Chapter 1
Personality Theory
in Context
Key themes
Nature of personality
Implicit personality theories
Definitions of personality
Aims of studying personality
Approaches to studying personality
Describing personality
Distinctions made in personality research
Measurement issues
Strands of theorising
Reading critically and evaluating theory
Learning outcomes
After studying this chapter you should:
Appreciate why psychologists study personality
Be aware of a variety of definitions of personality
Understand the components of psychological definitions of
personality
Have developed an understanding of the historical roots of
personality theory
Understand the major questions that personality theories aim
to address
Understand the criteria that can be used to evaluate
personality theories
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:51 AM Page 2
General population perspectives:
implicit personality theories
It is clear from the opening example that describing someone
as having ‘no personality’ conveys meaning to most
people; and for my students at least, there was a fairly good
consensus about exactly what it meant. This is an example
of what psychologists call implicit personality theories.
These are intuitively based theories of human behaviour
that we all construct to help us to understand both others
and ourselves. We hear descriptions of individuals, and we
observe people going about their business, chatting with us
and with others, and then we use this information to help
us decide what sort of person we think they are. Most
times, we are not even consciously aware that we are doing
this; it happens so frequently that it becomes an automatic
response. In this way, we are all psychologists collecting
data based on our observations of social situations. Human
beings seem to have a natural curiosity about why people
behave as they do. We use our observations to construct
our implicit personality theories. These implicit theories
are then used to explain behaviour.
For example, what about the student in your seminar
group who never contributes to the discussion? Is it
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 3
One of us recently overheard two female students who
were discussing the merits of their friend’s boyfriend.
One student concluded, ‘I don’t know what she sees
in him; he has no personality whatsoever.’ The other
agreed vehemently with this statement. What is this
poor guy actually like? This is not an unusual comment,
and you may have used it yourself. Can an individual
have no personality? How do you visualise someone
who is described as having ‘no personality’? Take a
minute to think about it. We tried this out on a group of
students and asked them what they thought someone
was like who could be described as having no personality.
They easily produced descriptions such as quiet, not
a lot of fun, unassuming, geeky, not very sociable, no
sense of humour and dull. A few students even suggested
that such people are unhappy looking, and others
suggested that they dress in dull clothes.
Clearly the description of ‘no personality’ does not
literally mean that the individual does not have personal
characteristics of the type that we normally think of as
being part of a person’s personality; rather, it implies a certain
sort of person. This then raises the issue of what we
mean by personality. Firstly, following from our example,
we will begin by looking at how non-psychologists, as
opposed to psychologists, deal with personality. Then we
will explore what psychologists mean by personality. At
that point, some of the complexities of the topic area will
become apparent.
Introduction
Source: Corbis/Scott Barrow
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/24/09 9:09 AM Page 3
4 PART 1 PERSONALITY
because of shyness, stupidity or laziness? How would you
decide? We make observations and then we infer cause and
effect. We see the student in the bar surrounded by a large
group of people, obviously the centre of attention, chatting
and laughing; and we may conclude that this person is not
shy. Sometimes we discuss it with our friends to compare
their observations with ours. Someone may tell you that
the silent seminar student won a business sponsorship to
come to university. You may conclude that this rules out
stupidity as a motivator for their behaviour. Are they lazy?
Perhaps we think they are too arrogant to join in the discussion,
that they find the level of debate beneath them
intellectually. Therefore, we may have them down as either
lazy or arrogant, and we look for confirmation in their subsequent
behaviour in seminars. In this way, we make what
are called causal inferences about behaviour. This means
we assume that people behave the way they do because of
the sort of people they are; it is down to their personality.
Most people find it difficult to identify how they make
these judgements. Think about how you do it, if you find
this hard to believe.
Problems with implicit theories
Judging what other people are like is a skill that is valued.
Think how often you hear people saying, ‘I am a good
judge of character’. We all like to think that we know about
people, and most of the time our implicit theories of personality
appear to work quite well in our everyday life; but
they are flawed in several ways. You may notice that we said
implicit theories appear to work well, but a major difficulty
with them is that we seldom have the opportunity to check
them out properly. We decide to share our flat with Sarah
and not Joanne, and therefore we never have the opportunity
to see if Joanne is a good flatmate. If it turns out that
we get along well with Sarah as a flatmate, we congratulate
ourselves on being a good judge of character. Joanne might
have been even better, but we will never know. In this way,
our evaluation of the situation is flawed.
Implicit theories are also based on casual and nonrandom
observations of individuals. By this, we mean that
they are not based on observations of behaviour that have
been systematically selected to portray accurately how that
person spends his or her life. Instead, we have chance
observations of other people. We can see this from the student
seminar example. With most people, we sample only a
tiny fraction of their behaviour; yet based on this, we have
to make decisions about whether we are going to pursue a
friendship with them, give them a job or go out of our way
to avoid them in future. If we decide not to pursue further
contact with the individual, that is usually the end of the
story. Implicit theories are not scientific theories of personality.
Exactly what constitutes a scientific theory will be
discussed later in the chapter. However, it should be clear
from these examples that some more reliable way of understanding
individual behaviour and classifying people
would be useful. Psychologists have set out to do this; and
as we shall see, they have developed a range of theories, all
attempting to meet this need.
How is personality defined?
Psychologists need to be very clear about exactly what they
are studying and define it precisely if they are going to
measure it effectively. One difficulty that frequently arises
is that many of the words used by psychologists are already
part of our everyday language or have been adopted into
normal language use. However, it is still important to consider
what the public (as opposed to psychologists) think
that a term means so that accurate communication can
occur. In most instances public, or lay, definitions tend to
be very wide and not specific enough for psychologists to
use for research purposes to define precisely what they are
examining. However, lay definitions provide a good starting
point for developing psychological definitions.
Lay definitions of personality
Lay definitions of personality frequently involve value
judgements in terms of the social attractiveness of individuals.
Sometimes the emphasis is on aspects of the individual’s
physical appearance, perhaps with some comments
on their social style. This view produces the following personality
description: ‘Richard is tall and fairly attractive,
but never has much to say for himself although he can be
very funny with people he knows well.’ Such definitions
are essentially evaluations of individuals and include relative
judgements, in this instance about height and attractiveness.
This definition also includes some judgements
about how Richard interacts with others: ‘never has much
to say for himself although he can be very funny with people
he knows well’. The elements of descriptions or judgements,
made about the person when they are in social
settings, are common elements. These lay definitions are
commonly linked to our implicit personality theories that
we discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Sometimes
they include elements of folklore within particular cultures.
It may be an assumed match between a physical
attribute and a personality attribute. Common examples
are that people with red hair also have fiery tempers or
that fat people are jolly.
From lay definitions of personality, it seems that personality
is judged in a social context; that is, it has elements
about how well people get on with others and their style of
interacting as well as comments on their appearance. Does
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:51 AM Page 4
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 5
this mean that our personality is apparent only in social situations?
This is obviously not the case. When people are
alone, they still display individual differences in terms of
how they cope with solitude and their attitude towards it.
For most people their personality is an integral part of their
being, which exists whether they are alone or with others.
Psychological definitions of personality
Psychological definitions of personality differ from lay definitions
in that they define personality in terms of characteristics,
or the qualities typical of that individual. Gordon
Allport, a prominent early figure in personality psychology,
popularised the term ‘personality’ and provided a definition
in 1961. He defined personality as ‘a dynamic organisation,
inside the person, of psychophysical systems that
create the person’s characteristic patterns of behaviour,
thoughts and feelings’ (Allport, 1961, p. 11).
