Running head: INTEGRATIVE PERSONALITY THEORY
Enter Title of paper
Enter Student’s name
PSY 330
Enter Instructor’s name
Enter Date submitted
1
INTEGRATIVE PERSONALITY THEORY
2
Title of Paper
Replace the above with the title of your paper. Start the paper with a one-two paragraph
introduction. Provide a general introduction to the topic of theories of personality. Explain what you plan
to cover and describe the direction your paper will take.
Included Concepts
Psychodynamic Model
From the psychodynamic model, I have chosen to include XXX’s concept of XXX. (Examples:
Freud’s concept of the structure of personality, Freud’s concept of defense mechanisms, Jung’s concept of
the collective unconscious, Erikson’s concept of psychosocial development…) Explain the concept
briefly. Explain why you have included it. There is a sample of this in the week three assignment tab in
the left hand navigation bar.
Neurobiological Model
From the Neurobiological model, I have chosen to include XXX’s concept of XXX. (Examples:
Thomas and Chess’ classification of temperament, Eysenck’s three factor model, Pert’s concept of
neuropeptides and opiate receptors…) Explain the concept briefly. Explain why you have included it.
(Note: The above concepts are due in week three. The following concepts are to be competed for the final
submission.)
Trait Model
Ditto
Cognitive Model
Ditto
Behavioral Model
Ditto
Interpersonal Model
Ditto
Self-Psychology Model
INTEGRATIVE PERSONALITY THEORY
3
Ditto
Excluded Concepts
Concept One (replace this heading with the name of the concept you have chosen).
From the (choose one) model, I have chosen to exclude XXX’s concept of XXX. These can be
any concept with which you disagree from any of the models.
(Note: One concept is due in week three. Two more need to be added for the final submission)
Concept Two
Ditto
Concept Three
Ditto
Healthy and Unhealthy Personalities
This is a brief discussion of your theory about what contributes to the development of healthy or
unhealthy personalities.
Heredity, the Environment, and Epigenetics
This is your analysis of the roles these play in the development of personality.
Assessment and Measurement
What are the primary ways of assessing and measuring used in some of the concepts that you
have chosen to include? This section is not due until the final submission.
Self-Reflection
How have your views changed (or not changed) since the beginning of the class? Do not copy
and paste your week one paper here. Just provide a brief summary and analysis.
Provide a brief conclusion to your paper.
INTEGRATIVE PERSONALITY THEORY
4
References
(List all your references in APA format in alphabetical order. Remember that each source on this list
should be cited in the paper and each citation in the paper should be on this list. The following is a
sample of how to format your references. Refer to the Ashford Writing Center for more details.)
Bach, S., Haynes, P., & Lewis Smith, J. (2006). Online learning and teaching in higher
education [ebrary Reader version]. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10197006
Caplow, J. (2006). Where do I put my course materials? Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 7(2), 165-173. Abstract retrieved from ERIC (Accession No. EJ875031)
Picciano, A. G. (2001). Distance learning: Making connections across virtual space and
time.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
SAMPLE
From the psychodynamic model, I have chosen to include Jung’s concept of the collective
unconscious. I am including this because I believe that there are aspects to our personalities that
we cannot explain from our own experiences alone. Jung postulates that the collective
unconscious is comprised of instincts and archetypes that are not ours personally, but that we all
share as a species. Jung studied numerous cultures and spent time living among indigenous
societies in his attempt to understand the human psyche. He was also very interested in
mythology and noted that similar myths and symbols existed across cultures and time. Jung
noted that these similar “psychic processes are peculiar to any human being of any time; that is,
they have an ahistorical and an atemporal structural nature, regardless of culture” ((Iurato, 2015,
p. 64). In other words, virtually all cultures and peoples create some kind of shared religious
practice, which is often an integral part of their identities. Wars and conflicts in the Middle East
illustrate this point.
The collective unconscious cannot be understood without including a discussion of archetypes.
These are universal symbols that help us to envision and make sense of the world around us.
Jung believed that there were several archetypes that we all experience and can access and that
increasing our awareness of them will help us to better understand ourselves and live in the
world. Two important archetypes that are relevant to the study of personality are the
anima/animus and the shadow. The anima/animus represent the unconscious feminine in the
masculine and the unconscious masculine in the feminine. Jung believed that these archetypes
were always at play in our interpersonal relationship with the opposite sex in that we project our
inner feminine or masculine onto our partners and react to that projection rather than to the
person with whom we are involved. The expression and/or suppression of masculine and
feminine inside each of us play a role in the development of our personalities (Laughlin &
Tibera, 2012).
The shadow represents what is commonly referred to as our “dark side.” But it is bigger than
that. It encompasses all the things about us that we do not want to accept. Humans tend to
repress their shadow as unacceptable, but Jung says that the shadow can be a source of vibrant
creativity if acknowledged and managed. Otherwise the shadow will manage us. The shadow
can also explain healthy and unhealthy personalities. Jung says that a repressed shadow will find
ways to escape. If we can acknowledge and embrace our shadow, we can channel its energy into
creative outlets. If we deny or repress our shadow, then that energy will express itself in
unhealthy ways. So from a Jungian perspective, some of the differences between healthy and
unhealthy personalities can be explained by our ability to face, embrace, and express the
archetypes that exist in our collective unconscious.
Iurato, G. (2015). A brief comparison of the unconscious as seen by Jung and Levi-Strauss
[PDF]. Anthropology of Consciousness, 26(1), 60-107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anoc.12032.
Laughlin, C. D., & Tiberia, V. A. (2012). Archetypes: Toward a Jungian anthropology of
consciousness. Anthropology of Consciousness, 23(2), 127-157. doi:10.1111/j.15563537.2012.01063.x
To help you in this exercise, here is a partial list of the main theorists and concepts from the
psychodynamic model. In the Main Concepts section of your paper, you will need to include ONE
concept from this model to include.
Freud:
•
•
•
•
•
The basic Instincts—sex and aggression
Psychosexual development
Id-Ego-Superego
Conscious –preconscious –unconscious
Defense Mechanisms
Jung:
•
•
•
•
Individuation
Collective Unconscious--Archetypes
Synchronicity
Introversion and extroversion
Adler:
•
•
•
Birth order
Feelings of Inferiority
Goal directed behavior
Winnicott:
•
•
Object relations
Good enough mother
Erikson:
•
•
Psychosocial development—the Epigenetic Principle
Identity Development
Kohut:
•
Narcissism
Malan:
•
Triangle of conflict
1
The Science of Personality
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should
be able to:
• Describe the beginning of personality
psychology.
• Define personality and distinguish among
the related terms of character, trait, factor,
temperament, and mood states.
• Understand the importance of theory
construction as it is related to personality
psychology.
• Explain the importance of using scientific
methodology in the study of personality.
• Identify and describe ways to assess and
measure data and research.
• Identify and describe the tools and methods
used to collect data and conduct research.
Mike Powell/Digital Vision/Thinkstock
• Be familiar with some of the ethical issues
related to psychological testing.
Chapter Outline
Introduction
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of
the Major Theories
• Theoretical Perspectives on Personality
• The Early Beginnings of Personality Theory
• Applying Science to Personality
1.2 Defining Personality
• The Stability and Change of Personality
• Personality, Temperament, Character, Traits
and Factors, and Mood States
• Culture
• Nature and Nurture
• How Related Disciplines Have Contributed to
Personality
• Defining Normal
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex
Phenomena
• Building and Characterizing a Theory
• Testing the Theoretical Components
• Convergence of Theories: Eclecticism,
Integration, and Unification
1.4 The Scientific Method
• Research Methods
• Peer Review
1.5 Measuring and Assessing
•
•
•
•
•
Standard Error of Measure
Reliability
Validity
Ethics and Cultural Bias in Psychometrics
Tools of Assessment
Summary
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 1
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of the Major Theories
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
A judge is trying to determine whether a defendant is criminally insane. You read
about a celebrity who can’t seem to stop using drugs and getting into legal trouble
and wonder what it is about their character that leads to the repeating of such
mistakes. You wonder what makes people go out of their way to be kind or rude.
Major corporations try to identify the best leaders to hire or employees that will
stay with the company for a long time. Each of these questions (and many more)
fall within the domain of personality psychology. However, there is a lot more to
addressing these issues than simply formulating an opinion as to the answers.
Theories can be developed and scientific studies designed to test the theories and
maximize the prediction of outcomes. That is in essence the science of personality. In this chapter, the focus will be on how the scientific method is applied to the
study of personality and how it has resulted in the development of a wide range
of theoretical models.
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of the Major Theories
I
n your everyday life, opportunities arise for you to consider the uniqueness of others. Sometimes you have an encounter that leaves you wondering why an individual would choose to act
kind or meanspirited. At times, we are even unsure as to the reasoning behind our own behavior. Although it is certainly rational to consider the role of situations in explaining behavior, it is
also reasonable to consider the role of the individual’s character to explain and predict important
outcomes. Indeed, of particular interest is the interaction between the situational influences and
individual differences (also known as personality). This text is dedicated to examining personality
and the important theoretical, research, and applied questions that emerge from its study.
