Foundations of Psychology: Trait Theories of Personality
This essay will be comparing two different trait theories of personality, overlooking previous research and the strengths and weaknesses behind them. Some researchers believe personality can be understood by declaring that all individuals have particular traits and by watching behaviours we can see the characteristics of a person. For example, amongst your peers do you tend to be more sociable or closed off and shy? Are you more of a take flight or fight personality type. Several trait theorists have analysed different assumptions of personality. It is noted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, 2012) personality traits are defining features of personality that are exhibited in a range of both personal and social circumstances. Allport and Odbert (1936) conducted a study working through two dictionaries on English language and took 18,000 of what they believed to be personality describing words, from this list they then reduced it to roughly 4,500 personality describing adjectives which they decided defined the apparent and comparatively permanent personality traits. Allport and Odbert (1936) then organized these traits into a hierarchy containing three levels. At the top of the hierarchy Cardinal traits, next in line are what Allport believed to be Central traits which are the general characteristics that define an individual i.e. loyalty, polite and friendliness. Lastly in the hierarchy are Secondary traits these are lowest in the hierarchy as they are not as obvious as those of central traits and only come to light under particular circumstances. According to Allport and Odbert (1936) hypothesis, internal and external forces can impact an individual’s behaviour and personality. Allport refers to these forces as genotypes and phenotypes.
Cattell (1990) attempted to make Allport and Odbert (1936) list more manageable, therefore endeavoured to shortening the list to 171 words. Cattel (1990) believed it was necessary to sample a range of variables to come to a full understanding of personality. Cattell (1990) then categorised this data into life data, experimental data and questionnaire data, after gathering this information Cattell (1990) conducted factor analysis to define sixteen magnitudes of human personality traits. These traits where as follows: abstractedness, warmth, apprehension, emotional stability, liveliness, openness to change, perfectionism, privateness, intelligence, rule consciousness, tension, sensitivity, social boldness, self-reliance, vigilance and dominance. Based on these traits, Cattell (1990) had developed an assessment on personality labelled the ‘16PF’ whereby instead of a trait being labelled present or absent, each trait is scored over a specific amount of time from a rate of high to low. Having said this, it has been suggested, although Cattell (1990) made great attempt to shorten Allport and Odbert (1936) list, Cattell’s 16PF theory has been scrutinised for being too extensive. It is also argued that Cattell (1990) study is not replicable as attempts have been made but none have succeeded.
Eysenck (1991) also a personality traits theorist, whom focused on temperament (genetically based personality differences). Eysenck (1991) suggested personality is based on biology, viewing individuals as having two forms of personality dimensions: extroversion/introversion and neuroticism/stability. Eysenck (1991) then collaborated with his wife also a personality theorist Sybil Eysenck, then adding the third dimension to their study: psychoticism/socialization. Eysenck (1991) theory suggests that individuals with a high trait in extroversion are sociable, outgoing and ready to connect with the outside world whereas those with high trait of introversion feel the need to be alone, limiting their relations with others and confining themselves to solidarity. Continuing with the dimension of stability and neuroticism, those with high traits of neuroticism tend to feel anxious and their subconscious can tend to take fight or flight action as previously mentioned. Whereas those with a high trait of stability tend to be identified as more emotionally stable and so on. It has been suggested that the a positive to Eysenck (1991) model is that it was one of the first theories to be made more quantifiable therefore being perceived to be more valid. As opposed to Allport and Odbert (1936) as well as Cattell (1990) models Eysenck (1991) hypothesized that some factors within his model are influenced by individual differences within the limbic system (where emotion, motivation and emotion associated with memory stem from in the brain). Having said this, it has been argued Eysenck (1991) model has been disapproved for being too narrow. It is argued that some theorists believe Cattell (1990) focused on too much a wide range of traits whilst Eysenck (1991) focused on too few. Having said this having been subject to large amounts of research, a new trait theory emerged often referred to as the Big Five. This theory is representative of the five core traits that entwine to form the basis of human personality. Some theorists argue the exact labels for each dimension and still now there is to some dispute as to what is agreed upon however the following are referred to most commonly throughout all researchers and their theories: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness.
Throughout the extensive research done to conduct this essay it can be said that theorists continue to differentiate between several basic traits that make up the human personality. Whilst there are some extents of research that show validity trait theory also has its weaknesses. It is noted that traits are often viewed as poor predicters of behaviour, i.e. although an individual may be assessed with a high score on a specific trait, it is not to say they will behave in such a way at every given opportunity, it is also highlighted that a second issue with personality trait theories is that they do not specify as to why distinct differences within personality arise and progress. Although continuous disagreements are inevitable as personality is ever changing as is the research behind it there are several positive factors to the research conducted on personality traits, one of which being the reapplication of the same investigations into trait theories. Secondly if in some way either of these trait theories and the several others out there could be merged into conducting a whole new area of research into personality traits, it is clear the possibilities would be incredible, as alone these theories individually have such potential and power.
References
Allport, G. & Odbert, H. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093360
Cattell, R. (1990). The principal trait clusters for describing personality. Psychological Bulletin, 42(3), 129-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0060679
DSM,. (2012). DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria for the Personality Disorders. Retrieved 3 December 2016, from http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf
Eysenck,. (1991). DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY, 16,5 OR 3. Retrieved 3 December 2016, from http://intern.sfu.ac.at/english_program/Fichtinger/Eysenck%20H.J.1991_Dimensions%20of%20personality.pdf