LECTURE 1- Introduction to personality research
0-What is personality?
When it comes to give a definition of personality, it is impossible to do so without trying to answer many other questions:
1-What is personality?
1.1-Distinctioin of scientific knowledge from intuitive knowledge
The first reason is that we need to distinguish intuitive knowledge from scientific knowledge.
We already know a lot about personality. Heider’s “common sense psychology” pointed out that you don’t need to have
studied psychology to understand other people. We will come back to Heider in Social Psychology.
While that is true, there are things that a scientific enquiry can tell us about personality that our intuitions cannot. As you
know humans often have a biased view of the world, so it’s important to test things in an objective a way as possible, through
scientific observation of a large number of people, not just your friends. (not all scientists did this – as you will see, Freud
developed his theory based on a small group of patients).
When you formulate the theory, you need to spell out what the assumptions are, and how the different parts of the
theory relate to one another. And of course, your theory must be testable. The hypotheses it generates must be specific
enough to prove them wrong.
So, while in everyday life you can say to your friends ‘my parents are weird’, and everyone will believe you (they may, out
of curiosity, ask “what do they do then?”), a scientist who says the same thing is likely to be met with scrutiny. How do you
define weird? Can you be a bit more specific? How many sets of parents are you basing this on? How can you be sure their
behaviour can’t be explained by other factors, e.g., maybe it’s just your perception? Influence of the observer: maybe it’s
your presence causing the weirdness! How does your theory explain the weirdness?
So, how do scientific theories differ from intuitive ones?
scientific observation
theories must be formulated in a systematic manner
theories must be testable
A good personality theory should give us answers to the following questions:
What are peoples´ characteristics? : not everyone agrees that this is even a meaningful question to ask. For
example, Goffman’s dramaturgical approach: people do not have personality but do know how to behave in certain
contexts, like a theatre (dramaturgical perspective).
How did they become that way? : refers to social learning, the environment, genes, or a combination.
Why does a person behave the way they do?: refers to motivations. It is interesting to note that not all personality
psychologists would see the need for this why question. Some early theorists would argue that the “what” is also
that “why”. You behave in a particular way because you have certain characteristics (motivation doesn’t come into
, it). Example: you behave in an extroverted way because you are extroverted, thud you are what you do. However,
this view is now considered too extreme.
Consider the example of an overprotective mother. Why does she behave this way? Your personality theory should be able to
give you an answer to that. However, as you will see, certain theories are more inclined to explain it in certain ways. For
example, Freud would be more likely to say the mother is compensating for feelings of resentment, whereas Eysenck would
say the mother is simply being affectionate. So, going back to the diagram I showed you earlier, your theory of personality
does influence how you explain other people’s characteristics.
1.2-Only field in Psychology that studies the whole person
Combines cognitive, developmental, social, biological and clinical psychology.
1.3-Personality theories´ impact on society
And last, personality theories have a large impact on society.
The language of personality theories has become part of our daily vocabulary, and pop-psychology tends to use (perhaps
untested) information from personality theories. The personality psychologists actually have a moral obligation to make sure
that what is published can be trusted and is socially useful.
The words filter through society and that is good, but sometimes they get distorted when ideas get detached from the context.
2-Conceptual issues in personality theory
By conceptual issues I mean questions that confront any personality psychologists. Anyone who wants to create a personality
theory will somehow have to deal with these issues.
2.1-Philosophical view of the person
The first thing to consider, when you look at a personality theory, is the question ‘what is its view of human nature?’ Does
the theory for example see humans as rational actors, who behave based on carefully weighed pros and cons? So, the
differences between people can be explained in terms of the different thought processes that they have. Another personality
theory might see humans as primarily driven by irrational, animalistic forces, with differences between people being
explained by the extent they can control these forces and express them in a more socially accepted way. The view of humans
as computers, storing symbolic representations of the world, was popular towards the end of the 20th century.
