A Discussion Of Two Trait Theories And Their Contribution In Our Understanding Of Personality - Essay Example

A Discussion of two trait theories and their contribution in our understanding of personality 21st March, 2007 Introduction Personality refers to thephenomenon defining an individual’s unique and comparatively regular prototype of behaviour, thinking pattern and feelings. Since ancient periods different philosophers and scientists frequently hypothesized about the unique nature of human beings in relation to their individual differences. Personality has become a great area of interest in scientific study with the emphasis on systemic research. Different psychologists at different times argued about the ‘actual existence’ of personality in practice – in relation to analysing the consistency in behaviour pattern over time and across situations to make the research on personality worthwhile. There is a persistent debate focusing on the correlation between behaviour and personality. Few studies suggested that in certain contexts, people demonstrate so much variability across situations that the appropriate predictions can be made on the basis of available factors incorporating the interrelation among behaviour and personality (Mischel, 1985). Other studies, on the other hand, suggested that there is a significant degree of correlation in the behaviour of individuals across situation (Heatherton & Weinberger, 1994; Steel & Rentsch, 1997). Personality traits can be defined in the terms of specific characteristics or dimensions of personality or personality factorials contributing to the individual differences with a continuum of variation ranging from very low to very high. Trait theories of personality focus on the identification of the key dimensions along which the individual differences occur. This paper aims at outlining of two trait theories – (1) Trait 16PF by Raymond Cattell and (2) Big 5 factors of personality and to analyse the contributions they have made in our understanding of personality. Raymond Cattell and 16 Personality Factors In focus of identifying the basic dimensions of personality, Raymond Cattell and his colleagues (Cattell & Dreger, 1977) conducted an extensive research programmer including thousands of individuals in an intention to measure the individual differences on the basis of hundreds of traits. This experiment reveals the correlation among different traits by means of identifying the extension to which these trait factors are correlated with each other as well as determining the significant clusters of traits or groups of traits interlinked with each other. On the basis of the findings through factorial analysis of their research, they distinguished among sixteen source traits as demonstrated in Table I as well as 32 surface traits. Through factor analysis, Cattell distinguished between surface traits and source traits. Surface traits define the clusters of correlated variables, whereas source traits symbolizes for the fundamental structures of personality. Hence, Cattell regarded source traits with more significance compared to surface traits (Hall & Lindzey, 1978). The defined source traits have become the fundamental foundation for the 16PF model. However, the theory of 16PF personality had been greatly criticised. The most prevalent criticism includes its inability to replicate data in successive experimentations. Howarth and Brown (1971) explained through their study that the 10 personality factors out of 16 have been failed to correlate. There are several other studies which actually fail to analyse and validate 16 personality factors at the primary level of experimentation (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Noller, Law, Comrey, 1987; Schuerger, Zarrella, & Hotz, 1989). But on the other hand, there are studies which agree with the successful validation of four personality factors out of 16 personality factors ((Noller, Law & Comrey, 1987). Big Five Factor of Personality In current situation, the primary area of personality research in concern essentially focus on the five key or central dimension of personality, known as five-factor model or Big Five dimensions of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1994; Zuckerman, 1994). The personality factors are as follows: Extraversion: A dimension varies within the continuum defining active, enthusiastic, friendly, conversational at one end and introverted, sombre, reserved, quiet and vigilant at the other end. Agreeableness: A dimension varies within the continuum defining good-natured, cooperative, credulous, and helpful at one end and ill-tempered, doubtful, non-cooperative at the other end. Conscientiousness: A dimension varies within the continuum defining careful, well-organized, self-disciplined, accountable and defined at one end and jumbled, impulsive, careless and independent on the other hand. Emotional stability: This is also known as neuroticism. This varies within the continuum defining poised, calm, composed and non-hypochondriacal at one end and nervous, anxious, high-strung and hypochondriac at the other end. Openness to experience: a dimension varies within the continuum defining imaginative, witty, broad area of interests at one end and down-to-earth, simple, narrow interests at the other end. Researchers like Friedman and Schustack (1999) refused to accept that these factors are the fundamental factors contributing to the personality. On the other hand, researchers like Funder and Colvin (1991) argued that these factors are the fundamental structures of personality. This theory synchronized with the empirical study conducted by Watson (1989) that when two strangers meet, they came to know each other very quickly and quickly rate them in accordance. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the reason behind our clarity in the identification of a stranger attributes to the recognition of survival, example includes understanding of co-operation of the stranger (be agreeable), knowledge of dependence (conscientiousness). An Evaluation of Trait Theories In recent days, most if significant area of personality research focuses on the trait approach. Apart from studying grand theories of personality suggested by Freud, Jung and Rogers, the effort of these studies is to focus on the understanding of specific traits (Kring, Smith & Neale, 1994). This information does not imply that the trait theories are all over perfect, however. Rather, trait theories have received several criticisms. First, the descriptive nature of trait approach - it focuses on describing the key factors of personality but not attempting on analysing the development process of the traits, their method of influencing behaviour and their significance. This corresponds with the idea of Big Five factors model emphasizing on the fact that while describing others, most individuals depend on these factors. Fully functional and fully developed trait theories address such issues in more details. Second and another most important factor is unavailability of any concrete data explaining the most basic and most significant personality traits even after conducting various careful empirical researches. It fails to provide explanation of personality development. This is true that the Big Five Factor of Personality model is a widely accepted model of personality, but they are not universally accepted in the sense that there are many psychologists who consider that it is far from practical application regarding these aspects (Bandura, 1999; Block, 1995; Goldberg & Saucier, 1995). Trait theory fails to provide a clear picture of an individual’s temporal state by means of interacting with the environment. Trait theory doesn’t focus on the dynamic interaction among various traits, especially transforming from negative one to positive one and vice-versa in a course of time. However, the trait approach of personality has generally been considered as a very valuable one. This approach is helpful in gaining knowledge about individual differences by means of understanding useful strategy for analysing the uniqueness and consistency of the fundamental aspects of human behaviour. One of the remarkable essential strengths of trait theory is its dependence on statistical or objectified or quantifiable data. Unlike many other theories of personality, the subjective analysis doesn’t come into play, hence not employing any subjective bias as such. Trait theories have been used to develop various psychometric devices providing an easy framework of continuum in understanding of the interaction of an individual’s personality, interaction with the world and with self, as well as beliefs about the outer world and inner world in general. A good deal of understanding helps to compare between individuals and to identify the appropriate environmental setting of an individual in question, e.g. whether he or she would be applicable for a particular job or career (AllPsych Online, 2004). Reference Mischel, W. (1985). Personality: Lost or found? Identifying when individual differences make a difference. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. Heatherton, T & Weinberger, J. L. (1994). Can personality change? Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association Steel, R. P. & Rentsch, J. R. (1997): The dispositional model of job attitudes revisited: Findings of a 10-year study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 873-879 Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Noller, P., & Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1987). The Cattell, Comrey, and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for five robust factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 775-782. Schuerger, J. M., Zarella, K. L., & Hotz, A. S. (1989). Factors that influence the temporal stability of personality by questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 777-783. Costa, P. T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1994). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). In R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality Measures: Development and Evaluation (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press. Watson, D. (1989). Strangers’ ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a surprising convergence with self-report, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 120-128 Friedman, H. S. & Schustack, M. W. (1999). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Funder, D. C. & Colvin, C. R. (1991). Explorations in behavioural consistency: Properties of persons, situations, and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 773-794 AllPsych and Heffner Media Group, Inc, Last Updated March 23, 2004 http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/trait_application.html Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A. & Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the emotional expressivity scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 934-949. Bandura, A. (1999): A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & D. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality (2nd Edition), New York: Guilford. Block, J. H. (1995). A contrarians view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. Goldberg, L. R. & Saucier, G. (1995). So what do you propose we use instead? A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 221-225. Table 1. Primary Factors and Descriptors in Cattells 16 Personality Factor Model (Adapted From Conn & Rieke, 1994). Descriptors of Low Range Primary Factor Descriptors of High Range Reserve, impersonal, distant, cool, reserved, impersonal, detached, formal, aloof (Sizothymia) Warmth Warm, outgoing, attentive to others, kindly, easy going, participating, likes people (Affectothymia) Concrete thinking, lower general mental capacity, less intelligent, unable to handle abstract problems (Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity) Reasoning Abstract-thinking, more intelligent, bright, higher general mental capacity, fast learner (Higher Scholastic Mental Capacity) Reactive emotionally, changeable, affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily upset (Lower Ego Strength) Emotional Stability Emotionally stable, adaptive, mature, faces reality calm (Higher Ego Strength) Deferential, cooperative, avoids conflict, submissive, humble, obedient, easily led, docile, accommodating (Submissiveness) Dominance Dominant, forceful, assertive, aggressive, competitive, stubborn, bossy (Dominance) Serious, restrained, prudent, taciturn, introspective, silent (Desurgency) Liveliness Lively, animated, spontaneous, enthusiastic, happy go lucky, cheerful, expressive, impulsive (Surgency) Expedient, nonconforming, disregards rules, self indulgent (Low Super Ego Strength) Rule-Consciousness Rule-conscious, dutiful, conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule bound (High Super Ego Strength) Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated (Threctia) Social Boldness Socially bold, venturesome, thick skinned, uninhibited (Parmia) Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental, tough minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough (Harria) Sensitivity Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental, tender minded, intuitive, refined (Premsia) Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, unconditional, easy (Alaxia) Vigilance Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical, distrustful, oppositional (Protension) Grounded, practical, prosaic, solution orientated, steady, conventional (Praxernia) Abstractedness Abstract, imaginative, absent minded, impractical, absorbed in ideas (Autia) Forthright, genuine, artless, open, guileless, naive, unpretentious, involved (Artlessness) Privateness Private, discreet, nondisclosing, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute, diplomatic (Shrewdness) Self-Assured, unworried, complacent, secure, free of guilt, confident, self satisfied (Untroubled) Apprehension Apprehensive, self doubting, worried, guilt prone, insecure, worrying, self blaming (Guilt Proneness) Traditional, attached to familiar, conservative, respecting traditional ideas (Conservatism) Openness to Change Open to change, experimental, liberal, analytical, critical, free thinking, flexibility (Radicalism) Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner and follower dependent (Group Adherence) Self-Reliance Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, self sufficient (Self-Sufficiency) Tolerated disorder, unexacting, flexible, undisciplined, lax, self-conflict, impulsive, careless of social rues, uncontrolled (Low Integration) Perfectionism Perfectionistic, organized, compulsive, self-disciplined, socially precise, exacting will power, control, self –sentimental (High Self-Concept Control) Relaxed, placid, tranquil, torpid, patient, composed low drive (Low Ergic Tension) Tension Tense, high energy, impatient, driven, frustrated, over wrought, time driven. (High Ergic Tension) Read More