Psychology
Trait Theory of Personality
The Trait Theory of Personality suggests that individuals possess certain enduring characteristics, or traits, that influence their behavior, thoughts, and emotions. These traits are relatively stable over time and across different situations, and they can be used to describe and predict an individual's behavior. Trait theory focuses on identifying and measuring these consistent patterns of behavior to understand and explain personality.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
7 Key excerpts on "Trait Theory of Personality"
Learn about this page
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
eBook - ePubPersonality Theories
Critical Perspectives
- Albert Ellis, Mike Abrams, Lidia Dengelegi Abrams(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
Most personality theories pay at least lip service to the importance of empirical research, but trait theories can lay claim to being defined by it. The very usefulness of the concept of a trait is that it can be operationally defined and investigated through use of the scientific method. In this chapter, this operational approach is shown at work in the various definitions of traits. Preliminary Definitions Allport (1961) defined a trait in partly biological terms as a “neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide equivalent forms of adaptive and expressive behavior” (p. 347). Another definition of trait from Pervin, Cervone, and John (2005) is that a trait represents “the consistency of an individual’s responses to a variety of situations” (p. 8). A trait, therefore, is an element of personality that causes individuals to act in a similar fashion across different social settings. For example, a person who has the trait of extroversion is likely to be outgoing and sociable in most situations rather than shy and inhibited. If human beings differ in terms of personality—and most of us would agree that they do—traits are one way to measure those differences. The definitions of traits offered by different psychologists tend to have these elements in common: Traits are stable within a given individual. Traits vary among individuals. Traits can be measured. Traits are responsible for closely related behaviors. Traits and Attitudes There are clear relationships between traits and attitudes, although the distinction between them is often arbitrary. If these concepts are to have any value, however, they must first of all correlate with and predict behavior. Penrod (1986) made the point that although attitude refers to a behavioral disposition, the tacit assumption in attitude research is that there is a direct correlation between our attitudes and our behaviors
eBook - ePub- Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Adrian Furnham(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
taxonomy), it attempts to assess the extent to which individuals differ on these dimensions to predict differences in other observable behaviors, outcomes, or constructs, such as happiness, health, reaction time, or academic and job performance. Thus, personality refers to an individual’s description in general and provides a universal taxonomy or framework to compare individuals and account for everybody’s individuality at the same time.Traits are used to describe and explain behavior—they are internal (associated with characteristics of the individual, rather than the situation or context) and causal (influence behavior). From the first known attempts to identify major individual differences and elaborate a taxonomy of personality (usually acknowledged to the ancient Greek classification of humours and temperaments) to the current state-of-the-art differential and behavioral genetic approaches, personality theorists have attempted to identify, assess, explain, and predict systematic differences and similarities between individuals, looking for the fundamental and general causes of human behavior. Specifically, they have aimed to (a) identify the main dimensions in which people differ or can be compared, (b) test that these dimensions remain relatively stable over time, and (c) explain the etiological basis of these universal and stable differences among individuals (Cooper, 1998). The forthcoming sections provide an introduction and overview to personality research. After this introduction to the topic of personality, we examine the salient taxonomies or systems of personality traits, which have dominated the field for decades. The final model to be examined in this chapter, the Big Five personality traits, is the focus of most of this book, specifically in relation to psychometric intelligence (chap. 4 ) and academic performance (chap. 5 ).2.1 History of Personality TraitsAs is the case in most modern disciplines, the beginnings of personality theory date back to the times of the ancient Greeks. This conceptualization of personality traits, credited to Hippocrates (460–370 BC ), was an attempt to classify the major descriptors underlying individual differences in terms of four different types, which were a function of biological differences in fluids or “humours”—namely, the sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic temperaments. According to the Greek physician Galen (130–200 AD
eBook - ePubPersonality Psychology
A Student-Centered Approach
- James (Jim) A. McMartin(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
