Vol. 18, No. 9 September, 1921
THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER
BY GORDON W. ALLPORT
Harvard University
Psychologists of the past decade have been much occupied with
the application of their science to practical problems of life, particularly
to problems of vocation and conduct. The social adjustments
of the individual represented in such problems are receiving
marked attention not only from clinical and consulting psychologists,
but from experimental and research psychologists as well.
The enticing topic of speculation, human nature, has been rephrased
for scientific study as a problem of individual nature. On every hand
we see that interest is becoming focused upon the study of man
with the hope that by this method the problems of the mechanisms,
motives, and modifications of behavior peculiar to the individual
may at length be solved. This tendency is manifested by the rapid
ncrease in the number of studies of human personality and character.
This paper is prepared with the hope that it may offer a useful
summary of experimental and clinical researches, together with a
review of the best of the speculative work, and so assist the reader
to a clarified notion of the present status of psychological investigations
concerning personality and character. For convenience the
contributions to be considered will be arranged under three headings:
(1) the psychological nature of character and personality (the
problem of definition); (2) the composition of personality (the
classification of traits); and (3) the measurement of traits by testing
devices and rating scales.
I. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NATURE OF PERSONALITY
AND CHARACTER
In this field of study we may expect richer results from experimental
and descriptive work than in the direction of definition.
441
442 GORDON W. ALLPORT
Indeed, the problem of definition is almost hopelessly complicated
by prevalent popular uses of terms. Recently, however, there have
been noteworthy efforts made to delimit carefully the concepts of
personality, character, and temperament as to their psychological
significance.
Paton (44) considers personality to be the dynamic or functional
aspect of individuality—"the progressive synthesis of the mosaic
of experiences." Individuality which is mere organismal unity
expresses only structural differentia between members of a species;
whereas personality is in all cases the peculiar function of the individual.
This view is similar to Kempf's (31) who considers personality
to be the habitual modes of adjustment which the organism
effects between its own egocentric drives and the exigencies of the
environment. Between the autonomic system and the exactions of
the physical and social environments we find the intermediation of
the central nervous system, and the customary adjustments which
this system makes between the egocentric drives of the organism
and the requirements of the milieu constitute the personality of
the organism. Such a standpoint serves to call attention to the
biological fact that the primitive nervous system (the autonomic)
is of immense importance in determining personality. The view as
stated compels us to ascribe personality to all living things, unless
we limit the concept of "habits of adjustment" to the social environment,
leaving out of account the numerous adaptive responses
made to non-social surroundings. Limiting the concept in this
way would be to consider personality as developing pan passu with
the number and complexity of social relationships.
There are many rag-bag theories of personality, into which are
dumped "all biological innate dispositions, impulses, tendencies,
appetites and instincts, and all acquired dispositions" (49). Such
a conception partakes of chaos, for it does not give unity or definiteness
of direction to our study. It is not difficult for the self observer
to recognize that his own personality is something more homogeneous
and dynamic than such a definition would suggest. Nor
will the observer be content with the static conception that "personality
is the totality of all our previous experiences and ideas."
Hartenberg (22) introduces an organizing motive into the rag-bag.
He considers personality to be the peculiar organic condition of
the individual, with his individual attributes of sensory and motor
behavior, capped and organized by a dominant sentiment or motive.
Myerson's book (40) seeks to analyze the foundations of personality,
but does not attempt to distinguish it from character or
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER 443
mind, since these are all alike viewed as functions of the organic
activities of the body. It is to be regretted that the author despaired
of defining his field a little more accurately, for there is
much ambiguity entailed by confusing three such totally different
problems.
The distinction between personality and character is an important
one for psychologists to observe. Webb (64) defines character
as the sum of all personal qualities which are not distinctly intellectual.