This dense definition requires some unpacking.
Dynamic organisation, inside the person refers to a process
that is continually adjusting, adapting to the experiences
we have, changes in our lives, ageing and the like. In other
words, personality is conceptualised as being an active,
responsive system. It is conceptualised as being organised
in some sort of internal structural system, the details of
which are not yet quite clear – although hypotheses
abound, as you will see in later chapters. Psychophysical
systems refer to the inclusion of both our minds and our
bodies in what we refer to as personality. In somewhat
crude terms, the psychological elements in the mind interact
with the body sometimes in complex ways to produce
behaviour. The person’s characteristic patterns suggest that
something relatively stable is being produced that becomes
typical of that individual. The implied stability is important;
without it, all attempts at measuring personality
would be futile. Behaviour, thoughts and feelings refer to the
fact that personality is a central component influencing,
and being discernible in, a wide range of human experiences
and activities.
While this is only one of a multitude of definitions, it includes
some important elements and is reasonably comprehensive.
Personality theorists are still struggling to
produce a universally acceptable definition of personality.
Part of the problem arises from the concept being so wide,
which makes it difficult to conceptualise succinctly. It has
to embrace and account for individual differences between
people, their genetic inheritance, and the internal processing
that occurs within individuals, leading them to behave
in the ways that are characteristic of them. Despite the lack
of a single agreed-upon definition, some agreement has
emerged about what constitutes personality. There is consensus
that the term ‘personality’, as now used, describes a
psychological construct, that is, a mental concept that
influences behaviour via the mind–body interaction. As an
understanding of what constitutes a psychological construct
and how they are identified is important for your
understanding of psychological theory, a fuller description
is given in Stop and think: Defining and testing psychological
constructs.
The aims of studying personality
Psychologists are interested in what people are like, why
they behave as they do and how they became that way.
Underlying these apparently simple issues are more profound
questions about human beings as a species, as we
shall see when we address these issues later in this book. To
put it in more academic language, personality theorists
seek to explain the motivational basis of behaviour. Why
do individuals behave as they do? What gets us up every
morning? Why are you studying for a degree? Basically,
personality theorists have to address the question of what
drives our behaviour. This question of motivation necessarily
touches on crucial issues about the basic nature of
human beings. Do we behave in certain ways because we
have little choice? As a species, are we innately aggressive
and self-destructive? What are the basic human drives?
Some personality theorists such as the psychoanalyst Sigmund
Freud (Chapter 2) adopt the view that human nature
is essentially, innately self-destructive and aggressive.
Other theorists such as Carl Rogers, an American who is
often seen as one of the founding figures of counselling
psychology (Chapter 6), see human nature as being benign.
Rogers claims that human beings are driven by positive
motives towards growth and self-acceptance. We shall explore
this in more detail later and see that there is a range of
views. The quality of human nature, however, is a fundamental
question that has to be addressed by personality
theorists. Are we benign or malevolent as a species? As yet
there appears to be no definitive answer.
As well as addressing issues of human motivation and
the nature of human beings, personality theorists aim to
provide descriptions or categorisations of how individuals behave.
This is addressed in different ways, but the aim is to
understand why individuals behave as they do. Implicit
here is some level of acceptance in most, but not all, theories
that there is a finite range of possible behaviour and
that some patterns of behaviour are shared by individuals
with similar personalities. Hence types or categories of personalities
are outlined as part of many theories. Linked to
the idea of classifying types of personality is the issue of
measuring personality.
Closely linked to this question of what people are like is
the issue of how they become that way. Theories pay different
attention to this issue with some theoretical approaches
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:51 AM Page 5
6 PART 1 PERSONALITY
encompassing detailed developmental theories while
others are much more schematic in their treatment of how
personality develops. Within developmental theories there
are diverse views about the age at which personality becomes
fixed. Is your personality fixed at age 2, or is it age 5
or older, or is change always possible?
There are diverse views on this aspect. Even within some
of the clinically derived theories,like the psychoanalytic ones
that see personality development as occurring in early childhood,
change is considered to be possible but is assumed to
be difficult to achieve.Some theorists,as you will see,suggest
that interventions such as psychotherapy or counselling can
facilitate this change. Conceptualising therapeutic interventions
in this way makes it easier to understand why so many
personality theories have been produced by psychologists
and psychotherapists who are in clinical practice. Their
interest is in understanding individuals so that interventions
to assist in behaviour change can be developed.
Closely related to the development of personality is the
issue of heritability versus environment. Is personality
development determined more by genetic inheritance or
environmental influences, or is it some sort of interactional
effect? Theories differ, as we shall see in this book, in terms
of the role they give to each, and some theories do not
really address this issue. Trait theorists and biological
theorists tend to have more to say on genetic influences on
personality.
Personality theory developed within psychology originally
to help us understand mental illness and abnormal
behaviour. We will examine the details of this effort later,
when different theorists are presented. At this point it is
enough to know that to study and classify the experiences
of psychologically disturbed people, it is necessary to have
a concept of what is normal in human behaviour. Without
some idea of what constitutes the normal range of human
behaviour, it is impossible to make judgements about what
is abnormal. From this early work, it soon became apparent
that there are huge individual differences in human behaviour.
However, some of the early personality theorists
began to see that there are patterns in human behaviour
Stop and think
Defining and testing psychological constructs
Psychological constructs refer to concepts that are not
directly observable but are hypothesised to be influential
in determining or explaining behaviour. We do not
directly observe personality, for example, but our theory
is that personality plays an important role in determining
behaviour. Our observations are of behaviour; and from
these observations, we infer that the individual has a
certain personality characteristic or type of personality.
In this way personality is a psychological construct. To
determine that a particular phenomenon is a psychological
construct and not merely a chance observation, it is
necessary to demonstrate that it can be reliably measured
and is relatively stable across time, amongst other
things.
Lee J. Cronbach (1916–2001), Professor of Education
at Stanford University in the United States, spent
most of his long career examining issues related to the
identification and measurement of psychological concepts.
In 1955 he published, with Paul Meehl, what has
come to be seen as a classic seminal paper in psychology.
The authors propose a method for establishing the
validity of psychological constructs in personality tests.
Paul Meehl (1920–2003) was a Professor of Psychology
at the University of Minnesota in the United States and
like Lee Cronbach, he was concerned with investigating
how reliably psychologists could predict behaviour. The
joint paper by Cronbach and Meehl is heavily quoted
within the psychological literature. The following are
the authors’ three essential steps for establishing the
validity of a psychological construct:
Describe the characteristics that make up the
construct and suggest how they may be related to
each other based on some underlying theoretical
speculation. For example, take the construct of extraversion.
Extraverted individuals are described as
being outgoing, friendly and warm. These are all
characteristics that are hypothesised to promote
social interaction. The theoretical speculation is
that extraverts like and need higher levels of social
interaction.
Ways of measuring the suggested characteristics of
the construct are then developed. For our example
this would involve developing measures of ‘outgoingness’,
friendliness and warmth.
Finally, the hypothesised relationships are tested. In
our example we would expect to find that individuals
who scored highly on outgoingness also scored
highly on friendliness and warmth and that these individuals
all liked interacting with other people.
