ISCR1

There have been many different trait theorists, and three of the most influential were Gordon Allport, Raymond B. Cattell, and Hans J. Eysenck.

Gordon Allport

Gordon Allport’s 1937 book Personality: A Psychological Interpretation launched the psychology of personality as a field and discipline. In this book and many later con-tributions, he made a convincing case that a distinctive field was needed, devoted to understanding the person as a coherent, consistent whole individual. His view of per-sonality was broad and integrative, and he was sensitive and attentive to all its diverse aspects. Reacting against the tendency of researchers to study isolated part processes, such as learning and memory, in ways that failed to take account of individual differences,

Gordon Allport (1897–1967)

(Source: Courtesy Harvard University News Office)

he wanted the field to pursue two goals. One was to understand the differences between people in personality; the other was to see how the different characteristics and processes (like learning, memory, and biological processes) that exist within an individual interact and function together in an integrated way. His vision underlies much of what is still the definition and main mission of personality psychology today, as discussed in the introduction of this text. In particular, Allport’s conception of traits continues to guide much of the work at the trait-dispositional level of analysis. In Allport’s theory, traits have a very real existence: They are the ultimate realities of psychological organization.

Allport favored a biophysical conception that

3.7 In Allport’s theory, what are the

characteristics of traits?

How are traits linked to basic psychological processes?

does not hold that every trait-name necessarily implies a trait; but rather that behind all confusion of terms, behind the disagreement of judges, and apart from errors and failures of empirical observation, there are none the less bona fide mental structures in each personality that account for the consistency of its behavior. (1937, p. 289)

According to Allport, traits are determining tendencies or predispositions to respond.

In other words, a trait is

a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual) with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior. (1937, p. 295)

Thus, Allport believed that traits are relatively general and enduring, and that they were able to make, as quoted above, ‘‘many stimuli functionally equivalent.’’ By that

Trait Theorists 䉳 51

Stimuli 1. Meeting a stranger

Trait:

friendliness 2. Working with peers

3. Visiting family 4. Dating a girlfriend

Responses 1. outgoing, pleasant 2. helpful, encouraging 3. warm, interested 4. attentive, thoughtful

Figure 3.3 An example of a trait as the unifier of stimuli and responses.

he meant that they unite many responses to diverse stimuli, producing fairly broad consistencies in behavior. This relationship is seen in Figure 3.3.

Allport was convinced that some people have dispositions that influence most aspects of their behavior. He called these highly generalized dispositions cardinal traits. For example, if a person’s whole life seems to be organized around goal achievement and the attainment of excellence, then achievement might be his or her cardinal trait. Less pervasive but still quite generalized dispositions are central traits, and Allport thought that many people are broadly influenced by central traits. Finally, more specific, narrow traits are called secondary dispositions or ‘‘attitudes.’’

3.8 Differentiate between Allport’s notions of cardinal and central traits. What is their relation to secondary dispositions?

Allport believed that one’s pattern of dispositions or ‘‘personality structure’’ deter-mines one’s behavior. This emphasis on structure rather than environment or stimulus conditions is seen in his colorful phrase, ‘‘The same fire that melts the butter hardens the egg’’ (1937, p. 102). Allport was a pioneering spokesman for the importance of individual differences: No two people are completely alike, and hence no two people respond identically to the same event. Each person’s behavior is determined by a particular trait structure.

Allport thought that traits never occur in any two people in exactly the same way: They operate in unique ways in each person. This conviction was consistent with his emphasis on the individuality and uniqueness of each personality. To the extent that any trait is unique within a person rather than common among many people, it cannot be studied by making comparisons among people. Consequently, Allport urged the thorough study of individuals through intensive and long-term case studies, and did pioneering work at the Phenomenological-Humanistic Level of analysis, as discussed in later chapters. He also believed, however, that because of shared experiences and common cultural influences, most persons tend to develop some roughly common kinds of traits, and they can be compared on these common dispositions. It is this part of his many contributions that makes his ideas still central for work at the Trait-Dispositional Level.

Raymond B. Cattell

Raymond B. Cattell (1950, 1965) is another important trait theorist. For Cattell, the trait is also the basic unit of study; it is a ‘‘mental structure,’’ inferred from behavior, and a fundamental construct that accounts for behavioral regularity or consistency. Like Allport, Cattell distinguished between common traits, which are possessed by many people in different degrees and unique traits, which occur only in a particular person and cannot be found in another in exactly the same form.

Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998) (Source: Times Newspapers Ltd., London)

Cattell also distinguished surface traits from source traits (see Table 3.1 for selected examples). Surface traits are clusters of overt or manifest trait elements (responses) that seem to go together. Source traits are the underlying variables that are the causal entities determining the surface manifestations. For Cattell, source traits can be found only by means of the mathematical technique of factor analysis (discussed later in this chapter). Using this technique, the investigator tries to estimate the factors or dimensions that appear to underlie surface variations in behavior. According to Cattell, the basic aim in research and assessment should be identification of source traits. In this view, these traits are divided between those that reflect environmental conditions (environmental-mold traits) and those that reflect constitutional factors (constitutional traits). Moreover, source traits may either be general (those affecting behavior in many different situations) or specific. Specific source traits are particularized sources of personality reaction that operate in one situation only, and Cattell pays little attention to them.

3.9 Describe Cattell’s approach to identifying the structure of personality traits. What three types of data were used to discover source traits?

Cattell used three kinds of data to discover general source traits: (1) life records, in which everyday behavior situations are observed and rated; (2) self-ratings; and (3) objective tests, in which the person is observed in situations that are specifically

TABLE 3.1 Surface Traits and Source Traits Studied by Cattell

Examples of Surface Traits Integrity, altruism—dishonesty, undependability (Cattell, 1950) Disciplined thoughtfulness— foolishness

Thrift, tidiness, obstinacy— lability, curiosity, intuition Examples of Source Traits Ego strength—emotionality and neuroticism

(Cattell, 1965) Dominance—submissiveness Note: These are selected and abbreviated examples from much longer lists.

Trait Theorists 䉳 53 designed to elicit responses from which behavior in other situations can be predicted.

The data from all three sources are subjected to factor analysis. In his own work, Cattell shows a preference for factor analysis of life-record data based on many behavior ratings for large samples of persons. Some 14 or 15 source traits have been reported from such investigations, but only six have been found repeatedly (Vernon, 1964).

In Cattell’s system, traits may also be grouped into classes on the basis of how they are expressed. Those that are relevant to the individual’s being ‘‘set into action’’ with respect to some goal are called dynamic traits. Those concerned with effectiveness in gaining the goal are ability traits. Traits concerned with energy or emotional reactivity are named temperament traits. Cattell has speculated extensively about the relationships between various traits and the development of personality (1965).

Hans J. Eysenck

The extensive research of Hans Eysenck in England complemented the work of the American trait theorists in many important ways. Eysenck (1961, 1991) extended the search for personality dimensions to the area of abnormal behavior, studying such traits as neuroticism–emotional stability. He also has investigated introversion–extraversion as a dimensional trait (although Carl Jung originally proposed ‘‘introvert’’ and ‘‘extravert’’ as personality types). Eysenck and his associates have pursued an elaborate and sophisti-cated statistical methodology in their investigations of these personality dimensions. In addition to providing a set of descriptive dimensions, Eysenck and his colleagues have studied the associations between people’s positions on these dimensions and their scores on a variety of other personality and intellectual measures, and developed an influential model of personality designed to account for the roots of these traits in ways that connect to the Biological Level of analysis, and will be considered in those sections of the text.

3.10 According to Eysenck, which two trait dimensions can be used to describe individual differences in personality?

Hans J. Eysenck (1916–1997) (Source: Courtesy Hans J. Eysenck)

Eysenck emphasized that his dimension of introversion–extraversion is based entirely on research and ‘‘must stand and fall by empirical confirmation’’ (Eysenck &

Rachman, 1965, p. 19). In his words:

The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and does not like reading or studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment, and is generally an impulsive individual. He is fond of practical jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes change; he is carefree, easygoing, optimistic, and ‘‘likes to laugh and be merry.’’ He prefers to keep moving and doing things, tends to be aggressive and loses his temper quickly; altogether his feelings are not kept under tight control, and he is not always a reliable person.

The typical introvert is a quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather than people; he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends. He tends to plan ahead,

‘‘looks before he leaps,’’ and mistrusts the impulse of the moment. He does not like excitement, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness, and likes a well-ordered mode of life.

He keeps his feelings under close control, seldom behaves in an aggressive manner, and does not lose his temper easily. He is reliable, somewhat pessimistic and places great value on ethical standards.

Eysenck and his colleagues recognized that these descriptions may sound almost like caricatures because they portray ‘‘perfect’’ extraverts and introverts, while in fact most

moody anxious

rigid aggressive

sober excitable

pessimistic changeable

reserved impulsive

unsociable optimistic

quiet

passive sociable

careful outgoing

thoughtful talkative

peaceful responsive

controlled easygoing

reliable even–tempered

calm leadership

carefree lively Melancholic Choleric

Phlegmatic Sanguine

active restless

touchy

Introverted Extraverted

Unstable

Stable

Figure 3.4 Dimensions of personality. The inner ring shows the ‘‘four temperaments’’ of Hippocrates; the outer ring shows the results of modern factor analytic studies of the intercorrelations between traits by Eysenck and others (Eysenck & Rachman, 1965).

Trait Theorists 䉳 55 TABLE 3.2 Sexual Activities Reported by Introverted (I) and Extraverted

(E) Students^a

Males Females

Activity I E I E

Masturbation at present 86 72 47 39

Petting at 17 16 40 15 24

at 19 3 56 30 47

at present 57 78 62 76

Coitus (intercourse) at 17 5 21 4 8

at 19 15 45 12 29

at present 47 77 42 71

Median frequency of coitus per month (sexually active students only)

3.0 5.5 3.1 7.5

Coitus partners in the last 12 months

one 75 46 72 60

(unmarried students only) two or more 18 30 25 23

four or more 7 25 4 17

aThe numbers are the frequencies of endorsements by each group.

Source: Based on data from Giese, H., & Schmidt, S. (1968). Studenten sexualitat. Hamburg: Rowohlt; cited in Eysenck, H. J. (1973). Personality and the law of effect. In D. E. Berlyne & K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, reward, preference. New York: Academic Press.

people are mixtures who fall in the middle rather than at the extremes of the dimensions (see Figure 3.4). As Figure 3.4 shows, Eysenck suggested that the second major dimension of personality is emotional stability (or ‘‘neuroticism’’). This dimension describes at one end people who tend to be moody, touchy, anxious, restless, and so on.

At the other extreme are people who are characterized by such terms as stable, calm, carefree, even-tempered, and reliable. As Eysenck stressed, the ultimate value of these dimensions will depend on the research support they receive.

To clarify the meaning of both dimensions, Eysenck and his associates have studied the relations between people’s positions on them and their scores on many other measures. An example of the results found is summarized in Table 3.2, which shows self-reported differences in the sexual activities of extraverts and introverts (reported in Eysenck, 1973). As expected, the extraverts generally reported earlier, more frequent, and more varied sexual experiences. While the groups differed on the average, there was still considerable overlap, making it difficult to predict any particular individual’s behavior from her introversion–extraversion score alone. But the results of many studies of this type provide an increasingly comprehensive picture of Eysenck’s dimensions. In addition, Eysenck’s ideas are notable in stimulating a search for the biological foundations of dispositions, and are discussed in that context.