LESSON 6

PERSONALITY TYPES

Theme: Personality Types

 

v The Structure of Personality.

v Personality Types.

v Formation of Personality.

Addressing Personality Structure

Personality type refers to the psychological classification of different types of individuals. Personality types are sometimes distinguished from personality traits, with the latter embodying a smaller grouping of behavioral tendencies. Types are sometimes said to involve qualitative differences between people, whereas traits might be construed as quantitative differences. According to type theories, for example, introverts and extraverts are two fundamentally different categories of people. According to trait theories, introversion and extraversion are part of a continuous dimension, with many people in the middle.

Clinically effective personality typologies

Effective personality typologies reveal and increase knowledge and understanding of individuals, as opposed to diminishing knowledge and understanding as occurs in the case of stereotyping. Effective typologies also allow for increased ability to predict clinically relevant information about people and to develop effective treatment strategies.There is an extensive literature on the topic of classifying the various types of human temperament and an equally extensive literature on personality traits or domains. These classification systems attempt to describe normal temperament and personality and emphasize the predominant features of different temperament and personality types; they are largely the province of the discipline of psychology. Personality disorders, on the other hand, reflect the work of psychiatry, a medical specialty, and are disease-oriented. They are classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) a product of the American Psychiatric Association.

Types vs. traits

The term type has not been used consistently in psychology and has become the source of some confusion. Furthermore, because personality test scores usually fall on a bell curve rather than in distinct categories, personality type theories have received considerable criticism among psychometric researchers. One study that directly compared a “type” instrument (the MBTI) to a “trait” instrument (the NEO PI) found that the trait measure was a better predictor of personality disorders. Because of these problems, personality type theories have fallen out of favor in psychology. Most researchers now believe that it is impossible to explain the diversity of human personality with a small number of discrete types. They recommend trait models instead, such as the five factor model.

Type theories

Further information: Table of similar systems of comparison of temperaments

·                    An early form of personality type theory was the Four Temperaments system of Galen, based on the four humours model of Hippocrates; an extended Five Temperaments system based on the classical theory was published in 1958.

·                    One example of personality types is Type A and Type B personality theory. According to this theory, impatient, achievement-oriented people are classified as Type A, whereas easy-going, relaxed individuals are designated as Type B. The theory originally suggested that Type A individuals were more at risk for coronary heart disease, but this claim has not been supported by empirical research.

·                    There has been a study to prove that people with Type A personalities are more likely to develop personality disorders whereas Type B personalities are more likely to become alcoholics.

·                    Developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan is a prominent advocate of type theory. He suggests that shy, withdrawn children are best viewed as having an inhibited temperament, which is qualitatively different from that of other children.

·                    As a matter of convenience, trait theorists sometimes use the term type to describe someone who scores exceptionally high or low on a particular personality trait. Hans Eysenck refers to superordinate personality factors as types, and more specific associated traits as traits.

·                    Several pop psychology theories (e.g., Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, the enneagram) rely on the idea of distinctively different types of people.

Carl Jung

One of the more influential ideas originated in the theoretical work of Carl Jung as published in the book Psychological Types. The original German language edition, Psychologische Typen, was first published by Rascher Verlag, Zurich in 1921 Typologies such as Socionics, the MBTI assessment, and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter have roots in Jungian philosophy.[13][14]

Jung's interest in typology grew from his desire to reconcile the theories of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, and to define how his own perspective differed from theirs. Jung wrote, “In attempting to answer this question, I came across the problem of types; for it is one's psychological type which from the outset determines and limits a person's judgment.” (Jung, [1961] 1989:207) He concluded that Freud's theory was extraverted and Adler's introverted. (Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 91) Jung became convinced that acrimony between the Adlerian and Freudian camps was due to this unrecognized existence of different fundamental psychological attitudes, which led Jung “to conceive the two controversial theories of neurosis as manifestations of a type-antagonism.” (Jung, 1966: par. 64)

Four functions of consciousness

In the book Jung categorized people into primary types of psychological function.

Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:

·                    The “rational” (judging) functions: thinking and feeling

·                    The “irrational” (perceiving) functions: sensing and intuition

Jung went on to suggest that these functions are expressed in either an introverted or extraverted form.[15]:17

Jung proposed four main functions of consciousness:

·                    Two perceiving functions: Sensation and Intuition

·                    Two judging functions: Thinking and Feeling

According to Jung, the psyche is an apparatus for adaptation and orientation, and consists of a number of different psychic functions. Among these he distinguishes four basic functions:[16]

·                    sensation—perception by means of the sense organs;

·                    intuitionperceiving in unconscious way or perception of unconscious contents.

·                    thinking—function of intellectual cognition; the forming of logical conclusions;

·                    feeling—function of subjective estimation;

Thinking and feeling functions are rational, while sensation and intuition are nonrational. According to Jung, rationality consists of figurative thoughts, feelings or actions with reason — a point of view based on objective value, which is set by practical experience. Nonrationality is not based in reason. Jung notes that elementary facts are also nonrational, not because they are illogical but because, as thoughts, they are not judgments.

Attitudes: Extraversion and Introversion

Analytical psychology distinguishes several psychological types or temperaments.

·                    Extravert (Jung's spelling, although some dictionaries prefer the variant extrovert)

·                    Introvert

Extraversion means “outward-turning” and introversion means “inward-turning.” These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words.

The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called as attitudes. Each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (extraverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude).

People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion expend energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts include the following:

·                    Extraverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.

·                    Extraverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.

·                    Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.

·                    Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone.

The attitude type could be thought of as the flow of libido (psychic energy). The functions are modified by two main attitude types: extraversion and introversion. In any person, the degree of introversion or extraversion of one function can be quite different from that of another function.

Four functions: sensation, intuition, thinking, feeling

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:

·                    The two perceiving functions, sensation and intuition

·                    The two judging functions, thinking and feeling

Sensation and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer the sensation function are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere.” They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer the intuition function tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer the thinking function tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer the feeling function tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it “from the inside” and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.

As noted already, people who prefer the thinking function do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, “think better” than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer the feeling function do not necessarily have “better” emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.

