Chapter 12. Personality

12. Personality

Identical Twins Reunited after 35 Years

Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein were identical twins who were adopted into separate families immediately

after their births in 1968. It was only at the age of 35 that the twins were reunited and discovered how similar

they were to each other.

Paula Bernstein grew up in a happy home in suburban New York. She loved her adopted parents and older

brother and even wrote an article titled “Why I Don’t Want to Find My Birth Mother.” Elyse’s childhood,

also a happy one, was followed by university and then film school abroad.

In 2003, 35 years after she was adopted, Elyse, acting on a whim, inquired about her biological family at the

adoption agency. The response came back: “You were born on October 9, 1968, at 12:51 p.m., the younger

of twin girls. You’ve got a twin sister Paula, and she’s looking for you.”

“Oh my God, I’m a twin! Can you believe this? Is this really happening?” Elyse cried.

Elyse dialed Paula’s phone number: “It’s almost like I’m hearing my own voice in a recorder back at me,”

she said.

“It’s funny because I feel like in a way I was talking to an old, close friend I never knew I had…we had an

immediate intimacy, and yet, we didn’t know each other at all,” Paula said.

The two women met for the first time at a caf. for lunch and talked until the late evening.

“We had 35 years to catch up on,” said Paula. “How do you start asking somebody, ‘What have you been up

to since we shared a womb together?’ Where do you start?”

With each new detail revealed, the twins learned about their remarkable similarities. They’d both gone to

graduate school in film. They both loved to write, and they had both edited their high school yearbooks.

They have similar taste in music.

“I think, you know, when we met it was undeniable that we were twins. Looking at this person, you are able

to gaze into your own eyes and see yourself from the outside. This identical individual has the exact same

DNA and is essentially your clone. We don’t have to imagine,” Paula said.

Now they finally feel like sisters.

“But it’s perhaps even closer than sisters,” Elyse said, “because we’re also twins.”

The twins, who both now live in Brooklyn, combined their writing skills to write a book called Identical

Strangers about their childhoods and their experience of discovering an identical twin in their mid-30s

(Spilius, 2007; Kuntzman, 2007).

483

You can learn more about the experiences of Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein by viewing this video:

Watch: “Elyse and Paula” [YouTube]

One of the most fundamental tendencies of human beings is to size up other people. We say that Bill is fun, that

Marian is adventurous, or that Frank is dishonest. When we make these statements, we mean that we believe that

these people have stable individual characteristics — their personalities. Personality is defined as an individual’s

consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving (John, Robins, & Pervin, 2008).

The tendency to perceive personality is a fundamental part of human nature, and a most adaptive one. If we can

draw accurate generalizations about what other people are normally like, we can predict how they will behave in

the future, and this can help us determine how they are likely to respond in different situations. Understanding

personality can also help us better understand psychological disorders and the negative behavioural outcomes they

may produce. In short, personality matters because it guides behaviour.

In this chapter we will consider the wide variety of personality traits found in human beings. We’ll consider how

and when personality influences our behaviour, and how well we perceive the personalities of others. We will also

consider how psychologists measure personality, and the extent to which personality is caused by nature versus

nurture. The fundamental goal of personality psychologists is to understand what makes people different from each

other (the study of individual differences), but they also find that people who share genes (as do Paula Bernstein

and Elyse Schein) have a remarkable similarity in personality.

References

John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (2008). Handbook of personality psychology: Theory and research (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kuntzman, G. (2007, October 6). Separated twins Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein. The Brooklyn Paper. Retrieved

from http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/39/30_39twins.html

Spilius, A. (2007, October 27). Identical twins reunited after 35 years. Telegraph. Retrieved

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1567542/Identical-twins-reunited-after-35-years.html.

12. PERSONALITY • 484

12.1 Personality and Behaviour: Approaches and Measurement

Learning Objectives

1. Outline and critique the early approaches to assessing personality.

2. Define and review the strengths and limitations of the trait approach to personality.

3. Summarize the measures that have been used to assess psychological disorders.

Early theories assumed that personality was expressed in people’s physical appearance. One early approach,

developed by the German physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) and known as phrenology, was based on

the idea that we could measure personality by assessing the patterns of bumps on people’s skulls (Figure 12.1,

“Phrenology”). In the Victorian age, phrenology was taken seriously and many people promoted its use as a

source of psychological insight and self-knowledge. Machines were even developed for helping people analyze

skulls (Simpson, 2005). However, because careful scientific research did not validate the predictions of the theory,

phrenology has now been discredited in contemporary psychology.

Another approach, known as somatology, championed by the psychologist William Herbert Sheldon (1898-1977),

was based on the idea that we could determine personality from people’s body types (Figure 12.2, “Sheldon’s

Body Types”). Sheldon (1940) argued that people with more body fat and a rounder physique (endomorphs) were

more likely to be assertive and bold, whereas thinner people (ectomorphs) were more likely to be introverted and

intellectual. As with phrenology, scientific research did not validate the predictions of the theory, and somatology

has now been discredited in contemporary psychology.

Another approach to detecting personality is known as physiognomy, or the idea that it is possible to assess

personality from facial characteristics. In contrast to phrenology and somatology, for which no research support has

been found, contemporary research has found that people are able to detect some aspects of a person’s character —

for instance, whether they are gay or straight and whether they are liberal or conservative —at above-chance levels

by looking only at his or her face (Rule & Ambady, 2010; Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2008; Rule, Ambady,

& Hallett, 2009).

Despite these results, the ability to detect personality from faces is not guaranteed. Olivola and Todorov

(2010) recently studied the ability of thousands of people to guess the personality characteristics of hundreds

of thousands of faces on the website What’s My Image? (http://www.whatsmyimage.com). In contrast to the

predictions of physiognomy, the researchers found that these people would have made more accurate judgments

about the strangers if they had just guessed, using their expectations about what people in general are like, rather

than trying to use the particular facial features of individuals to help them. It seems then that the predictions of

physiognomy may also, in the end, find little empirical support.

485

Figure 12.1 Phrenology. This definition of phrenology with a chart of

the skull appeared in Webster’s Academic Dictionary, circa 1895. [Long

Description]

Personality as Traits

Personalities are characterized in terms of traits, which are relatively enduring characteristics that influence our

behaviour across many situations. Personality traits such as introversion, friendliness, conscientiousness, honesty,

and helpfulness are important because they help explain consistencies in behaviour.

The most popular way of measuring traits is by administering personality tests on which people self-report about

their own characteristics. Psychologists have investigated hundreds of traits using the self-report approach, and

this research has found many personality traits that have important implications for behaviour. You can see some

examples of the personality dimensions that have been studied by psychologists and their implications for behaviour

in Table 12.1, “Some Personality Traits That Predict Behaviour,”.

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 486

Figure 12.2 Sheldon’s Body Types. William Sheldon erroneously believed that people with

different body types had different personalities.

487 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Table 12.1 Some Personality Traits That Predict Behaviour. 1

[Skip Table]

Trait Description

Examples of behaviours exhibited by people

who have the trait

Authoritarianism

(Adorno, Frenkel-

Brunswik,

Levinson, &

Sanford, 1950)

A cluster of traits including conventionalism,

superstition, toughness, and exaggerated concerns

with sexuality

Authoritarians are more likely to be

prejudiced, to conform to leaders, and to

display rigid behaviours.

Individualismcollectivism

(Triandis, 1989)

Individualism is the tendency to focus on oneself and

one’s personal goals; collectivism is the tendency to

focus on one’s relations with others.

Individualists prefer to engage in behaviours

that make them stand out from others, whereas

collectivists prefer to engage in behaviours that

emphasize their similarity to others.

Internal versus

external locus of

control (Rotter,

1966)

In comparison to those with an external locus of

control, people with an internal locus of control are

more likely to believe that life events are due largely

to their own efforts and personal characteristics.

People with higher internal locus of control are

happier, less depressed, and healthier in

comparison to those with an external locus of

control.

Need for

achievement

(McClelland,

1958)

The desire to make significant accomplishments by

mastering skills or meeting high standards

Those high in need for achievement select

tasks that are not too difficult to be sure they

will succeed in them.

Need for cognition

(Cacioppo &

Petty, 1982)

The extent to which people engage in and enjoy

effortful cognitive activities

People high in the need for cognition pay more

attention to arguments in ads.

Regulatory focus

(Shah, Higgins, &

Friedman, 1998)

Refers to differences in the motivations that energize

behaviour, varying from a promotion orientation

(seeking out new opportunities) to a prevention

orientation (avoiding negative outcomes)

People with a promotion orientation are more

motivated by goals of gaining money, whereas

those with prevention orientation are more

concerned about losing money.

Self-consciousness

(Fenigstein,

Sheier, & Buss,

1975)

The tendency to introspect and examine one’s inner

self and feelings

People high in self-consciousness spend more

time preparing their hair and makeup before

they leave the house.

Self-esteem

(Rosenberg, 1965)

High self-esteem means having a positive attitude

toward oneself and one’s capabilities.

High self-esteem is associated with a variety of

positive psychological and health outcomes.

Sensation seeking

(Zuckerman,

2007)

The motivation to engage in extreme and risky

behaviours

Sensation seekers are more likely to engage in

risky behaviours such as extreme and risky

sports, substance abuse, unsafe sex, and crime.

Example of a Trait Measure

You can try completing a self-report measure of personality (a short form of the Five-Factor Personality

Test) here. There are 120 questions and it should take you about 15 to 20 minutes to complete. You will

receive feedback about your personality after you have finished the test.

Take the personality tests: http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo300.html

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 488

As with intelligence tests, the utility of self-report measures of personality depends on their reliability and construct

validity. Some popular measures of personality are not useful because they are unreliable or invalid. Perhaps you

have heard of a personality test known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). If so, you are not alone, because

the MBTI is the most widely administered personality test in the world, given millions of times a year to employees

in thousands of companies. The MBTI categorizes people into one of four categories on each of four dimensions:

introversion versus extraversion, sensing versus intuiting, thinking versus feeling, and judging versus perceiving.

Although completing the MBTI can be useful for helping people think about individual differences in personality,

and for breaking the ice at meetings, the measure itself is not psychologically useful because it is not reliable

or valid. People’s classifications change over time, and scores on the MBTI do not relate to other measures of

personality or to behaviour (Hunsley, Lee, & Wood, 2003). Measures such as the MBTI remind us that it is

important to scientifically and empirically test the effectiveness of personality tests by assessing their stability over

time and their ability to predict behaviour.

One of the challenges of the trait approach to personality is that there are so many of them; there are at least 18,000

English words that can be used to describe people (Allport & Odbert, 1936). Thus a major goal of psychologists is

to take this vast number of descriptors (many of which are very similar to each other) and determine the underlying

important or core traits among them (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988).