Of course, a broad range of societal issues tend to grab
our attention, especially high-profile criminal behavior, but regardless of the topic, it is typical for societal
questions or problems to motivate the application of
personality theory to real-world issues. Christopher
Dorner, for example, was a former LA police officer
who had also served in the Navy. He allegedly gunned
down three fellow officers, apparently motivated by
revenge for grievances related to his dismissal from
the police force. After several killings and a Facebook
manifesto riddled with threats, a massive manhunt
ensued. Dorner was subsequently found, surrounded,
and killed. Fortunately, such violent responses from
disgruntled employees are relatively rare, even among
the ranks of former police officers and those with military backgrounds. Thus, it is reasonable to ask what
caused Dorner to act as he did—and can we predict
and alter such behavior?
Getty Image News/Getty Images
Christopher Dorner, former LA police
officer who gunned down fellow officers
and was subsequently killed.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 2
This text will provide an overview of some of the major
theories of personality, along with research that in
some instances supports, and in other instances fails
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of the Major Theories
CHAPTER 1
to support, aspects of those theories. Here is an overview of some of the dominant theoretical
accounts of personality and how they might be applied to Dorner.
Theoretical Perspectives on Personality
There are seven primary schools of thought with regard to personality:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
psychodynamic
neurobiological
behavioral
cognitive/social
interpersonal/relational
trait
self-psychology (humanism/existentialism)
Each of these perspectives is covered in detail in the chapters of this text. Here, we present a brief
introduction to each view and how they might apply to the case of Christopher Dorner. For a list of
general treatment considerations for the different perspectives, see Table 1.1.
Psychodynamic Perspective
Psychodynamic theory, which was largely formulated by Sigmund Freud, suggests that we are
driven to act by instincts that are sexual and aggressive in nature. This perspective suggests that
we are constantly in conflict
with ourselves and society. The
theory posits that the rationale
for all adult action can be traced
Beyond the Text: Classic Writings
back to how we related to our
Freud had a great deal to say about psychopathology,
parents. Most importantly, the
even suggesting that seemingly benign behaviors could be
theory argues that the presence
interpreted as problematic. Read The Psychopathology of
and exact nature of our motives
Everyday Life (1901) at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Freud
(i.e., why we act in certain ways)
/Psycho/.
is unknown to us.
Reference: Freud, S. (1901). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
Was Dorner preoccupied with
acceptance by his parents? Did
he have a conflict-ridden relationship with his father, resulting
in the “transference” of blame toward other authority figures? This perspective would also assume
that Dorner would have little knowledge or insight as to the true motives behind his actions.
Neurobiological Perspective
One of the primary contributors to this perspective on personality was Hans Eysenck. He viewed
humans as biosocial animals, and he sought to link the social and biological sciences within his
theoretical framework. Eysenck suggested that the cause of behavior could be traced to brain
functions; he focused specifically on differences in brain activation. For example, he believed that
the ascending reticular activating system was the brain structure responsible for the manifestation of extraverted or introverted behavior. Significant advances in this perspective have been
achieved with the advent of high resolution imaging techniques.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 3
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of the Major Theories
CHAPTER 1
Did Dorner have some basic brain structural or neurochemical problem that would have resulted
in the incidence of impulsive and aggressive behavior? Was Dorner biologically predisposed to
violence based on the presence of aggressive behavior in his ancestors?
Behavioral Perspective
Rooted heavily in empiricism, the behavioral perspective has been influenced by the works of John
Watson, Burrhus Skinner, John Dollard, and Neal Miller, to name a few. This perspective emphasizes the role of learning in personality; that is, it focuses on how we connect certain stimuli with
specific behavioral responses. The concept of conditioning is especially central to this perspective, and much of the research is
based on animal models (i.e., it
was assumed that basic learning
Beyond the Text: Classic Writings
principles can be applied to all
Watson wrote a classic paper that applies behaviorism
species of life).
Was Dorner reinforced for violent behavior in his upbringing
or, more recently, was he given
attention for his extreme actions?
Did he come to equate, through
conditioning, the fear he instilled
with the respect he demanded
from his colleagues?
to mental disease. Not surprisingly, he focuses largely on
behavioral manifestations, but this is an important starting
point. Read Behavior and the Concept of Mental Disease at
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/mental.htm.
Reference: Watson, J. B. (1916). Behavior and the concept
of mental disease. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and
Scientific Methods, 13(22), 589–597.
Cognitive/Social Learning Perspective
This perspective was informed by such individuals as Albert Bandura, Julian Rotter, and George Kelly.
The cognitive perspective emphasizes how individuals uniquely perceive, interpret and recall events
in their lives, and how this can shape their character. That is, this perspective highlights the importance of how reality is constructed by an individual, rather than being determined by an objective
reality. The cognitive perspective has also been closely linked
to social learning theory, which
Beyond the Text: Classic Writings
focuses on learning through modBandura and colleagues have specifically studied how
eling (i.e., observing the behavior
aggressive behavior in children is repeated after it is modof others).
eled for someone. Modern research has largely confirmed
these findings, even for adults, and here you can read one
of the first classic publications in this area. Read one of
his papers on modeling at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca
/Bandura/bobo.htm.
Reference: Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3),
575–582.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 4
Had Dorner been exposed to
examples of violent behavior in
his own home or in popular
media, and so he simply mimicked what he saw? What was his
unique way of interpreting the
events that led up to the killings
and his own death?
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of the Major Theories
CHAPTER 1
Interpersonal/Relational Perspective
The interpersonal perspective emphasizes how interactions with others, especially dyadic interactions, drive personality. This is a departure from theories that largely focus on the individual
because the focus is on the interaction with others. This approach includes the works of Harry
Sullivan, Henry Murray, and Murray Bowen. Relationships, including relationships that may be
more artificial in nature (such as the one that a patient might have with a therapist), are the primary focus, and these theorists think that they undergird personality development.
Were Dorner’s relationships with his former colleagues marked by deviant exchanges, during
which he experienced confusing and contradictory emotions? Did he have problematic interactions with authority figures in his life?
Table 1.1: Treatment considerations for theoretical perspectives
Theoretical perspective
Approaches for treatment
Psychodynamic theory
Can conflict in parent-child relationships be used to predict who has the
greatest propensity for violent behavior as an adult? Can we intervene
with therapy in the family of origin to minimize aggressive behavior later
in life? Can making an individual aware of unconscious conflict allow
that individual to redirect aggression toward safer, more appropriate
expressions?
Neurobiological
Can the presence of neurochemical or neurostructural abnormalities be
accurately detected? Can those with such problems be identified and
treated to minimize aggressive behavior later in life?
Behavioral
Can token economies be employed to help individuals’ value prosocial,
rather than antisocial, behavior? Can individuals who are engaging
in aversive behavior be reconditioned to demonstrate more socially
acceptable behavior?
Cognitive/social learning
Can long-term exposure to violence in television, movies, video games,
and other forms of media entertainment predict the incidence of
violence, and can we curb such violence by minimizing exposure? Is it
possible to intervene by helping individuals interpret events differently
(i.e., in a more favorable light)?
Interpersonal/relational
Can we examine an individual’s interpersonal style with others to identify
signs of problematic behavior? Is an individual routinely involved in
attempts to control and blame others? Could complementary relationships
be used to alter the structure of more problematic relationships?
Trait
Can the personality traits that predict the incidence of various forms of
mental illness or violent and aggressive behavior be detected? Can we
find more adaptive outlets for these traits?
Self-psychology
(human/existential)
If an individual is provided with support and acceptance, is violence, or
even the thought of violence, mitigated? Are feelings of isolation the root
of anxiety and other disorders, and do feelings of isolation exacerbate
extremist thinking?
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 5
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of the Major Theories
CHAPTER 1
Trait Perspective
The trait perspective has had many significant contributors, including Gordon Allport and Raymond Cattell in the early years and researchers such as Paul Costa and Robert McCrae more
recently. This perspective assumes that there is a broad framework for organizing traits, which are
essentially descriptive terms or labels used to characterize a person’s personality. Trait theorists
focus largely on measuring traits, understanding the associations between them, and investigating
their underlying causes (most typically linked to biological mechanisms). In order to help organize
the great many traits that have been employed to describe human behavior, researchers in this
area have used advanced statistical techniques, such as factor analysis. In many ways, traits also
represent the vernacular most used by lay individuals when describing personality.
What traits would have made Dorner most susceptible to turning to violence? Did he have a longstanding tendency for violence or aggression that could have been predicted from other traits,
such as dominance or poor frustration tolerance?
Self-Psychology (Humanistic/Existential) Perspective
This perspective reflects an attempt to conceptualize human behavior in a more favorable light,
emphasizing our tendencies for growth, achieving our highest potential (ideal self), and understanding our existence (why we are here). Key early contributors included Carl Rogers, Abraham
Maslow, and Rollo May. More recently, the positive psychology movement, which is dedicated to
building thriving individuals and communities, has represented a resurgence of this perspective.
Was Dorner feeling powerless until he began to take matters into his own hands by killing others
and drawing attention to his cause? Had Dorner lost the ability to value life? Had he been placed
in a situation where those around him only valued him if he engaged in specific behaviors?
These general theoretical applications establish a framework upon which more specific questions can emerge. There are also important questions that can be applied to all perspectives.
For example, to what extent was Dorner fully aware of his actions and their consequences? Was
there anything that could have been done to intervene and alter Dorner’s behavior? Was there a
point in the sequence of events leading up to the first shooting after which no intervention was
possible? Contemporary personality theorists and researchers provide us with a scientific basis to
understand the most essential questions in life. The goal of this text is to not only demonstrate the
importance of these questions, but more importantly, to establish a structure for how to optimally
frame the questions and how to devise the best way to scientifically answer them.