Dominant function

All four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances. However, one of the four functions is generally used more dominantly and proficiently than the other three, in a more conscious and confident way. According to Jung the dominant function is supported by two auxiliary functions. (In MBTI publications the first auxiliary is usually called the auxiliary or secondary function and the second auxiliary function is usually called the tertiary function.) The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Jung called this the "inferior function" and Myers sometimes also called it the "shadow".[15]:84

Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right handedness: individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of thinking and acting. These psychological differences are sorted into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting eight possible psychological types. People tend to find using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

The eight psychological types are as follows:

·                    Extraverted sensation

·                    Introverted sensation

·                    Extraverted intuition

·                    Introverted intuition

·                    Extraverted thinking

·                    Introverted thinking

·                    Extraverted feeling

·                    Introverted feeling

Jung theorized that the dominant function characterizes consciousness, while its opposite is repressed and characterizes unconscious behavior. Generally, we tend to favor our most developed dominant function, while we can broaden our personality by developing the others. Related to this, Jung noted that the unconscious often tends to reveal itself most easily through a person's least developed inferior function. The encounter with the unconscious and development of the underdeveloped functions thus tend to progress together.

When the unconscious inferior functions fail to develop, imbalance results. In Psychological Types, Jung describes in detail the effects of tensions between the complexes associated with the dominant and inferior differentiating functions in highly one-sided individuals.

Personality types and worrying

The relationship between worry - the tendency of one's thoughts and mental images to revolve around and create negative emotions, and the experience of a frequent level of fear - and Jung's model of psychological types has been the subject of recent studies. In particular, correlational analysis has shown that the tendency to worry is significantly related to Jung's Introversion and Feeling dimensions. Similarly, worry has shown robust correlations with shyness and fear of social situations. The worrier's tendency to be fearful of social situations might make them appear more withdrawn.

Jung's model suggests that the superordinate dimension of personality is introversion and extraversion. Introverts are likely to relate to the external world by listening, reflecting, being reserved, and having focused interests. Extraverts on the other hand, are adaptable and in tune with the external world. They prefer interacting with the outer world by talking, actively participating, being sociable, expressive, and having a variety of interests. Jung (1921) also identified two other dimensions of personality: Intuition - Sensing and Thinking - Feeling. Sensing types tend to focus on the reality of present situations, pay close attention to detail, and are concerned with practicalities. Intuitive types focus on envisioning a wide range of possibilities to a situation and favor ideas, concepts, and theories over data. Individuals who score higher on intuition also score higher on general. Thinking types use objective and logical reasoning in making their decisions, are more likely to analyze stimuli in a logical and detached manner, be more emotionally stable, and score higher on intelligence. Feeling types make judgments based on subjective and personal values. In interpersonal decision-making, feeling types tend to emphasize compromise to ensure a beneficial solution for everyone. They also tend to be somewhat more neurotic than thinking types. The worrier's tendency to experience a fearful affect, could be manifested in Jung's feeling type.

 

One of the most crtical decisions in studying personality psychology, is how best to divide the system. A complex system such as personality can be validly divided in more than one way. The Systems Framework for Personality Psychology (SFPP) suggests several innovations in regard to understanding personality structure.

First, complex systems can be divided in more than one valid way. Second, not all divisions are equally valid. Third, criteria can be divised (and met) for good divisions (Mayer, 2001).

Personality Can Be Divided in More Than One Valid Way

Consider the analogy to another complex system -- a city. A city structure can be conceived of in a variety of valid ways. Different maps will depict different aspects of the structure. In the case of Manhatten, for example, one valid structural depiction is of the subway system…

As an alternative, one could divide Manhatten by neighborhood...

 

Similarly, Personality Can Be Divided in Multiple Ways

 

There are a number of ways that have been employed to divide personality. Well before the advent of modern psychology, Moses Mendelsohn had divided personality into motives, emotion, and cognition (Hilgard, 1981). Freud divided personality into the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, and later, into the id, ego, and superego (Freud, 1923/1960).  More recently, a number of trait psychologists have suggested that personality can be divided into 5 Big Traits (Goldberg, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1985).

 

The Systems Framework for Personality Psychology allows the field to reconcile these different divisions of personality by understanding that the different divsions serve different purposes.  For example, Freud's division of the mind help distinguish between areas of personality that differ in their level-of-processing. Whereas the id represents evolutionarily early-developing processes, the ego represents later-evolved processes. Mendelssohn's division, on the other hand, focusses on basic functionality of personlaity -- the basic tasks that carries out personality.  That is, the motivational system helps direct the organism, emotions help it navigate the social world, and cognition helps it understand and reason abstractly about the world more generally. The Big Five trait divisions, on the other hand, devide personality according to its most commonly perceived styles of social expression (Mayer, 2001).

At the same time as the Systems Framework allows for seeing the relation and purposes of these divisions, it also indicates that the divisions are not all equivalent.  Rather, there are better and worse division of miind. Any fundamental division of mind such as the above must meet specific criteria for what will form a good division of personality.

Personality Structures: 1. Partial Structures

 

One of the most crtical decisions in studying personality psychology, is how best to divide the system. A complex system such as personality can be validly divided in more than one way. The Systems Framework for Personality Psychology (SFPP) suggests several innovations in regard to understanding personality structure.

 

Somewhere between the consideration of individual personality parts (e.g., n achievement, extroversion, intelligence), covered in the preceding survey page(s), and global personality structure (e.g., broad areas of personality function such as conation, affect, motivation), it makes sense to talk about the structure of groups of personality parts as a transitional topic.  This topic concerns how groups of individual parts -- especially traits, for example -- build into larger structures.

Example 1: Supertraits

 

An example of a partial personality structure is a supertrait.  Super traits are structures made up of distinct but intercorrelated traits.  An example of such a super trait is Extraversion. Extraversion is a so-called super trait because it has a structure to it that includes several additional traits. That is, It is composed of a number of distinct, smaller traits. For example, from some perspectives, extraversion is composed of lively affect (also called surgency), sociability, and impulsiveness.

Example 2: Personality Types (or Personality Forms)

 

A second example of a partial personality structure is a "personality type."

 

A second kind of structure that multiple traits can form could be called a "functional trait group" (or maybe , "functional  forms" of traits).  These traits are grouped together because the have a tendency to work out well  when they co-occur together, rather than because they correlate.  For example, the brilliant 20th-century diagnostician Paul Meehl pointed out that certain distinct MMPI patterns occur much more frequently than others.  Those patterns (he would argue, if I understand him correctly) occur together, again, because they function together to create a meaningful mental (or behavioral) pattern.

