Traits and type theories of personality

Traits and type theories of personality Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and individual differences. Its areas of focus include: • Constructing a coherent picture of a person and his or her major psychological processes [1] • Investigating individual differences, that is, how people can differ from one another. • Investigating human nature, that is, how all people's behaviour is similar. Personality can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, motivations, and behaviors in various situations [2]. The word "personality" originates from the Latin persona, which means mask. Significantly, in the theatre of the ancient Latin-speaking world, the mask was not used as a plot device to disguise the identity of a character, but rather was a convention employed to represent or typify that character. The pioneering American psychologist, Gordon Allport (1937) described two major ways to study personality, the nomothetic and the idiographic. Nomothetic psychology seeks general laws that can be applied to many different people, such as the principle of self-actualization, or the trait of extraversion. Idiographic psychology is an attempt to understand the unique aspects of a particular individual. • The study of personality has a broad and varied history in psychology, with an abundance of theoretical traditions. The major theories include dispositional (trait) perspective, psychodynamic, humanistic, biological, behaviorist and social learning perspective. There is no consensus on the definition of "personality" in psychology. Most researchers and psychologists do not explicitly identify themselves with a certain perspective and often take an eclectic approach. Some research is empirically driven such as the "Big 5" personality model whereas other research emphasizes theory development such as psychodynamics. There is also a substantial emphasis on the applied field of personality testing. In psychological education and training, the study of the nature of personality and its psychological development is usually reviewed as a prerequisite to courses in abnormal or clinical psychology. Philosophical assumptions Many of the ideas developed by historical and modern personality theorists stem from the basic philosophical assumptions they hold. The study of personality is not a purely empirical discipline, as it brings in elements of art, science, and philosophy to draw general conclusions. The following five categories are some of the most fundamental philosophical assumptions on which theorists disagree: 1. Freedom versus Determinism This is the debate over whether we have control over our own behavior and understand the motives behind it (Freedom), or if our behavior is causally determined by forces beyond our control (Determinism). Determinism has been considered unconscious, environmental, or biological by various theories. 2. Heredity versus Environment Main article: Nature versus nurture Personality is thought to be determined largely by genetics and biology, by environment and experiences, or by some combination resulting thereof. There is evidence for all possibilities. Contemporary research suggests that most personality traits are based on the joint influence of genetics and environment. One of the forerunners in this arena is C. Robert Cloninger with the Temperament and Character model. 3. Uniqueness versus Universality The argument over whether we are all unique individuals (Uniqueness) or if humans are basically similar in their nature (Universality). Gordon Allport, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers were all advocates of the uniqueness of individuals. Behaviorists and cognitive theorists, in contrast, emphasized the importance of universal principles such as reinforcement and self-efficacy. 4. Active versus Reactive Do we primarily act through our own initiative (Active), or react to outside stimuli (Reactive)? Behavioral theorists typically believe that humans are passively shaped by their environments, whereas humanistic and cognitive theorists believe that humans are more active. 5. Optimistic versus Pessimistic Personality theories differ on whether people can change their personalities (Optimism), or if they are doomed to remain the same throughout their lives (Pessimism). Theories that place a great deal of emphasis on learning are often, but not always, more optimistic than theories that do not emphasize learning. Personality theories Critics of personality theory claim personality is "plastic" across time, places, moods, and situations. Changes in personality may indeed result from diet (or lack thereof), medical effects, significant events, or learning. However, most personality theories emphasize stability over fluctuation. The definition of personality that is most widely supported to date is attributed to the neurologist Paul Roe. He stated personality to be "an individual's predisposition to think certain patterns of thought, and therefore engage in certain patterns of behaviour". Trait theories According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, personality traits are "enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts." Theorists generally assume a) traits are relatively stable over time, b) traits differ among individuals (e.g. some