreted the resulting factors as confident self-expression, social adaptability, conformity, productivity orientation, emotional control, and inquiring intellect. In a later re-analysis of the same personality traits, Digman and Takemoto-Chuck (1981) also came up with almost identical factor dimensions; the only difference compared to Fiske’s findings was in labeling the five dimensions: extraversion, friendly compliance, will to achieve, ego-strength (versus anxiety), and intellect. Tupes and Christal (1961) made a factor analysis of 30 Cattell bipolar scales and at the same time re-analyzed Fiske’s data. They identified five-factor dimensions that matched Fiske’s very well: surgency, agreeableness, dependability, emotional stability, and culture. Subsequent researchers obtained very similar results and first interpreted them as evidence for the existence of an implicit cognitive scheme of personality (Borgatta, 1964; Norman, 1963). In a special, carefully conducted study, Passini and Norman (1966) again acquired five-factor dimensions: surgency

2.1  Dispositional Theories

101

(extraversion), agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and culture. Later, Digman and Inouye (1986) repeated factor analysis on a number of personality traits and re-identified five-factor dimensions. The dimensions obtained by Digman and Inouye are very similar to the dimensions found in the research of Norman, Passini, and the other authors we mentioned. The implicit structure of the personality thus consists of five large dimensions that subconsciously tell us which personality characteristics belong together. Whatever personality assessment we undertake, our subjective assessments will always be influenced by implicit personality theory. Digman and Takemoto-Chuck (1981) state in their essay on pages 165–166 literally as follows: “Whether teachers evaluate students, whether candidates for officers evaluate each other, whether students evaluate other students, or evaluate members of clinical departments internships, the results are pretty much the same.” The implicit personality structure, made up of the “Big Five,” or as some call them, the five robust personality factors, unconsciously but reliably accompanies us in any personality assessment. The implicit theory of personality thus exists as a special and important cognitive scheme or, more precisely, a set of cognitive schemes that unconsciously influence personality assessment and especially the assessment of personality traits. The discovery of the implicit theory and structure of personality is undoubtedly important and clarifies to us many things that have baffled personality researchers. On the other hand, this discovery raises new questions that may be even more interesting and important for personality research. 2.1.3.3 Big Five Model In the last decades, the popularity of the theory of the five dimensions of implicit personality structure has increased. They have been referred to as the “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1981) including extraversion, agreeableness (pleasantness), conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. Believing in the general validity of lexically coded folk wisdom, many researchers suppose that the Big Five can be interpreted as the true fundamental dimensions of personality. Thus, a five-factor model (FFM) of personality or the Big Five model was upgraded from the implicit theory of personality to the explicit scientific model of personality structure. Proponents of this model see in the Big Five factors a long-sought comprehensive theory on the basis of which we can describe the human personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, b; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990, 1992, 1993; Goldberg & Saucier, 1995; John, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992). Raymond B. Cattell found as many as 16 primary personality factors in multivariate analyses of Allport and Odbert material (mentioned in the previous section). All major subsequent analyses of this material have almost unambiguously revealed only five factors that are quite similar to each other, regardless of which research and which author it is (see Table 2.4). Thus, we could say that in the five-factor or Big Five model, two traditions of exploring personality dimensions, factor-analytical and lexical, somehow converge.

2  Personality Theories

102 Table 2.4  Dimensions of the Big Five or five-factor model Author(s) Tupes and Christal (1961) Norman (1963) Goldberg (1981) McCrae and Costa (1986a, b)

Factor 1 Surgency

Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability

Surgency

Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Surgency Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism

Factor 5 Culture

Culture Intellect Openness to experience

Table 2.5  Facets ovf the Big Five Factors Extraversion

Facet scales Warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, positive emotions Agreeableness Trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness Conscientiousness Competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation Neuroticism Anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability Openness Fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values

Eventually, the five-factor model achieved a high degree of consensus in the search for the fundamental dimensions of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992c, p. 344). Many authors believe that the fundamental dimensions of personality are finally discovered with the Big Five (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1992; John, 1990). According to McCrae and Costa (1986a, b, p. 1001), five major factors can be used to describe most personality traits and represent “necessary as well as reasonably sufficient” personality information. Costa and McCrae (1992c) point out that with the Big Five, we can capture not only normal personality variations but also some abnormal ones. Costa et al. (1991) identified also the constituents or facets of the Big Five (Table 2.5). They also found that Big Five dimensions are not completely independent of each other. For example, there is an important positive correlation between extroversion and openness and a negative one between conscientiousness and neuroticism. The authors did not rule out the possibility that further research would reveal a different facet arrangement; after all, it’s a bit unusual for each dimension to have exactly six components (similar to Eysenck’s model, it’s hard to believe that each fundamental dimension has exactly seven or say nine components). Saucier and Ostendorf (1999) found similar but not identical facet categories in German and English lexical material: Factor I (extravertedness): sociability, disinhibition, self-­ affirmation, and activity/adventurism; Factor II (pleasantness): warmth/affection,

103

2.1  Dispositional Theories

kindness, nobility, and modesty; Factor III (conscientiousness): regularity, consistency/determination, reliability, and diligence; Factor IV (neuroticism): irritability, insecurity, and emotionality; and Factor V (openness): intellect, ingenuity/creativity, and perceptiveness. According to Peabody and Goldberg (1989), all five robust dimensions of implicit personality theory can be meaningfully linked to major areas of life. These areas were identified by the authors as areas of power, love, work, emotion, and intellect. The first realm, the realm of power, is associated with the implicit dimension, which was most often referred to as extravertedness, surgency, or self-­ affirmation. The second area, the area of love, is mainly associated with the dimension of pleasantness (also conformity, kindness, or liking according to some authors). The dimensions of diligence, responsibility, and will to achieve (productivity) are connected with the field of work. The area of emotion is associated with the dimension of emotionality or neuroticism (emotional control, emotional lability). And the field of intellect is associated with the dimension of intellect, culture, or openness. Thus, we get a rounded picture of the five implicit personality dimensions, which simultaneously refer to the five basic areas of life (Table 2.6). Despite the enthusiasm of many personality researchers for the model of the five greats, one must also pay attention to the critiques of this model. A series of critical moments of the model were collected by Block (1995). His critique focuses on both conceptual, theoretical, and methodological aspects of the model. Block draws particular attention to the boundary conditions of factor analysis that determine its outcomes; thus, the composition of input data (personality items) can decisively shape the obtained dimensions and make them arbitrary. Lexical analyses are in many respects still questionable and vague, interpretations of factor dimensions are inconsistent, the exceptional theoretical and practical scope of the five dimensions is questionable, and so on. However, Block, contrary to the promising title of his critical article, does not offer an equivalent alternative. Table 2.6  Five life domains and corresponding implicit dimensions of personality Dimensions by authors Domains Fiske (1949) Norman (1963) Power Social Surgency adjustment Love Conformity Agreeableness Work

Will to achieve Emotions Emotional control Intellect Inquiring intellect

Borgatta Digman (1964) (1990) Assertiveness Extraversion

Costa and McCrae (1992a) Extraversion

Likeability

Agreeableness

Openness to experience

Emotionality

Emotionality

Friendly compliance Will to achieve Neuroticism

Culture

Intelligence

Intellect

Conscientiousness Task interest

Conscientiousness Neuroticism

104

2  Personality Theories

A very important upgrade of the Big Five model of personality can be realized on the basis of discoveries that the Big Five dimensions are not basic, which means independent and uncorrelated, but, in reality, they substantially correlate (see Musek, 2017, pp. 3–36). Thus, the structure of personality can be properly understood, only if the higher-order dimensions like alpha and beta factor (Digman, 1997) or stability and plasticity factor (DeYoung et al., 2001) and, especially, the general factor of personality or GFP (Musek, 2007, 2017) were integrated into a final structural model (Musek, 2017, pp. 3–74). In Chap. 3 of this book, this complete structural model, labeled pyramidal model of personality structure, will be explained in details later.

2.1.4 Dimensional Types and Prototypes It is quite true that the typological approach is not completely extinct in modern times. Roughly speaking, we can distinguish classical typological theories that classify individuals into discrete and mutually exclusive qualitative categories and modern “typologies” classifying people along dimensional types or prototypes of personality. Many older typologies including these of Hippocrates, Jung, or Kretschmer fall into the first category. Their biggest drawback is that they do not anticipate intermediate and transitional stages, thus coming into great contrast to empirical reality, as most people do not belong to qualitatively defined types but are somewhere in between (Block, 1971; Cattell et  al., 1966; Eysenck, 1947, 1952, 1986; Lubinski et al., 1981; Mendelsohn et al., 1982). In reality, there is no clear demarcation line between types, although in some cases we can approach such a situation (Gangestad & Snyder, 1985). The most of people are not typical extroverts or typical introverts, but somewhere in between of these two categories. On the other hand, the dimensional conception of interpersonal differences allows for continuity and thus corresponds more to empirical facts and also allows for much more accurate measurability, which is an undoubted advantage from the scientific point of view. The classical typological approach thus does not have many proponents today, but this does not mean that typological theory is dead. It owes its renaissance to the concept of the prototype (Rosch, 1978). Eleanor Rosch believes that types can be defined not so much as logically exclusive categories but on the basis of similarity to ideal examples labeled prototypes. For example, the concept of a bird may be easier to understand on the basis of prototypical birds, which tell us what is more and what is less “bird-like” than on the basis of strict logical exclusion between birds and non-birds. Thus, it is clear that the falcon is a better representative of the bird type than the hen, as it has several properties that are prototypical for a bird (the hen is missing very important prototypical property, viz., flying). The prototypical conception of type has, among other things, another great advantage; it does not require exclusive, “all or nothing” logic, but produces overlapping categories. Individual cases are not compressed into a discrete category, but are continuously distant from the prototype; some are closer, others are more distant. What

105

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories Table 2.7  Correlations between personality prototypes and Big Five personality dimensions Big Five dimensions Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness

Personality prototypes Individuated Traditional 0.46 −0.29 0.34 0.46 0.07 0.57 0.15 −0.02 0.53 −0.09

Conflicted −0.08 −0.33 0.01 −0.68 −0.12

Assured 0.24 −0.28 0.37 0.38 −0.16

Modified after York and John (1992)

moves away from one prototype on the one hand may be closer to another on the other. Certain objects can be instances of not just one but two or more prototypes. Such a conception of types is certainly closer to empirical reality, where individual cases are arranged not discretely but continuously. Researchers believe therefore that personality traits and categories can be conceived using the logic of prototypes (Buss & Craik, 1983a, b; Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Cantor et al., 1982; Chaplin et al., 1988; Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). In doing so, individuals can be classified not into exclusive categories but into dimensional constructs. From a methodological point of view, this means a classification by factor or facet analysis instead of classification by cluster analysis. Namely, cluster analysis classifies types categorically, and it cannot happen that someone is in two classes at the same time. Factor analysis, for example, the Q technique (Cattell, 1952), however, allows significant saturations with several prototypical dimensions that occur in the same individual without any problem. What did the results of empirical research of prototype personality categories show? York and John (1992) discovered four major personality types through factor analysis. They described them as an individuated, traditional, conflicted, and assured type. These prototypes resemble the classical typological scheme proposed decades ago by psychoanalyst Rank (see also Block, 1971), yet they can be well described by the Big Five dimensions of personality, which are far more informative than any classical typological scheme (see Table 2.7). As we can see from the table, we can describe the individuated prototype as intellectually open, extraverted, and agreeable, the traditional prototype as conscientious and agreeable, the conflicted prototype as emotionally labile (neurotic) and unpleasant (low on agreeableness), and the assured prototype as emotionally stable, conscientious, extroverted, and less pleasant.

2.2 Psychoanalytic Theories The ancient Greek philosophers already guessed which were the main drivers of human behavior. Empedocles believed that two opposite divine forces, philotes (love) and neikos (strife), regulate the entire cosmos. Later, Plato and Aristotle, in their discussions of the parts or layers of the soul, spoke of the motivational power of our drives, emotions, and reason (Musek, 1999, 2003). Much later, instigated by

106

2  Personality Theories

Darwin’s theory of evolution, which stressed the importance of instincts, especially of the sexual drive, the dynamic or motivational forces took the central role in personality psychology. The emphasis on instinctual and latent motivation is obvious in the most known psychodynamic theory, the psychoanalysis. For many personality researchers, the main subject of study are psychic dynamisms, the driving forces of our experience and behavior: drives, needs, goals, and values—in a word, motives. We understand a person’s personality best if we know the motives that are the root causes of our actions. As structurally oriented psychologists see the deepest causes of personality in the structural dispositions of personality, psychodynamically oriented psychologists see them in motivational characteristics. Psychodynamic theories also have a venerable historical tradition that, like the dispositional tradition, can be traced back to ancient times. Empedocles spoke not only of the four basic elements and four qualities that became the basis of the first dispositional typology, Hippocrates’ doctrine of temperaments, but also of the primordial forces, the force of love (philia in ancient Greek) and the force of discord (neikos), both reminding us of Freud’s notions of eros and thanatos. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory is not only a prototype of psychodynamic theory but is also the first scientific theory of personality emerged in the age of scientific psychology, which is not merely a continuation of classical personality typologies. Psychoanalysis was soon joined by many other theories of psychoanalytically and neo-analytically oriented authors as well as psychodynamic theories of authors who are not psychoanalytically oriented at all. Psychoanalytic theory was developed by Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), Alfred Adler (1870–1937), and Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961). While Freud emphasized primarily the role of sexual drive (Freud, 1905, 1910, 1915), other psychoanalysts have pointed to the importance of other motives, e.g., compensation of weaknesses and feelings of inferiority (Adler, 1964, 1979) and individuation and self-realization (Jung, 1931/1969). Jung also pointed out the role of collective unconscious, the common mental heritage of all mankind, which we are not aware of, but which affect the mental functioning of people in all times and all cultures. The work of the collective unconscious is reflected, among other things, in the characteristic contents (archetypes) of dreams, myths, fairy tales, and artistic creation. Psychoanalytic theories of personality today have primarily historical value, but we must not forget that many later theories are based on their heritage, e.g., neo-analytic and post-­ analytic theories, ego-psychology, attachment theory, and object relations theory. Some of them are still current. Elsewhere, I tried to synthesize the connections of personality dimensions and GFP to leading psychodynamic constructs as follows (Musek, 2017, pp. 7–8): “GFP may be considered as a dimension with characteristics that can be easily detected in everyday human life. Therefore, it seems very probable that we can describe GFP in terms of personality theories of both great leaders of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung, although their concepts were never formally defined in terms of highest-order dimension. Freud (1923) postulated three major structural

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

107

instances of personality, id, ego, and superego. High GFP would be typical for the persons with well-organized, stable, and sociable ego, influential but not tyrannizing superego and realistically suppressed id. This combination of Freudian structures is opposite to the emotionally unstable neurotic individuals with low ego-strength and therefore low GFP. Jungian concept of personality evolved in several directions. One important aspect of personality is expressed in the opposition and possible tensions between ego and forces of individual and collective unconsciousness. The next personality model is represented by typology comprising two orientations of psychical energy (extraverted and introverted type) and four types of prevailing psychical functions (sensing, feeling, judging, and intuitive type). Finally, the personality can be depicted in terms of archetypes as self, shadow, persona, and anima. Considering the Jungian theory of personality, someone with high GFP can be described as an extraverted person with low tension between ego and unconscious forces (low neuroticism) and successful integration of archetypal structures, especially the self, the inner center of entire personality, and persona, the ‘social self’.”

2.2.1 Psychoanalysis Among the most influential directions of modern psychology is psychoanalysis, founded by Sigmund Freud. It focuses primarily on the study of unconscious motives and related human behavior. Psychoanalysis speaks of unconscious drives (especially sexual ones), desires, and other forces or dynamisms (from ancient Greek term dynamis = force) that arouse and direct our actions, often in such a way that we are not even aware of their influence. In doing so, the driving impulses of the individual person can be blocked or suppressed due to the pressures of his social environment and his superego, and if the suppression is excessive, mental disorders (neurotic symptoms, neuroses) occur. Freud formulated psychoanalytic theory as well as the process of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Even today, laymen associate their work with the notions of the unconscious, with the role of sexuality, and with the psychoanalytic treatment of neurosis using the couch, free associations, and dream interpretation. According to Freud (1895, 1905, 1910, 1915), sexual drive is the strongest and most personality-forming human motive, and early sexual (erotic) experiences in childhood (child or infantile sexuality) shape the personality of an adult. Our behavior is mostly directed by the unconscious part of the mentality (primary and then suppressed instinctual impulses). Unacceptable unconscious sexual and aggressive impulses cause psychical tension and anxiety, and most of our behavior is dedicated to avoiding anxiety; therefore, defense mechanisms occur, which is quite normal. However, if the threat and defense mechanisms are greatly escalated and exaggerated, a mental disorder may develop in the form of neurosis, where defense interferes with or limits normal life functioning causing self-punishment and other neurotic symptoms.

