KV Petrides

Lecture 4

Comparing Theories of PersonalityComparing Theories of Personality

Dr. KV PetridesDr. KV Petrides

www.psychometriclab.com

KV Petrides

Why science?

• There are various methods for acquiring knowledge. For example:– Intuition: the act or process of acquiring knowledge without

reasoning or inferring.– Authority: a basis for accepting information because it is

acquired from a highly respected source.– Rationalism: the acquisition of knowledge through reasoning.

Reasoning, however, does not always reflect reality. It is quite possible to reach contradicting conclusions by means of rational arguments.

– Empiricism: the acquisition of knowledge through personal experience. “If I have experienced something, then it is valid and true”.

KV Petrides

What is science?

• The best method for acquiring knowledge is the scientific method because the information it yields is based as much as possible on reality.

• Science is a method (a logic of enquiry) to be followed in solving problems and acquiring a body of knowledge.

• The scientific method comprises the following steps:– Developing a theory– Forming a hypothesis– Designing an experiment and operationalizing the variables– Conducting the experiment and testing the hypothesis– Interpreting the results– Feeding back and (if necessary) amending the theory

KV Petrides

Assumptions underlying science I

• Reality in nature: What we see, hear, feel, and taste is real and has substance. – Empiricism is vital in science, wherein, however, it

refers to accumulation of knowledge through the scientific method, rather than to personal experiences of events.

• Rationality: there is a rational basis for the events that occur in nature, which can be understood through logical thinking.– Rationalism is vital in science, however, scientists use

the reasoning process not only to derive hypotheses, but also to test them.

KV Petrides

Assumptions underlying science II

• Regularity: Events in nature follow the same laws and occur the same way at all times and places.

• Discoverability: Not only is there uniformity and regularity in nature, but it is also possible to discover this uniformity.

• Note that insofar as these assumptions are incorrect in the realm of personality psychology, the utility and relative advantages of the scientific method are compromised.

KV Petrides

Objectives of science• Description: To portray a situation or

phenomenon accurately and parsimoniously.• Explanation: To provide an explanation of the

phenomenon or situation, including why it exists and what causes it.

• Prediction: To enable the anticipation of events prior to their actual occurrence.

• Control: To manipulate the conditions that determine a phenomenon. When the antecedent conditions are known, they can be manipulated to produce a desired phenomenon.

KV Petrides

Personality theories

KV Petrides

Humanistic and psychodynamic approaches

humanistic psychodynamic

KV Petrides

Humanistic approach

• This approach has its roots in the philosophical schools of existentialism and phenomenology.

• It emphasizes that individuals have free will, personal worth, and a need for self-actualization.

• The main impact of this approach has been in the areas of clinical psychology and counseling.

• Major figures in the humanistic tradition are Kelly, Rogers, and Maslow.

KV Petrides

Humanistic approach - Limitations• Overemphasizes the importance of appreciating

personhood and maintaining close contact with your feelings.

• Overlooks social and genetic determinants of personality and being.

• Overemphasizes people’s construal of reality (e.g., self-actualization), which makes the theory impossible to evaluate because there are as many different construals as there are people.

• Rejects the scientific method as a valid method for studying the human mind. – The mind is self-aware and therefore cannot be studied

objectively because it knows it is being studied.

KV Petrides

Psychodynamic approach

• This class of approaches originates from Freud’s psychoanalytic theory.

• Freudian theory has been highly influential in very diverse areas of enquiry.

• Today, psychoanalytic theory continues to play an important role in psychotherapy, although its influence within mainstream psychology is very limited.

• Major figures in the psychodynamic tradition are Freud, Jung, Adler, Horney, and Erikson.

KV Petrides

Psychodynamic approach - Limitations

• Fundamental constructs of the theory are nebulous (e.g., psychic energy, thanatos, etc.).

• Overemphasizes the importance of sexual drive and overlooks the role of social and genetic factors.

• Its clinical effectiveness has been repeatedly called into question (Eysenck, 1952).

• Theory is so general and vague as to be untestable and, consequently, unscientific.

KV Petrides

Trait theories

• Trait theories posit that personality is a constellation of dispositions that influence how people think, feel, and behave.

• Major advantages of trait theories:– Predicated on a vast body of empirical evidence.

– Explicit, testable, and subject to falsification.

– Results and observations are replicable.

– Provide useful descriptions and assessment tools for research and clinical purposes.

KV Petrides

Trait theories - Limitations• Strong on description and labeling, but often weak

on prediction and, especially, explanation.• The same variance (factor space) can be

conceptualized in many ways. This is due to the arbitrariness of factor analysis, which underpins all hierarchical trait theories.

• Insufficient attention to behavioural variability across situations (Mischel, 1968).

• Weak on explaining origins of traits.• Multiple competing theories seemingly enjoying

considerable empirical support.