Finding these relationships would result in a valid
concept. Cronbach and Meehl were keen to emphasise
that establishing the validity of psychological
concepts is an ongoing process that may have
to be revisited as our knowledge within psychology
expands.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:51 AM Page 6
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 7
and that it is possible to classify types of human personality.
This led to the measurement of personality and the
development of personality questionnaires. This will be
examined in detail in later chapters. As you are now aware,
psychologists have many reasons for studying personality;
we have summarised these aims in Figure 1.1 to help you
remember them.
What we have not yet considered is where the term ‘personality’
originated. In many courses, historical aspects of
psychology are addressed within individual modules. To
facilitate this approach, we will include some relevant
material such as the history of core terms.
The source of the term ‘personality’
The word ‘personality’ derives from the Latin persona,
meaning ‘mask’ (Kassin, 2003). It was the famous, pioneering,
American psychologist Gordon Allport who popularised
the term with the publication in 1937 of Personality:
A Psychological Interpretation. Prior to this a variety of
terms, such as ‘character’ or ‘temperament’, were commonly
used. Allport carried out a survey of the ways in
which the concept of personality has been defined; he identified
over 50 different ways. These varied from lay commonsense
understandings to sociological, philosophical,
ethical and legal definitions. Allport argued that many of
the existing terms were value laden in the way that they
were used. Examples would be a description of a woman of
good character or a man of bad character. Within a particular
cultural setting, this description would take on a specific
meaning that was generally shared. Allport felt it was
necessary to develop a consensus on the use of a word that
would describe individual uniqueness without implying an
evaluation of that uniqueness. As a result of Allport’s influence,
‘personality’ increasingly became the term used
across the discipline to describe individual differences. A
few – theorists, mainly – psychometricians, used the label of
‘individual differences’, and this usage continues to some extent.
Psychometricians are concerned with the development
of good, accurate measures of individual differences. In
these instances of ‘individual differences’, it is frequently really
an abbreviated form of ‘individual differences in personality’
or variables related to personality. You will already
be getting the idea that there are a variety of approaches to
studying and researching personality; we will now look at
some of them.
· Explain the motivational basis of behaviour.
· Ascertain the basic nature of human beings.
· Provide descriptions/categorisations of how individuals behave.
· Measure personality.
· Understand how personality develops.
· Foster a deeper understanding of human beings to assist in the development of
interventions to facilitate behaviour change.
· Assess the effects of heredity versus environment.
Figure 1.1 Summary of the aims of studying personality.
Is it important to understand the basic nature of
human beings?
Source: Digital Vision, Rob van Petten
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 7
Feature
Strategy
Goal
Research
methodology
Data collection
Advantages
Disadvantages
Nomothetic
Focuses on similarities between groups of
individuals. Individuals are unique only in the way
their traits combine.
To identify the basic structure of personality and
the minimum number of traits required to describe
personality universally.
Quantitative methods to:
· explore the structures of personality;
· produce measures of personality;
· explore the relationships between variables
across groups.
Self-report personality questionnaires.
Discovery of general principles that have a
predictive function.
Can lead to a fairly superficial understanding of
any one person. Training needed to analyse
personality profiles accurately.
Idiographic
Emphasises the uniqueness of individuals.
To develop an in-depth understanding of
the individual.
Qualitative methodologies to produce case
studies mainly. Some generalisation across
series of case studies is possible.
Interviews, diaries, narratives, treatment
session data.
Depth of understanding of the individual.
Can be difficult to make generalisations
from the data.
8 PART 1 PERSONALITY
Approaches to studying personality:
idiographic versus nomothetic
An important distinction made by Allport in his early work
on personality was between idiographic and nomothetic
approaches to personality. The idiographic approach focuses
on the individual and describes the personality variables
within that individual. The term comes from the
ancient Greek idios, meaning ‘private or personal’. Theorists,
who adopt this approach in the main, are only interested
in studying individuals one at a time. They see each
person as having a unique personality structure. Differences
between individuals are seen to be much greater than
the similarities. The possible differences are infinite. Idiographic
approaches produce a unique understanding of that
individual’s personality.
The single case study method is generally the research
method of choice for idiographic approaches to personality
theorising. The aim is to develop an in-depth understanding
of a single individual. For example, Freud used
the idiographic approach to study his patients. He developed
a detailed description of each patient based on his observations
of that patient during treatment. He would
make notes on the patient after each treatment session,
reviewing and revising his previous notes as his knowledge
of the patient increased. He then wrote up the session notes
as a clinical case study describing that particular patient.
Idiographic approaches mainly use qualitative research
methodologies, such as interviews, diaries, therapeutic sessions
or narratives, to collect data on an individual. Some
personality theorists do not go beyond this focus on the
individual, as they truly consider each person to be unique
and deny the existence of types of personality. Others will
make some generalisations about human behaviour based
on studying a number of case studies. They may observe
from a series of case studies that there are similarities in the
way some individuals behave. Freud, for example, produced
his personality theory based on his observations of dozens of
patient case studies. The clinical case study approach has
been used mainly by idiographic personality researchers.
In contrast, the nomothetic approach comes from the
ancient Greek term for ‘law’ and is based on the assumption
that there exists a finite set of variables that can be
used to describe human personality. The aim is to identify
these personality variables or traits that occur consistently
across groups of people. Each individual can then be
located within this set of variables. By studying large
groups of people on a particular variable, we can establish
the average levels of that variable in particular age groups,
or in men and women, and in this way produce group averages
– generally called norms for variables. Individuals can
then be described as being above or below the average or
norm on a particular variable. Thus when a friend who is
very outgoing and friendly is rated as being an extravert on
a personality test, it means that her score was higher than
the average on the variable called extraversion. The variable
‘extraversion’ is measured by asking questions about how
sociable and assertive she is. This approach, while acknowledging
that each person will possess different degrees of
particular personality traits, concentrates on the similarities
Figure 1.2 Comparison of idiographic and nomothetic approaches to the study of personality.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 8
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 9
in human personality. One aim of the nomothetic
approach is to identify a universal set of variables that will
underpin the basic structure of human personality. We
will visit this concept in considerably more detail when
we look at trait theorists in Chapter 7.
There are advantages and drawbacks to each approach,
and we have summarised these in Figure 1.2.
There is a long-standing debate about the relative merits
of idiographic versus nomothetic approaches; it applies to
many subject areas within psychology, not just to personality
theorising. A common issue for students, however, is remembering
which is which. You may find it useful to
remember ‘I’ for Idiographic and Individual.
Two celebrated personality researchers, Charles Carver
and Michael Scheier, have discussed this issue at some
length. Carver and Scheier (2000) argue that within personality
theorising, the distinction between idiographic
and nomothetic is not clear-cut. They argue that psychologists
adopting the nomothetic approach still accept the
uniqueness of individuals. However, they do not accept
that there is an infinite number of personality variables.
They see that there is an underlying common structure of
personality with an associated finite number of personality
variables. The uniqueness of the individual comes from
their particular mix of variables from the finite set. It is
how these personality variables are combined that makes
each individual unique. Some idiographic researchers also
go beyond the focus purely on the individual. They collect
sets of case studies, for example, and then identify common
themes across these case studies. In this way, they can generate
theories and make predictions that can be tested,
often by using nomothetic approaches.