In this regard he agrees with Fernald (15) who suggests
that the formula for personality is intelligence plus character. McDougall
(34) considers character to be the organization of sentiments,
which are innate, into a system or hierarchy within the
individual. According to this view character is not as unitary a
function as Fernald would have us believe, nor can it be thought
to be measureable. Gosline (20) considers character, along with
intelligence and temperament, to be inborn, though susceptible to
alteration by the environment. On this assumption character becomes
a behavior function comparable with intelligence as a field
for psychological investigation. In contrast to these views we
find that of Watson (62). Character is defined by this author as
the personality evaluated according to prevailing standards of
conduct. Those psychologists who accept Watson's view have no
right, strictly speaking, to include character study in the province
of psychology; it belongs rather to social ethics.
Watson considers personality to be the sum total of an individual's
responses to his environment, that is to say, his "reaction
mass" as a whole. Kantor (30) distinguishes two types of behavior
within the personal adjustment habits, (a) actions which are direct
visible signs of the individual's nature, and (b) more permanent
action elements, such as dispositions to action which may be considered
as potential behavior. Such views as these, placing emphasis
upon adjustment habits, have been at the base of the numerous
attempts recently made to measure traits and to study the
behavior patterns which constitute the personality. (Part III of
this review).
II. THE COMPOSITION OF PERSONALITY
What traits do psychological writers recognize as the elementary
constituents of personality? It has long been considered that traits
are mental faculties, which might be studied by reference to the
characteristic configuration of head or hand. It is not within the
444 GORDON W. ALLPORT
scope of this paper to delve into these "slums of psychology":
the reader who is interested will find profitable a review by Jastrow
(37) of the antecedents of character study.
Psychologists are working steadily toward a schedule of human
traits which will express in the most economical fashion a true
analysis of personality. Wells (66) has gathered together the classifications
of Heymans and Wiersma (23), Cattell (8), Hoch-Amsden
(24), and Davenport (10), and has presented a synthesized schema
of traits. The result is a list of fourteen types of adjustments
which are fundamental to every personality. These essential modes
of behavior are then divided into ninety-four traits which submit
to quantitative study according to a rating scale. Partridge (43)
and Yerkes and La Rue (71) further multiply the number of qualities,
and so invite upon their schemes the criticism of superficiality
and overlapping. In fact, a notable weakness at the present time
is. the tendency to make a hasty and inadequate selection of traits.
Spaulding (55) represents one of the many recent attempts to
find a practical schedule of traits for application to a special problem
—in this case, the problem of delinquents. The study presents
one hundred thirty-four qualities arranged under eight principal
divisions of personality (intelligence, emotionality, and the like).
Porteus (46, 47) has made a similar attempt to discover the qualities
which are essential for the social adaptation of defectives. Business
leaders, social workers, educators, moral directors, are continually
publishing personal analysis charts. The same criticism can be
made of one and all: the traits chosen are not psychologically
basic; they represent complexes of habits (neatness, tact, and the
like) rather than truly fundamental aspects of personality. Woodworth
(70) presents a plan of four subdivisions, physique, chemique,
instincts, and intelligence—more suggestive than the four humors
upon which most of the French studies of the caracteres are based
—but still very schematic.
If we turn our attention from the classifications in toto to some
of the special traits which are frequently advocated to be elementary
constituents of personality, we may then be able to see the problem
more clearly. It is dangerous to oversimplify the problem of
classification, and in the discussion which follows it must be remembered
that by no means all of the alleged components of personality
are included. The traits chosen are merely those upon which a
large number of students of personality are focusing attention at
the present time.
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER 445
Intelligence.—No scheme of personality denies a signal position
to the intellectual capacity. Terman (57) and Webb (64) find
that high intelligence correlates in general with all strong qualities
of character. However intelligence may be defined, there can be
no doubt that the mental adaptibility for which it stands is one of
the major factors in the development of personality.
Temperament.—The emotional characteristics of an individual
are likewise accorded universal recognition. There is, however,
little agreement as to what temperament is. The four-humor
doctrine has haunted the house of psychology for twenty-five
centuries. The advent of endocrinology, as Paton (44) points out,
has done much to supply a reinterpretation of the theory, and as
the work progresses we may find that the anticipations of Hippocrates
and Galen were not so far afield. There has been a steady
increase of emphasis upon the role which the ductless glands play
in determining the emotional life. Berman (4) has recently published
a mechanistic interpretation of personality almost entirely in
terms of glandular influences. He speaks of the thyroid personality,
the pituitary personality, and the gonado-centric personality, according
as these autocoid influences seem to predominate in the
individual!