 

Many people are more familiar with the typology of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Certain MBTI profiles are likely to occur more often than others, and others are much rarer. For example, the INTJ type (an Introverted-Intuitive-Thinking-Judging type) is a fairly common type among personality psychologists, so I'm told, and would also potentially represent a functional form suited for such work, perhaps. (For example, introversion would promote studiousness).

Personality Structure: 2 Full Personality Structures

 

First, complex systems can be divided in more than one valid way. Second, not all divisions are equally valid. Third, criteria can be divised (and met) for good divisions (Mayer, 2001).

 

Consider the analogy to another complex system -- a city. A city structure can be conceived of in a variety of valid ways. Different maps will depict different aspects of the structure. In the case of Manhatten, for example, one valid structural depiction is of the subway system...

 

There are a number of ways that have been employed to divide personality. Well before the advent of modern psychology, Moses Mendelsohn had divided personality into motives, emotion, and cognition (Hilgard, 1981). Freud divided personality into the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, and later, into the id, ego, and superego (Freud, 1923/1960).  More recently, a number of trait psychologists have suggested that personality can be divided into 5 Big Traits (Goldberg, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1985).

 

The Systems Framework for Personality Psychology allows the field to reconcile these different divisions of personality by understanding that the different divsions serve different purposes.  For example, Freud's division of the mind help distinguish between areas of personality that differ in their level-of-processing. Whereas the id represents evolutionarily early-developing processes, the ego represents later-evolved processes. Mendelssohn's division, on the other hand, focusses on basic functionality of personlaity -- the basic tasks that carries out personality.  That is, the motivational system helps direct the organism, emotions help it navigate the social world, and cognition helps it understand and reason abstractly about the world more generally. The Big Five trait divisions, on the other hand, devide personality according to its most commonly perceived styles of social expression (Mayer, 2001).

 

At the same time as the Systems Framework allows for seeing the relation and purposes of these divisions, it also indicates that the divisions are not all equivalent.  Rather, there are better and worse division of miind. Any fundamental division of mind such as the above must meet specific criteria for what will form a good division of personality.

 

Here is one set of such criteria (adapted from Mayer, 2001, Table 1, pp. 462-463):

Personality Dynamics

 

Personality dynamics concern the way in which one part of personality influences another. Two broad types of dynamics are distinguished in the SFPP. The first concerns dynamics of the self. These are dynamics that influence the conscious self, and/or by which the conscious self influences the rest of personality. For example, Dynamics of Self Control  attempt to manage one or another aspects of personality. Sometimes these attempts are conscious and purposeful, and other times they occur outside of awareness. A great deal of research is now occurring in the area of conscious self control. Regarding more automatic self-control, one fascinating window into the area is the procedure of hypnosis. Another is the study of defense mechanisms.

Better Divisions of Personality Using the Systems Framework

 

Once the above criteria are in place, the possibility is at least raised that a more powerful division of personality is possible than has been suggested before. To see whether this was possible, the Systems Set division of personality was developed. To learn more about it, click on the "Systems Set" menu button to the left.

Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and individual differences. Its areas of focus include:

Constructing a coherent picture of the individual and his or her major psychological processes

Investigating individual differences—how people are unique

Investigating human nature—how people are alike

 

"Personality" can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, emotions, motivations, and behaviors in various situations. 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. Personality may also refer to the patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviors consistently exhibited by an individual over time that strongly influence our expectations, self-perceptions, values and attitudes, and predicts our reactions to people, problems and stress. In a phrase, personality is not just who we are, 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 dimensional models based on multivariate statistics such as factor analysis, 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.

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, or if our behavior is causally determined by forces beyond our control; it being considered unconscious, environmental, or biological by various theories.

 

2. Heredity versus Environment 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. 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, or if they are doomed to remain the same throughout their lives. Theories that place a great deal of emphasis on learning are often, but not always, more optimistic than theories that do not emphasize learning.

 

6. Person versus Situation

 

There has been a long debate in the psychological field on what the primary determinant of behavior is. Social psychologists argued that situations were the primary factor. Personality researchers argued that internal dispositions or personality traits were the primary factor. Most modern theorists agree that both are important with aggregate behavior being primarily determined by traits and situational factors being the primary predictor of behavior in the short term.

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".[citation needed]

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 (for instance, some people are outgoing while others are reserved), and c) traits influence behavior. When people are describing a person, they constantly talk about traits to help define the person as a whole. Traits are relatively constant; they do not usually change. Traits are also bipolar; they are one extreme or the other (ex: friendly vs. unfriendly).[citation needed]

 

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).[citation needed]

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. In his groundbreaking book, Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, Gordon Allport (1937) both established personality psychology as a legitimate intellectual discipline and introduced of the first modern trait theories. [1] [2] [2]

Raymond Cattell's research propagated a two-tiered personality structure with sixteen "primary factors" (16 Personality Factors) and five "secondary factors." In Cattell's lengthy career, he had written 50 books, 500 journals, and 30 different types of standardized tests. When Cattell was conducting his research, he tended to use the inductive approach to research. This simply means that he gathered up all the data he could find to create one big conclusion. For Cattell, personality itself was dened in terms of behavioral prediction. He dened personality as ‘‘that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation.’’

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 analyze 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. Eysenck, along with another contemporary stalwart in trait psychology named J. P. Guilford (1959), believed that the resultant trait factors obtained from factor analysis should be statistically independent of one another —that is, the factors should be arranged (rotated) so that they are uncorrelated or orthogonal (at right angles) to one another.

Lewis Goldberg proposed a five-dimension personality model, nicknamed the "Big Five":

Openness to Experience: the tendency to be imaginative, independent, and interested in variety vs. practical, conforming, and interested in routine.

Conscientiousness: the tendency to be organized, careful, and disciplined vs. disorganized, careless, and impulsive.

Extraversion: the tendency to be sociable, fun-loving, and affectionate vs. retiring, somber, and reserved.

Agreeableness: the tendency to be softhearted, trusting, and helpful vs. ruthless, suspicious, and uncooperative.

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]

Michael Ashton and Kibeom Lee, in 2008, proposed a six dimensional HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. The HEXACO personality traits/factors are: Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). The three dimensions - Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience are considered to be basically the same as their counterpart dimensions in the Big Five Model. However, in the HEXACO model, Honesty-Humility, Emotionality and Agreeableness differ from the Neuroticism and Agreeableness factors of the Big Five Model. Ashton and Lee especially emphasize the Honesty-Humility (H) factor as differentiating the HEXACO model from other personality frameworks. Specifically, the H factor is described as sincere, honest, faithful/loyal, modest/unassuming, fair-minded, VERSUS sly, deceitful, greedy, pretentious, hypocritical, boastful and pompous. The H factor has been linked to criminal, materialistic, power-seeking and unethical tendencies.[4]

 

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 may lead some people to accept oversimplified classifications—or worse, offer advice—based on a superficial analysis of 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.

