Psychology 201: Lecture 6 The Dispositional Perspective

Personality:
Dispositional Perspectives

James Neill

2008

james.neill@canberra.edu.au

Image source: UnknownThe purpose of this lecture is to introduce and discuss dispositional perspectives of personality, particularly personality types and personality traits, to consider the personality vs. situation debate and the notion of interactionism.

Overview

Themes & assumptions

Types

Traits

Situation v personality debate

Interactionism

Strengths & limitations

1. Themes & assumptions

1. Stable2. Individual differences3. Types vs. traits4. Personality vs. situation

Personality as stability

Emphasises human psychology as a function of consistent actions, thoughts, feelings
i.e. unpredictability is an exception

social psychologists might argue

Personality as individual differences

Assumes that composition of dispositions varies between people.

Unique combinations of stable dispositions within each person.

Types vs. Traits

Types = You are a single type (or shape) of person there are different main types and sub-types but you can only be one type.

Traits = We each can be described as having varying amounts of several traits (e.g., extraversion, optimism, etc.)

Types vs. Traits

Traits are now more in favour than types.

Personality vs. Situation

A perennial debate how much of our behaviour is caused by who were are (personality) and how much by the situational influences and demands (norms, culture, etc.)

Maybe they work together and it varies? (interactionism)

2. Personality Types

Greek 'excesses'

Sheldon's somatotypes

Recent types

Image source:http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Image:Diversity-Discrimination-05.jpgAuthor:http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Image:Diversity-Discrimination-05.jpgLicense: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

Ancient Greek Humors

Ancient Greeks (e.g. Hippocrates, Galen): 4 types of people:

Excess of one of 4 bodily fluids determined personality

Type theory aims to classify people into distinct CATEGORIES. I.e. this type or that. Types are regarded as categories that are distinct and discontiuous. E.g. you are one or the other. Male/Female are discontinuous categories.Ancient Greeks (e.g. Hippocrates 400 BC, Galen, 140/150 AD): 4 types of people:Excess of one of 4 bodily fluids determined personalityHumorFluidCharacterCholericyellow bileIrritableMelancholicblack bileDepressed SanguinebloodOptimisticPhlegmaticphlegmCalm

Ancient Greek Humors

Irritable

Depressed

Optimistic

Calm

Type theory aims to classify people into distinct CATEGORIES. I.e. this type or that. Types are regarded as categories that are distinct and discontiuous. E.g. you are one or the other. Male/Female are discontinuous categories.Ancient Greeks (e.g. Hippocrates 400 BC, Galen, 140/150 AD): 4 types of people:Excess of one of 4 bodily fluids determined personalityHumorFluidCharacterCholericyellow bileIrritableMelancholicblack bileDepressed SanguinebloodOptimisticPhlegmaticphlegmCalm

Image source: Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PersonalityTraitsFromSignalPatterns.jpgLicense: Public domain

Sheldon's Somatotypes

William Sheldon (1940's) classified body type (somatotype):

Personality Types - Somatotypes

Image source: Unknown

Types: Recent

Individual differences may be qualitative not quantitative

Block (1971) identified 5 types. However more recent research suggests 3:

Well-adjusted, resilient, adaptable, flexible, resourceful

Over-controlling, maladjusted, uptight

Under-controlled, maladjusted, impulsive, risky, unsafe

2. Personality Traits

Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PersonalityTraitsFromSignalPatterns.jpgAuthor:http://www.flickr.com/people/25719696@N02License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

Personality Traits

Definition

Nomothetic vs. Idiographic

Gordon Allport

Many trait, single trait, & essential trait approaches

Needs (Murray)

Cattell (16 PF)

Eysenck (3 super-traits)

The Big 5

Personality Traits

"enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts."
(DSM-IV)

Personality Traits

Distinguishing qualities or characteristics of a person.

A readiness to think or act in a similar fashion in response to a variety of different stimuli or situations.

Personality Traits

Allport & Odbert (1936) found 17,953 words to describe the way people are psychologically different from each other.

e.g. shy, trustworthy, anxious, etc.

