The predictability of behaviour can be affected by individual and situational factors.First of all, people who describe their behaviour as dependent on the situation, luck or behaviour of powerful others shape are difficult to predict because they are controlled from without, not within.
Secondly people who are conscious or defensive of socially desirable things to do or be. will not behave according to their natural preferences, but to what they believe will get more approval. This again, makes them more difficult to predict.
Thirdly, traits are better predictors of behaviour when the social content is familiar, informal and private; when instructions are general or don’t really exist and when there is a range of choice for behaviours and responses are broad based.
Bearing in mind the mentioned points affecting behaviour predictability, ways in which the predictive validity in trait ratings can be increased is now considered. First of all, multiple behavioural observations should be made. A combination of various personality assessement forms such as interviews, rating scales, personality inventors and projective techniques to predict behaviour is likely to yield better results. Secondly, raters should be very familiar with the person that is being rated. Thirdly, it is wise to have several people observe the behaviour to avoid subjective ratings. Finally it is important, that assessement forms with the most valid available measure of the attributes in question are selected.
In the following section, the benefits of trait theories of personality are discussed.
First of all, according to Allport, trait theories of personality provide means of understanding the uniqueness of people’s styles and behaviour. As traits initiate and direct the individual’s behaviour in unique ways, knowledge of their operation increases the understanding of individuals immensely.
Introversion and extroversion traits are found in most trait theories. In Eysenck’s trait theory of personality especially, these traits are found to play a major role in prediciting behaviour in various situations.
First of all, extroverts have a much higher pain tolerance.
Secondly they are more disposed to reactive inhibition (caused by the constant repetition of an action) than introverts. They are therefore more likely to get bored of an activity faster and turn to a different one. This results in them changing jobs, careers (EMPLOYEMENT) and boyfriends/girlfriends (RELATIONSHIPS) more often.
Thirdly, introverts are expected to perform more poorly in the presence of music or any kind of external stimuli. They will take less study breaks and be more vigilant in tasks. Because they consider less information in stressful conditions then extroverts do they will come to a decision more quickly and are likely to make ill-informed judgements. more likely to base their judgements of others on stereotypic information when pressured. This could result in unfair decisions about job candidates.
Introveraion va extrovertion also has implications on suggested diats and health issues. It has for example been found, that the performance of both introverts and extroverts increases with the consumption of moderatle levels of drinks containing caffeine. However, the performance of introversts declines considerablewith higher levels of caffeinated corree, whears the performance of extraverts continues to improve.
Neuroticism versus stability traits, such as those represented in Eysenck’s trait theory also influence behaviour in significant ways.. Neurotics experience high levels of fear and anxiety in stressful situations such as getting involved in very intimate relationships. And are therefore predicted to try and decrease levels of intimacy (Campbell & Rushton, 1978). ntroverts ;earn rules more quickly and efficiently. Because it is more difficult to condidtion extraverts, they experience less inhibition with respect antisocial behaviour. This has as a result, that criminals tend to be extroverts.
A further criticism is that the testing is based entirely on self-reports and is therefore likely to be heavily influenced by the respondent's mood at the time.
f) Trait theorists would argue, that a person’s behaviour is consistent and predictable in different situations. However, situationists claim that behaviour varies significantly from situation to situation and interactionists argue that behaviour is defined by the continuous interaction between the person and the situation. (p at work)
Humanists and Existentialists tend to focus on the understanding part. They believe that much of what we are is way too complex and embedded in history and culture to "predict and control." Besides, they suggest, predicting and controlling people is, to a considerable extent, unethical. Behaviorists and Freudians, on the other hand, prefer to discuss prediction and control. If an idea is useful, if it works, go with it! Understanding, to them, is secondary.
A large number of psychologists regard the discovery and validation of the Big Five as one of the major breakthroughs of contemporary personality psychology.
This essay examines the successes and failures of trait theories on … levels.
- It examines whether the measuring instruments to define traits used in these theories are valid and reliable.
- Then it will examine the differences and similarities between several trait theories and the relevance on credibility these have.
- Predictive value of trait theories on real life behaviour.
- Individual and behavioural differences in quality of predictions of trait theories.
Both Eysenck and Cattell made use of questionnaires or rating scales in which the participants were asked to answer carefully phrased questions concerning themselves. The data assembled was then evaluated by intricate statistical techniques to provide scores indicating the strength of the factor in each individual.
The impact results of research in this area have had on the development of psychology (nor in laboratory or in clinic). The reasons for this are amongst others the relatively low reliability (i.e. reproducibility) of the data; another the controversial nature of statistical techniques; It is also very difficult to make predictions about behaviour in the complex social setting of real life from responses made in the miniature situation of a test. (Dictionary of the mind)
Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, S.B.G. (1969). Personality Structure and Measurement. London
3
Advantages:
The first degree of analysis should constitute of an evaluation of the achievements and strengths of trait theories.
First of all, trait theories are empirical, testable and they have been tested. Secondly, trait theories have provided a technology for scientific research (which many other versions of personality theories have not), linking studies of individual differences to general psychology.
Many things can be criticised about trait theories as well however. As Mischel (1968) put it, general traits are an illusion. Questions about how important the situation is in determining behaviour have to be asked. Studies such as Zimbardo’s prison experiment point towards the fact, that situations play a significant role in determining behaviour.
