Chapter 12: Personality

12.0 Learning Objectives

After completing this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Understand the usefulness of personality for explaining individuality, describing consistency in

behavior, and accounting for internal thought processes and behavior.

2. Explain the primary ideas of the Freudian and neo-Freudian perspectives on personality and
personality development, as well as their influence on the field of psychology.

3. Understand the major contributions of the humanistic and social-cognitive approaches to

personality, including the roles of motivation, self-concept, self-efficacy, and locus of control.

4. Describe the roles that genetics, neurology, and evolution play in influencing personality on both
the group and individual level.

5. Explain what traits psychologists consider to be the “Big Five,” how factor analysis was used to
arrive at these five traits, and the five-factor model’s relationship to earlier trait theories.

6. Understand and evaluate various methods for assessing personality, including personal
interviews, observational methods, objective self-report, projective techniques, and
physiological assessments.
12.1 Introduction: What Is Personality?

As we have discussed in prior chapters, psychology is a field of scientific inquiry whose goal is to explain
the thoughts and actions of others. Personality psychology is a subfield of psychology that attempts to
account for individual differences in thinking, feeling, and behaving at various levels of analysis that
range from the biological level (e.g., heredity) to the group level (e.g., cultural differences).

Personality can be defined as an enduring set of internally based characteristics that produce
uniqueness and consistency in the expressions of a person’s thoughts and behaviors, along with an
explanation to account for these characteristics. These internally based characteristics are referred to as
personality traits. The operation of traits can vary along a continuum from a little (e.g., not aggressive)
to an extreme degree (e.g., highly aggressive). Individual differences in personality reflect the types of
and degree to which they possess certain traits.

To help you think about what personality is, we will look at three distinct elements of personality:
uniqueness, consistency, and explanation. To do so, we'll use examples from real life. However, before
moving on, watch the video on the scope of the study of personality psychology. In the video below, you
will learn how and why personality psychologists study variation in the expression of personality, some
basic findings and general conclusions about personality, and where and how personality is exhibited.

Who are you, really? The puzzle of personality | Brian Little - YouTube

Invariably, we all know or have befriended someone who is peculiar, distinct, and unlike anyone we
know. For a moment, consider who that person in your life is; for illustration purposes, we will refer to
him as “Nate.” Think about the different personality characteristics that make Nate seem so unusual,
and consider how you would describe Nate to others and what words you would use to reflect
his uniqueness of personality. You might describe Nate as funny and talkative around friends but rather
shy around new people and in novel situations. He tends to be rather optimistic and extremely
dedicated to his personal beliefs, especially when it comes to the support of his favorite sports team and
views regarding vintage science-fiction comic books. This combination of traits seems to capture Nate’s
unique personality.

Another common use of the idea of personality is when we describe the degree of consistency in the
thoughts and behaviors of others. For example, when preparing a letter of recommendation for Alexis,
who is seeking an internship, a professor might write, “As a student in my class, Alexis has some
outstanding characteristics, including her conscientiousness, friendliness, independence, and creative
thinking.” When completing an online dating profile upon moving to a new city, Stefan, a single male,
might describe characteristic features of his personality as easygoing, sympathetic, and romantic. When
used this way, personality gives a sense of consistency to both Alexis’ and Stefan's behavior across
situations: Alexis has been conscientious in class in the past, so she is likely to also be conscientious in
the future at her internship, and Stefan has consistently been romantic throughout the course of his
past relationships.
Finally, while attending a family gathering over the holidays, an aunt might say, “Of course John keeps
changing jobs. John got that from his father—they both have an impulsive and hot-headed personality.
His father never could keep a job.” When used in this context, personality provides an explanation to
account for the expression of the behavior—an inherited tendency. Thus, we use personality traits and
characteristics in ourselves and others to help explain uniqueness, describe consistency, and clarify the
underlying processes that account for such uniqueness and consistency in the thoughts and behavior of
ourselves and others.

Combining these three features—uniqueness, consistency, and explanation—helps to provide a more

comprehensive understanding of how and why individuals do what they do (see Table 12.1). Accounting
for the uniqueness and consistency in the expression of what people feel, think, and do is complex and,
like other areas of psychology, requires several different perspectives. The focus of these perspectives
on personality range from emotional processes (e.g., anxiety and joy) to mental processes (e.g., beliefs
and expectations) to biological processes (e.g., genetics and hormones).
When understanding the complexity of personality, it is essential to consider both the various levels of
analysis (i.e., biological, traits, individual, group) in addition to the differing scientific perspectives, which
are derived from the various schools of thought discussed in Chapter 1: What Is Psychology? (e.g.,
psychodynamic, humanistic, etc.). No single level of analysis or type of psychological perspective
adequately explains the complexity of personality regarding individual differences (i.e., uniqueness) and
consistency over time and across situations. In this chapter, we will discuss how each perspective
conceives of personality with regard to its expression.

12.2 Psychodynamic Perspectives (心理动力学观点)

We begin our discussion of the formation and expression of personality by considering

the psychodynamic perspectives of personality. First described in Studies on Hysteria (Breuer & Freud,
1893–1895/1955), the underlying assumption of the psychodynamic perspective is that the expression
of personality is motivated by internal processes and conflicts that individuals have little or no conscious
awareness of and, consequently, have limited personal control over (Erdelyi, 1985; Rapaport, 1944/67;
Westen et al., 2008). The individual most closely associated with the psychodynamic perspective is
Sigmund Freud. Others who proposed their own psychodynamic perspectives in reaction to Freud’s
perspective include Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and Karen Horney, all of whom placed greater emphasis on
social relationships and conscious awareness as the basis for understanding the expression of
personality.

12.2.1 Freud’s Psychoanalytic Perspective

Although Freud is well known for his early influence on the study of psychology, he was not a
psychologist. His training was as a medical doctor. After finishing medical school, Freud began his
professional career in the late 1800s as a clinical neurologist. During this time, Freud primarily focused
on hysteria and the etiology of hysteria and other neuroses. In 1896, Freud published two articles stating
that early childhood sexual trauma was the cause of hysteria and other neuroses (Gelfand, 1989). Freud
made increasing connections between problems people were experiencing in their everyday lives that
seemed to have emotional bases—even if people were unaware of them. As such, he began to theorize
that there was much more to understanding the mind than simply focusing on conscious awareness. He
began to focus his attention on the unconscious.

Figure 12.3 shows the iceberg model Freud used to describe a model of the mind. The iceberg consists
of three regions: the conscious, the preconscious, and the unconscious. At the “tip of the iceberg,”
the conscious mind is limited to only those mental activities the individual is consciously aware of at any
given moment. The preconscious mind contains mental information that the individual may not be
thinking about at any given moment but can easily access when needed, as well as remove from
awareness when no longer needed. For example, at this moment your awareness may be focused on
what you are reading. However, if you are asked to think of the name of the person you had your first
romantic kiss with, you could easily retrieve this memory from your unconscious mind and place it in
your conscious mind. After you are done thinking about this person, you could just as easily remove this
memory and return it to your unconscious mind.
Like the tip of an iceberg floating in the ocean, the conscious and preconscious parts of the mind are
easily seen. However, the part that is out of sight is even bigger, and even though we are not aware of it,
it still affects what we think, feel, and do. One of Freud’s most significant contributions to the study of
personality was the role of the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind is a seemingly unlimited
storage facility containing the thoughts, feelings, memories, needs, desires, wishes, and past
experiences deemed too threatening to appear at the conscious level of awareness. According to Freud,
to understand personality it is necessary to expose and gain access to the content of the unconscious
mind. Failing to allow the expression of this content results in the building up of pressure in the
unconscious that, if not released, would appear in the form of hysterical reactions, such as paralysis of
the legs. However, because the unconscious mind disguises the meaning of its content, observing this
information directly is not possible. Freud employed a number of techniques to gain access to the
unconscious content of the mind. Freud began with hypnosis in an effort to relax the mind and weaken
the disguises but found other techniques that were more to his satisfaction.

The method of free association required the individual to say whatever came to their mind without
considering how meaningless or threatening it might seem. He assumed that because the associations
are linked together emotionally in the unconscious, an analysis of the pattern of these connections
would reveal their true meaning as expressions of past and present psychological trauma. His most
important technique for examining clues to the unconscious was the use of dream analysis. In his
famous book titled The Interpretation of Dreams (Freud, 1900/1953), Freud describes studying dreams
as important to understanding the expression of personality because “The interpretation of dreams is
the royal road to knowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind” (p. 608). With dream analysis,
the manifest content is what the dreamer remembers and, according to Freud, is the disguised content.
The latent content is the expression of the unconscious mind and a reflection of a person’s true feelings,
needs, and desires.
[Link] The Id, Ego, and Superego

As seen in Figure 12.3, within Freud's model of the mind the id, ego, and superego are structural
components operating within the three levels of consciousness, each with its own specified function.
The id is the core component of personality and is located completely in the unconscious mind. Freud
believed that it was present at birth and served as the primary driver of personality. Freud proposed
that the id, without any direct contact with the external world or conscious awareness, operates on
the pleasure principle. The id takes care of basic human needs for survival and self-preservation (e.g.,
eating, drinking) in addition to satisfying primal urges, such as sexual impulses (Eros) and unrestrained
aggression (Thanatos). As the desire to fulfill sexual and aggressive impulses builds, the level of psychic
tension mounts as the id’s impulses are restrained by the confines of reality.