Davenport (9) suggests that qualities of emotionality, e.g., a
"hot temper," may be inherited according to the Mendelian principle.
Heymans and Wiersma (23) are quite certain that their
findings based upon a MassenunUrsuchung show evidence of the
positive inheritance of traits of character and temperament. Gates
(19) has reviewed the current beliefs concerning the inheritance of
mental traits in this journal.
Volitional Qualities.—Downey (12) has called attention to the
significance in personality of the factors of activity and control.
Myerson (40) employs this conception of the "kinetic" nature to
describe personality types which seem to be characterized by a
certain speed or intensity of response. Prominent among these
"volitional" types we find the ascendant personality and the submissive
personality, characterized respectively by habitual aggression
or passivity. The analogy of the active and passive voice in
these types was first suggested by Southard (54). Allport (2) has
applied this conception to the problem of salesmanship, showing
that timidity in the selling personality is essentially passivity, and
this is to be overcome only by a deliberate building up of one's
ascendant qualities. Ascendance is the essential trait of leader-
446 GORDON W. ALLPORT
ship. Gowin (21) has found it to be correlated with physical attributes
of size, weight and personal appearance.
There are other characteristics of the personality which are of
great importance, but which have not been adequately studied.
Such, for example, is the aesthetic nature. Again, we have the
expansive personality as contrasted to the recluse. There has been
no study of these traits to the present writer's knowledge, excepting
his own research (3) in the Harvard Psychological Laboratory.
(See Part III of this paper.)
Reference should be made to two or three notable contributions
from psychiatrists and Freudian psychologists. White (69) considers
conflict in the psychoanalytic sense to be the cardinal problem
of character formation. The well-balanced personality is the one
which effects a successful "resolution" of all conflicts. Adler (1)
has advanced the theory of Minderwertigkeit, according to which
each individual who finds himself handicapped in life's struggles
because of physical or mental defects will tend to compensate for
this consciousness of personal inferiority. The inherent desire of
a person to be superior and powerful leads him to make many
peculiar attempts at adjustment, to preserve at all costs his "feeling
of masculinity," and the characteristic habits which result are true
traits of personality. The biologist, Le Dantec (32) likewise holds
egoism to be the determinant of all actions, and the individual's
personality merely represents the "deformations" which la vie en
commun compels him to undergo. Adler's theory has been interpreted
and popularized by Tanner (56), Myerson (40) and others,
until Compensation has become one of the psychological headlines
of the day.
Jung (28) has drawn attention to two important types of
adjustment. The extravert finds his real life one of keen participation
in his environment, the introvert on the other hand living
much within the world of self-consciousness and fantasy. These
types, those whose adjustment is realistic, and those whose adjustment
is autistic are considered in detail by Wells (65). Daydreaming
he holds to be one of the characteristic attempts at inner
adjustment when outer adjustment fails.
Rosanoff (50) gives an excellent account of psychopathic personality
types. There are individuals whose personality might be
characterized as (1) antisocial, (2) cyclothymic, consisting of manic
make-up, depressive make-up, irascible make-up, or emotional in-
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER 447
stability, (3) autistic, i.e., predominantly introverted, and (4) the
epileptic personality, with its periodic alterations of mood and
character. Normal personalities are considered by Rosanoff to
differ from the psychopathic only slightly as to quality but markedly
as to quantity. The schizophrenics and epileptics, it is true,
evidence brain atrophy, but in regard to most traits there appears to
be a perfect continuity of type from the most normal individual
to the totally insane. Southard (53) > has made a suggestive innovation
by the application of grammatical categories to personality
study. Certain features of the personality, he says, may be studied
with profit by describing them in the terms of syntax: person,
number, mood, voice, and tense.