108

2  Personality Theories

2.2.1.1 Beginnings: The Work with Hysteria You don’t have to be a psychologist today to know about Freud’s revolutionary notions of the unconscious, the role of the sexual drive, and repression. But what brought Freud so far that he triggered a real psychological revolution? In his time, psychiatrists and medics drew attention to cases of disorders that gave them the common name of hysteria. The symptoms of hysteria were striking but at the same time enigmatic: theatrical behavior; outbursts and “hysterical” attacks; convulsions; sudden paralysis (paralysis); loss of speech, vision, hearing, and other feelings; memory loss; misperceptions; hallucinations; menstruation; etc. The most unusual thing was that many physical disorders occurred during the hysteria, for which it was not possible to determine any organic causes. How is it possible for disorders to occur that are purely functional without damaging the nervous system? Freud (1895) was not the only one to wonder if these symptoms were somehow the results of mental and not organic processes. It was interesting, for example, that hysterical individuals are highly suggestible and symptoms similar to hysterical phenomena can be caused by hypnotic suggestions. By hypnosis, e.g., it can be achieved that we will not feel pain or that we will not be able to move our limbs. Therefore, some experts began to treat hysterical phenomena, in which other medical interventions proved unsuccessful, with suggestive techniques and hypnosis, for example, the Parisian neurologist Charcot, director of the Salpetriere Hospital. Freud himself also practiced for some short time with him. Freud was becoming increasingly convinced that hysteria was of mental origin, much like a whole host of other neurotic disorders. Initially, he also tried hypnosis as a means of relieving hysterical symptoms, but the results did not impress him. In collaboration with a friend, Joseph Breuer, he used the catharsis method for some time; the essence of this method was an interview that forced the patient to try to remember the onset of his problems. In some cases, there was a revival of forgotten unpleasant experiences and emotions, and so emotional “cleansing” in some cases also led to the cessation of symptoms (catharsis). Even more often, however, the conversation with the patients ended in a dead end when they began to dodge and were no longer willing to process their memories. Breuer and Freud also observed that this resistance was most pronounced just when they were most eager to talk about the symptom. Freud also increasingly realized that most disturbing experiences are related to some unpleasant sexual experience—e.g., an attempt at sexual intimacy that someone experienced as a child. Thus Freud (1895) gradually conceived that the problems of hysterics as well as other neurotics are the result of unpleasant psychic experience, real mental wound (trauma) that the individual usually experienced in the early period of life. Apparently, these experiences were “forgotten” on the one hand, but their mental and even physical effects did not cease. Negative emotions and experiences were thus repressed, not forgotten, and they were pushed out of the realm of consciousness, yet unconsciously they continued to operate. And because these experiences and emotions could not be normally expressed and relaxed, they were expressed in a distorted, unconscious way through symptoms—fears, depression, disturbing thoughts and actions, as in most neuroses, or even as physical symptoms, as in hysteria.

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

109

It was also important to realize that reviving a repressed experience (complex) can mean healing. But how to find a reliable way to react, when something in one’s own mentality is clearly preventing the patient to consciously delve into the background of his problems? Neither hypnosis nor Breuer’s method of catharsis was successful enough. The next method used by Freud was the method of pressure (the “pressing” method): a patient was lying on the couch, and the therapist put his hand on the patient’s forehead and asked questions. In one of the patients, something interesting happened during the procedure. When Freud asked her something, she protested: “Mr. Doctor, your questions hinder the free flow of my associations!”. Perhaps this episode is “to blame” for the revolutionary transition to a new technique, the technique of free association. Freud decided to leave all the freedom to the patients to talk about anything that came to their minds. Indeed, the flow of association seemed to inadvertently lead the patient closer to the source of the problem, to repressed “memories.” At the same time, resistance arises, the greater it is, the closer the repressed content comes to consciousness, but with the unobtrusive help of a therapist, this resistance can be overcome. Therapy with the help of free association can gradually lead to the revived contents being revived, thus releasing unconscious loads; the “complex” ceases to function, and the unpleasant symptoms disappear. Of particular importance was the fact that under certain conditions repressed content can approach conscious “processing.” In addition to free associations, Freud also very early focused on dream interpretation. He saw in dreams the ideal means of expressing the unconscious. In dreams, conscious control is significantly reduced, even more than in free association. Thus, dream interpretation has become an extremely important part of psychoanalysis. In one of his early works, Freud (1900) drew attention to dream symbols that conceal a repressed instinctual meaning (usually sexual and aggressive content). In this way, we could see a kind of “text” in a dream event, which has a hidden, deeper unconscious meaning. Freud described this superficial part of dreams as the manifest content of dreams, and the task of the psychoanalyst is, of course, to find out what the repressed, latent content of dreams is. In this way, a new kind of hermeneutics, the science of interpretation, was born, Freud’s depth hermeneutics. Thus, a new method of eliminating neuroses was born, which was soon called psychoanalysis. When we talk about psychoanalysis today, we mean both the new psychotherapeutic method and the theory of unconscious mentality. They both evolved at the same time, and both are marked by Freud’s genius for all the time. Neither psychology, nor the theory of personality, nor any science of man was, according to Freud, “as before.” Freud, like few modern thinkers, has influenced our time. 2.2.1.2 Freud’s Psychoanalytical Theory and Metatheory According to Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, our psychological activity can be represented on several levels (see Fig. 2.9). Psychological reality comprises the levels of energetics (inborn psychical energy, libido), dynamics (instincts or drives, especially sexual drive; in later version life and death drive—eros and thanatos),

2  Personality Theories

110

reality, social environment

IDEALS NORMS

DEVELOPMENT: oral phase anal phase phallic phase (phase of latency) genital phase

energy, libido

ENERGETICS DYNAMICS

consciousness

SUPEREGO

preconscious

EGO

unconscious

ID

TOPICS

STRUCTURE

GENETICS

Fig. 2.9  The outline of Freudian psychoanalytic theory. The entire theory comprises five levels: energetics, dynamics, topics, structure, and genetics (see the text)

topology (conscious, preconscious, unconscious layer), structure (id, ego, superego), and genetics (developmental stages: oral, anal, phallic, genital). 2.2.1.3 Energy and Dynamics All mental functioning is made possible by mental energy. In evolution, biological mechanisms have been formed that regulate the direction and expenditure of energy in the organism. These are the driving mechanisms that form the basis of the motivated behavior of all organisms. Freud’s dynamics are very elementary, basically not even different from the views of other important researchers, e.g., Bernard, Pavlov, and Hull. Freud also takes the action of the reflex arc as a starting point. Stimuli from the environment or the body create a state of tension that is uncomfortable and requires relief in the form of motor or secretory reaction. In the absence of tension, the organism would peacefully devour in quiet satisfaction; only later did researchers prove that the state of minimum tension is not the optimal state of the organism. Instinctive mechanisms take care of the normal release of tension and thus the satisfaction of needs. Yet, different circumstances, especially the pressures of the social environment, resist the immediate release of tension. The study of these resistances and counterbalances connected with most psychological complications is therefore a very important subject of study in psychology. Freud’s pupil Ferenczi wrote

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

111

somewhere that “without resistance there would be only reflexes” in the life and everything would be easy. Psychoanalytic theory, on the other hand, is interested in the processes that mediate between the triggering of a motive and its satisfaction. The instinctive drive is expressed physiologically as a need and psychologically as a desire. The functions of the drive are to stimulate action, a direct action, and return the organism into its previous state. When tension arises, the drive first encourages us to act, it drives us to run, to take an action. In doing so, it also directs us to facilities that will be able to satisfy us. And finally, it brings us back to our previous state by means of satisfaction and maintains thus the homeostasis. According to Freud, human functioning is based on driving forces, among which sexual drive is at the forefront. The main part of energy is connected to it. This energy, the energy of the sex drive, was labeled by Freud (1905) as libido. Freud understood sexual drive very broadly—he almost equated it with the desire for life. Freud certainly did not deny the existence of other drives (e.g., the tendency to eat, drink, or avoid harm and pain), but he believed that the sexual drive is the most dominant and mostly influences our mental and personal development. For a long time, Freud was convinced that sexuality was the only source of our complex behavior, and he also attributed the emergence of social, civilizational, and aggressive behaviors to it. It was only relatively late that he changed his views on the foundations of human motivation. In the time of the First World War, he became increasingly convinced that aggressive and destructive tendencies stemmed from another independent but fundamental drive. Finally, he formulated his second motivational theory, according to which two fundamental forces operate in man and in nature: one forces us to love and affiliate, and the other to violence, hatred, destruction, and death (Freud, 1920, 1927, 1930). Freud labeled the first tendency as Eros (after the name of the ancient Greek god of love) and the second as Thanatos (god of death). Eros and Thanatos dominate not only the human and historical but also the cosmic scene: Freud did not hide the belief that the origin of Thanatos lies in the universal tendency to return to an inorganic, entropic state. Thus a war between Eros and Thanatos takes place in the entire universum. In this war, Eros may win a battle after battle, except the last, which inevitably wins Thanatos. The basic motivational forces are instinctual impulses, especially sexuality and aggression. These impulses dominate our unconscious mind. The conscious part of mentality enables the individual to behave in an adapted manner, appropriate to social norms and the requirements of the social environment. 2.2.1.4 Topology, Structure, and Development of Mind A human is born much more helpless than other beings, so he needs the help of others for a long time in order to satisfy his basic needs. However, since it is not acceptable for others to satisfy them in the most direct, primitive, and elementary form, a human being must adopt the ways to satisfy the need considering the demands of social reality. In order to achieve his goals, a human being has to keep part of his original mental apparatus in unconscious depths, and even later, he often has to

112

2  Personality Theories

suppress his driving impulses. Therefore, mental events are by no means fully conscious, according to Freud (1900, 1911, 1915). Working with patients convinced Freud that there are contents in the human mentality that are not accessible to consciousness. We are not normally aware of them, we can only be aware of them in special circumstances, e.g., in hypnosis, in dreams, and finally, after free associations and their interpretations in the process of psychoanalytic therapy. Under the opposing pressures of instincts and the environment, the structures of an individual’s personality (id, ego, and superego) are formed. This entire psychological equipment gradually develops through different stages or phases: oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital. The developmental phases defined Freud on the basis of the areas, where the psychical energy (libido) is primarily focused. These areas were also named the erogenous zones. In the oral phase, libido is concentrated upon oral functions like sucking, biting, and eating. In the anal phase, libido is focused on anal functions like expulsion and retention (anus and bladder control). In the phallic phase, libido is for the first time focused on the area of sexual organs, especially the penis in boys and the clitoris in girls. In the latent phase, there is no clear focus of libido, while in the genital phase, the libido is finally concentrated on normal, mature sexual activity. In the phallic phase, some mental complications occur that are very important for further individual’s development (see Fig.  2.10). At the beginning of this

Fig. 2.10  The psychosexual development in the phallic phase: the psychological plotting and unplotting for boys (Oedipal situation) and girls (Electra’s situation). See description in the text

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

113

developmental stage, children are strongly instinctively attached to parents of the opposite sex (boys to mothers and girls to fathers). Their infantile sexual attachment, however, is confronted with the role of more powerful same-sex parents. They become thus the rivals of the child. A typical inner (intrapsychic) conflict occurs between normal loving attitude toward the parents and newly established rivalry feelings. Yet, the child, who cannot afford real rivalry (especially because of the fear of being punished—castration fear), suppresses the hostile impulses toward the same-sex parent. Increasing tension in these situations (named Oedipal situation for a boy and, according to Carl Gustav Jung (1931/1969), Electra’s situation for a girl) jeopardizes a child’s mental balance requiring a solution of the conflicting tendencies. The normal resolution of this inner conflict occurs by giving up sexual aspirations toward the parents of the opposite sex, by suppressing hostile impulses toward the parents of the same sex, and, finally, by strongly identifying with the parent of the same sex (identification: “I should be like him when I grow up”). This solution allows the child to assume his own sexual role more easily and establish normal non-sexual affection with partners of the opposite sex. The further complication in girls’ psychosexual development is represented by so-called penis envy, meaning that very young girls feel deprived and envious for not having a penis. This Freudian conception was strongly rejected by numerous later researchers, even psychoanalysts. 2.2.1.5 Freud’s Conception of Object Relations and Narcissism According to Freud (1915), human psychosexual development runs parallel with the development of narcissism. Immediately after the birth, the psychic energy (libido) occupies the child’s organism and its needs: the child is unable to distinguish the self from the objects of the environment including significant others (especially mother), who actually satisfy the needs of an inborn. This very early stage of development (first year) denoted Freud as the phase without object. Afterward, the libido focused primarily on the child’s own body. Here, Freud speaks of the autoerotic or narcissistic phase, which lasts some years. Then, the libido is redirected to the peers of the same sex in the next, homoerotic phase with culmination around 10 years of age. In the period of puberty, the narcissistic interest for the self shortly reappears, yet, with the genital phase of psychosexual development, the heterosexual phase of libidinal focus on the heterosexual partnership finally prevails. The development of object relations is therefore closely connected to the development of narcissism. In primary narcissism, the libido is almost entirely absorbed by the child’s own body and his or her instinctive needs. Later, after the established relations with other objects (especially parents), significant parts of libido are directed toward them. Yet, the psychological problems or troubles may cause the withdrawal of the libido from outer objects. In this case, secondary narcissism may occur, for example, the feeling of exaggerated self-love or megalomania.

114

2  Personality Theories

2.2.1.6 Defense Mechanisms, Neurosis, and Psychoanalytic Therapy The basic postulate of psychoanalytic therapy is the thesis that psychological problems and disorders originate from repressed experiences (psychological trauma; see also Fig. 2.11). Traumatized persons are at risk of certain events provoking associations with psychological trauma, which the psychic structures of the affected person unconsciously defend and which they try to prevent by defense mechanisms. Suppression and repression are basic among them, but there are also the others, for example, denial, projection, introjection, displacement, reaction formation, rationalization, etc. (see Table 2.8). Provocative circumstances, however, can reach such an extent that conventional defense mechanisms are no longer sufficient. Excessive responses develop in the form of neurotic symptoms, which depend on the phase of development when the traumatized experience occurred. The psychoanalyst must be able to “read” the unconscious meaning of these symptoms (“symptomatic reading”) and communicate them in an appropriate form to the affected person. Presumably, this interpretation will make it easier for this person to explain his or her condition and to improve it. Psychoanalytic and psychodynamic orientation is thus closely related to the notions of mental health, mental disorders, and their treatment. Psychoanalysis was

NEUROTIC SYMPTOMS (depressive, compulsive, phobic, histerical)

PSYCHIC TRAUMA (traumatic event that caused psychical disbalance and will be suppressed)

PSYCHOANALYTICAL THERAPY (free associations, dream interpretations, putting the complexes into awareness)

Fig. 2.11  Psychoanalytical therapy cycle: traumatic psychological events cause the neurotic and other symptoms of psychological disorders, which can be eliminated or at least alleviated by the psychoanalytical therapy measures (see also the text)

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

115

Table 2.8  Some important defense mechanisms Defense mechanism Repression/ suppression Denial Projection Introjection Displacement Reaction formation Rationalization

Description Pushing psychic content into the unconscious Rejection, non-recognition of the perceived Attributing one’s own negativities to others Attributing foreign positive qualities to oneself Shifting the driving impulse from the original to the second person Transforming the impulse into the opposite Finding false excuses for own failure

Example Impulse block before it is wrapped (“…”) “It’s nothing serious,” “I didn’t mean anything” “Women are seducers,” “Look at this violent youth” The child responds to the compliment with the words “see, I’m already big” The child transmits repressed hostile impulses to the parents to other persons Servile behavior toward a boss we unconsciously hate “Nothing if she rejects me, because she’s not attractive enough for me”

created with the aim of finding an explanation for the development of enigmatic neurotic symptoms and to find ways to eliminate them on the basis of this explanation. From an early age, we need to adapt our driving impulses to reality. The function of adapting to reality is taken over by the emerging individual self. When libidinal impulses and tendencies collide with too much opposition from the superego, the ego tries to defend itself by not allowing them to enter consciousness. In other words, such driving (sexual and aggressive) impulses are too unacceptable for our consciousness and in their direct expression would jeopardize our mental balance. Unconscious censorship is activated in the ego and triggers defense mechanisms (“ego censorship”), the most basic of which is repression (Freud, 1915). Repression and suppression mean pushing an event or experience into the unconscious. Table 2.8 shows some of the more important defense mechanisms: some of them are very elementary (e.g., repression, denial, projection, introjection), and others are more complex. Severe or more permanent inhibition of libidinal and aggressive tendencies (such inhibition can be caused by psychological trauma) intensifies inner tension. Blocked tendencies cannot be released, but their energy remains, and so the tension can increase more and more, just like in a hydraulic machine, when the accumulated fluid presses more and more on the walls. Such a state of increased tension is often experienced as a state of anxiety (anxiety), which is a fundamental emotional sign of neurotic disorder. In addition to anxiety, other signs may begin to appear—neurotic symptoms. Neurotic and other psychopathological symptoms often appear as a kind of intensified defense mechanism (see Table 2.9). Thus, for example, paranoid tendencies are characterized by projecting and perverting driving tendencies: the ego cannot accept homosexual impulses (“I love him”) and transforms them in a distorted form of displacement and reaction formation (“no, no, I hate him”), and, finally, in projection (“ah, he’s the one who hates and haunts me”). These and similar cases show how intricate defensive action can be.