The trait approach tries to formalise and use descriptive traits to explain and predict behaviour.

Nomothetic vs. Idiographic

Nomothetic:

Traits have same psychological meaning in everyone

People differ only in amount of each trait

Idiographic:

Each person has unique psychological structure

Some traits possessed by only one person

Traits differ in importance from person to person

Gordon Allport (1897-1967)

Believed in consistent individuality and uniqueness

Morphogenic perspective =
blend of nomothetic + idiographic perspectives

Believed in various traits:

individual, common, cardinal, central, secondary, motivational, and stylistic

The Many Trait Approach

Some theorists look at many traits when investigating personality.

Examine correlates of different behaviours to understand personality in greater depth.

The Single Trait Approach

Much research focuses on a single trait (its origin, nature, and consequences)

Widely studied traits include:

Conscientiousness

Self-monitoring

Authoritarianism

Single Trait: e.g. Authoritarianism

Widely researched for 50+ years

Proposed to lie at heart of racial prejudice.

Unthinking, inflexible, submissive, aggressive, power-fascination, cynical, hostile, may be sexually repressed.

The Essential Trait Approach

many traits to essential ones:

Murray (1938):
27 needs

Cattell (1949):
16 traits

Eysenck (1960's):
3 supertraits

Costa & McCrae (1980's):
5 traits

Eysenck (e.g. 1967; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968)

Costa & McCrae (e.g. 1985,1988; McCrae & Costa, 1986, 1987)

Henry Murray (1893 - 1988)

Assumption:
behaviour is driven by an internal state of disequilibrium

Need:
internal state of dissatisfaction (desire)

Image source: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy/verpaelst/WEB%20PAGE%20FOLDER/Pictures/HenryMurray.jpg

Murray (1893 - 1988)

Primary (viscerogenic) needs:

e.g. food, water, air, sex, avoidance of pain

Secondary (psychogenic) needs (N = 27):

e.g. achievement, dominance, affiliation, nurturance

More recent needs

Need for Achievement

Need for Power

Need for Affiliation

Need for Intimacy

Raymond Cattell (1905-1998)

Language: Source of info about personality

4,500 words
171 trait names

Factor analysed
self-ratings

16 personality
factors (16 PF)

Image source:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Raymond_Cattell.jpgAuthor:Cattell familyLicense: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

Cattell's 16 Personality Factors

WarmthVigilance

ReasoningAbstractness

Emotional StabilityPrivateness

DominanceApprehension

LivelinessOpenness to Change

Rule-ConsciousnessSelf-Reliance

Social BoldnessPerfectionism

SensitivityTension

Hans Eysenck (1916 -1997)

Two supertraits having a biological basis:

1. Introversion-extraversion

2. Emotionality-stability (Neuroticism)

Image source:http://www.pioneerfund.org/eysenck.jpg

Hans Eysenck (1916 -1997)

2nd-order FA of 16PF shows two factors:

Introversion/extraversion

Anxiety (Neuroticism)

Psychoticism added later: less researched

EPQ (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire)

The Big 5

5 superordinate traits well supported by wide variety of research.

Not everyone agrees on the naming of these traits.

Commonly measured by NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1980s) or IPIP.

Commonly measured by NEO (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1986, 1987).

The Big 5

The Big 5 according to the NEO:

Neuroticism

Extraversion

Openness to Experience

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Each measured by 6 facets (traits)

Traits: The Big Five

Trait Dimension Description

Neuroticism Calm versus anxious(Emotional Stability) Secure versus insecure Self-satisfied versus self-pitying

Extraversion Sociable versus retiring Fun-loving versus sober Affectionate versus reservedOpenness Imaginative versus practical Preference for variety versus preference for routine Independent versus conformingAgreeableness Soft-hearted versus ruthless Trusting versus suspicious Helpful versus uncooperativeConscientiousness Organized versus disorganized Careful versus careless Disciplined versus impulsive

