There are a range of opinions as regards how traits can be defined and measured, and very little agreement as to what the basic trait units are, although most current theories have certain aspects in common. However, it is generally accepted by trait psychologists that trait units describe regularities that will result in some consistency in peoples’ behaviour, and that they can form the basis of a description of one’s personality.
Cattell and Kline (1977) devised a 16 factor model derived from a statistical technique known as factor analysis to explain trait theory and used these to create personality profiles. This was then used to create different hypotheses in an inductive-hypothetico-deductive spiral which is simply a repeated process where data is collected from hypotheses, then that data is used in a way to create more hypotheses. This was a nomothetic approach to personality traits. A nomothetic approach attempts to establish common forms of implementation that would apply to the vast population.
Costa and McCrae’s (1990) trait theory has been adapted from Cattells’ theory and demonstrates the existence of five factors and the analysis is summed up from the findings of these. The five factors are Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C), Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A) and Neuroticism (N) traits are used to test the personality. Here, adult subjects were tested twice, with an interval of 30 years. On each of the five traits in McCrae & Costa’s system there was compelling evidence that their five traits are descriptions of genuine aspects of personality, which are stable over time. Costa and McCrae used psychometric testing techniques to distinguish personality traits and which encompassed all the other theories.
However limitations to both approaches using the factor analysis aspect is that it reduces the individual to a set of numbers, and scores on various personality dimensions that can hardly be expected to capture the unique character of an individual. The other aspect of trait theories that are often attacked is their poor predictive validity and reliability. It is argued that because peoples’ behaviour is not constant, it can not be ruled by fixed traits.
Some of these is that there are various different types of consistency, namely; test-retest consistency (does a person respond in the same way to the same situation twice?), cross-situational consistency (in a variety of situations, does an individual exhibit the same behaviour?), consistency of behavioural styles in one situation (do the range of behaviours displayed by a person in a given situation have anything in common with each other?), and cross-situational consistency of behavioural styles (do the whole range of behaviours exhibited by an individual have a common factor?)
Somer and Goldberg (1999) used similar factors to Costa and McCrae’s model yet used an emic approach. This involved identifying cross cultural languages of personality and then using this as a crossing to create a universal theory. What made Goldberg’s’ theory different to the others was that he accepted that biological interaction is part of what designs a personality.
To be fair, it is apparent that all of these models help to understand personality but the underlying analysis of our behaviour and biological attributes should somewhat be characteristic in the formation of our personality. Studies in these fields are somewhat temperament and we may be able to predict the outcome, however unless nature, nurture and cultural approaches are not synchronised, the study of personality will be limited and contain ongoing setbacks.
In conclusion, it seems that the critics of the trait approach to personality are somewhat misguided in their criticisms of its validity and value. In spite of this, it must be remembered that the trait approach is limited in its applications, and there is much published research which makes it meaningless by its self-indulgence of ambition.
Trait psychology in the study of personality is an approach that has potential to provide the precision of depiction necessary for personality to be studied scientifically, but it has a yet to realize this potential. The methodical study of personality, as opposed to people psychology, is an extremely young field, and far more research needs to be done.
Word count- 973 words
References
Miell, D., Phoenix, A and Thomas, K (2002) Mapping Psychology 1, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T (1994) ‘The stability of personality: observations and evaluations’, Guilford, NY in Miell, D., Phoenix, A and Thomas, K (2002) Mapping Psychology 1, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Somer, O., and Goldberg, L. R. (1999) ‘The structure of Turkish trait descriptive adjectives’, Journal of personality and social Psychology in Miell, D., Phoenix, A and Thomas, K (2002) Mapping Psychology 1, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Cattell, R. B and Kline, P. (1977) The Scientific Analysis of personality and Motivation, New York, Academic Press in Miell, D., Phoenix, A and Thomas, K (2002) Mapping Psychology 1, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