2  Personality Theories

116 Table 2.9  Main neuroses and neurotic characters according to Freud Stage of fixation or regress Oral phase (birth to 18 months) (libido focused on sucking, eating, and biting) Anal phase (18 months to 3 years) (libido focuses on expulsion and retention of feces; toilet training) Phallic phase (3–6 years) (libido focused on genital organs, especially the penis and the clitoris)

Neurosis Depressive neurosis Lethargy, insomnia, feelings of dependence, feelings of guilt, low self-esteem, suicidality Obsessive-compulsive neurosis Compulsive thoughts (obsessions) and actions (compulsions) Phobia Irrational fears (eg agoraphobia, claustrophobia) Hysteria (Conversive neurosis) Conversion symptoms: physical signs (hysterical paralysis, blindness, deafness, dumbness); hysterical attacks

Neurotic character Oral character Orientation toward taking, appropriating, “swallowing” (food, drinks, books, information); to be “hungry” for love and affection Anal character Excessive precision, regularity, pedantry; excessive orderliness, cleanliness; thrift, stinginess; stubbornness, obstinacy; extreme principiality in the style of “fiat iustitia pereat mundus”

Phallic character Excessive desire for pleasure, self-love, performance, arrogance; excessive ambition, arrogance, envy; whirlwind, instability; vain, exhibitionism

According to Freud, human beings are able to satisfy the instinctive impulses not only in a direct way (which is often unacceptable and rejected by social environment) but also in an adjusted, socially acceptable manner. Freud emphasizes the process of sublimation, the use of adjusted, healthy, and mature ways of dealing with unacceptable libidinal urges (e.g., the unacceptable aggressive impulses can be sublimated by socially approved martial arts). In the individual personal development, as well as in the development of human species, sublimation allows us to satisfy the libidinal in an acceptable and beneficial way. However, according to Freud, these sublimated modes are never as effective as direct instinctive gratification, so the surplus of psychic tension is remained. The nature of neurotic symptoms also depends on psychological development. If serious disorders have occurred in individual developmental stages, e.g., psychological trauma, development will stall at this stage. Fixation to the developmental period (oral, anal, phallic) will occur, and the symptoms will be marked by this period. According to Freud (1912), individual types of neuroses should be understood as a consequence of fixations in the corresponding developmental period or as a consequence of subsequent regression to this stage. Due to disorders in the oral period– when, e.g., If a child tries to “suck” on a loved one and is brutally rejected, a blockage of oral attachment and addiction may occur, which may later lead to the development of neurotic symptoms with oral characteristics (such as depressive neurosis) in provocative situations. Or, with the loss of a loved one on whom we depend, regression to the oral period with similar symptoms could occur. Similarly, fixations in the anal

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

117

phase may lead to the obsessive-compulsive neurosis and phobias, and fixations in the phallic phase may generate neurotic hysteria or conversion neurosis. Instead of neurosis, so-called neurotic characters can be developed (Freud, 1908, 1916). Neurotic symptoms are unpleasant for the individual himself (and often for his surroundings), and he feels them as something foreign, something that is imposed on him in his mind against his will. In neurotic character, however, traits develop that the individual integrates into himself, becoming part of his character structure (although they can still be unpleasant to others). The traits of a neurotic character usually also have the characteristics of the developmental stage that most influenced the formation of such a character. In psychoanalytic therapy, the patient’s false, neurotic interpretations of the symptoms must be substituted by accurate interpretations of the problem, made by psychoanalysts. Thus, the psychotherapeutic method leads to the proper insight into the real meaning of the symptoms, and consequently to the cessation of them. Yet, this process demands a time and patience. For the patient, it is impossible to accept therapeutic interpretations in the whole at the beginning. For example, it is impossible to accept the explanation that his or her behavior in the Oedipal (or Electra’s) phase is caused by hostile attitude toward the same-sex parent and sexual attachment toward the parent of opposite sex. Instead, the therapeutic interpretations should be gradual, properly dosed. The basic progress of the psychoanalytic therapy is fostered by the use of the free association without resistance and censorship. Free associations may help the therapist formulate the meaningful interpretations. It is true that in the practice of orthodox psychoanalysis, the free associations were used mostly in relation to the dream content (dream analysis). Even more, in the psychotherapeutic relation, the phenomena of transference and counter-transference occur, both interfering with the therapeutic goal—the cessation of the neurotic symptoms. The patient unconsciously transmits his—usually emotional—attitudes toward parents to the therapist (transference), and, on the other side, there is a danger that the therapist also reacts emotionally in return (counter-transference). Thus, instead of therapeutic progress, there is a danger that emotional attitudes that caused the symptoms in the past will be repeated in the therapeutic situation. Thus, the therapeutic interpretations should include the elaboration of transference and counter-transference in addition to the elaboration of patient’s basic repressed contents and the resistance to understand them. According to Freud, the attitude of the psychoanalytic therapist must be completely unemotional and objective. Neutral attitude of the therapist is a condition necessary to psychotherapeutic success. Only then, the psychotherapeutic goal, the patient’s insight into the real meaning of the symptoms, can be achieved. Freud believed that by such insight, the symptoms will disappear, and the neurosis will end. However, the efficiency of Freudian orthodox psychoanalytic therapy is seriously questionable (Brunner, 2001). Even Freud’s own patients were not successfully healed from the neurosis.

118

2  Personality Theories

2.2.1.7 The Emergence of Culture and Sublimation In some works (Totem and Taboo, Moses and Monotheism), Freud argued that similarly what happens to a child in his personal development happened to humanity in its history (Freud, 1913, 1939). Just as a child must learn to satisfy his instinctive tendencies in a socially acceptable form sublimating the libido, so the whole of humanity turned to sublimated ways of satisfying sexuality and aggression. Otherwise the human race could not survive. Freud believes that since then, humanity has been paying some kind of psychological tax on survival and progress. Existence and coexistence require the sublimation of drives, but because sublimation can never fully replace instinctive satisfaction, there remains a “surplus” of tension, a kind of universal “neurosis” that humanity suffers because of the preservation of culture and civilization. Freud wrote several times that culture reminded him of neurosis. Freud was convinced that humanity as a whole had once in antiquity survived the Oedipal period of its history. Back then, people were supposed to live in herds led by the oldest male. He had all the women for himself and did not allow his (adult) sons to have sexual intercourse, but if he caught them, he punished them. Finally, the sons had enough; they revolted, killed the tyrannical father, and then established a new social order to prevent the repetition of the bloody story: incest was banned, and the rule of exogamy was introduced. Afterward, it was clearly defined who can have marital and sexual relations with whom. This is how human culture was born according to Freud. Modern anthropology, however, convincingly rejects this Freudian historical myth. Today, it seems very likely that man never lived in hordes in the way Freud described it. It is much more likely that humans live family life from the beginning. It is true, however, that the ban on incest is a hallmark of all cultures and historical eras. It is psychologically important to prevent complete promiscuity and incestuous relationships, at least in general. Only in this way the marriage and family can preserve the prolonged care of the offspring, which is a necessary condition of the survival of human species. In its history, thus, the humanity “invented” the culture and civilization as a tool for a safe unfolding of Oedipal tensions and fears from generation to generation. 2.2.1.8 Strengths and Weaknesses of Freudian Theory Freud’s conception of personality had a huge impact, but it also provoked a lot of criticism. Both psychoanalytic therapy and psychoanalytic theory were strongly criticized. Psychoanalysis means a real turning point in psychology and also in the mentality of the modern age, which, until Freud, could not assess the full importance of the unconscious mentality. Freud believed that the dynamics of sexuality decisively shaped the development of humanity and the emergence of culture and civilization. Critics most often argue that Freud overestimated the role of sexuality and accuse many of his assumptions of being unverifiable. He is accused of forming

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

119

ad hoc hypotheses. His explanations often sound more like some kind of modern myths than scientific explanations. Karl Popper described psychoanalysis as pseudoscience precisely because some of Freud’s fundamental assumptions are not empirically refutable. However, many Freudian hypotheses have also been subjected to serious and repeated empirical testing. For some it turned out to be valid, for others not. We must certainly acknowledge that the influence of Freud’s theory in our age is remarkable. We rightly consider him a thinker who revealed to humanity the true dimensions of the unconscious mentality. Freud was undoubtedly a theoretical genius. This is reflected in the indisputable merits of his theory: • Intellectual depth and scope of the theory. • Parsimony: Freud’s theory is based on minimal premises and seeks to explain the entire mentality, personality, and culture of mankind on their basis. • Heuristic value: the theory has prompted many further research and models, not to mention the epoch-making impact on the science, art, and mindset of our era. • Exceptional scope of the theory: there is practically no human functioning that Freud would not try to explain in the framework of his theory. • Application orientation: Freud’s theory grew along with practical psychotherapeutic problems and is the basis of many applications in psychology, pedagogy, and elsewhere. The weaknesses of Freud’s theory are in particular the following: • Speculation, purely post-dictive validity, the absence of falsification, ad hoc explanations. With psychoanalytic theory, everything can be explained retrospectively, and its predictive power is very modest. Even the best psychoanalysts cannot predict behavior well, although they can interpret it quickly afterward. The power of scientific theory, of course, lies in predictiveness, not in the post-­dictiveness that is characteristic of a non-scientific approach (e.g., astrology). • Excessive reductionism and mechanism: Freud is probably rightly accused of explaining phenomena with the basic biological mechanisms and neglecting more complex mechanisms, necessary to properly explain higher mental processes, social relations, human society, spirituality, and culture. • Neglected cognitive and spiritual realm of personality; well, even Freud cannot be expected to devote himself equally to all areas of personality—in fact, his theory of personality is one of the most complete in its scope. • Unreliable method of clinical observation: Freud’s findings are based on scientifically inappropriate methods, but these were only gradually developed in Freud’s time. Indeed, Freud unwisely rejected more objective methods to the end of his life. • Questionable effectiveness of therapy: research shows that psychoanalytic therapy is among the least effective, among the most long-lasting, and among the most expensive. So, a little music for a lot of money.

120

2  Personality Theories

• It is questionable whether the effectiveness of psychoanalytic therapy (when effective at all) is really based on psychoanalytic theory: similar to the effectiveness of some other therapies, one may wonder whether their potential effectiveness is due to their theoretical foundations, the effectiveness of general treatment principles, or, above all, autosuggestion, the trust in the therapist, therapist’s intuition, personal quality of therapist, and, also, spontaneous treatment. 2.2.1.9 Diversification of Psychodynamic Models of Personality Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, is among the great figures of our age and can be considered the father of personality psychology. But psychoanalysis has not been a unified theoretical orientation for a long time; in fact it was not in the beginning too. Freud’s early collaborators, Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung, soon established their own orientations (see review in Fig. 2.12). Alfred Adler emphasized the will for power as the leading psychological drive. According to Adler, the social forces are equally or even more important in the life of an individual than internal psychological realm. Adler also stressed the role of the psychological wholeness, which may be endangered if the feelings of power were frustrated. In this case, the feelings of inferiority can develop (“inferiority complex”). Thus, the power and inferiority dynamics may be viewed as psychological leading force instead of sexuality as in Freudian psychoanalysis. In the Adlerian psychoanalytical school, labeled individual psychology, also the mechanism of compensation was strongly emphasized, as well as the role of sibling relations and the birth order. Carl Gustav Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist, is a most famous figure of psychoanalysis, immediately after Sigmund Freud. His analytical psychology will be discussed in the next subsection.

Fig. 2.12  Classification of psychodynamic theories of personality (see also text)

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

121

Together with Freud’s classical or “orthodox” psychoanalytic theory, Adler’s individual psychology and Jung’s analytical or complex psychology form the core of the first generation of psychoanalytic theories. In the second generation, a number of neo-analytic theories were developed by authors who accepted some of Freud’s basic tenets (the role of dynamic mechanisms, the existence of unconscious processes), while others were more or less rejected (the role of sexuality, the biological basis of personality). Many important neo-analysts have significantly revised Freud’s theses, some of them emphasizing the social aspects of personality and personality development and accusing Freud of neglecting them (Horney, Sullivan, Schultz-Hencke, and especially Fromm). Others linked psychoanalytic insights to existentialist philosophy (Binswanger and Frankl). In this and the next generation, further, post-analytic orientations were formed, the most important of which is ego-­ psychology. Ego-psychology and ego-psychoanalysis reject Freud’s conception of the ego, according to which the structure of the ego is a secondary instance of the personality that draws its energy from the original driving reservoir, from id. Ego-­ psychologists, on the other hand, believe that the ego and its functioning are the instances with innate potentials and that the development of these instances (especially the development of object relations and identity) most decisively shapes an individual’s personality and life. Ego-psychology is close to transactional psychology, which emphasizes the importance of so-called ego-states. The French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, on the other hand, sought to connect Freud’s theory with linguistic structuralism, founded by Ferdinand de Saussure. Modern psychoanalysis is thus certainly reminiscent of a very colorful mosaic of different, sometimes barely related concepts, views, and theories. Among all psychoanalytic theories, two have made a strong mark on the history of psychology, the already described Freud’s classical psychoanalysis and the analytical psychology of Carl Gustav Jung. The latter will be briefly discussed in the next subsection.

2.2.2 Individual Psychology: Alfred Adler Alfred Adler never completely agreed with Freudian psychoanalysis. In particular, he disagreed with Freud’s views on the role of sexual drive. He found the motivational foundations of human personality in the social field: in the pursuit of power and in human social interests. In 1911 he founded his own school, which the following year was renamed “individual psychology.” Adler was convinced that that man’s fundamental motive was social and directed toward the final goals, not driving as a biological instinct. The will to power and perfection are more psychologically and personally important for a person than sexual drive. The formation of our behavior and personality is more influenced by the fulfillments and obstacles of our pursuit of power (freedom, perfection) than other motives (Adler, 1927a, b; Ansbacher, 1971, 1977).

122

2  Personality Theories

2.2.2.1 Striving Toward Power and Perfection There is also a big difference between Freud and Adler in the general scientific view. Freud’s view of man is strictly causally analytical, almost mechanistic. Human personality is the result of driving mechanisms that causally determine an individual’s behavior and personality. Adler’s view of man is more finalistic (goal-oriented) than causal. Development, behavior, and personality can only be understood and explained by the assumption that they are directed toward the final state. Personality development is focused on the fundamental goal of life, which could be described as personal power and perfection, which is manifested in the realization of individual potentials. This goal is immanently present in human development, whether we are aware of it or not. We should not be surprised if humanistic psychologists also consider Adler (like Jung) to be one of the pioneers of the notion of self-actualization. 2.2.2.2 Inferiority Feelings and Compensation Life development is shaped by man to the greatest extent consciously, with the self and its creative power. On the way to life’s goals, our ego notices its own shortcomings, inferiorities (“Minderwertigkeiten”). In order to achieve the desired goals, the individual must overcome these inferiorities. The path to personal strength and perfection leads through overcoming, leveling and overcoming feelings or “complexes” of inferiority, through the process of compensation. Various ways of compensation are formed in childhood and affect the lifestyle of the individual. It is normal for an individual to observe himself and others and to compare himself with others. It is therefore practically impossible not to notice that others are in some respects better or more perfect than him. There is no man who, at least in one respect, does not lag behind another. And this, according to Adler, is the reason enough to develop a sense of inferiority (Adler, 1907). However, the feeling of inferiority does not depend on objective-deficit criteria, but on subjective ones. A world sub-champion may have a greater sense of inferiority than the average competitor. Why? Because his benchmark standard is a world champion, and for most competitors, these may be competitors who are themselves just at average. Subjective comparisons are a common source of feelings of inferiority, especially among adolescents. 2.2.2.3 Social Interest According to Adler, humans are distinctly socially oriented beings (Adler, 1939). As an isolated individual, man is “absolutely inferior,” and sociability is the way in which humanity instinctively transcends this inferiority. The second most important human motive is therefore the social interest (Gemeinschaftsgefühl), which directs us toward mutual cooperation and group identification. Thus, man is embedded in two strong basic motives, in the pursuit of power, where he strives for perfection and to catch up and become better than others, and in the pursuit of contact, cooperation,

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

123

and identification with others. The first tendency leads to assertion and competition, the second to cooperation and rapprochement. But according to Adler, these motives should not be seen as contradictory. As with Nietzsche, Adler’s pursuit of power is not directed toward others, but is in harmony with the social interest. One can assert oneself only by cooperating with others. Antisocial competition and aggression are only derailed manifestations of the pursuit of power. They occur when normal, socially acceptable patterns of assertion and improvement in the individual are hindered and prevented. 2.2.2.4 Personal Development and Role of Siblings and Birth Order According to Adler, mental problems and disorders stem mostly from the acquired inability to properly compensate for inferior feelings. Environmental requirements can be, e.g., too severe, such that the child cannot satisfy them: in him or her the feeling of inferiority will deepen, an inferiority complex will appear, which the child will be able to solve only seemingly, but not in reality. A similar thing can happen to children who are too spoiled to be able to face obstacles. According to Adler, this is the result of an unresolved inferiority complex. Actual physical defects and various organic defects are a particularly important and fatal accelerating factor (Adler, 1907). Adler also thoroughly (1912, 1956) described the impact of family conditions on personal development. He was probably the first to discover how strongly this development is influenced by factors such as the order of birth and the individual’s sibling position as well as the gender of his or her (especially older) siblings. He found, for example, that in girls raised by parents who preferred a male child, so-called male protest occurs: an imitation of male behavior and interests that stems from dissatisfaction with one’s sexual role.