It is important to realise that these views of human nature are not only influenced by scientific findings, but probably more so
by the life experiences of the scientists themselves, the spirit of the time, technological advances, and the philosophical
assumptions of a particular era. So, whenever you come across a particular personality theory, try to find out a bit more about
the person who created the theory, and try to find out something about that particular time in history.
2.2-Internal and external determinants of behaviour
The second issue that all theories have to deal with, is the question of what causes behaviour. Is it something inside the
person, or something external to the person?
Freud and Skinner can be seen as two extremes – with Freud proposing that behaviour is ruled mostly by internal forces,
while Skinner argued that someone’s environment is responsible for their behaviour (punishment and reward). Today, most
theorists acknowledge that you need to include both internal and external variables if you want to explain someone’s
personality. However, the theories still differ in what they find most important. If you look at trait theories, for example, the
basic unit of analysis is traits that are inherited genetically, and that produce consistent patterns of behaviour. They do
acknowledge the environment but place the emphasis on biology. Social Cognitive theorists, on the other hand, focus on
people’s knowledge and thinking processes that they have learnt in a social context, while also acknowledging biology.
2.3-Consistency across situations and over time
The third issue that all personality theorists face is the question of whether personality remains stable across situations and
across time. To be able to decide on that, the personality theorist must first decide what counts as consistency. Consider these
examples.
(you’re not the same person as 10 years ago: some people would say this reflected inconsistency, and a personality change)
, We see the different conceptions of consistency: theorists are able to argue in
their favour. It is not possible to falsify any of these views for the same
concept, you can define it and test it in different ways.
2.4-How do humans maintain a sense of unity?
The fourth issue that personality theories face, is how to explain that humans retain a sense of self as we move across
situations and through time. When you think about it, this is amazing. We experience a lot of things every day, often random
memories pop into our minds, and the brain consists of many areas that function partially independent from one another. But
every morning you wake up feeling that you were the same person as the night before. So, to answer this question, how do
humans maintain a sense of unity, you have two options as personality theorist.
You can either say that the multiple components of the mind function as a complex, interconnected system, and together
they make up your personality.
Or, you could say that we have a ‘self’.
And with both answers there are problems.
Without a ‘self’ in your personality theory, you have to find an alternative way of expressing the unity we experience. And
you have to explain what happens in this interconnected system, how does this system give rise of a subjective sense of self.
Yet with a self in your theory, you have the difficult task of defining it specifically enough for it to be tested. Is the ‘self’ a
little person inside your head? Or where is it?
None of the personality theories we look at answer this satisfactory.
2.5-To what extent do aspects of personality occur outside of awareness?
Many mental activities occur without conscious thought – otherwise we would not be able to do the simplest of tasks. But
this doesn’t mean that everything happens without our awareness. We do engage in self-reflection, which is a very conscious
process. For example, when choosing what you are going to study, and thinking about the kind of job you want to do, it’s not
your personality automatically guiding you, but you do ask yourself things like “what am I good at? What job would suit my
personality?” You do consciously reflect on these things.
The issue for personality psychologists is to decide (in their theory) how much aspects of personality are conscious, and how
much your personality guides you unconsciously. The theories we will look at do vary in this respect quite a bit: Freud would
say that most things we experience are a result of our personality unconsciously guiding us not us intending to reflect on it
consciously that much; whereas socio-cognitive perspective argues that we are constantly learning and it is quite a conscious
process, that we reflect quite a lot; humanistic perspective considers we reflect a lot about our goals; etc.
2.6-To what extend do the past and the future influence our personality and behaviour?
The 6th issue that personality theorists have to think about is the extent to which they believe our personality and behaviour
of the present are influenced by our past and our future. Perhaps mistakes from our past make us more cautious now, or
perhaps we fear things in the future that prevent us from behaving a particular way.
Freud and Bandura take completely opposite views, as you can see. So, Freud’s theory argues that your past influences who
you are today, whereas Bandura’s theory argues that your future (and your self beliefs) influences how you behave, and who
you are, today.
Example: “should I study medicine?”
Freud: too scared to study medicine because of a bad experience in the past. It is not a conscious process, just
something makes a person not wanting to do that. Pat influences present.