people are outgoing while others are reserved), and c) traits influence behavior. The most common models of traits incorporate three to five broad dimensions or factors. The least controversial dimension, observed as far back as the ancient Greeks, is simply extraversion and introversion (outgoing and physical-stimulation-oriented vs. quiet and physical-stimulation-averse). • Gordon Allport delineated different kinds of traits, which he also called dispositions. Central traits are basic to an individual's personality, while secondary traits are more peripheral. Common traits are those recognized within a culture and thus may vary from culture to culture. Cardinal traits are those by which an individual may be strongly recognized. • Raymond Cattell's research propagated a two-tiered personality structure with sixteen "primary factors" (16 Personality Factors) and five "secondary factors." 16 Personality Factors The 16 Personality Factors, measured by the 16PF Questionnaire, were multivariately-derived by psychologist Raymond Cattell. Below is a table outlining this model. Raymond Cattell's 16 Personality Factors Descriptors of Low Range Primary Factor Descriptors of High Range Impersonal, distant, cool, reserved, detached, formal, aloof (Schizothymia) Warmth (A) Warm, outgoing, attentive to others, kindly, easy-going, participating, likes people (Affectothymia) Concrete thinking, lower general mental capacity, less intelligent, unable to handle abstract problems (Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity) Reasoning (B) Abstract-thinking, more intelligent, bright, higher general mental capacity, fast learner (Higher Scholastic Mental Capacity) Reactive emotionally, changeable, affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily upset (Lower Ego Strength) Emotional Stability (C) Emotionally stable, adaptive, mature, faces reality calmly (Higher Ego Strength) Deferential, cooperative, avoids conflict, submissive, humble, obedient, easily led, docile, accommodating (Submissiveness) Dominance (E) Dominant, forceful, assertive, aggressive, competitive, stubborn, bossy (Dominance) Serious, restrained, prudent, taciturn, introspective, silent (Desurgency) Liveliness (F) Lively, animated, spontaneous, enthusiastic, happy go lucky, cheerful, expressive, impulsive (Surgency) Expedient, nonconforming, disregards rules, self indulgent (Low Super Ego Strength) Rule-Consciousness (G) Rule-conscious, dutiful, conscientious, conforming, moralistic, staid, rule bound (High Super Ego Strength) Shy, threat-sensitive, timid, hesitant, intimidated (Threctia) Social Boldness (H) Socially bold, venturesome, thick skinned, uninhibited (Parmia) Utilitarian, objective, unsentimental, tough minded, self-reliant, no-nonsense, rough (Harria) Sensitivity (I) Sensitive, aesthetic, sentimental, tender minded, intuitive, refined (Premsia) Trusting, unsuspecting, accepting, unconditional, easy (Alaxia) Vigilance (L) Vigilant, suspicious, skeptical, distrustful, oppositional (Protension) Grounded, practical, prosaic, solution oriented, steady, conventional (Praxernia) Abstractedness (M) Abstract, imaginative, absent minded, impractical, absorbed in ideas (Autia) Forthright, genuine, artless, open, guileless, naive, unpretentious, involved (Artlessness) Privateness (N) Private, discreet, nondisclosing, shrewd, polished, worldly, astute, diplomatic (Shrewdness) Self-Assured, unworried, complacent, secure, free of guilt, confident, self satisfied (Untroubled) Apprehension (O) Apprehensive, self doubting, worried, guilt prone, insecure, worrying, self blaming (Guilt Proneness) Traditional, attached to familiar, conservative, respecting traditional ideas (Conservatism) Openness to Change (Q1) Open to change, experimental, liberal, analytical, critical, free thinking, flexibility (Radicalism) Group-oriented, affiliative, a joiner and follower dependent (Group Adherence) Self-Reliance (Q2) Self-reliant, solitary, resourceful, individualistic, self sufficient (Self-Sufficiency) Tolerates disorder, unexacting, flexible, undisciplined, lax, self-conflict, impulsive, careless of social rules, uncontrolled (Low Integration) Perfectionism (Q3) Perfectionistic, organized, compulsive, self-disciplined, socially precise, exacting will power, control, self-sentimental (High Self-Concept Control) Relaxed, placid, tranquil, torpid, patient, composed low drive (Low Ergic Tension) Tension (Q4) Tense, high energy, impatient, driven, frustrated, over wrought, time driven. (High Ergic Tension) Primary Factors and Descriptors in Cattell's 16 Personality Factor Model (Adapted From Conn & Rieke, 1994). Cattell referred to these 16 factors as primary factors, as opposed to the so-called "Big Five" factors which he considered global factors. All of the primary factors correlate with global factors and could therefore be considered subfactors within them. Origins In 1936 Gordon Allport and H.S. Odbert hypothesized that: “ Those individual differences that are most salient and socially relevant in people’s lives will eventually become encoded into their language; the more important such a difference, the more likely is it to become expressed as a single word. ” This statement has become known as the Lexical Hypothesis. Allport and Odbert had worked through two of the most comprehensive dictionaries