2.2.3 Analytical Psychology: Carl Gustav Jung Analytical or complex psychology of C. G. Jung is one of the three classical psychoanalytic theories, along with Freud’s orthodox direction and Adler’s individual psychology. Almost at the same time as Alfred Adler, considered Freud’s first successor, the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung formulated his psychoanalytic theory. He, too, was considered Freud’s successor for some time. But for both Adler and Jung, this succession was not judged. Both broke off collaboration with Freud and devised their own psychoanalytic orientation. Jung is one of the most striking thinkers of our era. His vast oeuvre is full of ideas and concepts that are firmly entrenched not only in psychology but have influenced other sciences as well as art and even become part of contemporary psychological “folklore.” In this respect he is perhaps the only one who can compete with Freud, but it is also full of peculiar and controversial notions that sometimes stray far from scientific clarity and verifiability. Jung’s view of man and the world is profound; his emphasis on the

124

2  Personality Theories

unconscious, intuition, and dialectics represent a unique and multidimensional doctrine that is difficult to judge fairly. 2.2.3.1 Collective Unconscious and Archetypes Jung believes that Freud discovered only a part of the unconscious, the less important part, which represents the individual or personal unconscious: the experiences that the individual suppressed and pushed into the unconscious. According to Jung, the unconscious in no way encompasses only repressed individual experiences but also the much more vast contents that came into the unconscious mentality during human phylogenetic development. These contents are the property of all mankind, and Jung (1912, 1944, 1964) describes them as collective unconscious. This is the true origin of human action; it is a kind of unconscious reservoir of deep wisdom of the whole human race, which, in some unknown way, is inherited by each individual. In the mentality of the individual, this unconscious heritage emerges in the form of mighty prototypes, which Jung called archetypes. The content of the collective subconscious is formed by archetypes as universal human symbols, prototypes or prototypes of everything that is most important in human life. With archetypal images or symbols, humanity intuitively perceives all those most important aspects of reality that it cannot consciously know and understand. Archetypes come to the fore again and again in the history of human design, in fairy tales, in mythology, in images of art, and in religion (Erich Fromm spoke in this regard of “forgotten language,” the universal language of symbols). Archetypes also appear in individual life, within all those activities where the influence of conscious control is reduced, especially in dreams, fantasy, and imagination. Archetypical ideas and images appear in the dreams and fantasies of all individuals as in the mythical, religious, and cultural tradition that led Jung to believe in the existence of the collective unconscious (Fig. 2.13). Jung’s notion of the archetype was also influenced by similar notions of other authors: it originated in the works of Neo-platonists (Philo, Irenaeus, Dionysius the Areopagite), and similar concepts can be found later by Goethe (“Urphänomene”), by the French school of sociology (“collective spirit,” “1’esprit collectif”). Archetypes can be asserted in the images of persons who symbolize the image of the hero (Gilgamesh, Heracles), the figure of the wise man, the figure of the Son of God, the Savior, etc. but can also represent symbolic scenes and situations, e.g., the archetype of birth, heroic deeds, fighting a dragon, paths to the underworld, etc. The figure of the father, man (animus), mother (magna mater), and woman (anima) also appears in an archetypal form, as well as the figure of a deity, demon, evil spirit, etc. Among the most important archetypes that guide our actions (often beyond our will) are the archetypes of the self (the prototype of the perfect personality), the shadow (the prototype of the instinctual and animal drive and power), the persona (our public, social self), the anima (unconscious feminine side of a man), the animus (unconscious masculine side of a woman), and mana (spiritual power). These archetypes lead the individual to balance internal contradictions

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

125

Fig. 2.13  Jung’s view of personality. The conscious part with its core (ego), the deep core (self), and the unconscious part with the individual and collective unconscious and archetypes

in her or his development and thus focus on the greater perfection and wisdom that is characteristic of a self-fulfilling, holistic personality. 2.2.3.2 Transcendence of Opposites In general, Jung emphasized the opposites and thus the dialectical nature of the personality. Contradictions, especially fundamental ones (e.g., the contrast between the conscious and the unconscious) are the source of psychic energy or libido, which is more broadly understood by Jung than by Freud, for whom libido is the energy of the sexual instinct. Jung thus joins the tradition of dialectical philosophy, according to which everything exists as a balance of opposites. In every phenomenon, the opposites complement each other (this aspect of dialectical complementarity is called by Jung the principle of complementarity), merge, and finally transcend. Personality development is based on the dynamics between the conscious part of the personality (ego) and the individual and collective unconscious world. The driving force of these opposites is psychic energy, libido, which accumulates mainly in those psychic areas where the dynamics of opposites, i.e., conflicts, are most pronounced. Some hotbeds of conflict produce so much psychic energy that they can use it for their own, autonomous lives. Each individual can form several such independent mental units that follow their own dialectical development, and Jung called these complexes. Complexes are therefore special, automated mental units, personalities in small.

126

2  Personality Theories

Particularly powerful archetypes, e.g., shadow, anima, animus, etc., can form complexes that dominate the individual. According to Jung, dialectical development is immanent to every thing and also to every individual, yet the tendency to individuation, the tendency to overcome contradictions and opposites between the conscious and the unconscious, is also presented. In ideal circumstances, the individual develops in a dialectical process of confronting and finally overcoming internal conflicts, resolving first individual and then deeper, collective complexes. This process continues until the integral personality emerges. This integral personality subsumes transcended contradictions, including the ineffable, irrational, and deepest elements of personality that were originally inaccessible to the conscious self. In all this development, the image of self (represented by the archetype of self) is present as the ultimate goal and guide. However, the full identification with self occurring at the highest level of individuation is a rare condition. Such a personality is truly total (homo totus), as it represents the synthesis and realization of all the potentials of oneself and therefore also really equates oneself with self-archetype as much as possible. Total personality means the fulfillment of what Jung calls the transcendent function of personality; it is the peak of individuation process: personality that transcends and synthesizes previously isolated and opposing elements. 2.2.3.3 Personality Types Jung’s personality typology is the most empirically convincing and the most accepted of his entire theory. His typological classification is based on two aspects: the first concerns the direction of psychic energy, and the second concerns the functions of psychic experience (Jung, 1921). Psychic energy can be directed inward, toward the subject and his inner experience, or outward, toward the objects, into the outer world. Jung described people who are mostly inward-looking as introverts and people who are outward-looking as extroverts. Extraversion or extraverted people are characterized by being helpful, open, and willful, they easily find themselves in any situation, and they quickly establish relationships and do not think much when they go into the unknown. On the other side, introversion or introverts are characterized by a hesitant, thoughtful, introverted character, reserved, defensive, and tending to hide behind distrustful observation. The person’s mental life is thus manifested in the tensions between conscious and unconscious areas of the personality, as well as in the contradictions between the directions of psychic energy (extroversion and introversion). However, mental functioning itself is also complex. According to Jung, there are four basic psychological functions: sensation, thinking, feeling, and intuition (see Table  2.10). Sensation represents the most primary function of experience, the individual’s initial reaction to the outside world. This is followed by thinking as an interpretation of the senses, feeling as an evaluation of the perceived and finally intuition as a direct awareness or experience of relationships. By feeling we perceive what is actually given, thinking enables us to recognize the meaning of what is given, emotion values that are given; intuition, however, finally shows us the deeper meaning

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

127

Table 2.10  Four psychic functions according to Carl Gustav Jung Attributes of Function function Sensation Direct, irrational Thinking Indirect, rational Feeling Intuition

Indirect, rational Direct, irrational

Brief definition/description Direct sensation and perception, sensory and perceptual experience (what is actually present in our senses; actual perceptions) Cognitive interpretation of experience (by concepts and associations), recognition of the meaning of experience using logic and reason (Emotional) evaluation of experience; tells us the value attributed to the experience—excitement, happiness, sadness, etc. Direct awareness of deeper relations using symbolic meaning; gathering information directly by (collective) unconscious

Table 2.11  Eight combined personality types after C. G. Jung Function Introversion Sensation Introverted sensation Making things by themselves, not caring what is happening in the society Thinking Introverted thinking Interesting in their own thoughts, don’t like groups, creative when alone Feeling Introverted feeling Doubting themselves, deals with morals and truly beliefs, deep thinker, not sharing, solving things alone Intuition Introverted intuition Focused inward, on the internal world, open to unconscious more than to daily routine

Extraversion Extraverted sensation Seeking pleasure and happiness in the society, wanting to see other people Extraverted thinking Strict, following rules and regulations, working for their own objectives Extraverted feeling Very sociable, emotional, and sensitive, liking groups, parties, showing creativity in public Extraverted intuition Perceiving, motivated, and creative, liking new things and experiments, gathering information about anything

expressed by symbols and archetypes (Jung, Modern Man and Search of a Soul, p. 207; cit. after Wolman, 1960). While thinking and feeling are judgmental, rational, and indirect functions, sensation and intuition are direct, perceptual, and irrational. Otherwise, sensation and intuition are profoundly different, because feeling binds the senses to objects, and in intuition, perceived objects are used only as symbols for deeper content, so that intuition, so to speak, perceives a deeper reality. Psychic energy is available to these functions or processes. Among them, it is intuition that enables us to perceive unconscious contents. These are not shown to us in conscious thoughts and ideas, but in intuition with the help of symbols. Symbols denote the deepest unconscious contents, among them the archetypes of the collective unconscious. The type of individual personality determines, on the one hand, the orientation of psychic energy, and, on the other hand, it is determined by mental functions. So we can talk about the extrovert and introvert type but also about the sensation, thinking, feeling, and intuitive type of personality. Of course, all of these types can be combined into complex combined personality types (see Table 2.11). Jung believes that

128

2  Personality Theories

the principle of dialectical complementarity also applies to typological definitions: if, e.g., at the conscious level, a certain orientation and function (e.g., extraversion and thinking) dominate, the opposite combination (e.g., introversion and feeling) will necessarily be more strongly present in the subconscious. In special circumstances, e.g., in dreams, the repressed part of the personality can prevail, completely different from the manifest type of personality that is expressed in conscious life. However, mental upheavals and conflicts can also bring the unconscious type to the surface, and an individual’s manifest behavior will change radically. 2.2.3.4 The Self and the Process of Individuation Jung did not describe the stages of personality development in particular, but he certainly strongly rejected the Freudian scheme of personality development, which ends at the termination of adolescence. Jung believes that personality development takes place in two major life stages. The years about the 1940s are at the transition of these two periods. The first period is dominated by growing up, the influences of the outside world, and the psychological development. In this age, it is necessary to develop basic potentials, meet basic needs, and overcome fundamental conflicts. It is only from the middle years onward that we can speak of true mental or better spiritual growth, which is marked by the process of individuation, approaching the self and its totality. The individual begins to follow the self-archetype, achieving deeper wisdom and transcending the lower levels of personality. However, this is an ideal model that people often do not achieve in their life due to different disruptions and obstacles. If conflicting aspects of the personality prevail, the personality literally split, and the repressed parts of the personality take over. The process of individuation in the true sense is not possible. Jung actually believes that in this case, a sort of “multiple” personality conditions really affects a person.

2.2.4 Neo-Analytic and Post-Analytic Theories of Personality After Freud, many psycho-dynamically oriented authors rejected classical psychoanalysis and propose their own theoretical models. A disagreement with Freudian theses arose about the following issues: 1. Causality—finality: Are the main driving forces causal factors (drives), or are they determined by the final goals? 2. Individual—collective: Is unconscious mind constituted mainly by repressed individual experiences, or is it constituted mainly by collective archetypes? 3. Basic motives: Which are the basic driving forces—sexuality, aggression, other needs, and motives? 4. Role of social factors: What is the role of social determinants in human life? 5. Personality structure: Which is the primary structure of personality—id or ego?

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

129

Freud strongly believed that the instincts are major driving forces of our experience and behavior. He thus advocated a strict causal explanation of mind and behavior, while, for example, Alfred Adler emphasizes the role of the goals (“final causes”). We have already seen how important was collective unconsciousness to Carl Gustav Jung (in opposition to Freud). Some authors emphasized the role of many basic motives (more than sexuality and/or aggression as Freud believed), and some of them especially stressed the role of social motivation (Karen Horney and Erich Fromm). The others questioned the Freudian concept of id as a primary source of personality and interpret the ego as the primary structure (ego-psychologists as Hartmann and Erikson). They also focus on the relations with key persons in the life (object relations). 2.2.4.1 Neo-Analytic Models of Personality In the 1930s of this century, in addition to the three classical psychoanalysts, new psychoanalytically oriented thinkers who had significantly different views on fundamental human motivation gradually began to gain ground. In these neo-analytical circles, the social orientation was becoming more and more entrenched, especially by authors like Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, Harald Schultz-Hencke, and Harry Stack Sullivan. In the beginning, these authors also dealt mainly with the issue of developmental disorders and neurotic development. Over time, however, more comprehensive neo-analytic theories have emerged. Harald Schultz-Hencke Harald Schultz-Hencke (1947) integrated Freudian and post-Freudian conceptions into a so-called neo-analytical theoretical paradigm. Human development is determined on the one hand by instinctual tendencies (but they are far from being limited to sexual drive) and on the other hand by the demands of the environment and society. Schultz-Hencke emphasized the role of family education. The central notion of Schultz-Hencke theory is the notion of inhibition (Hemmung in German original). Inhibition means a serious obstruction or prevention of the basic needs and is the basis for the development of neuroses. The inhibition is often a consequence of excessively tough yet also of overly lenient upbringing. Strong inhibition may lead to the neurotic symptoms, especially when the inhibition concerns the basic needs: • • • •

Intentional needs (needs for contacting and trusting the environment) Possessive needs (needs for acquiring and retaining things) Aggressive needs (needs for power and assertion) Erotic and sexual needs (needs for tenderness, affection, and love)

The inhibition of the basic needs results in four types of neurotic personality structures: schizoid personality structure (inhibition of intentional needs), depressive personality structure (inhibition of possessive needs), anankastic

130

2  Personality Theories

personality structure (inhibition of aggressive needs), and hysteric personality structure (inhibition of erotic and/or sexual needs). Karen Horney Karen Horney (1937, 1950) rejected the Freudian notion of sexuality and stressed the social aspects of personality development. She also criticized psychoanalytic conception of gender roles and particularly objected Freud’s notion of penis envy. She introduced the concept of basic anxiety. It is characterized by deep fear of helplessness and abandonment as a result of traumatizing experiences in early and later personal development. Basic anxiety and underlying conflict lead to neurotic conflict and neurosis if behavioral strategies are developed that do not allow the child to overcome basic conflicting views. Instead, defensive behaviors are formed by which the individual tries to resolve conflict in a neurotic way, e.g., through further repression (suppression), withdrawal, self-idealization, and conflict with the environment (externalization). Basic anxiety is the main symptom of neurosis, which can develop in three directions of neurotic needs: moving toward people (neurotic compliance), moving against people (neurotic aggression), and moving away from people (neurotic withdrawal). Neurotic moving toward people or neurotic compliance represents neurotic protection against helplessness. Compliant persons are morbidly dependent, they desperately seek affection and strive for approval of others, or they seek a partner, who is powerful and will take all responsibility for them in partnership. Neurotic moving against people or neurotic aggression is expressed by overly hostility, aggression, and competitiveness. Neurotic aggressive people tend to be powerful and exploiting; they seek prestige, admiration, and achievement for any price. Neurotic moving away from people or neurotic withdrawal is reflected in an escalated need for privacy, independence, and self-sufficiency. Neurotic withdrawn persons put emotional and social distance between selves and others. They often become isolated and secluded. Erich Fromm Erich Fromm (1941, 1947) was probably most sociologically oriented among neo-­ analytic authors. Fromm was a psychoanalyst, and at the same time, he was very close to the Frankfurt School of Critical Philosophy (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse). He advocates the thesis that social activity reflects social conditions, especially the influence of the social system, and that the past and present social system alienates man from his own essence. Only a just society of the future will be able to produce mature, productive human relations, life self-actualized personality. Especially in his later works, Fromm contributed a lot to the humanistic turn in psychology, and many be considered one of the most prominent humanistic psychologists.

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

131

According to Fromm, we may speak of five major human needs: need for affiliation, creativity, belongingness, identity, and orientation (Fromm, 1955). Later, he added the needs for spontaneity, religion, and stimulation (Fromm, 1964, 1973). Finally, he postulated five existential needs: relatedness, rootedness, transcendence, sense of identity, and frame of orientation. The frustrations of these needs may produce different disorders, including neurotic insecurity, narcissism, sadomasochism, exploitation, aggression, destructiveness, loss of identity, loss of hope and faith, and cognitive disorientation. Fromm was probably the first author who defined the concept of social character. He believed that fundamental character orientations are formed in the interaction between the society and the individual. Thus, social character describes the psychological structure common to people of a social class. There should be one or more characteristic orientations for each social order and social conditions, and a certain type of social character should correspond to each society. Fromm (1955) distinguishes two basic forms of character orientation: the first, unproductive orientation, is supposed to be characteristic mainly of different historical class societies and cultures, in which the individual’s personality remains alienated in one way or another. The second, productive orientation, is supposed to enable the authentic development of the personality and the realization of generic human potentials. In contrast to all unproductive orientations, the productive orientation is characterized by the tendency toward the equal development of all human potentials. Only a productive person is able to work, love, and think in the full sense of the word. Unproductive characters may work (and even hard as a collective and market character), but their work is more or less alienating, while work of a productive nature is creative. An unproductive character is incapable of true love: either he is incapable of giving (the receiver), or he is merely exploiting his partner or perceiving him as property or as a marketable commodity. Only a productive character is loving carefully, responsibly, with respect and understanding (Fromm, 1955, 1956/1974, 1964). A person can progress toward personal self-improvement and growth depending on social conditions but also on one’s own, autonomous activity. The progress is reflected in the growth syndrome (Fromm, 1964): in the growing love of life (biophilia), love of fellow human beings and autonomy. However, there can also be regression in personal development, which is manifested in the growing attraction of all inanimate and dead, in flight and destructiveness (necrophilia), in egotism and narcissism, in masochistic or sadistic dependence on others, in the receiving without giving, and in exploiting (parasitic) attitude. Fromm, who also undertook psychological analysis of important historical figures, for example, described Hitler as an exceptionally necrophiliac figure. Harry Stack Sullivan Harry Stack Sullivan (1953) founded interpersonal psychoanalysis, which emphasized the role of interpersonal relations and interactions in personality development and the formation of neuroses and other mental disorders. Sullivan especially

132

2  Personality Theories

focused on the influence of “significant other” (he was probably the first who used this term in literature). Problems in interpersonal relations may significantly distort the development of personality, especially the development of so-called self-­system, the personality configuration organized in order to avoid fears, anxiety, and different other threats to self-esteem. Early interpersonal relations and interactions produce three components, the personifications of the self-system: the “good-me,” the “bad-me,” and the “non-me.” The good-me is made up of qualities that others approve of in us. Bad-me represents the traits that others criticize and reject. The non-me, however, is represented by those qualities that we completely reject and deny, by our repressed self. Interpersonal interactions may strongly affect these personifications; they may, for example, produce a too weak or too narrow good-me and too exaggerated bad-me and non-me. In this case, serious psychological difficulties, especially anxiety, can be expected, and interpersonal psychoanalytic therapy is indicated. According to Sullivan, anxiety is not so much the result of blockage of instinctual tendencies, inhibition, or conflict between instinctual impulses and environmental demands. Anxiety is supposed to be a direct result of interpersonal action—so to speak, it arises from an interpersonal situation. If the child’s attempts to approach and express affection (and, of course, to seek affection) do not meet with approval from the parents, and if even rejection of these attempts occurs, anxiety and psychological disorders can appear. A child who strives for the love of his parents, but encounters constant misunderstanding, impatience, fatigue, or other types of rejection, may develop a negative attitude toward the environment and the world. The child feels rejected and eventually takes a negative, hostile attitude toward the environment. Maliciousness, aggression, and destructiveness are possible consequences of such a development. Obstruction of the need (in this case the need for affection and affiliation) can result in aggressive, hostile behavior. Yet, Sullivan’s conception of aggression is clearly different from that of the authors, who see aggressive behavior as an expression of a primary instinct (such as Freud). According to Sullivan, aggression appears only as a reaction to frustration, as a kind of defense mechanism that helps a rejected child release internal tension and dissatisfaction. Many psychological studies confirm Sullivan’s frustration theory of aggression (Dollard et al., 1939). A malformed self-system is a result of disturbed behavioral patterns (parataxic integration) characterized by parataxic distortions, where other persons are experienced on the basis of (distorted) previous experiences. Often, the parataxic distortions stem from fixated prototaxic communication that is the most basic and primitive form of interpersonal communication (as opposed to mature, positive syntactic communication). Neuroses and other psychological disorders are caused by parataxic distortions derived from repressed traumatized experiences in early interpersonal interactions. According to Sullivan, they can be healed by interpersonal psychoanalytic therapy.