The trait approach to personality was pioneered by early psychologists, including Gordon Allport (1897-1967),

Raymond Cattell (1905-1998), and Hans Eysenck (1916-1997). Each of these psychologists believed in the idea of

the trait as the stable unit of personality, and each attempted to provide a list or taxonomy of the most important trait

dimensions. Their approach was to provide people with a self-report measure and then to use statistical analyses to

look for the underlying factors or clusters of traits, according to the frequency and the co-occurrence of traits in the

respondents.

Allport (1937) began his work by reducing the 18,000 traits to a set of about 4,500 traitlike words that he organized

into three levels according to their importance. He called them cardinal traits (the most important traits), central

traits (the basic and most useful traits), and secondary traits (the less obvious and less consistent ones). Cattell

(1990) used a statistical procedure known as factor analysis to analyze the correlations among traits and identify

the most important ones. On the basis of his research he identified what he referred to as source (more important)

and surface (less important) traits, and he developed a measure that assessed 16 dimensions of traits based on

personality adjectives taken from everyday language.

Hans Eysenck was particularly interested in the biological and genetic origins of personality and made an important

contribution to understanding the nature of a fundamental personality trait: extraversion versus introversion

(Eysenck, 1998). Eysenck proposed that people who are extraverted (i.e., who enjoy socializing with others) have

lower levels of naturally occurring arousal than do introverts (who are less likely to enjoy being with others).

Eysenck argued that extraverts have a greater desire to socialize with others to increase their arousal level, which is

naturally too low, whereas introverts, who have naturally high arousal, do not desire to engage in social activities

because they are overly stimulating.

The fundamental work on trait dimensions conducted by Allport, Cattell, Eysenck, and many others has led to

contemporary trait models, the most important and well validated of which is the Five-Factor (Big Five) Model

of Personality. According to this model, there are five fundamental underlying trait dimensions that are stable

across time, cross-culturally shared, and explain a substantial proportion of behaviour (Costa & McCrae, 1992;

Goldberg, 1982). As you can see in Table 12.2, “The Five Factors of the Five-Factor Model of Personality,” the

five dimensions (sometimes known as the Big Five) are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness, and neuroticism. (You can remember them using the watery acronyms OCEAN or CANOE.)

489 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Table 12.2 The Five Factors of the Five-Factor Model of Personality.

[Skip Table]

Dimension Sample items Description

Examples of behaviours predicted by the

trait

Openness to

experience

“I have a vivid

imagination”; “I

have a rich

vocabulary”; “I

have excellent

ideas.”

A general appreciation for art,

emotion, adventure, unusual

ideas, imagination, curiosity, and

variety of experience

Individuals who are highly open to experience

tend to have distinctive and unconventional

decorations in their home. They are also likely

to have books on a wide variety of topics, a

diverse music collection, and works of art on

display.

Conscientiousness

“I am always

prepared”; “I am

exacting in my

work”; “I follow a

schedule.”

A tendency to show selfdiscipline,

act dutifully, and aim

for achievement

Individuals who are conscientious have a

preference for planned rather than

spontaneous behaviour.

Extraversion

“I am the life of the

party”; “I feel

comfortable around

people”; “I talk to a

lot of different

people at parties.”

The tendency to experience

positive emotions and to seek out

stimulation and the company of

others

Extraverts enjoy being with people. In groups

they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw

attention to themselves.

Agreeableness

“I am interested in

people”; “I feel

others’ emotions”;

“I make people feel

at ease.”

A tendency to be compassionate

and cooperative rather than

suspicious and antagonistic

toward others; reflects individual

differences in general concern

for social harmony

Agreeable individuals value getting along with

others. They are generally considerate,

friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to

compromise their interests with those of

others.

Neuroticism

“I am not usually

relaxed”; “I get

upset easily”; “I am

easily disturbed”

The tendency to experience

negative emotions, such as

anger, anxiety, or depression;

sometimes called “emotional

instability”

Those who score high in neuroticism are more

likely to interpret ordinary situations as

threatening and minor frustrations as

hopelessly difficult. They may have trouble

thinking clearly, making decisions, and coping

effectively with stress.

A large body of research evidence has supported the five-factor model. The Big Five dimensions seem to be crosscultural,

because the same five factors have been identified in participants in China, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Turkey,

and many other countries (Triandis & Suh, 2002). The Big Five dimensions also accurately predict behaviour.

For instance, a pattern of high conscientiousness, low neuroticism, and high agreeableness predicts successful job

performance (Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Scores on the Big Five dimensions also predict the performance

of leaders; ratings of openness to experience are correlated positively with ratings of leadership success, whereas

ratings of agreeableness are correlated negatively with success (Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, & Ones, 2000). The

Big Five factors are also increasingly being used to help researchers understand the dimensions of psychological

disorders such as anxiety and depression (Oldham, 2010; Saulsman & Page, 2004).

An advantage of the five-factor approach is that it is parsimonious. Rather than studying hundreds of traits,

researchers can focus on only five underlying dimensions. The Big Five may also capture other dimensions that have

been of interest to psychologists. For instance, the trait dimension of need for achievement relates to the Big Five

variable of conscientiousness, and self-esteem relates to low neuroticism. On the other hand, the Big Five factors

do not seem to capture all the important dimensions of personality. For instance, the Big Five do not capture moral

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 490

behaviour, although this variable is important in many theories of personality. And there is evidence that the Big

Five factors are not exactly the same across all cultures (Cheung & Leung, 1998).

Situational Influences on Personality

One challenge to the trait approach to personality is that traits may not be as stable as we think they are. When we

say that Malik is friendly, we mean that Malik is friendly today and will be friendly tomorrow and even next week.

And we mean that Malik is friendlier than average in all situations. But what if Malik were found to behave in a

friendly way with his family members but to be unfriendly with his fellow classmates? This would clash with the

idea that traits are stable across time and situation.

The psychologist Walter Mischel (1968) reviewed the existing literature on traits and found that there was only

a relatively low correlation (about r = .30) between the traits that a person expressed in one situation and

those that they expressed in other situations. In one relevant study, Hartshorne, May, Maller, and Shuttleworth

(1928) examined the correlations among various behavioural indicators of honesty in children. They also enticed

children to behave either honestly or dishonestly in different situations: for instance, by making it easy or difficult

for them to steal and cheat. The correlations among children’s behaviour was low, generally less than r = .30,

showing that children who steal in one situation are not always the same children who steal in a different situation.

And similar low correlations were found in adults on other measures, including dependency, friendliness, and

conscientiousness (Bem & Allen, 1974).

Psychologists have proposed two possibilities for these low correlations. One possibility is that the natural tendency

for people to see traits in others leads us to believe that people have stable personalities when they really do not. In

short, perhaps traits are more in the heads of the people who are doing the judging than they are in the behaviours of

the people being observed. The fact that people tend to use human personality traits, such as the Big Five, to judge

animals in the same way that they use these traits to judge humans is consistent with this idea (Gosling, 2001). And

this idea also fits with research showing that people use their knowledge representation (schemas) about people to

help them interpret the world around them and that these schemas colour their judgments of the personalities of

others (Fiske & Taylor, 2007).

Research has also shown that people tend to see more traits in other people than they do in themselves. You might

be able to get a feeling for this by taking the following short quiz. First, think about a person you know — your

mom, your roommate, or a classmate — and choose which of the three responses on each of the four lines best

describes him or her. Then answer the questions again, but this time about yourself.

1. Energetic Relaxed Depends on the situation

2. Skeptical Trusting Depends on the situation

3. Quiet Talkative Depends on the situation

4. Intense Calm Depends on the situation

Richard Nisbett and his colleagues (Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973) had university students complete

this same task for themselves, for their best friend, for their father, and for the American newscaster Walter Cronkite

(who was at the time well known). As you can see in Figure 12.3, “We Tend to Overestimate the Traits of Others,”

the participants chose one of the two trait terms more often for other people than they did for themselves, and chose

“depends on the situation” more frequently for themselves than they did for the other people. These results also

suggest that people may perceive more consistent traits in others than they should.

491 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 12.3 We Tend to Overestimate the Traits of Others. Researchers found that participants

checked off a trait term (such as “energetic” or “talkative”) rather than “depends on the situation”

less often when asked to describe themselves than when asked to describe others. [Long

Description]

The human tendency to perceive traits is so strong that it is very easy to convince people that trait descriptions of

themselves are accurate. Imagine that you had completed a personality test and the psychologist administering the

measure gave you this description of your personality:

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.

You have a great deal of unused capacity, which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have

some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled

outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you

have made the right decision or done the right thing.

I would imagine that you might find that it described you. You probably do criticize yourself at least sometimes,

and you probably do sometimes worry about things. The problem is that you would most likely have found some

truth in a personality description that was the opposite. Could this description fit you too?

You frequently stand up for your own opinions even if it means that others may judge you negatively. You

have a tendency to find the positives in your own behaviour. You work to the fullest extent of your capabilities.

You have few personality weaknesses, but some may show up under stress. You sometimes confide in others

that you are concerned or worried, but inside you maintain discipline and self-control. You generally believe

that you have made the right decision and done the right thing.

The Barnum effect refers to the observation that people tend to believe in descriptions of their personality that

supposedly are descriptive of them but could in fact describe almost anyone. The Barnum effect helps us understand

why many people believe in astrology, horoscopes, fortune-telling, palm reading, tarot card reading, and even some

personality tests (Figure 12.4, “Horoscope and Palm Reading”). People are likely to accept descriptions of their

personality if they think that they have been written for them, even though they cannot distinguish their own tarot

card or horoscope readings from those of others at better than chance levels (Hines, 2003). Again, people seem to

believe in traits more than they should.

A second way that psychologists responded to Mischel’s 1968 findings on traits was by searching even more

carefully for the existence of traits. One insight was that the relationship between a trait and a behaviour is less

than perfect because people can express their traits in different ways (Mischel & Shoda, 2008). People high in

extraversion, for instance, may become teachers, sales people, actors, or even criminals. Although the behaviours

are very different, they nevertheless all fit with the meaning of the underlying trait.

Psychologists also found that, because people do behave differently in different situations, personality will only

predict behaviour when the behaviours are aggregated or averaged across different situations. We might not be able

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 492

Figure 12.4 Horoscope and Palm Reading. The popularity of tarot card reading, crystal ball

reading, horoscopes, palm reading, and other techniques shows the human propensity to believe

in traits.

to use the personality trait of openness to experience to determine what Paul will do on Friday night, but we can use

it to predict what he will do over the next year in a variety of situations. When many measurements of behaviour are

combined, there is much clearer evidence for the stability of traits and for the effects of traits on behaviour (Roberts

& DelVecchio, 2000; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003).

Taken together, these findings make a very important point about personality, which is that it not only comes from

inside us but is also shaped by the situations that we are exposed to. Personality is derived from our interactions with

and observations of others, from our interpretations of those interactions and observations, and from our choices

of which social situations we prefer to enter or avoid (Bandura, 1986). In fact, behaviourists such as B. F. Skinner

explain personality entirely in terms of the environmental influences that the person has experienced. Because we

are profoundly influenced by the situations that we are exposed to, our behaviour does change from situation to

situation, making personality less stable than we might expect. And yet personality does matter — we can, in many

cases, use personality measures to predict behaviour across situations.

