Personality

September 29, 2008

Costa & McCrae

The “Big Five” Extraversion Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness to experience

Is this all there is to personality? Is this all we should be studying?

McAdams and Pals want an “integrative framework for understanding the whole person”

Kluckhohn and Murray (1953): every person is like all other persons, like some other persons, and like no other person What does this mean? What areas of

personality does this suggest should be studied further?

Problems with personality texts? Either theory-by-theory texts Or collection of research topics with no

overarching links/conclusions drawn Why is this a problem?

Personality is divided up into autonomous spheres that appear to not integrate with each other; study each seperately

McAdams and Pals constructed their own “five big principles” for studying personality in an integrative fashion Includes the “Big Five” expanded to a broader

framework

First Some Definitions/Clarification

The Five Principles for an Integrative Science of Personality

Principle 1

Begin with human nature and how every person is like every other person

What 20th century theories attempted to address human nature? How do the authors argue they were flawed? Freud, Rogers/Maslow, Skinner/Bandura All require a “leap of faith;” can’t test them

What do McAdams/Pals propose instead? Human evolution Explain…

Natural selection for behaviors that allow survival and reproduction; everyone has this general design – core set of dispositional traits

What do you think? Are we all fundamentally the same at our core?

Principle 2

Variations on dispositional traits (Costa and McCrae’s Big Five) Personality traits provide “a rough outline of human

individuality”

How did some psychologists try to do away with “traits” in the 1970s? (What is the person-situation debate?) Proposed human behavior is more situationally specific

(contingent) than cross-situationally consistent (trait-like)

What was the outcome of the person-situation debate?

Principle 2

Traits research stemming from person-situation debate (Traits are here to stay)

Traits Often predict behavioral trends across situations and

time Show long-term stability in individual differences (for

personality traits) Appear heritable (~50% for twins) Are linked to functioning of the brain in new research (ex.

extraversion and the behavioral approach system – BAS) Are summarized well by the Big Five model both in

repeated English studies and studies in other countries Can you conceptualize personality without traits?

Principle 3

Humans vary on motivational, social-cognitive, and developmental adaptations (situational variables) – these may effect personality

How do you reconcile the debate for roots of human individuality: motivation/cognition or traits? Costa and McCrae’s characteristic adaptation –

behavior influenced by both traits and situational variables

Principle 3

McAdams/Pals disagree Characteristic adaptations aren’t just byproducts

of an interaction between traits and environment Characteristic adaptations function differently

than traits Traits address: What kind of person is this? C.A.s address: Who is the person? (more existential)

Principle 4

Individuals differ by their life narratives – integrative stories that give meaning and identity in the world

Our lives as ongoing stories – our narrative identity Clinical applications???

Brief Recap

Dispositional traits -> outline of personality Characteristic adaptations -> fill in some details

of individuality Narrative identities -> give lives unique, culturally

anchored meanings

Every person’s like every other person Every person is like some other persons

Every person is different from all other persons

Principle 4

Narrative identity shows how every person is different from every other person. How? Unique life stories Individual differences in narrative identity can’t

be reduced to differences in dispositional traits or characteristic adaptations

Principle 5

Culture’s effects on different levels of personality What are its effects on:

Traits Characteristic adaptations Individual narratives

Let’s examine each

Principle 5 – Culture/Traits

McAdams/Pals state that environment subtly influences traits. What two supporting evidences do they provide? Even if ~50% of traits are accounted for by

genetic heritability, there’s still an interplay between environment and genetics that shapes trait expression throughout development

Cultural forces likely shape phenotypic expression of traits

An example from the article, or another that you can think of???

Principle 5 – Culture/C.A.s

How do McAdams/Pals explain culture’s effect on characteristic adaptation? C.A.s are situated in social, cultural, and

developmental contexts; C.A.s are shaped by social class, ethnicity, gender, historical events

Goals based on life trajectories society makes available to the individual

Values based on ideals passed down through families Other examples???

Principle 5 – Culture/Narritive Identity

How do McAdams/Pals explain culture’s effect on narrative identity? Culture provides themes/images/plots for

psychosocial construction of narrative identity Life stories are at the center of culture

Who Wants to Explain this Figure?

Why Personality in a Psychopathology Class? What do you think? Clinical applications

Framework proposed by McAdams/Pals may be used to identify aspects of personality for change in treatment

Therapy exerts changes in personality – if you’re gonna mess with it, you need to know the mechanics of what’s “under the hood”

Narrative therapy approaches to treatment Conceptualize psychopathology in respect to different

levels of personality Ex. Depression

Trait-like expressions of depression Characteristic adaptation: thoughts/motivation pertaining to certain

social roles and/or developmental periods Depressed life story, perhaps themes of loss