The id is in a constant state of conflict. In emotionally healthy, mature adults, Freud identified the ego as
the component of the mind that can subdue the id’s sexual and aggressive impulses to wait for the
“right time and right place.” Toward the end of the first year and at the beginning of the second year of
life, the ego develops out of the id and operates across all three levels of consciousness. The principal
purpose of the ego is to meet the needs of the id within the constraints of the real world. In contrast to
the id’s pleasure principle, the ego operates on the reality principle. The ego develops a strategy that
will make it possible to meet these instinctual needs and desires in a manner that will satisfy the
unconscious demands of the id but also will not threaten the ego’s sense of self within the context of
reality at the conscious level.

The ego arbitrates between reality, the unconscious impulses of the id, and the moral limits of
the superego, which represents one’s sense of right and wrong. Like the ego, the superego exists at all
three levels of conscious awareness and is based on a sense of morality reflecting family values, official
laws, social conventions, religious beliefs, and a personal moral code. The sense of morality
characteristic of the superego is regulated by the ego ideal and the conscience. For example, the ego
ideal creates a sense of pride when the individual exhibits thoughts and behaviors consistent with a
personal moral code (e.g., telling the truth and obeying societal conventions). On the other hand, the
conscience creates a sense of shame, disapproval, anxiety, or guilt when the individual exhibits thoughts
and behaviors that violate the personal moral code (e.g., lying and stealing).

The operation of an emotionally healthy personality is a reflection of a balanced expression of the id,
ego, and superego. The operation of an unhealthy personality appears as an imbalanced expression of
these three psychic structures. Criminal behavior can represent an overextended id and weak superego,
resulting in ego-seeking opportunities to commit crimes to make money to buy a car. On the other hand,
a healthy individual would develop a more balanced, realistic, and socially acceptable strategy of finding
a job and making car payments over time to deal with the desire for owning a car. According to Freud’s
psychoanalytic perspective, the uniqueness in the expression of personality reflects how the ego serves
to mediate between the demands and desires of the id and the moral constraints of the superego in a
consistent manner across time (e.g., during adolescence compared to adulthood) and in different
situations (e.g., acquiring money to purchase a video game versus a car).
[Link] The Role of Anxiety and Defense Mechanisms

Freud proposed that feelings of anxiety serve as a warning sign of possible danger to the ego. Reality
anxiety informs the ego of real danger (e.g., a car is drifting into your lane). Moral anxiety notifies the
superego that the ego is considering violating a moral code (e.g., you want to cheat on a test). Neurotic
anxiety warns the ego of the threatening expression of id impulses at the level of conscious awareness
(e.g., you want to scream out loud while sitting in a boring class). To mask feelings of anxiety and
disguise the source of the tension, as well as to keep them from being expressed (e.g., screaming out
loud), individuals unconsciously employ a variety of defense mechanisms.

The principal defense mechanism Freud identified is repression, which is characterized by the
individual’s ego simply removing (e.g., ignoring, trying to forget) the threatening impulse from conscious
awareness. For example, a victim of assault may have trouble recalling the details of the attack because
doing so would trigger the images and emotions of the entire episode. However, such memories remain
buried in the unconscious, where they continue to create feelings of anxiety. Although such traumatic
information may not surface at the conscious level, it could appear in a disguised form within dreams or
other expressions of behavior. Working in conjunction with repression to contain the anxiety in the
unconscious, Freud (1894/1962) and Anna Freud (1936), his daughter and a famous psychoanalyst in her
own right, described a series of other defense mechanisms, which are outlined in Table 12.2.
The primary purpose of defense mechanisms is ego-defensive in nature, but their effective use can vary.
An effective response to a buildup of anxiety would be to take direct action to resolve the conflict and
restore a sense of psychic balance. In contrast, an ineffective response would be to continue to use the
defense mechanism to avoid conflict, thereby increasing levels of anxiety. For example, a student
(Himmet) actively avoids studying for an upcoming exam, because thinking about the exam makes him
feel really anxious. In an effort to avoid feeling anxious, Himmet plays video games for a few hours.
Having wasted so much study time and feeling ill prepared, Himmet begins to prepare for the test, but
he becomes even more anxious and decides to visit some friends instead, which invariably results in
increased anxiety. When the level of anxiety becomes so severe and upsetting that it begins to impair
Himmet's ability to think clearly and rationally when dealing with daily living, he may eventually be
diagnosed with a mental condition referred to as an anxiety disorder (see Chapter 14: Psychological
Disorders) and require psychotherapy (see Chapter 15: Treatment of Psychological Disorders) under the
direction of a psychoanalyst, who would help Himmet reduce his anxiety by helping the ego develop
more balanced strategies for resolving the psychic conflict.
[Link] Development of Personality: Psychosexual Stages

In addition to describing the structure and dynamics of personality, Freud also provided an explanation
of how personality developed. At the core of this explanation, Freud proposed the development of
personality through a sequence of five psychosexual stages. The labeling of these stages reflects the
conflict between the expression of the id’s desire to seek immediate pleasure and society’s demands to
restrict it. Each stage is associated with a major biological function corresponding to a
specific erogenous zone (a region of the body that serves as the source of enjoyment).

According to Freud, the unsuccessful resolution of these conflicts may result from conditions where the
child receives too little or too much pleasure. Such setbacks can result in the person being fixated (or
stuck) at that stage. Later in life, when the person is under stress, they may regress (or return) to this
period of development to resolve earlier sources of frustration or relive a time of excessive gratification
of their needs. Table 12.3 presents a summary of the psychosexual stages of personality development.
TimelineJS Embed ([Link])

[Link] Evaluating Freud's Psychoanalytical Perspective (评价弗洛伊德的精神分析观点)

The evaluation of Freud’s psychoanalytical perspective is complicated. A major criticism of Freud’s

perspective is that he based his theory on evidence involving a limited number of individuals he treated
in his clinical practice seeking help for mental disorders—in other words, he developed a theory based
on “unhealthy personalities.” Such methods have been criticized as being inadequate means of testing
the quality of his ideas (Grunbuam, 1993).

However, it should be noted that many of his most important ideas about the influence of the
unconscious on personality were developed without the benefits of modern brain-imaging technology.
To his credit, and consistent with contemporary neuroscience research, he did correctly note that we
seem to have limited access to the operation of what goes on in our minds (Erdelyi, 2006). In addition,
although contemporary research has provided some evidence to support Freud’s ideas of defense
mechanisms, they seem to operate more at the conscious level of awareness as a deliberate strategy to
protect our self-image than as an unconscious response to weaken threatening impulses (Baumeister et
al., 1998).

The mere fact that his perspective on personality continues to be discussed over 150 years after his birth
is a testament to the enduring quality of his ideas . It should be noted, however, that this influence
seems to be stronger in academic departments outside of psychology than within psychology (Cohen,
2007), and there has been a general decline in his appeal within the scientific community (Bornstein,
2001).
12.2.2 Neo-Freudian Perspectives

The neo-Freudian perspectives represent explanations of personality based on reactions to and

extensions of Freud’s psychoanalytic perspective. The basis of each of these viewpoints reflects a
perceived limitation of some aspect of Freud’s ideas and a desire to correct that shortcoming.
[Link] Jung’s Analytical Perspective

Carl Jung was a Swiss physician and one of Freud’s earliest and strongest supporters because of their
mutual interest in the dynamics of the unconscious mind. However, over the years, the two began to
disagree. One major point of dispute was with Freud’s ideas regarding the nature of the unconscious
mind. Jung proposed the collective unconscious (Jung, 1959/1936b), which he believed was
interconnected through past experiences to other individuals across generations and locations around
the world. Contained in this region of the mind was a universal set of common thoughts, feelings,
behaviors, beliefs, rituals, emotions, experiences, images, and symbols inherited from all of those who
came before us over time, including animals. Examples of such universal knowledge and tendencies
include a fear of the unknown, the search for novelty, a desire for social order, and the need for
emotional contact with others.

Jung believed that all of this inherited universal knowledge was stored in the collective unconscious in
the form of archetypes (Jung, 1936a/1959, 1943/1953). Archetypes are universal thought patterns and
behavior rituals triggered by specific situations, symbols, and images representing certain people, ideas,
or beliefs. When expressed, these archetypes provide a universal response that is adaptive over time
and across situations. In addition to the general archetypes shown in Table 12.4, Jung (1917/1966)
proposed specific archetypes representing core elements of personality. The persona was the tendency
for people to develop a certain pattern of behavior when in public to get along with others, similar to
Freud’s superego. The shadow represents the dark and more primitive side of personality, similar to
Freud’s id. The self (Wilhelm & Jung, 1931), the most important archetype, serves to unite all other
aspects of the individual’s personality, much like Freud’s ego. Joseph Campbell (1949/1968/2008), a
famous philosopher, has noted that Jung's archetypes also appear repeatedly in stories and myths from
around the world. In the book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, he discusses the hero's journey that
appears throughout both Western and Eastern literature. Even if you have never read Campbell's
books, you are already familiar with both the plot structure and these characters from movies like Star
Wars and Harry Potter.
For Jung, the operational explanation of personality involves the expression of archetypes at the level of
conscious awareness. The uniqueness of the individual is based on the specific way each person chooses
to express these archetypes, depending on the time and place in which they live. The consistency of an
individual’s behavior is based on the extent to which certain archetypes are expressed in a similar
manner over time and across situations.
[Link] Adler’s Individual Perspective

Alfred Adler was an early supporter of Freud but eventually began to disagree with him on some of his
most important ideas, including the importance of unconscious sexual needs, the meaning of dreams,
and the role of the ego (Adler, 1931). Adler (1930) proposed that a striving for superiority, operating at
the conscious level, was the primary motivational source of personality. Striving for superiority does not
mean that we strive to be superior or better than others. Instead, it means trying to become a better
person in an effort to overcome real or imagined feelings of inferiority developed earlier in life through
interactions with parents, siblings, and peers.