The MMPI and Projective Tests

One of the most important measures of personality (which is used primarily to assess deviations from a normal or

average personality) is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a test used around the world

to identify personality and psychological disorders (Tellegen et al., 2003). The MMPI was developed by creating

a list of more than 1,000 true-false questions and choosing those that best differentiated patients with different

psychological disorders from other people. The current version (the MMPI-2) has more than 500 questions, and the

items can be combined into a large number of different subscales. Some of the most important of these are shown in

Table 12.3, “Some of the Major Subscales of the MMPI,” but there are also scales that represent family problems,

work attitudes, and many other dimensions. The MMPI also has questions that are designed to detect the tendency

of the respondents to lie, fake, or simply not answer the questions.

493 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Table 12.3 Some of the Major Subscales of the MMPI.

[Skip Table]

Abbreviation Description What is measured No. of items

Hs Hypochondriasis Concern with bodily symptoms 32

D Depression Depressive symptoms 57

Hy Hysteria Awareness of problems and vulnerabilities 60

Pd Psychopathic deviate Conflict, struggle, anger, respect for society’s rules 50

MF Masculinity/femininity Stereotypical masculine or feminine interests/behaviours 56

Pa Paranoia Level of trust, suspiciousness, sensitivity 40

Pt Psychasthenia Worry, anxiety, tension, doubts, obsessiveness 48

Sc Schizophrenia Odd thinking and social alienation 78

Ma Hypomania Level of excitability 46

Si Social introversion People orientation 69

To interpret the results, the clinician looks at the pattern of responses across the different subscales and makes a

diagnosis about the potential psychological problems facing the patient. Although clinicians prefer to interpret the

patterns themselves, a variety of research has demonstrated that computers can often interpret the results as well

as clinicians can (Garb, 1998; Karon, 2000). Extensive research has found that the MMPI-2 can accurately predict

which of many different psychological disorders a person suffers from (Graham, 2006).

One potential problem with a measure like the MMPI is that it asks people to consciously report on their inner

experiences. But much of our personality is determined by unconscious processes of which we are only vaguely or

not at all aware. Projective measures are measures of personality in which unstructured stimuli, such as inkblots,

drawings of social situations, or incomplete sentences, are shown to participants, who are asked to freely list

what comes to mind as they think about the stimuli. Experts then score the responses for clues to personality. The

proposed advantage of these tests is that they are more indirect — they allow the respondent to freely express

whatever comes to mind, including perhaps the contents of their unconscious experiences.

One commonly used projective test is the Rorschach Inkblot Test, developed by the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann

Rorschach (1884-1922). The Rorschach Inkblot Test is a projective measure of personality in which the

respondent indicates his or her thoughts about a series of 10 symmetrical inkblots (Figure 12.5, “Rorschach

Inkblots”). The Rorschach is administered millions of times every year. The participants are asked to respond to the

inkblots, and their responses are systematically scored in terms of what, where, and why they saw what they saw.

For example, people who focus on the details of the inkblots may have obsessive-compulsive tendencies, whereas

those who talk about sex or aggression may have sexual or aggressive problems.

Another frequently administered projective test is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), developed by the

psychologist Henry Murray (1893-1988). The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is a projective measure of

personality in which the respondent is asked to create stories about sketches of ambiguous situations, most of them

of people, either alone or with others. The sketches are shown to individuals, who are asked to tell a story about

what is happening in the picture. The TAT assumes that people may be unwilling or unable to admit their true

feelings when asked directly but that these feelings will show up in the stories about the pictures. Trained coders

read the stories and use them to develop a personality profile of the respondent.

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 494

Figure 12.5 Rorschach Inkblots. The Rorschach Inkblot Test is a projective test designed to assess

psychological disorders.

Other popular projective tests include those that ask the respondent to draw pictures, such as the Draw-A-Person

Test (Machover, 1949), and free association tests in which the respondent quickly responds with the first word that

comes to mind when the examiner says a test word. Another approach is the use of anatomically correct dolls that

feature representations of the male and female genitals. Investigators allow children to play with the dolls and then

try to determine on the basis of the play if the children may have been sexually abused.

The advantage of projective tests is that they are less direct, allowing people to avoid using their defence

mechanisms and therefore show their true personality. The idea is that when people view ambiguous stimuli they

will describe them according to the aspects of personality that are most important to them, and therefore bypass

some of the limitations of more conscious responding.

Despite their widespread use, however, the empirical evidence supporting the use of projective tests is mixed

(Karon, 2000; Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, & Garb, 2003). The reliability of the measures is low because people

often produce very different responses on different occasions. The construct validity of the measures is also suspect

because there are very few consistent associations between Rorschach scores or TAT scores and most personality

traits. The projective tests often fail to distinguish between people with psychological disorders and those without,

or to correlate with other measures of personality or with behaviour.

In sum, projective tests are more useful as icebreakers to get to know a person better, to make the person feel

comfortable, and to get some ideas about topics that may be of importance to that person than for accurately

diagnosing personality.

495 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Psychology in Everyday Life: Leaders and Leadership

One trait that has been studied in thousands of studies is leadership, the ability to direct or inspire others to

achieve goals. Trait theories of leadership are theories based on the idea that some people are simply “natural

leaders” because they possess personality characteristics that make them effective (Zaccaro, 2007). Consider

Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada, shown in Figure 12.6, “Varieties of Leaders.” What

characteristics do you think she possessed that allowed her to function as the sole member of her party in

Parliament when she was first elected?

Figure 12.6 Varieties of Leaders. Which personality traits do you think characterize good leaders?

[Long Description]

Research has found that being intelligent is an important characteristic of leaders, as long as the leader

communicates to others in a way that is easily understood by his or her followers (Simonton, 1994,

1995). Other research has found that people with good social skills, such as the ability to accurately

perceive the needs and goals of the group members and communicate with others, also tend to make

good leaders (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983).Because so many characteristics seem to be related to leader

skills, some researchers have attempted to account for leadership not in terms of individual traits, but

rather in terms of a package of traits that successful leaders seem to have. Some have considered this

in terms of charisma (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Sternberg, 2002). Charismatic leaders are leaders who

are enthusiastic, committed, and self-confident; who tend to talk about the importance of group goals

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 496

at a broad level; and who make personal sacrifices for the group. Charismatic leaders express views

that support and validate existing group norms but that also contain a vision of what the group could

or should be. Charismatic leaders use their referent power to motivate, uplift, and inspire others. And

research has found a positive relationship between a leader’s charisma and effective leadership performance

(Simonton, 1988).Another trait-based approach to leadership is based on the idea that leaders take either

transactional or transformational leadership styles with their subordinates (Bass, 1999; Pieterse, Van

Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010). Transactional leaders are the more regular leaders, who work

with their subordinates to help them understand what is required of them and to get the job done.

Transformational leaders, on the other hand, are more like charismatic leaders — they have a vision

of where the group is going, and attempt to stimulate and inspire their workers to move beyond their

present status and create a new and better future.Despite the fact that there appear to be at least some

personality traits that relate to leadership ability, the most important approaches to understanding leadership

take into consideration both the personality characteristics of the leader as well as the situation in which

the leader is operating. In some cases the situation itself is important. For instance, during the Calgary

flooding of 2013, Mayor Naheed Nenshi enhanced his popularity further with his ability to support and

unify the community, and ensure that the Calgary Stampede went ahead as planned despite severe damage

to the fair grounds and arenas.In still other cases, different types of leaders may perform differently in

different situations. Leaders whose personalities lead them to be more focused on fostering harmonious

social relationships among the members of the group, for instance, are particularly effective in situations in

which the group is already functioning well, and yet it is important to keep the group members engaged in the

task and committed to the group outcomes. Leaders who are more task-oriented and directive, on the other

hand, are more effective when the group is not functioning well and needs a firm hand to guide it (Ayman,

Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995).

Key Takeaways

• Personality is an individual’s consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving.

• Personality is driven in large part by underlying individual motivations, where motivation refers

to a need or desire that directs behaviour.

• Early theories assumed that personality was expressed in people’s physical appearance. One of

these approaches, known as physiognomy, has been validated by current research.

• Personalities are characterized in terms of traits — relatively enduring characteristics that

influence our behaviour across many situations.

• The most important and well-validated theory about the traits of normal personality is the Five-

Factor Model of Personality.

• There is often only a low correlation between the specific traits that a person expresses in one

situation and those that he or she expresses in other situations. This is in part because people tend

to see more traits in other people than they do in themselves. Personality predicts behaviour better

when the behaviours are aggregated or averaged across different situations.

497 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

• The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most important measure of

psychological disorders.

• Projective measures are measures of personality in which unstructured stimuli, such as inkblots,

drawings of social situations, or incomplete sentences are shown to participants, who are asked to

freely list what comes to mind as they think about the stimuli. Despite their widespread use,

however, the empirical evidence supporting the use of projective tests is mixed.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. Consider your own personality and those of people you know. What traits do you enjoy in other

people, and what traits do you dislike?

2. Consider some of the people who have had an important influence on you. What were the

personality characteristics of these people that made them so influential?

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New

York, NY: Harper.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. No. 211. Princeton, NJ: Psychological

Review Monographs.

Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its level of

analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147–167.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Current developments in transformational leadership: Research and applications. Psychologist-

Manager Journal, 3(1), 5–21.

Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational

consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6), 506–520.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,

116–131.

Cattell, R. B. (1990). Advances in Cattellian personality theory. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:

Theory and research (pp. 101–110). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 498

Cheung, F. M., & Leung, K. (1998). Indigenous personality measures: Chinese examples. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 29(1), 233–248.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor

Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Eysenck, H. (1998). Dimensions of personality. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social cognition, from brains to culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Garb, H. N. (1998). Computers and judgment. In H. N. Garb (Ed.), Studying the clinician: Judgment research and

psychological assessment (pp. 207–229). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In C. D. Spielberger

& J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological

Bulletin, 127(1), 45–86.

Graham, J. R. (2006). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Hartshorne, H., May, M. A., Maller, J. B., & Shuttleworth, F. K. (1928). Studies in the nature of character. New

York, NY: Macmillan.

Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal (2nd ed.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Hunsley, J., Lee, C. M., & Wood, J. M. (2003). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. In S. O.

Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 39–76). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait

taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 171–203.

Karon, B. P. (2000). The clinical interpretation of the Thematic Apperception Test, Rorschach, and other clinical

data: A reexamination of statistical versus clinical prediction. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

31(2), 230–233.

Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 68(4), 678–685.

Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure (A method of personality

investigation). In K. Machover (Ed.), Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: A method of

personality investigation (pp. 3–32). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

McClelland, D. C. (1958). Methods of measuring human motivation. In John W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy,

action and society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

499 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality: Integrating dispositions and processing

dynamics within the cognitive-affective processing system. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 208–241). New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Nisbett, R. E., Caputo, C., Legant, P., & Marecek, J. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the

observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(2), 154–164.