of the English language available at the time, and extracted 18,000 personality-describing words. From this gigantic list they extracted 4500 personality-describing adjectives which they considered to describe observable and relatively permanent traits. In 1946 Raymond Cattell used the emerging technology of computers to analyse the Allport-Odbert list. He organized the list into 181 clusters and asked subjects to rate people whom they knew by the adjectives on the list. Using factor analysis Cattell generated twelve factors, and then included four factors which he thought ought to appear. The result was the hypothesis that individuals describe themselves and each other according to sixteen different, independent factors. With these sixteen factors as a basis, Cattell went on to construct the 16PF Personality Questionnaire, which remains in use by universities and businesses for research personnel selection and the like. Although subsequent research has failed to replicate his results [citation needed please], and it has been shown that he retained too many factors, the current 16PF takes these findings into account and is considered to be a very good test. In 1963, W.T. Norman replicated Cattell’s work and suggested that five factors would be sufficient. • Hans Eysenck believed just three traits—extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism—were sufficient to describe human personality. Differences between Cattell and Eysenck emerged due to preferences for different forms of factor analysis, with Cattell using oblique, Eysenck orthogonal, rotation to analyse the factors that emerged when personality questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis. Today, the Big Five factors have the weight of a considerable amount of empirical research behind them, building on the work of Cattell and others. • Lewis Goldberg proposed a five-dimension personality model, nicknamed the "Big Five": 1. Openness to Experience: the tendency to be imaginative, independent, and interested in variety vs. practical, conforming, and interested in routine. 2. Conscientiousness: the tendency to be organized, careful, and disciplined vs. disorganized, careless, and impulsive. 3. Extraversion: the tendency to be sociable, fun-loving, and affectionate vs. retiring, somber, and reserved. 4. Agreeableness: the tendency to be softhearted, trusting, and helpful vs. ruthless, suspicious, and uncooperative. 5. Neuroticism: the tendency to be calm, secure, and self-satisfied vs. anxious, insecure, and self-pitying [3] The Big Five contain important dimensions of personality. However, some personality researchers argue that this list of major traits is not exhaustive. Some support has been found for two additional factors: excellent/ordinary and evil/decent. However, no definitive conclusions have been established.[3] • John L. Holland's RIASEC vocational model, commonly referred to as the Holland Codes, stipulates that six personality traits lead people to choose their career paths. In this circumplex model, the six types are represented as a hexagon, with adjacent types more closely related than those more distant. The model is widely used in vocational counseling. Trait models have been criticized as being purely descriptive and offering little explanation of the underlying causes of personality. Eysenck's theory, however, does propose biological mechanisms as driving traits, and modern behavior genetics researchers have shown a clear genetic substrate to them.[vague] Another potential weakness of trait theories is that they lead people to accept oversimplified classifications, or worse offer advice, based on a superficial analysis of their personality. Finally, trait models often underestimate the effect of specific situations on people's behavior. It is important to remember that traits are statistical generalizations that do not always correspond to an individual's behavior. Type theories Personality type refers to the psychological classification of different types of people. Personality types are distinguished from personality traits, which come in different levels or degrees. For example, according to type theories, there are two types of people, introverts and extraverts. According to trait theories, introversion and extraversion are part of a continuous dimension, with many people in the middle. The idea of psychological types originated in the theoretical work of Carl Jung[citation needed] and William Marston, whose work is reviewed in Dr. Travis Bradberry's The Personality Code. Jung's seminal 1921 book on the subject is available in English as Psychological Types. Building on the writings and observations of Jung, during World War II, Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katharine C. Briggs, delineated personality types by constructing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.[4] This model was later used by David Keirsey with a different understanding from Jung, Briggs and Myers.