39.1 Trait Theories

image
© The New Yorker Collection, 2014, William Haefeli from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.

39-1 How do psychologists use traits to describe personality?

trait a characteristic pattern of behavior or a disposition to feel and act, as assessed by self-report inventories and peer reports.

Rather than focusing on unconscious forces and thwarted growth opportunities, some researchers attempt to define personality in terms of stable and enduring behavior patterns, such as Lady Gaga’s openness to new experiences and her self-discipline. This perspective can be traced in part to a remarkable meeting in 1919, when Gordon Allport, a curious 22-year-old psychology student, interviewed Sigmund Freud in Vienna. Allport soon discovered just how preoccupied the founder of psychoanalysis was with finding hidden motives, even in Allport’s own behavior during the interview. That experience ultimately led Allport to do what Freud did not do—to describe personality in terms of fundamental traits—people’s characteristic behaviors and conscious motives (such as the curiosity that actually motivated Allport to see Freud). Meeting Freud, said Allport, “taught me that [psychoanalysis], for all its merits, may plunge too deep, and that psychologists would do well to give full recognition to manifest motives before probing the unconscious.” Allport came to define personality in terms of identifiable behavior patterns. He was concerned less with explaining individual traits than with describing them.

Exploring Traits

506

Classifying people as one or another distinct personality type fails to capture their full individuality. We are each a unique complex of multiple traits. So how else could we describe our personalities? We might describe an apple by placing it along several trait dimensions—relatively large or small, red or green, sweet or sour. By placing people on several trait dimensions simultaneously, psychologists can describe countless individual personality variations, just as researchers can describe thousands of colors in terms of their variations on just three color dimensions—hue, saturation, and brightness.

What trait dimensions describe personality? If you had an upcoming blind date, what personality traits might give you an accurate sense of the person? Allport and his associate H. S. Odbert (1936) counted all the words in an unabridged dictionary with which one could describe people. There were almost 18,000! How, then, could psychologists condense the list to a manageable number of basic traits?

FACTOR ANALYSIS One technique is factor analysis, a statistical procedure that has been used to identify clusters (factors) of test items that tap basic components of a trait, such as intelligence (spatial ability or verbal skill). Imagine that people who describe themselves as outgoing also tend to say that they like excitement and practical jokes and dislike quiet reading. Such a statistically correlated cluster of behaviors reflects a basic factor, or trait—in this case, extraversion.

British psychologists Hans Eysenck and Sybil Eysenck [EYE-zink] believed that we can reduce many of our normal individual variations to two or three dimensions, including extraversion–introversion and emotional stability–-instability (FIGURE 39.1). People in 35 countries around the world, from China to Uganda to Russia, have taken the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. When their answers were analyzed, the extraversion and emotionality factors inevitably emerged as basic personality dimensions (Eysenck, 1990, 1992). The Eysencks believed, and research confirms, that these factors are genetically influenced.

image
Figure 13.3: FIGURE 39.1 Two personality dimensions Mapmakers can tell us a lot by using two axes (north–south and east–west). Two primary personality factors (extraversion–introversion and stability–instability) are similarly useful as axes for describing personality variation. Varying combinations define other, more specific traits (from Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963). Those who are naturally introverted, such as primatologist Jane Goodall, may be particularly gifted in field studies. Successful politicians, including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, are often natural extraverts.
Jean-Marc Bouju/AP Photo; Andrew Innerarity/Reuters/Landov
image
Erik Lam/Shutterstock

BIOLOGY AND PERSONALITY Brain-activity scans of extraverts add to the growing list of traits and mental states now being explored with brain-imaging procedures. Such studies indicate that extraverts seek stimulation because their normal brain arousal is relatively low. For example, PET scans have shown that a frontal lobe area involved in behavior inhibition is less active in extraverts than in introverts (Johnson et al., 1999). Dopamine and dopamine-related neural activity tend to be higher in extraverts (Kim et al., 2008; Wacker et al., 2006).

507

Our biology influences our personality in other ways as well. As we know from twin and adoption studies, our genes have much to say about the temperament and behavioral style that help define our personality. Children’s shyness and inhibition may differ as an aspect of autonomic nervous system reactivity: Those with a reactive autonomic nervous system respond to stress with greater anxiety and inhibition (Kagan, 2010) (see Thinking Critically About: The Stigma of Introversion). The fearless, curious child may become the rock-climbing or fast-driving adult.

Personality differences among dogs (in energy, affection, reactivity, and curious intelligence) are as evident, and as consistently judged, as personality differences among humans (Gosling et al., 2003; Jones & Gosling, 2005). Monkeys, chimpanzees, orangutans, and even birds also have stable personalities (Weiss et al., 2006). Among the Great Tit (a European relative of the American chickadee), bold birds more quickly inspect new objects and explore trees (Groothuis & Carere, 2005; Verbeek et al., 1994). By selective breeding, researchers can produce bold or shy birds. Both have their place in natural history: In lean years, bold birds are more likely to find food; in abundant years, shy birds feed with less risk.

THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT

The Stigma of Introversion

39-2 What are some common misunderstandings about introversion? Does extraversion lead to greater success than introversion?

Psychologists describe and measure personality, but they don’t advise which traits people should have. Society does this. Western cultures, for example, prize extraversion. In one study, 87 percent of people wanted to be more extraverted (Hudson & Roberts, 2014). Being introverted seems to imply that you don’t have the “right stuff” (Cain, 2012).

Just look at our superheroes. Extraverted Superman is bold and energetic. His introverted alter ego, Clark Kent, is mild-mannered and bumbling. Take-charge Elastigirl saves the day in The Incredibles. The message is clear: It’s the extraverts who are the superheroes.

TV shows also portray heartthrobs and examples of success as extraverts. Many consider Don Draper, the highly successful, attractive advertising executive in the show Mad Men to be a classic extravert. He is dominant and charismatic. Women clamor for his attention. His quiet secretary, Peggy Olson, gains respect and career advancement as the series progresses and she becomes more outspoken. Here again, extraversion equals success.

Why do we celebrate extraversion and belittle introversion? Many people may not understand what introversion really is. Introversion is not shyness. Introverted people seek low levels of stimulation from their environment because they’re sensitive. One classic study suggested that introverted people even have greater taste sensitivity. When given lemon juice, introverted people salivated more than extraverted people (Corcoran, 1964). Shy people, in contrast, remain quiet because they fear others will evaluate them negatively.

image
AMC/The Kobal Collection/Art Resource

We also tend to believe that introversion acts as a barrier to success, yet introversion actually has many benefits. As supervisors, introverts show greater receptiveness when their employees voice their ideas, challenge existing norms, and take charge. Under these circumstances, introverted leaders outperform extraverted ones (Grant et al., 2011). One striking analysis of 35 studies showed no correlation between extraversion and sales performance (Barrick et al., 2001). Many introverts prosper. Consider the American presidency, which may offer the best example of the misperception that introversion hinders career success. The top-rated U.S. president of all time was introverted. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

So, introversion should not be considered a sign of weakness. Those who need a quiet break from a loud party are not social rejects nor are they incapable of great things. They simply need a less stimulating environment in order to thrive. It’s important for extraverts to understand that not everyone feels driven by high levels of stimulation. It’s not a crime to unwind.

image
John Parrot/Stocktrek Images/Getty Images

508

RETRIEVE IT

Question

gu7l26I1V8s3RSPa/wLqDkZCcNhuxTtZ95fvoUP6Nl2dpSg2y/8jFGG906Oazzv5WRN+a59t6kEI7uiYPP+iMRWRVgiUM8KwyhHAC08cfLluWwBkdutaOFbHFzNsD1QKSZ4UY1GjpXYr0AtKe8qLdokK9Xo=
ANSWER: introversion–extraversion and emotional stability–instability

Assessing Traits

39-3 What are personality inventories, and what are their strengths and weaknesses as trait-assessment tools?

personality inventory a questionnaire (often with true-false or agree-disagree items) on which people respond to items designed to gauge a wide range of feelings and behaviors; used to assess selected personality traits.

If stable and enduring traits guide our actions, can we devise valid and reliable tests of them? Several trait-assessment techniques exist—some more valid than others. Some provide quick assessments of a single trait, such as extraversion, anxiety, or self-esteem. Personality inventories—longer questionnaires covering a wide range of feelings and behaviors—assess several traits at once.

image IMMERSIVE LEARNING Might astrology hold the secret to our personality traits? To consider this question, visit LaunchPad’s How Would You Know If Astrologers Can Describe People’s Personality?

People have had fun spoofing the MMPI with their own mock items: “Weeping brings tears to my eyes,” “Frantic screams make me nervous,” and “I stay in the bathtub until I look like a raisin” (Frankel et al., 1983).

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) the most widely researched and clinically used of all personality tests. Originally developed to identify emotional disorders (still considered its most appropriate use), this test is now used for many other screening purposes.

empirically derived test a test (such as the MMPI) developed by testing a pool of items and then selecting those that discriminate between groups.

The classic personality inventory is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Although the MMPI was originally developed to identify emotional disorders, it also assesses people’s personality traits. One of its creators, Starke Hathaway (1960), compared his effort with that of Alfred Binet. Binet, the founder of modern intelligence testing, developed the first intelligence test by selecting items that identified children who would probably have trouble progressing normally in French schools. Like Binet’s items, the MMPI items were empirically derived: From a large pool of items, Hathaway and his colleagues selected those on which particular diagnostic groups differed. “Nothing in the newspaper interests me except the comics” may seem senseless, but it just so happened that depressed people were more likely to answer True. The researchers grouped the questions into 10 clinical scales, including scales that assess depressive tendencies, masculinity–femininity, and introversion–extraversion. Today’s MMPI-2 has additional scales that assess work attitudes, family problems, and anger.

Whereas most projective tests are scored subjectively, personality inventories are scored objectively. (Software can administer and score these tests, and can also provide descriptions of people who previously responded similarly.) Objectivity does not, however, guarantee validity. Individuals taking the MMPI for employment purposes can give socially desirable answers to create a good impression. But in so doing they may also score high on a lie scale that assesses faking (as when people respond False to a universally true statement, such as “I get angry sometimes”). The objectivity of the MMPI has contributed to its popularity and to its translation into more than 100 languages.

The Big Five Factors

39-4 Which traits seem to provide the most useful information about personality variation?

Today’s trait researchers believe that simple trait factors, such as the Eysencks’ introversion–extraversion and stability–instability dimensions, are important, but they do not tell the whole story. A slightly expanded set of factors—dubbed the Big Five—does a better job (Costa & McCrae, 2011). If a test specifies where you are on the five dimensions (conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion; see TABLE 39.1), it has said much of what there is to say about your personality. Around the world—across 56 nations and 29 languages in one study (Schmitt et al., 2007)—people describe others in terms roughly consistent with this list. The Big Five may not be the last word. Some researchers report that basic personality dimensions can be described by only one or two or three factors (such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion) (Block, 2010; De Raad et al., 2010). But for now, at least, five is the winning number in the personality lottery (Heine & Buchtel, 2009; McCrae, 2009). To find out how your personality measures up, try the brief self-assessment in FIGURE 39.2.

image
Figure 13.4: FIGURE 39.2 The Big Five self-assessment

509

image

The Big Five is currently our best approximation of the basic trait dimensions. This “common currency for personality psychology” (Funder, 2001) has been the most active personality research topic since the early 1990s, as researchers have explored these questions and more:

510

image For an 8-minute demonstration of trait research, see LaunchPad’s Video: Trait Theories of Personality below.

By exploring such questions, Big Five research has sustained trait psychology and renewed appreciation for the importance of personality. Traits matter.

RETRIEVE IT

Question

M2wcCbI/gbpdwsDTl5LK9BiG3zcw+GxcSSPsYLzJSKFPrWp9Yx4otw1uDxE3UrgbArUdDIRPvPCBDvfosBXrVBrLzOoLGJTxtfQRiMn36EonyC6ZJxUcvQ==
ANSWER: The Big Five personality factors are conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism (emotional stability vs. instability), openness, and extraversion (CANOE). These factors may be objectively measured, they are relatively stable over the life span, and they apply to all cultures in which they have been studied.

Evaluating Trait Theories

39-5 Does research support the consistency of personality traits over time and across situations?

Are our personality traits stable and enduring? Or does our behavior depend on where and with whom we find ourselves? In some ways, our personality seems stable. Cheerful, friendly children tend to become cheerful, friendly adults. At a recent college reunion, I [DM] was amazed to find that my jovial former classmates were still jovial, the shy ones still shy, the happy-seeming people still smiling and laughing—50 years later. But it’s also true that a fun-loving jokester can suddenly turn serious and respectful at a job interview. And the personality traits we express can change from one situation to another. Major life events, such as becoming unemployed, can shift our personality from agreeable to slightly rude (Boyce et al., 2015).

511

“There is as much difference between us and ourselves, as between us and others.”

Michel de Montaigne, Essays, 1588

THE PERSON-SITUATION CONTROVERSY Our behavior is influenced by the interaction of our inner disposition with our environment. Still, the question lingers: Which is more important? When we explore this person-situation controversy, we look for genuine personality traits that persist over time and across situations. Are some people dependably conscientious and others unreliable? Some cheerful and others dour? Some friendly and outgoing and others shy? If we are to consider friendliness a trait, friendly people must act friendly at different times and places. Do they?

Roughly speaking, the temporary, external influences on behavior are the focus of social psychology, and the enduring, inner influences are the focus of personality psychology. In actuality, behavior always depends on the interaction of persons with situations.

In considering research that has followed lives through time, some scholars (especially those who study infants) are impressed with personality change; others are struck by personality stability during adulthood. As FIGURE 39.3 illustrates, data from 152 long-term studies reveal that personality trait scores are positively correlated with scores obtained seven years later, and that as people grow older their personality stabilizes. Interests may change—the avid tropical-fish collector may become an avid gardener. Careers may change—the determined salesperson may become a determined social worker. Relationships may change—the hostile spouse may start over with a new partner. But most people recognize their traits as their own, as Robert McCrae and Paul Costa noted (1994), “and it is well that they do. A person’s recognition of the inevitability of his or her one and only personality is . . . the culminating wisdom of a lifetime.”

image
Figure 13.5: FIGURE 39.3 Personality stability With age, personality traits become more stable, as reflected in the stronger correlation of trait scores with follow-up scores 7 years later. (Data from Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000.)

Change and consistency can co-exist. If all people were to become somewhat less shy with age, there would be personality change, but also relative stability and predictability.

So most people—including most psychologists—would probably presume the stability of personality traits. Moreover, our traits are socially significant. They influence our health, our thinking, and our job choices and performance (Deary & Matthews, 1993; Hogan, 1998; Jackson et al., 2012; Sutin et al., 2011). Studies that follow lives through time show that personality traits rival socioeconomic status and cognitive ability as predictors of mortality, divorce, and occupational attainment (Roberts et al., 2007).

Any of these tendencies, taken to an extreme, become maladaptive. Agreeableness ranges from cynical combativeness at its low extreme to gullible subservience at its high extreme. Conscientiousness ranges from irresponsible negligence to workaholic perfectionism (Widiger & Costa, 2012).

image
It’s not just personality that stabilizes with age.
© Mitra Farmand, www.fuffernutter.com

Although our personality traits may be both stable and potent, the consistency of our specific behaviors from one situation to the next is another matter. As Walter Mischel (1968, 2009) has pointed out, people do not act with predictable consistency. Mischel’s studies of college students’ conscientiousness revealed only a modest relationship between a student’s being conscientious on one occasion (say, showing up for class on time) and being similarly conscientious on another occasion (say, turning in assignments on time). If you’ve noticed how outgoing you are in some situations and how reserved you are in others, perhaps you’re not surprised.

512

This inconsistency in behaviors also makes personality test scores weak predictors of behaviors. People’s scores on an extraversion test, for example, do not neatly predict how sociable they actually will be on any given occasion. If we remember this, says Mischel, we will be more cautious about labeling and pigeonholing individuals. Years in advance, science can tell us the phase of the Moon for any given date. A day in advance, meteorologists can often predict the weather. But we are much further from being able to predict how you will feel and act tomorrow.

image
The New Yorker Collection, 2006, Victoria Roberts from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.

However, people’s average outgoingness, happiness, or carelessness over many situations is predictable (Epstein, 1983a,b). People who know someone well, therefore, generally agree when rating that person’s shyness or agreeableness (Jackson et al., 2015; Kenrick & Funder, 1988). The predictability of average behavior across many situations was again confirmed when researchers collected snippets of people’s daily experience via body-worn recording devices: Extraverts really do talk more (Mehl et al., 2006). (I [DM] have repeatedly vowed to cut back on my jabbering and joking during my noontime pickup basketball games with friends. Alas, moments later, the irrepressible chatterbox inevitably reoccupies my body. And I [ND] have a similar experience each time I try to stay quiet in taxis. Somehow, I always end up chatting with the driver!) As our best friends can verify, we do have genetically influenced personality traits. And those traits even lurk, report Samuel Gosling and his colleagues in a series of studies, in our

image
Room with a cue Even at “zero acquaintance,” people can catch a glimpse of others’ personality from looking at their website, bedroom, or office. So, what’s your read on this person’s office?
Karan Kapoor/Stone/Getty Images

In unfamiliar, formal situations—perhaps as a guest in the home of a person from another culture—our traits remain hidden as we carefully attend to social cues. In familiar, informal situations—just hanging out with friends—we feel less constrained, allowing our traits to emerge (Buss, 1989). In these informal situations, our expressive styles—our animation, manner of speaking, and gestures—are impressively consistent. Viewing “thin slices” of someone’s behavior—such as seeing a photo for a mere fraction of a second or seeing three, 2-second clips of a teacher in action—can tell us a lot about the person’s basic personality traits (Ambady, 2010; Rule et al., 2009).

To sum up, we can say that at any moment the immediate situation powerfully influences a person’s behavior. Social psychologists have learned that this is especially so when a “strong situation” makes clear demands (Cooper & Withey, 2009). We can better predict drivers’ behavior at traffic lights from knowing the color of the lights than from knowing the drivers’ personalities. Averaging our behavior across many occasions does, however, reveal distinct personality traits. Traits exist. We differ. And our differences matter.

513

RETRIEVE IT

Question

onVApn3gRiZ1BLlW5gLgnRisTjss0vk2+m/UbhrPByf2C9gux8+E0eix8X1MfOTgksXJJYX9EA4XYaegPmNot8iZylMrQyig
ANSWER: Our scores on personality tests predict our average behavior across many situations much better than they predict our specific behavior in any given situation.