III. THE MEASUREMENT OF PERSONALITY BY RATING
AND TESTING
In the field of personality measurement we find an encouraging
amount of meritorious research. In all probability, as has been
the case with the study of intelligence, we shall be able to give
reliable quantitative results before we understand the precise nature
of that with which we are dealing. Even before the days of Freudian-endocrine-psychiatric
enlightenment as to the probable nature
of personality, Francis Galton definitely advocated psychometric
tests for traits of character. He suggested, for example, that it
might be profitable to construct a delicate apparatus for recording
individual peculiarities of manner in sitting upon chairs. Such a
device would most certainly yield important information concerning
the sitter!
1. The Rating of Traits.—Norsworthy (42) seems to be a
pioneer in the study of the validity of judgments upon character.
Her conclusions, substantiated in the main by subsequent investigations,
are (1) that the reliability of rating varies with the traits
under consideration. Raters agree more closely upon such qualities
as popularity, conceit, or leadership than upon emotionality, honesty,
or tact. (2) It seems also that some individuals are easier
to rate and their rank more readily determined by the raters than
other individuals. We have thus a suggestion of the open personality
versus the enigmatic. Cattell (8) decides that traits upon
which the judges closely agree represent the individual's reactions
to objective things, whereas the traits upon which they disagree
most represent the individual's reactions toward other people.
448 GORDON W. ALLPORT
A study made by Thorndike (59) sounds a warning which all
dealers in rating scales may well heed. It was found in his study
that those giving ratings were unable to analyze out the different
aspects of an individual's nature and rate them independently of
other aspects. The ratings are affected by a marked tendency to
think of the person in general as good or rather inferior, and so
color the judgments of the qualities by a general feeling. Thus
a "halo" is provided the individual who is being rated. Moore
(36) finds evidence of this halo as an influence upon the rating of
college students by members of the faculty. This same source of
error helps to account for the conclusions reached by Rugg (52)
that the rating scale used in the U. S. Army (45) probably did not
locate an officer within his "fifth" of the entire scale. The scale
is reprinted in this journal, and a discussion of the theory and applications
is presented in the same number by Terman (58). Rugg
maintains that to render rating of human character practicable,
the following conditions should be fulfilled: (1) The final rating
must be the average of three independent ratings, each one made
on a scale as objectified as the man-to-man-comparison type of
scale. (2) The scales on which ratings are made must be comparable
and equivalent, having been made in conference under the
instruction of one skilled in rating scale work. (3) The raters must
be so throughly acquainted with the person rated that they are
competent to make the judgment. The question of reliability
has not deterred schools and industries from using rating scales,
and whichever way we turn we meet with these schemes (41, 60,
63). Wells (66) and Spaulding (55) endeavor to eliminate the
difficulties of scoring by the employment of a simple + and —
designation opposite each trait in their scales, indicating superiority
or deficiency of the attribute as compared to the average or normal
person.
Self-rating is fraught with perils. Hollingworth (25) finds that
the individual generally tends to overestimate his possession of
qualities which are socially valuable and to underestimate in the
case of those which are socially undesirable. Thus, no person
would be content to ascribe to himself anything but a superior
possession of refinement or humor. Hollingworth found it to be
a rule that the individual's deviation in self-ranking from the place
accorded him by averaging the ratings of his associates is noticeably
greater than the average deviation among the judgments of the
associates themselves. The possibility should be noted that the
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER 449
extent to which the self-rating deviates from the average rating byassociates
may be used as an index of the insight of the person
studied. The lower the average of his deviations from the rating
accorded him on various traits, the higher his insight. In cases
where ratings are made on desirable or undesirable qualities a Selfevaluation
or Conceit Index might be computed in a similar fashion.
Notwithstanding the dangers and difficulties encountered in
devising and employing rating scales, we are forced to recognize
this method as the only available objective criterion of personality.
The sources of error must gradually be overcome by the improvement
in the technique of rating. The methods of measuring objective
manifestations of personality which we shall now turn
attention to, are as a rule more unreliable than ratings by associates.