[5] In the former Soviet Union, Lithuanian Aušra Augustinavičiūtė independently derived a model of personality type from Jung's called Socionics. The model is an older and more theoretical approach to personality, accepting extraversion and introversion as basic psychological orientations in connection with two pairs of psychological functions: • Perceiving functions: sensing and intuition (trust in concrete, sensory-oriented facts vs. trust in abstract concepts and imagined possibilities) • Judging functions: thinking and feeling (basing decisions primarily on logic vs. considering the effect on people). Briggs and Myers also added another personality dimension to their type indicator to measure whether a person prefers to use a judging or perceiving function when interacting with the external world. Therefore they included questions designed to indicate whether someone wishes to come to conclusions (judgment) or to keep options open (perception).[4] This personality typology has some aspects of a trait theory: it explains people's behaviour in terms of opposite fixed characteristics. In these more traditional models, the sensing/intuition preference is considered the most basic, dividing people into "N" (intuitive) or "S" (sensing) personality types. An "N" is further assumed to be guided either by thinking or feeling, and divided into the "NT" (scientist, engineer) or "NF" (author, humanitarian) temperament. An "S", by contrast, is assumed to be guided more by the judgment/perception axis, and thus divided into the "SJ" (guardian, traditionalist) or "SP" (performer, artisan) temperament.[5] These four are considered basic, with the other two factors in each case (including always extraversion/introversion) less important. Critics of this traditional view have observed that the types can be quite strongly stereotyped by professions (although neither Myers nor Keirsey engaged in such stereotyping in their type descriptions[4][5]), and thus may arise more from the need to categorize people for purposes of guiding their career choice.[6] This among other objections led to the emergence of the five-factor view, which is less concerned with behavior under work conditions and more concerned with behavior in personal and emotional circumstances. (It should be noted, however, that the MBTI is not designed to measure the "work self," but rather what Myers and McCaulley called the "shoes-off self."[7]) Some critics have argued for more or fewer dimensions while others have proposed entirely different theories (often assuming different definitions of "personality"). Type A and Type B personality theory: During the 1950s, Meyer Friedman and his co-workers defined what they called Type A and Type B behavior patterns. They theorized that intense, hard-driving Type A personalities had a higher risk of coronary disease because they are "stress junkies." Type B people, on the other hand, tended to be relaxed, less competitive, and lower in risk. There was also a Type AB mixed profile. Dr. Redford Williams, cardiologist at Duke University, refuted Friedman’s theory that Type A personalities have a higher risk of coronary heart disease; however, current research indicates that only the hostility component of Type A may have health implications. Type A/B theory has been extensively criticized by psychologists because it tends to oversimplify the many dimensions of an individual's personality. Hans Eysenck Hans Eysenck Hans Jürgen Eysenck Born March 4, 1916 Berlin, Germany Died September 4, 1997 (age 81) London Citizenship British Nationality German Fields Psychology Institutions Institute of Psychiatry Alma mater University College London (UCL) Doctoral advisor Cyril Burt Doctoral students Jeffrey Alan Gray, Donald Prell Known for intelligence, personality, political science, differential psychology, education, psychiatry, behavior therapy Hans Jürgen Eysenck (March 4, 1916 – September 4, 1997) was a British psychologist of German origin, best remembered for his work on intelligence and personality, though he worked in a wide range of areas. At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals.[1] Contents • 1 Life and work • 2 Eysenck and the genetics of personality • 3 Eysenck's model of personality (P–E–N) o 3.1 Comparison with other theories • 4 Psychometric scales relevant to Eysenck's theory • 5 Eysenck's later work • 6 Selected works • 7 Portraits of Eysenck • 8 References • 9 External links Life and work Hans Eysenck was born in Berlin, Germany, but moved to England as a young man in the 1930s because of his opposition to the Nazi party. "My hatred of Hitler and the Nazis, and all they stood for, was so overwhelming that no argument could counter it."[2] Eysenck was the founding editor of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, and authored about 80 books and over 1600 journal articles.[3] He aroused intense debate with his controversial dealing with variation in IQ among racial groups (see race and intelligence).[4] Eysenck was Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry from 1955 to 1983. He received his PhD from the Department of Psychology at University College London (UCL) under the supervision of Professor Sir Cyril Burt with whom he had a tumultuous professional relationship throughout his working life.[5] He was a major contributor to the modern scientific theory of personality and a brilliant teacher. who helped found treatment for mental illnesses.