Oldham, J. (2010). Borderline personality disorder and DSM-5. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 16(3), 143–154.

Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of

appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 315–324.

Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional

leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old

age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies of internal versus external locus of control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80.

Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Assessing the U.S. presidents using the revised NEO

Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7(4), 403–420.

Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2010). Democrats and Republicans can be differentiated from their faces. PLoS ONE,

5(1), e8733.

Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., & Hallett, K. C. (2009). Female sexual orientation is perceived accurately, rapidly, and

automatically from the face and its features. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1245–1251.

Rule, N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B., Jr., & Macrae, C. N. (2008). Accuracy and awareness in the perception and

categorization of male sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1019–1028.

Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A metaanalytic

review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055–1085.

Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus

influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285–293.

Sheldon, W. (1940). The varieties of human physique: An introduction to constitutional psychology. New York,

NY: Harper.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography and performance. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 55, 928–936.

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1995). Personality and intellectual predictors of leadership. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 500

(Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence. Perspectives on individual differences (pp.

739–757). New York, NY: Plenum.

Simpson, D. (2005). Phrenology and the neurosciences: Contributions of F. J. Gall and J. G. Spurzheim. ANZ

Journal of Surgery, 75(6), 475–482.

Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in early and middle

adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041–1053.

Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Successful intelligence: A new approach to leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F.

J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 9–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York,

NY: Free Press.

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2

Restructured Clinical Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A metaanalytic

review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703–742.

Triandis, H. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 93, 506–520.

Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1),

133–160.

Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Garb, H. N. (2003). What’s wrong with the Rorschach? Science

confronts the controversial inkblot test. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6–16.

Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Image Attributions

Figure 12.1: 1895 Dictionary Phrenolog by Webster’s Academic Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

File:1895-Dictionary-Phrenolog.png) is in public domain.

Figure 12.3: Adapted from Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973.

Figure 12.4: “Astro signs” by Tavmjong is licensed under the CC BY 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by/3.0/deed.en). “Erica’s palm reading” by Matthew Romack is licensed under CC BY 2.0 license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en_CA).

Figure 12.5: “Rorschach blot 02” by Hermann Rorschach is in the public domain. “Rorschach blot 08” by Hermann

Rorschach is in the public domain. “Rorschach blot 09” by Hermann Rorschach is in the public domain. “Rorschach

blot 10” by Hermann Rorschach is in the public domain.

Figure 12.6: Elizabeth May ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMay2010.JPG); Queen Mother with Prime

501 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Minister William Lyon MacKenzie (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QueenMotherandWLMK.jpg) is in

public domain; Hayley Wickenheiser ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:Hayley_Wickenheiser_cropped.jpg) used under CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

deed.en); Barack Obama signs Parliament of Canada guestbook by Pete Souza (http://commons.wikimedia.org/

wiki/File:Barack_Obama_signs_Parliament_of_Canada_guestbook_2-19-09.JPG ) is in public domain.

Long Descriptions

Figure 12.1 long description: Phrenology. 1. Science of the special functions of the several parts of the brain, or of

the supposed connection between the faculties of the mind and organs of the brain. 2. Physiological hypothesis that

mental faculties, and traits of character, are shown on the surface of the head or skull; craniology. [Return to Figure

12.1]

Figure 12.3 long description:We Tend to Overestimate the Traits of others

Number of time a trait term was selected Number of times “Depends on the situation” was seleced

Self 12 8

Best friend 14 6

Father 13 7

Walter Cronkite 15 5

[Return to Figure 12.3]

Figure 12.6 long description: Top Left: Leader of the Green Party of Canada – Elizabeth May; Top Middle: Queen

Mother with Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King; Top Right: Hayley Wikenheiser, Captain of Canadian

Women’s National Hockey team; Bottom: Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama signing

Canadian Parliamentary guestbook. [Return to Figure 12.6]

Notes

1. Sources: Adorno, 1950; Cacioppo, 1982; Fenigstein, 1975; McClelland, 1958; Rosenberg, 1965; Rotter, 1966; Shah, 1998;

Triandis, 1989; Zuckerman, 2007.

12.1 PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOUR: APPROACHES AND MEASUREMENT • 502

12.2 The Origins of Personality

Learning Objectives

1. Describe the strengths and limitations of the psychodynamic approach to explaining

personality.

2. Summarize the accomplishments of the neo-Freudians.

3. Identify the major contributions of the humanistic approach to understanding personality.

Although measures such as the Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) are able to

effectively assess personality, they do not say much about where personality comes from. In this section we will

consider two major theories of the origin of personality: psychodynamic and humanistic approaches.

Psychodynamic Theories of Personality: The Role of the Unconscious

One of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the theorizing of

the Austrian physician and psychologist Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), who founded what today is known as the

psychodynamic approach, an approach to understanding human behaviour that focuses on the role of unconscious

thoughts, feelings, and memories. Many people know about Freud because his work has had a huge impact on our

everyday thinking about psychology, and the psychodynamic approach is one of the most important approaches to

psychological therapy (Roudinesco, 2003; Taylor, 2009). Freud is probably the best known of all psychologists, in

part because of his impressive observation and analyses of personality (there are 24 volumes of his writings). As is

true of all theories, many of Freud’s ingenious ideas have turned out to be at least partially incorrect, and yet other

aspects of his theories are still influencing psychology.

Freud was influenced by the work of the French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893), who had been

interviewing patients (almost all women) who were experiencing what was at the time known as hysteria. Although

it is no longer used to describe a psychological disorder, hysteria at the time referred to a set of personality and

physical symptoms that included chronic pain, fainting, seizures, and paralysis.

Charcot could find no biological reason for the symptoms. For instance, some women experienced a loss of feeling

in their hands and yet not in their arms, and this seemed impossible given that the nerves in the arms are the same as

those in the hands. Charcot was experimenting with the use of hypnosis, and he and Freud found that under hypnosis

many of the hysterical patients reported having experienced a traumatic sexual experience, such as sexual abuse, as

children (Dolnick, 1998).

Freud and Charcot also found that during hypnosis the remembering of the trauma was often accompanied by an

outpouring of emotion, known as catharsis, and that following the catharsis the patient’s symptoms were frequently

reduced in severity. These observations led Freud and Charcot to conclude that these disorders were caused by

psychological rather than physiological factors.

503

Freud used the observations that he and Charcot had made to develop his theory regarding the sources of personality

and behaviour, and his insights are central to the fundamental themes of psychology. In terms of free will, Freud

did not believe that we were able to control our own behaviours. Rather, he believed that all behaviours are

predetermined by motivations that lie outside our awareness, in the unconscious. These forces show themselves

in our dreams, in neurotic symptoms such as obsessions, while we are under hypnosis, and in Freudian “slips of

the tongue” in which people reveal their unconscious desires in language. Freud argued that we rarely understand

why we do what we do, although we can make up explanations for our behaviours after the fact. For Freud the

mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of the unconscious being much larger, but also out of sight, in

comparison to the consciousness of which we are aware (Figure 12.7, “Mind as Iceberg”).

Figure 12.7 Mind as Iceberg. In Sigmund Freud’s conceptualization of personality, the most

important motivations are unconscious, just as the major part of an iceberg is under water.

Id, Ego, and Superego

Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that the interactions and

conflicts among the components create personality (Freud, 1923/1949). According to Freudian theory, the id is the

component of personality that forms the basis of our most primitive impulses. The id is entirely unconscious, and

it drives our most important motivations, including the sexual drive (libido) and the aggressive or destructive drive

(Thanatos). According to Freud, the id is driven by the pleasure principle — the desire for immediate gratification

12.2 THE ORIGINS OF PERSONALITY • 504

of our sexual and aggressive urges. The id is why we smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, view pornography, tell mean

jokes about people, and engage in other fun or harmful behaviours, often at the cost of doing more productive

activities.

In stark contrast to the id, the superego represents our sense of morality and oughts. The superego tell us all the

things that we shouldn’t do, or the duties and obligations of society. The superego strives for perfection, and when

we fail to live up to its demands we feel guilty.

In contrast to the id, which is about the pleasure principle, the function of the ego is based on the reality

principle — the idea that we must delay gratification of our basic motivations until the appropriate time with the

appropriate outlet. The ego is the largely conscious controller or decision-maker of personality. The ego serves as

the intermediary between the desires of the id and the constraints of society contained in the superego (Figure 12.8,

“Ego, Id, and Superego in Interaction”). We may wish to scream, yell, or hit, and yet our ego normally tells us to

wait, reflect, and choose a more appropriate response.

Figure 12.8 Ego, Id, and Superego in Interaction.

Freud believed that psychological disorders, and particularly the experience of anxiety, occur when there is

conflict or imbalance among the motivations of the id, ego, and superego. When the ego finds that the id is

pressing too hard for immediate pleasure, it attempts to correct for this problem, often through the use of defence

mechanisms — unconscious psychological strategies used to cope with anxiety and maintain a positive self-image.

Freud believed that the defence mechanisms were essential for effective coping with everyday life, but that any of

them could be overused (Table 12.4, “The Major Freudian Defence Mechanisms”).

505 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Table 12.4 The Major Freudian Defence Mechanisms.

[Skip Table]

Defence

mechanism Definition Possible behavioural example

Displacement

Diverting threatening impulses away from the

source of the anxiety and toward a more

acceptable source

A student who is angry at her professor for a low grade

lashes out at her roommate, who is a safer target of her

anger.

Projection Disguising threatening impulses by attributing

them to others

A man with powerful unconscious sexual desires for

women claims that women use him as a sex object.

Rationalization Generating self-justifying explanations for our

negative behaviours

A drama student convinces herself that getting the part

in the play wasn’t that important after all.

Reaction

formation

Making unacceptable motivations appear as their

exact opposite

Jane is sexually attracted to friend Jake, but she claims

in public that she intensely dislikes him.

Regression Retreating to an earlier, more childlike, and safer

stage of development

A university student who is worried about an important

test begins to suck on his finger.

Repression (or

denial)

Pushing anxiety-arousing thoughts into the

unconscious

A person who witnesses his parents having sex is later

unable to remember anything about the event.

Sublimation Channeling unacceptable sexual or aggressive

desires into acceptable activities

A person participates in sports to sublimate aggressive

drives. A person creates music or art to sublimate

sexual drives.

The most controversial, and least scientifically valid, part of Freudian theory is its explanations of personality

development. Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages, each focusing

on pleasure from a different part of the body (Table 12.5, “Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development”). Freud

believed that sexuality begins in infancy, and that the appropriate resolution of each stage has implications for later

personality development.

Table 12.5 Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development.

[Skip Table]

Stage Approximate ages Description

Oral Birth to 18 months Pleasure comes from the mouth in the form of sucking, biting, and chewing.

Anal 18 months to 3

years Pleasure comes from bowel and bladder elimination and the constraints of toilet training.