These dispositions are revealed in a person’s consistent and distinctive behavior across a variety of different situations. Traits dispose us to behave in similar ways throughout our lives. When we perceive differences in the personalities of our friends and acquaintances, we are seeing differences in their traits: Jack is friendlier than Tom, but Tom is more conscientious than Jack. Do you want to have a good time? Call Jack. Do you want to get your work done on time? Call Tom. Photo 1.1 Gordon Allport (1897–1967) Allport, a vigorous proponent of personality traits, proposed the distinction between nomothetic and idiographic approaches. Allport is the single most important person in the history of the scientific study of personality. Key publications: Personality: A Psychological Interpretation (1937) The Nature of Prejudice (1954) Pattern and Growth in Personality (1961) Traits are sometimes confused with types. In everyday language, we might hear someone say, “He’s the type of person who …” Strictly speaking, a type refers to a distinctive category so that a person either fits into that category or does not. For example, some people have Type A blood, while others have Type B, AB, or Type O. These are discrete, qualitatively different, types of blood. There is no middle ground and there is no range within types. One person with Type A blood does not have more or less Type A blood than others. Adding more Type A blood will not produce Type B blood. A trait, however, unlike a yes-or-no type, refers to a range of possible dispositions. The trait of agreeableness, for example, ranges from extremely agreeable to extremely disagreeable. Everyone’s personality will fall somewhere in this range. Most people’s personality test scores are near the middle of the range on most traits. When personality psychologists designate a trait by a single term—extraversion, agreeableness, honesty—the designation refers to one pole of the trait, while its opposite pole is implied
eBook - ePubCompanion Encyclopedia of Psychology
Volume One
- Andrew M. Colman, Andrew M. Colman(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
The investigation of the biological basis of personality and its genetic determinants is just one approach to the study of the actor. There are many other approaches that do not investigate biological or genetic determinants. Hypothetical personality structures – such as Freud's id, ego, and superego, or Cattell's 16 personality factors (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970) – are postulated to be located within the individual, even though they are not identified with any particular biological substrate. The range of conceptualizations of the structure of personality is partly the result of a diversity of opinion as to what the basic unit of analysis for personality should be.Candidates for the basic unit of actor-focused personality theories include types, motives, cognitive strategies, personal projects, life tasks, and life paths. The most tried and tested, however, is the trait. Traits have been used in personality theories in two ways: as descriptions of the actor's behaviour, in which they summarize a person's pattern of behaviour, and as explanations of the actor's behaviour, in which they are viewed as causal or generative mechanisms (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1993). An example of the first use of traits is Buss and Craik's (1983) act frequency approach. In this approach, traits are defined as the sets of partially overlapping behaviours or acts that they describe. Personality is assessed by having individuals rate the frequency with which they engage in these acts, or by having other people rate them on the same list of acts. Past behaviour patterns measured in this way are used to predict future behaviours.However, many personality theories based on traits have adopted the view that traits cause and explain behaviour (Alston, 1975). These theories assume that traits cause predictable behaviours that are relatively stable across situations and across the lifespan. Trait theories may be classified into two varieties: in single-trait theories, only one aspect of personality is under investigation, whereas multi-trait theories aim to be comprehensive. For a single-trait theory to be useful it must identify a trait that determines a large number of important behaviours, and a reliable and valid measure of the trait must be developed. The most successful single-trait theories are also embedded in a broader psychological theory.
eBook - ePubPersonality Psychology
The Basics
- Stanley Gaines Jr.(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
dispositional ) approach to personality and social behaviour (Ickes, Snyder, & Garcia, 1997; Snyder & Cantor, 1998).BASIC ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING TRAIT PERSPECTIVES
According to trait perspectives on personality, one can regard traits (essentially, individuals’ answer to the question, “How would you describe yourself”; Gaines, 2016/2018) as stable, consciously experienced aspects of personality that tend to be reflected in cross-situational consistency in individuals’ behaviour across time (although the concepts of stability, consistency, and length of time as applied to trait-behaviour covariance are not absolute; Snyder & Ickes, 1985). Compared to motives (which, as we learned in Chapters 2 and 4 , are emphasised in psychodynamic and humanistic/existential perspectives), traits presumably are more accessible to consciousness and are more likely to be manifested consistently across a variety of situations (McClelland, 1985/1987). Nevertheless, both motives and traits appear to be relatively stable, at least throughout individuals’ adult years (McAdams, 1997).G. W. Allport defined traits as “neuropsychic structure[s] having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide equivalent (meaningfully consistent) forms of aptitude and expressive behaviour” (1961/1963, p. 347). Does the term “neuropsychic structure” imply that G. W. Allport viewed traits as biologically given (i.e., inherited) within individuals? Not necessarily: In G. W. Allport’s view, the building blocks of traits are habits (i.e., repeated sequences of behaviour that eventually may characterise individuals over time; e.g., G. W. Allport, 1927), rather than genes. Unlike genes, habits tend to be learned (see F. H. Allport & G. W. Allport, 1921). However, the relative influence of “nature versus nurture” on the development of individuals’ traits en utero