[6][7] His son Michael Eysenck is also a noted psychology professor. Hans Eysenck died of a brain tumor[8] in a London hospice in 1997[9]. Examples of publications in which Eysenck's views have roused controversy include (chronologically): • A paper in the 1950s [1] concluding that available data "fail to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy facilitates recovery from neurotic disorder". • A chapter in Uses and Abuses of Psychology (1953) entitled "What is wrong with psychoanalysis". • Race, Intelligence and Education (1971) (in the US: The IQ Argument) • Sex, Violence and the Media (1978). • Astrology — Science or Superstition? (1982) • Smoking, Personality and Stress (1991) A portion of Eysenck's work was funded from the Pioneer Fund, an organization that funds hereditarian research.[10], for which Eysenck was criticised[citation needed]. By far the most acrimonious of the debates has been that over the role of genetics in IQ differences (see intelligence quotient#Genetics vs environment), which led to Eysenck famously being punched on the nose during a talk at the London School of Economics.[11] Eysenck’s attitude to science was summarised in his autobiography Rebel with a Cause (Transaction Publishers (1997), ISBN 1-56000-938-1): "I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts." Eysenck and the genetics of personality In 1951, Eysenck's first empirical study into the genetics of personality was published. It was an experiment carried out with his student and associate Donald Prell, from 1948 to 1951, in which identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins, ages 11 and 12, were given tests that were to do with neuroticism. It is described in detail in an article published in the Journal of Mental Science. Eysenck and Prell concluded: "that the factor of neuroticism is not a statistical artifact, but constitutes a biological unit which is inherited as a whole....neurotic predisposition is to a large extent hereditarily determined."[12] Eysenck's model of personality (P–E–N) The two personality dimensions, Extraversion and Neuroticism, were described in his 1947 book Dimensions of Personality. It is common practice in personality psychology to refer to the dimensions by the first letters, E and N. E and N provided a 2-dimensional space to describe individual differences in behaviour. An analogy can be made to how latitude and longitude describe a point on the face of the earth. Also, Eysenck noted how these two dimensions were similar to the four personality types first proposed by the Greek physician Hippocrates. • High N and High E = Choleric type • High N and Low E = Melancholic type • Low N and High E = Sanguine type • Low N and Low E = Phlegmatic type The third dimension, psychoticism, was added to the model in the late 1970s, based upon collaborations between Eysenck and his wife, Sybil B. G. Eysenck,[13] who is the current editor of Personality and Individual Differences. The major strength of Eysenck's model was to provide detailed theory of the causes of personality.[citation needed] For example, Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal: "introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extraverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts".[14] While it seems counterintuitive to suppose that introverts are more aroused than extraverts, the putative effect this has on behaviour is such that the introvert seeks lower levels of stimulation. Conversely, the extravert seeks to heighten his or her arousal to a more favorable level (as predicted by the Yerkes-Dodson Law) by increased activity, social engagement and other stimulation-seeking behaviors. Comparison with other theories The major alternative to Eysenck's three-factor model of personality is a model that makes use of five broad traits, often called the Big Five model (see big five personality traits) (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The traits in the Big Five are as follows: 1. Openness to experience 2. Conscientiousness 3. Extraversion 4. Agreeableness 5. Neuroticism Extraversion and Neuroticism in the Big Five are similar to Eysenck's traits of the same name. However, what Eysenck calls the trait of Psychoticism corresponds to two traits in the Big Five model: Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. Eysenck's personality system did not address Openness to experience. He argued that his approach was a better description of personality (Eysenck, 1992a; 1992b). Another important model of personality is that of Jeffrey Alan Gray, a former student of his. Psychometric scales relevant to Eysenck's theory Eysenck's theory of personality is closely linked with the scales that he and his co-workers developed. These include the Maudsley Medical Questionnaire, Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and Sensation Seeking Scale (developed in conjunction with Marvin Zuckerman). The Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP) breaks down different facets of each trait considered in the model. There has been some debate about whether these facets should include impulsivity as a facet of extraversion as Eysenck declared in his early work; or psychoticism. Eysenck declared for the latter, in later work. Eysenck's later work In 1994 he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," an editorial written by Linda Gottfredson and published in the Wall Street Journal, which defended the findings on race and intelligence in The Bell Curve.