Does the importance of genetic influences on personality characteristics change across the 5 year period?

Are genetic influences important for the likeliness of co-twins to change in the same way over the period of time?

Are there genetic influences on the tendency of the co-twins to change, without keeping in mind the direction of the change

 

Age differences create more variables even within a family, so the best comparisons are found using twins. Twins typically share a family environment called a shared environment because they may share other aspects like teachers, school, and friends. A non-shared environment means completely different environment for both subjects. "Biologically related children who are separated after birth and raised in different families live in non-shared environments." Identical twins separated at birth and raised in different families constitute the best cases for heredity and personality because similarities between the two are due only to genetic influences. Vulnerability was a factor in this study that was taken into consideration regarding the issue of genetic influences on vulnerability. The study concluded that the monozygotic co-twins would be more similar than dizygotic co-twins in change over time. To answer the questions as to whether change is genetically influenced through personality, the data concluded that there was no significant differences for either variances between the monozygotic and dizygotic co-twins.[5][6]

 

A link was found between the personality trait of neuroticism and a polymorphism called 5-HTTLPR in the serotonin transporter gene, but this association was not replicated in larger studies.[7] Other candidate gene studies have provided weak evidence that some personality traits are related to AVPR1A ("ruthlessness gene") and MAOA ("Warrior gene"). Genotypes, or the genetic make up of an organism, influence but don't fully decide the physical traits of a person. Those are also influenced by the environment and behaviors they are surrounded by. For example, a person's height is affected by genetics, but if they are malnourished growth will be stunted no matter what their genetic coding says. Environment is also not completely responsible for an outcome in personality. An example from "Psychobiology of Personality" by Marvin Zuckerman is alcoholism: Studies suggest that alcoholism is an inherited disease, but if a subject with a strong biological background of alcoholism in their family tree is never exposed to alcohol, they will not be so inclined regardless of their genome.[8]

 

Another factor that can be addressed is biological versus adoptive relatives, a real-life experiment, adoption. This creates two groups: genetic relatives (biological parents and siblings) and environmental relatives (adoptive parents and siblings). So the question can be asked, are adopted children more like their biological parents, who share the same genes, or their adoptive parents, who share the same home environment? And consequently to sharing that home environment, do those adopted siblings come to share traits as well? After studying hundreds of adoptive families, the discovery was that people who grow up together, whether biologically related or not, do not much resemble one another in personality. In characteristics such as extroversion and agreeableness, adoptees are more like their biological parents than to their adoptive parents. However, the minute shared-environment effects do not mean that adoptive parenting is ineffective. Even though genetics may limit the family environment's influence on personality, parents do influence their children's attitudes, values, faith, manners and politics. In adoptive homes, child neglect and abuse and even divorce between the parents is uncommon. In accordance to that, it is not surprising, despite a somewhat greater risk of psychological disorder, most adopted children excel, especially when they're adopted as infants. In fact, seven out of eight have reported feeling a strong connection with one or even both of their adoptive parents.[9]

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 extroverts. According to trait theories, introversion and extroversion 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 Self-Awareness. 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.[10] This model was later used by David Keirsey with a different understanding from Jung, Briggs and Myers.[11] 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 extroversion 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).[10]

 

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.[11] 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[10][11]), and thus may arise more from the need to categorize people for purposes of guiding their career choice.[12] 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."[13]) 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.

 

John L. Holland's RIASEC vocational model, commonly referred to as the Holland Codes, stipulates that six personality types 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.

[edit]

Psychoanalytic theories

 

Psychoanalytic theories explain human behaviour in terms of the interaction of various components of personality. Sigmund Freud was the founder of this school. Freud drew on the physics of his day (thermodynamics) to coin the term psycho-dynamics. Based on the idea of converting heat into mechanical energy, he proposed psychic energy could be converted into behavior. Freud's theory places central importance on dynamic, unconscious psychological conflicts.

 

Freud divides human personality into three significant components: the id, ego, and super-ego. The id acts according to the pleasure principle, demanding immediate gratification of its needs regardless of external environment; the ego then must emerge in order to realistically meet the wishes and demands of the id in accordance with the outside world, adhering to the reality principle. Finally, the superego(conscience) inculcates moral judgment and societal rules upon the ego, thus forcing the demands of the id to be met not only realistically but morally. The superego is the last function of the personality to develop, and is the embodiment of parental/social ideals established during childhood. According to Freud, personality is based on the dynamic interactions of these three components.[14]

 

The channeling and release of sexual (libidal) and aggressive energies, which ensues from the "Eros" (sex; instinctual self-preservation) and "Thanatos" (death; instinctual self-annihilation) drives respectively, are major components of his theory.[14] It is important to note that Freud's broad understanding of sexuality included all kinds of pleasurable feelings experienced by the human body.

 

Freud proposed five psychosexual stages of personality development. He believed adult personality is dependent upon early childhood experiences and largely determined by age five.[14] Fixations that develop during the Infantile stage contribute to adult personality and behavior.

 

One of Sigmund Freud's earlier associates, Alfred Adler, did agree with Freud that early childhood experiences are important to development, and believed birth order may influence personality development. Adler believed the oldest was the one that set high goals to achieve to get the attention they lost back when the younger siblings were born. He believed the middle children were competitive and ambitious possibly so they are able to surpass the first-born's achievements, but were not as much concerned about the glory. He also believed the last born would be more dependent and sociable but be the baby. He also believed that the only child loves being the center of attention and matures quickly, but in the end fails to become independent.

 

Heinz Kohut thought similarly to Freud's idea of transference. He used narcissism as a model of how we develop our sense of self. Narcissism is the exaggerated sense of one self in which one is believed to exist in order to protect one's low self esteem and sense of worthlessness. Kohut had a significant impact on the field by extending Freud's theory of narcissism and introducing what he called the 'self-object transferences' of mirroring and idealization. In other words, children need to idealize and emotionally "sink into" and identify with the idealized competence of admired figures such as parents or older siblings. They also need to have their self-worth mirrored by these people. These experiences allow them to thereby learn the self-soothing and other skills that are necessary for the development of a healthy sense of self.