The Early Beginnings of Personality Theory
The earliest pioneers of scientific work that has been associated with the field of psychology
include Wilhelm Wundt, who used quantitative methods in studying perceptions, sensations,
cognitions, and feelings. He considered these the “atoms” of conscious experience and thought
that by understanding them he would understand the structure of the mind—hence the label
structuralism for his school of thought. William James considered psychology to be a natural science and was largely responsible for introducing experimental psychology to the United States.
However, the field of personality psychology began to coalesce in the 1930s, with the publication
in 1937 of Gordon Allport’s Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. During this same decade,
the journal Character and Personality was established, which was one of the first psychology journals to use the term personality in its name, and the comprehensive works of Kurt Lewin and
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 6
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.1 Why Study Personality? An Overview of the Major Theories
CHAPTER 1
Henry Murray, two of the founding fathers of contemporary personality research, were published.
Although individuals, such as Sigmund Freud and William James, whose life work would later be
included in the personality domain, predated this time period, it was in the 1930s that the specialization of personality psychology emerged, growing out of the primary area of clinical psychology
(see also Barenbaum & Winter, 2013).
The earliest roots of personality theory emerged from clinical experience. Indeed, much of what
we have come to understand about personality comes from clinical observation and psychometric
testing of individuals with disordered personalities (abnormal psychology or psychopathology).
Clinical observations, in the form of thousands of published case summaries, make up the foundation of some of the more well-known theories of personality, and these theories have contributed
to the current system of classification of mental disorders. The understanding and advancement
of personality theory is inextricably linked to developments in the field of psychotherapy, and a
wide range of models have been proposed to explain the association between these two fields
(see Mayer, 2004). Psychotherapy became a branch of psychology during the 20th century, and
the birth of modern psychotherapy can be traced to Freud’s developing a comprehensive theory
of psychic functioning. Moreover, many important personality theorists were psychiatrists (Freud,
Jung, Sullivan) or clinical psychologists (Carl Rogers, George Kelly). This resulted in a marriage
between psychotherapy, one branch of clinical science, and the study of what makes us unique.
The clinical perspective continues to be an important lens through which to view personality,
largely because clinical work is concerned with behavior or personality change. Psychotherapy
has traditionally provided one means of observing, measuring, diagnosing, and treating personality and related disturbances. However, personality is also relevant to nonclinical functioning,
and has more recently been associated with the positive psychology movement, reflecting the
optimal experience of life (e.g., Sheldeon, Kashdan, & Steger, 2011). In this respect, modern personality psychology is much broader than its predecessor, as it has been applied to all aspects of
human experience.
Applying Science to Personality
Although humans have been conducting experiments in various less formal ways since appearing
on the earth, it isn’t until recent history that science has become more widely accepted (Lathrop,
1969). Science presents ways of experimenting that are potentially far less costly and more efficient than our primitive “trial and error” methods.
Gordon Allport was one of the first to focus on the study of the personality, though his biggest contribution was not so much what would be the target of study in personality psychology, but, more importantly, how it would be studied. Allport advocated a clear shift toward
studying the individual person within a social science framework (see Allport, 1937).
The term personology, which was coined by Murray (1938), refers to the development of theoretical systems for explaining and understanding human behavior. As examples, consider the theoretical perspectives briefly introduced in this chapter that were used to explain the behavior of
Christopher Dorner. These diverse theories offer markedly different explanatory frameworks for
the same observations, and they emphasize different factors. Psychologists or social scientists
who engaged in personology were identified as personologists. Murray specified that the methods
of personologists are those of science, in that they make systematic observations and use scientific methods to test hypotheses. Although the term personology is used less frequently today,
an emphasis on scientific methods remains central to the field (see Section 1.4, “The Scientific
Method,” for more details).
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 7
5/20/15 9:18 AM
CHAPTER 1
1.2 Defining Personality
Theoretical systems are generally based on scientifically established constructs. A construct is a
tool—usually a concept, model, or idea—that is useful for organizing observations and making
them meaningful. For example, conditioning is a construct (a model) that is used to understand
various forms of learning. An important construct for understanding both normal and abnormal
human behavior, the central subject of this volume, is the concept we know as personality (and,
in pathological versions, personality disorders or dysfunctions).
Personality theorists study personality using tools of psychological science to assist in the development of theoretical paradigms, or models, that attempt to explain human behavior. Researchers have developed a variety of theoretical models, reflecting their different perspectives, to
explain how personality operates. These theories will be discussed in the chapters of this text,
along with the scientific research used to establish, evaluate, and expand those theories. This
first chapter will also introduce you to some of the primary scientific methods employed by
researchers in this field.
T
1.2 Defining Personality
he term personality is a well-established part of everyday speech. Countless popular magazines feature articles about personality, promising to help us learn how to deal with difficult
people, how to live with those who have personality disorders, how to become leaders and
heroes and wonderfully thin and attractive people. We use the term personality in day-to-day
language, and we invoke a wide range of adjectives to characterize others and ourselves. In this
sense, personality has become an implicit construct for the general public; it is not fully or specifically defined in that context, but it is commonly understood and accepted, nonetheless. However,
when we use the term within the scientific field, personality should be seen as a theoretical construct, invoked to help us understand individual differences.
From a more formal standpoint, theorists and researchers have defined personality as a pattern
of behavior, affect (emotional experience), or cognition (thoughts) that is typical of the individual,
evidencing some degree of stability over time and across situations. The references to behavior,
affect, and cognition in the definition also speak to the breadth of personality psychology as it
attempts to encompass diverse contributions from subdisciplines within psychology as well as
influences from other fields.
The Stability and Change of Personality
Our intuitive notions suggest that personality is stable, and this would be in keeping with most
theoretical models of personality and its operational definition. Moreover, several researchers
have devoted a significant part of their careers to establishing that personality is stable (e.g.,
Block, 1971; Kogan & Block, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1994; see also Bleidorn, Kandler, Riemann,
Angleitner, & Spinath, 2012), and this is now widely accepted as a central component of most
personality theories.
Of course, personality can change, even dramatically, though typically there are some unusual
events that lead to such change. For example, in one of the most famous cases in neuroscience,
Phineas Gage, while working on a railroad, had a steel tamping rod shoot right through the frontal
lobe of his brain. As a result, he apparently experienced a dramatic change in personality. Whereas
he had previously been a quiet, hard-working, dependable employee, he became childish, obstinate, self-indulgent, and given to excessive profanity. In some cases, brain-injured individuals
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 8
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.2 Defining Personality
who had been severely aggressive became more docile; others,
like Phineas Gage, who were initially gentle and pacific, became
extremely violent after suffering
brain trauma. Case studies have
also shown that the long-term
influence of alcohol or drugs
can change personality, and
progressing dementia, such as
Alzheimer’s, can result in personality changes, such as individuals
becoming more paranoid and
even aggressive.
CHAPTER 1
Beyond the Text: Research Spotlight
How do researchers determine if your personality is generally stable or variable across the lifespan? In a recent study
conducted by Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa (2010), a new
approach to answering this question was employed. Their
findings suggest that the stability of personality appears to
increase with age, though this association stops at approximately age 30. After reading about this study, discuss the
relative advantages and disadvantages to the approach
used to answer this question. Read the article at http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839250/.
Personality, Temperament, Character, Traits and Factors, and Mood States
Central to the notion of personality are the related, but theoretically distinct, constructs of temperament, character, traits and factors, and mood states.
Temperament
Temperament generally refers to an individual’s basic biological predispositions, which are thought
to be present at birth. For example, most parents can discern clear temperamental differences in
their children, despite their genetic relatedness. Some infants appear to be “difficult,” whereas
others are seen as being “easy.” Some are outgoing and tend to explore the world easily, whereas
others are more shy and introverted. Dimensions of temperament are thought to reflect a strong
genetic basis, largely because the infant has had relatively little time for the environment to be a
major influence.
Given that temperament is defined as one’s natural tendency to behave outside of extended environmental influence, there has been some debate as to whether temperament is actually synonymous with personality—whether the two are in fact one and the same. Recently, the argument has
been made that the two concepts are more alike than they are different (e.g., Caspi, Roberts, &
Shiner, 2005; McCrae et al., 2000). Specifically, Caspi and colleagues cite a confluence of research
suggesting that personality and temperament both (1) show moderate genetic influence, (2) are
influenced by environmental factors, (3) focus on differences in the experience of positive and negative emotions for the most central traits, and (4) characterize traits that overlap with nonhuman
species. In fact, the more interesting question no longer appears to be whether personality changes
during the lifespan (the general consensus is that it changes very little), but, instead, the focus is on
determining the points in one’s life where change is most likely to occur (Caspi et al., 2005).
Character
Character is a commonly used term that generally refers to basic, enduring traits related to moral
or ethical qualities. Character might be described in terms of characteristics such as integrity,
honesty, morality, and stability. Character assessment judges how a person acts in various contexts. For example, what type of character would explain an apparently remorseless individual?