Describing personality
Individuals are described as having certain degrees of happiness,
activity, assertiveness, neurosis, warmth, impulsiveness
and so on. Physical descriptions, unlike lay definitions,
are rarely included in psychological definitions. The focus
is on identifying psychological as opposed to physical characteristics
on which people differ. These characteristics are
measured in specific populations, and the mean (average)
levels of occurrence are calculated. This might be done separately
for men and women and for different age groups. A
study might, for example, give a mean level of anxiety separately
for men and women aged between 20 and 29,
another for men and women aged between 30 and 39 and
so on. These calculations give the population norms for
that particular characteristic.
Population norms represent the mean scores that particular
groups of individuals score on a specific test. For example,
they allow you to compare the test score on anxiety
for a woman between ages 20 and 29 with the mean levels
for her age group of women. You can then conclude that
her anxiety score was either above or below the average for
her age group as well as comparing her with other individuals
in your sample. This information gives profiles of individual
differences that are then frequently used to define
types of personalities. As we shall see in Chapter 7, trait
theorists frequently develop population norms.
Distinctions and assertions in
personality research
Personality is perceived to be a relatively stable, enduring,
important aspect of the self. People may act differently in different
situations, but personality will have a major influence
on their behaviour.For example,someone who is classified as
being extravert will behave in a more outgoing fashion than a
person who is introverted will, regardless of the social situation.
The differences in social behaviour between the two will
be observable whether they are at a party or a funeral tea.Personality
characteristics in this way are thought to exert a relatively
consistent influence on behaviour in different
situations. Personality characteristics in this way are
enduring across different social contexts.
While it is accepted that individuals can and do change
over time, there is a contention that personality is
relatively stable over time. People may learn from their
mistakes and change their behaviour; but the more profound
the change, the longer it generally takes. Changing
aspects of ourselves is typically not easy, as counsellors and
therapists will attest. It tends to take considerable time and
effort for individuals to change aspects of themselves, if
indeed they are successful. Expert help is frequently needed
from counsellors or therapists before change is achieved.
Related to this contention is the fact that not all differences
between individuals are considered to be equally important
by personality theorists. The English language allows
us to make fine distinctions between individuals. Another
contribution made by Gordon Allport was to identify the
number of words in an English dictionary that describe
areas where individual differences are possible. Allport and
his colleague Odbent in 1936 listed 18,000 such words, suggesting
that over 4,500 of these appeared to describe aspects
of personality. Of course, many of these were synonyms.
Psychologists, through their research over time, have identified
the personality characteristics that can be reliably
assessed, where differences make most impact on behaviour
and are most consistent over time. These are considered
to be the important personality characteristics, and
they are listed in Figure 1.3. The figure includes what are
considered to be the major structures of personality and
the main subdivisions within each. Observant readers may
note that the first letters of major structures make up the
word ‘OCEAN’, a useful mnemonic. You will learn more
about these characteristics and the structure of personality
later in Chapter 7.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 9
Openness to new experience: Feelings,
Ideas, Values, Actions, Fantasy,
Aesthetics
Conscientiousness: Competence,
Achievement striving, Self-discipline,
Orderliness, Dutifulness, Deliberation
Extraversion: Gregariousness, Activity
level, Assertiveness, Excitement
seeking, Positive emotions, Warmth
Neuroticism: Anxiety,
Self-consciousness, Depression,
Vulnerability, Impulsiveness, Angry
hostility
Agreeableness: Trust, Altruism,
Straightforwardness, Compliance,
Modesty, Tender-mindedness
Personality theorists make a further distinction between
the overt, observable aspects of personality and the
unobservable aspects of personality such as thoughts,
memories and dreams. This distinction was mentioned
earlier. The psychoanalytic theoretical school goes further,
making a distinction between the conscious and
unconscious aspects of personality. Specific drives or
mechanisms of which the individual is unaware are
thought to be influential in determining personality. From
specific examples of behaviour or habitual styles of behaving,
the existence of these personality characteristics in the
individual are inferred. For example, the young woman
who always seems to have boyfriends who are very much
older than her would be described, in Freudian terms, as
being motivated by an unconscious wish for a father figure
– or at least the properties in a boyfriend that she associates
with father figures. She wants someone to look after her. In
terms of her personality, she is seen to be lacking in independence.
In this way some theories focus much more on
the unobservable influences of personality, as will become
apparent as you progress through the book.
A further distinction is often made between what is
called the individual’s private persona and their public
persona. The private persona is conceptualised as being
the ‘real’ inner person, while the public persona is the way
that the individual presents themselves to the outside world.
Measures of personality and theoretical explanations are
considered to define the persona. That is, they describe the
kind of person that the individual really is, despite the
social pressures on them to behave in particular ways in
various social settings. It is this social pressure that involves
the public persona. Personality goes beyond physical
appearance and behaviour (public persona) and refers to
what we see as the essence of the individual.
Effects of personality versus
situational effects
This is an appropriate point to alert you to a lack of consensus
among psychologists about the concept of personality.
Some social psychologists, especially social deconstructionists,
claim that it is the situation that largely dictates how we
behave, whereas personality theorists argue that individual
personality plays a crucial role in shaping our behaviour
whatever the situation. Individuals do behave differently in
different situations. We may be confident and outgoing
in some situations and less sure of ourselves and more retiring
in other situations, but it is not simply the situation that
influences our behaviour. Even in what are described as
highly socially proscribed situations – that is, situations
where the behavioural choices open to individuals are limited
as there are rules that have to be followed – individual
differences in behaviour can be observed. A good example
here is a student graduation ceremony.
The university largely dictates the dress code, and students
are instructed to follow well-rehearsed procedures.
They mount the platform when their name is called, cross
the platform, shake hands with the university chancellor
and so on. There seems to be little opportunity for individual
differences in behaviour to emerge, but emerge
they do. One student rushes eagerly onto the platform,
turns to the audience and waves at her family and friends,
smiles at the chancellor and acknowledges the staff on the
stage. The next student hesitantly mounts the stage, keeps
10 PART 1 PERSONALITY
Figure 1.3 Major and subdivisions of personality that can be reliably assessed.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 10
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 11
his head down and scuttles across the stage, barely stopping
to shake the chancellor’s hand and so on. We observe
the first student to be outgoing, confident, someone who
enjoys the limelight. The second student is seen as less
confident, shy and somewhat anxious in social situations.
These differences in behaviour even in such a highly
structured situation are seen to be due to differences in
the personalities of the two individuals. Most psychologists
would accept that most behaviour results from an
interaction between the effects of personality and the dictates
of the situation. We will return to this debate in
some detail in Chapter 4, when we consider the work of
Walter Mischel.
Measurement issues
The methods of measuring important personality characteristics
have to be reliable. This is obviously important if
you are going to use personality tests to assess individuals
for training or further education or as a tool to aid staff
recruitment in an organisation. With the organisational
example, you need to identify which factors are relevant to
performance within the specific organisational context,
whether these can be consistently and reliably measured,
and whether they are relatively enduring over time. It is not
a simple exercise, as the example on occupational testing in
Stop and think: Occupational testing demonstrates. We
shall return to issues of assessment later in the book, as it is
a critical area for psychologists to get right.
Strands of personality theorising
There are two distinct strands to theorising about personality,
stemming from the original research on the topic. The first is
the clinical strand that has developed from studies of the
mentally ill. The second is the individual differences strand,
focusing initially on documenting differences. Later this approach
led to the statistical analyses of individual differences.