 

Another important figure in the world of personality theory was Karen Horney. She is credited with the development of the "real self" and the "ideal self". She believes all people have these two views of their own self. The "real self" is how you really are with regards to personality, values, and morals; but the "ideal self" is a construct you apply to yourself to conform to social and personal norms and goals. Ideal self would be "I can be successful, I am CEO material"; and real self would be "I just work in the mail room, with not much chance of high promotion".

[edit]

Behaviorist theories

 

Behaviorists explain personality in terms of the effects external stimuli have on behavior. It was a radical shift away from Freudian philosophy. This school of thought was developed by B. F. Skinner who put forth a model which emphasized the mutual interaction of the person or "the organism" with its environment. Skinner believed children do bad things because the behavior obtains attention that serves as a reinforcer. For example: a child cries because the child's crying in the past has led to attention. These are the response, and consequences. The response is the child crying, and the attention that child gets is the reinforcing consequence. According to this theory, people's behavior is formed by processes such as operant conditioning. Skinner put forward a "three term contingency model" which helped promote analysis of behavior based on the "Stimulus - Response - Consequence Model" in which the critical question is: "Under which circumstances or antecedent 'stimuli' does the organism engage in a particular behavior or 'response', which in turn produces a particular 'consequence'?"

 

Richard Herrnstein extended this theory by accounting for attitudes and traits. An attitude develops as the response strength (the tendency to respond) in the presences of a group of stimuli become stable. Rather than describing conditionable traits in non-behavioral language, response strength in a given situation accounts for the environmental portion. Herrstein also saw traits as having a large genetic or biological component as do most modern behaviorists.

 

Ivan Pavlov is another notable influence. He is well known for his classical conditioning experiments involving dogs. These physiological studies led him to discover the foundation of behaviorism as well as classical conditioning.

Social cognitive theories

 

In cognitive theory, behavior is explained as guided by cognitions (e.g. expectations) about the world, especially those about other people. Cognitive theories are theories of personality that emphasize cognitive processes such as thinking and judging.

 

Albert Bandura, a social learning theorist suggested the forces of memory and emotions worked in conjunction with environmental influences. Bandura was known mostly for his "Bobo Doll experiment". During these experiments, Bandura video taped a college student kicking and verbally abusing a bobo doll. He then showed this video to a class of kindergarten children who were getting ready to go out to play. When they entered the play room, they saw bobo dolls, and some hammers. The people observing these children at play saw a group of children beating the doll. He called this study and his findings observational learning, or modeling.

 

Early examples of approaches to cognitive style are listed by Baron (1982).[15] These include Witkin's (1965) work on field dependency, Gardner's (1953) discovering people had consistent preference for the number of categories they used to categorise heterogeneous objects, and Block and Petersen's (1955) work on confidence in line discrimination judgments. Baron relates early development of cognitive approaches of personality to ego psychology. More central to this field have been:

Attributional style theory[16] dealing with different ways in which people explain events in their lives. This approach builds upon locus of control, but extends it by stating we also need to consider whether people attribute to stable causes or variable causes, and to global causes or specific causes.

 

Various scales have been developed to assess both attributional style and locus of control. Locus of control scales include those used by Rotter and later by Duttweiler, the Nowicki and Strickland (1973) Locus of Control Scale for Children and various locus of control scales specifically in the health domain, most famously that of Kenneth Wallston and his colleagues, The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale.[17] Attributional style has been assessed by the Attributional Style Questionnaire,[18] the Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire,[19] the Attributions Questionnaire,[20] the Real Events Attributional Style Questionnaire[21] and the Attributional Style Assessment Test.[22]

Achievement style theory focuses upon identification of an individual's Locus of Control tendency, such as by Rotter's evaluations, and was found by Cassandra Bolyard Whyte to provide valuable information for improving academic performance of students.[23] Individuals with internal control tendencies are likely to persist to better academic performance levels, presenting an achievement personality, according to Cassandra B. Whyte[23]

 

Recognition that the tendency to believe that hard work and persistence often results in attainment of life and academic goals has influenced formal educational and counseling efforts with students of various ages and in various settings since the 1970's research about achievement. [24] Counseling aimed toward encouraging individuals to design ambitious goals and work toward them, with recognition that there are external factors that may impact, often results in the incorporation of a more positive achievement style by students and employees, whatever the setting, to include higher education, workplace, or justice programming.[25] [24]

 

Walter Mischel (1999) has also defended a cognitive approach to personality. His work refers to "Cognitive Affective Units", and considers factors such as encoding of stimuli, affect, goal-setting, and self-regulatory beliefs. The term "Cognitive Affective Units" shows how his approach considers affect as well as cognition.

 

Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST) is another cognitive personality theory. Developed by Seymour Epstein, CEST argues that humans operate by way of two independent information processing systems: experiential system and rational system. The experiential system is fast and emotion-driven. The rational system is slow and logic-driven. These two systems interact to determine our goals, thoughts, and behavior.[26]

 

Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) is a theory of personality developed by the American psychologist George Kelly in the 1950s. From the theory, Kelly derived a psychotherapy approach and also a technique called The Repertory Grid Interview that helped his patients to uncover their own "constructs" (defined later) with minimal intervention or interpretation by the therapist. The Repertory Grid was later adapted for various uses within organizations, including decision-making and interpretation of other people's world-views. From his 1963 book, A Theory of Personality, pp. 103–104:

Fundamental Postulate: A person's processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which the person anticipates events.

Construction Corollary: A person anticipates events by construing their replications.

Individuality Corollary: People differ from one another in their construction of events.

Organization Corollary: Each person characteristically evolves, for convenience in anticipating events, a construction system embracing ordinal relationships between constructs.

Dichotomy Corollary: A person's construction system is composed of a finite number of dichotomous constructs.

Choice Corollary: People choose for themselves the particular alternative in a dichotomized construct through which they anticipate the greater possibility for extension and definition of their system.

Range Corollary: A construct is convenient for the anticipation of a finite range of events only.

Experience Corollary: A person's construction system varies as the person successively construes the replication of events.

Modulation Corollary: The variation in a person's construction system is limited by the permeability of the constructs within whose ranges of conveniences the variants lie.

Fragmentation Corollary: A person may successively employ a variety of construction subsystems which are inferentially incompatible with each other.