Explanations based on character are most often seen in the psychodynamic literature to describe
the inner workings of such people. The term character was used early in the literature, whereas
personality is now much more common.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 9
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.2 Defining Personality
CHAPTER 1
Traits and Factors
Traits are specific, stable features of personality such as persistence, integrity, and honesty. Using
factor analysis, trait psychologists have done extensive studies to group related specific traits into
broader factors that can account for variations in personality. For example, the traits kind, affectionate, and sympathetic have been grouped into the main factor agreeableness in the “big five”
factors of personality (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). Thus, the primary distinction between traits
and factors is the level of study, with traits at the lower level, reflecting more specific constructs.
In contrast, factors reflect broad aggregates of related traits, and they provide an organizational
framework for traits.
Mood States
Mood states refer to conditions that fluctuate over time and across situations. Recall that a trait is
a stable and predictable personality characteristic that is consistent in various situations and over
time. These distinctions are important for understanding personality. For example, George, who
is depressed today, may withdraw and appear preoccupied and difficult to engage interpersonally. If we assess his personality at this time, his depressed state (or mood) might lead us to the
inaccurate conclusion that he is introverted (trait). Later, when he is no longer depressed, George
might become more outgoing and socially responsive. Thus, a personality trait may be profoundly
influenced by an affective state, or mood state.
Although we can make a conceptual distinction between a state and a trait, there is some ambiguity
when considering the extent to which behavioral, affective, and cognitive patterns must be present before they are labeled as personality, as opposed to the more transient mood state (Lecci &
Wirth, 2006). In fact, no clear definition of stability has been articulated, but clearly the longer a
behavior, affect, or cognition lasts, the more likely it would be characterized as personality. One
can also examine measures of personality relative to measures of mood to find some of the practical differences. For example, when assessing personality, researchers will often ask how people
think, feel, and act “in general.” Whereas when focusing on mood-type constructs, the assessment tools might ask how people are thinking, feeling, and acting at that particular moment.
Culture
While temperament, character, traits and factors, and mood states are all important constructs,
culture is another component that must be considered in the study of personality. Most of the
theories we will cover in this text emphasize to varying degrees the importance of early experiences in the development of personality, and many scholars believe that parenting styles are
determined to a high degree by the dominant culture of the parents (Chang, 2007; Keshavarz &
Baharudin, 2013).
Part of the socialization (parenting) process is passing on cultural values (Corsaro & Elder, 1995).
Emile Durkheim’s (1912) seminal work “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” sheds some light
on this process. Durkheim’s basic argument is that shared enacted social practice is the foundation of both cognition and morality, and that religious practice is the best illustration of this
dynamic. While the predominant thinking of his day was pragmatism, for Durkheim, the dynamic
relation was inherently socially based, and the critical action was social action (mostly in the form
of enacted social practice), not individualized problem solving. Social practice (which included religious practice) was a way for people to meet their personal as well as their social needs, and had
a fundamental impact on the individual life experiences of the members of the social group. He
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 10
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.2 Defining Personality
CHAPTER 1
believed that socially enacted practices create the individual experiences. Thus, the personalities
of a child raised in a devout Amish community, one raised in a Jewish home, one raised in a commune, and one raised by atheists in a high-rise in Manhattan are bound to have differences based
on their cultural environment. And those are just examples from American culture.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1972) research demonstrated how the then powerful communist culture
impacted the socialization of Russian children. It is interesting to note that after a few generations,
the family, the state, the school, and the peer group all participated in socializing the conformity
necessary to maintain the communist system.
Even perceptions of temperament are affected by culture. What is considered an easy or a difficult temperament in children depends on cultural values. Dworetszky and Davis (1989) cite a
study of easy and difficult children done in 1984 among the Masai, a nomadic tribe of African
warriors. They found that, because of the harsh environmental conditions, those children that
Westerners would consider difficult were actually more highly valued by their parents and had
much lower rates of childhood mortality. In this case, the “difficult” behaviors actually increased
the child’s chances of surviving to adulthood, while the easy (more passive—less demanding) children received less attention and died with much greater frequency. More recently, Haase, Jome,
Ferreira, Santos, Connacher, and Sendrowitz (2014) found that culture influences individuals’
capacity for tolerating information overload. Even idioms and proverbs in different cultures may
reflect variations in what characteristics of the individual are most valued. We are familiar with the
saying “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” which suggests that an extroverted individual who is
self-focused in their approach may be more adaptable. However, the Japanese proverb “the nail
that stands out gets hammered down” might suggest that a more introverted and group-focused
mentality is preferable.
But culture is a difficult construct to include in a concise theory because culture does not describe
one way of being; it describes thousands of diverse and nuanced ways of being that can change
or be changed. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored when looking at the development of personality (see Chapters 6–9 for specific examples of cultural considerations as they apply to different
theoretical perspectives).
A second way that culture impacts our study of theories of personality is to look at who is doing
the theorizing. For the most part, the predominant theories in personality development come
from Western thinkers. The inclusion of other cultures is a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact,
a meta-analysis done by Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010) noted that “behavioral scientists
routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world’s top journals
based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic
(WEIRD) societies. Researchers—often implicitly—assume that there is little variation across
human populations or that the ‘standard’ subjects are as representative of the species as any
other population” (p. 1). This does not negate the value of psychological studies and their resulting theories. It is, however, important to understand the lens through which those theories were
conceived.
Nature and Nurture
One of the oldest debates about human nature concerns how much of our personality can be
traced to biology and genetics (nature) and how much depends on our upbringing, environment,
and culture (nurture). Research suggests that part of this answer depends on which aspect of
personality is being studied. For example, when considering the trait of neuroticism, it appears
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 11
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.2 Defining Personality
CHAPTER 1
that there is a relatively strong genetic component, with genetics accounting for upwards of 60%
of the variability in neurotic behavior (e.g., Saudino & Plomin, 1996; see also Plomin, Haworth,
Meaburn, Price, & Davis, 2013). In contrast, traits like creativity (also referred to as openness to
new experience) appear to be influenced to a greater degree by one’s environment.
However, the trend has been to move away from the traditional contrast of nature versus nurture. In fact, the nature-nurture debate has more recently been referred to as a false duality
(Traynor & Singleton, 2010), such that, with few exceptions, we have come to understand that
both the environment of the individual and the individual him- or herself are significant contributors to the resulting action. Indeed, taking the above examples of neuroticism and creativity, it
is still the case that the environment plays a substantial role in neuroticism, and genetics are still
influential with creativity.
Within the field of personality psychology, the nature-nurture distinction was captured by the
“person-situation” debate, which examined how stable a person’s personality is across varied contexts. Researchers initially vied for who could explain more variability in human behavior (e.g.,
Bem & Allen, 1974; Epstein & O’Brien, 1985; Mischel, 1968). However, more nuanced questions
subsequently emerged, focusing instead on the circumstances under which either nature or nurture may have a greater influence on behavior. The latter includes defining complex interactions,
such as how some traits are especially salient for certain individuals and therefore demonstrate
greater cross-situational consistency compared to those same traits in others for whom the traits
are less salient (e.g., Cheek, 1982; Zuckerman, Koestner, Deboy, Garcia, Maresca, & Sartoris, 1988).
Currently, the person-situation debate adopts an integrative perspective with a focus on the
interaction between the two (e.g., Donnellan, Lucas, & Fleeson, 2009; Webster, 2009).
Epigenetics
While the nature verse nurture question has been a staple of psychological debate and research
for years, the emerging field of epigenetics is rendering that dichotomy obsolete. Sigmund Freud
believed that “anatomy is destiny,” that our gender and our genes determine who we become.
On the other extreme, the early behaviorists believed that the environment was king, that we are
little more than the response to whatever stimuli we encounter. If you want a different response,
just change the stimulus. However, we now know that the two are not distinct and mutually exclusive forces leaving their mark on our development, but that environment actually triggers or lays
dormant the expression of our genes.
Epigenetics is a revolutionary and burgeoning field of scientific study. Scientists have discovered
that our environment creates chemicals that work on the genetic code of our DNA, and it is the
process of our DNA sending a message to our RNA (known as transcription) that becomes the
template for protein synthesis. This is where the action and the outcomes occur. In Epigenetics:
How Environment Shapes our Genes, Frances describes the process like this. Rather than the gene
being the controlling executive in this process, think of it more like the gene is a “member of an
ensemble cast of biochemicals, the interaction of which constitutes a cell. The executive function
resides at the cell level; it cannot be localized in its parts. Genes function as material resources for
the cell. In this view, each stage of protein synthesis is guided at the cellular level. But most fundamentally, the ‘decisions’ as to which genes will engage in protein synthesis at any point in time
is a function of the cell, not the genes themselves” (Francis, R.C., 2011, p. 19). And these cellular
decisions are affected by our environment and, in some cases, the environments of our ancestors
(Simmons, 2008).
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 12
5/20/15 9:18 AM
CHAPTER 1
1.2 Defining Personality
So it is really the interplay between our nature (our genes) and our nurture (our environment),
rather than each one’s impact on us, that is important. Twin studies have long been used to study
heritability. Monozygotic twins (identical twins) share exactly the same DNA, yet they don’t always
develop exactly the same way. Epigenetics provides the explanation as to why one twin might
develop schizophrenia while the other does not, even though they both would have inherited the
predisposition and most likely share similar environments, at least in infancy (Carey, N., 2012). We
will explore more about emerging neurosciences like epigenetics in Chapter 4.
How Related Disciplines Have Contributed to Personality
Personality is not only the province of the behavioral sciences and personality theorists. Other
disciplines are also concerned with personality and character and seek to understand the basic
forces that operate within all human beings. Here we briefly touch upon a few of the fundamental
disciplines underpinning the foundation of personality psychology.