Phallic 3 years to 6 years Pleasure comes from the genitals, and the conflict is with sexual desires for the opposite-sex

parent.

Latency 6 years to puberty Sexual feelings are less important.

Genital Puberty and older If prior stages have been properly reached, mature sexual orientation develops.

In the first of Freud’s proposed stages of psychosexual development, which begins at birth and lasts until about 18

months of age, the focus is on the mouth. During this oral stage, the infant obtains sexual pleasure by sucking and

drinking. Infants who receive either too little or too much gratification become fixated or locked in the oral stage,

and are likely to regress to these points of fixation under stress, even as adults. According to Freud, a child who

12.2 THE ORIGINS OF PERSONALITY • 506

receives too little oral gratification (e.g., who was underfed or neglected) will become orally dependent as an adult

and be likely to manipulate others to fulfill his or her needs rather than becoming independent. On the other hand,

the child who was overfed or overly gratified will resist growing up and try to return to the prior state of dependency

by acting helpless, demanding satisfaction from others, and acting in a needy way.

The anal stage, lasting from about 18 months to three years of age, is when children first experience psychological

conflict. During this stage children desire to experience pleasure through bowel movements, but they are also being

toilet trained to delay this gratification. Freud believed that if this toilet training was either too harsh or too lenient,

children would become fixated in the anal stage and become likely to regress to this stage under stress as adults. If

the child received too little anal gratification (i.e., if the parents had been very harsh about toilet training), the adult

personality will be anal retentive — stingy, with a compulsive seeking of order and tidiness. On the other hand, if

the parents had been too lenient, the anal expulsive personality results, characterized by a lack of self-control and

a tendency toward messiness and carelessness.

The phallic stage, which lasts from age three to age six is when the penis (for boys) and clitoris (for girls) become

the primary erogenous zone for sexual pleasure. During this stage, Freud believed that children develop a powerful

but unconscious attraction for the opposite-sex parent, as well as a desire to eliminate the same-sex parent as a rival.

Freud based his theory of sexual development in boys (the Oedipus complex) on the Greek mythological character

Oedipus, who unknowingly killed his father and married his mother, and then put his own eyes out when he learned

what he had done. Freud argued that boys will normally eventually abandon their love of the mother, and instead

identify with the father, also taking on the father’s personality characteristics, but that boys who do not successfully

resolve the Oedipus complex will experience psychological problems later in life. Although it was not as important

in Freud’s theorizing, in girls the phallic stage is often termed the Electra complex, after the Greek character who

avenged her father’s murder by killing her mother. Freud believed that girls frequently experienced penis envy, the

sense of deprivation supposedly experienced by girls because they do not have a penis.

The latency stage is a period of relative calm that lasts from about six years to 12 years. During this time, Freud

believed that sexual impulses were repressed, leading boys and girls to have little or no interest in members of the

opposite sex.

The fifth and last stage, the genital stage, begins about 12 years of age and lasts into adulthood. According to

Freud, sexual impulses return during this time frame, and if development has proceeded normally to this point, the

child is able to move into the development of mature romantic relationships. But if earlier problems have not been

appropriately resolved, difficulties with establishing intimate love attachments are likely.

Freud’s Followers: The Neo-Freudians

Freudian theory was so popular that it led to a number of followers, including many of Freud’s own students,

who developed, modified, and expanded his theories. Taken together, these approaches are known as neo-Freudian

theories. The neo-Freudian theories are theories based on Freudian principles that emphasize the role of the

unconscious and early experience in shaping personality but place less evidence on sexuality as the primary

motivating force in personality and are more optimistic concerning the prospects for personality growth and change

in personality in adults.

Alfred Adler (1870-1937) was a follower of Freud’s who developed his own interpretation of Freudian theory.

Adler proposed that the primary motivation in human personality was not sex or aggression, but rather the striving

for superiority. According to Adler, we desire to be better than others and we accomplish this goal by creating a

unique and valuable life. We may attempt to satisfy our need for superiority through our school or professional

accomplishments, or by our enjoyment of music, athletics, or other activities that seem important to us.

507 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Adler believed that psychological disorders begin in early childhood. He argued that children who are either overly

nurtured or overly neglected by their parents are later likely to develop an inferiority complex — a psychological

state in which people feel that they are not living up to expectations, leading them to have low self-esteem, with

a tendency to try to overcompensate for the negative feelings. People with an inferiority complex often attempt to

demonstrate their superiority to others at all costs, even if it means humiliating, dominating, or alienating them.

According to Adler, most psychological disorders result from misguided attempts to compensate for the inferiority

complex in order meet the goal of superiority.

Carl Jung (1875-1961) was another student of Freud’s who developed his own theories about personality. Jung

agreed with Freud about the power of the unconscious but felt that Freud overemphasized the importance of

sexuality. Jung argued that in addition to the personal unconscious, there was also a collective unconscious, or

a collection of shared ancestral memories. Jung believed that the collective unconscious contains a variety of

archetypes, or cross-culturally universal symbols, which explain the similarities among people in their emotional

reactions to many stimuli. Important archetypes include the mother, the goddess, the hero, and the mandala or circle,

which Jung believed symbolized a desire for wholeness or unity. For Jung, the underlying motivation that guides

successful personality is self-realization, or learning about and developing the self to the fullest possible extent.

Karen Horney (the last syllable of her last name rhymes with “eye”; 1855-1952) was a German physician who

applied Freudian theories to create a personality theory that she thought was more balanced between men and

women. Horney believed that parts of Freudian theory, and particularly the ideas of the Oedipus complex and penis

envy, were biased against women. Horney argued that women’s sense of inferiority was not due to their lack of a

penis but rather to their dependency on men, an approach that the culture made it difficult for them to break from.

For Horney, the underlying motivation that guides personality development is the desire for security, the ability to

develop appropriate and supportive relationships with others.

Another important neo-Freudian was Erich Fromm (1900-1980). Fromm’s focus was on the negative impact of

technology, arguing that the increases in its use have led people to feel increasingly isolated from others. Fromm

believed that the independence that technology brings us also creates the need to “escape from freedom,” that is, to

become closer to others.

Research Focus: How the Fear of Death Causes Aggressive Behaviour

Fromm believed that the primary human motivation was to escape the fear of death, and contemporary

research has shown how our concerns about dying can influence our behaviour. In this research, people

have been made to confront their death by writing about it or otherwise being reminded of it, and effects on

their behaviour are then observed. In one relevant study, McGregor and colleagues (1998) demonstrated that

people who are provoked may be particularly aggressive after they have been reminded of the possibility of

their own death. The participants in the study had been selected, on the basis of prior reporting, to have either

politically liberal or politically conservative views. When they arrived at the lab they were asked to write a

short paragraph describing their opinion of politics in the United States. In addition, half of the participants

(the mortality salient condition) were asked to “briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own

death arouses in you” and to “jot down as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you

physically die, and once you are physically dead.” Participants in the exam control condition also thought

about a negative event, but not one associated with a fear of death. They were instructed to “please briefly

describe the emotions that the thought of your next important exam arouses in you” and to “jot down as

specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically take your next exam, and once

you are physically taking your next exam.”

12.2 THE ORIGINS OF PERSONALITY • 508

Then the participants read the essay that had supposedly just been written by another person. (The other

person did not exist, but the participants didn’t know this until the end of the experiment.) The essay that

they read had been prepared by the experimenters to be very negative toward politically liberal views or

to be very negative toward politically conservative views. Thus one-half of the participants were provoked

by the other person by reading a statement that strongly conflicted with their own political beliefs, whereas

the other half read an essay in which the other person’s views supported their own (liberal or conservative)

beliefs.

At this point the participants moved on to what they thought was a completely separate study in which

they were to be tasting and giving their impression of some foods. Furthermore, they were told that it was

necessary for the participants in the research to administer the food samples to each other. At this point,

the participants found out that the food they were going to be sampling was spicy hot sauce and that they

were going to be administering the sauce to the very person whose essay they had just read. In addition, the

participants read some information about the other person that indicated that he very much disliked eating

spicy food. Participants were given a taste of the hot sauce (it was really hot!) and then instructed to place

a quantity of it into a cup for the other person to sample. Furthermore, they were told that the other person

would have to eat all the sauce.

As you can see in Figure 12.9, “Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation,” McGregor

and colleagues found that the participants who had not been reminded of their own death, even if they had

been insulted by the partner, did not retaliate by giving him a lot of hot sauce to eat. On the other hand, the

participants who were both provoked by the other person and who had also been reminded of their own death

administered significantly more hot sauce than did the participants in the other three conditions. McGregor

and colleagues (1998) argued that thinking about one’s own death creates a strong concern with maintaining

one’s one cherished worldviews (in this case our political beliefs). When we are concerned about dying we

become more motivated to defend these important beliefs from the challenges made by others, in this case

by aggressing through the hot sauce.

Figure 12.9 Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation. Participants who had

been provoked by a stranger who disagreed with them on important opinions, and who had also

been reminded of their own death, administered significantly more unpleasant hot sauce to the

partner than did the participants in the other three conditions. [Long Description]

Strengths and Limitations of Freudian and Neo-Freudian Approaches

Freud has probably exerted a greater impact on the public’s understanding of personality than any other thinker, and

he has also in large part defined the field of psychology. Although Freudian psychologists no longer talk about oral,

509 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

anal, or genital fixations, they do continue to believe that our childhood experiences and unconscious motivations

shape our personalities and our attachments with others, and they still make use of psychodynamic concepts when

they conduct psychological therapy.

Nevertheless, Freud’s theories, as well as those of the neo-Freudians, have in many cases failed to pass the test of

empiricism, and as a result they are less influential now than they have been in the past (Crews, 1998). The problems

are, first, that it has proved to be difficult to rigorously test Freudian theory because the predictions that it makes

(particularly those regarding defence mechanisms) are often vague and unfalsifiable and, second, that the aspects of

the theory that can be tested often have not received much empirical support.

As examples, although Freud claimed that children exposed to overly harsh toilet training would become fixated in

the anal stage and thus be prone to excessive neatness, stinginess, and stubbornness in adulthood, research has found

few reliable associations between toilet training practices and adult personality (Fisher & Greenberg, 1996). And

since the time of Freud, the need to repress sexual desires would seem to have become much less necessary as

societies have tolerated a wider variety of sexual practices. And yet the psychological disorders that Freud thought

we caused by this repression have not decreased.

There is also little scientific support for most of the Freudian defence mechanisms. For example, studies have

failed to yield evidence for the existence of repression. People who are exposed to traumatic experiences in war

have been found to remember their traumas only too well (Kihlstrom, 1997). Although we may attempt to push

information that is anxiety-arousing into our unconscious, this often has the ironic effect of making us think about

the information even more strongly than if we hadn’t tried to repress it (Newman, Duff, & Baumeister, 1997). It is

true that children remember little of their childhood experiences, but this seems to be true of both negative as well as

positive experiences, is true for animals as well, and probably is better explained in terms of the brain’s inability to

form long-term memories than in terms of repression. On the other hand, Freud’s important idea that expressing or

talking through one’s difficulties can be psychologically helpful has been supported in current research (Baddeley

& Pennebaker, 2009) and has become a mainstay of psychological therapy.

A particular problem for testing Freudian theories is that almost anything that conflicts with a prediction based in

Freudian theory can be explained away in terms of the use of a defence mechanism. A man who expresses a lot of

anger toward his father may be seen via Freudian theory to be experiencing the Oedipus complex, which includes

conflict with the father. But a man who expresses no anger at all toward the father also may be seen as experiencing

the Oedipus complex by repressing the anger. Because Freud hypothesized that either was possible, but did not

specify when repression would or would not occur, the theory is difficult to falsify.

In terms of the important role of the unconscious, Freud seems to have been at least in part correct. More and

more research demonstrates that a large part of everyday behaviour is driven by processes that are outside our

conscious awareness (Kihlstrom, 1987). And yet, although our unconscious motivations influence every aspect of

our learning and behaviour, Freud probably overestimated the extent to which these unconscious motivations are

primarily sexual and aggressive.

Taken together, it is fair to say that Freudian theory, like most psychological theories, was not entirely correct and

that it has had to be modified over time as the results of new studies have become available. But the fundamental

ideas about personality that Freud proposed, as well as the use of talk therapy as an essential component of therapy,

are nevertheless still a major part of psychology and are used by clinical psychologists every day.

Focusing on the Self: Humanism and Self-Actualization

Psychoanalytic models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and 1960s by the theories of

12.2 THE ORIGINS OF PERSONALITY • 510

humanistic psychologists, an approach to psychology that embraces the notions of self-esteem, self-actualization,

and free will. In contrast to the proponents of psychoanalysis, humanists embraced the notion of free will. Arguing

that people are free to choose their own lives and make their own decisions, humanistic psychologists focused on

the underlying motivations that they believed drove personality, focusing on the nature of the self-concept, the set

of beliefs about who we are, and self-esteem, our positive feelings about the self.

One of the most important humanists, Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), conceptualized personality in terms of a

pyramid-shaped hierarchy of motives, also called the hierarchy of needs, (Figure 12.10 “Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs”). At the base of the pyramid are the lowest-level motivations, including hunger and thirst, and safety and

belongingness. Maslow argued that only when people are able to meet the lower-level needs are they able to move

on to achieve the higher-level needs of self-esteem, and eventually self-actualization, which is the motivation to

develop our innate potential to the fullest possible extent.

Maslow studied how successful people, including Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Helen

Keller, and Mahatma Gandhi, had been able to lead such successful and productive lives. Maslow (1970) believed

that self-actualized people are creative, spontaneous, and loving of themselves and others. They tend to have a

few deep friendships rather than many superficial ones, and are generally private. He felt that these individuals do

not need to conform to the opinions of others because they are very confident and thus free to express unpopular

opinions. Self-actualized people are also likely to have peak experiences, or transcendent moments of tranquility

accompanied by a strong sense of connection with others.

Figure 12.10 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Abraham Maslow conceptualized personality in

terms of a hierarchy of needs. The highest of these motivations is self-actualization. [Long

Description]

Perhaps the best-known humanistic theorist is Carl Rogers (1902-1987). Rogers was positive about human nature,

viewing people as primarily moral and helpful to others, and believed that we can achieve our full potential for

emotional fulfilment if the self-concept is characterized by unconditional positive regard — a set of behaviours

including being genuine, open to experience, transparent, able to listen to others, and self-disclosing and empathic.

When we treat ourselves or others with unconditional positive regard, we express understanding and support, even

while we may acknowledge failings. Unconditional positive regard allows us to admit our fears and failures, to drop

our pretenses, and yet at the same time to feel completely accepted for what we are. The principle of unconditional

511 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

positive regard has become a foundation of psychological therapy; therapists who use it in their practice are more

effective than those who do not (Prochaska & Norcross, 2007; Yalom, 1995).

Although there are critiques of the humanistic psychologists (e.g., that Maslow focused on historically productive

rather than destructive personalities in his research and thus drew overly optimistic conclusions about the capacity of

people to do good), the ideas of humanism are so powerful and optimistic that they have continued to influence both

everyday experiences and psychology. Today the positive psychology movement argues for many of these ideas, and

research has documented the extent to which thinking positively and openly has important positive consequences

for our relationships, our life satisfaction, and our psychological and physical health (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,

2000).

Research Focus: Self-Discrepancies, Anxiety, and Depression

Tory Higgins and his colleagues (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Strauman & Higgins, 1988) have

studied how different aspects of the self-concept relate to personality characteristics. These researchers

focused on the types of emotional distress that we might experience as a result of how we are currently

evaluating our self-concept. Higgins proposes that the emotions we experience are determined both by our

perceptions of how well our own behaviours meet up to the standards and goals we have provided ourselves

(our internal standards) and by our perceptions of how others think about us (our external standards).

Furthermore, Higgins argues that different types of self-discrepancies lead to different types of negative

emotions.

In one of Higgins’s experiments (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986), participants were first asked

to describe themselves using a self-report measure. The participants listed 10 thoughts that they thought

described the kind of person they actually are; this is the actual self-concept. Then, participants also listed 10

thoughts that they thought described the type of person they would ideally like to be (the ideal self-concept)

as well as 10 thoughts describing the way that someone else — for instance, a parent — thinks they ought to

be (the ought self-concept).

Higgins then divided his participants into two groups. Those with low self-concept discrepancies were those

who listed similar traits on all three lists. Their ideal, ought, and actual self-concepts were all pretty similar

and so they were not considered to be vulnerable to threats to their self-concept. The other half of the

participants, those with high self-concept discrepancies, were those for whom the traits listed on the ideal

and ought lists were very different from those listed on the actual self list. These participants were expected

to be vulnerable to threats to the self-concept.

Then, at a later research session, Higgins first asked people to express their current emotions, including those

related to sadness and anxiety. After obtaining this baseline measure, Higgins activated either ideal or ought

discrepancies for the participants. Participants in the ideal self-discrepancy priming condition were asked to

think about and discuss their own and their parents’ hopes and goals for them. Participants in the ought selfpriming

condition listed their own and their parents’ beliefs concerning their duty and obligations. Then all

participants again indicated their current emotions.

As you can see in Figure 12.11, “Research Results,” for low self-concept discrepancy participants, thinking

about their ideal or ought selves did not much change their emotions. For high self-concept discrepancy

participants, however, priming the ideal self-concept increased their sadness and dejection, whereas priming

the ought self-concept increased their anxiety and agitation. These results are consistent with the idea that

discrepancies between the ideal and the actual self lead us to experience sadness, dissatisfaction, and other

12.2 THE ORIGINS OF PERSONALITY • 512

depression-related emotions, whereas discrepancies between the actual and ought self are more likely to lead

to fear, worry, tension, and other anxiety-related emotions.

Figure 12.11 Research Results. Higgins and his colleagues documented the impact of self-concept

discrepancies on emotion. For participants with low self-concept discrepancies (right bars), seeing

words that related to the self had little influence on emotions. For those with high self-concept

discrepancies (left bars), priming the ideal self increased dejection whereas priming the ought self

increased agitation. [Long Description]

One of the critical aspects of Higgins’s approach is that, as is our personality, our feelings are influenced both

by our own behaviour and by our expectations of how other people view us. This makes it clear that even

though you might not care that much about achieving in school, your failure to do well may still produce

negative emotions because you realize that your parents do think it is important.

Key Takeaways

• One of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the

psychodynamic approach to personality developed by Sigmund Freud.

• For Freud the mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of the unconscious being

much larger, but also out of sight, in comparison to the consciousness of which we are aware.

513 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

• Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that the

interactions and conflicts among the components create personality.

• Freud proposed that we use defence mechanisms to cope with anxiety and maintain a positive

self-image.

• Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages, each focusing

on pleasure from a different part of the body.

• The neo-Freudian theorists, including Adler, Jung, Horney, and Fromm, emphasized the role of

the unconscious and early experience in shaping personality, but placed less evidence on sexuality

as the primary motivating force in personality.

• Psychoanalytic and behavioural models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and

1960s by the theories of humanistic psychologists, including Maslow and Rogers.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. Based on your understanding of psychodynamic theories, how would you analyze your own

personality? Are there aspects of the theory that might help you explain your own strengths and

weaknesses?

2. Based on your understanding of humanistic theories, how would you try to change your

behaviour to better meet the underlying motivations of security, acceptance, and self-realization?

3. Consider your own self-concept discrepancies. Do you have an actual-ideal or actual-ought

discrepancy? Which one is more important for you, and why?

References

Baddeley, J. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Expressive writing. In W. T. O’Donohue & J. E. Fisher (Eds.), General

principles and empirically supported techniques of cognitive behavior therapy (pp. 295–299). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

Crews, F. C. (1998). Unauthorized Freud: Doubters confront a legend. New York, NY: Viking Press.

Dolnick, E. (1998). Madness on the couch: Blaming the victim in the heyday of psychoanalysis. New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster.

Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. P. (1996). Freud scientifically reappraised: Testing the theories and therapy. Oxford,

England: John Wiley & Sons.

Freud, S. (1923/1949). The ego and the id. London, England: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923)

Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How

12.2 THE ORIGINS OF PERSONALITY • 514

magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51(1), 5–15.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445–1452.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (1997). Memory, abuse, and science. American Psychologist, 52(9), 994–995.

Maslow, Abraham (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper.

McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon, L.,…Pyszczynski, T. (1998).

Terror management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldviewthreatening

others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 590–605.

Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression,

accessibility, and biased person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 980–1001.

Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2007). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (6th ed.). Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Roudinesco, E. (2003). Why psychoanalysis? New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist,

55(1), 5–14.

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of

chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56(4), 685–707.

Taylor, E. (2009). The mystery of personality: A history of psychodynamic theories. New York, NY: Springer

Science + Business Media.

Yalom, I. (1995). Introduction. In C. Rogers, A way of being. (1980). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Image Attributions

Figure 12.9: Adapted from McGregor, et al., 1998.

Figure 12.11: Adapted from Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986.

Long Description

Figure 12.9 long description: Aggression as a Function of

Mortality Salience and Provocation

Provocation Morality Salience Control condition

No 15 grams of hot sauce 17 grams of hot sauce

Yes 26 grams of hot sauce 11 grams of hot sauce

[Return to Figure 12.9]

515 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Figure 12.10 long description: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, from bottom to top.

Physiological (Base) Need to satisfy hunger and thirst.

Safety Need to feel that the world is organized and predictable; need to feel safe, secure, and stable.

Love/belonging Need to love and be loved, to belong and be accepted; need to avoid loneliness and alienation.

Esteem Need for self-esteem, achievement, competence, and independence; need for recognition and respect

from others.

Self-actualization

(Top) Need to live up to one’s fullest and unique potential.