DeliberationTender-mindednessValuesPositive emotionVulnerabilitySelf-disciplineModestyIdeas Excitement seekingImpulsivenessAchievement strivingComplianceActionsActivity

Self-consciousnessDutifulnessAltruismFeelingsAssertivenessDepressionOrderStraightforward-nessAestheticsGregariousnessAngry hostilityCompetenceTrustFantasyWarmthAnxietyCAOEN

Peabody & Goldberg (1989)Costa & McCrae (1985)Digman (1990)Orgatta (1964)Norman (1963)Fiske (1949)6 (Authors)WORKLOVEINTELLECTPOWERAFFECTConscientious-nessAgreeablenessOpenness to experienceExtraversionNeuroticismWill to achieveFriendly complianceIntellectExtraversionNeuroticismResponsibilityLikeabilityIntelligenceAssertivenessEmotionalityConscientious-nessAgreeablenessCultureSurgencyEmotionalityWill to achieveConformityInquiring intellectSocial adaptabilityEmotional control54321

6 Factors

Personality may be more fully explained by a 6-factor model.

The extra 6th factor
= Honesty-Humility.

The 6-factor model has been labeled the HEXACO model (Lee & Ashton, 2004).

(Ashton & Lee, 2001; Ashton, et al., 2004). Lee & Ashton, 2004

Trait Stability?

Costa et al. (1980):

Longitudinal study correlations > .70 over time for extraversion & neuroticism

Helson et al. (1987; 1993):

Women become more dominant, independent, & self-confident over time

Individual differences in stability / consistency

Costa, McCrae and Arenberg (1980)

Helson and Moane (1987); Helson and Wink (1993)

4. Situation vs. Personality Debate

Image source:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Debate_Anatel.jpgAuthor:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Debate_Anatel.jpgLicense: Free use

Situation vs. Personality Debate

Sparked by publication of Mischels book Personality and Assessment (1968)

Situation

Personality

Pro-situation

1960s/1970s, evidence suggested low correlation between personality and behaviour (i.e. personality coefficient of approx. .20 to .40)

What use are traits if they explain so little of behaviour?

Situational variables better predictors? No.

Pro-personality

Low correlations do not prove value of situational variables

Much research on ability of traits to predict behavior based on single act/single time

People choose situations

5. Interactionism

Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Schraube_und_archimedische_Spirale.pngAuthor:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Karl_BednarikLicense: GFDL

Interactionism

Traits x [Perceived] Situation = Behaviour

Complexity: different situations affect different people in different ways

Some situations allow expression of personality, others provoke narrower range of behaviour

Some individuals more consistent

Interactionism

Traits do not have a constant influence on behaviour...sometimes trait differences matter a lot, sometimes only a little

People display traits by choosing situations, not just by reacting to them

Person-situation debate has lead to more dynamic approach to understanding how personality traits and situations interact to produce a persons behaviour

6. Critique of Dispositional Perspectives

Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PlusMinus.svgAuthor:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MarianSiglerLicense: Public domain

Critique of dispositional perspective: For

Useful description and assessment of personality

Have some predictive power

Although decisions arbitrary, several researchers, using different approaches, coincided in similar views

Personality traits useful for research purposes

Allows comparison of individual differences & provides an objective, scientific approach

Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crystal_Clear_action_edit_add.pngAuthor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everaldo_Coelho and http://www.yellowicon.com/License: GFDL

Critique of dispositional perspective: Against

Doesnt explain how or why personality works

Poor decisions made on the basis of trait scores?

Arbitrary decisions about traits

Behaviour is not always consistent

Possibly limited predictive ability

Little explanation for origins of traits

Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crystal_Clear_action_edit_remove.pngAuthor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everaldo_Coelho and http://www.yellowicon.com/License: GFDL

Click to edit the outline text format

Second Outline Level

Third Outline Level

Fourth Outline Level

Fifth Outline Level

Sixth Outline Level

Seventh Outline Level

Eighth Outline Level

Ninth Outline Level