The clinical approach and its history
Freud is frequently credited as the founding father of the
clinical strand of personality theory. However, interest in
studying human personality predates Freud. The Ancient
Greeks produced the first recorded discourses on human
personality characteristics in the fourth century BC. Some
of the major contributions from these philosophers are
described in Stop and think: Personality theorising of the
Ancient Greeks (see page 13).
This early work was based largely on philosophers’
reflections on their own behaviour and thought processes, the
method of introspection outlined in the Stop and think box.
Philosophers continued to speculate on human nature and
man’s relationship with God throughout the Middle Ages.
In terms of the psychological study of personality, it was
in the clinical area that the first developments occurred. As
a result of the scientific revolution of the late seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, great advances in our knowledge
of physiology occurred with parallel advances in medicine.
Though we know we are all unique, personality suggests we share common
characteristics.
Source: Alamy Images
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 11
12 PART 1 PERSONALITY
as an important figure in the history of hypnosis. To him
we owe the term ‘mesmerised’. He also acknowledged that
there were individual differences in animal magnetism as
well as in the ability of individuals to be mesmerised.
In the course of these developments in mental illness, a
new, more technical language of mind began to develop. The
physiologists and the medics, by labelling the phenomena
they were identifying, began to create some of what later became
the language of psychology as we know it today. They
also created the culture that made the scientific study of the
human mind increasingly acceptable and even desirable.
The developments in mental health also created a
demand to know more about how to define individuals so
that they could be managed better in institutional settings
such as mental asylums and prisons. It is from this tradition
that Freud and the psychoanalytic school emerged. We will
continue with this strand of theorising in the next chapter.
Individual differences’ emphasis
on personality and its history
The developments in medicine linked to the scientific
revolution again provided the impetus for research on
individual differences in personality. A Swiss priest called
Stop and think
Occupational testing
Many organisations now use psychometric testing as
part of employee selection. The underlying principles
are simple. If we know the demands made by a job in
terms of personality and abilities, then we can test individuals
and match them against the job requirements. It
is estimated that somewhere between 50 and 70 per
cent of companies use some form of testing to select
their employees. Testing should help to improve job selection,
but there are dangers. Consider the following
example.
An old private hospital is being closed down.
Patients are being transferred to a new purpose-built
private hospital nearby. Unfortunately, there are not
enough jobs in the new hospital for all the nurses at the
old hospital to be offered employment. A senior manager
is asked to decide which nurses should be offered
jobs in the new hospital and which will be made redundant.
In order to ensure a fair process, and recruitment
of the best staff, he decides to use psychometric testing.
He himself has recently undergone psychometric
testing when he was promoted. He locates a test on the
Internet that claims to measure positive emotions, assertiveness,
warmth, activity level and gregariousness.
These seem to him to be admirable qualities for nurses.
Administering the test proves to be complex, but as he
lives quite near the hospital, he drops in on several
mornings. He manages to test the night-shift workers
when they finish their shift and the day workers just before
they start their shift. A few staff have been missed,
however, so he sends them the questionnaire to complete
at home and return to him by post.
Based on their high scores on the questionnaire,
some nurses are offered jobs in the new hospital and
others are made redundant. Some of the redundancy
nurses then raise the issue with their union, which seeks
advice from an occupational psychologist and a lawyer.
Complaints are made on the grounds that the manager
is not a trained tester, the test is extremely inappropriate
as it does not assess the required characteristics, and
the testing conditions were different for different nurses.
Some nurses were tested when tired, at the end of a
night shift, while other tests were administered at the
start of the shift. Other nurses received the test by post
and completed it unsupervised.
The hospital also has no idea whether they have
chosen to retain the most able staff. The test that the
manager used is a measure of the personality trait of extraversion,
and its relevance to the role of nurse has not
been established. The repercussions from badly conceived
personality testing can be very serious.
There was enormous interest in the study of what was described
as madness, and different treatment methods were
being tried.
Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815), a Viennese physician,
developed a treatment based initially on the power of
magnets. He believed that all living beings have a magnetic
fluid flowing through them and that from time to time the
flow gets disturbed. Blockages of the flow could be apparent
in physical or mental illnesses.Applying magnets to different
parts of the body, Mesmer claimed, would unblock
the flow and return the individual to good health. Later,
while still using magnets, Mesmer claimed that some individuals
have greater natural magnetism than others and
that this magnetism itself could be used to cure other
people. He treated people in groups in a dimly lit, carpeted
room. His patients held hands in a circle around a tub of
magnetised water, called a baquet. Mesmer, wearing a long
cloak, would enter the room dramatically waving a sword.
He claimed that his animal magnetism was enough to cure
his patients. Many patients reported that his treatment
worked. What we now know is that Mesmer was using the
drama of the setting, and his own powers of suggestion, in
complex ways to psychologically influence his patients. This
was, in fact, a forerunner of hypnosis, and Mesmer is seen
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 12
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 13
Johann Casper Lavater, working in the second half of the
eighteenth century, described a theory linking facial features
with character traits. He termed his theory
physiognomy. He made some detailed predictions, including
‘as are the lips so is the character’ and ‘the more
the chin, the more the man’. Dr Gall, a Viennese physician,
further developed Lavater’s ideas. During the 1790s Dr
Gall carried out research in the hospitals and mental asylums
in Vienna, where he developed what he called
craniology (later labelled phrenology). The theory hypothesised
that different human functions were located in
different structures within the brain. It was suggested that
the relative size of these structures or areas was reflected
in the shape of the cranium. Gall claimed that an individual’s
character could be determined from the shape of
their cranium.
This can be conceptualised as the first personality theory
of the scientific revolution, although the term ‘personality’
was not yet in vogue. The theory became extremely
popular in Victorian England. There were many public
lectures and demonstrations, which served to introduce
many sections of British society to these new psychological
ideas about character differences. However, developments
in physiology did not lend support to phrenology;
although the approach remained popular for a long time,
especially with the public. The British Phrenological Society
was only disbanded in 1967, due to a lack of interest.
The major advance in psychological research in individual
differences was due to the work of Francis Galton at the
end of the nineteenth century; his work is outlined in the
Profile box on page 14. Galton is acknowledged as being
the founder of research on individual differences. He developed
a range of measures of intelligence, aptitudes and
attitudes and most crucially the statistical techniques that
could be used to analyse this data. Galton also developed
the first questionnaires and outlined statistical methods for
ensuring their reliability. By collecting very large data sets
from general population samples, he produced standardised
normative values for a range of measures. Galton’s
work provided the statistical tools of analysis that allowed
the scientific investigation and analysis of individual differences.
From this early work, the modern study of individual
differences developed.
These two historical strands of personality research continue
to be reflected in current approaches to personality.
The range of personality theories can seem confusing as
well as lacking much sense of developmental continuity, but
awareness of this division between clinically derived theories
and more statistically based research on individual differences
in personality is helpful in categorising theories.
A further consequence arising from the early influence
of medicine on the development of psychology is the focus
on the individual. The clinically derived theories, as we
have seen, used mainly individual case study methods as
the basis for theory development. Hand in hand with
theory development went the development of treatments.
This encouraged concentration on the individual. Capitalist
Western societies also tend to encourage this individualistic
perspective. It is often difficult for those who have
grown up within a Western culture to conceptualise societies
where there is not a preoccupation with the individual
and their psyche. This focus on the individual and individual
needs largely continues today in psychology. It is for
this reason that sociologists frequently criticise psychologists
for ignoring the social context within which individuals
function. This focus on individualism is prevalent in the
development of personality theory.