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

133

2.2.4.2 Post-Analytic Models of Personality In the development of psychodynamic concepts according to Freud and other “classics” of psychoanalysis, many neo-analytic and post-analytic orientations have emerged (see, e.g., Musek, 1999, pp. 85–95). The most influential theoretical shift, as well as the strongest practical influence, had ego-psychology with its successors, the theory of attachment, the theory of object relations, and relational theory. In all of them, the importance of interpersonal relationships is strongly emphasized. According to these notions, an individual’s development is closely connected with the development of relationships with the most important people in life, especially, of course, with parents (the object in this theory means a key person). Thus, the development and phases of object relations, attachment, and relational adaptation appear instead of Freudian phases of psychosexual development. Among the post-analytic models of personality, the following should be mentioned: • • • • •

Ego-psychology Theory of object relations Theory of narcissism Relational theories Attachment theory

Ego-Psychology Since the fundamental contribution of Heinz Hartmann and co-workers (1946), the “apparatus” of the ego and the process of adaptation have been at the forefront of ego-psychology. Adaptation is, according to Hartmann (1958), “the reciprocal relationship between organism and environment” (ibid., p. 24). The structure of ego is characterized by ego-psychoanalysts and ego-psychologists as apparatus of primary autonomy. Here lies a fundamental revision of Freud’s view of id as the primary instance of personality. Ego is no less original and primary instance than id. Strictly speaking, the human mental apparatus with its instances is just developing from the original undifferentiated state. The primordial ego is the undifferentiated matrix, but it is not without content: it comprises innate potentials of perception, motivation, thinking, speech, motor skills, etc., which all enable further development of a human being. Hartmann even points out that Freud had already indicated that the development of the self is genetically determined and that ego-­psychology is not, in essence, such a fundamental deviation from orthodox psychoanalysis. By studying adaptation and the ego, the subject of psychoanalysis also becomes a normal person, and thus psychoanalysis also becomes more like normal psychology than just clinical science. In normal development, therefore, the ego and its functions do not develop in the service of internal conflict, but develop in the non-conflict sphere. Only

134

2  Personality Theories

trauma and other disorders push the functioning of the ego into conflict. Thus, in the adaptation of the individual, ego as the regulator of development progresses not only straightforwardly but also deviates and regresses. Object relations are especially important for the development of an individual, as well as for the occurrence of disorders in this development. By object relations, ego-­psychology refers to early relations of the child with the main objects of his surroundings, primarily with parents, especially with the mother. The child invests his or her psychic energy to them (cathetizes them). Yet, apart from objects outside the individual, energy is also directed to the individual’s perception of himself. This is, in fact, a new, ego-psychological concept of narcissism, which is different than that of Freud. According to ego-psychology, psychic energy is only partially used for instinctual purposes. An important part of psychic energy is not instinctive, but neutral. For example, a child, who in beginning cries, when hungry, on an instinctive basis, learns that crying calls his mother. Now, the crying has a new, non-instinctual function. The internalized experience enabled the child to neutralize (separate from the instinct) and redirect the same energy that served primarily to the drive satisfaction to another goal. The former instinctive, id-related cry is now a cry with some “ego” purpose. The child’s ego uses neutralized energy, which previously had an instinctive nature (hunger suppression), with a new purpose—to establish contact with the mother. Neutralization of energy works not because it binds energy to driving pleasures, but to new pleasures, to “pleasures beyond libido.” In addition to the primary, genetic autonomy of the ego, we can therefore also speak of secondary autonomy, which results from the neutralization of energy and its conversion from the instinctive to the non-instinctive form. Object Relations Normally, object relations develop through several stages. At the initial stage, the individual has no object. This is followed by the stage when the child experiences the object only in the light of satisfying his own needs. Outside of this, the object no longer exists for him or her—the object has no constancy. Only afterward a permanent object relation emerges. The child maintains the idea of the object and binds psychic energy to it, regardless of the state of his needs. This means that the individual “occupied” the object not with instinctive but with neutralized energy and therefore also became less dependent on the environment. Both the concept of the object and the concept of the ego become stable. Mahler (1968) transparently analyzed the initial stages in the development of object relations. She speaks of the levels of symbiosis, separation, and individuation (also Mahler et al., 1975). At the symbiosis stage, the ego and the object are still undifferentiated, or the differentiation is still weak. The next is the phase of separation, when the diversity and separation of the ego from the significant object develop. Thus, in the beginning, the ego is still very much connected with the object, and the dependence of ego on the object is great. In the third phase, the phase of individuation, the qualities of ego are increasingly integrated into a separate, independent image of the self. The

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

135

relationship between ego and object is becoming more mature and more independent, but also more complex. In all three phases, the child is sensitive, and personality problems can occur due to disturbances in child’s development. The earlier these disturbances are, the more serious later problems they may cause. Narcissism Theory Kohut (1966, 1971, 1977; also Kohut & Seitz, 1963) paid special attention to disturbances that affect individuals’ self during the phase of object relations when the object does not yet have a permanent value. The object does not yet have true permanence; the individual (unconsciously) experiences it only in the light of satisfying his own needs and his narcissism. We must not think that narcissism is necessarily linked to a state of the fusion between self and non-self and that it is excluded by object relations. At a certain early age, such an experience is normal and is even a sign of normal development. The child exercises his/her abilities and develops a healthy sense of self-admiration. In a similar way, when experiencing important objects, he or she normally forms the image of his parents or one of them in an idealized form. Thus, the “grand exhibitionistic self” normally emerges in combination with the idealized object, meaning “I am perfect and you adore me,” or “you are perfect and I am part of you.” This, however, is only a transitional phase that the child’s development transcends by advancing both in the structuring and differentiation of self and object. The performances of both become more realistic and more independent. Thus, both the concept of the self and the concept of the object are evolving. Yet, early disturbances can affect this development at a time when there is no clear differentiation between the self and the object, and so the primitive grandiose and undifferentiated self may push the object into the self. At the next stage, the object is partially differentiated, yet as the “other self” (alter ego), it somehow remains part of the self. Thus, instead of a mature image of the self and the object, narcissistic images of both appear in resulting of the great self while denying the importance of anything else or in the opposite search for one’s own greatness in merging with an omnipotent (and possibly suffocating) object. A narcissistic personality disorder emerges. An even deeper regress means the emergence of psychosis: the self loses its strength and becomes incapable of perceiving the realistic image of the self and of the object. Consequently, a delusional, psychotic (paranoid) grandomania may occur in the side of the self or a feeling of an omnipotent object (the mighty pursuer, mighty machinery) on the side of the object. Relational Theories The interpersonal and even intersubjective aspect of human existence is especially emphasized in the relational theories of personality (Mitchell, 1988, 1990, 2000). According to Mitchell and Aron (1999), a man’s primary tendency is the desire for connection and close relations. Relational theories reject Freud’s placing of instinct

136

2  Personality Theories

in the central position and view a human as a relational being, embedded in a relational matrix. As early as in childhood, we strive to maintain relationships at all costs—and sometimes one has to pay a high price for it, e.g., mental troubles and even mental disorders. Mitchell (1990) says literally this: “In my opinion, the conflict cannot be fully and deeply understood as stemming from unacceptable desires, but as stemming from various and experientially irreconcilable forms of connection between the self and others.” Relational theories go thus a step further than the classical ego-psychological requirement of consolidating and adapting the self. In a sense, the self can never be truly autonomous, because man never acts as strictly one person. There is always a relationship here: not just our behavior, the whole our experience of reality is interactive and intersubjective. The human mode of existence is inseparable from interpersonal reality. Facing the psychological problems, the therapist must consider this fundamental characteristic of human nature. The key problem is not the search for instincts and repressions but the need to establish healthier, more appropriate, and more adapted relationships of the patient. The psychotherapeutic help is also a relation, where the Freudian demand for the neutrality and anonymity of the psychotherapist must be forgotten. Attachment Theories Research on other species repeatedly points to the importance of close contact with important objects. Ethologists have found that newborn animals attach to the first living object immediately after birth, even if it is not one of their parents (imprinting). Konrad Lorenz (1937, 1963, 1965) vividly describes how young ducklings had him for a “mother” because he was the first living creature they encountered after birth. In experiments with rhesus monkeys, Harlow (1958) found out how important early social contacts are. The monkeys, separated from mothers after birth, may choose to be fed and nourished by two “surrogate mothers,” one made of wool-­ clothed figure and the other made of metal wire figure. It turns out that they much prefer to deal with the former. When the young monkeys were upset, they always turned to the “wool mother,” even if they received food (milk) from the wire “mother.” The warmth and tactile characteristics of the wool mother were decisive, apparently because the monkeys are genetically adapted to characteristics that correspond to important objects. The metal mother did not have these properties, but the wool mother did. Psychoanalyst Spitz (1945) observed the catastrophic consequences of a lack of contact with the social environment for infants and toddlers when observing very young children in a hospital. Social deprivation can lead to severe disorders in the mental and physical development of the child. After prolonged social isolation, syndromes with severe impairment develop (marasmus, anaclitic depression and hospitalism). These syndromes completely inhibit the normal emotional and social behavior and cognitive development and even endanger the lives of children. Based on psychoanalytic and ethological findings about the importance of early relationships with objects, Bowlby (1973) and other authors theoretically emphasized the importance of early attachment to personality

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

137

• Confidence • High self-esteem

• Emotional lability • Fears rejection • Preoccuped • Worrying • Escape to fantasy

• Sociability • Intimacy • Autonomy

SECURE

DISORGANIZED

ANXIOUS

AVOIDANT

• Depressed • Angry • Passive • Erratic • Confused

• isolated • Withdrawn • Ambivalent • Unresponsive • Overly independent

Fig. 2.14  Attachment styles according to the attachment theory (see also text)

development (attachment theory, see Ainsworth et al., 1978). According to attachment theory, humans have an inborn need to develop close emotional bond to caregivers. This connection must be established during the first 6  months of life. According to Bartholomew (1990), early attachment depends on what models of ourselves and the social environment we create during our earliest life. It is especially important how we experience ourselves as dependent on others (dependence) and whether we experience others as attractive or unattractive (approach or avoidance). The style of attachment depends on the characteristic combinations of both dimensions, dependence and avoidance. Thus, according to early experiences, different attachment styles may develop: secure, anxious-ambivalent, disorganized, and avoidant (see Fig. 2.14). The optimal development occurs with the secure style, while some problems and difficulties may appear with other styles.

2.2.5 Socioanalytic Models of Personality In recent time, some authors tried to integrate different insights into human nature in order to establish a new theoretical perspective, which was labeled the socioanalytic theory of personality (Hogan, 1983; Hogan & Blickle, 2013, 2017; Hogan &

138

2  Personality Theories

Roberts, 2000; Roberts & Caspi, 2001; Roberts & Wood, 2006). The socioanalytic theory of personality integrates the role of human evolution (Charles Darwin), the role of unconscious motivation (Sigmund Freud), and the role of social interaction (George Herbert Mead) into a combined theoretical framework. Thus, humans live in groups from beginnings as inherently social beings involved in social interactions (Mead, 1934). They need social acceptance and company, they avoid isolation, and they fear rejection. Also, human beings are adaptive and underlying the laws of evolution (Buss, 2015; Darwin, 1871/1981). Human functioning is therefore evolutionary based and directed by processes that are deeply unconscious including the hierarchically organized social order (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989). 2.2.5.1 Basic Motives According to the socioanalytic theory of personality, the human behavior is based on fundamental driving forces, so-called basic motives: the need for attention and approval, the need for status and power, and the need for structure, order, and predictability (see also Buss, 2015; Hebb & Thompson, 1954; Hogan & Bond, 2009; Pavlov, 1927). Individual differences mainly concern these basic motives: some people need more interaction, acceptance, and social support than others, some people need more power and status than others, and some people need more control, meaning, and predictability than others. Basic motives have evolutionary and biological bases; they function at deep psychological level, unconsciously to a large extent. Although in our everyday behavior we pursue the basic needs, we are mostly not consciously aware of it. 2.2.5.2 From Identity to Reputation The level of satisfaction of the basic needs determines the development of two essential features of human being: the identity and the reputation. The first refers to the person we think we are, while the second refers to the person as it is seen from other people (see Fig. 2.15). For each individual, there is a person, which he or she knows (identity) and a person, which others know (reputation). The identity is a subjective phenomenon, which can be studied by phenomenological techniques including self-report questionnaires. On the other side, the reputation is defined as observers’ agreement about a given individual and can be therefore objectively measured. The identities are formed by the individual experiences with important others (parents, siblings, teachers, peers, co-workers, etc.), the interactions with them and other people, yet also by different “menus” available by our culture and provided by it: the books, movies, TV, and, especially, digital social media. The identities are only relatively stable; they can change and vary because our experiences in social interactions can change.

2.2  Psychoanalytic Theories

IDENTITY

self-observed

139

observed by others

REPUTATION

Fig. 2.15  Identity and reputation in the frame of socioanalytic theory of personality. Identity refers to the person we think we are, while reputation refers to the person as it is seen from other people

The reputations emerge by the combined effect of evaluations other people made for us. The reputations are quite stable over time because different observers tend to agree in their judgments about the reputation of a known or famous individual. Furthermore, most people care of their reputation reinforcing it thus additionally. It is very important that our predictions concerning a given person largely base on his or her reputation. It is a very simple explanation for this: the reputation results from past behavior, and past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Therefore, the reputation is among the best predictors in our life; it predicts our performance in school, academic achievement, professional career and success, even mental stability, health, and longevity. Interestingly, observer ratings of reputation and personality are more valid and reliable than self-reports and identity (Kholin et al., 2016; Kluemper et al., 2015; Oh et al., 2011). They also add incremental value over self-­ reports in personality ratings using Big Five dimensions in predicting job performance (Connelly & Ones, 2010). Both identity and reputation are closely connected with the personality. We describe our personality and personality of others in terms of personality traits and behavioral patterns reflecting these traits. Thus, the personality taxonomies including the Big Five or five-factor model represent also the appropriate taxonomies for measuring reputation and identity. 2.2.5.3 Social Skills We may ask the question, how the identity and reputation are related. The process of impression management allows us to manage the impressions that other people make for us. Thus, the control of reputation is possible through the effects of our social skills. Better social skills mean more effective communication, listening, and adaptation to others in general. The persons with better social skills can successfully

140

2  Personality Theories

manage their reputations, while the people with low social skills cannot (Kholin et al., 2016). Many studies also demonstrate that social skills influence the validity of personality measures (Blickle et  al., 2008, 2013; Blickle et  al., 2010; Witt & Ferris, 2003). In short, social skills are mediator between identity and reputation; they represent a decisive factor in promoting or impeding our success in life. Our social skills are a major tool in our social interactions (Mead, 1934).

2.3 Behavioral-Social-Cognitive Theories 2.3.1 Behavioral Orientation Both dispositional and psychodynamic theories of personality focus primarily on internal, intrapersonal sources of personality: they see the main causal factors of personality organization within the person himself. Behavioral and social psychology, on the other hand, shifts attention from internal factors to external ones, to stimuli, situations, and the social environment. Here, therefore, the extrapersonal aspect of personality predominates. As early as the nineteenth century, there were growing voices that the study of human activity must follow the principles of objective science. In this concern, objective directions in psychology emerged including objective psychology or reflexology. Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov, for example, considered that the basis of human mind is the nervous system and that the exploration of mental functioning should begin with the exploration of conditioned reflexes and the process of conditioning. Pavlov strongly encouraged the tendency to use exclusively objective methods in psychology. American psychologist John Watson, founder of behaviorism, definitively rejected introspection. He demanded that psychologists should study only what can be observed extraspectively—and these, of course, are not conscious experiences, but objectively observable stimuli and responses, in short, the behavior. All inner, subjective experience, which is unobservable by extraspection, was excluded from scientific research as a black box. With all this Watson founded a completely new psychological direction or “school,” the study of behavior or behaviorism. Behavioral psychology (behaviorism) is strictly an objective approach, initially studying learning processes, but then also many other aspects of behavior. Conditioning was thus the central process in shaping our behavior. Here we should distinguish between classical conditioning described by Pavlov and operant or instrumental conditioning, defined by Skinner (1953). In classical conditioning, an originally neutral stimulus is associated with unconditioned response until this stimulus elicits this same response. If a neutral stimulus (ringing bell) is associated with an unconditioned response (salivating as reaction to presentation of meat), the ringing will finally elicit salivation. In operant or instrumental conditioning, the behavior that results in negative consequences will decrease, while the behavior that results in positive consequence will increase. In both kinds of conditioning, the

2.3  Behavioral-Social-Cognitive Theories

input (stimuli)

141

?

output (responses)

Fig. 2.16  Behavioristic concept of “black box.” According to behaviorists, the mind is a “black box,” a device with unknown content. In general terms, black box represents a device for which we know the input and output, but not its inner processes and functions

changes in behavior (learning effects) depend on reinforcement: positive or negative consequences following a given stimulus. From the initially limited pattern of innate responses to stimuli, all the complex patterns of behavior we acquire in life are gradually formed and developed in the processes of conditioning and learning: our habits, traits, and behavioral sets. Yet, the further development of the behavioral perspective must accept the evidence that our behavior has, in addition to the stimuli themselves, other important sources, most notably, of course, our genetic dispositions. More than the stimuli themselves, it is important to our behavior how our cognitive and personality structures process them and with what motives and emotions we experience them. Thus, the classical behavioral perspective became increasingly a behavioral-cognitive: acknowledging how cognitive variables, especially our expectations, attitudes, and beliefs, affect our behavior. Newer versions of behavioral orientation (neo-behaviorism and neo-­ neo-­behaviorism) no longer have an organism for a “black box” but for a mediator between stimuli and responses (Fig. 2.16). The behavioral perspective also focuses on issues of mental disorders and psychotherapy. Unlike psychodynamic explanations, which see the sources of mental disorders in repressed complexes, the mental disorders are conceived as the result of conditioning and learning particularities. For example, neurotic symptoms (e.g., phobias) should be undesirable outcomes of conditioning, where negative emotion (fear) has been associated with an object that we then begin to irrationally fear. Behavioral psychotherapy does not descend into an individual’s unconscious mentality, but tries, and often successfully, to remove the neurotic response by re-learning (unlearning) based on conditioning procedures.