It can furthermore be noticed, that trait theorists need to pay more attention to personality in social context. Furthermore, trait theories tend to generalise very much and do not yield an in-depth description of the person tested.
In Personality: a psychological interpretation (1937) Allport reviewed almost 50 different definitions of personality. The statements by these psychologists clearly show, that simply due to the fact, that there will be many different theories of personality. Amongst these, this essay examines trait theories of personality, which again are numerous with many different approache.
Conclusion:
They do not attempt to explain how a person got the personality that he/she has.
Allport described personality as open and constantly evolving, changing and becoming. He found situational influences to have an effect, but behaviour is ultimately determined by the individual’s own perception of these influences. This means, that behaviour that seems to be controlled by external forces is really controlled by internal forces. He was convinced, that the individual is unique in behaviour and thought and that the traits people seem to share with others are actually also unique or idiosyncratic. Allport strongly pushed what he called idiographic methods -- methods that focused on studying one person at a time, such as interviews, observation, analysis of letters or diaries, and so on.
a) Cattell -- factor analysis; 16 traits (e.g., emotional stability, agreeableness)
First, every theorist puts Extraversion-Introversion and Neuroticism/ Emotional Stability/ Anxiety into their lists.
Eysenck adds Psychoticism, which some of his followers are re-evaluating as an aggressive, impulsive, sensation-seeking factor. That may be the opposite of Big Five’s Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
c) Studies using identical and fraternal twins, raised together or apart, who were given the same tests to assess extraversion and neuroticism showed, that heredity plays an important part in the development of specific traits (Eysenck, 1967).
At first glance, an interview may not seem like a very sophisticated method for determining personality. However, a skilled interviewer may be able to determine and infer much from a short interview. Interviews come in two basic types. The structured interview treats all interviewees as similarly as possible in order to assess differences among them. Employment interviews or college admission interviews may be seen as structured interviews. Unstructured interviews are less rigid by definition. An interviewer conducting such interviews may allow each interview to follow its own unique path. Interviewees may be encouraged to pursue topics they have brought up. In the hands of practiced interviewers, unstructured interviews allow deeper penetration into the personality than do structured interviews. All serious decisions concerning therapy, admission to mental health in-patient therapy, or other such situations nearly always include one or more interviews.
Rating scales have been developed to provide a tool for quickly determining both your own personality and the personality of others. Rating scales of self are particularly subject to problems relating to self-knowledge. In other words, the better you know yourself, the better the rating will be. The same logic applies to ratings of others. An interesting problem with ratings, in general, is the halo effect. The halo effect states that extreme scores on one rating will affect nearby subsequent scores in the same direction. So, an extreme negative rating on an item will bias the next several items in a negative direction. The effect also holds for extreme positive ratings. In essay tests, you can exploit the halo effect by submitting your best answer first. Do not try it with me because I read essay tests by the question, not by the student, so that I may control for the halo effect.
Personality inventories have been discussed earlier. They include the 16 PF, the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), the CPI (California Personality Inventory), and many others. All of these techniques ask subjects a great many questions in a pencil-and-paper format, and then the answers yield scores on a number of scales. Those scale scores are usually reported in a standard way with lines connecting them, thus, the "personality profile." The MMPI also includes scales designed to check for random responding and faking "tough" or "nice." One should not rely on scores on inventories as the only method of assessment. But when used correctly, they provide a valuable shortcut to a quick view into an individual's personality.
Projective techniques originally stemmed from psychoanalytic theory. They were designed to tap into a person's unconscious without that person being aware of such probing. The most famous such technique is the Rorschach Inkblot test (see Handout 17 4). Subjects are asked to describe all of the possible things they perceive a particular inkblot to be. Responses are analyzed according to a prescribed method. Another projective test is the TAT or Thematic Apperception Test. In the TAT, subjects are shown a series of pictures of ambiguous situations. They are then asked to tell a story about the people in the picture: Who are they, how did they get there, what are they doing, what is going to happen? Suppose, for example, a picture of two women walking down a country road at sunset toward a small house in the background, is shown. If a subject says that they live in the house, are mother and daughter, they just had dinner, and are enjoying a quiet evening's walk, that is one thing. But, if the story is that the two women's car broke down nearby, they are walking toward the house for help, but will not get it because they will be harmed, then those two stories might prove useful in further questioning of each subject. Finally, the Draw-a-person type of test asks subjects to draw themselves, their family members, or even their houses. Their drawings are then interpreted. One 6-year-old girl I tested drew her parents and siblings as huge, and herself as very small. I interpreted that as a reflection of her perception of her role in the family. Projective tests can be very useful in individual cases, but are usually not used in making comparisons between subjects.
(because their strong nervous system inhibits the painful situation better and therefore the subjective experience of pais is less than for introverts).
introverst have been observed to experience greater levels of arousal than extraverts and are therefore more saensitive to stimulation (Eysenck, …, Stelmack, 1990). This affects behaviours in several ways.
Theories established empirically by means of factor analysis. Differences in I-E due to different functioning of reticular activation system. Produces (thought by neurophysiologists) nonspecific arousal in cerebral cortex in response to external stimulation. Introverts more aroused than extroverst in standard conditions of stimulation.