Studying personality as a
personal experience
As we mentioned earlier, in studying personality we are interested
in what people are like, why they behave as they do
and how they became that way. Our first point of comparison
in this study will be ourselves. Does what theorist
A writes ring true in our experience of life? Students
Stop and think
Personality theorising of the Ancient Greeks
The Ancient Greek philosopher and teacher Aristotle
(384–23 BC) was the first person to write about individual
differences in character and how these relate to behaviour.
He suggested that personality characteristics, such
as modesty, vanity and cowardice determined how
moral or immoral individuals were.
A student of Aristotle’s called Theophrastus
(371–287 BC) went further in his description of personality
characteristics by describing 30 personality
types.
One of the Greek Stoic philosophers, Epictetus
(AD 55–135), wrote extensively on the characteristics
and actions that lead to achieving a happy life. He wrote
about the importance of characteristics like imperturbability,
not having a passionate nature, being motivated
by virtue not vice and so on. He was very interested in
how human beings become upset, and he concluded
that ‘Men are disturbed not by things, but by their
perception of things’. This quotation is still relevant in
current clinical personality theorising, as we shall see.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 13
14 PART 1 PERSONALITY
commonly tell me that they really like the theory of Jung or
that Adler makes so much sense to them or that they don’t
like a particular theory. While it is important to point out
that psychology is about testing theories, not intuitively
being attracted to or disliking particular theories, it is helpful
to think about what is happening in these situations.
Many textbooks, including this one, include biographical
details about the theorists they cover, to provide
insights into that theorist’s own developmental experiences.
You may wonder why this is relevant, as generally
when you are writing essays for your lecturers, you are told
not to include biographical detail. However, if you think
about the processes involved in theory development, then
biographical material about the author of the theory is relevant
to our understanding of that theory. Within psychology,
personality theorists are researching themselves at the
same time as they are collecting data from others. One of
the first judgements likely to be made is whether the theory
fits one’s own experience. By examining the biographies of
each theorist, it is often possible to see why they have chosen
to study particular characteristics.
The same thing seems to happen when individuals are
introduced to a new personality theorist. We tend to judge
whether a theory makes sense, at least initially, by assessing
whether it fits our experience. A good example of this
response occurs when students are introduced to the psychoanalyst
Alfred Adler’s theorising about birth order. Basically,
Adlersuggeststhatfirst-bornchildrenaredifferentfromsecondborn
children, who are different from the third child and so
on, for the family dynamics change as each new child is
added.We will examine this idea in detail in Chapter 3.When
students first meet this theory, the instructor frequently hears
references to whether it fits with their experience. You may
learn quite a lot about yourself by noting your initial responses
to each theory after you first read it. Reflecting on the
theorists who initially appeal to us can help us to explore our
implicit theories of personality that were discussed in the introduction
to this chapter. It is this possibility of reflecting on
your own and others’ life experiences that makes personality
theory a fascinating area of study.You may well find that your
explanations for behaviour will change or expand. Remember
that theories of personality are attempting to answer the
‘why’ of behaviour. As you assimilate different theories, you
are actually increasing your knowledge of the possible causes
of behaviour. This is what social psychologists term causal attribution.
Your pool of causal attributions for particular behaviours
will be much larger. (See Stop and think: Reflective
exercise on causal attribution.)
The inclusion of many psychological concepts derived
from personality theory in our everyday language attests to
the success of personality theorists in identifying and
labelling these common experiences.
Reading critically and evaluating
theories
To get the most out of studying personality, you have to
be able to move on from the position where you initially
like or dislike a theory, in terms of whether it fits your
personal experience. You must be able to distance yourself
from the theory. Having a set of criteria against which you
can judge the theory will allow you to do this. Knowing
how to evaluate theories also allows you to become a critical
reader as you are absorbing the information about
each theory. It also makes it much easier to compare and
contrast theories, as you are clear about the criteria to use.
By adopting this approach, you are far less likely to fall
into the trap of producing purely descriptive essays on
personality theories.
Evaluation of personality theory raises particular difficulties
compared with most other areas of psychology. One
Profile
Francis Galton
Francis Galton was born in Birmingham in 1822, into an
affluent middle-class family. He trained initially as a doctor
in Birmingham and London and then went on to Cambridge
University for further study. He excelled in many
areas, spending some years as an explorer in Africa and
developing an interest in anthropology as well as geography.
Next he developed an interest in meteorology which
he maintained throughout his life. He introduced graphical
charts for mapping the weather, a forerunner of the
system still in use today, and introduced the term ‘anticyclone’.
He also published research on genetics, developing
statistical techniques which he then applied to the
study of individual differences. To him we owe percentiles,
median, quartiles and other methods of measuring
and describing the distribution of data. He invented
the correlational method, which is frequently used to explore
the relationships between characteristics in personality
research. From this he developed regression
analysis, which is used to explore the relationships between
personality variables in more detail.
He applied the principles of measurement to a variety
of areas, carrying out groundbreaking work on developing
a system of fingerprinting and fingerprint
recognition.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 14
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 15
reason for the difficulties is that much of the literature on personality
does not include critical appraisal of the work being
presented. Individual theorists or their followers have produced
books describing their approaches.These are often very
interesting to read, particularly if they come from the clinical
tradition and include lots of case material. Convincing arguments
are made which appear to be supported by the case
study material presented. It all seems to make perfect sense.
You can feel unable to challenge such apparent expertise and
may not know where to start.Textbooks on personality theory
are also often of little help,as they frequently present personality
theories in chronological order with little evaluation of any
of the theories.You read the first theory and it seems to make
sense; but so does the second theory, and the third and so on.
The traditional approach to evaluating theory by examining
the weight of research evidence to support it is often difficult
in the area of personality. Many influential concepts
that have emerged from personality theorising have not been
evaluated, often because the concepts are difficult to accurately
define and measure. Where research evidence is available
to support or refute aspects of the theories presented in
this text, guidance through this literature will be given. However,
when it comes to evaluating personality theories as totalities,
research evidence is sadly lacking. In what follows,
we present some of the general criteria that can be used to
evaluate theories.
It is useful to begin by thinking about what a theory
aims to do, as this can then help us to specify the basic criteria
that a theory of personality should satisfy (Figure 1.4).
These criteria are outlined here in no particular order of
importance as evaluation will inevitably be influenced by
the nature of the theory being evaluated, and different criteria
may assume greater or lesser importance.
Description – A theory should bring order into the
complexity of behaviours that have been observed
and/or measured. It should help to simplify, identify and
clarify the important issues that need to be addressed.
Explanation – A theory should help in understanding
the ‘why’ of behaviour. Does the theory provide a convincing
explanation of typical commonly observed
instances of that category of behaviour? Does the theory
explain how and why individual differences in commonly
observed instances of behaviour occur?
Empirical validity – A good theory will generate predictions
so that it can be empirically tested and shown
to be valid. Can it predict future events or behaviour in
particular situations?
Testable concepts – Linked to prediction is the question
of whether the concepts included within the theory can
be operationalised so that they can be tested. By
‘operationalised’,we mean can the concept be defined precisely
enough to enable it to be reliably measured? As you
will discover in succeeding chapters, some key concepts
in personality theories have proved to be difficult if not
impossible to operationalise as they are poorly defined.