2.3.2 Learning Approach to Personality Behavioral researchers such as Dollard, Miller (1950), and Skinner (1938, 1953, 1957, 1961, 1971, 1974, 1978) represent an objective approach to personality. According to behaviorism, internal psychic processes are a subjective, private matter and therefore cannot be the subject of scientific psychology. The subject of science can only be some objectively observable phenomena. Thus, the real subject of psychology is only behavior, the connections between stimuli and responses that can be objectively observed and explored. The stimulus-response coupling is also the basis for all behavioral theories of personality. The most important part of the

142

2  Personality Theories

personality, according to these theories, is learned and gained on the basis of new experiences (these are nothing but new connections between stimuli and responses). In behavioral and learning approach to personality, personality characteristics or traits are conceived as the systems of learned response sets. Watson, the father of behaviorism, believed that the behavior is formed exclusively by external stimuli from the environment. He believed that any personality structure is a result of environmental control: Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. (Watson, 1930)

According to Skinner (1974), the self is “an organized system of responses” and the personality is shaped as a result of learning based on responses to discriminative stimuli and specific reinforcements. As we learn to behave in specific ways, we also develop particular complex response tendencies including some that are consistent, like our personality traits (Skinner, 1953). Also, the personality develops over the entire lifespan, when we react to new situations (not only in childhood and adolescence as Freud believed). Therefore, the variability in personality increases over time. Thus, some response sets gradually stabilize, and older response sets were replaced by newer ones. For example, a person can be a real risk-taker in the youth, participating in dangerous sports, yet he/she can change to be a quite cautious personality after being married and caring for children.

2.3.3 Social-Cognitive Approach to Personality Gradually, both the behavioral and social perspectives of the personality were combined with an increasingly dominant cognitive perspective. United they form one of the most influential modern psychological orientations, the behavioral-social-­ cognitive paradigm, which is also important in their personality models. A very noticeable tendency of psychology in recent decades is the emphasized interest in cognitive functioning. Early psychological directions studied in particular human motivational and emotional functioning and lower cognitive processes (perception, learning). In recent times, however, many psychologists have pointed out the importance and role of human cognition (perception, thinking, and problem-­ solving). Cognitive psychology (cognitivism) stems from the notion that we behave according to how we perceive and interpret reality. For example, a person in the distance will be falsely recognized, and only when he approaches we will find out we were wrong. Depressed people overestimate the likelihood of negative events and therefore see the world in “gray colors.” Cognitive psychologists are therefore interested in the ways we perceive; how we think about the world, ourselves, and others; how we obtain and interpret information; and how we manage our behavior

2.3  Behavioral-Social-Cognitive Theories

143

based on that. In the cognitive approach to personality, we are interested in cognitive styles, the ways how different individuals think, perceive, remember, or otherwise process information. The basis of our cognitive as well as personal functioning is the processes of receiving, processing, and shaping information. In doing so, it is very important how the information we obtain is preserved, represented in our mental apparatus. Our behavior is influenced by information that is represented in memory and depends on how these mental representations guide our decisions and control the fulfillment of our goals. Bartlett (1932) and Piaget (1950, 1972) were the first to point out the great importance of organized and fully connected mental representations (schemas or schemata) that we create about objects, phenomena, persons, and events. Thus, humans act as beings who constantly process and organize information. They create and use cognitive representations, the ideas and models about themselves, others, and the world. We construct and design our reality on the basis of cognitive representations, and we also act according to them. Cognitive schemes organize representations into categories that make up our memory (see Fig. 2.17). Concepts, constructs, and prototypes are some of most important cognitive schemas or representations. Among the important schemas are also self-schemes, sex or gender schemas, etc. Specific schemas are also scripts, which involve organizing information about certain activities (studying, visiting a restaurant, etc.). Frames are also important, namely, the schemas we create about our standard environments (e.g., room, kitchen, classroom frame, etc.). Cognitive views of personality are thus integrated into a strong stream of cognitive science that connects interdisciplinary insights into the human cognitive world (psychological, philosophical, neurological, etc.). The subjective experience, the starting point of phenomenology and humanistic psychology (see next chapter), has thus become the subject of truly scientific research only in the frame of cognitive psychology.

Cognitive representations

Concepts Categories Constructs

Schemas

Prototypes

Scripts

Frames

“father”

self-schema gender-schema world-schema

ideal “bird”

dinner in restaurant

classroom country house

Fig. 2.17  Cognitive representations. Basic cognitive units in our information processing (see more in text)

144

2  Personality Theories

Our concepts, conceptual categories, and constructs are probably the most common examples of simpler cognitive representations and schemes. Prototypes (Rosch, 1975; Rosch et al., 1976) represent a special form of conceptual categories: they are ideal examples of a category or schema (see also the first chapter of this book, where the concept of prototype was explained in extenso). For example, the eagle is a better representative of the “bird” category than a chicken because it is closer to the “bird” prototype, our notion of a typical bird. Its integral part is that the bird must fly. Even our notions of personality types and dimensions can be prototypes, e.g., the notion of a prototypical neurotic, extrovert, Hamlet personality, etc. We build our own model of the reality with cognitive representations and schemes. George Kelly (1955) believes that each individual acts by nature as a kind of unconscious scientist: he constantly creates hypotheses about things (the constructs), which he then checks with obtained information. Because we have similar experiences, our constructs and models are similar enough that we can communicate successfully; of course, there are also differences in perceptions and misunderstandings. For example, different people can see the same event quite differently, depending on the cognitive background and the perspective from which they look at it (the “Rashomon effect”). Very often, misunderstandings and unexpected behaviors occur precisely because of such differences in views and cognitive backgrounds. It will be much easier to understand another person’s problem or distress if we if we can put ourselves into their own perspective. 2.3.3.1 Cognitive Theories and Models of Personality Early theories of personality studied in particular human motivational and emotional functioning. Then the importance of cognitive processes for the human personality became gradually more and more important. Jean Piaget showed how a person’s intellectual development is reflected in all areas of his experience and behavior. We humans respond to phenomena as our mind shows and structures them. Man constantly models the world, creates hypotheses about it, and tests them. As George Kelly says, we all behave like scientists in a nutshell when we form “constructs” about the world and about ourselves and try to describe and explain them to ourselves. Our performance depends largely on our cognitions, namely, cognitive schemas, concepts, prototypes, and covert cognitive scenarios (scripts), yet also on our explanatory patterns or attributions. All these, essentially unconsciously functioning aspects of our cognitive functioning (assessments, thinking, predictions, etc.) are characterized by some authors as metacognition (e.g., Flavell, 1982). The term is quite appropriate as it encompasses latent, hidden dimensions, structures, and mechanisms that actually act “beyond” experienced and conscious cognitive activity. In cognitive functioning, the tendency to coordinate and balance different information with each other is very important. Usually, we put information in positions that is in agreement with other information, but we are reluctant to put it in positions that contradict previously established information. When

2.3  Behavioral-Social-Cognitive Theories

145

encountering information that contradicts previous information, we are talking about cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957, 1964). For example, for a friend we appreciate, it will be hard to believe he had done anything dishonest. Negative information is dissonant, inconsistent with our positive opinion about him. Thus, our behavior and our personality reflect how we see and understand reality. According to Carver and Scheier (1988, 1992), cognitive notions of personality are based on three assumptions: • Human behavior can be understood insofar as we understand the ways in which man processes (receives, stores, and connects) information he receives about the environment and about himself. • An individual’s life is a complex web of decisions made on the basis of information processing. • Our behavior is implicitly goal-oriented and self-regulatory: the decisions we make (consciously or unconsciously) lead us in a programmed direction toward the goals we have set. In modern psychology, the belief that mental and personality disorders are primarily the result of cognitive function is also gaining ground. If an individual develops cognitions (cognitive schemata or schemes) that present reality in an unpromising and frightening light, he or she may respond with anxiety, feelings of guilt, depression, as well as anger, hostility, and aggression. If we have established cognitive schemes that cause us to overestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes, we will be able to develop a depressed attitude. The way we perceive and interpret events and situations triggers our emotional and other reactions. Distorted perceptions and interpretations stemming from inadequate cognitive schemas are the cause of emotional and other mental problems and disorders. Cognitive therapy is firmly grounded in the theoretical foundations of cognitive psychology. It is aimed directly at solving an individual’s problem situation, which means (first) identifying inappropriate ways of perceiving, judging, and thinking, (second) changing inappropriate attitudes and attitudes, and (finally) learning and developing cognitive skills to effectively face reality in the future. Indeed, cognitive (psycho)therapy is the leading psychotherapeutic orientation in this time. 2.3.3.2 Social Cognitive Theory Behavioral researchers initially considered only the most basic forms of conditioning and learning. Later, they became more attentive to other forms of learning as well. With the work of Miller and Dollard “Social Learning and Imitation” (1941), the period of social learning theory (SLT) officially began, which later grew into social cognitive theory (SCT). According to Julian B. Rotter (1954), our behavior or, more precisely, our behavioral potential (VP) depends on the outcomes we expect (expectancy, E) and on the value of these outcomes (valence, V):

2  Personality Theories

146



VP  f  E  OV 



Expectancy means the estimation that reinforcement will occur as a result of the behavior. It refers to the subjective probability that a given behavior will lead to a given outcome, which can be positive (reinforcing) or negative (punishing). The valence means our estimate of the value of the specific reinforcement. It refers to the degree to which a person desires to attain (or avoid) a given outcome. Rotter thus essentially reiterated the old claim of the first decision-making theorists, who believed that our decisions were a result of estimating the likelihood and the value of outcomes. For example, the gambling behavior depends on how likely you think the gain (expectancy) is and how big it is (valence). Expectations are specific or general. Specific are those that are influenced by the characteristics of the specific situation in which we find ourselves. However, general, generalized expectations are especially important, because we act in accordance with them in different situations. Rotter explored two types of general expectations related to the control of reinforcement (locus of control). People may have an internal locus of control as they see themselves primarily as the sources or initiators of reinforcing events or may have an external locus of control if they see other forces (God, other people, politics, fate, luck, random) as controlling reinforcing events. The former were denoted as internally oriented (“internalists”) and the later as externally oriented (“externalists”). If you feel that your life events depend primarily on yourself, you belong to a group of people with internal reinforcement control; however, if you feel they are more dependent on others or on fate and coincidences, then you belong to the persons with external reinforcement control. Psychological research revealed many important differences between internally and externally oriented people (see Table 2.12).

Table 2.12  Major differences between internal and external people Internally oriented “I myself control the outcomes of my behavior” Positive, hard trying More successful in academic achievement Higher professional performance in more demanding jobs Better interpersonal relations Greater efforts to learn and study Willing to initiate contact or repair bad relations Less prone to stress, health problems, addictions, and illnesses Lower hypertension and vascular diseases (heart attacks) More independent, achieving, and dominant

Externally oriented “The outcomes of my behavior are outside my control” Negative, fast giving up Less successful in academic achievement Lower professional performance in more demanding jobs Worse interpersonal relations Lower efforts to learn and study Less willing to initiate contact or repair bad relations More prone to stress, health problems, addictions, and illnesses Higher hypertension and vascular diseases (heart attacks) Less independent, achieving, and dominant

2.3  Behavioral-Social-Cognitive Theories

147

Locus of control is also associated with other personality traits. Extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness are positively related to internal locus of control and negatively related to external locus of control (Filipiak & Łubianka, 2021). Kandi and Zeinali (2017) also found significant positive correlations of internal locus of control and personality dimensions extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. On the other side, neuroticism correlates with external locus of control (Filipiak & Łubianka, 2021; Mutlu et al., 2010). We calculated the correlations between personality dimensions and general sense of control (high scores representing internal locus of control and low scores representing external locus of control) in US representative sample MIDUS III. Internal locus of control correlated with emotional stability (0.40), conscientiousness (0.37), extraversion (0.33), openness (0.32), agency (0.31), and agreeableness (0.14). Also, internal locus of control correlated with the GFP (general factor of personality) quite substantially (0.43). The American psychologist Albert Bandura (1965, 1969, 1971, 1977a, b, 1986, 1989a, b, c) greatly deepened the old knowledge of learning by imitation or imitative learning. He also used a new term for it, namely, model learning, vicarious learning, or observational learning (learning by observation). Some complex forms of behavior are acquired based on patterns of behavior observed in other individuals. Aggressive behavior may be, for example, due to imitation of a model. Social and cognitive processes are of special importance in observational learning. Personality formation is strongly influenced by other people, as well as strongly influenced by the ways we see the world and how we receive and process information. There are not only the external stimuli as such that are important but above all how we perceive them. Modern behavioral theories thus adopt social and cognitive aspects of personality development. Research by Albert Bandura and colleagues has shown that observational learning plays a more important role than previously thought. It has also become clear that it is very different from other forms of learning. It turned out to be a very elementary form of learning, but it can involve very complex patterns and sequences of behaviors and cannot be explained by the usual gradual reinforcement as in classical conditioning. It seems that our ability to imitate is innate. What we observed can be recorded immediately without the need to specific learning or practice. We are able to reproduce the observed behavior in the whole and not just in details or parts. Further, we are able to reproduce the observed behavior, although this may not necessarily ever happen. Model learning is therefore latent. Thus, in observational learning, we must separate acquisition from performance. A factor that strongly influences our decision whether to launch the observed behavior is whether the observed person, i.e., the model, was rewarded for its performance. We are prepared to release especially those observed actions for which the models were rewarded. In this way, we basically learn vicarious learning through the experiences of others. Among the most important factors of model learning are (1) the attention with which we monitor the behavior of the model and (2) the consequences including the preservation of the observed behavior in memory and the ability to reproduce behavior and motivation to reproduce.

148

2  Personality Theories

As part of cognitive social theory (previously referred to as the theory of social learning), Albert Bandura formulated several important concepts that are very relevant today in psychology. The starting point was the belief that behavior is determined by the environment and in turn the environment is also determined by behavior. As the environment affects us, so do we affect the environment. There is a reciprocal determinism between the environment and the behavior: environment ↔ behavior. Cognitive factors, our opinions, beliefs, attitudes, interpretations, and perceptions are very important in concern of reciprocal determinism. Our cognition influences our behavior as well as the environment—firstly by how we perceive it and secondly by how we change and interfere with the behavior directed by cognition. The mechanisms of the relationship between behavior, environment, and cognition are the subject of Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). It focuses on three major research areas: • The already described model (observational, vicarious) learning • The phenomenon of self-efficacy • In the field of self-regulated behavior

2.3.3.3 Self-Regulation and Self-Efficacy Self-regulation is based on our expectations and goals and on the comparison of our actual achievements with the desired or planned ones (see also Fig. 2.18). If we find a discrepancy between goals and achievements, the motivation to change the action arises, e.g., increase our efforts if we are unsuccessful, or decrease if we are overly driven and successful. However, there may also be a tendency to change goals,

Fig. 2.18  Self-regulation according to Albert Bandura (1988). Self-regulatory behavior is aimed at reducing divergences between goals and achievements and setting new goals. If the achievements exceed goals, demotivation occurs and less effort is invested in the behavior. If the achievements fit the goals, the behavior remains unchanged. If the achievements are under desired goals, the motivation toward new goals is established, and our behavior changes in desired direction

2.4  Humanistic Models of Personality

149

normally, e.g., as setting new and higher goals after we have achieved success. However, if we fail again, we may lower our goals. We are therefore constantly motivated to ensure that our actual achievements are in line with our goals. This tendency to match achievements with goals (standards) is one of the fundamental motivational dynamisms in our life. Thus, our behavior is self-reflexive and self-regulating. It is done by conveying our predictions and observations. Therefore, we monitor the outcomes of our actions, observe discrepancies or matches between goals and achievements, and correct our behavior accordingly (see Fig. 2.18). Our experience with our own successes and failures allows us to form ideas about ourselves and our effectiveness. In this respect, Bandura (1977a, b, 1982) introduced the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy consists of beliefs about our own competence, about our own ability to cope with a certain situation, and about whether we are able to meet the requirements of the situation. Bandura elaborated mainly specific, situation-bound forms of self-efficacy. Thus, e.g., the student may develop a high level of self-efficacy in mathematics but a low level in history. However, as others pointed out, more generalized self-efficacy attitudes can also be formed (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). In the development of self-efficacy, different experiences play an important role, including observation of successful models, mastering performance of others, and persuasive influences of other people, especially those whom we trust and consider competent. Beside all this, the emotional and physiological experiences are also important (positive emotions, well-being, illness, etc.).

2.4 Humanistic Models of Personality In the second half of the twentieth century, it became increasingly clear that the hitherto prevailing psychoanalytic and behavioral models did not provide an adequate image of human personality. The essence of human personality is supposed to be that it transcends all determinants, both instinctive, emphasized by psychoanalysis (“first force”), and behavioral, emphasized by behaviorism (“second force”). In both cases, these are characteristics that man shares with animals and not typically human characteristics.