The only method of judging the value of a particular test is by its
correlation with ratings. Since both factors are generally so variable,
we cannot expect more than very modest correlations from
even the most refined test methods. There is cause for optimism,
however, in the keen and original methods which are being devised
for obtaining objective proof of the presence of a given trait and
for approximate measure of its magnitude.
2. The Testing of Traits.—The development of the age and
point scale standards for the measurement of intelligence has made
clear to psychologists the imperative need for reliable methods of
studying other aspects of personality. To supplement the I.Q.
we need reliable measures of emotional, volitional and social qualities.
Brubacher (5) suggests the concept of a Personality Quotient,
and applies his idea to the qualities requisite to the teaching profession.
It must be remembered, however, that differences of
personality are of a qualitative as well as of a quantitative sort.
This difficulty stands in the way of the development of a measurement
scale based on the correlation between tests and familiar
objective criteria such as those of intelligence. Methods which
have been employed aim for the most part at a sampling of customary
reactions, and the results obtained contribute rather more
to a descriptive treatment of personality than to a quantitative
analysis.
The Word Association Method.—Jung (29) brought to our
attention the possibility of studying egocentric and objective types
by their characteristic responses in the word reaction experiment.
Wells (68) has published a bibliography of German studies which
have dealt with the relation between the association method and
45° GORDON W. ALLPORT
the study of temperament. The same author (67) has made a
study of the egocentric and objective types, with the discovery
that the former tends to give the more unusual responses as measured
by standardized frequency tables. Complex types of introversion
are studied in reference to diagnostic criteria by HullLugoff
(26). In this study it was found that the most reliable
single indicator of the tapping of a complex is the tendency of the
subject to repeat the stimulus word. Other specially valid criteria
are a prolongation of reaction time (over 13/5 seconds), inability
to make any response whatever, and extremely short reaction times.
The findings of Dooley (11) show that long reaction times in general
seem to go with the egocentric type, and that the habitually quick
reaction is a sign of objectivity in the reagent. In an experiment
with directed egocentric reactions, Washburn and others (61) assumed
that subjects who can make a required personal association
with the least delay are egocentric. The present writer in a recent
experiment has not found this assumption to be justified.
Moore (35) uses the association method to test the strength of
instincts. Stimulus words are arranged into constellations according
to McDougall's schedule of instincts. The subject is asked to
make a personal association which is scored on the basis of indicating
strength or weakness in the possession of the instinct in question.
Morgan and others (38) presented stimulus words to subjects for
five successive mornings, and secured the response from them as to
whether the words were pleasant or unpleasant in tone. An index
of optimism or pessimism was thus computed which showed a
certain correlation with the ratings on this trait by associates.
Not unlike this method is the study of personality through an
analysis of the content of images by Martin (33). Mental and
physical peculiarities and preferences are considered to be subject
to profitable study by this method.
Measurement of Motor Expression.—The relation of motor
impulses to psychic patterns has suggested several experimental
attacks. Much work has been based upon the theory that the
petites gestes involved in handwriting are movements as expressive
of personality traits as are gross bodily movements. The work of
Klages, Binet, Crepieux-Jamin and other graphologists has been
summarized by Downey (14). This author herself made a careful
study of handwriting and concludes that it bears certain definable
relations to character. Some of the types to be studied by this
method are the Explosive, Obstructed, Sensory, Motor, Hyper-
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER 451
kinetic, and Hypokinetic. A careful refinement of technique in
the study of handwriting is necessary, for gross features are often
misleading. "The broad classification of outgoing movements and
movements of withdrawal as characterizing respectively attitudes
of aggression and of defense cannot sustain too great a weight."
Downey (12, 13) has designed and partially standardized a Test
for Will-Temperament. Numerous factors such as speed, size,
disguise and control in handwriting are measured carefully and
weighted. The scores for the various portions of the test may be
plotted into a Will-Profile. Bryant (6) in a study of delinquent
boys has shown that by Downey's method it is possible to secure
an approximate measurement of the volitional qualities which make
for social or antisocial conduct. Ruch (51) however, finds that the
actual correlations between the scores on the Will-Temperament
^est and student and faculty ratings are low. The Carnegie
Institute of Technology (7) has adapted the Downey test for
practical use in business, one of the many indications of the current
enthusiasm for applying psychological methods.
"Will power" is studied by Fernald (16) by means of an apparatus
for measuring the ability of the subject to stand upon his
toes for a long period of time. The problem of the shifty eye in
relation to the lack of aggressiveness has been studied by Moore
(37), with the conclusion that, taken together with certain other
diagnostic signs, the number of eye movements noted while the
subject performs a given mental problem is indicative of his ascendant
or submissive attitude in general.
Represented Situations.—One of the methods of testing character
dispositions definitely advocated by Galton is that of representing
in miniature certain problems of actual life, and of observing
the individual's adjustment to these situations. Freyd (18) employs
representative problems in news getting as one of a series of
nine tests for journalistic aptitude. Fernald (16) presents to a
delinquent subject ten questions concerning ethical interpretations,
and finds that the ability to make a discrimination according to
the conventional code in the case of these samples is an approximate
measure of the subject's ethical adjustment as a whole. Allport (3)
has used this method as a test of ascendance-submission, and finds
that the scores on sample problems representing the individual's
behavior in situations which would require his taking an active
or a passive role, correlate slightly with personality ratings by
associates on this trait (r = .40). Myerson (39) suggests limiting
452 GORDON W. ALLPORT
the number of possible answers to a miniature problem, say, to
four. This "multiple choice" device facilitates scoring, and suggests
at once which of four possible types the reagent belongs to.
Ethical discrimination and humor are the traits which Myerson
has most extensively studied by this method. Pressey (48) has
published a test for emotional spread. Lists of mixed words, strong
and weak, are presented to the subject who is required to cancel
out all which have unpleasant feeling tones associated. The "affective
spread," i.e., the range of situations to which the individual
is wont to react in an emotional manner, is a distinctly serviceable
concept. Pressey's study stands out as practically the only attempt
so far made to measure the complex emotional life of the individual
by a simple testing device.
Questionnaires.—The questionnaire method of studying personality
has, with all its limitations, definite value in checking on the
results of tests, and for suggesting traits which otherwise might
escape notice. One of the revelations, for example, which can be
made by the answers to a questionnaire concerns the factor of
compensation. This important mechanism defies direct experimentation,
and can be revealed only by a historical study of the person
such as a carefully devised questionnaire affords. Perhaps the
completest lists of questions are Watson's (62) and Woodworth's,
the latter to be found in Franz's handbook (17). Both of these
questionnaires have the advantage of being couched in "behavioristic"
language, and the latter lends itself to simple "yes" and
"no" responses. However highly this method may be developed,
as an instrument for accurate study of the personality it will always
face the weakness of permitting falsification or rationalization on
the part of the subject.
REFERENCES
1. ADLER, A. The Study of Organic Inferiority and its Psychical Compensation.
(Transl. Jeliffe). Nerv. y Ment. Disease Monograph, 34, 1917.
2. ALLPORT, F. H. Timidity and the Selling Personality. The Eastern Underwriter,
1930, 21, 15-17.
3. ALLPORT, F. H. & G. W. Personality Traits: Their Classification and Measurement.
/. of Abnor. Psychol. t$ Soc. PsychoL, 1921, 16, 6-40.
4. BERMAN, L. The Glands Regulating Personality. New York: Macmillan, 1921.
Pp. 291.
5. BRUBACHER, A, R. The Teaching Personality Quotient. J. of Appl. Psychol,
i9*i» 5, 39-45-
6. BRYANT, E. K. The Will Profile of Delinquent Boys. /. of Deling., 1921, 6,
294-309.
7. Carnegie Injt. Technol. fFill-Temperament Test. Bureau of Personnel Research,
1920, Test No. 9.
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER 453
8. CATTELL, J. American Men of Science. New York: Science Press, 1910, Pp.
596.
9. DAVENPORT, C. B. Heredity in Constitutional Mental Disorders. PSYCHOL.
BULL., 1920,17, 300-312.