Comprehensiveness – A good theory should be able to
encompass and explain a wide variety of both normal and
abnormal behaviour. However, due to the huge variety of
human behaviour, it is unlikely that a personality theory
will emerge that can explain all behaviour. In this respect,
decisions have to be made about the importance of behaviour
so that the limits are set.Making decisions about what
constitutes important behaviour does of course necessitate
value judgements being made,and ethical issues could well
arise about the nature of the decisions made.What tends to
happen in practice is that a consensus emerges within researchers,
and it is often supported by statistical judgements
about how common a particular behaviour is.
Parsimony – A good theory should be economical in
terms of the number of explanatory concepts it includes.
All concepts included should be demonstrated to be necessary
to explain the phenomena under study. A theory
may also be too parsimonious if too few concepts are included
to adequately explain the data.
Heuristic value – A good theory stimulates interest and
research in an area. This criterion does need to be qualified,
however. Sometimes, as we saw with mesmerism, a
theory may create enormous interest but have little scientific
substance. Occasionally a theory may be so inadequate
that it also stimulates a great deal of research,
as investigators are eager to refute it. This happened
with research in America in the 1970s and 1980s on race
and intelligence. The psychologist A. R. Jensen (1973)
Stop and think
Reflective exercise on causal attribution
Your flatmate forgets to send his mother a mother’s day
card and claims it was a genuine lapse in memory. You
may think the genuine mistake unlikely given all the
publicity about mother’s day and the fact that all the rest
of you were sending cards. Your flatmate claims to have
a good relationship with his mother.
How do you explain his behaviour?
Keep a record of your answers, and repeat this exercise
once you have finished your personality course.
You are likely to find that your list of possible causes has
grown considerably.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 15
16 PART 1 PERSONALITY
suggested that there was a genetic difference in intelligence
between black African Americans and white
Americans. Other psychologists were keen to refute
what appeared to be a racist position, and this response
stimulated a great deal of research.
Applied value – This criterion sets the theory in a wider
context. Under this criterion, the practical usefulness of a
theory is judged. Does it lead to beneficial changes in the
environment, for example, or better control of unwanted
behaviours? Or, does it provide a qualitative leap in
knowledge in a particular area? Does the theory lead to
new approaches to solving problems? For example, the
greater understanding of the mentally ill that came from
the work of Freud and others was influential in bringing
about changes in the conditions under which mental patients
were treated. Prior to that, mental patients were
locked away from society, usually on the outskirts of
towns, where they were kept in appalling conditions. In
many such places, the public could pay to enter and observe
the behaviour of the ‘insane’. With better understanding
of the mentally ill came calls for more humane
treatment; the reform movement created much better environments
for patients in mental asylums. These were
brighter buildings with proper provision for the needs of
patients, and activities and entertainments were laid on
for them. Freud’s work also led to new treatments and introduced
new ideas, as we shall see in the next chapter.
One proviso is perhaps necessary in relation to the evaluation
of theories and comparisons of theories. Not all parts
of each theory may be equally valid. Various theories may
provide convincing explanations of parts of the totality of
personality, which makes comparisons and evaluations of
competing theories difficult. For these reasons, disputes
among theorists may also be difficult to resolve. For example,
if we revisit Mesmer’s theory, it would be false to say that
his work was of no value as it proved to be a forerunner of
hypnosis.The magnetised water and the idea of animal magnetism
appear to have been unsupported by any evidence
and of no value. However, Mesmer himself, in the way that
he presented himself and in his charismatic charm, did have
an effect on individuals. He made them more suggestible. By
displaying that human beings could be psychologically influenced
and could be put into trancelike states, he provided
the spur for others to explore this phenomenon more systematically.
From this further study, hypnosis has emerged.
Evaluations of personality theory also need to consider
the philosophical view of human beings inherent in any
theory. Does the theory conceptualise human beings as aggressive
and destructive by nature, or as loving and kind?
We also need to consider whether there is any evidence for
this particular view of human nature.
Another consideration is the relative influence of internal
and external determinants of behaviour within the theory.
Does the unconscious figure in the theory serve as an internal
determinant, or is it more concerned with the here and
now as external determinants? This is an important distinction,
for if we think that much of our motivation to behave
in certain ways is unconscious, does it then mean there are
limits to the conscious control we have over our behaviour?
A very simple example would be someone who wants to stop
smoking. Freud would see one explanation of why people
choose to smoke as being that the individual has a need for
oral stimulation, caused by lack of oral stimulation as an
infant. The individual as a baby was deprived of a dummy, or
not allowed other opportunities to suck their thumb or the
Testable conceptsExplanation
Description Empirical validity Comprehensiveness
Parsimony Applied value
Heuristic value
The basic criteria that a theory of personality should satisfy
Figure 1.4 The basic criteria that a theory of personality should satisfy.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 16
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 17
like. The individual is not aware that this is the real reason
they smoke; their true motivation is unconscious.
Questions need to be asked about how well the theory
deals with the influence of the past, the present and the future
on behaviour. Some theories, as you will see, consider
that the past is irrelevant as although it undoubtedly influenced
who we are, we cannot change it. An example would
be of a woman who was sexually abused as a child. One set
of theories would see it as important for this woman to explore
her past abuse in the hope that by understanding it
better, she can come to cope with it. Another theoretical
approach would suggest that having the woman relive her
early experiences by telling you about them is futile and is
only likely to disturb her further. This second approach
would instead help the women to cope with her current
distress and try to put the past behind her.
An assessment also needs to be made about how well the
theory explains the integration or apparent integration of
behaviour. As individuals we do not always appear to behave
consistently. Therefore, we need to assess whether a theory
can cope with such inconsistencies. For example, we may
have as our long-term goal to achieve a really good degree.
To do this, we know that we need to focus on our studies and
work hard. Despite having this goal, we skip lectures when
we have had a late night previously, or we avoid going to the
library to prepare for assessments yet worry about not getting
the assessment done in time. As we shall see in this
book, theories vary according to how well they can explain
such apparent inconsistencies in behaviour.
The cultural context
of personality theories
Another important issue in the evaluation of personality theories
is rarely raised; it concerns the cultural context of most
theories. One cross-cultural study by Curt Hoffman, Ivy Lau
and David Johnson (1986) compared the types of personality
that can be identified by name in Western cultures with those
in Chinese culture. In the West there is a recognised artistic
personality.This describes someone who is creative,temperamental
and intense. However, there is no label in Chinese to
describe such an individual,although there are words equivalent
to the characteristics that make up the Western artistic
temperament. The Chinese also have personality types, such
as a shi gú individual, which do not exist in Western cultures.
A shi gú individual is described as being worldly, socially skilful,
devoted to their family and fairly reserved. We see from
this example that while the same characteristics of personality
are identifiable across the cultures, it is the way that these
are then expressed as personality types that is influenced by
culture. Culture will also influence which personality types
are valued within a particular culture. In Western capitalist
cultures the driving, ambitious individualist is often valued,
while in a more cooperative society, the team player type is
likely to be valued more.