It was Adler’s belief that striving for superiority should be guided by the principle of social interest. With
social interest (Adler, 1939), the goal of becoming a better person should be to make society better as
you make yourself a better person. For example, a high school science teacher volunteers at the local
science museum on the weekends to learn more about science and be a better teacher for her students
while also helping to keep the museum open on the weekends so more community members can visit to
better their knowledge and interest in science in their own efforts toward striving for superiority.

For Adler, the uniqueness of the individual is based on the selection of specific strategies used when
striving for superiority. The consistency of behavior is based on the extent to which the specific
strategies used are selected in a similar manner over time and across situations.

[Link] Horney’s Interpersonal Perspective

Karen Horney (pronounced HORN-eye) was a German psychoanalyst trained in the traditional Freudian
perspective. Although an initial supporter of Freud’s ideas, Horney focused more on interpersonal
relationships than on intrapsychic conflicts as the primary determinants of personality. For Horney
(1937), the motivational force underlying the expression of personality was the search for social
security, a sense of feeling safe and loved in our relationships with others. When individuals feel unsafe,
unloved, and powerless in their relationships, they develop feelings of basic anxiety. Feelings of basic
hostility begin to emerge along with the belief that significant others are not helping to create a secure
environment.
Horney (1945) identified three basic strategies individuals use to reduce feelings of basic anxiety and
establish a sense of safety. One strategy is moving toward people, in which the individual does and says
certain things in the hopes that others will like and take care of them. For example, teenagers may
succumb to peer pressure and conform to the beliefs and behaviors of others in an effort to be accepted
and to avoid being teased and ridiculed. A second strategy is moving away from people, in which the
individual withdraws emotionally in the hopes that others will not be able to harm them. As an example
of this strategy, a shy man stays at home and plays video games to avoid being rejected when he tries to
talk to individuals he finds attractive at parties. The third strategy is moving against people, in which the
individual tries to harm others first in the hopes of preventing others from considering doing harm to
them. For example, a woman ends a series of romantic relationships early to avoid having her heart
broken. Individuals with a healthy personality will employ a combination of all three of these strategies,
depending on the circumstances, whereas individuals with an unhealthy personality will focus on a
single strategy in all situations that involve interpersonal relationships.

For Horney, the operational process serving as the principal motivating source for the expression of
personality involves attempting to reduce feelings of basic anxiety and feelings of insecurity. The
uniqueness of the individual is based on the specific combination of the three strategies used by the
person seeking social security, and the consistency of behavior is based on the extent to which these
three strategies are used in a similar manner over time and across situations. Horney’s other important
contributions to the study of personality included her early emphasis on the role of society and culture
and her critique of Freud’s masculine bias regarding gender and personality.

[Link] Evaluating Neo-Freudian Perspectives (评估新弗洛伊德的观点)

Although not generating much empirical research themselves, subsequent efforts by others provide
support for certain aspects of the ideas of the neo-Freudian theorists. Scores on the Social Interest Scale
(Crandall, 1975), which assesses a general concern for others as defined by Adler, were positively
correlated with measures of empathy, helping, cooperation, like for others, and volunteerism (Bass et
al., 2006; Crandall, 1980, 1981). When examining the behavior of diabetics who were adjusting poorly to
the disease, specific patterns corresponding to Horney’s three strategies for dealing with basic anxiety
were identified (Bergman, et al.1990): seeking more attention from medical personnel or making more
frequent hospital visits (moving toward people), ignoring the advice of medical personnel (moving
against people), and avoiding or withdrawing from the health-care system as a result of an exaggerated
sense of personal mastery and ability to control the disease (moving away from people).
12.3 Humanistic Perspectives (人文视觉)

In direct contrast to the rather pessimistic views of the psychodynamic perspective, the humanistic
perspectives of personality are based on the underlying assumption that the expression of personality is
motivated by the internal desire for self-improvement and self-enhancement, which operates at the
conscious level of awareness. Humanism focuses on the individual’s perspective and addresses the
uniqueness of each person. This personality perspective became an active area of investigation in
response to the focus on the unconscious impulses in psychoanalytic theory and the limited focus on
behavior in behaviorism. Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers are the two most influential people in the
development of the humanistic perspectives.

12.3.1 Maslow’s Motivational Perspective: The Hierarchy of Needs (需求层次)

Abraham Maslow (1971) considered the motivational core of personality to be the desire for individuals
to seek a state of self-actualization—the tendency to strive for self-improvement and self-enhancement
to ultimately achieve one’s fullest potential. Maslow (1970) proposed a hierarchy of needs to
conceptualize the process of need fulfillment, where individuals must meet their basic biological needs
before proceeding to higher-order needs (see Figure 12.9). Maslow proposed that when individuals
meet the demands of one category in a consistent and satisfactory manner, efforts are made to begin to
meet the needs of other categories.
Among the five levels of the hierarchy, the individual must meet their most basic, life-
sustaining physiological needs (e.g., food, water, sleep) before moving to the next level (i.e., safety
needs). Safety needs include creating a secure and stable environment. Once these needs are met,
higher-order needs include a sense of belonging, need for esteem, and self-actualization. To fulfill
one’s belonging and love needs, a person needs to build healthy relationships with friends, family, and
possibly a romantic partner. Esteem needs are characterized by the desire to have the respect of others
and a sense of self-respect. Efforts to meet these needs might include securing the respect of others by
taking a leadership role in an organization or running for office in the community. Self-actualization
needs are characterized by the desire for individuals to reach to one’s fullest potential, which
incorporates an unending drive for self-improvement.

The need to develop and improve oneself is an ongoing process. Efforts to meet these needs involve
individuals being aware of and accepting their own abilities and potentials and, based on this sense of
self-awareness, pushing themselves to their maximum limits to meet personal and situational challenges
throughout life. Since a person can always make improvements on different aspects of themselves or
their lives, Maslow estimated that less than 1% of all people operate at the self-actualization level. Some
of those he deemed to be self-actualizers were Albert Einstein, William James (the “father” of
psychology in America), Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Even thought not
many people achieve it, he believed that striving for self-actualization was a fundamental tendency of
everyone and a life-long process.
12.3.2 Rogers’ Self-Theory

Carl Rogers purported that the core element of an individual’s personality is the self-concept, which
refers to how someone perceives his or her unique set of characteristics, skills, qualities, and
abilities. Self-esteem is how positively or negatively a person evaluates him- or herself based on life
experiences. An individual’s self-esteem is high when self-evaluation is consistent with thoughts and
actions. For example, a person may believe that he is a good tennis player based on the consistency of
his winning matches. However, self-esteem may be low if a person’s evaluation is inconsistent with life
experiences. For example, if someone considers himself to be a good tennis player and consistently
loses matches, then his self-esteem regarding his abilities at tennis declines markedly. Rogers (1959)
believed that the motivational source of personality was based on the fundamental tendency of the
individual to develop a personal sense of self-awareness and self-acceptance within the self-concept.
Rogers was a psychotherapist who assessed the current state of being (actual self) as well as the ideal
level that one would like to achieve (ideal self). As the discrepancy between these two measures
increases, self-esteem and self-worth decrease. The process of self-fulfillment can be hindered or helped
by our relationships with others, depending on whether significant others (e.g., parents, teachers,
friends, romantic partners) offer approval, acceptance, and love. Conditional positive regard serves to
stifle personal growth by placing limits on the acceptance people give to others. For example, parents
may show approval when their teenage daughter conforms to their wishes for her to go to medical
school instead of her own desire to study social work. Rogers (1959) proposed that the way in which you
can help others reach self-fulfillment is by treating them with unconditional positive regard, which
includes displaying an attitude of acceptance and respect for an individual, no matter what that person
says or does. When such an attitude is displayed, Rogers believed individuals are more willing to take
risks and test the limits of their abilities in an attempt to establish a more accurate sense of self without
fearing the judgment of significant others.

A common misconception of the attitude of unconditional positive regard is it requires the total
acceptance of whatever individuals wish to do under any circumstances. This is not true. According to
Rogers, what it really means is that while others may unconditionally accept the desires and wishes a
person might have, they do not need to accept the expression of harmful or destructive behaviors. It is
through the realistic use of unconditional positive regard that parents teach their children to express
their feelings and control their behavior. Receiving unconditional positive regard helps children foster
high self-esteem and develop a similar sense of respect for the feelings of others.

A major extension of Carl Rogers’ self-theory is the application of his ideas to his specific form of
psychotherapy (see Chapter 15: Treatment of Psychological Disorders). Rogers used his views regarding
conditions hindering personal growth to help account for the sense of emotional distress motivating
individuals to seek the assistance of a psychotherapist. Rogers believed that the expression of
unconditional positive regard by the therapist toward the client would help to create the therapeutic
relationship necessary for the person to begin to make the decisions required for a more healthy sense
of self (Rogers, 1957, 1959).
12.3.3 Evaluating Humanistic Perspectives

In contrast to the psychodynamic perspectives, the humanistic perspectives present a more positive
view of human nature operating on a more conscious level of awareness to make decisions and take
action to seek self-improvement. Such an approach is consistent with the contemporary focus on
optimal development seen in the field of positive psychology, which focuses on “changing the focus of
psychology from the ‘negative’ to the ‘positive,’ that is, from focusing almost exclusively on
psychopathology to focusing on building positive qualities in humans” (Lyons, 2001, p. 627).

However, there are inconsistencies in the support for some of the core humanistic ideas. In support of
Rogers’ core concept of unconditional positive regard, individuals who feel they are intrinsically liked
and accepted for who they are exhibit less defensive attitudes, creating the possibility of providing a
“more secure base from which to live one’s life” (Schimel et al., 2007, p. 49). In contrast, because
Maslow did not specify a timetable for meeting each level in the hierarchy of needs, it is difficult for
researchers to know when to assess meaningful changes in the individual’s progression within the
hierarchy (Muchinsky, 1983). In addition, there are plenty of examples where individuals operate in a
manner inconsistent with the ordering of the needs by sacrificing lower physiological and safety needs
for the expression of higher ideals, such as hunger strikers, political protesters, soldiers, and first
responders.