Commonality Corollary: To the extent that one person employs a construction of experience which is similar to that employed by another, the psychological processes of the two individuals are similar to each other.

Sociality Corollary: To the extent that one person construes another's construction processes, that person may play a role in a social process involving the other person.

Humanistic theories

 

In humanistic psychology it is emphasized people have free will and they play an active role in determining how they behave. Accordingly, humanistic psychology focuses on subjective experiences of persons as opposed to forced, definitive factors that determine behavior. Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers were proponents of this view, which is based on the "phenomenal field" theory of Combs and Snygg (1949).

 

Maslow spent much of his time studying what he called "self-actualizing persons", those who are "fulfilling themselves and doing the best they are capable of doing". Maslow believes all who are interested in growth move towards self-actualizing (growth, happiness, satisfaction) views. Many of these people demonstrate a trend in dimensions of their personalities. Characteristics of self-actualizers according to Maslow include the four key dimensions:

Awareness - maintaining constant enjoyment and awe of life. These individuals often experienced a "peak experience". He defined a peak experience as an "intensification of any experience to the degree there is a loss or transcendence of self". A peak experience is one in which an individual perceives an expansion of his or herself, and detects a unity and meaningfulness in life. Intense concentration on an activity one is involved in, such as running a marathon, may invoke a peak experience.

Reality and problem centered - they have tendency to be concerned with "problems" in their surroundings.

Acceptance/Spontaneity - they accept their surroundings and what cannot be changed.

Unhostile sense of humor/democratic - they do not like joking about others, which can be viewed as offensive. They have friends of all backgrounds and religions and hold very close friendships.

 

Maslow and Rogers emphasized a view of the person as an active, creative, experiencing human being who lives in the present and subjectively responds to current perceptions, relationships, and encounters. They disagree with the dark, pessimistic outlook of those in the Freudian psychoanalysis ranks, but rather view humanistic theories as positive and optimistic proposals which stress the tendency of the human personality toward growth and self-actualization. This progressing self will remain the center of its constantly changing world; a world that will help mold the self but not necessarily confine it. Rather, the self has opportunity for maturation based on its encounters with this world. This understanding attempts to reduce the acceptance of hopeless redundancy. Humanistic therapy typically relies on the client for information of the past and its effect on the present, therefore the client dictates the type of guidance the therapist may initiate. This allows for an individualized approach to therapy. Rogers found patients differ in how they respond to other people. Rogers tried to model a particular approach to therapy- he stressed the reflective or empathetic response. This response type takes the client's viewpoint and reflects back his or her feeling and the context for it. An example of a reflective response would be, "It seems you are feeling anxious about your upcoming marriage". This response type seeks to clarify the therapist's understanding while also encouraging the client to think more deeply and seek to fully understand the feelings they have expressed.

 

Clinically effective personality typologies

Effective personality typologies reveal and increase knowledge and understanding of individuals, as opposed to diminishing knowledge and understanding as occurs in the case of stereotyping. Effective typologies also allow for increased ability to predict clinically relevant information about people and to develop effective treatment strategies.

Types traits

The term "type" has not been used consistently in psychology and has become the source of some confusion. Furthermore, because personality test scores usually fall on a bell curve rather than in distinct categories, personality type theories have received considerable criticism among psychometric researchers. One study that directly compared a "type" instrument (the MBTI) to a "trait" instrument found that the trait measure was a better predictor of personality disorders. Because of these problems, personality type theories have fallen out of favor in psychology. Most researchers now believe that it is impossible to explain the diversity of human personality with a small number of discrete types. They recommend trait models instead, such as the five factor model.

Type theories

Further information: Table of similar systems of comparison of temperaments

§     An early form of personality type theory was the Four Temperaments system of Galen, based on the four humors model of Hippocrates; an extended Five Temperaments system based on the classical theory was published in 1958.

§     One example of personality types is Type A and Type B personality theory. According to this theory, impatient, achievement-oriented people are classified as Type A, whereas easy-going, relaxed individuals are designated as Type B. The theory originally suggested that Type A individuals were more at risk for coronary heart disease, but this claim has not been supported by empirical research.

§     There has been a study to prove that people with Type A personalities are more likely to develop personality disorders whereas Type B personalities are more likely to become alcoholics 

§     Developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan is a prominent contemporary advocate of type theory. He suggests that shy, withdrawn children are best viewed as having an inhibited temperament, which is qualitatively different from other children.

§     As a matter of convenience, trait theorists sometimes use the term "type" to describe someone who scores exceptionally high or low on a particular personality trait. Hans Eysenck refers to superordinate personality factors as types, and more specific associated traits as traits.

§     Several pop psychology theories (e.g., Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, the enneagram) rely on the idea of distinctively different types of people.

Carl Jung

One of the more influential ideas originated in the theoretical work of Carl Jung as published in the book Psychological Types. The original German language edition, "Psychologische Typen", was first published by Rascher Verlag, Zurich in 1921. Typologies such as Socionics, the MBTI assessment, and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter have roots in Jungian philosophy.

Jung's interest in typology grew from his desire to reconcile the theories of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, and to define how his own perspective differed from theirs. Jung wrote, "In attempting to answer this question, I came across the problem of types; for it is one's psychological type which from the outset determines and limits a person's judgment." (Jung, [1961] 1989:207) He concluded that Freud's theory was extraverted and Adler's introverted. (Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 91) Jung became convinced that acrimony between the Adlerian and Freudian camps was due to this unrecognized existence of different fundamental psychological attitudes, which led Jung "to conceive the two controversial theories of neurosis as manifestations of a type-antagonism." (Jung, 1966: par. 64)

Four functions of consciousness

In the book Jung categorized people into primary types of psychological function.

Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:

§     The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking and feeling

§     The "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensing and intuition

In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used differently in different disciplines, including specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem.

Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.

Theories of rationality

The German sociologist Max Weber proposed an interpretation of social action that distinguished between four different idealized types of rationality. The first, which he called Zweckrational or purposive/instrumental rationality, is related to the expectations about the behavior of other human beings or objects in the environment. These expectations serve as means for a particular actor to attain ends, ends which Weber noted were "rationally pursued and calculated." The second type, Weber called Wertrational or value/belief-oriented. Here the action is undertaken for what one might call reasons intrinsic to the actor: some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motive, independent of whether it will lead to success. The third type was affectual, determined by an actor's specific affect, feeling, or emotion – to which Weber himself said that this was a kind of rationality that was on the borderline of what he considered "meaningfully oriented." The fourth was traditional, determined by ingrained habituation. Weber emphasized that it was very unusual to find only one of these orientations: combinations were the norm. His usage also makes clear that he considered the first two as more significant than the others, and it is arguable that the third and fourth are subtypes of the first two.

