In Cattell’s approach, he has reduced the list of personality traits into a small manageable number by using factor analysis. One of the main advantages of this method is that it allows links to be made between surface traits and source traits as surface traits can be underpinned by at least three independent source traits meaning that links between the two can be made when trying to determine personality. Other one is that it’s established as the main test used with mangers due to its higher level of accuracy when compared with other tests.
However, drawbacks of the trait approach are also obvious. A trait has been traditionally explained as some relatively enduring characteristic of behaviour which manifests itself in a variety of ways, still keeping some common similarity among the behaviours. If a person has the trait of generosity, the ways in which his generosity expresses itself may differ from one situation to another. Therefore, traits are often signified by limitary dimensions along which people vary in the amount of the trait established and these can be measured by questionnaires, ratings, and so on. Additionally, the fewer traits we define, the more generalized we shall have to be, so the typical test, such as 16-personality factor test, will have certain limitations in meeting the predictive aim of psychology as a science. In other words, whenever a prediction is made, it will always a wide range of probability.
In the other main approach to the study of personality, typology, there are five approaches, including Hippocrates’ four humours, Sheldon’s typology, Eysenck’s typology, ‘big five factor’ theory and Jung’s typology.
Hippocrates’ theory of the four humours is that very easy and simple to understand. His theory consists four fluids: yellow bile, black bile, high blood pressure and phlegm. However, this approach has a main disadvantage. Because this theory was created in ancient Greece, it is a very dated theory and modern science tells us that the belief in four humours in the body is largely inaccurate. After it, many more modern and scientifically up to date theories have now been established.
Compared with Hippocrates’ theory, probably, Sheldon’s typology, which is based on temperamental characteristics as well as body type, is the best known modern physical typology. This theory grossly oversimplifies personality and there are three body types: endomorph, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy. Sheldon’s theory reflects high correlations between the body types and the features of temperament, but he did not take the proper precautions to allow for rater’ biases. Moreover, Sheldon assumed a connection between physique and temperament. However, he only offered relevance into physical structure in relation to its affect on personality and it has not been disproved that physique holds no bearing over people’s personality.
In this approach, Eysenck, a prominent type theorist, stresses the second-order types as opposed to traits, in the personality of individual. He has identified the three primary dimensions of personality: introversion-extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Moreover, Eysenck developed a personality inventory, basically a questionnaire with questions that highlight an individual’s likely personality type. However, one of the most obvious difficulties with such an approach is that it uses most often as its basic data personality tests with paper and pen. Since the answers are usually so simple, such as “Yes”, “No”, the questions are difficult to answer in a definite manner, but if the answer spaces are all blanks, there is no test. Thus, besides somewhat unreliable information, the analysis can only reach a small segment of the behaviour. Furthermore, its predictability is limited.
According to Eysenck’s theory, Kline identified extra two dimensions, described as sensation seeking and obsessionality. That is the “Big Five” factor theory which contains five basic dimensions of personality: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness. All these dimensions have desirable and undesirable traits. This theory is often used for cultures and it is modern, literate and industrialised. Also, it is used in business for researching. In addition, according to Hampson is that it can assimilate other structures, it has also been shown to be a good predictor of behaviour in the workplace.
Nevertheless, the theory had been criticised by Schneider and Hough on the grounds that it is too simple and concluded that the time had not yet arrived to review the model as an adequate taxonomy. Hough thought that it needs to be expanded nine factors and remains a description of normal personality and is not useful in clinical applications as it is in areas such as occupational psychology.
As for Jung’s typology, it identifies two broad categories: extrovert and introvert. Because a simple introversion-extroversion dichotomy is unlikely to be descriptive enough, due to the vast variability among people Jung introduced four functions: Sensing, Thinking, Feeling and Intuition. This approach concentrates on the information processing characteristics of the individual.
This theory is very useful for the study of investment decisions and implementation of management science techniques. The managers with the sensation-thinking characteristics and their willingness to accept management science techniques were identified. However, in a comparatively recent study of personality types in relation to the success of small retailers, there was no convincing support for any purposeful link between Jung typology and the performance of small businessmen, however the thinking extrovert did best as a small retailer.
Generally speaking, compared with the both of trait and type approaches, it is difficult to predicate which approach is better to the study of personality. As mentioned before, type approach is less complicated but much fair, however as it tends to oversimplify and not identify fully that individuals vary. The trait approach is more detailed overall as the theories concerned identify individuals characteristics, but it categorises people more complicated and lengthy if done accurately. Therefore, we should select the different approach to use according to the different situations.