Even with such concerns, the major contribution of the humanistic perspectives was to propose a more
positive set of motives to account for the expression of personality operating at a more conscious level
of awareness. The social-cognitive perspective discussed in the next section will extend these major
ideas.
12.4 The Social-Cognitive Perspective (社会认知视觉)

According to the social-cognitive perspective, principal processes by which people develop certain
cognitions (i.e., thoughts, feelings, beliefs, assumptions, perceptions, expectations) about themselves
are based on noting the consequences of their behavior and observing the behavior of others across a
variety of situations. From this perspective, it is the unique expression of these cognitions that creates
individual differences in personality. In the study of personality, the individuals most closely associated
with the social-cognitive perspective are Albert Bandura, Julian Rotter, and Walter Mischel.

12.4.1 Bandura’s Self-System

According to Albert Bandura, a core element of personality is the self-system (Bandura, 1979, 1986). The
self-system is a set of cognitions that people use to observe, evaluate, and regulate their behavior in
different situations. For example, a shy student notices that at a specific pub on game day, those
wearing a home-team ball cap seem to have an easier time striking up conversations with others than
those not wearing one. As a result, he now wears the ball cap when going to the pub on game day. An
important process in the development of an individual’s self-system is observing and evaluating the
consequences of others’ behaviors. Using these cognitions, individuals develop the ability to self-
regulate. The self-system helps guide individual behavior choices by cognitively processing the
complexity of different situations, including the various potential consequences of different behaviors.
In addition to monitoring the behaviors of others, Bandura also proposed that people consider their
ability to satisfactorily perform various behaviors as well as the potential consequences of a particular
behavior in a given context to determine their sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2016). Self-
efficacy is the belief about one’s ability to successfully perform in a given situation. High levels of self-
efficacy occur when a person feels confident in their ability to excel in a variety of situations. Those with
low levels of self-efficacy lack the confidence necessary to perform in different contexts; expectations of
failure result in an individual’s overall lack of effort, which decreases the likelihood of success and
reinforces the belief that they are incapable. For example, a student who has done well in freshman and
sophomore year is more likely to have higher levels of self-efficacy regarding her future academic
performance than a student who has been on academic probation. In general, the individual will expect
past performance to be consistent.

12.4.2 Rotter’s Social Learning Perspective

For Julian Rotter (1966, 1990), the core element of personality is based on one’s locus of control—a
person’s belief in the extent to which they control what happens to them. Individuals with an external
locus of control have the general expectation that they lack control over the events in their lives,
whereas people with an internal locus of control believe that they control what happens in their current
life as well as their future. As a result, those with an internal locus of control are more likely to take
responsibility for their health, study more to get higher grades, and be able to cope with the stresses of
life better than individuals with an external locus of control (Lachman & Weaver,
1998). Researchers have also found that having an external locus of control is related to an assortment
of maladaptive behaviors, including excessive alcohol consumption among college students (Jih et al.,
1995), increased rates of alcoholism (Clements et al., 1995), and high rates of internet addiction (Chak &
Leung, 2004).

An external locus of control also seems to be a contributing factor to feelings of learned helplessness, a
sense of hopelessness in which individuals believe their ability to prevent unpleasant events in life is
outside of their control (Seligman, 1975). In the study of psychological disorders (see Chapter 14:
Psychological Disorders), a heightened sense of learned helplessness is believed to be a contributing
factor to the incidence of depressive disorders, as individuals literally “give up” trying to take steps to
improve the quality of their lives because of past failures. However, believing that you have too much
control over the events in your life can also create unrealistic expectations and feelings of
disappointment when your efforts do not produce the desired outcomes. The most effective expression
of locus of control would seem to be a more situation-specific approach, which is achieved by
conducting a closer and more realistic examination, based on past experiences, of what you have the
power to change, what you cannot change, and the cognitions to help you recognize the difference.
12.4.3 The Delay of Gratification: The Power of “Willpower”

For Walter Mischel, an important personality process associated with the expression of personality is
the ability to delay gratification and the consequences it creates (Mischel, 2014). Delay of gratification is
the willingness to forgo a smaller but immediate reward for a larger reward in the future. Mischel (2014)
employed the “marshmallow test” to test a child's ability to delay gratification. In a typical example of
this test, a child (aged 3–5 years) is told that their adult caretaker has to leave the room but will return.
Before leaving, the adult leaves a marshmallow on the table for the child. If the child could wait until the
adult returns, they would get a reward: the opportunity to eat several marshmallows. If the child could
not wait, they could eat just the one marshmallow. The length of time the children were willing to wait
before eating was the measure of their ability to delay gratification.

Mischel has documented the importance of delay of gratification as a core component of successful
personality adjustment in a variety of areas (Mischel & Ayduk, 2003). In a 20-year follow-up study,
adolescents who displayed the ability to delay gratification when they were in preschool had higher
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, were more likely to think and plan ahead, and were rated by their
parents as being more mature and better able to cope with stress than those who displayed a weaker
tendency to delay gratification (Shoda et al., 1990). Children who displayed better abilities to control
their impulses tended to have better physical health and reduced rates of substance abuse, and they
were less likely to engage in criminal offenses (Moffit et al., 2011).

A recent experiment, however, has led to a reinterpretation of the marshmallow test (Watts et al.,
2018). Watts and colleagues conducted a replication study. Replications, as you may recall from Chapter
2: Methods, are an important part of the scientific process, where researchers re-create an experiment
in an attempt to obtain the same results. The original marshmallow study (Shoda et al., 1990) included
fewer than 90 children in the sample, all enrolled in preschool on Stanford's campus.

The replication study used a much larger sample of 900 children. This sample provided a better
representation of the general population, showing a range of diversity in ethnicity, race, socioeconomic
status, and education of children’s parents. The second difference between this new study and the ones
that came before is that when Watts and colleagues analyzed their data, they took variables like
children’s socioeconomic status into consideration. The results of this new study suggest that there is
limited support for the hypothesis that delayed gratification is responsible for future success. Instead,
results indicate that the child's social and economic background predict both the ability of a child to hold
out for a larger reward in the marshmallow test and success later in life.

What should be done when new research changes the way we interpret older studies? You may have
seen article headlines like, “REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY! MARSHMALLOW STUDY FAILS TO
REPLICATE.” We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. In this instance,
children who could delay gratification still performed better later in life; the original work was not
invalid. Instead, we gained better insight into this effect. Like all good research, this replication adds to
our understanding of the phenomenon under investigation and generates new hypotheses and new
research questions.
12.4.4 Evaluating the Social-Cognitive Perspective

The social-cognitive perspective has been evaluated favorably for its emphasis on the role of cognitive
processes operating at a conscious level of awareness to influence how individuals make decisions to
express their personality. The perspectives of Bandura, Rotter, and Mischel have provided empirical
evidence in support of their ideas about the operation of personality. Concerns regarding the social-
cognitive perspective include a lack of attention to the emotional elements of personality as well as little
information on the developmental aspects of personality (Westen, 1998).
12.5 Biological Perspectives (生物学观点)

The biological perspectives of personality assume that certain biological factors and processes serve to
influence the underlying operation and expression of personality. In this section, we will review three
biological processes associated with the operation and expression of personality: the behavioral
genetics perspective, the neurological perspective, and the evolutionary perspective.

12.5.1 Behavioral Genetics Perspective (行为遗传学视角)

The behavioral genetics perspective examines the degree to which contributions from certain inherited
biological factors (i.e., our genes) interact with environmental factors (i.e., our family environment or
socioeconomic status) to determine the expression of certain personality characteristics in different
groups. This perspective is at the level of the group rather than the individual.

One of the most common methods used to estimate the genetic contribution to the expression of
personality is to study twins. Twin studies can vary by either looking at the difference between
monozygotic versus dizygotic twins or comparing twins reared together with those reared
apart. Monozygotic twins (MZ) have the exact same genetic makeup; one egg (ovum) is released and
fertilized by one sperm, which subsequently divides into two separate cells, and two zygotes develop
into what are commonly referred to as identical twins. In contrast, dizygotic twins, or fraternal twins,
develop from two separate fertilized eggs and are no more alike in their genetic structure than any other
pair of siblings. Theoretically speaking, siblings have approximately 50% shared genetic material,
whereas monozygotic twins have 100% shared genetic material.
To assess the genetic contribution of personality traits, responses to personality tests are compared
across many sets of monozygotic and dizygotic twins that were raised together. The degree of similarity
between any set of twins on any measure of personality is assessed using the correlation coefficient and
is referred to as the concordance rate. When personality traits have higher concordance rates for
monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins, it is assumed that the magnitude of the differences represents
the level of heritability of the trait being assessed. For example, when comparing the scores on a
measure of extraversion involving twins from Canada and Germany, the results indicated that identical
twins showed a higher degree of similarity, with a concordance rate of r = .47, than the fraternal twins,
with a concordance rate of r = 21 (Jang et al., 2002).

Table 12.5 summarizes the degree of similarity for various personality measures in identical twins reared
apart as assessed by the correlation coefficient—the higher the correlation, the more similarity there is
(Tellegen et al., 1998). Inspection of the table indicates that the genetic contribution is not the same for
different personality traits.

However, when examining genetic contributions to personality, it is a common misconception to assume

that these estimates can be applied to any single individual. Such estimates of heredity—the amount of
variability in personality measures that can be accounted for by a genetic contribution—are calculated
based on, and apply to, groups of individuals, not a specific individual. For example, when calculating the
genetic contribution to a sense of well-being for Table 12.5, the estimates of heredity for some
individuals in this sample will display a strong relationship, some a weak relationship, and others a
moderate relationship. To account for the wide ranges of possible scores, the overall estimate of
heredity is based on the average of all of these scores, not any one particular score. By considering the
average of all responses, it is possible to take into consideration all of the potential complex interactions
between genetic and environmental factors. For example, estimates of heredity when it comes to an
individual's general degree of happiness tend to show that genetics contributes about 50% (Roysamb et
al., 2002). What this means is, on average and across different groups of people, roughly half of what
makes people happy is genetically determined.
12.5.2 Neurological Perspective: Physiological and Cortical Influences

The neurological perspective examines the extent to which various physiological factors (e.g., hormones
and neurotransmitters) and brain activity (e.g., arousal and inhibition) determine the expression of
certain personality characteristics. When considering physiological influences, an increased level of the
masculine hormone testosterone is associated with such personality characteristics as dominance,
aggression, persistence (Dabbs, 2000), sensation-seeking, and high-risk behaviors (Zuckerman, 2005).
Lower levels of the inhibitory neurotransmitter serotonin are associated with a greater willingness of
individuals to engage in thrill-seeking activities (Zuckerman, 2005, 2011).

Specific brain processes and structures are associated with the expression of certain personality
characteristics. Compared to low sensation-seekers, high sensation-seekers tend to exhibit a larger
pattern of arousal in the brain in response to a new stimulus but a much faster reduction in arousal to
that same stimulus when experiencing it again and again over time (Zuckerman, 1989). Such a specific
response pattern of excitement and boredom helps to explain why high sensation-seekers continue to
take greater and greater risks (e.g., gamble more) to maintain their level of interest and avoid boredom.

The ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) is a network of structures in the midbrain (see Figure
12.13) that acts as a filter, is responsible for regulating arousal in the brain, and is linked with the
personality dimension of introversion and extraversion. In general, introverts tend to have a level of
cortical activity that is higher than average, while extraverts seem to have a lower level of arousal
(Eysenck, 1976). The tendency for introverts to be more socially withdrawn seems to reflect their desire
to reduce the additional stimulation of being around others. On the other hand, the tendency of
extraverts to seek out the company and stimulation of others seems to reflect their desire to increase
the amount of activity to compensate for their generally lower-than-average level of arousal.
12.5.3 Evolutionary Perspective (进化观点)

The evolutionary perspective uses evolutionary theory to account for differences in personality (Buss,
2008) because these differences are adaptive responses to the two fundamental challenges of evolution:
survival and reproductive success. The personality characteristics associated with survival
include conscientiousness (Friedman et al., 1993), which makes individuals more likely to engage in
health-promoting behaviors and avoid risks, and optimism, which makes individuals more likely to have
fewer symptoms and quicker recovery when dealing with medical concerns (Friedman & Martin, 2001;
Tucker & Friedman, 1996).

Two personality characteristics negatively associated with longevity are the hostile Type A
personality and neuroticism (Friedman et al., 1994). Individuals demonstrating this pattern of hostility
tend to suppress their feeling of emotional distress, frustration, and anger, thereby increasing the
effects of these emotions on their overall health, which can often lead to abuse of tobacco, alcohol, and
drugs to seek comfort. Individuals exhibiting neuroticism tend to be overly moody, unstable, and overly
anxious, which contributes to a general state of hyperarousal and tension.

In terms of reproductive success, the evolutionary perspective emphasizes those personality

characteristics associated with functionally infertile individuals (FII)—those for whom reproduction is
possible but rates of reproductive success are low. Personality characteristics correlating with females
classified as high FII include harm avoidance (Fasino et al., 2002), which results in less frequent sexual
intercourse; low cooperativeness, creating difficulties with potential sexual partners; and higher scores
on measures of depression and anxiety, resulting in negative emotions being associated with sexual
activity. Personality characteristics associated with males classified as low FII (i.e., have a greater
likelihood of reproduction) include self-confidence, extraversion, and social assertiveness (Hellhammer
et al., 1985). Such a pattern suggests the potential association between those bold and confident males
who are willing to approach would-be sexual partners and the possibility of creating more opportunities
for sexual intercourse.
12.5.4 Evaluating Biological Perspectives

Biological perspectives have done much to enhance our understanding of how various behavioral,
genetic, biological, and evolutionary concepts contribute to the nature and expression that makes each
personality unique. This increased knowledge includes assessing the extent to which various personality
dimensions have an inherited tendency; developing a greater appreciation of the role of hormones,
neurotransmitters, and brain structures in the expression of personality; and linking the specific study of
personality to the more universal principles of evolutionary theory.

One area open to development within the biological perspective is to create more specific explanations
of just how certain biological processes are associated directly with particular aspects of personality. For
example, specific regions of the midbrain are associated with a wide assortment of personality
characteristics, ranging from aggression to empathy to happiness. In addition, given the multilevel
interconnectedness of how various biological processes and the different regions and structures of the
brain work, future developments will require a more unifying biological theoretical perspective to
explain and predict exactly how these networks result in the expression of personality. These are not
meant to be criticisms. They merely reflect the sentiments that such biological perspectives are still
relatively new to the study of personality. The rapid pace of technological advances in the biological
sciences will certainly find their way into the study of personality.
12.6 The Trait Perspective: Traits as the Building Blocks of Personality (特质视角：特质作为人格的基石)

When describing our own physical characteristics and features or those of other individuals, the
standard process is to list a series of physical attributes. For example, when creating an online dating
profile, an individual might say, “I’m 6’4” and weigh 220 pounds with an athletic physique, deep-set
brown eyes, and shoulder-length brown hair worn in a ponytail”. When describing our own
psychological characteristics or those of other individuals, the standard process is to list a series of
personal adjectives in the form of traits—terms we use to describe our own personality and the
personality of others that we assume to be stable over time and across situations. For example, to
complete the dating profile, the individual might describe himself by saying, “I am funny but not in a
sarcastic way. I am dependable and conscientious at work and in my social relationships. I tend to be shy
around new people but outgoing with friends.” The trait perspective seeks to identify which
characteristics comprise personality and how these traits vary in ways that make each person unique.

Within this perspective, differences exist for some of the most fundamental questions regarding the
nature and expression of traits. Theories differ in terms of what they consider to be the exact number of
basic traits and in the specific traits identified. Attempts have been made to create organizational
structures of the number and nature of traits to make their study more unified and coherent. Gordon W.
Allport, the founder of personality psychology in the United States, counted the number of words in the
1925 edition of the Webster New International Dictionary that could be used to distinguish the behavior
of one individual from another (Allport & Odbert, 1936). The outcome was the identification of
approximately 55,000 terms. He reduced this list to 4,500 by applying a stricter set of standards to
reduce redundancy and ambiguity among the words. A few years later, Raymond B. Cattell (1943, 1945),
another famous personality psychologist, combined these 4,500 terms with another 100 and used factor
analysis to identify 35 major dimensions of personality, which he eventually reduced to 16 major
personality factors (Cattell, 1950, 1965) and incorporated into his widely used Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF) (Cattell et al.l, 1993). Factor analysis is a statistical technique that uses pattern
association to group together many items in a personality test based on their similarity in content. These
related items are clustered together and reduced into a set of major factors (e.g., dimensions of
personality). For example, similar responses to such items as “I get nervous in social situations” and “I
prefer reading books to dancing” would be grouped together into a factor labeled “introversion.” Similar
responses to such items as “I like to drive above the speed limit” and “I prefer going to a casino to
reading books” would be grouped together into a factor labeled “thrill-seeker.” Two of the major trait
perspectives based on factor analysis include Eysenck’s trait theory and the five-factor model.

12.6.1 Eysenck’s Trait Theory: The Three-Factor Theory

Hans J. Eysenck (1990) proposed a trait theory of personality called the Three-Factor Theory, which
consists of three trait dimensions: extraversion-introversion, neuroticism-emotional stability,
and psychoticism-impulse control. According to Eysenck, each trait dimension is associated with a
specific set of personality characteristics and a specific biological component.
The expression of personality for extraverted individuals includes the tendency to like being around
others, enjoying excitement, as well as being optimistic and adventurous. The expression of personality
for introverted individuals includes being socially distant, introspective, emotionally controlled,
calculating, and orderly. According to Eysenck, extraverts have a lower level of brain activity in the ARAS
while introverts tend to have a higher level.

The expression of personality for individuals possessing a high degree of neuroticism includes the
tendency to be touchy, restless, moody, and anxious. The expression of personality for individuals
possessing a low degree of neuroticism includes being carefree, even-tempered, and calm. Eysenck
proposed that neuroticism is associated with increased levels of activity in the sympathetic nervous
system.

The expression of personality for individuals possessing a high degree of psychoticism includes the
tendency to be impulsive, cold, aggressive, unconcerned about the rights and welfare of others, and
antisocial. The expression of personality for individuals possessing a low degree of psychoticism includes
the tendency to be warm, sensitive, and concerned for others. Eysenck proposed that variation in the
expression of the aggressive-impulsive nature of psychoticism was linked to high levels of testosterone
and low levels of monoamine oxidase, or MAO (Eysenck, 1990).