KV Petrides

Giant 3 vs Big 5

• Giant 3– H J Eysenck, J A Gray, C R Cloninger, M Zuckerman,

A Tellegen

• Big 5– P T Costa, Jr & R R McCrae, L R Goldberg, O John

• The study of personality attempts to discover how people differ and why. Giant 3 theories tend to be psychobiological and to focus on the why question. Big 5 theories tend to be descriptive and to focus on the how question.

KV Petrides

The Giant Three• H J Eysenck’s

– Extraversion• The extent to which people prefer to be alone or with others.

– Neuroticism• The extent to which people experience negative emotions.

– Psychoticism• The extent to which people are tough-minded.

• J A Gray’s– Impulsivity (BAS; approach and reward system).– Anxiety (BIS; inhibition and punishment system).– Fight/flight (aggression or flight system).

KV Petrides

Advantages of Giant Three theories

• Advantages of Giant Three theories over Big Five theories:– Strive to explain WHY individuals differ.– Attempt to bridge psychology and biology.– Able to accommodate individual differences not

easily accounted for by environmental explanations.

– Consistent with animal research findings.– May be able to support pharmacological

interventions.

KV Petrides

Disadvantages of Giant Three theories

• Disadvantages of Giant Three over Big Five theories:– Tend to be less comprehensive. There seems to be

predictively useful personality variance not tapped by Giant Three models.

– Limited methodology for assessing brain function and testing the theories.

– Overemphasize biological factors at the expense of relevant social and cognitive factors.

– Deterministic, allowing little scope for socio-educational interventions (although this may simply reflect reality).

KV Petrides

The Big Five (FFM)

• Extraversion– The extent to which people prefer to be alone or with others.

• Neuroticism– The extent to which people experience negative emotions.

• Agreeableness– The extent to which people are pleasant and well-liked by others.

• Conscientiousness– Concerns the manner in which people complete tasks.

• Openness-to-Experience – Has been variously described as a dimension of creativity,

culture, curiosity, intellectuality.

KV Petrides

Advantages of Big Five theories

• Advantages of Big Five over Giant Three theories:– Provide more comprehensive coverage of personality.

– Offer more thorough descriptions and assessments due to their scope and incorporation of lower-order facets.

– They are perceived as integrative and dominant in the literature.

• A major advantage, as it facilitates the accumulation of evidence and provides a reference point for substantive research.

– O, A, and C have wider nomological networks than P.

KV Petrides

Disadvantages of Big Five theories• Disadvantages of Big Five over Giant Three theories:

– Psychometric• The measurement scope and detail of Big Five models mean that

some factors are internally heterogeneous (e.g., facets correlating more strongly with non-keyed factors than with their keyed factor).

• Moderate-to-strong factor intercorrelations (e.g., A and C).– Explanatory

• Especially weak in explaining findings.• Over-reliant on semantic (thesaurus-based) accounts of

phenomena. Conscientious: competent, dutiful, disciplined, etc.– Conceptual

• Evidence of factors beyond the Big Five, which is a problem as regards comprehensiveness.

• Evidence of developmental non-invariance (Mroczek et al., 1997), which is especially troublesome when origins of factors are unknown.

KV Petrides

Eysenck versus Gray I • P-E-N theory advantages:

– Assessment is straightforward (mainly via questionnaires). In contrast, it is proving difficult to link BIS and BAS from Gray’s theory to behavioural or psychometric measures.

– Overall, empirical evidence tends to be somewhat in favour of Eysenck, but results are often inconclusive or difficult to replicate (Matthews & Gilliland, 1999).

– Dearth of uncontested and conclusive evidence in support of Gray’s theory based on human data.

– Eysenckian theory has far wider spheres of influence and application than Gray’s, which tends to focus on a relatively small number of specific paradigms.

KV Petrides

Eysenck versus Gray II

• BIS/BAS theory advantages:– Much more detailed description of physiological

mechanisms than P-E-N model.

– Sometimes impressive evidence from animal studies (e.g., BIS-based explanations of the effects of anxiolytic drugs in the rat).

– However, these results do not seem to be replicable in human samples. It is likely that human anxiety is much more amenable to cognitive control (self-regulatory processes) than animal anxiety.

KV Petrides

Eysenck versus Gray III• Because the two theories define the same factor space,

anxiety can be recast as neurotic introversion versus stable extraversion and impulsivity can be recast as neurotic extraversion versus stable introversion.

• Decisive factors can be parsimony and explanatory power (e.g., accuracy of underlying physiological systems).

KV Petrides

On the web

• http://www.personality-project.org/– Maintained by Professor W. Revelle

• http://freespace.virgin.net/darrin.evans/– The H J Eysenck official web page

• http://www.cattell.net/devon/rbcmain.htm– The R B Cattell memorial page

• http://www.spsp.org/– Society for Personality and Social Psychology