2.4.1 Humanistic Theories of Personality A true understanding of a human being requires an approach of “humanistic” psychology, that is, a “third force” that emphasizes what is typically human. To illustrate, here are four basic principles adopted by the Association for Humanistic Psychology when it was founded in 1963:

150

2  Personality Theories

• “Primary interest in the experiential person.” Behind this motto lies a holistic, organic, and phenomenological orientation, which requires that a human be above all a subject in his life situation, in his phenomenological and value dimensions, with his conscious experiences, judgments, goals, and emotions. We should not look at it as an object as in behaviorism and not as a predominantly unconsciously oriented being as in psychoanalysis. • “Research orientation towards human choice, creativity and self-actualization.” As a second motto, humanistic psychologists have emphasized that the subject of psychological research should be a normal and self-actualized person, not clinical cases or even animals. Psychology that studies unhealthy people or even animals without personality is easy even unhealthy and imperfect. Healthy, creative, fully functioning people need to be studied. • “Meaningfulness and importance as a guide in research.” Only then is objectivity important. Research should be guided primarily by the importance of the problems and not focus primarily on methods. Nor can research be completely disinterested in values—it should cover issues that are important to people. • “Human dignity as an ultimate value.” People should be accepted as unique and noble. The psychologist should primarily understand the person, not predict and control his behavior. Here we can understand a really great contradiction and controversy with deterministically oriented behaviorism (and also psychoanalysis).

2.4.1.1 Self-Actualization Theory Abraham Maslow (1943, 1954, 1966, 1970, 1971) is certainly one of the most important researchers of human motivation. He will remain in psychology not only as a systematizer of knowledge about motivation and human needs but above all as the founder of the famous theory of the hierarchy of motives or hierarchy of needs (see Fig. 2.19), as a great supporter of the idea of higher forms of motivation (meta-­ motivation). He was among the founders of humanistic psychology and in this capacity an important researcher of self-actualization. According to Maslow, the following are considered basic needs: (1) physiological needs; (2) safety or security needs; (3) needs for belonging, sympathy, affection, and love; (4) esteem and reputation needs; and (5) the need for self-realization. In addition to these needs, which could be described as conative needs, a special place should be given to cognitive needs (needs for knowledge, cognition, and understanding), aesthetic needs (needs for beauty), and needs for order and structure, which have both conative as well as cognitive and aesthetic character. The order of needs is very important in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Physiological needs are first and most urgent. Until they are satisfied, our behavior will revolve around them, focused on finding fundamental satisfactions on the physiological plane. A hungry man is interested in food; everything else is irrelevant to him. As Maslow (1954) says pictorially, such a man “dreams of food, remembers food, thinks of food, speaks only of food, observes only food, and desires only food.” But when we

2.4  Humanistic Models of Personality

Transcendence Self-actualization

151

GROWTH NEEDS

Aesthetic needs Cognitive needs Esteem needs Belonging and love needs Safety needs Physiological needs

DEFICIENCY NEEDS

Fig. 2.19  Hierarchy of needs according to Abraham Maslow. Lower needs must be met before higher ones can arise. For example, the most basic physiological needs like hunger and thirst must be satisfied before the safety needs may occur. Maslow distinguished conative needs (physiological needs, safety needs, needs for belonging, and love and esteem needs), cognitive needs, and aesthetic needs. On the top of hierarchy of all these needs, Maslow positioned the need for self-­ actualization, and later, he added also the need for transcendence. He also distinguished between deficiency needs (lower in the hierarchy) and growth needs (higher in the hierarchy) (see also text)

are full, a new world opens up before us: suddenly we are no longer interested in food, and other needs come to the fore. The next caveat applies to the distinction between conative, cognitive, and aesthetic needs. Maslow points out that conative and cognitive moments are present in all needs; the need for knowledge is a very basic need, so it is also a conative need–it is manifested in the desire for knowledge and not only in knowledge itself. For the needs of order and structure, we have already explicitly said something similar: they also intertwine conative and cognitive elements. Abraham Maslow particularly emphasized the importance of self-actualization in an individual’s life. However, this fundamental personality characteristic only begins to be expressed when other, hierarchically lower needs and motives are adequately met. The most basic physiological needs (for oxygen, food, water, etc.) are the most urgent in the hierarchy. These needs are the most basic, and they are the most difficult part of dissatisfaction. Only when we satisfy them can the following, “higher” needs begin to emerge: the need for safety, love, and affection and the need for esteem, prestige, and respect. However, when all these needs, labeled deficiency needs by Maslow, are satisfied, we begin to focus on realizing our potentials, on self-actualization, or growth needs. Now, the specific individual needs and goals are less relevant than the general tendency to realize one’s own potentials and talents. Maslow (1954) conceives of the need for self-actualization as the need for the individual to develop primarily what he is most capable of (and interested in) as a

152

2  Personality Theories

person: “A musician must engage in music, a poet must write, a painter has to paint if they want to finally live in peace with themselves.” Psychologically and personally, higher needs are more important to us because they mean the expansion and liberation of personality. These needs, also labeled meta-needs, predominate in motivation of mature and healthy people (meta-motivation). Maslow believes that meta-motivated and self-actualized individuals are more psychologically healthy. This is nicely seen from the following description: “For more developed people, the real thing is more the search for justice, truth, goodness, etc., than the search for financial certainty, approval, status, prestige, domination, masculinity, etc.” Man seems to be spontaneously striving to develop new, ever-increasing needs. It must be also noted that the hierarchy of needs is not unique to conative needs; a similar hierarchical development applies to cognitive and aesthetic needs. In his early and later works, Maslow liked to write about self-actualization. In the beginning, Maslow conceived the self-actualization narrower and more specific than, e.g., Goldstein (1939/1963), who saw in self-actualization the general tendency to develop all potentials and the general framework of all human motivation. Later, Maslow approached a broader concept of self-actualization. In particular, Maslow devoted himself to the study of the personality of the self-actualized persons. Based on a biographical analysis of famous historical self-actualized people (e.g., Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Lincoln, Spinoza, Jefferson), Maslow singled out 15 essential characteristics of a self-actualized personality: • Satisfaction of needs and motives at a lower level of the motivational hierarchy. This characteristic of self-actualized persons is both a condition and a precondition for the further process of meta-motivation and self-actualization. • Superior perception of reality. It is characteristic of self-actualized persons that they effectively and above average successfully and accurately perceive the truth, penetrate to the essence, and see into the depths of things. • Accepting yourself, others, and nature. Self-actualized people look at themselves, the world, and others naturally and affirmatively. • Spontaneity, simplicity, and naturalness. Self-actualized individuals are simple, natural, and genuine, with no arrogance and no effort to impress. • Focus on the essential things and the real problems. • The need for privacy and well-being in solitude. • Independence, independence, and critically reflective attitude toward the culture and environment in which they live (rejection of uncritical adaptation). • Constant freshness of perception and emotional richness. • Proportional frequency of peak experiences reminiscent of elation, mystical or ecstatic experiences. • Deep identification with the human race. Self-actualized people feel a general affection for others and a need to help others in their self-improvement. • Deep ties with a small number of individuals, deep and good interpersonal relationships.

2.4  Humanistic Models of Personality

153

• Democracy, a sense of the rights and dignity of others (which does not mean subordination to others or the majority). In relation to people, they are self-­ actualized persons without prejudices. • Clear distinction of resources from objectives. Goals, especially moral and ethical ones, are paramount and take precedence over resources. • Sense of higher forms of humor (e.g., friendly, philosophical humor). • Creativity, originality, and inventiveness. 2.4.1.2 Humanistic Phenomenology Many important psychologists believe that the basis of the interpretation of personality is human subjectivity, human experiential, phenomenal world. Phenomena are all we perceive, feel, and think, all we experience. The only reality a man knows is his experiential world (Rogers, 1961). This forms the phenomenal field of the individual, in which the image of the world and oneself develops. The behavior also depends on how an individual experiences himself and the world. The phenomenal field determines our behavior. Therefore, it is necessary for a psychologist to get to know the inner, phenomenal dimensions of personality. Only in this way can he understand the behavior of individuals and groups and influence it by psychotherapy. Only the world as we see and experience has meaning and significance for us (Lewin, 1935; Snygg & Combs, 1949). Our actions, behavior, and personality are basically influenced by our experience—perceptions, emotions, desires, and thoughts. On the basis of our experience, we create the concepts including the crucially important concept or image of the self (self-concept or self-image). According to Carl Rogers, the most important thing for an individual is whether he can develop a concept or image about himself that really suits his or her nature. If the concept of self is consistent (congruent) with the actual characteristics of the individual, then he can really develop normally and smoothly, and then he can realize his/her actual potentials. The self-concept is then in concordance with the basic natural tendency of the organism to develop. In spontaneous, unhindered development, the congruence between organism and self-concept is established. The image of individual’s self then matches the actual needs and nature of the organism. However, the social environment often does not approve certain characteristics of the individual. Consequently, these undesired characteristics are suppressed by the individual, who tries to deny them to others and also to himself. The suppressed characteristics were removed from the self-concept, which becomes incongruent with the actual self. In this way we create an image of ourselves that is no longer congruent with the needs of the organism. This kind of incongruence is the basis for emotional, mental, and personality disorders. Thus, the elimination of the incongruence between self and organism is the primary goal of psychotherapy. Incongruence is felt by the individual unconsciously or even consciously as a disorder, as an obstacle to own personal development. In psychotherapy, the individual must be provided with the unconditional acceptance of his/her real self.

154

2  Personality Theories

In the desired development of personality, the individual maintains fidelity to his own nature, maintains congruence, and realizes the potentials. According to Rogers, such a development of a healthy or fully functioning personality is also the most acceptable life goal and—as far as practical psychology is concerned—a psychotherapeutic goal. Rogers (1961) himself defines this goal and the essence of personal health as “being who you really are.” Rogers himself wrote: “I believe I have formulated two crystallized, important topics for me: my confidence in the free-­ functioning human organism and the existential quality of a satisfied life, which is the theme of some of our most modern philosophers, which is great more than twenty-five centuries ago expressed Lao Tzu when he said ‘the right way to act is to stay’ (Rogers, 1961). Rogers does not hide his “philosophy of personality” at all; we also see that he rightly feels a kind of kinship with Daoism. We achieve the full functioning of the personality by abandoning defensive and compulsive restraints and actions. In doing so, we need to move away from the image of ourselves and the behavior that is defensively distorted, from the “facade” that was created to please others. In essence, according to Rogers’ formulation, the individual must distance himself from the “false” self, from himself as he is really not. It is necessary to move away from the compulsive “must,” from forced helpfulness and indulgence at all costs. In this way, freedom is increased, and room for maneuver is given to the actual nature of the organism. This “liberation” means, in a sense, the path of negation; it is the discovery of what we are not. Certainly, according to Rogers, this is the first condition for rediscovering ourselves and our true nature. The next, the positive path means, above all, the emergence and spread of the experience of personal growth, which is an authentic feature of the human organism. This experience marks a movement toward autonomy, toward the goals we really want, and toward responsibility for ourselves; it is therefore a matter of self-direction. Then a new and essential category of self-actualization and growth opens up—perfection, change, and rebirth of personality. This aspect of experiential development is labeled by Rogers with the term becoming. Psychotherapy should follow the basic process of personal growth by eliminating the possible incongruence between self and organism. According to Rogers (1951, 1964), it is best that the development of an individual is free from the beginning (as, e.g., it is most favorable for a plant to have as many favorable conditions and space as possible). If this is not the case and disorders occur, psychotherapy must first create the basic conditions that will ensure in the future that the process of personal growth will be restored. This is possible if we follow conditions in psychotherapy based on the principles of non-direction, acceptance, and empathy: • • • • •

Interpersonal contact between the therapist and the client Incongruent state of the client Congruent state of the therapist Unconditionally positive acceptance of the client Empathic understanding of the client

These five principles represent the essence of Rogerian psychotherapy (also known as non-directive or client-centered psychotherapy). Especially in later times,

2.4  Humanistic Models of Personality

155

Rogers also used it more and more when working with groups (group psychotherapy of so-called encounter groups). Rogers proposed to measure disorders and advances in psychotherapy by the degree of correlation between “real self-concept or self-image” (denoting organic tendencies) and “ideal self-concept or self-image” (denoting a person’s character as approved by others). With unconditional acceptance, it is expected that the ideal image of the client about himself will change, so that for the individual it will become more and more acceptable what he actually wants instead of what the others want. Thus, the differences between what the client actually wants and what others approve should be reduced during the psychotherapy. Some authors (Rogers & Dymond, 1954; Butler & Haigh, 1954) using the Q sort technique confirmed the reduction of the real and ideal self difference. At the beginning of psychotherapy, the difference was great, but then it was reduced and approached the values found in non-neurotic individuals. 2.4.1.3 Existential Humanistic Theory According to existential philosophers and psychologists, the phenomenal world forms the core of human existence. The deepest meaning of the existence—the being—unfolds to the individual in the face of the possibility of non-being. But it depends on the individual’s own decisions and choices what he will do from the existence. According to Viktor Frankl, the founder of the “Third Vienna School” (according to Freud and Adler), neither comfort and sexual satisfaction (as with Freud) nor the will to power (as with Adler) can be the fundamental guides of human being. Even self-actualization is not the final and most important human motive. Instead, the basic human motive is the will to meaning (Frankl, 1962). Even if all other goals and needs are met, an individual may be essentially dissatisfied only if he or she has a feeling that his or her life has a real value and meaning. If not, a feeling of meaninglessness of life arises (existential emptiness or existential vacuum). Existential vacuum is the main symptom of so-called noogenic neurosis. In the life or outside of it, everyone has to find something that gives meaning to the existence. According to Frankl, this can be found even in very unfavorable conditions and circumstances, yes, even in the despair and suffering. Most often, people find meaning in hope, creative work, faith, and especially in love. If individuals experience an existential vacuum, they should be helped to make their own life meaningful. Frankl developed a new psychotherapeutic method, logotherapy, in order to reach this goal (from the Greek term logos denoting meaning in this connection). However, logotherapy is not a miracle cure that would instill a sense of meaning in the life of a person. Yet, logotherapy is the way helping us to achieve a meaningful life. According to Frankl, man is basically—and within the limits of his possibilities—a free and therefore a responsible being. Our physical and mental functioning are quite determined, yet human beings possess also the spiritual dimension

156

2  Personality Theories

characterized by the capacity of free will. We have the freedom to choose our own life path and to fulfill this path according to our free choices. However, this also means that we are responsible for these choices. Freedom is connected to responsibility in the instance of conscience, which is typical for human beings. The spiritual dimension including freedom, responsibility, and conscience is described by Frankl as noogenic dimension (from Greek term nous, meaning mind or spirit). Thus, an individual makes choices in life and acts in accordance with his conscience. Conscience could be understood as an inherent spiritual guide (obviously not only in the sense of a Freudian superego) that determines whether or not our decisions will contribute to the meaning of our life. Noogenic dimension definitely determines the deepest parts in our life: the question is not what we demand from the life, but in the contrary, what life demands from us. Responsibility for our own actions means that we take our life as a goal, as a task, or as a mission, which we fulfill with proper choices and decisions. The balance of these decisions is the basis for a sense of the fundamental meaning of life versus the lack of meaning in existential vacuum. Frankl believes that the existential vacuum is the most common source of dissatisfaction in life and the most common neurotic “symptom.” Such noogenic neuroses are therefore characterized by the feeling that we have not fulfilled our life mission appropriately. For man, the reality, which includes his life, is a meaningful phenomenon; it has a value in itself. Life itself has its meaning, and life demands us not to give up that meaning. The aspiration or will to meaning (Wille zum Sinn in German original) is the man’s original motive. Consequently, we can add spiritual goals and motives to the physical and social needs. The fulfillment of life with meaning is the most important of these spiritual motives. Spiritual, meaningful motivation is autonomous. This can be easily proven. Even if we enjoy material and social abundance, if our biological needs and social motives are met and if we are full of sensual pleasures and on top of prestige and fame, we can feel spiritual dissatisfaction in the form of unfulfilled meaning in life. The end result is that despite comfort and pride, we cannot be satisfied. And conversely, despite physical suffering and social humiliation, someone may clearly feel the fulfillment of his/her life mission. The balance of existential gains and losses can be positive despite the physical and social shortcomings. This, of course, means that spiritual motivation is autonomous and that—at least according to Frankl—it outweighs other motives. The will to meaning is also more important even than self-­ actualization. Furthermore, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it is not possible for self-actualization to occur if lower needs have not been met at least minimally before. This, however, does not apply to the will to meaning. Even in the worst suffering, hunger, poverty, endangerment, and deprivation, we can still feel that our life is or was meaningful and that our life mission is fulfilled. What contributes to the meaning of life most essentially? Frankl emphasized the creative work, interpersonal relationships, hope, and love. Frankl (1992), himself a victim of the destructive Nazi camp, tirelessly stressed that suffering also often makes sense to us. He also often associates the meaning of life with the notion that the meaning and mission of the spiritual essence continue after death. We can even believe that events whose meaning we cannot comprehend also make sense (just as

2.4  Humanistic Models of Personality

157

an experimental animal cannot comprehend that the injection it received can make some sense). Ideals and values are particularly important in producing meaning or sense. Creative values give meaning to our work, while experiential values direct us to enrich our consciousness and enjoy experiencing nature and human relationships. Attitude values are also important when we have to accept the fatal and negative sides of life. They allow us, e.g., to gain courage in suffering or dignity in the face of humiliation (see Zalokar Divjak, 1996). Attitudes are particularly decisive in the face of the so-called tragic trinity: guilt, suffering, and death. The fundamental problem of logotherapy is dealing with the emptiness of being, which is manifested in the escalating feelings of boredom, apathy, incoherence, and similar manifestations. Extreme responses to the existential vacuum are manifested in violence, depression, drug use (addiction), and suicide. Psychotherapeutic intervention enables the individual to face his or her life tasks and regain a sense of responsibility and thus of meaning. Freedom without responsibility does not make sense. Thus, it is often possible to overcome an existential or meaningful crisis with a corresponding change of attitudes. Many things—including suffering and a killing routine—can make sense if we start to look at them from a different perspective. The goal of logotherapy as a psychotherapy is for the individual to take responsibility back into their own hands. Frankl believes that ordinary neuroses are characterized by either excessive intent (e.g., sexual neurosis, when we try to show sexual power in excessive amount and—logically—experience failure) or excessive attention (e.g., phobias, when those occupied by phobic fears actually trigger exactly this which they fear). “Fear,” says Frankl (1992), “makes happen what someone fears.” A patient who is afraid of blushing if he has to blush in front of people will inadvertently achieve that he will really blush because of his excessive attention to blushing. However, if he paradoxically consciously wants to blush, he will not succeed. Therefore, Frankl recommended the opposite intention (paradoxical intention) as a technical aid in relieving symptoms. One of his patients, a doctor who was afraid of sweating, completely stopped sweating after, on his advice, he made a conscious effort in the society “to show everyone how terribly capable he is of sweating.” Another technique is de-reflection or intentional inattention. The patient, who made excessive efforts to reach orgasm during sexual intercourse, essentially changed her goal: instead of paying attention to her partner, she paid too much attention to orgasm. With de-reflection, she shifted to her partner and didn’t think about orgasm; with this diversion, the orgasm came in a more satisfactory way. Things that are by nature a side effect of an activity should not become our goal—if we set them as a goal, we will not achieve them. However, if we set an appropriate activity as a goal, then the side effect will come spontaneously. The most important part of logotherapy, of course, is dedicated to the “processing” of the meaning of life. As has been said, the individual, faced with the existential emptiness, must change the attitude toward life: he or she must put himself in the position of what life demands of him/ her and not what he/she expects from life. We must live with freedom and responsibility. We need to take an attitude that shows us something that seems pointless or absurd in a meaningful light.

