The sanguine type is cheerful and optimistic, pleasant to be with, comfortable with his or her work. According to the Greeks, the sanguine type has a particularly abundant supply of blood (hence the name sanguine, from sanguis, Latin for blood) and so also is characterized by a healthful look, including rosy cheeks. The choleric type is characterized by a quick, hot temper, often an aggressive nature. The name refers to yellow bile (a chemical that is excreted by the gall bladder to aid in digestion), a choleric person was thought to have too much of it. Physical features of the choleric person include a yellowish complexion and tense muscles. Next, we have the phlegmatic type. These people are characterized by their slowness, laziness, and dullness. The name obviously comes from the word phlegm, which is the mucus we bring up from our lungs when we have a cold or lung infection. Physically, these people are thought to be kind of cold, and shaking hands with one is like shaking hands with a fish.
Finally, there’s the melancholy type. These people tend to be sad, even depressed, and take a pessimistic view of the world. The name has, of course, been adopted as a synonym for sadness, but comes from the Greek words for black bile. Melancholy person was thought to have too much of black bile.
This theory, based on so little, has actually had an influence on several modern theorists. For example Ivan Pavlov, of classical conditioning fame, used the humours to describe his dogs’ personalities. One of the things Pavlov tried with his dogs was conflicting conditioning - ringing a bell that signaled food at the same time as another bell that signaled the end of the meal. Some dogs took it well, and maintain their cheerfulness. Some got angry and barked like crazy. Some just laid down and fell asleep. And some whimpered and whined and seemed to have a nervous breakdown. Pavlov believed that he could account for these personality types with two dimensions: On the one hand there is the overall level of arousal (called excitation) that the dog’s brains had available. On the other, there was the ability the dogs’ brains had of changing their level of arousal - i.e. the level of inhibition that their brains had available. Lots of arousal, but good inhibition: sanguine. Lots of arousal, but poor inhibition: choleric. Not much arousal, plus good inhibition: phlegmatic. Not much arousal, plus poor inhibition: melancholy. This became the inspiration for Hans Eysenck’s theory.
Several theorist in the past have also made attempts at discovering basic personality types. In the 1950’s, William Sheldon (Sheldon & Steven 1942) became interested in the variety of human bodies. He built upon earlier work done by Ernst Kretshmer(1925) in the 1930's. Kretshmer believed that there was a relationship between three different physical types and certain psychological disorders. Specifically, he believed that the short, round pyknic type was more prone to cyclothymic or bipolar disorders, and that the tall thin asthenic type (a too a lesser degree the muscular athletic type) was more prone to schizophrenia. His research, although involving thousands of institutionalized patients, was suspect because he failed to control for age and the schizophrenics were considerably younger than the bipolar patients, and so more likely to be thinner. Sheldon developed a precise measurement system that summarized body shapes with three numbers. These numbers referred to how closely you matched three “types:”1. Ectomorphs: Slender, often tall, people, with long arms and legs and fine features. 2. Mesomorphs: Stockier people, with broad shoulders and good musculature, 3. Endomorphs: Chubby people, tending to “pear-shaped.
Noting that these three types have some pretty strong stereotypical personalities
associated with them, he decided to test the idea. He came up with another three numbers, this time referring how closely you match three personality types: 1.Cerebrotonics: Nervous types, relatively shy, often intellectual, 2: Somatotonics: Active types, physically fit and energetic, 3. Viscerotonics: Sociable types, lovers of food and physical comforts. He theorized that the connection between the three physical types and the three personality types was embryonic development. In the early stages of our prenatal development, we are composed of three layers or “skins:” the ectoderm or outer layer, which develops into skin and nervous system; the mesoderm or middle layer, which develops into muscle; and the endoderm or inner layer, which develops into the viscera. Some embryos show stronger development in one layer or another. He suggested that those who show strong ectoderm development would become ectomorphs, with more skin surface and stronger neural development (including the brain , hence cerebrotonic). Those with strong mesoderm development would become mesomorphs, with lots of muscle (or body, hence somatotonic). And those with strong endoderm development would become endomorphs, with well developed viscera and a strong attraction to food (hence viscerotonic). And his measurements backed him up.
However, most personality theorists have argued that personality consist of a number of traits. The two best-known and most influential trait theorists are those of Raymond Cattell and H.J.Eysenck. Eysenck’s (1967) theory is based primarily on physiology and genetics. Although he is a behaviourist who considers learned habits of great importance, he considers personality differences as growing out of our genetic inheritance. He was also primarily a research psychologist. His methods involved a statistical technique called factor analysis. This techniques extracts a number of dimensions from large masses of data. Eysenck's original research found two main dimensions of personality: Emotional stability-neuroticism and extraversion-introversion. Neuroticism is the name Eysenck gave to a dimension that ranges from normal, fairly calm and collected people to one’s that tend to be quite nervous. His research showed that these nervous people tended to suffer more frequently from a variety of nervous disorders we call neuroses, hence the name of the dimension. But understand that he was not saying that people who score high on the neuroticism scale are necessarily neurotics , only that they are more susceptible to neurotic problems. So far as neuroticism is concerned, Eysenck (1967) proposed that the autonomic nervous system is involved. He hypothesized that some people have a more responsive autonomic nervous system than others. Those high in neuroticism have a relatively active autonomic nervous system and have a strong and fast reaction to stress. On the other hand those with low neuroticism have a weak and slow reaction to stress.
His second dimension is extraversion-introversion. According to this theory introverts have a chronically higher level of cortical arousal (i.e. activity in the brain) than extraverts because of greater activity in a part of the brain known as the ascending recticular activating system. It may be that introverts often show better conditioning than extraverts because their high level of cortical arousal means systems form the necessarily more readily. Raymond Cattell (1970) is another prolific theorist-researcher like Eysenck who has made extensive use of the factor-analysis method, although a slightly different version. In his early research, he isolated 16 personality factors, which he composed into a test called, of course, the 16PF. Later research added seven more factors to the list. Even later research added twelve “pathological” factors found using items from the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). A “second order” factor analysis on the total of 35 factors revealed eight “deeper” factors, as follows, in order of strength: Exvia (Extraversion), Anxiety (Neuroticism), Corteria (cortical alertness, practical and realistic) , Independence (strong loner types), Discreetness (socially shrewd types), Subjectivity (distant and out-of-it) ,Intelligence (IQ) and Good Upbringing (stable, docile, the salt of the earth).
However factor analysis has its own limitations. First, factor analysis cannot possibly do more than reveal the factors contained within the items that are analysed. Secondly the results of a factor analysis do not provide a basis of a theory of personality. Thirdly and finally factor analysis involves making a number of essentially arbitrary decisions.
Although we may feel a bit overwhelmed with all the various theories, personality theorists in fact are more encouraged than discouraged: It is fascinating to us that all these different theorists, often coming from very different directions, still manage to come up with very parallel sets of personality dimensions.
References
Child I.L. (1968). Personality in culture. In E.F. Borgatta & W.W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Eysenck H.J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield. I11.: C.C. Thomas.
Kretshmer, E. (1925). Physique and Character (Trans. W.J.H. Spratt). New York : Harcourt.
Sheldon, W.H. & S.S. Stevens (1942). The varieties of temperament: A psychology of constitutional differences. New York: Harper.
Cattell, R.B. , Eber, H.W., & Tatsouka , M.M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionaire (16PF). Champaign, I11.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