[15] Eysenck made early contributions to fields such as personality by express and explicit commitment to a very rigorous adherence to scientific methodology, as Eysenck believed that scientific methodology was required for progress in personality psychology. He used, for example, factor analysis, a statistical method, to support his personality model. An example is Inheritance of Neuroticism: An Experimental Study, quoted above. His early work showed Eysenck to be an especially strong critic of psychoanalysis as a form of therapy, preferring behaviour therapy. Despite this strongly scientific interest, Eysenck did not shy, in later work, from giving attention to parapsychology and astrology. Indeed, he believed that empirical evidence supported the existence of paranormal abilities.[16] Selected works Eysenck and his wife Sybil • Dimensions of Personality (1947) • The Scientific Study of Personality (1952) • The Structure of Human Personality (1952) and later editions • Uses and Abuses of Psychology (1953) • The Psychology of Politics (1954) • Psychology and the Foundations of Psychiatry (1955) • Sense and Nonsense in Psychology (1956) • The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria (1957) • Perceptual Processes and Mental Illnesses (1957) with G. Granger and J. C. Brengelmann • Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory (1959) • Handbook of Abnormal Psychology (1960) editor, later editions • Experiments in Personality (1960) two volumes, editor • Behaviour Therapy and Neuroses (1960) editor • Know Your Own I.Q. (1962) • Experiments with Drugs (1963) editor • Experiments in Motivation (1964) editor • Crime and Personality (1964) and later editions • Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (1964) with S. B. G. Eysenck • The Causes and Cures of Neuroses (1965) with S. Rachman • Fact and Fiction in Psychology (1965) • Smoking, Health and Personality (1965) • Check Your Own I.Q. (1966) • The Effects of Psychotherapy (1966) • The Biological Basis of Personality (1967) • Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1969). Personality Structure and Measurement. London: Routledge. • Readings in Extraversion/Introversion (1971) three volumes • Race, Intelligence and Education (1971) in US as The IQ Argument • Psychology is about People (1972) • Lexicon de Psychologie (1972) three volumes, with W. Arnold and R. Meili • The Inequality of Man (1973) • Eysenck on Extraversion (1973) editor • The Measurement of Intelligence (1973) editor • The Experimental Study of Freudian theories (1973) with G. D. Wilson • Case Histories in Behaviour Therapy (1974) editor • Know Your Own Personality (1975) with G. D. Wilson • Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (1975) with S. B. G. Eysenck • A Textbook of Human Psychology (1976) with G. D. Wilson • Sex and Personality (1976) • The Measurement of Personality (1976) editor • Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1976). Psychoticism as a Dimension of Personality. London: Hodder and Stoughton. • Reminiscence, Motivation and Personality (1977) with C. D. Frith • You and Neurosis (1977) • Die Zukunft der Psychologie (1977) • The Psychological Basis of Ideology (1978) editor, with G. D. Wilson • Sex Violence and the Media (1978) with D. Nias • The Structure and Measurement of Intelligence (1979) • The Psychology of Sex (1979) with G. D. Wilson • The Causes and Effects of Smoking (1980) • A Model for Personality (1981) editor • Mindwatching (1981) with M. W. Eysenck, and later editions • The Battle for the Mind (1981) with L. J. Kamin, in US as The Intelligence Controversy • Personality, Genetics and Behaviour (1982) • Explaining the Unexplained (1982) with Carl Sargent • H.J. Eysenck & D.K.B. Nias, Astrology: Science or Superstition? Penguin Books (1982) ISBN 0-14-022397-5 • A Model for Intelligence (1982) editor • Know Your Own Psi-Q (1983) with Carl Sargent • …'I Do'. Your Happy Guide to Marriage (1983) with B. N. Kelly • Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach (1985) with M. W. Eysenck • Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire (1985) • Rauchen und Gesundheit (1987) • Personality Dimensions and Arousal (1987) editor, with J. Strelau • Theoretical Foundations of Behaviour Therapy (1988) editor, with I. Martin • The Causes and Cures of Criminality (1989) with G. H. Gudjonsson • Genes, Culture and Personality: An Empirical Approach (1989) with L. Eaves and N. Martin • Suggestion and Suggestibility (1989) editor, with V. A. Gheorghiu, P. Netter, and R. Rosenthal • Intelligence: A New Look (1998) • Eysenck, H.J. (1992). A reply to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C — the role of theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 867–868. • Eysenck, H.J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673. Gordon Allport Born November 11, 1897 Montezuma, Indiana Died October 9, 1967 Nationality United States Fields psychology Alma mater Harvard Gordon Willard Allport (November 11, 1897 – October 9, 1967) was an American psychologist. Allport was one of the first psychologists to focus on the study of the personality, and is often referred to as one of the founding figures of personality psychology. He rejected both a psychoanalytic approach to personality, which he thought often went too deep, and a behavioral approach, which he thought often did not go deep enough. He emphasized the uniqueness of each individual, and the importance of the present context, as opposed to past history, for understanding the personality. Allport had a profound and lasting influence on the field of psychology, even though his work is cited much less often than other well known figures.