158

2  Personality Theories

2.4.2 Personality in Positive Psychology The predominant focus on negative and psychopathological aspects leads to the model of the individual who lacks the positive qualities important for feelings of happiness and meaning in life. Hope, wisdom, creativity, subjective satisfaction, optimism, feelings of happiness, etc. are examples of traits that are often ignored in past psychological research or even conceived as transformations of negative traits (e.g., in psychoanalysis). Humanistic and existential psychologists were among the first to rightly criticize this “negative” orientation (Maslow, 1954; Rogers, 1961; Frankl, 1962). Yet, all personality models built on clinical observations do not suffer from the described “negative bias.” Carl Rogers was a clinician, just like Freud before him, but Roger’s model of a normal, “fully functioning” person is in strong contrast to the negatively biased image of man. Other humanistic psychologists, especially Maslow, have an equally optimistic view of man. Perhaps, however, among all the prominent predecessors of positive psychology, Frankl should be mentioned in particular, because he characterizes the pursuit of meaning as the central human motive. The argument for this claim lies in Frankl’s thesis that no one is truly happy if they do not feel their life as meaningful (Frankl, 1962). Thus, more recent positive psychology systematically explores the optimal human experience, which is often associated with meaning of life, happiness, wellbeing, quality of life, and optimal human functioning in general. Its aim is to explore (1) the dimensions of positive experience of the world, others, and oneself, (2) the factors influencing these dimensions, and also (3) to promote the factors that create optimal experience (Sheldon et al., 2000). Within the framework of positive psychology, important systematizations of research results have already appeared, namely, in the areas of subjective emotional well-being, psychological well-being, happiness, life satisfaction, good life, positive affect, optimism, flow, hope, wisdom, modesty, and other aspects of positive experience (e.g., Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1995; Myers, 1992; Sheldon et al., 2000; Taylor et al. 2000). Psychological research of well-being has deep historical roots in ancient philosophy and psychological antecedents in humanistic psychology (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In the past decades, the empirical research of well-being substantially increased by merits of the proponents of positive psychology and its predecessors (Seligman, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In the positive psychology, the well-being and health are definitely no longer defined only as the absence of psychological disorders but as the presence of several positive characteristics. These emerged as the subject of a planned and extensive scientific research in recent years. Positive psychology was thus well prepared by a considerable number of studies that dealt with variables, which affect mental health or were part of mental health, including personality traits and styles such as emotional stability (opposite to neuroticism), self-esteem, optimism, styles of coping, positive affect, etc. Positive psychology is scientifically engaged in the optimal human experience, which is often associated with a more successful and more efficient functioning and behavior. However, the scientific positive psychology is a

2.4  Humanistic Models of Personality

159

serious scientific endeavor, which must be strictly distinguished from popular and somewhat charlatanic “positive psychology,” which has no scientific background. The goals of genuine positive psychology are to: • Explore the dimensions of the positive experience of the world, of other people, and of self. • Explore the factors that influence these dimensions. • The promotion of factors that create an optimal experience. Well-being has all-human, cultural, and civilization-related significance. Biswas-­ Diener and Diener (2001) stated that the importance of subjective well-being is growing in a democratic world, where we want people to live their lives as they see themselves and not as politicians, autocrats, or experts. It also seems logical that the more happiness and satisfaction with life become important, the more the basic needs are met. People evaluate happiness and contentment with life as extremely important things everywhere, not just in some cultural environments (Diener, 2000). In a relatively poorer environment, such as India, respondents, for example, assessed the importance of satisfaction with life on a seven-point scale with an average score of 5.75 and happiness with 5.97. This is definitely much higher than the ratings for importance of money (average score 4.81). It should be emphasized that the concept of well-being and related concepts of positive psychology are, as a rule, also related to values, virtues, and character strengths (Peterson, 2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004, 2006; Seligman, 2018). It is clear therefore that the concepts of positive psychology (including the well-being, happiness, satisfaction with life, meaning of life, and quality of life in general) have tremendous practical usefulness (Donaldson et al., 2011). Yet, how they are associated with the personality? According to the common sense as well as the scientific psychological research, the dimensions of personality are substantially connected to well-being and mental health. The relationships between the well-being and personality have been extensively investigated, as we will see later, especially in Chap. 7. Personality dimensions, especially extraversion (linked to positive affect) and neuroticism (linked to negative affect), strongly predict subjective well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Costa et al., 1987; Diener et al., 1992; Eysenck, 1952, 1967, 1970, 1991; Herringer, 1998; Magnus et al., 1993; Oishi, 2000; Pavot et al., 1990; Schimmack et al., 2000, 2002; Watson & Clark, 1984, 1997; Watson et al., 1988). Wrosch and Scheier (2003) reviewed the research results concerning the relationship between personality and various aspects or areas of quality of life. Personality dimensions predict the life satisfaction and the quality of life (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Still, we missed the research, which systematically investigates all major dimensions of personality and quality of life at the same time. Among the psychological instruments measuring the quality of life, the QOL questionnaire is perhaps the most known. The QOL questionnaire was, for example, used in a study dealing with the relationship between the quality of life and the temperamental and characteristic features of geriatric patients (Richter et al., 2008). Only a few studies examined the relationship between the Big Five dimensions of personality and the quality of life. In the people with schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia, a

160

2  Personality Theories

positive correlation between the quality of life with extraversion and agreeableness and the negative correlation of the quality of life with neuroticism was identified (Kentros et al., 1997). Van Straten et al. (2007) found a link to the quality of life in all Big Five dimensions of personality except for conscientiousness. The connections between the dimensions of personality and quality of life were revealed also in one of our studies (Musek, 2012). The study examined the relationship between the dimensions of personality (Big Five, stability, plasticity, general factor of personality (GFP)) and the dimensions of the quality of life (physical, psychological, social, environmental quality, and general factor of the quality of life (GQL)). Different multivariate analyses on the sample of 129 adult participants of both sexes clearly yielded a substantial connection between the dimensions of both domains (personality and quality of life) including the substantial correlation between GFP and GQL (r = 0.42). SEM analysis also confirmed the hypothesized causal influence of personality upon the quality of life.

2.4.3 Narrative and Script Models of Personality It is an old idea that someone’s life story is an important part of his or her personality. And this is not far from the idea of narrative identity and narrative personality: the identity and personality built on an individual’s own life story, on the “narratives” about his or her own life. According to the narrative approach to personality, the individual self-concept or the concept of his/her own personality is conveyed by the internalized views of his of the own life story, the views that give a sense of the meaning of the own life, the meaning of decisions, and experiences in life. McAdams (1985, 2001; McAdams & Pals, 2006; McAdams et al., 2006) proposed a life story model of identity, “contending that people begin, in late adolescence and young adulthood, to construe their lives as evolving stories that integrate the reconstructed past and the imagined future in order to provide life with some semblance of unity and purpose” (McAdams, 2006, p. 13). Later, McAdams (2006) claims that the narrative identity is an important part of personality. According to McAdams, the narrative identity is a particular layer of personality, which is related to but distinct from two more investigated layers, dispositional traits or dimensions (e.g., Big Five) and characteristic adaptations including contextualized motives, roles, and concerns (McAdams & McLean, 2013). As early as in 1979, Tomkins formulated a script theory of personality. According to Tomkins, the people conceive their personal existence in terms of consecutive scenes and scripts experienced throughout their lives. Personal narratives and scripts thus represent a unified and integrative view of the role of individual personality in life. This view is characteristic for a person and gives a holistic impression of own personality to that person. Narrative identity is clearly related to personal development and also to well-­ being. Persons who in their narrative identity focus on understanding new

2.5  Models of Self-Concept and Self-Esteem

161

viewpoints and experiences achieve higher scores in personal development (egodevelopment according to Erikson stages of psychosocial development).

2.5 Models of Self-Concept and Self-Esteem By definition, personality is related to self-concept. The concept (image, notion) that we have of ourselves should logically reflect our personality traits. Furthermore, our personality traits and dimensions should be also connected to our self-esteem, the positive or negative image of ourselves. Psychological literature clearly revealed the connections between both self-esteem and self-concept in general and personality. Several studies reported correlations between Big Five personality traits and self-concept dimensions and between Big Five and self-esteem (Pilarska, 2018; Robins et al., 2001).

2.5.1 Self-Esteem If self-esteem refers to our own personality as we experience and think about it, then we should expect self-concept characteristics and self-esteem to match fairly with personality traits. The questionnaires used to measure personality dimensions are, by their nature, self-assessing, contain characteristics that the individual perceives in himself or herself or remembers. Significant connections should be expected, especially between personality dimensions and self-esteem. According to Watson et al. (2002), self-esteem has the highest correlation between the five major factors, negatively, neuroticism (−0.49 in self-assessments and −0.61 in peer assessments), followed by extraversion, which positively correlates with self-esteem (0.47 and 0.39). Important but minor correlations with self-esteem are also openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Similar findings are found in previous research. The meta-analysis of the correlations between self-esteem and neuroticism (Judge et al., 2002), made on the data of 16,000 people, showed an average correlation of −0.51. Correlations with extraversion range from 0.30 to 0.50 (Francis, 1996, 1997, 1998; Furr & Funder, 1998; all cited by Watson et al., 2002). Correlations with conscientiousness range from 0.20 to 0.43, with agreeableness from 0.11 to 0.32, and with openness between 0.09 and 0.31 (Furr & Funder, 1998; Graziano et al., 1997; Jackson & Gerard, 1996; Kwan et al., 1997; all cited after Watson et al., 2002). Robins et al. (2001) reviewed several studies reporting the associations between Big Five personality dimensions and self-esteem. Self-esteem correlated most strongly with emotional stability (0.40 to 0.70), extraversion (0.21 to 0.49), conscientiousness (0.18 to 0.51), openness (0.06 to 0.30), and agreeableness (−0.04 to 0.23). More recently, according to Pilarska (2018), self-esteem correlated with emotional stability 0.49, openness 0.39, extraversion 0.33, and conscientiousness 0.22.

162

2  Personality Theories

Obviously, neuroticism meaning low emotional stability represents the most powerful threat for our self-esteem. From these results, we can assume that GFP, the most general dimension of personality, should be positively related to self-esteem provided that high GFP combines emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness. Regarding GFP, self-esteem proved to be related to the GFP already in the first GFP studies. Musek (2007) reported correlations between self-esteem (measured by Self-Liking and Competence Scale (SLCS), Tafarodi & Swann, 1995) and the measures of GPF in the range from 0.51 to 0.54 (see Table 1.3). Erdle et  al. (2010) conducted an investigation of the GFP and self-esteem on 628.640 Internet respondents. Reviewing the results of this study, Rushton and Irwing (2011, p. 148) wrote: “Erdle et al. (2010) found that a GFP from the Big Five shared 67% common variance with self-esteem in a study of 628,640 Internet respondents. Those high on the GFP experience positive affect and have expectations of future reward, while those low on the GFP experience negative affect and have expectations of future punishment. Subsequently, Rushton and Erdle (2010) found that those who score high on the GFP were not only high in self-esteem and positive affect, but low in depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory.”

2.5.2 Self-Concept and Self-Construal Self-esteem is an essential part of the self-concept. It is identical with positive self-­ concept. It seems quite logical that self-concept should be related to the personality dimensions. Yet, the question is which self-concept dimensions should be taken into consideration when searching for the connections to personality. Provided that all practical measures of self-concept have something in common with the self-esteem, we can speculate that personality traits and dimensions should be associated with the dimensions of self-concept. Unfortunately, there is very scarce evidence for the connections between personality dimensions (including Big Five and higher-order dimensions) and complete dimensional profile of self-concept. The exception is the data where we analyzed a sample of 367 adult Slovenian participants (Musek & Avsec, 2006). The data included the personality, self-concept, and self-construal variables, measured by Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991), Self-Description Questionnaire III (SDQ III; Marsh & O’Neill, 1984), Self-­Attribute Questionnaire (SAQ; Pelham & Swann, 1989), and Singelis Dependent-­ Interdependent SelfConstrual Scale (Singelis, 1994). Table 2.13 displays correlations between SDQ dimensions of self-concept and personality dimensions, and Table 2.14 depicts correlations between SAQ dimensions of self-concept and personality dimensions. The highest average correlations with personality dimensions can be found in SDQ general self-concept and SAQ composite. Also we can see some substantial correlation with extraversion, emotional stability, and openness for both SDQ and SAQ components. Lowest, bot mostly still significant are also correlations between conscientiousness and

2.5  Models of Self-Concept and Self-Esteem

163

Table 2.13  Correlations between SDQ dimensions of self-concept and personality dimensions Emotional Extraversion stability Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness GFP SDQ dimensions General self-concept Academic self-concept Mathematical abilities Verbal abilities Physical abilities Emotional stability Creativity Physical appearance Same-sex relationships Opposite-sex relationships Parent relationship Religion spiritual values Honesty trustworthiness

0.46

0.42

0.26

0.17

0.35

0.57

0.14

0.13

0.23

0.14

0.36

0.28

0.00

0.13

0.07

0.01

0.15

0.08

0.30 0.27 0.39

0.06 0.21 0.66

0.10 0.23 0.20

0.10 0.19 0.15

0.46 0.15 0.28

0.35 0.35 0.56

0.37 0.34

0.21 0.25

0.05 0.26

0.08 0.14

0.62 0.27

0.45 0.42

0.47

0.24

0.17

0.23

0.28

0.50

0.55

0.31

0.23

0.23

0.28

0.58

0.06

0.15

0.23

0.21

−0.07

0.15

0.04

−0.08

0.05

−0.01

0.01

0.02

−0.10

0.03

0.29

0.27

0.00

0.07

agreeableness and self-concept dimensions. Among higher-order dimensions of personality, GFP highly correlated with SDQ dimensions: opposite-sex relationships, general self-concept, and emotional stability. Also, GFP has substantial correlations with same-sex relationships, creativity, physical appearance, verbal abilities, and physical abilities. The correlations with academic abilities and parent relationships are low but significant, while the correlations with other SDQ dimensions are very low or insignificant. GFP has also substantial correlations with all SAQ dimensions (the highest with SAQ composite, leadership, and social skills). Plasticity significantly correlated with SAQ dimensions (highest with SAQ composite, leadership, and social skills and lowest with discipline). Stability has low correlations with SAQ dimensions (highest in discipline, social skills, and SAQ composite; very low in common sense, luck, intellectual ability, and artistic ability). In general, we can conclude that personality is essentially connected with self-concept dimensions. The connection of GFP to self-concept and self-construal was tested in another study. For the sake of sparing space, we will focus on eight selected variables in the analysis. They include five higher-order dimensions of SDQ and SAQ scales interpreted as intellectual self-concept, academic self-concept, physical or bodily

SAQ dimensions Intellectual ability Social skills Artistic ability Sport skills Physical attractiveness Leadership Common sense Emotional stability Luck Discipline SAQ composite

0.23 0.52 0.16 0.25 0.29 0.48 0.28 0.25 0.17 0.08 0.43

Extraversion

0.05 0.19 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.19 0.11 0.37 0.16 0.11 0.24

Emotional stability −0.01 0.21 0.09 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.39 0.25

Conscientiousness −0.04 0.16 0.04 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12

Agreeableness

Table 2.14  Correlations between SAQ dimensions of self-concept and personality dimensions

0.37 0.18 0.38 0.11 0.14 0.30 0.28 0.14 0.18 0.02 0.33

Openness −0.06 0.24 0.04 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.31 0.22

Stability

0.32 0.42 0.29 0.23 0.26 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.09 0.47

Plasticity

0.20 0.44 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.44 0.27 0.32 0.21 0.23 0.47

GFP

164 2  Personality Theories

2.6  Bio-evolutionary Theories

165

Table 2.15  Means, standard deviations, and correlations between self-concept measures and GFP Variable 1. Intelself 2. Acadself 3. Bodyself 4. Relatself 5. Attractself 6. Interdep 7. Indep 8. GFP

M 0.04 0.00 −0.02 −0.04 −0.02 6.85 7.26 0.03

SD 4.75 4.34 6.91 4.35 5.10 1.14 0.97 4.07

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.41** 0.23** 0.33** 0.49** −0.02 0.30** 0.37**

0.14* 0.42** 0.31** −0.06 0.38** 0.46**

0.29** 0.44** 0.04 0.16** 0.34**

0.47** −0.03 0.54** 0.61**

−0.06 0.30** 0.36**

0.08 0.01

0.54**

Note: Intelself  intellectual self-concept, Acadself  academic self-concept, Bodyself  bodily self-­ concept, Relatself relational self-concept, Attractself attractiveness self-concept, Interdep interdependent self-construal, Indep independent self-construal, GFP general factor of personality *Indicates p