12.6.2 The Five-Factor Model: The Big Five Personality Factors

By far, the most influential contemporary trait theory is the five-factor model (FFM) (Costa & McCrae,
2006; McCrae & Costa, 1999, 2008), also referred to as the “Big Five.” The FFM provides a theoretical
framework for the purpose of analyzing and classifying terms used by individuals to describe their own
personality and the personality of others. Based on the use of factor analysis, the five factors in the FFM
include openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, or OCEAN, to help
you remember them. Table 12.6 presents a summary of those specific characteristics associated with
individuals scoring high and low on each of the Big Five factors.
There is considerable evidence documenting the usefulness of the FFM to describe personality, predict
behavior, and address important social concerns. Systematic investigations suggest the universal
existence of the FFM across a variety of different cultures around the world (McCrae, 2002; McCrae et
al., 2005) as well as chimpanzees living in zoos (King & Figueredo, 1999). The FFM is associated with
occupational choice, such as rock musicians tending to score high on openness (Gillespie & Myors, 2000)
while high-scoring extraverts are more likely to start a business (Baron & Markman, 2003). The FFM
helps predict academic success, such as high scores on conscientiousness being linked to higher grade-
point averages (Noftle & Robins, 2007; Paunonen, 2003) while high scores on neuroticism are linked to
lower exam scores (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Judge & Ilies, 2002). The FFM dimensions of
agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness have all been found to be positively correlated with
happiness (Lucas & Fujita, 2000; Peterson, 2006).

Before moving on to the next section, watch the following video on "The Power of Introverts" by Susan
Cain.

The power of introverts | Susan Cain - YouTube

12.6.3 Evaluating the Trait Perspective

Based on the trait perspective, researchers have identified key personality characteristics that account
for individual differences between people and are predictive of a variety of behaviors. Using traits to
understand differences in people makes intuitive sense. Although there are a number of different traits
identified by different theorists, there is a general consensus that aspects of personality can be overtly
measured on a continuum, and these constructs are predictive of future behavior, appear to be
supported by neurobiological evidence, and are sometimes genetically linked and thus are heritable.
12.7 Personality Assessment: Methods for Measuring Personality

Personality assessment is the use of standardized measurement instruments to examine various aspects
of personality with the goal of helping people better understand themselves and others and be better
able to make decisions. In clinical and counseling settings, methods of assessment are used by mental
health professionals to help diagnose and classify the emotional problems of individuals seeking
treatment, along with assessing the degree of progress made. In legal settings, different methods are
used in the courtroom to help determine if an individual is mentally competent to stand trial, in prisons
by parole officers to evaluate if an inmate is ready for parole, and by law enforcement training agencies
to help in the selection of potential recruits to receive training. In some corporate settings, methods of
personality assessment are used by personnel psychologists to make some hiring and promotion
decisions.

12.7.1 Understanding Reliability and Validity

To provide accurate results, personality tests need to have two important qualities: reliability and
validity. Similar to a ruler or thermometer, personality tests should be reliable in the results they
provide. Reliability is the consistency of a measure—a personality questionnaire should yield similar
scores each time a person takes it. The notion of consistency over time is referred to as test-retest
reliability. Personality is a construct that is believed to be stable over time (meaning your personality
does not change). Test-retest reliability is the administration of a personality measure to a group at least
twice, where scores at time 1 are correlated with scores at time 2; when the correlation between the
two administrations is at least r = .70, then the test is said to be stable over time. Be aware that the
threshold of .70 is merely a rule of thumb used by many psychometricians.
But reliability is not the only measure used in personality assessment. Imagine you are testing the
reliability of a new personality measure of honesty that was developed by a colleague, and you find high
levels of test-retest reliability (r = .81). You may be excited and think your coworker developed a great
new personality measure. But before you start celebrating, you remember that although reliability is
important, it merely assesses whether something is being measured consistently (i.e., over time or
within a measure itself). However, the scale could be meaningless. You then read the items on the
measure and note that a significant amount of questions focus on how much the rater likes consuming
mushrooms and other fungi.

Reliability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining the quality of a test. The test must
also possess validity. The validity of a measure represents the measure’s accuracy and assesses whether
you are measuring what you think you are measuring. Validity is the proper use of a test. Taken
together, this means that a test can be reliable but not valid, but if it lacks reliability then it is also not
valid. For example, the “personality quiz” given on consuming mushrooms is likely not a valid indicator
of honesty, but rather simply reflects how much people like mushrooms. It is important to understand
that the validity of a measure depends on its use.

It is also important to demonstrate the predictive validity of test items. Predictive validity documents the
extent to which the scores from the items on the test can predict the behavior it is proposing to
measure. In this example, evidence would need to be provided that the mushroom items are actually
related to other measures of honesty, such as how likely a person is to cheat on a test, lie to an
employer, or steal items from a clothing store.
When assessing the Big Five personality factors, research has consistently found that conscientiousness
is a valid predictor of quality employees for many jobs. High scores on conscientiousness have been
found to be predictive of positive behaviors and success within an organization. Let's look at how this
predictive validity is established. A psychometrician (one who knows about reliability and validity) would
administer the scale for measuring conscientiousness to a group of applications (although scores would
not be considered when making hiring decisions). After the group of hires has been on the job for about
six months, each worker’s performance would be objectively assessed (note that this assessment is not
done immediately after hire, because people are trying to figure out the job and there are other factors
that affect success at that point; however, after six months, most people are settled in and are
performing at their prime). Employers would consider the correlation between the pre-hire scores of
conscientiousness and post-hire performance scores. The magnitude of that correlation would reflect
the predictive validity of the measure of conscientiousness on future work performance for the job
examined. The measure’s high-level predictive validity reflects the appropriate use of a test. In other
words, the test is a useful tool for predicting job performance and, as such, we would conclude that the
test is valid. However, the findings would only apply to similar situations (i.e., predicting performance in
similar types of jobs).

Predictive validity is a criterion-related form of validity, meaning it is trying to ascertain some outcome
(e.g., job success). Another form of criterion-related validity is concurrent validity. The
word concurrent reflects simultaneous assessment, whereas predictive implies forecasting into the
future. To determine the concurrent validity of a measure, you would administer the personality
measure and simultaneously assess the criterion. With positive workplace behaviors and performance,
you would sample employees in the job of interest, administer the personality measure, and then
measure the outcome-based behaviors of interest (e.g., their current performance level, rate of
absenteeism, productivity level).

There are other forms of reliability and validity that are commonly assessed when determining the
appropriate use of a test. However, they are beyond the scope of this text. Those who are interested in
understanding how to administer measures and the appropriate use of scores should take a course on
psychological measurement, sometimes called "Tests and Measures" or "Personality (or Psychological)
Assessment." These courses cover the various types of measures, the appropriate administration of
different measures, and the psychometric properties of different measures (i.e., reliability and validity).
12.7.2 Personal Interviews

Personal interviews involve asking a series of questions to a particular individual or comparing the
answers to these questions across several individuals to assess individual differences in the expression of
personality. For example, applicants applying to be police officers might be asked to indicate how they
would respond to a variety of situations, such as a call to the scene of domestic violence or an armed
individual threatening suicide. The logic of the personal interview method of personality assessment is
that what you say reveals information about the nature of your personality. The advantage of using
interviews is the individual can respond in their own words with any responses they see fit. A principal
disadvantage is the extent to which individuals are telling the interviewer the truth or simply saying
what they think the interviewer wants to hear, which is a possibility in many other forms of
psychological testing relying on self-report responses. This is particularly true when the questions are of
a sensitive nature (e.g., sexual thoughts or activities) or related to the violations of ethical codes of
conduct (e.g., stealing, lying).

12.7.3 Observational Assessment Techniques

Observational assessment techniques measure personality by using specific guidelines for recording
what individuals do, think, and feel in naturalistic (e.g., observing individuals at the mall) and controlled
(e.g., observing individuals in a psychological laboratory) settings. Behavioral observation involves
recording actual behaviors as they occur, such as recording the distance shy and non-shy individuals
stand away from others (Carducci & Webber, 1979). Self-monitoring techniques involve individuals
recording the frequency they engage in particular behaviors (e.g., checking one’s cell phone during class)
or have certain feelings (e.g., expressions of test anxiety during exams). Thought sampling techniques
require individuals to record the nature and frequency of the thoughts they have in certain situations,
such as having difficulties when meeting new people at a party (e.g., “I just know people are going to
think I’m not interesting.”).

The advantage of observational assessment techniques is that they make it possible to assess a variety
of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in a wide range of situations. A disadvantage is that the same
response may mean different things to different people, such as a lack of eye contact being interpreted
as fear versus disinterest. Another disadvantage is that we must trust individuals using the self-report
techniques to be honest when recording their own behaviors, which can come into doubt when the
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are of a negative (e.g., feelings or thoughts of depression or suicide) or
socially undesirable (e.g., engaging in theft or sexual infidelity) nature.

The following short video describes the basic elements of using the technique of self-monitoring.

Self-Monitoring: Why it Works and When it Doesn't - YouTube

12.7.4 Objective Self-Report Techniques

Objective self-report techniques measure personality by linking the responses individuals provide to a
series of standardized items contained in personality tests. When responding to a set of standardized
items contained in these tests, the individuals are to respond to a fixed format of alternatives. For
example, one personality test might have a true-false fixed format in which individuals must respond
with the answer of “true” or “false” to each item. Another personality test might use a five-point
response fixed format in which individuals must respond to the test item “I am nervous about meeting
new people” by selecting options ranging from 1 = not like me at all, 2 = somewhat not like me, 3 =
neither like or not like me, 4 = somewhat like me, and 5 = much like me. This principal characteristic of
including such fixed formats makes it easier to compare the scores of individuals to these objective
personality tests because everyone is responding to the specific set of items using the same fixed format
of response alternatives.

Such tests can either measure a single dimension of personality or multiple dimensions. The advantages
of single-dimension tests are that they tend to be relatively short and allow the testing professional to
focus on the specific dimension of interest, such as shyness, creativity, locus of control, hostility, or
sensation-seeking. Multiple-dimension personality tests attempt to measure more than one dimension
at a time. For example, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1994) assesses
three dimensions, the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) measures the Big Five dimensions of
personality, and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF ; Cattell et al., 1993) examines 16
factors of personality. However, the most widely used and extensively researched multidimensional
personality test is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1940,
1943) and the revised MMPI-2 (Butcher, 2000, 2006; Butcher et al., 1989).

The MMPI-2 assesses 10 trait-like clinical dimensions of personality and contains 567 test questions to
which individuals must respond in a fixed format by selecting from three response
alternatives: true, false, or cannot say. The MMPI was originally designed to help diagnose individuals
suffering from major psychological disorders. A unique feature of the development of the MMPI was the
procedure used for selecting the items to be included in the test. Initially, responses to a sample of
items from individuals diagnosed with psychological disorders were compared to normal controls. The
items that distinguished individuals with psychological problems from normal controls were retained in
the original MMPI. In addition, items with responses that distinguished those individuals suffering from
one major category of a psychological disorder from another were grouped together to assess that
particular clinical dimension of personality. Grouping these items together was the basis of the 10
clinical dimensions of personality assessed by the MMPI and MMPI-2. The MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989;
Graham, 2012) includes an additional set of 12 supplementary scales representing subsequent
refinements in the identification of specific disorders (e.g., the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale).
These scales also incorporated other dimensions of personality that would be helpful in the diagnosis
and treatment of less severe but more frequent emotional problems (e.g., the College Maladjustment
Scale). A summary of these 10 major MMPI clinical subscales appears in Table 12.7.
In addition to the 10 clinical dimensions of personality appearing in Table 12.7, the MMPI-2 contains
four validity subscales designed to assess the quality of the responses of those taking the test. These
four measures identify the extent to which individuals are systematically biasing the nature of the
responses for the following alternative motives:

 The Cannot Say Scale assesses the degree to which the individual is trying to conceal
unfavorable information about personal tendencies (e.g., high frequency of “cannot say”
responses)

 The Lie Scale (L) identifies the extent to which the person is trying to respond in a socially
desirable manner (e.g., trying to appear more psychologically well adjusted than they are)
  The Infrequency Scale (F) monitors if the respondent does not seem to be taking the test
seriously (e.g., responding in an inconsistent manner to similar or related questions)

 The Correction Scale (K) examines the possibility of the individual responding in a defensive
manner (e.g., guarding against attempting to have psychological problems)

It is important to identify these response styles because of the threat they provide to obtaining
meaningful results from the test.

Going beyond assessing the responses to the 10 clinical dimensions of personality and four subscales, a
special feature of the MMPI-2 is the creation of a personality profile by examining the pattern of
responses across a combination of the scales. An example of a personality profile is shown in Figure
12.15. Certain profiles with specific patterns of response have been found to be associated with
different psychiatric disorders and personality characteristics (Graham, 2012). Although the MMPI was
originally designed to help diagnose psychiatric disorders, its personality profiles have also been used
successfully in a variety of settings (Graham, 2012), including some of the following:

 Medical settings to identify subtypes of pain disorder and to evaluate potential psychological
responses to medical treatments

 Personnel screening to help select employees for sensitive occupations, such as safety officers,
airplane pilots, firefighters, police officers, and hotline workers

 Correctional settings to help determine the mental competency of defendants to stand trial,
assist in the classification of prisoners to predict their behavior while incarcerated (e.g.,
dangerousness) and after their release, and to evaluate the validity of psychological and
emotional damages suffered in personal injury disputes
When assessing personality measures, it is important to determine the psychometric properties of the
measure (i.e., reliability and validity). Reliability is the consistency of a measure over time. Validity
determines the accuracy and usefulness of a personality inventory to predict what it says it is measuring.
There are different means of assessing validity, but ultimately the essential aspect of validity is the
appropriate use of a test/measure.

Among the different methods of personality assessment, objective self-report techniques emphasize the
standardization of personality tests, which makes them easy to administer to groups of individuals
quickly and without bias. The widespread use of personality tests necessitates documented reliability
and validity. One of the difficulties of only using overt measures of personality is its reliance on test
takers to provide truthful and unbiased answers. Additionally, using fixed-format response options does
not allow individuals to elaborate on their answers.
12.7.5 Projective Techniques: An Indirect Look at Personality(投射技术：对人格的间接观察)

Projective techniques of personality assessment involve asking an individual to respond to ambiguous

test items that do not appear to have any clear or specific meaning. In the response, the individual is
free to express whatever he or she sees in the test item. Based on Freud’s model of the mind, the
underlying logic of projective techniques is that the meaning the person projects onto the ambiguous
test stimuli reflects the individual’s unconscious feelings, needs, and desires. Since there is no “clear”
answer, it is difficult for the individual to attempt to provide what he or she thinks is the most
appropriate or socially desirable answer. As a result, supporters of the use of projection techniques
believe that this form of measurement provides the most authentic assessment of an individual’s
personality. However, the use of projective techniques remains highly criticized because there is a lack
of reliability (without reliability, a measure is meaningless) and there is scant evidence to support the
validity of projective techniques. However, despite the lack of supported psychometric data, projective
techniques are still used in a variety of settings.

[Link] Association Techniques

There are many different forms of projective techniques of personality assessment (Lindzey,
1961). Association techniques present a test stimulus to an individual and then ask him or her to
respond with the first word, thought, or feeling that comes to mind. One example of this technique is
the word association test, in which personality is revealed by the pattern of the words, thoughts, or
feeling triggered by the series of test words. The most famous example of an association technique is
the Rorschach inkblot test (Rorschach, 1942). With this projective test, the individual is shown 10
different inkblots, such as the one in Figure 12.16. After each inkblot, the individual is asked to report
what he or she perceives the inkblot to be (e.g., a bat, or a drone, or a Viking helmet).
After analyzing the images and activities projected by the individual onto the inkblots, the examiner
makes a judgment about the individual’s personality based on the common emotional and psychological
themes appearing in the responses (Exner, 2002; Exner & Erdberg, 2005). When evaluating these
judgments, a major criticism of using the Rorschach is its overall lack of reliability and validity (Wood et
al., 2003). More specifically, the seemingly unlimited number of possible responses to the inkblots
makes a consistent pattern of interpretation of the results across raters difficult. An even more serious
concern is that the Rorschach leads to the overly pathological assessment of personality; Garb and
colleagues (2002) present compelling data that when the Rorschach is used in assessment, the findings
yield elevated rates of pathological disorders and psychopathology, which often led to the pathologizing
of normal children and adults.

The inkblot test continues to be used today because of the sustained support it receives by those
emphasizing the psychoanalytical perspective in their research and psychotherapeutic efforts (Exner,
2002; Exner & Erdberg, 2005). However, in their review of the empirical evidence for the Rorschach,
Hunsley and Bailey (1999) came to the conclusion that there is basically no current evidence supporting
the scientific basis for justifying its use in psychological assessment. Other researchers echo this
sentiment and have warned that continuing to use it, along with the shortcomings of projective
techniques in general, can lead to poor assessment decisions (Garb et al., 2002).

[Link] Construction Techniques

Another form of projective assessment are construction techniques. Construction techniques involve the
individual creating something, such as a story, from the test stimuli. The most famous example of this
technique is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Morgan & Murry, 1935; Murry, 1938, 1943). With the
TAT, an individual is shown a series of 17 cards containing an ambiguous photograph and asked to
complete a story for each photograph (e.g., the young woman is thinking about leaving to avoid another
argument with her mother; the boy wants to go outside to play instead of practicing the violin). After
analyzing the actions and motives projected by the individual into the creation of the stories, the
examiner makes a judgment about the individual’s personality based on the common emotional and
psychological themes appearing in the responses. For example, because of the common themes of
oppression and escape, the interpretation is that the individual has a rebellious personality.

The sheer number of possible stories that can be projected onto the photographs contributes to a lack
of reliability in the interpretation of the responses across administrators of this test. Over the years,
there have been many published guides to interpreting the stories expressed during the administration
of the TAT. Interestingly, one of the leading reasons for the lack of consistent support for the TAT is the
administrators’ disregard for standardized methods of interpretation. Instead, practitioners are relying
solely on their intuition rather than a tested means of analysis. Lilienfeld et al., (2001) found that among
100 North American psychologists who were practicing in juvenile and domestic court systems, only 3%
of psychologists used the standardized scoring for the TAT; 97% merely relied on their intuition, which is
seriously troubling since psychologists’ “intuition” is less accurate and related to higher levels of
perceived abnormalities and an increased perception of psychopathology.
Projective techniques were developed based on the psychoanalytic perspective of the unconscious mind
and the notion that providing responses to ambiguous stimuli allows unconscious thoughts to be
expressed. Criticisms of projective techniques focus on the lack of reliability and validity when evaluating
responses. In general, the seemingly unlimited number of possible responses to the ambiguous test
stimuli requires a complex set of interpretive decisions by the examiners that can contribute to this lack
of reliability and validity.
12.7.6 Psychophysiological Assessment Techniques

Psychophysiological assessment techniques link various bodily responses with an assortment of

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to examine individual differences in the expression of different
dimensions of personality. Electrophysiological measures involve linking certain bodily processes, such
as heart rate, muscle tension, and skin conductance (i.e., “sweating”), to different dimensions of
personality. An example of this technique would be comparing the heart rate of individuals who had
previously scored high or low on a measure of test anxiety while taking the same test. The predictive
validity of this test would be supported by a pattern of results indicating a relatively high average heart
rate for those with high test anxiety.