[1] Part of his influence stemmed from his knack for attacking and broadly conceptualizing important and interesting topics (e.g. rumor, prejudice, religion, traits). Part of his influence was a result of the deep and lasting impression he made on his students during his long teaching career, many of whom went on to have important psychological careers. Among his many students were Jerome S. Bruner, Anthony Greenwald, Stanley Milgram, Leo Postman, Thomas Pettigrew, and M. Brewster Smith. Contents • 1 Biography • 2 Visit with Freud • 3 Allport's Trait Theory • 4 Genotypes and Phenotypes • 5 Functional Autonomy • 6 Bibliography • 7 Secondary literature • 8 See also • 9 Notes • 10 References • 11 External links Biography Allport was born in Montezuma, Indiana, the youngest of four sons of John Edwards and Nellie Edith (Wise) Allport. His early education was in the public schools of Cleveland, Ohio, where his family moved when he was six years old. His father was a country doctor with his clinic and hospital in the family home. Because of inadequate hospital facilities at the time, Allport's father actually turned their home into a make-shift hospital, with patients as well as nurses residing there. Gordon Allport Allport and his brothers grew up surrounded by their father's patients, nurses, and medical equipment, and he and his brothers often assisted their father in the clinic. Allport reported that "Tending office, washing bottles, and dealing with patients were important aspects of my early training" (p. 172) [2]." Allport's mother was a former school teacher, who forcefully promoted her values of intellectual development and religion. One of Allport's biographers states "He grew up not only with the Protestant religion, but also the Protestant work ethic, which dominated his home life." Gordon Allport Allport's father, who was Scottish, shared this outlook, and operated by his own philosophy that "If every person worked as hard as he could and took only the minimum financial return required by his families needs, then there would be just enough wealth to go around." [3] Biographers describe Allport as a shy and studious boy who lived a fairly isolated childhood; the young Allport was the subject of high-school mockery due to a birth defect that left him with only eight toes. As a teenager, Allport developed and ran his own printing business, while serving as editor of his high school newspaper. In 1915, he graduated second in his class at Glenville High School at the age of eighteen. He earned a scholarship that allowed him to attend Harvard University, where one of his older brothers, Floyd Henry Allport, was working on his Ph.D. in Psychology [4] Moving to Harvard was a difficult transition for Allport because the moral values and climate were so different from his home. However he earned his A.B. degree in 1919 in Philosophy and Economics (not psychology). His interest in the convergence of social psychology and personality psychology was evident in his use of his spare time at Harvard in social service: conducting a boy's club in Boston, visiting for the Family Society, serving as a volunteer probation officer, registering homes for war workers, and aiding foreign students.[5] Next he traveled to Robert College in Istanbul, Turkey, where he taught Economics and Philosophy for a year, before returning to Harvard to pursue his Ph.D. in Psychology on fellowship in 1920 (in addition to German, Allport remained partially fluent in modern Greek throughout his life). His first publication, "Personality Traits: Their Classification and Measurement" in 1921, was co-authored with his older brother, Floyd Henry Allport, who became an important social psychologist. Allport earned his Master's degree in 1921, studying under Herbert S. Langfeld, and then his Ph.D. in 1922 working with Hugo Münsterberg.[6] Harvard then awarded Allport a coveted Sheldon Traveling Fellowship--"a second intellectual dawn," as he later described it. He spent the first Sheldon year studying with the new Gestalt School--which fascinated him--in Berlin and Hamburg, Germany; and then the second year at Cambridge University, England .[7] Then Allport returned to Harvard as an instructor in Psychology from 1924 to 1926. He began teaching his course "Personality: It's Psychological and Social Aspects" in 1924; it was probably the first course in Personality ever taught in the U.S. During this time, Allport married Ada Lufkin Gould, who was a clinical psychologist, and they had one child, a boy, who later became a pediatrician.