10. DAVENPORT, C. B. The Trait Book. Eugenics Record Off. Bull, No. 6, 1912.
11. DOOLEY, L. Correlation of Normal Complexes. Amer. ]. ofPsychol., 1916, 37,
in-139-
12. DOWNEY, J. The Will Profile: A Tentative Scale for Measurement of the Volitional
Pattern. U. of Wyom. Bull., 1919, 16, 1-40.
13. DOWNEY, J. Some Volitional Patterns Revealed by the Will Profile. /. of
Exper. Psychol., 1920, 3, 281-301.
14. DOWNEY, J. Graphology and the Psychology of Handwriting. Baltimore: Warwick
& York, 1919. Pp. 138.
15. FERNALD, G. G. Character as an Integral Mentality Function. Ment. Hygiene,
1918, 2, 448-462.
16. FERNALD, G. G. The Delinquent Class: Differentiating Tests. Amer. J. of
Insanity, 1912, 68, 523-594.
17. FRANZ, S. I. Handbook of Mental Examination Methods. (2d Edit.) New York:
Macmillan, 1919. Pp. 193.
18. FREYD, M. Test Series for Journalistic Aptitude. /. of Appl. Psychol., 1921, 5,
46-56.
19. GATES, A. I. The Inheritance of Mental Traits. PSYCHOL. BULL., 1921, 18,
20. GOSLINE, H. I. Personality from the Introspective Viewpoint. / . of Abnor.
Psychol., 1920, 15, 36-44.
21. GOWIN, E. B, The Executive and his Control of Men. New York: Macmillan,
1915. Pp. 349.
22. HARTENBERG, P. Physionomie et Caractere. Paris: Alcan, 1911.
23. HEYMANS & WIERSMA. Beitrage zur Speziellen Psychologie auf Grund einer
Massenuntersuchung. Zsch.f. Psychol., 1906, 42, 81-127; 253-301.
24. HOCH-AMSDEN. A Guide to the Description and Study of the Personality. State
Hasp. Bull., New York. 1913.
25. HOLLINGWORTH, H. L. Vocational Psychology. New York: Appleton, 1916.
Pp. 302.
26. HULL-LUCOFF. Complex Signs in Diagnostic Free Association. /. of Exper.
Psychol., 1921, 24, 414-425-
27. JASTROW, J. The Antecedents of the Study of Character and Temperament.
Pop. Sci. Mo., 1915, 87.
28. JUNG, C. Analytical Psychology. London: Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, 1916,
Pp- 377-
29. JONG, C. Studies in Word Association. London: Heinemann, 1918. Pp. 560.
30. KANTOR, J. B. Human Personality and its Pathology. / . of Phil., Psychol., W
Sci. Meth., 1919, 16, 236-246.
31. KEMPF, E. J. The Autonomic Functions and the Personality. Washington:
Nerv. W Ment. Monog. Series, No. 28, 1918. Pp. 1-151.
32. LE DANTEC, F. L'Egoisme. Paris: Flammarion, 1918. Pp. 324.
33. MARTIN, L. J. Personality as Revealed by the Content of Images. Science, 1917,
45, 393-399-
34. MCDOUGALL, W. Sofia/ Psychology. Boston: Luce, 1921. (14th Edit.) Pp.
418.
454 GORDON W. ALLPORT
35. MOORE, H. I. A Method of Testing the Strength of Instincts. Amer. J. of
Psychol, 1916, 27, 227-233-
36. MOORE, H. I. Three Types of Psychological Rating in Use with Freshmen
at Dartmouth. School y Soc., 1921, 13, 418-420.
37. MOORE, H. I. The Measurement of Aggressiveness. / . of Appl, Psychol., 1921,
S, 9 7 - " 8.
38. MORGAN, E. Test of Moods and Temperaments by Recall of Emotionally Toned
Experiences. Amer. J. of Psychol., 1919, 30, 302-304.
39. MYERSON, A. Multiple Choice Method of Studying Personality. Arch. f. Neural.
und PsychopathoL, 1919, 459-470.
40. MYERSON, A. The Foundations of Personality. Boston: Little, Brown, 1921.
Pp. 400.
41. Character Charts. Chevy Chase, D. C.: National Inst. for Moral Instruction, 1920.
42. NORSWORTHY, N. The Validity of Judgments of Character. Essays in Honor of
James, 1910. (2d Edit.) Pp. 542-552.
43. PARTRIDGE, G. E. AnOutlinr ofIndividual Study. New York: Sturgis & Walton,
1910. Pp. 240.
44. PATON, S. Human Behavior. New York: Scribners, 1921. Pp. 454.
45. Personnel System, U. S. Army. Rating Scale. 1919, 1, 559-581.
46. PORTEUS, S. D. A Study of Personality of Defectives with a Social Rating Scale.
Public Train. School, 1920, 33, 1-22.
47. PORTEUS, S. D. Personality in Relation to Social Mai-adjustment. Training
Sch. Bull., 1921, 18, 81-00.
48. PRESSEY, S. L. & L. W. First Revision of a Group Scale Designed for investigating
the Emotions, with Tentative Norms. / . of Appl. Psychol., 1920, 4, 97-104.
49. PRINCE, M. The Unconscious. New York: Macmillan, 1915. Pp. 549.
50. ROSANOFF, A. J. A Theory of Personality Based Mainly on Psychiatric Experience.
PSYCHOL. BULL., 1920, 17, 281-299.
51. RUCH, G. M. A Preliminary Study of the Correlations between Estimate* of
Volitional Traits and the Results from the Downey "Will Profile." / . of Appl.
Psychol., 1921, 5, 159-162.
52. Rucc, H. Is the Rating of Human Character Practicable? / . of Educ. Psychol.,
1921, n , 425-438.
53. SOUTHARD, E. E. On Descriptive Analysis of Manifest Delusions from the Subject's
Point of View. / . of Abnor. Psychol., 1916, 11, 189-202.
54. SOUTHARD, E. E. On the Application of Grammatical Categories to the Analysis
of Delusions. Phil. Rep., 1916, 1$, 424-455.
55. SPAULDING, E. R. The Role of Personality Development in the Reconstruction
of the Individual. / . of Abnor. Psychol. & Soc. Psychol., 1921, 16, 97-114.
56. TANNER, A. Adler's Theory of Mindertoertigkeit. Ped. Sent., 1915, ai, 204-217.
57. TERMAN, L. M. The Intelligence of School Children. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin,
1919. Pp. 313.
58. TERMAN, L. M. The Army Rating Scale. PSYCHOL. BULL., 1918, 15, 177-187.
59. THORNDIKE, E. L. A Constant Error in Psychological Rating. / . of Appl.
Psychol., 1920, 4, 25-29.
60. Rating Chartsfor Students and Teachers. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Bookstore, 1920.
61. WASBBURN, M. & OTHERS. Directed Egocentric Reactions. Amer. J. of
Psychol., 1919, 30, 300-302.
62. WATSON, J. Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist. Phila.; Lippincott,
1919. Pp. 420.
PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER 455
63. WEAVER, E. W. Occupational Fitness and Promise. Brooklyn: Vocational
Guid. Assoc., 1919.
64. WEBB, E. Character and Intelligence. Brit. J. of Psychol., Monog. No. 3, 1915,
1-99.
65. WELLS, F. L. Mental Adjustments. New York: Appleton, 1917. Pp. 320.
66. WELLS, F. L. The Systematic Observation of the Personality in its Relation to
the Hygiene of Mind. Psychol. Rev., 1914, ai, 29J-333.
67. WELLS, F. L. Association Types and Personality. Psychol. Rev., 1919, a6»
371-381.
68. WELLS, F. L. Association Experiments Bibliography. PSYCHOL. BULL., 1916,
13, 146-147-
69. WHITE, W. A. Mechanisms of Character Formation. New York: Macmillan.
1916. Pp. 342.
70. WOODWORTH, R. S. Psychology. New York: Holt, 1921. Pp. 570.
71. YERKES & LA ROE. A Study of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press,
1914- Pp.24.