Trait Theory of Personality - Article Example

Running Head: Trait theories of personality Trait Theories of Personality Customer’s Name Customer’s Course: Tutor’s Name: August 17th, 2012 The trait theory of personality is one of the main theoretical areas in the study of personality (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). This theory proposes that an individual’s personality is comprised of wide temperaments. This means that an individual’s personality can be described using more than one character trait, for example, a person can be described as caring, kind and short tempered (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). Unlike many other personality theories such as the humanistic or psychodynamic theories, the trait theory of personality does not entirely focus on the development of personality. In addition to this, trait theory does not also focus on predicting an individual’s behavior in a given situation. The trait approach, however, is more concerned with comparing individuals on the basis of aspects as well as degrees (Matthews, 2012). Thus, the trait approach mostly focuses on identifying and measuring individual personality characteristics. Some early psychologists such as Gordon Allport, Hans Eysenck as well as Cattell contributed significantly to the development of trait theories. Gordon Allport was one of the early psychologists who contributed greatly to the development of trait theory. He criticized the psychoanalytic theory stating that it was too deep as well as the behavioral approach, which he thought was too shallow (Matthews, 2012). Allport stressed the uniqueness of each person as well as the importance of the importance of the contemporary context as opposed to past history, for understanding an individual’s personality (Jordan, 2011). Allport made his breakthrough in 1936 when he discovered that there were over 18000 words in the Webster’s New international dictionary (1925) that could be used to describe a person’s personality (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). Allport was able to shrink this list of words to approximately 4000 words. He then grouped these words into 3 categories: secondary, central and cardinal traits. According to Gordon, central traits are fundamental to an individual's overall personality. This is because they are the major traits that are used to describe a person. Moreover, central traits are the easily detected characteristics within a person. Thus, central traits are the building blocks of an individual’s personality. Terminologies such as kind, daring, careless and shy are good examples of central traits (Jordan, 2011). According to Gordon, every individual has more than one central trait, in fact, around 5 to 10 (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). Since they are easy to detect, central traits can be easily measured and compared. While these central traits contribute greatly to an individual’s personality, occasionally some of them become more dominant than the rest. According to Gordon (Jordan, 2011), these dominant traits are referred to as cardinal traits. According to Allport, cardinal traits dominate a person’s entire life, often to the point that the individual becomes known distinctively for these traits. Individuals who have such personalities more often than not become known for these traits and their names are often identical with these qualities. Descriptive terms such as “Freudian”, “Machiavellian”, “narcissism”, “Don Juan”, “Christ-like” among others are some good examples of cardinal traits (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). Allport implied that only a few people in the general population develop cardinal traits (Matthews, 2012). Moreover, the people who develop these traits do so later in their lives (Jordan, 2011). Lastly, Allport described secondary traits as the less important and more difficult of the three to detect. Secondary traits are sometimes related to attitudes or preferences and often appear only in some situations or under definite circumstances (Jordan, 2011). Some good examples of secondary traits include anxiousness during public speaking and impatient behavior during queuing (Matthews, 2012). Allport suggested that secondary traits are neither straight forward to identify nor are they so general and consistent (Jordan, 2011). However, most of the trait theorists who came after Allport’s time focused more on group traits rather than individual traits. Hans Eysenck was another psychologist who significantly contributed to the development of trait theory. In Eysenck's theory, physiology and genetics is fundamentally important (Boree, 2006). Despite the fact that Eysenck was a believed to be a behaviorist, he recognized that learned behaviors were of immense importance. Moreover, he also suggested that personality differences developed out of genetic inheritance. While he was working on this field of personality, Eysenck found out that there were two disciplines which dealt with personality in psychology. The first discipline comprised of scholars who studied personality. These scholars were only interested in establishing theories with little or no experimental evidence (Allen, 2005). On the contrary, the other discipline employed empirical evidence but had little or no interest in individual differences (Boree, 2006). Eysenck stressed on the significance of these two disciplines of personality studies and he wanted them to be merged (Allen, 2005). Nonetheless, Eysenck's hypotheses focused on being able to spot and measure the different aspects of personality by employing factor analysis in which he developed a way to identify and measure them (Boree, 2006). Eysenck was mainly a research psychologist, but he changed his focus and began to examine historical approaches of personality (Boree, 2006). Eysenck reviewed the work which had been done by Hippocrates and Galen in a bid to find out the core basis of personality (Allen, 2005). By doing this, he discovered evidence which implied that there are differences in personality types. He then employed these findings in his description of personality. With this knowledge, Eysenck was able to build a personality list which was similar to Galen's Four Temperaments (Boree, 2006). Eysenck's model gave important additional information than Galen’s Four Temperaments (Boree, 2006). This is because Eysenck’s theory surveyed and scrutinized personality in terms of dimensions, derived from intellect, physique and the nervous system (Richards, 2010). Eysenck hypothesis encountered cynicism from other psychologists mainly because he suggested that there was a huge biological determinant to personality (Eyseneck, 2008). Nonetheless, his biological hypotheses have been widely accepted. Eysenck scrutinized hundreds of people by using a variety of adjectives representing behavior as well as types. He collected huge quantities of data mostly through the use of questionnaires. It was this data that he used to formulate his trait theory of personality (Boree, 2006). Unlike other psychologists, Eysenck started by formulating a theoretical framework and then creating data from his theory (Boree, 2006). Eysenck employed factor analysis to get huge amounts of data, for example, he provided a long list of adjectives to a significant number of people and asked them to use these adjectives to rate themselves and so on (Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007). Using these personality questionnaires, interviewees were asked forty six questions whose answers reflected a true representation of their personality. From these surveys, Eysenck identified major traits which he called ‘super traits’ (Boree, 2006). Extroversion, Neuroticism and psychoticism are the super traits he identified (Eyseneck, 2008). According to Eysenck, normal extraverts tend to be amongst other things lively and responsive while normal introverts tend to be reliable and thoughtful (Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007). The neurotic extravert may be touchy and aggressive, whereas the neurotic introvert may be anxious and pessimistic. On the other hand, Eysenck proposed that individuals with high psychoticism tend to be hostile and unconventional (Eyseneck, 2008). Trait theorists tend to see the human personality based on a five-factor model. This Five factor model suggests that there are five main dimensions of personality. The five factor model is actually a further development of Eysenck’s theory (Srivastava, 2012). According to the five factor theory, the five major dimensions of personality are: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Based on a scale, an individual’s personality is then structured depending on the degree he/she exhibits these characteristics (Allen, 2005). Extroversion is one of the traits that have appeared in factor-analytic models, and is one of the major traits which feature in the five factor model as well as Eysenck's theory. Extroversion is at times regarded as social adaptability, though the recognition of this terminology appears to be fading (Allen, 2005). Extroversion can be described as "a trait characterized by a keen interest in other people and external events, and venturing forth with confidence into the unknown" (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Neuroticism is the other trait which features in most of the modern factor models for personality. In some research, adjustment is referred to as a trait, at the expense of neuroticism. The foundations of neuroticism are levels of nervousness and volatility. Within such frameworks, neuroticism can be defined as “a dimension of personality defined by stability and low anxiety at one end as opposed to instability and high anxiety at the other end” (Srivastava, 2012). The other dimensions; openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are all traits which many people even those outside psychology are quite familiar with. By and large, openness refers to “how willing individuals are to make adjustments in notions and activities in accordance with new ideas or situations” (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Agreeableness refers to “how compatible people are with other people or generally how able they are to get along with others” (Srivastava, 2012). On the other hand, conscientiousness refers to “how much a person considers others when making decisions” (Allen, 2005). In addition, the five factor model comprises of various propositions regarding the nature, origins, developmental course of personality traits and the interrelation of traits (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). The five-factor model provides a biological explanation of personality traits, in which knowledge and experience plays a small part in influencing the “big five” (Allen, 2005). However, the Five-factor model is not the only theoretical explanation of the big five. Other personality theorists have suggested that environmental factors, including societal roles, come together and interact with the biological influences in shaping an individual’s traits (Allen, 2005). Moreover, the “Big Five” are employed in various areas of psychological study in methods that do not depend on the particular propositions of any specific model (Srivastava, 2012). A good example is in interpersonal opinion research where the Big Five are a useful framework for categorizing an individual’s perception of another's personalities (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000). Cattell contributed to the development of the trait theories by coming up with the 16 personality factor model. According to Cattell’s 16 personality factor model, personality traits can be fall under 16 personality categories. Cattell used the computer technology to reanalyze Allport’s list which contained over 4000 words (Jordan, 2011). He arranged the list into 181 groups and requested interviewees to describe people they knew with the various adjectives on his list (Ryckman, 2012). Employing factor analysis methods, he came up with twelve factors, and later added four more which he deemed as essential to be on the list (Ryckman, 2012). According to Cattell, every individual has all of the 16 traits to a certain extent (Ryckman, 2012). These sixteen traits are: Abstractedness, Apprehension, Dominance, Emotional Stability, Openness to Change, Perfectionism, Privateness, Reasoning, “Rule Consciousness”, “Self-Reliance”, Sensitivity, “Social Boldness”, Tension, Vigilance, Warmth and liveliness (Jordan, 2011) Perhaps the main strength of trait theory is its reliance on statistical or objective data (Mathews et al, 2003). Unlike many other theories, the subjectivity or personal experiences of the theorists play no role in trait theory (Mathews et al, 2003). Freud's relationship with his mother, Adler's childhood illness, or Jung's belief in mythology could be said to have influenced their theories. In that sense, subjectivity may have biased their ideas. Thus, the trait can be said that the theory has no bias. Secondly, the trait approach is easy to use and understand (Mathews et al, 2003). Trait theory has been used to develop a number of assessment devices. It provides an easy to understand continuum that provides a good deal of information regarding a person's personality, interaction, and beliefs about the self and the world. Understanding traits helps us to compare people, to determine which traits allow a person to do better in college, in relationships, or in a specific career (Nevid & Rathus, 2005). In regard to the weaknesses of the trait approach, this approach is said to be non effective when it comes to predicting future behavior (Mathews et al, 2003). While we may be able to say, in general that a person falls on the high end or low end of a specific trait, trait theory fails to address a person's state. A state is a temporary way of interacting and dealing with the self and others (Nevid & Rathus, 2005). For example, “an introvert may be quiet, reserved, intellectual, and calm in most situations. When around close friends, however, he may seem quite outgoing, fun loving, and excitable. The same could be said for the extrovert who, when presented with a job interview, may act more introverted, shy, reserved, and intellectual” (Nevid & Rathus, 2005). Moreover, the trait approach does not address development (Nevid & Rathus, 2005). While statistics may be strength of trait theory, it may also be its biggest criticism. Because it is based on statistics rather than theory, it provides no explanation of personality development. While many theories argue for the development (past), the current personality and provide a means for change (future), trait theory is stuck in the ‘present’ (Mathews et al, 2003). In conclusion, it is important to note that the trait approach and the humanistic approach are similar in the sense that both concur that an individual’s personality is greatly established by the choices that he/she make (Matthews, 2012). However, the trait theory of personality is more useful than the psychodynamic and the humanistic theories when it comes to concluding which profession may suit an individual's main personality traits (Matthews, 2012). In addition to this, the trait theory is deemed to be more useful than both the psychodynamic theory and the humanistic theory when it comes to predicting and mitigating mentality disorders such as schizophrenia (Nevid & Rathus, 2005) References Srivastava, S. (2012). Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors. Retrieved 17th August 2012 from http://psdlab.uoregon.edu/bigfive.html Nevid, J. S., & Rathus, S. A. (2005). Psychology and the Challenges of Life: Adjustment in the New Millennium. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Boeree, C.G . (2006). Hans Eysenck. Retrieved 16th August 2012 from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/eysenck.html Richards, D. (2010). Eysenck’s Personality Inventory and the Four Temperaments. Retrieved 16th August 2012, from http://www.odportal.com/personality/eysenck.html Maltby, J. Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2007). Personality, Individual Difference & Intelligence. Essex: Pearson Education Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821-835 Allen, B. (2005).Personality Theories: Development, Growth, and Diversity (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education / Allyn & Bacon Jordan, M. (2011).Personality Traits: Theory, Testing and Influences (Psychology of Emotions, Motivations and Actions). Nova Science Pub Ryckman, R. (2012). Theories of Personality. Wadsworth Publishing Eyseneck, H. (2008). The Biological Basis of Personality. New York: Transaction Publishers. Matthews, G., et.al. (2003). Personality Traits. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sigelman, C. & Rider, E. (2009). Life-Span Human Development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cenage Learning. Cattel, H.E.P & Mead, A.D., (2008). The 16PF Questionnaire in Read More

According to Allport, cardinal traits dominate a person’s entire life, often to the point that the individual becomes known distinctively for these traits. Individuals who have such personalities more often than not become known for these traits and their names are often identical with these qualities. Descriptive terms such as “Freudian”, “Machiavellian”, “narcissism”, “Don Juan”, “Christ-like” among others are some good examples of cardinal traits (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).

Allport implied that only a few people in the general population develop cardinal traits (Matthews, 2012). Moreover, the people who develop these traits do so later in their lives (Jordan, 2011). Lastly, Allport described secondary traits as the less important and more difficult of the three to detect. Secondary traits are sometimes related to attitudes or preferences and often appear only in some situations or under definite circumstances (Jordan, 2011). Some good examples of secondary traits include anxiousness during public speaking and impatient behavior during queuing (Matthews, 2012).

Allport suggested that secondary traits are neither straight forward to identify nor are they so general and consistent (Jordan, 2011). However, most of the trait theorists who came after Allport’s time focused more on group traits rather than individual traits. Hans Eysenck was another psychologist who significantly contributed to the development of trait theory. In Eysenck's theory, physiology and genetics is fundamentally important (Boree, 2006). Despite the fact that Eysenck was a believed to be a behaviorist, he recognized that learned behaviors were of immense importance.

Moreover, he also suggested that personality differences developed out of genetic inheritance. While he was working on this field of personality, Eysenck found out that there were two disciplines which dealt with personality in psychology. The first discipline comprised of scholars who studied personality. These scholars were only interested in establishing theories with little or no experimental evidence (Allen, 2005). On the contrary, the other discipline employed empirical evidence but had little or no interest in individual differences (Boree, 2006).

Eysenck stressed on the significance of these two disciplines of personality studies and he wanted them to be merged (Allen, 2005). Nonetheless, Eysenck's hypotheses focused on being able to spot and measure the different aspects of personality by employing factor analysis in which he developed a way to identify and measure them (Boree, 2006). Eysenck was mainly a research psychologist, but he changed his focus and began to examine historical approaches of personality (Boree, 2006). Eysenck reviewed the work which had been done by Hippocrates and Galen in a bid to find out the core basis of personality (Allen, 2005).

By doing this, he discovered evidence which implied that there are differences in personality types. He then employed these findings in his description of personality. With this knowledge, Eysenck was able to build a personality list which was similar to Galen's Four Temperaments (Boree, 2006). Eysenck's model gave important additional information than Galen’s Four Temperaments (Boree, 2006). This is because Eysenck’s theory surveyed and scrutinized personality in terms of dimensions, derived from intellect, physique and the nervous system (Richards, 2010).

Eysenck hypothesis encountered cynicism from other psychologists mainly because he suggested that there was a huge biological determinant to personality (Eyseneck, 2008). Nonetheless, his biological hypotheses have been widely accepted. Eysenck scrutinized hundreds of people by using a variety of adjectives representing behavior as well as types. He collected huge quantities of data mostly through the use of questionnaires. It was this data that he used to formulate his trait theory of personality (Boree, 2006).

Unlike other psychologists, Eysenck started by formulating a theoretical framework and then creating data from his theory (Boree, 2006).

Read More