Philosophy
Psychology emerged from its sister discipline, philosophy, which is concerned with understanding human nature. Strong philosophical underpinnings are apparent in various systems of psychological thought. In fact, the word psychology was derived from psyche, a term used by the
Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, each of whom speculated on the nature of humankind.
The term psyche remains a frequently used concept today in both psychology and philosophy, and
it is generally meant to capture the essence of the human mind: “To Aristotle, psyche basically
meant living” (Watson, 1963/1971, p. 54). The influence of philosophy was prominent early on,
with Aristotle’s theoretical account of the three psyches (also known as souls: rational, animal,
and vegetal) reflecting the essence of psychology until the 19th century (Rohde, 1925). However,
psychology and the specialty of personality began experiencing a shift in the primary methods to
investigate the psyche, with a clear preference for the scientific methods used in the natural sciences. Thus, philosophical reasoning eventually gave way to observation (both introspection and
case studies) and rigorous experimentation as the primary means of collecting data and revising
theories. In this respect, personality theories have their roots in two disciplines: philosophy and
natural science (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1: Personality theory and its relation to other disciplines
Philosophy
Personality
Theory
Personality theory emerged largely and borrows
heavily from philosophy and the natural sciences.
Natural Science
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 13
5/20/15 9:18 AM
1.2 Defining Personality
CHAPTER 1
Literature
Literature reveals much about human nature. Writers offer a view of human beings that often
shows profound insight into the struggles of existence and how people from various ethnic and
cultural backgrounds and historical periods navigate through these conflicts. Much of our fascination with literature is based on our desire to understand ourselves. In the lives of
fictional characters, we see the influence that environmental, family, and genetic factors can
exert on people.
Elements of classical literature can be
seen in many theories of personality. In
the development of psychoanalytic theory, Freud drew from Greek mythology
and from Shakespeare. For example, the
notion of the Oedipus complex is borrowed from multiple sources, including
Hamlet, and Sophocles’ play, Oedipus
Tyrannus, and our current term narcissism comes from the Greek myth of Narcissus. Some of the earliest work of trait
psychologists also focused on the analysis of language (i.e., adjectives used to
describe human behavior) as the starting point for identifying the most fundamental factors that underlie all traits
(Goldberg, 1981; see also Ashton, Lee, &
Goldberg, 2004).
Peter Barritt/SuperStock
Our modern-day term narcissism is based on the ancient
Greek myth of Narcissus, who could not leave his reflection
and wasted away, gazing at it, so much that he eventually
fell into a river and drowned.
Theology
Religion offers another valuable perspective on the nature of humankind. Theology attempts to
understand our relationship to a greater power. Various religions make assumptions about the
nature of good and evil and about which traits we should strive to emulate that will bring us closer
to a divine being. Theological systems offer alternative understandings about human nature and
the possibility of transformation.
For example, a key figure in personality psychology, Carl Rogers,
Beyond the Text: Classic Writings
forwarded a theoretical perspecWe discuss in this text how other disciplines contribute to
tive that was clearly influenced
psychology, but other authors have debated which disciby his exposure to Christianity
pline psychology most closely matches and tried to deterand two years in seminary. Rogers
mine the one with which it should be affiliated. See, for
developed the person-centered
example, a summary of James Hume’s (1909) view by visitapproach to understanding peoing http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Hume/affiliation.htm.
ple and was also one of the founders of what has become known as
Reference: Hume, J. G. (1909). The proper affiliation of psythe humanistic perspective (see
chology: With philosophy or the natural sciences. PsychoChapter 9). At the heart of his
logical Bulletin, 6, 65–67.
theory was the belief that we are
good, even ideal, individuals, who
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 14
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.2 Defining Personality
CHAPTER 1
only evidence problematic behavior when placed in forced circumstances (known as conditions of
worth). His theory assumed that the ideal self would emerge when given unconditional positive
regard, and this represented a central aspect of his clinical interventions. Similarly, the concept of
the unconscious resembles ideas reflected in Buddhism and Taoism (see Harvey, 1995). For example,
the concept of Tao, or “no mind,” emphasizes that which cannot be known in oneself. More recently,
clinicians have borrowed the Buddhist concept of mindfulness (i.e., being completely aware of the
present moment, with a nonjudgmental framework) for therapeutic gain. From these examples, it is
evident that psychology has roots in ideas from religions around the world.
Defining Normal
Throughout this text, we will be looking at normal and abnormal behavior, so it is important to
take a step back and ask the question: Who gets to decide what is normal and what is not? And
who decides who gets to decide?
This is an important question and one that social scientists need to keep in mind. What is considered to be normal human behavior has been defined differently by different cultures in different
times. There is no constant “normal.” Normal is an interpretation. In ancient Aztec culture, it was
normal to cut out and eat people’s hearts (Harner, 1977); such behavior now would be considered
deviant and criminal. Homosexuality was common and considered normal through much of the
history of the world. It is well known that homosexuality was practiced and accepted in ancient
Rome, and there is ample evidence that the same was true in places as diverse as Africa, Peru,
and China. Homosexuality was a normal part of many societies (Aldrich, 2004; Nussbaum, 2002;
Tomso, 2002). Yet, the first version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1952 classified homosexuality
as deviant and abnormal. Why? Probably because the membership of the APA was overwhelmingly White, middle-aged males from a culture where homosexuality was considered wrong or
even criminal—a product of the time and the culture.
We have witnessed the change in thinking on this issue with the evolution of social norms. In
1973, homosexuality was taken out of the DSM and no longer considered “abnormal” behavior. However, in 1980, due to pressure from conservative psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, a new
diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was added back into the DSM as a disorder. The diagnosis
criteria included symptoms of “unwanted” homosexual urges and lack of heterosexual desire. This
move was widely criticized as political, and in 1986, any reference to homosexuality was removed
for good. The evolution of the APA’s perspective on homosexuality is a strong illustration of the
point that normal is relative.
As we have just read, philosophy, literature, and religion have all contributed to the evolution of
psychology. The work of two French philosophers, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu, is germane to this discussion. Both men focused on the idea of who gets to define “normal,” and both
concluded that it had a lot to do with social power. Foucault wrote about prisons and mental
institutions (who ends up there and why), and Bourdieu wrote about language (who gets to define
legitimate language), but their ideas were similar. Those societies with power and those in the
society who have power define what is normal and what is not.
Foucault became interested in power while writing his histories of phenomena such as madness,
imprisonment and punishment, and sexuality. He was actually one of the first to view these as
historical objects of study, and he found that when he listened to the perspective of the mad,
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 15
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
CHAPTER 1
the imprisoned, the punished, or the sexually deviant, he heard a very different history than that
which might be presented by the doctor or lawyer. Foucault postulated an analogous relationship
between knowledge and power and began to question the epistemological bases of the “production of truth.” He believed that just as a minority can physically force its will on the majority, so too
can a minority mentally force its conception of truth on the majority (McHoul, 1993).
He was especially interested in looking at normal and abnormal as created categories. He studied madness, illness, criminality, sexual perversions, and other behaviors that were considered
abnormal in his time and showed through his historical studies that these same behaviors had
not always been so defined. “Behavior that got people locked up or put in hospitals at one time
was glorified in another” (Fillingham, 1993, p. 16). Foucault believes that the abnormalization of
madness arose to fill the void created by the disappearance of leprosy at the end of the middle
ages (Sarup, 1993).
While other people were studying the normality or abnormality of certain behaviors, Foucault was
asking questions on a much higher level. He wanted to know how “normal” was being defined
and by whom. He believed the definition and study of abnormality was a primary method of the
establishment of power in society, because “when an abnormality and its corresponding norm are
defined, somehow it is always the normal person who has power over the abnormal” (Fillingham,
1993, p. 18).
Similarly, Bourdieu argued that those groups within the society who wield the most political and
social power control the use of and assign value to language within that society. “The social uses
of language owe their specifically social value to the fact that they tend to be organized in systems
of differences (between prosodic and articulatory or lexical and syntactic variants) which reproduce, in the symbolic order of differential deviations, the system of social differences” (Bourdieu,
1991, p. 54).
In a 1980 essay entitled “The Production and Reproduction of Legitimate Language” (later translated into English and included in his 1991 work Language and Symbolic Power), he argues that
language and power (he refers here to both political and social power) are inextricably intertwined.
So while normal and abnormal in psychology are clearly defined in the DSM-5, it is important to
note that it is highly influenced by western predominantly male thinking and has been criticized
by many for its lack of cultural inclusiveness. Pretty interesting stuff.
T
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
he root word for theory is the Greek work theoria, meaning to view or contemplate. Theories,
which are a system of ideas used to explain any phenomena, are important to any scientific
study because they provide a context within which to interpret findings. Personality theories
allow one to develop relevant research, establish a framework for interrelating different research
findings, and, most importantly, allow for a priori predictions. The term a priori refers to the ability to make predictions based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation. That is,
theories allow researchers to predict the outcome of a research study before actually seeing the
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 16
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
CHAPTER 1
data. When a theory results in a priori predictions, this allows the researcher to design a study
that could, depending on the outcome, disprove (or falsify) the theory that generated the predictions (Popper, 1963). Thus, ideally, theories should result in very specific predictions, and when
one designs an experiment to test the accuracy of the theory, then this can be described as strong
inference (see Platt, 1964; see also Davis, 2006). This can be contrasted with research that does
not generate specific hypotheses in advance, and instead simply explains all or many outcomes
after the fact.
As an illustration, consider the theories we described earlier in this chapter to account for
Dorner’s actions. Hypothetically, if psychodynamic theory predicts that such violent behavior
would have to result from a strained or absent relationship with one’s parents (operationally
defined as either a divorce or having an estranged parent), then one could make a specific prediction regarding the nature of Dorner’s family of origin. If, however, it turned out that his parents
remained happily married and were both present and supportive during his formative years, then
this would serve to refute the theory. The ability to make such specific predictions is less typical of
some psychological theories, and as a result, those theories would not result in strong inference.
In order for a discipline to advance scientific knowledge, there is a need for strong inference.
Wilson (1998) describes the importance of theory in the practice of science: “Nothing in science—
nothing in life, for that matter—makes sense without theory. It is our nature to put all knowledge
into the context in order to tell a story, and to recreate the world by this means” (p. 52).
All branches of science require a way to make observations and classify data, a set of propositions,
and a theory for organizing the data into a comprehensible framework that can guide further
developments and generate testable hypotheses. The theory must then stand the test of empirical
examination, which will either confirm or refute it and may lead to outright rejection or modification. The need for empirical proof is one of the features of science that separates it from other
disciplines, such as theology and philosophy.
Building and Characterizing a Theory
Advanced development of a discipline usually requires building a theoretical model that explains
and predicts observations. For example, major advances were made in the biological sciences
when investigators began to develop theoretical models showing how pathogens cause disease.
Even though the viruses and bacteria responsible for the spread of disease had been identified,
little progress was made until theories were advanced.
Theories provide a kind of map for organizing knowledge. One of the major advancements in knowledge was achieved by Charles Darwin when, after spending years observing and classifying the natural world, he proposed the theory of evolution. Not only did this model explain biological diversity
on the basis of natural selection, but it continues to influence many disciplines, including the study
of personality (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of evolution’s role in the structure of the brain).
Theories can be evaluated along a number of dimensions or features. For example, Rychlak (1968)
describes the main features of theoretical systems of personality (see also Rychlak, 2000). These
are presented in Table 1.2.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 17
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
CHAPTER 1
Table 1.2: Possible descriptive features of theories
Abstract
Concrete
Concepts tend to be esoteric and can be
interpreted in different ways.
Observable data are emphasized and constructs
follow in the form of laws.
Realistic
Idealistic
There is an observable external world that is
unchanging.
Reality is in the mind of the observer.
Objective
Subjective
Experience can be reliably observed when the
proper criteria are used.
There is a level of knowledge that is personal and
not observable.
Introspective
Extrospective
The observer can realistically observe the self.
The observer cannot accurately observe the
self and must be detached from the point of
observation.
Formal
Informal
Laws and postulates are clearly articulated and
logically connected.
Laws and postulates are loosely formulated and
connected.
Abstract Versus Concrete
Theoretical constructs are abstractions, but the level of abstraction can vary considerably. Behavior theory and psychoanalytic theory were at odds with one another early in the evolution of
personality theory; comparing and contrasting them can be useful. For example, as shown in Table
1.3, classic behavior theory tried to deal with concrete, observable data, using as little abstraction as possible. In contrast, psychoanalytic theory is highly abstract and is often accused of using
terminology so vague that the meanings of its own terms are undermined. The level of abstraction
presents advantages and disadvantages. For example, behavior theory stays close to empirical
truths by limiting abstraction, but it is less able to describe the complexity of human personality.
On the other hand, psychoanalysis presents a theory and a vocabulary rich in explanatory potential, but the explanations it provides are sometimes too abstract to allow for scientific study, and
its vocabulary is frequently burdened with multiple meanings for the same terms.
Table 1.3: Comparison of behavioral and psychoanalytic models
Behavior theory
Psychoanalytic theory
Little abstraction, terms precisely defined
Highly abstract, terms loosely defined and
esoteric
Close to empirical observation
Removed from empirical observation
Avoids theory and derives laws from data
Develops complicated theory and fits data into
theory
Our theories of personality need a vocabulary to both describe and organize what we see. Different theorists have invented different terms to describe their beliefs and observations, and
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 18
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
CHAPTER 1
these are often not interchangeable among theories. Learning how to use the tools of a discipline
requires learning its vocabulary.
Realism Versus Idealism
Theories can also be assessed with respect to their reflection of realism versus idealism. Realism
refers to the position that the world of perception and cognition has a fixed and stable existence
independent of the perceiver. Idealism refers to the belief that there is no external reality apart
from the perceiver. Humans, the idealists insist, view the world through their unique and limited
perceptions and senses. Reality is created between observer and subject. This can be illustrated by
considering the meaning of a word as it relates to concepts we already understand. For example,
the meaning of a word such as friendship depends on a range of personal experiences, including
interactions with people, participation in activities, and feelings of loneliness or of kinship. In
their search for meaning and understanding, personality theorists look for relationships that exist
among complex sets of data.
Objective Versus Subjective
Theories also vary with respect to their objectivity and subjectivity. Objective theories are
thought to be independent of the theorist and may be understood in the same way by anyone.
Subjective theories, on the other hand, imply that our abstractions and constructs are unique and
cannot easily be generalized. Importantly, the methods of scientific investigation can be greatly
affected by this distinction, and each results in very different assumptions about what can be studied. Two concepts relevant to notions of objectivity and subjectivity are expressed by the terms,
nomothetic and idiographic. Nomothetic study is the study of groups to arrive at general laws or
traits applicable to groups of individuals. Idiographic study is the study of individuals in a way that
emphasizes their uniqueness.
Introspection Versus Extrospection
The basic orientation of the observer is also important in the development of personality theory.
Theorists who assume an introspective stance formulate theory from their own personal points
of view. They observe and examine their own mental and emotional states and processes and
generalize from these. This approach was especially common in the formative years of the field, as
individuals such as Sigmund Freud and William James often engaged in introspection to generate
hypotheses. When theorists take an extrospective perspective, they assume a detached and neutral position, basing their theories on observations of the behaviors and thoughts of others. With
the development of highly objective scientific approaches in the second half of the 20th century,
academic psychologists have generally rejected the use of introspection.
Formal Versus Informal
Formal theory is stated as clearly and objectively as possible and is expressed so as to maximize
consistency and interdependence. Formal theory can be expressed as fundamental ideas and the
axioms that logically flow from them (not unlike the theories commonly seen in the natural sciences). Thus, highly formal theories tend to be more specific and narrower than less formal theories. In contrast, informal theory is less explicitly stated, often lacks clear and concise operational
definitions, is not (or is less) fully unified, and is therefore more difficult to test directly. Informal
theory does not lend itself to what we have referred to as strong inference—that is, theories that
allow for direct refutation through experimentation.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 19
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
CHAPTER 1
These various features of any theory may be helpful to evaluating the usefulness of a theory
and for comparing different theoretical perspectives (e.g., Rychlak, 1968). In the end, however,
there is no correct or incorrect way in which personality theory must be constructed. Different
theories may serve very different purposes. For example, behavior theories are often better
suited at predicting behavior than is psychodynamic theory. Thus, disorders that are largely
defined by problematic behavior, such as simple phobias, are better explained by behavior
theory—and behavioral approaches are also better suited to changing that behavior (e.g.,
systematic desensitization is a behaviorally-based intervention that tends to have reasonably good efficacy for treating phobias). In contrast, psychoanalytic approaches may be
better suited for clinicians who are attempting to understand complex psychiatric disorders
that involve more than just behavior (e.g., disordered thinking and affect), and where the
patient has little insight into the nature and etiology of their problematic functioning (e.g., an
endogenous form of depression).
Testing the Theoretical Components
Before a theory is accepted, it needs to be subjected to scientific inquiry and to systematic review
by the community of scholars. If the principles of the theory are not validated, the theory will
eventually fall out of favor. In a sense, this is a process of scientific evolution. Theories that are
useful continue to spawn new research; they survive because they make specific predictions and
the research fails to disprove them. Thus, they survive to see another day, and in this manner,
one can say that they are “selected.” Many theories don’t fare well in this “survival of the fittest”
game. They lose their credibility over time and fade away. Some fail because of limitations specific
to the era in which they were developed—limitations such as those related to inadequate measurement capabilities and flawed methodologies. This is what happened to the theory of phrenology, the belief that personality traits can be assessed by studying the contours of an individual’s
head. This belief seemed to make sense at the time, but its propositions were not supported and
phrenology became an extinct theory of personality.
Still, many early—and apparently extinct—theories contained an element of truth, and this aspect
of the theories is sometimes apparent in current theories. For example, although the basic proposition of phrenology was faulty, its emphasis on quantification and localization of functioning were
important advancements that are reflected in current theories.
Convergence of Theories: Eclecticism, Integration, and Unification
There are many theories of personality. A number of individuals throughout the past century have
recognized the need for integration across disciplines. But it was not until the last quarter of the
20th century that the movement really began to emerge as a major force in many disciplines. The
reason for this delay may have been the need to wait for sufficient empirical evidence and theory
building to accrue. After all, psychology is barely more than 100 years old.
James and Murray: Early Calls for Integration
William James (1890), who was in part responsible for the birth of psychology as an independent scientific discipline, was one of the earliest proponents of integrating psychological theories.