eBook - ePubPersonality: A Topical Approach
Theories, Research, Major Controversies, and Emerging Findings
- Robert B. Ewen(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
1. Various theorists have tried to reduce Allport’s extensive list to a much smaller number of fundamental traits. Some researchers have arbitrarily that they regard as important. Others have relied on such complicated mathematical procedures as factor analysis.2. The trait of introversion—extraversion is prominent in Carl Jung’s theory and remains of considerable importance. Introverts are more interested in their own inner world and often prefer to be alone, while extraverts are keenly interested in other people and external events. As with any trait, being introverted or extraverted is a matter of degree, and a person’s score may fall anywhere along the scale from low through average to high. Each of us has an innate tendency to be more introverted or extraverted. Extraverts are likely to prefer different academic courses and professions, to be more satisfied with life in general, and to be more impulsive than introverts. Jung’s typology also includes four ways in which we apprehend stimuli: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition.3. The trait of shyness is characterized by anxiety and discomfort in social situations. Whereas the introvert prefers to be alone and sees nothing wrong with this, those who are shy often want to be more sociable and are likely to regard their shyness as a significant problem. In contrast to psychoanalytically oriented theorists, trait theorists attribute shyness to such surface aspects of personality as the fear of other people’s opinions and a lack of confidence in the ability to make a good impression.4. The trait of locus of control refers to the belief that rewards and punishments depend on one’s own actions (internal locus of control), as opposed to mere chance and the actions of other people (external locus of control). Whether a person is more internal or external may vary in different situations (e.g., academic, social, occupational, personal health). Those who are more internal tend to be higher in physical health, psychological health, and academic performance.
eBook - ePubPersonality Theories
Development, Growth, and Diversity
- Bem P. Allen(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
Central to the difference between Eysenck and Cattell, and critical to Eysenck’s uniqueness relative to other personality theorists, is the question, “at what level does one find the traits that are necessary and sufficient in number and nature to account for personality?” Contrary to Cattell and his 16 factors, Eysenck believed personality can be parsimoniously understood, with no loss of thoroughness or depth, by reference to only three second-order factors. But neither has given an inch, as is evident in Cattell’s (1986) response to Eysenck (also see Eysenck, 1997).Basic Concepts and Contributions: Eysenck
Traits and Types in Eysenck’s Theory
As with Cattell, the essence of Eysenck’s theory is that personality can be described in terms of traits represented as statistical primary factors and defined as “theoretical constructs based on observed intercorrelations between a number of different habitual responses” (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, p. 41). Examples of traits relevant to Eysenck’s theory include physical activity, impulsiveness, risk-taking, responsibility, worrisomeness, carefreeness, and sociability, all originating with the ancient Greeks. Traits, in turn, are often grouped in categories called types, second-order dimensions made up of statistically intercorrelated primary traits. Eysenck prefers “second-order” to “superfactors” (1984). He has identified three such factors, reporting that they “or others remarkably similar to them” have been found repeatedly in different studies (1981, p. 6). Eysenck’s three second-order factors or types are: E, Extraversion–introversion; N, Neuroticism–stability; P, Psychoticism–super-ego functioning. These types are essentially the same as Cattell’s second-order factors exvia–invia and anxiety and his primary factor “super-ego strength” respectively (Eysenck, 1984). Eysenck did not believe that each person is either E or not E, 100 percent N or not at all, totally P or totally not P. Thus, most of us are ambiverts, people who show medium degrees of extraversion and introversion.Biological Determinism
Among psychologists, it would be difficult to find a more radical advocate of biological and genetic determinism than Eysenck. He always maintained that there is a “substantial” hereditary basis to personality (Eysenck, 1990). Over the years he has also contended that intelligence is genetically determined (Eysenck, 1971, 1974). He complained that psychology’s avowed purpose is to study the behavior of organisms, but psychologists have failed to appreciate the degree to which organisms respond differently to the same environmental stimuli, independent of learning. “Personality is determined to a large extent by … genes; … while environment[’s] influence is severely limited. [For] personality [and] intelligence … genetic influence is overwhelmingly strong, and the role of environment … is … slight (Eysenck, 1976, p. 20).