The individualistic perspective of Western psychology
was discussed earlier in this chapter, and this perspective
permeates the study of personality. Western psychology has
sometimes been termed the‘cult of the individual’. The theories
of personality that constitute Western psychology all
focus on individual functioning. There is an assumption
that individuals will behave or at least wish to behave in
ways that put their needs first. Most of us will have experienced
this attitude directly. How often have we said or
heard someone else say, ‘It’s my life and I’ll do what I want
with it’? Words to this effect are not unusual in family disputes
between parents and their children. Similarly, in the
clinical treatments linked to some of the personality theory,
the focus is on treating the individual and meeting that
individual’s needs. The concept of self is at the core of this
theorising. There is often no real consideration of what
might be appropriate for the family, especially if this is at
odds with what appears to be best for the individual.
There is virtually no acknowledgement that the personality
theories we are about to study are culturally bound. Many
of these theories will have limited applicability in collectivist
cultures, where decisions are made at the group or community
level to promote the welfare of the groups as opposed to
the constituent individuals. One example might be of a student
who is thinking of doing a PhD after completing her
first degree. She is very able, very motivated and funding was
available. However, she doesn’t make the application. On
being asked about it, she says that after discussion with her
family, she has decided that it is not the right thing to do at
this time. She is philosophical about it and does not seem at
all upset. She says that she could have gone against her family,
but it would not make her happy to do this. She feels that to
do so would have been very selfish. She adds that some of her
friends had tried to persuade her, talking about it being her
right to decide what she does with her future; but she does
not see it this way, as her family is more important to her.
There is a lot to consider if you are going to develop a
truly critical appreciation of personality theories. In the
following chapters, you will be introduced to a range of
personality theorists. It is impossible to cover in depth
every theorist; rather, we have included theorists in order
to reflect their contribution to the discipline and to ensure
that all the major approaches are covered. There is a huge
literature on personality theory, and we offer guidance on
further reading for each theorist. The concepts within each
theory that have been researched are identified and
examples of the major studies included.After debating how
to order the theories, we have grouped similar types of theoretical
approaches together and have begun with the
earliest theories chronologically. This is no reflection on
the importance of the theory. With this said, we hope you
enjoy the experience as we know other students do.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 17
18 PART 1 PERSONALITY
Final comments
In summary, you should now appreciate why psychologists
study personality and be aware of a variety of definitions of
personality. You should understand the components of
psychological definitions of personality and have developed
an understanding of the historical roots of personality theory.
Finally, you should understand the major questions
that personality theories aim to address and understand the
criteria that can be used to evaluate personality theories.
Summary
The difficulties associated with defining personality
have been examined. A range of definitions have
been presented, including lay definitions and psychological
definitions. Lay definitions frequently
include physical attributes.
The emphasis in psychological definitions is on individual
differences. Allport (1961) developed one of
the earliest definitions, describing personality as a
‘dynamic organisation, inside the person, of psychophysical
systems that create the person’s characteristic
patterns of behaviour, thoughts and
feelings’. Characteristics that usefully and reliably
distinguish between individuals are identified, and
individuals are then compared with each other or
with population norms. There is still no consensus on
a definition of personality within psychology.
Criteria of psychological definitions include the following:
relatively stable, enduring, important aspect
of the self. A distinction is sometimes made between
observable and unobservable aspects of
personality as well as between conscious and
unconscious aspects.
The origins of personality theory in the scientific
developments of physiology and medicine have been
examined. The division between clinically derived
and the more statistically based individual differences
approach are also examined.
Personality theories aim to explain the motivational basis
of behaviour, the basic nature of human beings, the developmental
experiences that help to shape personality
and categorisations of types of human personality that
can be used to predict behaviour. The traditional question
of heredity versus environment is also addressed. In
all these areas, there are diverse views among theorists.
The question of how to bring about changes in behaviour
is addressed by some of the more clinical theorists,
while others are more descriptive.
The idiographic approach to studying personality adopts
case study types of methodology, studying individuals
and stressing the uniqueness of each individual. The alternative
nomothetic approach studies groups of individuals
aiming to identify similarities. The distinction is
not always clear-cut in personality research.
A further distinction is made between research-based
theories and clinically derived theories for which there
may be a dearth of supporting research evidence.
Personality theories can be difficult to evaluate due
to the absence of research on particular theories or
concepts within theories. Suggestions for the evaluation
theories are presented. These include empirical
validity, testable concepts, comprehensiveness, parsimony,
heuristic value and applied value. The importance
of citing theories within a cultural and historical
context is also emphasised.
Connecting up
This chapter serves as the introduction to the first part
of the book (Chapters 2–10), though many of the themes
discussed are explored throughout the book.
Critical thinking
Discussion questions
How do you think everyday ideas of personality compare
with formal theories of personality?
What do you think determines or influences your
personality?
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 18
CHAPTER 1 PERSONALITY THEORY IN CONTEXT 19
Going further
Books
Deese, J. (1972). Psychology as science and art. New York:
Harcourt Brace. A short book but a classic of its kind.
Sets current approaches to psychology in context and
addresses the nature of theories.
Miles, J. (2001). Research methods and statistics: Success
in your psychology degree. Exeter: Crucial. Chapter 1 of
this book, The role of theory in psychology, gives a practical
approach to linking theory and research with lots of
useful tips presented in a reader-friendly way.
King, D.,Viney,W. and Woody,W. (2009). A history of psychology:
Ideas and Context. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Lawson, R., Graham, J. and Baker, K. (2006). A history of
psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Leahy, T. (2003) A history of modern psychology (6th
edn). London: Prentice Hall. Chapter 1 is useful as it
covers material on psychology as science and the nature
of theory in quite an accessible style.
Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place: A critical
historical overview. London: Psychology Press.
Chapter 11 covers personality theory in particular.
Journals
We would also encourage you at this stage of the book to start
looking at what personality journals you can have access to
via your library or online resources. It might be worth
checking to see if you have access to the following journals, as
they could be used to supplement your further reading:
European Journal of Personality. Published by Wiley.
Available online via Wiley InterScience.
Journal of Personality. Published by Blackwell Publishing.
Available online via Blackwell Synergy, SwetsWise
and Ingenta.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Published
by the American Psychological Association. Available
online via PsycARTICLES.
Journal of Personality Assessment. Published by the
Society for Personality Assessment. Available online via
Business Source Premier.
Journal of Research in Personality. Published by Academic
Press. Available online via Ingenta Journals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Published
by Sage Publications for the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology. Available online via SwetsWise, Sage
Online, Ingenta and Expanded Academic ASAP.
Personality and Social Psychology Review. Published
by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,
Inc. Available online via Business Source Premier.
Personality and Individual Differences. Published by
Pergamon Press. Available online via Science Direct.
A specific journal relating to this chapter is the History of
Psychology journal published by the American Psychology
Association. Available online via PsycARTICLES.
Web links
A good website outlining many of the personality theories
covered in this part of the book is at http://www.
personalityresearch.org/.
A website about the historical and philosophical
background of Psychology written by Dr C.George Boeree
is at http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/historyofpsych.
html.
Links on the history of psychology, including timelines,
online archives can be found at the Social Psychology Network
at http://www.socialpsychology.org/history.htm.
Explore the website accompanying this text at www.pearsoned.co.uk/maltby for further resources to help
you with your studies. These include multiple-choice questions, essay questions, weblinks and ideas for
advanced reading.
Essay questions
Critically discuss the origins of personality theory.
Describe the different techniques used to study personality.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
What are the major aims of studying personality?
Describe the criteria that can be used for the evaluation
of personality theories.
Compare the idiographic versus nomothetic approaches
to studying personality.
M01_MALT2908_02_SE_C01.QXD 10/21/09 11:52 AM Page 19