[8] After going to teach introductory courses on social psychology and personality at Dartmouth College for four years, Allport returned to Harvard and remained there for the rest of his career. Gordon W. Allport was a long time and influential member of the faculty at Harvard University from 1930-1967. In 1931, he served on the faculty committee that established Harvard's Sociology Department. In the late 1940s, he fashioned an introductory course for the new Social Relations Department into a rigorous and popular undergraduate class. At that time, he was also editor of the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Allport was also a Director of the Commission for the United Nations Educational Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Allport was elected President of the American Psychological Association in 1939. In 1943 he was elected President of the Eastern Psychological Association. In 1944, he served as President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. In 1950, Allport published his third book titled "The Individual and His Religion." His fourth book, "The Nature of Prejudice" was published in 1954, and benefited from his insights from working with refugees during World War II. His fifth book, published in 1955 was titled, "Becoming: Basic Considerations for Psychology of Personality." This book became one of his most widely known publications. In 1963 Allport was awarded the Gold Medal Award from the American Psychological Foundation. In the following year he received the APA's Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award. Gordon Allport died on October 9, 1967 in Cambridge, Massachusetts of lung cancer. He was seventy years old.Gordon Allport Visit with Freud Allport told the story in his autobiographical essay in Pattern and Growth in Personality[9] of his visit as a young, recent college graduate to the already famous Dr. Sigmund Freud in Vienna. To break the ice upon meeting Freud, Allport recounted how he had met a boy on the train on the way to Vienna who was afraid of getting dirty. He refused to sit down near anyone dirty, despite his mother's reassurances. Allport suggested that perhaps the boy had learned this dirt phobia from his mother, a very neat and apparently rather domineering type. After studying Allport for a minute, Freud asked, "And was that little boy you?" Allport experienced Freud's attempt to reduce this small bit of observed interaction to some unconscious episode from his own remote childhood as dismissive of his current motivations, intentions and experience. It served as a reminder that psychoanalysis tends to dig too deeply into both the past and the unconscious, overlooking in the process the often more important conscious and immediate aspects of experience. While Allport never denied that unconscious and historical variables might have a role to play in human psychology (particularly in the immature and disordered) his own work would always emphasize conscious motivations and current context. Allport's Trait Theory Allport is known as a "trait" psychologist. One of his early projects was to go through the dictionary and locate every term that he thought could describe a person. This is known as the "lexical hypothesis." From this, he developed a list of 4500 trait like words. He organized these into three levels of traits. 1. Cardinal trait - This is the trait that dominates and shapes a person's behavior. These are rare as most people lack a single theme that shape their lives. 2. Central trait - This is a general characteristic found in some degree in every person. These are the basic building blocks that shape most of our behavior although they are not as overwhelming as cardinal traits. An example of a central trait would be honesty. 3. Secondary trait - These are characteristics seen only in certain circumstances (such as particular likes or dislikes that a very close friend may know). They must be included to provide a complete picture of human complexity. Genotypes and Phenotypes Allport hypothesized the idea of internal and external forces that influence an individual’s behavior. He called these forces Genotypes and Phenotypes. Genotypes are internal forces relates to how a person retains information and uses it to interact with the external world. Phenotypes are external forces, these relate to the way an individual accepts his surroundings and how others influence their behavior. These forces generate the ways in which we behave and are the groundwork for the creation of individual traits. Functional Autonomy Allport was one of the first researchers to draw a distinction between Motive and Drive. He suggested that a drive formed as a reaction to a motive may outgrow the motive as a reason. The drive then is autonomous and distinct from the motive, whether it is instinct or any other. Allport gives the example of a man who seeks to perfect his task or craft. His reasons may be a sense of inferiority engrained in his childhood but his diligence in his work and the motive it acquires later on is a need to excel in his chosen profession. In the words of Allport, the theory "avoids the absurdity of regarding the energy of life now, in the present, as somehow consisting of early archaic forms (instincts, prepotent reflexes, or the never-changing Id). Learning brings new systems of interests into existence just as it does new abilities and skills. At each stage of development these interests are always contemporary; whatever drives, drives now."[10] We also can see functional autonomy (the notion that motives can become independent of their origins) in the drive associated with making money to buy goods and services when it becomes an end in itself. Many obsessive and compulsive acts and thoughts might be manifestations of functional autonomy .