Biochemical measures involve linking an assortment of biochemical processes, such as

neurotransmitters, hormones, and genetic characteristics, to different dimensions of personality. For
example, this technique could be used to test the assumption of the neurological perspective linking
testosterone to aggression. In this case, a researcher could record the number of aggressive acts made
while playing a violent video game and scores on the Psychopathic Deviant (Pd) subscale of the MMPI-2
for individuals with high versus low levels of testosterone. Evidence in support of the theory would be
for those individuals with high levels of testosterone to display more aggressive acts and greater Pd
scores than those with low levels.

Cortical measures involve linking certain levels of electrical activity in different regions of the brain with
different dimensions of personality. Examples of this technique have used functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI, see Chapter 3: Biology & Neuroscience) to examine the level of brain arousal
of individuals with problematic (e.g., drug dependency, antisocial personality disorder; Raine et al.,
2000) and healthy (e.g., adaptive responses to stress) personalities (Herrington et al., 2005).
An advantage of the psychophysiological assessment techniques is that they link the expression of
individual differences in personality with objective measures of bodily processes to help us understand
the nature and the extent of biological contributions to personality. A disadvantage of these techniques
is that the same bodily reaction can have different meanings. For example, an elevated heart rate is
associated with both fear and excitement. Another disadvantage is that various regions of the brain
have more than one function, which makes formulating specific conclusions difficult. For example,
because the frontal lobe of the brain is associated with a variety of complex functions, ranging from
impulse control to abstract reasoning to a sense of self, coming to a specific conclusion about how this
part of the brain affects personality is difficult. However, advances in the knowledge of how and why
these techniques work will help to minimize this criticism.
12.8 Concluding Remarks on the Study of Personality

Personality is a multifaceted, complex subfield of psychology. After examining the different personality
perspectives and techniques of personality assessment, there is a tendency for students to ask, “Which
one is the best to use?” The answer is that there is no “best” perspective or technique. Each perspective
and technique has its strengths and limitations. The perspective or technique to use is the one that best
fits the question being asked. For example, to study creativity from a biological perspective, a
personality psychologist could employ fMRI to compare the degree of activity in the left and the right
sides of the brains of a group of professional artists and another group of adults in a beginning art class.
To investigate the relationship between the traits of introversion and depression, a researcher working
from the trait perspective could correlate scores on the Social Introversion (Si) and Depression (D)
subscales of the MMPI-2. To examine anxiety, a clinical researcher working from the social-cognitive
perspective could employ a thought sampling technique by having clients record their thoughts while in
different stressful situations before and after providing them with therapy.

A better understanding of the operational processes of personality will most likely be achieved by
combining more than one personality perspective with more than one assessment technique . For
example, Table 12.8 presents a comprehensive illustration of how the personality dimension of anxiety
is best understood as an expression of the different personality perspectives and assessed using
different techniques.

The left column of Table 12.8 suggests that the investigation of anxiety as a personality dimension can
be studied from many different perspectives. The center column provides various explanations to
account for the internal operations producing this expression of anxiety according to each viewpoint.
The right column indicates how each perspective could assess the unique and consistent expression of
anxiety. Taken together, this summary illustrates the comprehensive nature of the study of personality.
12.9 Summary

In this chapter, you learned:

 Personality is a set of enduring, internal characteristics a person has that (1) produce
uniqueness/individuality, (2) produce consistency in a person’s thoughts and behaviors, and (3)
offer an explanation for a person’s uniqueness and behavior.

 Freudian psychodynamic perspectives pioneered the study of personality, positing three core
components to the self: the id, the ego, and the superego.

 The ego mediates between the id’s desire for pleasure and superego’s moral sense, obeying the
reality principle to meet the needs of each when possible.

 To Freud, the mind is made up of three “levels”: The conscious mind of awareness, the
preconscious mind of information that a person could be thinking about (but isn’t), and the
unconscious mind where deep-seated desires and thoughts exist beyond our awareness.

 The iceberg model of personality situates the id, ego, and superego (often imagined as an
iceberg) within an ocean where the surface is our conscious mind, the near surface is the
preconscious mind, and the dark depths are the unconscious mind.

 Freud believed that the unconscious mind was the largest and most important part of the mind
and that through therapeutic techniques, including free association and dream analysis, the
unconscious mind could be accessed.

 Freud thought that anxiety occurs when the ego must mediate some kind of conflict, whether in
the world, between one’s morals and a potential amoral action, or between an id-driven
impulse and a need to suppress it.

 Freud proposed that defense mechanisms helped the ego deal with anxiety, with repression
being the primary defense mechanism (burying unwanted thoughts and feelings in the
unconscious mind); see Table 12.2 for a full list of defense mechanisms.

 Psychoanalytic theories also sought to explain the development of personality as passing

through five psychosexual stages that correspond with erogenous zones on the body; these
stages are (1) oral, (2) anal, (3) phallic, (4) the latency period, and (5) genital.

 Freud thought that fixation could occur at any of these stages, making a person “stuck” dealing
with that stage’s primary conflict (e.g., learning that achieving pleasure is restricted to specific
locations); a person can also regress to an earlier stage temporarily.

 While Freud’s work has been incredibly influential (both within psychology and without), it is not
readily endorsed by the majority of the scientific community today.

 Neo-Freudians, including Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and Karen Horney, developed Freud’s ideas
further, although they also failed to empirically test their new ideas (similar to Freud).

 Jung developed ideas related to a collective unconscious and archetypes, believing that
personality was primarily an expression of these underlying cultural primitives.
 Adler believed that the true motivator of personality is a need to be a better person, which he
called the “strive for superiority.”

 Horney’s ideas related to how people seek out a sense of feeling safe and loved, and that this
social security was achieved by moving either toward, away from, or against people.

 The humanistic perspectives developed by Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers (in reaction to
Freud’s pessimistic view of human nature and the limited focus of behaviorism) attempted to
shift the study of personality toward the unique nature of each person and their capacity for
growth.

 Maslow believed that people have an innate drive for self-actualization; improving themselves
through meeting needs that rise in complexity from basic, physiological needs through higher-
order, moral, and creative needs. See Table 12.4 for more detail.

 Rogers thought the core of personality is rooted in the self-concept, which is how a person sees
themselves; conflicts between how a person wishes they were and how they actually are can
lead to decreases in self-esteem and self-worth.

 Humanistic perspectives set the foundation for the positive psychology movement, which
focuses on the development of beneficial traits in humans; this shift toward the positive is one
of the humanists’ lasting contributions toward the field of psychology.

 Albert Bandura and Julian Rotter took a social-cognitive approach to personality, considering
how a person’s thoughts and social situation influence how they evaluate themselves and
understand how events happen around them.

 Bandura’s idea of the self-system describes how a person evaluates consequences of behavior
and regulates behavior, while his idea of self-efficacy describes how effectively a person believes
they can act in a situation.

 Locus of control is a concept developed by Julian Rotter that describes a person’s orientation
toward events that occur: A person with an internal locus of control believes they exercise
significant control over what happens to them, while people with an external locus of control
believe that events simply happen to them.

 Delay of gratification—the ability to wait for greater rewards—appears to be significantly

related to positive outcomes later in life; recent work, however, seems to indicate that
socioeconomic status is the more important dimension here.

 Behavioral genetics perspectives on personality study how similar twins’ personalities are to see
what contribution genetics is likely to have in personality development; roughly 50% of the
variance in personality appears to be attributable to inheritance.

 Neurological perspectives on personality consider the contributions of hormones, such as

testosterone and serotonin, and study the role that structures, including the ascending reticular
activating system, play in determining personality.

 Evolutionary perspectives on personality consider what kinds of personality traits are more or
less adaptive for individuals to survive and reproduce.
 In general, biological perspectives on personality are most useful because they help us consider
different levels of explanation related to the topic.

 Trait perspectives on personality attempt to describe the major features of a person’s

personality that are relatively stable across time and situations.

 The factor analysis approach to traits attempts to determine what personality traits are
meaningfully related to one another so they can be combined into a group called a “factor”; it
was originally used by Raymond Cattell to find 16 major personality factors.

 Hans Eysenck reduced the number of major personality traits from 16 to 3 in his three-factor
theory, which includes the dimensions of extraversion-introversion, neuroticism-emotional
stability, and psychoticism-impulse control.

 Eysenck linked each of his dimensions to a host of related traits as well as an underlying
biological mechanism.

 The five-factor model (FFM) of personality is also referred to as the “Big Five” and consists of the
dimensions openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism
(OCEAN). These dimensions are detailed in Table 12.6.

 The FFM is one of the most well-researched methods of describing personality, and it is
predictive of a great many behavioral outcomes, including career choice and academic
performance.

 Personality assessments must be considered in terms of their reliability and validity:

Assessments should be consistent over time (test-retest reliability) as well as accurately
measure what they intend to measure.

 Personal interviews are useful in that they allow a person to respond to questions in their own
words and not rely on predetermined response options; a major disadvantage is that we need to
be aware of potential biases in participants’ responses.

 Observational assessment techniques are useful in that they allow for more naturalistic ways of
assessing personality across a wide variety of situations. However, relying on observations can
be difficult when the meaning of a behavior is unclear or when a participant is dishonest.

 Objective self-report techniques are among the most common kinds of personality assessments,
with standardized questions and fixed-format responses; they are primarily useful because
participants’ responses are easily comparable to one another, can be used to predict behavioral
outcomes, and can be used to construct personality profiles.

 Projective techniques such as Rorschach inkblots and the Thematic Apperception Test are
generally unreliable because of the intuitive ways in which many psychologists interpret them
(i.e., there is a lack of objectivity).

 Psychophysiological assessment techniques include electrophysiological, biochemical, and

cortical measures and are most useful in helping forge a link between expressed
thoughts/behaviors and the biological components that underlie them. They are not foolproof
and can be misinterpreted (e.g., a high heart rate as excitement rather than fear).