Unlike many of his contemporaries, he thought there would be value in integrating different ideas
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 20
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
CHAPTER 1
even if it meant that resulting theories would not always stay close to the data. According to
Allport (1968), “More than any other psychologist James agonized over problems of systematic
eclecticism” (p. 16).
Another prominent figure in personology was Henry Murray (1959) who systematically attempted
to provide empirical support for a highly integrative theory of personality. As ambitious as this
effort was, it lacked important aspects of the component systems discovered later that would
have afforded him the opportunity to succeed in this daunting task. Without today’s computer
technology and statistical methods, he collected much more data from those he interviewed and
tested than he could possibly analyze. Although many of his concepts did not achieve an enduring
place in psychology, his ambitious attempt to develop a comprehensive integration of personality
theory continues to inspire many researchers, such as Silvan Tomkins, who is widely known for his
theory of affect (Tomkins, 1962, 1963, 1991).
Later, another important figure in psychology, Gordon Allport, also called for integration.
Allport’s Call for Systematic Eclecticism
Gordon Allport (1968) was among the early proponents of what he called systematic eclecticism.
Allport’s uses the term eclectic to refer to a systematic attempt to bring together—that is, to
integrate—various ideas to arrive at better explanations. He describes eclecticism as “a system
that seeks the solution of fundamental problems by selecting and uniting what it regards as true
in the specialized approaches to psychological sciences” (pp. 5–6). He believed that it was not
possible to synthesize all plausible theories, but that trying to do so was a challenge psychologists should accept.
Eclecticism was not a concept invented by Allport; it had been used by a variety of philosophers
in their search for truth (Janet, 1885). He revived the concept because of what he described as a
lack of synthesis in psychology. “The situation at present,” he writes, “is that each theorist typically
occupies himself with one parameter of human nature, and builds himself a limited model to fit his
special data and personal style. Those who concern themselves with either the brain or phenomenology may be said to focus on one important parameter (body-mind); depth psychologists on
the conscious-unconscious parameter; trait theorists on the stability-variability parameter; others
on self and non-self. Trouble arises when an investigator maintains that his preferred parameter,
or his chosen model, overspreads the whole of human personality” (Allport, 1968, p. 10).
What the social sciences need, explained Allport (1968), is theoretical assimilation, “the absorption of great ideas into the stream of intellectual history” (p. 14). Among the “great ideas” he
identifies are those of Darwin, Galton, Pavlov, Freud, and the general systems theory.
Allport thought general systems theory offered great promise: “properly employed the basic principle of open system is, I believe, the most fruitful approach to systematic eclecticism” (p. 17). An
“open system,” as opposed to a “closed system,” is one where outcomes of the functioning of the
system are never entirely predictable. That clearly seems to be the case with respect to human
personality. “Personality is the most eclectic concept in psychology, and an open system view the
most eclectic interpretation of this concept” (Allport, 1968, p. 22).
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 21
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.3 Theory: A Way of Organizing Complex Phenomena
CHAPTER 1
Allport (1968) realized that systems theory was critical, but he did not expand his frame of reference to take into account all that happens outside the brain. He was concerned about reductionism and reminded us that a model is an analogue: Like a picture; it is not the entity itself. He uses
an Indian proverb about blind men attempting to describe an elephant as an example of myopic
theorizing:
One finds its tail very like a rope; another his hoof like a pillar; to a third the ear
is like a saddle. But none is able to characterize the elephant. Similarly, modelists
who say man is very like a machine, a pigeon, a mathematical theorem, mistake
the part for the whole, and sometimes even mistake the simulata for the thing
simulated. Systematic eclecticism works less with models than with theories. And
its eventual aim is a comprehensive metatheory of the nature of man. (p. 11)
The integrative movement, like other movements in psychology, has multiple tributaries that feed
it. One major contributor to the development of integration was a new spirit of collaboration
among innovators searching for more effective models to guide psychotherapy.
The Influence of the Integrative Psychotherapy Movement
As Norcross and Newman (1992) note, “Rivalry among various theoretical orientations has a long
and undistinguished history in psychotherapy, dating back to Freud” (p. 3). And rivalry among
personality theories has been no less apparent. In both of these fields, the concept of theoretical integration was not new, but no serious formal attempts at synthesizing competing positions
occurred until the late 1970s (Arkowitz, 1992). In the 1980s, there was a “geometric increase” in
this movement with more than 200 publications during this decade devoted to psychotherapy
integration (Goldfried & Newman, 1992). This explosion of publications on theoretical integration
in the 1980s marked the end of an era of parochialism and ushered in a new era of interdisciplinary collaboration (Arkowitz & Messer, 1984; Goldfried, 1982; Marmor & Woods, 1980; Norcross &
Newman, 1992; Wachtel, 1987).
This interest culminated in the formation of The Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration in 1983. The importance of this movement toward integration was summarized by Arkowitz (1992): “By expanding our scope beyond theories of psychotherapy and by looking toward
areas of theory and research in other areas of psychology (e.g., cognitive sciences, social psychology, health psychology and psychobiology), psychotherapy integration promises to bring psychotherapy back to the field of psychology from which it has become somewhat isolated” (p. 293).
Assimilation and Integration
There are basically two ways a theory can coalesce: theoretical assimilation and theoretical integration. Assimilation, as we saw in the earlier section on Allport, occurs when features of other
systems are unwittingly absorbed into a model. This is often an ongoing, unconscious process
where aspects of various theoretical models are absorbed and added to a new synthesis (Messer,
1992). For example, aspects of evolutionary theory have been assimilated into sociobiology as
well as into various personality theories.
The integration of theoretical models is a more active process. It typically involves deliberate and
conscious attempts to blend constructs of one model with those of another to create a more useful synthesis. This is similar to Allport’s concept of systematic eclecticism.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 22
5/20/15 9:19 AM
CHAPTER 1
1.4 The Scientific Method
T
1.4 The Scientific Method
he scientific method is a systematic approach to inquiry that uses careful observation and a
formal process of gathering objective data. The scientific method is essential to theory building. This section discusses its applications.
Research Methods
Science within the field of personality psychology unfolds much like science in any other discipline
or subdiscipline. The term science refers to the accumulation of knowledge, and knowledge is
accumulated using a variety of methods in psychology. These techniques have various strengths
and weaknesses and have developed over the years as the field has matured. For example, early
in the history of psychology, information was largely accumulated by the methods of introspection (i.e., self-examination) and case study (the intensive examination of a small number of clinical cases). These approaches provided a wealth of information, but they were less structured and
standardized, and the information was gathered from a limited number of individuals. Although
case studies are still sometimes used to advance knowledge, the method of introspection has
generally fallen out of favor, despite its early utility in the field.
The survey approach eventually became the workhorse of the field, as surveys could be easily
employed and were an optimal way of conveniently gathering information from a diverse population. Surveys were also collected longitudinally in order to allow for a consideration of changes in
scores over time, and this approach has become increasingly popular, as powerful statistical tools
have been developed to examine the data.
Researchers have also adopted advanced statistical methods for the study of personality,
including meta-analysis, multivariate analysis, and perhaps most germane to the study of personality, factor analysis. Factor analysis is a statistical technique used to organize and reduce
data that has emerged as a method of developing theoretical models from the empirical analysis of descriptive language (also referred to as the lexical study of personality). This approach
first became prominent with the work of Raymond Cattell, but as advanced statistical software
emerged, its practice has proliferated (see also the advent of confirmatory factor analysis, in
addition to exploratory factor analysis) and resulted in the identification of multifactorial models of personality (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1985; McCrae & Costa, 1992). Even though this method
provides a more data-driven, rather than theory-driven, approach to the study of personality, it
still fails to provide us with the opportunity to draw causal conclusions (More on statistics and
the trait perspective in Chapter 8).
The pinnacle of the research model is the experiment, in which the researcher manipulates one
or more variables of interest and exposure to the manipulated variables is done through random
assignment. It is the experimental method that has established personality psychology as a field
with a truly scientific model of study. See Table 1.4 for a description of each method and some of
the corresponding advantages and disadvantages.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 23
5/20/15 9:19 AM
CHAPTER 1
1.4 The Scientific Method
Table 1.4: Overview of six basic methods used in psychological research
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Introspection
• Extensive detail
• Access to a great deal of info
• Subject is always available
• L ess standardized and
structured
• Investigator and subject
share the same biases
• Least representative data
• Data drawn from one
individual
Case study
• Extensive detail
• Access to a great deal of info
• Investigator and subject are
different individuals
• L ess standardized and
structured
• Not optimally representative
data
• Data drawn from a small
number of individuals
Survey
• D
ata collection can still be
broad
• Very large and
representative samples
• M
ore limited amount of
information
• Less is known about the
response tendencies of the
subjects (e.g., honesty in
responding)
Longitudinal survey
• P
rovides the same
advantages as the survey,
along with the opportunity
to establish a temporal
line (i.e., establish if one
construct precedes another)
• S imilar disadvantages as the
survey method
Statistical methods
(i.e., exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis)
• N
ot as tied to any
theoretical model
• Data driven
• Can contrast theory with
data to critique the accuracy
of some theories
• S till requires some basic
assumptions for testing
• Analyses are limited by
the problems with the
constructs that are being
assessed
Experiment
• M
inimizes the influence of
any unmeasured variables
due to random assignment
• The only method that allows
for causal conclusions
• T ight experimental control
can have a trade-off with
how well the findings
generalize outside the lab
Modern-day personality psychologists rely primarily on the survey and experimental methods. It
is with these more modern scientific methods that researchers can advance the field by predicting outcomes and exercising experimental control over phenomena. The abilities of researchers to
predict something before it occurs, control each variable of interest, and manipulate outcomes by
altering a variable of interest—these are the best indicators that we understand something well.