The advantage in this interpretation is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain kinds of beliefs are irrational. Instead, Weber suggests that a ground or motive can be given – for religious or affect reasons, for example — that may meet the criterion of explanation or justification even if it is not an explanation that fits the Zweckrational orientation of means and ends. The opposite is therefore also true: some means-ends explanations will not satisfy those whose grounds for action are 'Wertrational'.

Weber's constructions of rationality have been critiqued both from a Habermasian (1984) perspective (as devoid of social context and under-theorised in terms of social power) and also from a feministperspective (Eagleton, 2003) whereby Weber's rationality constructs are viewed as imbued with masculine values and oriented toward the maintenance of male power. An alternative position on rationality (which includes both bounded rationality (Simons and Hawkins, 1949), as well as the affective and value-based arguments of Weber) can be found in the critique of Etzioni (1988), who reframes thought on decision-making to argue for a reversal of the position put forward by Weber. Etzioni illustrates how purposive/instrumental reasoning is subordinated by normative considerations (ideas on how people 'ought' to behave) and affective considerations (as a support system for the development of human relationships).

In the psychology of reasoning, psychologists and cognitive scientists have defended different positions on human rationality. One prominent view, due to Philip Johnson-Laird and Ruth M.J. Byrneamong others is that humans are rational in principle but they err in practice, that is, humans have the competence to be rational but their performance is limited by various factors 

Quality of rationality

It is believed by some philosophers (notably A.C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

It is evident from modern cognitive science and neuroscience, studying the role of emotion in mental function (including topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people. However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.

Theoretical and practical rationality

Kant had distinguished theoretical from practical reason. Rationality theorist Jesús Mosterín makes a parallel distinction between theoretical and practical rationality, although, according to him, reason and rationality are not the same: reason would be a psychological faculty, whereas rationality is an optimizing strategy. Humans are not rational by definition, but they can think and behave rationally or not, depending on whether they apply, explicitly or implicitly, the strategy of theoretical and practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they perform. Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a material component that reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation. Mosterín distinguishes between involuntary and implicit belief, on the one hand, and voluntary and explicit acceptance, on the other. Theoretical rationality can more properly be said to regulate our acceptances than our beliefs. Practical rationality is the strategy for living one’s best possible life, achieving your most important goals and your own preferences in as far as possible. Practical rationality has also a formal component, that reduces to Bayesian decision theory, and a material component, rooted in human nature (lastly, in our genome).

Examples of Rationality Applied to Different Fields

Individuals or organizations are called rational if they make optimal decisions in pursuit of their goals. It is in these terms that one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. For such "rationality", the decision maker's goals are taken as part of the model, and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise.

Debates arise in these four fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as whether it make sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of bounded rationality makes more sense for such models.

Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term homo economicus (economic man: the imaginary man being assumed in economic models who is logically consistent but amoral) was coined largely in honor of this view.

Artificial Intelligence

Within artificial intelligence, a rational agent is one that maximizes its expected utility, given its current knowledge. Utility is the usefulness of the consequences of its actions. The utility function is arbitrarily defined by the designer, but should be a function of performance, which is the directly measurable consequences, such as winning or losing money. In order to make a safe agent that plays defensively, a nonlinear function of performance is often desired, so that the reward for winning is lower than the punishment for losing. An agent might be rational within its own problem area, but finding the rational decision for arbitrarily complex problems is not practically possible. The rationality of human thought is a key problem in the psychology of reasoning.

 

Jung went on to suggest that these functions are expressed in either an introverted or extraverted form.

Jung proposed four main functions of consciousness:

§     Two perceiving functions: Sensation and Intuition

§     Two judging functions: Thinking and Feeling

According to Jung, the psyche is an apparatus for adaptation and orientation, and consists of a number of different psychic functions. Among these he distinguishes four basic functions:

§     sensation - perception by means of the sense organs;

§     Intuition - perceiving in unconscious way or perception of unconscious contents.

§     thinking - function of intellectual cognition; the forming of logical conclusions;

§     feeling - function of subjective estimation;

Thinking and feeling functions are rational, while sensation and intuition are nonrational. According to Jung, rationality consists of figurative thoughts, feelings or actions with reason — a point of view based on objective value, which is set by practical experience. Nonrationality is not based in reason. Jung notes that elementary facts are also nonrational, not because they are illogical but because, as thoughts, they are not judgments.

Attitudes: Extraversion (E)/Introversion (I)

Analytical psychology distinguishes several psychological types or temperaments.

§     Extravert (Jung's spelling, although some dictionaries prefer the variant "extrovert")

§     Introvert

Extraversion means "outward-turning" and introversion means "inward-turning." These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words.

The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called as attitudes. Each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (extraverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude).

People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion expend energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts include the following:

§     Extraverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.

§     Extraverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.

§     Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.

§     Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone.

The attitude type could be thought of as the flow of libido (psychic energy). An introverted person's energy is generally directed inward toward concepts and ideas whereas an extraverted person's energy is generally directed outward towards other people and objects. There are several contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts: extraverts desire breadth and are action-oriented, while introverts seek depth and are self-oriented.

The functions are modified by two main attitude types: extraversion and introversion. In any person, the degree of introversion or extraversion of one function can be quite different from that of another function.

Functions: Sensing (S)/Intuition (N) and Thinking (T)/Feeling (F)

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:

§     The two perceiving functions, sensing and intuition

§     The two judging functions, thinking and feeling

Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere."[14]:2 They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.

As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.

Dominant function

All four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances. However, one of these four functions is generally used more dominantly and proficiently than the other three, in a more conscious and confident way. This dominant function is supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Myers called this inferior function the shadow.[14]:84

Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right handedness: individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of thinking and acting. These psychological differences are sorted into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. People tend to find using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

The eight psychological types are as follows:

§     Extraverted sensation

§     Introverted sensation

§     Extraverted intuition

§     Introverted intuition

§     Extraverted thinking

§     Introverted thinking

§     Extraverted feeling

§     Introverted feeling

Jung theorized that the dominant function characterizes consciousness, while its opposite is repressed and characterizes unconscious behavior. Generally, we tend to favor our most developeddominant function, while we can broaden our personality by developing the others. Related to this, Jung noted that the unconscious often tends to reveal itself most easily through a person's least developed inferior function. The encounter with the unconscious and development of the underdeveloped functions thus tend to progress together.