[Return to Figure 12.10]

Figure 12.11 long description: Research results. Actualideal

discrepancies primed.

Change in rated emotion

Dejection Agitation

High self-concept discrepancy 3.1 0.8

Low self-concept discrepancy negative 1.3 0.9

Figure 12.11 long description continued: Research

results. Actual-ought discrepancies primed.

Change in rated emotion

Dejection Agitation

High self-concept discrepancy 0.8 4.9

Low self-concept discrepancy 0.3 negative 2.4

[Return to Figure 12.11]

12.2 THE ORIGINS OF PERSONALITY • 516

12.3 Is Personality More Nature or More Nurture? Behavioural and Molecular

Genetics

Learning Objectives

1. Explain how genes transmit personality from one generation to the next.

2. Outline the methods of behavioural genetics studies and the conclusions that we can draw from

them about the determinants of personality.

3. Explain how molecular genetics research helps us understand the role of genetics in

personality.

One question that is exceedingly important for the study of personality concerns the extent to which it is the result of

nature or nurture. If nature is more important, then our personalities will form early in our lives and will be difficult

to change later. If nurture is more important, however, then our experiences are likely to be particularly important,

and we may be able to flexibly alter our personalities over time. In this section we will see that the personality traits

of humans and animals are determined in large part by their genetic makeup, and thus it is no surprise that identical

twins Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein turned out to be very similar even though they had been raised separately.

But we will also see that genetics does not determine everything.

In the nucleus of each cell in your body are 23 pairs of chromosomes. One of each pair comes from your

father, and the other comes from your mother. The chromosomes are made up of strands of the molecule DNA

(deoxyribonucleic acid), and the DNA is grouped into segments known as genes. A gene is the basic biological unit

that transmits characteristics from one generation to the next. Human cells have about 25,000 genes.

The genes of different members of the same species are almost identical. The DNA in your genes, for instance, is

about 99.9% the same as the DNA in my genes and in the DNA of every other human being. These common genetic

structures lead members of the same species to be born with a variety of behaviours that come naturally to them and

that define the characteristics of the species. These abilities and characteristics are known as instincts — complex

inborn patterns of behaviours that help ensure survival and reproduction (Tinbergen, 1951). Different animals

have different instincts. Birds naturally build nests, dogs are naturally loyal to their human caretakers, and humans

instinctively learn to walk and to speak and understand language.

But the strength of different traits and behaviours also varies within species. Rabbits are naturally fearful, but some

are more fearful than others; some dogs are more loyal than others to their caretakers; and some humans learn to

speak and write better than others do. These differences are determined in part by the small amount (in humans, the

0.1%) of the differences in genes among the members of the species.

Personality is not determined by any single gene, but rather by the actions of many genes working together. There

is no “IQ gene” that determines intelligence and there is no “good marriage-partner gene” that makes a person a

particularly good marriage bet. Furthermore, even working together, genes are not so powerful that they can control

517

or create our personality. Some genes tend to increase a given characteristic and others work to decrease that same

characteristic—the complex relationship among the various genes, as well as a variety of random factors, produces

the final outcome. Furthermore, genetic factors always work with environmental factors to create personality.

Having a given pattern of genes doesn’t necessarily mean that a particular trait will develop, because some traits

might occur only in some environments. For example, a person may have a genetic variant that is known to increase

his or her risk for developing emphysema from smoking. But if that person never smokes, then emphysema most

likely will not develop.

Studying Personality Using Behavioural Genetics

Perhaps the most direct way to study the role of genetics in personality is to selectively breed animals for the trait of

interest. In this approach the scientist chooses the animals that most strongly express the personality characteristics

of interest and breeds these animals with each other. If the selective breeding creates offspring with even stronger

traits, then we can assume that the trait has genetic origins. In this manner, scientists have studied the role of genetics

in how worms respond to stimuli, how fish develop courtship rituals, how rats differ in play, and how pigs differ in

their responses to stress.

Although selective breeding studies can be informative, they are clearly not useful for studying humans. For

this psychologists rely on behavioural genetics — a variety of research techniques that scientists use to learn

about the genetic and environmental influences on human behaviour by comparing the traits of biologically and

nonbiologically related family members (Baker, 2004). Behavioural genetics is based on the results of family

studies, twin studies, and adoptive studies.

A family study starts with one person who has a trait of interest — for instance, a developmental disorder such as

autism — and examines the individual’s family tree to determine the extent to which other members of the family

also have the trait. The presence of the trait in first-degree relatives (parents, siblings, and children) is compared

with the prevalence of the trait in second-degree relatives (aunts, uncles, grandchildren, grandparents, and nephews

or nieces) and in more distant family members. The scientists then analyze the patterns of the trait in the family

members to see the extent to which it is shared by closer and more distant relatives.

Although family studies can reveal whether a trait runs in a family, it cannot explain why. In a twin study,

researchers study the personality characteristics of twins. Twin studies rely on the fact that identical (or

monozygotic) twins have essentially the same set of genes, while fraternal (or dizygotic) twins have, on average, a

half-identical set. The idea is that if the twins are raised in the same household, then the twins will be influenced

by their environments to an equal degree, and this influence will be pretty much equal for identical and fraternal

twins. In other words, if environmental factors are the same, then the only factor that can make identical twins more

similar than fraternal twins is their greater genetic similarity.

In a twin study, the data from many pairs of twins are collected and the rates of similarity for identical and fraternal

pairs are compared. A correlation coefficient is calculated that assesses the extent to which the trait for one twin is

associated with the trait in the other twin. Twin studies divide the influence of nature and nurture into three parts:

• Heritability (i.e., genetic influence) is indicated when the correlation coefficient for identical twins

exceeds that for fraternal twins, indicating that shared DNA is an important determinant of personality.

• Shared environment determinants are indicated when the correlation coefficients for identical and

fraternal twins are greater than zero and also very similar. These correlations indicate that both twins are

having experiences in the family that make them alike.

• Nonshared environment is indicated when identical twins do not have similar traits. These influences

12.3 IS PERSONALITY MORE NATURE OR MORE NURTURE? BEHAVIOURAL AND MOLECULAR GENETICS • 518

refer to experiences that are not accounted for either by heritability or by shared environmental factors.

Nonshared environmental factors are the experiences that make individuals within the same family less

alike. If a parent treats one child more affectionately than another, and as a consequence this child ends

up with higher self-esteem, the parenting in this case is a nonshared environmental factor.

In the typical twin study, all three sources of influence are operating simultaneously, and it is possible to determine

the relative importance of each type.

An adoption study compares biologically related people, including twins, who have been reared either separately

or apart. Evidence for genetic influence on a trait is found when children who have been adopted show traits that are

more similar to those of their biological parents than to those of their adoptive parents. Evidence for environmental

influence is found when the adoptee is more like his or her adoptive parents than the biological parents.

The results of family, twin, and adoption studies are combined to get a better idea of the influence of genetics and

environment on traits of interest. Table 12.6, “Data from Twin and Adoption Studies on the Heritability of Various

Characteristics,” presents data on the correlations and heritability estimates for a variety of traits based on the results

of behavioural genetics studies (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990).

Table 12.6 Data from Twin and Adoption Studies on the Heritability of Various Characteristics. 1

[Skip Table]

Correlation between

children raised together

Correlation between

children raised apart Estimated percent of total due to

Identical

twins

Fraternal

twins

Identical

twins

Fraternal

twins

Heritability

(%)

Shared

environment

(%)

Nonshared

environment

(%)

Age of

puberty 45 5 50

Aggression 0.43 0.14 0.46 0.06

Alzheimer

disease 0.54 0.16

Fingerprint

patterns 0.96 0.47 0.96 0.47 100 0 0

General

cognitive

ability

56 0 44

Likelihood of

divorce 0.52 0.22

Sexual

orientation 0.52 0.22 18–39 0–17 61–66

Big Five

dimensions 40–50

This table presents some of the observed correlations and heritability estimates for various characteristics.

If you look in the second column of Table 12.6 , “Data from Twin and Adoption Studies on the Heritability of

519 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Various Characteristics,” you will see the observed correlations for the traits between identical twins who have

been raised together in the same house by the same parents. This column represents the pure effects of genetics,

in the sense that environmental differences have been controlled to be a small as possible. You can see that these

correlations are higher for some traits than for others. Fingerprint patterns are very highly determined by our

genetics (r = .96), whereas the Big Five trait dimensions have a heritability of 40% to 50%.

You can also see from the table that, overall, there is more influence of nature than of parents. Identical twins,

even when they are raised in separate households by different parents (column 4), turn out to be quite similar in

personality, and are more similar than fraternal twins who are raised in separate households (column 5). These

results show that genetics has a strong influence on personality, and helps explain why Elyse and Paula were so

similar when they finally met.

Despite the overall role of genetics, you can see in Table 12.6, “Data from Twin and Adoption Studies on the

Heritability of Various Characteristics,” that the correlations between identical twins (column 2) and heritability

estimates for most traits (column 6) are substantially less than 1.00, showing that the environment also plays an

important role in personality (Turkheimer & Waldron, 2000). For instance, for sexual orientation the estimates of

heritability vary from 18% to 39% of the total across studies, suggesting that 61% to 82% of the total influence is

due to environment.

You might at first think that parents would have a strong influence on the personalities of their children, but this

would be incorrect. As you can see by looking in column 7 of Table 12.6,” research finds that the influence of

shared environment (i.e., the effects of parents or other caretakers) plays little or no role in adult personality (Harris,

2006). Shared environment does influence the personality and behaviour of young children, but this influence

decreases rapidly as the child grows older. By the time we reach adulthood, the impact of shared environment on our

personalities is weak at best (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). What this means is that although parents must provide

a nourishing and stimulating environment for children, no matter how hard they try they are not likely to be able to

turn their children into geniuses or into professional athletes, nor will they be able to turn them into criminals.

If parents are not providing the environmental influences on the child, then what is? The last column in Table 12.6,”

the influence of nonshared environment, represents whatever is “left over” after removing the effects of genetics

and parents. You can see that these factors — the largely unknown things that happen to us that make us different

from other people — often have the largest influence on personality.

Studying Personality Using Molecular Genetics

In addition to the use of behavioural genetics, our understanding of the role of biology in personality recently has

been dramatically increased through the use of molecular genetics, which is the study of which genes are associated

with which personality traits (Goldsmith et al., 2003; Strachan & Read, 1999). These advances have occurred as a

result of new knowledge about the structure of human DNA made possible through the Human Genome Project and

related work that has identified the genes in the human body (Human Genome Project, 2010). Molecular genetics

researchers have also developed new techniques that allow them to find the locations of genes within chromosomes

and to identify the effects those genes have when activated or deactivated.

One approach that can be used in animals, usually in laboratory mice, is the knockout study (as shown in Figure

12.12, “Laboratory Mice”). In this approach the researchers use specialized techniques to remove or modify the

influence of a gene in a line of knockout mice (Crusio, Goldowitz, Holmes, & Wolfer, 2009). The researchers

harvest embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos and then modify the DNA of the cells. The DNA is created

so that the action of certain genes will be eliminated or knocked out. The cells are then injected into the embryos of

other mice that are implanted into the uteruses of living female mice. When these animals are born, they are studied

12.3 IS PERSONALITY MORE NATURE OR MORE NURTURE? BEHAVIOURAL AND MOLECULAR GENETICS • 520

Figure 12.12 Laboratory Mice. These “knockout” mice are participating in studies in which some

of their genes have been deactivated to determine the influence of the genes on behaviour.

to see whether their behaviour differs from a control group of normal animals. Research has found that removing or

changing genes in mice can affect their anxiety, aggression, learning, and socialization patterns.

In humans, a molecular genetics study normally begins with the collection of a DNA sample from the participants

in the study, usually by taking some cells from the inner surface of the cheek. In the lab, the DNA is extracted from

the sampled cells and is combined with a solution containing a marker for the particular genes of interest as well as

a fluorescent dye. If the gene is present in the DNA of the individual, then the solution will bind to that gene and

activate the dye. The more the gene is expressed, the stronger the reaction.

In one common approach, DNA is collected from people who have a particular personality characteristic and also

from people who do not. The DNA of the two groups is compared to see which genes differ between them. These

studies are now able to compare thousands of genes at the same time. Research using molecular genetics has found

genes associated with a variety of personality traits including novelty-seeking (Ekelund, Lichtermann, J.rvelin,

& Peltonen, 1999), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Waldman & Gizer, 2006), and smoking behaviour

(Thorgeirsson et al., 2008).

Reviewing the Literature: Is Our Genetics Our Destiny?

Over the past two decades scientists have made substantial progress in understanding the important role of genetics

in behaviour. Behavioural genetics studies have found that, for most traits, genetics is more important than parental

influence. And molecular genetics studies have begun to pinpoint the particular genes that are causing these

differences. The results of these studies might lead you to believe that your destiny is determined by your genes, but

this would be a mistaken assumption.

For one, the results of all research must be interpreted carefully. Over time we will learn even more about the role

of genetics, and our conclusions about its influence will likely change. Current research in the area of behavioural

genetics is often criticized for making assumptions about how researchers categorize identical and fraternal twins,

521 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

about whether twins are in fact treated in the same way by their parents, about whether twins are representative

of children more generally, and about many other issues. Although these critiques may not change the overall

conclusions, it must be kept in mind that these findings are relatively new and will certainly be updated with time

(Plomin, 2000).

Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that although genetics is important, and although we are learning more every

day about its role in many personality variables, genetics does not determine everything. In fact, the major influence

on personality is nonshared environmental influences, which include all the things that occur to us that make us

unique individuals. These differences include variability in brain structure, nutrition, education, upbringing, and

even interactions among the genes themselves.

The genetic differences that exist at birth may be either amplified or diminished over time through environmental

factors. The brains and bodies of identical twins are not exactly the same, and they become even more different as

they grow up. As a result, even genetically identical twins have distinct personalities, resulting in large part from

environmental effects.

Because these nonshared environmental differences are nonsystematic and largely accidental or random, it will

be difficult to ever determine exactly what will happen to a child as he or she grows up. Although we do inherit

our genes, we do not inherit personality in any fixed sense. The effect of our genes on our behaviour is entirely

dependent on the context of our life as it unfolds day to day. Based on your genes, no one can say what kind of

human being you will turn out to be or what you will do in life.

Key Takeaways

• Genes are the basic biological units that transmit characteristics from one generation to the next.

• Personality is not determined by any single gene, but rather by the actions of many genes working

together.

• Behavioural genetics refers to a variety of research techniques that scientists use to learn about the

genetic and environmental influences on human behaviour.

• Behavioural genetics is based on the results of family studies, twin studies, and adoptive studies.

• Overall, genetics has more influence than parents do on shaping our personality.

• Molecular genetics is the study of which genes are associated with which personality traits.

• The largely unknown environmental influences, known as the nonshared environmental effects,

have the largest impact on personality. Because these differences are nonsystematic and largely

accidental or random, we do not inherit our personality in any fixed sense.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. Think about the twins you know. Do they seem to be very similar to each other, or does it seem

that their differences outweigh their similarities?

12.3 IS PERSONALITY MORE NATURE OR MORE NURTURE? BEHAVIOURAL AND MOLECULAR GENETICS • 522

2. Describe the implications of the effects of genetics on personality, overall. What does it mean

to say that genetics “determines” or “does not determine” our personality?

References

Baker, C. (2004). Behavioral genetics: An introduction to how genes and environments interact through

development to shape differences in mood, personality, and intelligence. [PDF] Retrieved

from http://www.aaas.org/spp/bgenes/Intro.pdf

Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological

differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250(4978), 223–228. Retrieved

from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/250/4978/223

Crusio, W. E., Goldowitz, D., Holmes, A., & Wolfer, D. (2009). Standards for the publication of mouse mutant

studies. Genes, Brain & Behavior, 8(1), 1–4.

Ekelund, J., Lichtermann, D., J.rvelin, M. R., & Peltonen, L. (1999). Association between novelty seeking and the

type 4 dopamine receptor gene in a large Finnish cohort sample. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1453–1455.

Goldsmith, H., Gernsbacher, M. A., Crabbe, J., Dawson, G., Gottesman, I. I., Hewitt, J.,…Swanson, J. (2003).

Research psychologists’ roles in the genetic revolution. American Psychologist, 58(4), 318–319.

Harris, J. R. (2006). No two alike: Human nature and human individuality. New York, NY: Norton.

Human Genome Project. (2010). Information. Retrieved from http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/

Human_Genome/home.shtml

L.ngstr.m, N., Rahman, Q., Carlstr.m, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2010). Genetic and environmental effects on samesex

sexual behaviour: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 39(1), 75-80.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1992). Genetic influence on risk of divorce. Psychological Science, 3(6), 368–373.

Plomin, R. (2000). Behavioural genetics in the 21st century. International Journal of Behavioral Development,

24(1), 30–34.

Plomin, R., Fulker, D. W., Corley, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1997). Nature, nurture, and cognitive development from 1

to 16 years: A parent-offspring adoption study. Psychological Science, 8(6), 442–447.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old

age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25.

Strachan, T., & Read, A. P. (1999). Human molecular genetics (2nd ed.). Retrieved

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hmg&part=A2858

523 • INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY - 1ST CANADIAN EDITION

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarity

in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1031–1039.

Thorgeirsson, T. E., Geller, F., Sulem, P., Rafnar, T., Wiste, A., Magnusson, K. P.,…Stefansson, K. (2008).

A variant associated with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease. Nature, 452(7187),

638–641.

Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct (1st ed.). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Turkheimer, E., & Waldron, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological, and quantitative

review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 78–108.

Waldman, I. D., & Gizer, I. R. (2006). The genetics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Clinical Psychology

Review, 26(4), 396–432.

Image Attributions

Figure 12.12: “Laboratory mice” by Aaron Logan is licensed under CC BY 1.0 license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/deed.en).

Notes

1. Sources: L.ngstr.m, et al, 2010; Loehlin, 1992; McGue & Lykken, 1992; Plomin et al, 1997; Tellegen et al, 1988.

12.3 IS PERSONALITY MORE NATURE OR MORE NURTURE? BEHAVIOURAL AND MOLECULAR GENETICS • 524

12.4 Chapter Summary

Personality is defined as an individual’s consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving. Early theories of

personality, including phrenology and somatology, are now discredited, but there is at least some research evidence

for physiognomy — the idea that it is possible to assess personality from facial characteristics.

Personalities are characterized in terms of traits, which are relatively enduring characteristics that influence our

behaviour across many situations. Psychologists have investigated hundreds of traits using the self-report approach.

The utility of self-report measures of personality depends on their reliability and construct validity. Some popular

measures of personality, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), do not have reliability or construct

validity and therefore are not useful measures of personality.

The trait approach to personality was pioneered by early psychologists, including Allport, Cattell, and Eysenck,

and their research helped produce the Five-Factor (Big Five) Model of Personality. The Big Five dimensions are

cross-culturally valid and accurately predict behaviour. The Big Five factors are also increasingly being used to help

researchers understand the dimensions of psychological disorders.

A difficulty of the trait approach to personality is that there is often only a low correlation between the traits that a

person expresses in one situation and those that he or she expresses in other situations. However, psychologists have

also found that personality predicts behaviour better when the behaviours are averaged across different situations.

People may believe in the existence of traits because they use their schemas to judge other people, leading them

to believe that traits are more stable than they really are. An example is the Barnum effect — the observation that

people tend to believe in descriptions of their personality that supposedly are descriptive of them but could in fact

describe almost anyone.

An important personality test is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) used to detect personality

and psychological disorders. Another approach to measuring personality is to use projective measures, such as the

Rorschach Inkblot Test and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). The advantage of projective tests is that they

are less direct, but empirical evidence supporting their reliability and construct validity is mixed.

There are behaviourist, social-cognitive, psychodynamic, and humanist theories of personality.

The psychodynamic approach to understanding personality, begun by Sigmund Freud, is based on the idea that all

behaviours are predetermined by motivations that lie outside our awareness, in the unconscious. Freud proposed

that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that the interactions and conflicts among

the components create personality. Freud also believed that psychological disorders, and particularly the experience

of anxiety, occur when there is conflict or imbalance among the motivations of the id, ego, and superego and that

people use defence mechanisms to cope with this anxiety.

Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages, each focusing on pleasure from

a different part of the body, and that the appropriate resolution of each stage has implications for later personality

development.

525

Freud has probably exerted a greater impact on the public’s understanding of personality than any other thinker, but

his theories have in many cases failed to pass the test of empiricism.

Freudian theory led to a number of followers known as the neo-Freudians, including Adler, Jung, Horney, and

Fromm.

Humanistic theories of personality focus on the underlying motivations that they believe drive personality, focusing

on the nature of the self-concept and the development of self-esteem. The idea of unconditional positive regard

championed by Carl Rogers has led in part to the positive psychology movement, and it is a basis for almost all

contemporary psychological therapy.

Personality traits of humans and animals are determined in large part by their genetic makeup. Personality is not

determined by any single gene, but rather by the actions of many genes working together.

The role of nature and nurture in personality is studied by means of behavioural genetics studies including family

studies, twin studies, and adoption studies. These studies partition variability in personality into the influence of

genetics (known as heritability), shared environment, and nonshared environment. Although these studies find

that many personality traits are highly heritable, genetics does not determine everything. The major influence on

personality is nonshared environmental influences.

In addition to the use of behavioural genetics, our understanding of the role of biology in personality recently has

been dramatically increased through the use of molecular genetics, the study of which genes are associated with

which personality traits in animals and humans.

12.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY • 526


最后修改: 2022年05月26日 星期四 09:50