In Chapter 2, we will apply these criteria to psychodynamic theory and, after operationally defining the unconscious, test whether there is evidence of its existence, its influence on our behavior,
and its ability to do so outside of our awareness.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 24
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.4 The Scientific Method
CHAPTER 1
Of course, one natural limitation in the field of personality psychology is that personality, per se,
is not something that can be manipulated with random assignment. Thus, sometimes researchers must focus on related constructs (concepts) that are more directly accessible to help advance
the field. As an illustration, consider the personality trait of perceived control. Early work focused
on its operational definition (e.g., in the 1950s, Julian Rotter introduced the concept of locus of
control), and over the span of many years, researchers developed a theory to better understand
control perceptions and how they work (e.g., see self-efficacy theory, Bandura, 1977; the theory
of planned behavior, Ajzen, 1985, etc.). After several researchers developed measures of control (e.g., Paulhus, 1983; Paulhus & Van Selst, 1990; Rotter, 1966), survey research established a
consistent and reasonably strong association between control perceptions and a number of outcomes. For example, higher perceived control is associated with better psychological well-being
(Hortop, Wrosch, & Gagné, 2013; Peterson & Seligman, 1984; Stupnisky, Perry, Renaud, & Hladkyj,
2013) and better physical health (e.g., Infurna & Gerstorf, 2012; Thompson & Spacapan, 1991).
Researchers have also manipulated perceived control and demonstrated that it can cause changes
in health-related behavior (Lecci & Cohen, 2007) and improve how we respond to stress (e.g.,
Glass & Singer, 1972). The entire body of research gives us a better understanding of the phenomenon and even allows for some causal conclusions.
Peer Review
The scientific method requires that findings be subjected to peer review and that the specific
steps that led to the conclusions be made public so that other investigators can confirm the
findings. Peer review often involves “blind review,” where research is examined by independent
reviewers who have no connection with the researchers. The reviewers are experts in the content
area as well as experts in the scientific method. Ideally, the review process improves the quality
of published research by critiquing it (i.e., identifying the strengths and weaknesses of any submitted manuscript), which in turn culls poorer research and strengthens the studies that do get
published. The goal is to seek out a consensus among the reviewers for the most relevant issues
to critique, although the level of agreement among reviews varies, and other factors may also
influence the critique (e.g., Petty, Fleming, & Fabrigar, 1999).
Based on the collective merits of the research and the critique, the journal editor decides whether
to reject the manuscript, encourage a revision, or accept it outright. The most common outcome
is a “revise and resubmit,” in which the authors are provided the critiques of multiple reviewers
and must then respond to the critiques with counterarguments, additional data, or analyses that
address the critiques. The journal editor, along with additional reviewers, will determine whether
the authors have succeeded in addressing the concerns raised in the critiques. Such scrutiny by
one’s peers in the field further bolsters the legitimacy of psychological findings, as the review
process is rigorous and aimed at expanding our knowledge and better understanding phenomena.
Although books can offer rich and useful information, publications in primary research journals
are generally considered the venue for cutting-edge science. In psychology, and specifically personality psychology, there are a number of well-respected journals that involve rigorous peer
review, and only a small handful of studies (e.g., typically less than 20% of those submitted) actually succeed in being published. Some journals in which you will find interesting research specific
to the area of personality include the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, the Journal of Personality, the Journal of Research in Personality, and
Personality and Individual Differences, to name a few.
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 25
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.5 Measuring and Assessing
CHAPTER 1
1.5 Measuring and Assessing
P
sychological measurement, broadly referred to as psychometrics, is an essential part of the
scientific study of personality. Psychometrics involves both the construction of instruments
and procedures used in measurement and the development of measurement theory. As with
any scientific discipline, measurement—and the accuracy of that measurement—undergirds the
effectiveness of how science is to be carried out in the field of personality psychology. Assessment
implies that there is an actual construct to be assessed and that it can be quantified and assessed
with reasonable accuracy. There are several important technical terms used to assess the quality
of any assessment tool, and some of the key terms, such as standard error of measure and the
various forms of reliability and validity, will be defined.
Standard Error of Measure
All assessment tools have error, but not all tools of assessment have equal amounts of error.
Therefore, it is important to evaluate the efficacy of any and all assessment tools employed by
quantifying their error. The term used to represent the error associated with any form of assessment is the standard error of measure (SEM).
The SEM is defined as the standard deviation of the sampling distribution. Imagine that we are
trying to measure your level of extraversion using an instrument called the E-scale, which yields a
score between 0 and 50, with higher scores denoting greater extraversion. Each time we administer this test to you, it results in a score, but not every one of your scores is identical. If we were to
repeat this process, a number of estimates of your level of extraversion would emerge (each represented by a score). Once we had sampled your extraversion score a very large number of times
(theoretically, an infinite number of times), we could then plot all of the scores, calculate a mean
of all the scores, and find the standard deviation of the distribution of scores. The latter value
(the standard deviation of all the score estimates) is the standard error of measure, and smaller
values indicate less error (in this case, less variability in the estimates of your extraversion). If an
instrument is well constructed, and the construct being assessed is reasonably stable (something
that is assumed to be true for personality), then the SEM should be relatively small. The SEM also
provides some important information about the reliability of the measure.
Reliability
Conceptually speaking, the construct of reliability is essentially synonymous with consistency.
So when someone is discussing the reliability of a measure, they are talking about the extent
to which it produces consistent scores. Reliability can be maximized through standardization—
that is, by ensuring that the measure is administered, scored, and interpreted in the same way
every time. This even applies to survey measures, with standardization referring to, for example,
whether the items are written in such a way that they will be interpreted in the same way by different individuals.
Reliability figures (referred to as reliability coefficients) can range from zero, indicating no reliability, to 1.0, indicating perfect reliability. Typically, a reliability value of at least 0.70 is needed for the
measure to be considered reliable enough to use. There are several different types of reliability,
and we will here define four common types that are useful when evaluating a measure and the
research that uses it.
•
Lec81110_01_c01_001-038.indd 26
Test-retest reliability refers to how consistently a measure produces the same score for
the same individual over time. To calculate this value, a test or scale is administered and
5/20/15 9:19 AM
1.5 Measuring and Assessing
•
•
•
CHAPTER 1
then, after a predetermined period of time (for measures of personality, the interval
between administrations is usually anywhere from 30 days to one year), it is administered
again and the two scores are compared. Given that personality is a construct that is in theory supposed to be stable, the inter-rater reliability can be used to provide some validation
that it is, in fact, stable. In fact, this form of reliability can be used to differentiate between
constructs like mood states (which will have lower test-retest reliability) and traits.
Internal reliability refers to the extent to which half of the randomly selected items on
a test relate to the remaining half of the items. Assuming the scale measures only one
construct, then the internal reliability should be reasonably high if it is a good instrument. One of the more widely accepted ways of assessing the internal reliability of an
instrument is by taking every possible split-half reliability (all possible combinations of
half the items on a measure) and calculating the average of these values. This is also
known as the Cronbach’s alpha of the instrument. In general, as a measure adds items
(assuming the items are of equal quality), the measure will increase its internal reliability. Increasingly, researchers have turned to other statistical tools, such as factor analysis,
to not only provide information on a measure’s internal reliability, but also its construct
validity (see next section).
Parallel (or alternate) forms reliability is used when researchers have two different versions of the same test, and the goal is to make the two versions as similar as possible.
Typically, researchers will generate a large pool of items, divide them at random into two
versions, and assess the target population. If the parallel forms reliability is high, then
both forms should yield similar scores. Parallel forms reliability is important if you have
to evaluate someone twice and you want to avoid giving them the same test twice. Parallel forms reliability is similar to the above-mentioned split-half reliability, except that
for parallel forms, you are planning to use the two forms as independent measures.
Inter-rater reliability refers to the agreement between raters whenever a measurement
requires people to score it. This value is especially important the more subjective the
scoring of the measure is. For example, later in the text, we will report on studies that
involve rating the behaviors of children as they explore a room. It is reasonable to question whether different individuals (raters) would rate those behaviors in the same way,
and the inter-rater reliability figure provides a way to quantify the rate of agreement.
Validity
Validity is a complex term because it can have many meanings. However, in all cases, the basic
definition refers to the extent to which reality is captured by a measure, an experiment, or even a
clinical trial. Validity is also related to the type of data that is collected to help give meaning to test
scores. That is, any test score is essentially meaningless unless there is a standard of comparison to
interpret the scores. For example, when you obtain a score of 50 on a trait measure of neuroticism,
the interpretation of that score depends on how others have scored on the same measure. Tests,
therefore, usually have extensive norms: a database of how other individuals have scored, sometimes separated by gender, age, or other relevant demographics. For neuroticism, there are some
differences for males as opposed to females, so the scores may be norm-referenced by gender
(i.e., males compare their scores to other males, whereas females compare their scores to other
females). All tests are either...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment