Download - Personality: Dispositional Perspectives
Psychology 201: Lecture 6 The Dispositional Perspective
Personality:
Dispositional Perspectives
James Neill
2008
Image source: UnknownThe purpose of this lecture is to introduce and discuss dispositional perspectives of personality, particularly personality types and personality traits, to consider the personality vs. situation debate and the notion of interactionism.
Overview
Themes & assumptions
Types
Traits
Situation v personality debate
Interactionism
Strengths & limitations
1. Themes & assumptions
1. Stable2. Individual differences3. Types vs. traits4. Personality vs. situation
Personality as stability
Emphasises human psychology as a function of consistent actions,
thoughts, feelings
i.e. unpredictability is an exception
social psychologists might argue
Personality as individual differences
Assumes that composition of dispositions varies between people.
Unique combinations of stable dispositions within each person.
Types vs. Traits
Types = You are a single type (or shape) of person there are different main types and sub-types but you can only be one type.
Traits = We each can be described as having varying amounts of several traits (e.g., extraversion, optimism, etc.)
Types vs. Traits
Traits are now more in favour than types.
Personality vs. Situation
A perennial debate how much of our behaviour is caused by who were are (personality) and how much by the situational influences and demands (norms, culture, etc.)
Maybe they work together and it varies? (interactionism)
2. Personality Types
Greek 'excesses'
Sheldon's somatotypes
Recent types
Image source:http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Image:Diversity-Discrimination-05.jpgAuthor:http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Image:Diversity-Discrimination-05.jpgLicense: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
Ancient Greek Humors
Ancient Greeks (e.g. Hippocrates, Galen): 4 types of people:
Excess of one of 4 bodily fluids determined personality
Type theory aims to classify people into distinct CATEGORIES. I.e. this type or that. Types are regarded as categories that are distinct and discontiuous. E.g. you are one or the other. Male/Female are discontinuous categories.Ancient Greeks (e.g. Hippocrates 400 BC, Galen, 140/150 AD): 4 types of people:Excess of one of 4 bodily fluids determined personalityHumorFluidCharacterCholericyellow bileIrritableMelancholicblack bileDepressed SanguinebloodOptimisticPhlegmaticphlegmCalm
Ancient Greek Humors
Irritable
Depressed
Optimistic
Calm
Type theory aims to classify people into distinct CATEGORIES. I.e. this type or that. Types are regarded as categories that are distinct and discontiuous. E.g. you are one or the other. Male/Female are discontinuous categories.Ancient Greeks (e.g. Hippocrates 400 BC, Galen, 140/150 AD): 4 types of people:Excess of one of 4 bodily fluids determined personalityHumorFluidCharacterCholericyellow bileIrritableMelancholicblack bileDepressed SanguinebloodOptimisticPhlegmaticphlegmCalm
Image source: Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PersonalityTraitsFromSignalPatterns.jpgLicense: Public domain
Sheldon's Somatotypes
William Sheldon (1940's) classified body type (somatotype):
Personality Types - Somatotypes
Image source: Unknown
Types: Recent
Individual differences may be qualitative not quantitative
Block (1971) identified 5 types. However more recent research suggests 3:
Well-adjusted, resilient, adaptable, flexible, resourceful
Over-controlling, maladjusted, uptight
Under-controlled, maladjusted, impulsive, risky, unsafe
2. Personality Traits
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PersonalityTraitsFromSignalPatterns.jpgAuthor:http://www.flickr.com/people/25719696@N02License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
Personality Traits
Definition
Nomothetic vs. Idiographic
Gordon Allport
Many trait, single trait, & essential trait approaches
Needs (Murray)
Cattell (16 PF)
Eysenck (3 super-traits)
The Big 5
Personality Traits
"enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking
about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide
range of social and personal contexts."
(DSM-IV)
Personality Traits
Distinguishing qualities or characteristics of a person.
A readiness to think or act in a similar fashion in response to a variety of different stimuli or situations.
Personality Traits
Allport & Odbert (1936) found 17,953 words to describe the way people are psychologically different from each other.
e.g. shy, trustworthy, anxious, etc.
The trait approach tries to formalise and use descriptive traits to explain and predict behaviour.
Nomothetic vs. Idiographic
Nomothetic:
Traits have same psychological meaning in everyone
People differ only in amount of each trait
Idiographic:
Each person has unique psychological structure
Some traits possessed by only one person
Traits differ in importance from person to person
Gordon Allport (1897-1967)
Believed in consistent individuality and uniqueness
Morphogenic perspective =
blend of nomothetic + idiographic perspectives
Believed in various traits:
individual, common, cardinal, central, secondary, motivational, and stylistic
The Many Trait Approach
Some theorists look at many traits when investigating personality.
Examine correlates of different behaviours to understand personality in greater depth.
The Single Trait Approach
Much research focuses on a single trait (its origin, nature, and consequences)
Widely studied traits include:
Conscientiousness
Self-monitoring
Authoritarianism
Single Trait: e.g. Authoritarianism
Widely researched for 50+ years
Proposed to lie at heart of racial prejudice.
Unthinking, inflexible, submissive, aggressive, power-fascination, cynical, hostile, may be sexually repressed.
The Essential Trait Approach
many traits to essential ones:
Murray (1938):
27 needs
Cattell (1949):
16 traits
Eysenck (1960's):
3 supertraits
Costa & McCrae (1980's):
5 traits
Eysenck (e.g. 1967; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968)
Costa & McCrae (e.g. 1985,1988; McCrae & Costa, 1986, 1987)
Henry Murray (1893 - 1988)
Assumption:
behaviour is driven by an internal state of disequilibrium
Need:
internal state of dissatisfaction (desire)
Image source: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy/verpaelst/WEB%20PAGE%20FOLDER/Pictures/HenryMurray.jpg
Murray (1893 - 1988)
Primary (viscerogenic) needs:
e.g. food, water, air, sex, avoidance of pain
Secondary (psychogenic) needs (N = 27):
e.g. achievement, dominance, affiliation, nurturance
More recent needs
Need for Achievement
Need for Power
Need for Affiliation
Need for Intimacy
Raymond Cattell (1905-1998)
Language: Source of info about personality
4,500 words
171 trait names
Factor analysed
self-ratings
16 personality
factors (16 PF)
Image source:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Raymond_Cattell.jpgAuthor:Cattell familyLicense: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
Cattell's 16 Personality Factors
WarmthVigilance
ReasoningAbstractness
Emotional StabilityPrivateness
DominanceApprehension
LivelinessOpenness to Change
Rule-ConsciousnessSelf-Reliance
Social BoldnessPerfectionism
SensitivityTension
Hans Eysenck (1916 -1997)
Two supertraits having a biological basis:
1. Introversion-extraversion
2. Emotionality-stability (Neuroticism)
Image source:http://www.pioneerfund.org/eysenck.jpg
Hans Eysenck (1916 -1997)
2nd-order FA of 16PF shows two factors:
Introversion/extraversion
Anxiety (Neuroticism)
Psychoticism added later: less researched
EPQ (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire)
The Big 5
5 superordinate traits well supported by wide variety of research.
Not everyone agrees on the naming of these traits.
Commonly measured by NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1980s) or IPIP.
Commonly measured by NEO (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1986, 1987).
The Big 5
The Big 5 according to the NEO:
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness to Experience
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Each measured by 6 facets (traits)
Traits: The Big Five
Trait Dimension Description
Neuroticism Calm versus anxious(Emotional Stability) Secure versus insecure Self-satisfied versus self-pitying
Extraversion Sociable versus retiring Fun-loving versus sober Affectionate versus reservedOpenness Imaginative versus practical Preference for variety versus preference for routine Independent versus conformingAgreeableness Soft-hearted versus ruthless Trusting versus suspicious Helpful versus uncooperativeConscientiousness Organized versus disorganized Careful versus careless Disciplined versus impulsive
DeliberationTender-mindednessValuesPositive emotionVulnerabilitySelf-disciplineModestyIdeas Excitement seekingImpulsivenessAchievement strivingComplianceActionsActivity
Self-consciousnessDutifulnessAltruismFeelingsAssertivenessDepressionOrderStraightforward-nessAestheticsGregariousnessAngry hostilityCompetenceTrustFantasyWarmthAnxietyCAOEN
Peabody & Goldberg (1989)Costa & McCrae (1985)Digman (1990)Orgatta (1964)Norman (1963)Fiske (1949)6 (Authors)WORKLOVEINTELLECTPOWERAFFECTConscientious-nessAgreeablenessOpenness to experienceExtraversionNeuroticismWill to achieveFriendly complianceIntellectExtraversionNeuroticismResponsibilityLikeabilityIntelligenceAssertivenessEmotionalityConscientious-nessAgreeablenessCultureSurgencyEmotionalityWill to achieveConformityInquiring intellectSocial adaptabilityEmotional control54321
6 Factors
Personality may be more fully explained by a 6-factor model.
The extra 6th factor
= Honesty-Humility.
The 6-factor model has been labeled the HEXACO model (Lee & Ashton, 2004).
(Ashton & Lee, 2001; Ashton, et al., 2004). Lee & Ashton, 2004
Trait Stability?
Costa et al. (1980):
Longitudinal study correlations > .70 over time for extraversion & neuroticism
Helson et al. (1987; 1993):
Women become more dominant, independent, & self-confident over time
Individual differences in stability / consistency
Costa, McCrae and Arenberg (1980)
Helson and Moane (1987); Helson and Wink (1993)
4. Situation vs. Personality Debate
Image source:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Debate_Anatel.jpgAuthor:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Debate_Anatel.jpgLicense: Free use
Situation vs. Personality Debate
Sparked by publication of Mischels book Personality and Assessment (1968)
Situation
Personality
Pro-situation
1960s/1970s, evidence suggested low correlation between personality and behaviour (i.e. personality coefficient of approx. .20 to .40)
What use are traits if they explain so little of behaviour?
Situational variables better predictors? No.
Pro-personality
Low correlations do not prove value of situational variables
Much research on ability of traits to predict behavior based on single act/single time
People choose situations
5. Interactionism
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Schraube_und_archimedische_Spirale.pngAuthor:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Karl_BednarikLicense: GFDL
Interactionism
Traits x [Perceived] Situation = Behaviour
Complexity: different situations affect different people in different ways
Some situations allow expression of personality, others provoke narrower range of behaviour
Some individuals more consistent
Interactionism
Traits do not have a constant influence on behaviour...sometimes trait differences matter a lot, sometimes only a little
People display traits by choosing situations, not just by reacting to them
Person-situation debate has lead to more dynamic approach to understanding how personality traits and situations interact to produce a persons behaviour
6. Critique of Dispositional Perspectives
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PlusMinus.svgAuthor:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MarianSiglerLicense: Public domain
Critique of dispositional perspective: For
Useful description and assessment of personality
Have some predictive power
Although decisions arbitrary, several researchers, using different approaches, coincided in similar views
Personality traits useful for research purposes
Allows comparison of individual differences & provides an objective, scientific approach
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crystal_Clear_action_edit_add.pngAuthor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everaldo_Coelho and http://www.yellowicon.com/License: GFDL
Critique of dispositional perspective: Against
Doesnt explain how or why personality works
Poor decisions made on the basis of trait scores?
Arbitrary decisions about traits
Behaviour is not always consistent
Possibly limited predictive ability
Little explanation for origins of traits
Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crystal_Clear_action_edit_remove.pngAuthor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everaldo_Coelho and http://www.yellowicon.com/License: GFDL
Click to edit the outline text format
Second Outline Level
Third Outline Level
Fourth Outline Level
Fifth Outline Level
Sixth Outline Level
Seventh Outline Level
Eighth Outline Level
Ninth Outline Level