When the unconscious, inferior functions fail to develop, imbalance results. In Psychological Types, Jung describes in detail the effects of tensions between the complexes associated with the dominant and inferior differentiating functions in highly one-sided individuals.

Jung's theories correlating with worry

The relationship between worry and Jung's (1921) model of psychological types has been correlated with worry. Jung's model suggests that the superordinate dimension of personality is introversion and extraversion. Introverts are likely to relate to the external world by listening, reflecting, being reserved, and having focused interests. Extraverts on the other hand, are adaptable and in tune with the external world. They prefer interacting with the outer world by talking, actively participating, being sociable, expressive, and having a variety of interests. Jung (1921) also identified two other dimensions of personality: Intuition - Sensing and Thinking - Feeling. Sensing types tend to focus on the reality of present situations, pay close attention to detail, and are concerned with practicalities. Intuitive types focus on envisioning a wide range of possibilities to a situation and favor ideas, concepts, and theories over data. Individuals who score higher on intuition also score higher on general. Thinking types use objective and logical reasoning in making their decisions, are more likely to analyze stimuli in a logical and detached manner, be more emotionally stable, and score higher on intelligence. Feeling types make judgments based on subjective and personal values. In interpersonal decision-making, feeling types tend to emphasize compromise to ensure a beneficial solution for everyone. They also tend to be somewhat more neurotic than thinking types. The worrier's tendency to experience a fearful affect, could be manifested in Jung's feeling type. Similarly, worry has shown robust correlations with shyness and fear of social situations. The worrier's tendency to be fearful of social situations might make them appear more withdrawn. 

General overview:

§  Personality psychology

§  Personality tests

§  Trait theory

§  Trait Leadership

Three modern theories closely associated with Jung's personality types:

§  Keirsey Temperament Sorter

§  Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

§  Socionics

Other theories:

§  16 Personality Factors

§  Big Five personality traits

§  DISC assessment

§  Enneagram of Personality

§  Eysenck's three factor model

§  Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

§  Five Temperaments

§  Four Temperaments

§  Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation

§  HEXACO model of personality structure

§  Humorism

§  Personal Style Indicator

§  Type A and Type B personality theory

§  Humanistic Theory

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

 

A. Principal:

Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1930). The field of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 27, 677-730.

 

Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., & Bem, D. J. (1990). Introduction to Psychology (10th ed.). Toronto: Harcourt.

 

Bakan, D. (1967). On Method. Washington: Jossey-Bass.

 

Bakhurst, D. (1991). Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307-336.

 

Brown, J. (1979). Motivation. In E. Hearst (Ed.), First century of experimental psychology (pp. 231-272). New York: Wiley.

 

Bynner, J. & Romney, D. (1985). LISREL for beginners. Canadian Psychology, 26, 43-49.

 

Cleeton, G. U. (1924). Validity of character judgment based on external criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 215-231.

 

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Davydov, V. V. (1984). Substantial generalization and the dialectical materialistic theory of thinking. In M. Hedegaard, P. Hakkarainen, and Y. Engestrom (Eds.), Learning and teaching on a scientific basis (pp. 11-32). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

 

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of [p.157] Psychology, 41, 417-440.

 

Endler, N. & Parker, J. D. (1992). Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area. European Journal of Personality, 6, 177-198.

 

Groot, A. de (1990). Unifying psychology: A European view. In P. Drenth, J. Sergeant & R. Takens (Eds.), European perspectives in psychology (pp. 3-16). Toronto: John Wiley.

 

Hertz, M. (1935). The Rorschach ink-blot test: Historical summary. Psychological Bulletin, 32, 33-66.

 

Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays on its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.

 

Ilyenkov, E. V. (1982). The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's Capital. Moscow: Progress.

 

Kagan, J. (1988). The meanings of personality predicates. American Psychologist, 43, 614-620.

 

Kendrick, D., & Funder, D. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.

 

Landis, C., & Katz, S. (1934). The validity of certain questions which purport to measure neurotic tendencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18, 343-356.

 

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Maccoby, E. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. In P. Drenth & J. Sergeant (Eds.), European perspectives in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

 

Magnusson, D. (1990). Personality research in the 90's. In P. Drenth & J. Sergeant (Eds.), European perspectives in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 107-124). New York: Wiley

 

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive, social learning reconception of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

 

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Parker, J. D. (1991). The search for the person: The historical development of American personality psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, Toronto.

 

Pervin, L. (1977). Theoretical approaches to the analysis of individual-environmental interaction. In L. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.). Perspectives in interactional psychology (pp. 67-84). New York: Plenum.

 

Royce, J. R. (1988). The implications of differential theory appraisal and the context of discovery for advancing theory in psychology. In H. Rappard, L. Mos, W. Baker, & H. Stam (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 59-64). New York: Springer-Verlag.

 

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments. Child Development, 54, 424-435.

 

Scheffler, I. (1982). Science and subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill (original work published, 1967).

 

Staats, A. (1987). Unified positivism. In W. J. Baker, M. Hyland, H. Rappard & A. Staats (Eds.), Current issues in theoretical psychology (pp. 297-316). Amsterdam: North Holland.

 

Tolman, C. W. (1983). Further comments on the meaning of dialectic. Human Development, 26, 320-324.

 

Tolman, C. W. (1987). The comparative psychology of A.N. Leontyev. In E. Tobach (Ed.), Historical perspectives and the international status of comparative psychology (pp. 203-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Tolman, C. W. (1988). The basic vocabulary of Activity Theory. Activity Theory, 1/2, 14-20.

 

Tolman, C. W., & Lemery, C. R. (1990). How to reconcile theoretical differences in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 8, 397-402.

 

Tolman, C. W. (1991). Theoretical indeterminacy, pluralism and the conceptual concrete. Theory & Psychology, 1, 147-162.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Wertheimer, M. (1988). Obstacles to the integration of competing theories in psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 131-137.

 

Wertsch, J. V. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. New York: Sharpe.

Paul F. Ballantyne, Ph.D.

 

B.      Sites:        

                                                               

http://www.21stcenturyschools.com/Bibliography.htm#21stCentury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy