The Dispositional Approach / Gordon Allport's Theory THEORIES OF PERSONALITY THE DISPOSITIONAL STRATEGY Introduction We all use dispositional notions to describe and try to explain another's behavior. We do this all the time when we gossip or try to ensure that someone to whom we are speaking knows something about the someone else about whom we are talking. Generally, we don't consider what we are doing as employing an approach to personality, much less consider that what we are doing has been inspected for specific formulations and features by psychologists who do take the "Dispositional" approach. Features and Patterns Usually Found in Dispositional Descriptions A. Relatively few (3 to 10) descriptive adjectives are used This is primarily because so many adjectives are related and therefore redundant. B. Some dispositions appear to be genetically determined This accounts for some of the similarity between family members Like Father, like Son. What we really may have here, though, is an interaction between physical appearance, which is inheritable, and consistent, persistent ways in which others relate to us based on our physical appearance. How many times does it take for a parent to say, "You're just like your...father, mother, uncle, grandfather, etc." before we begin to act like them? C. The relationship we have to the people being described influences how they are described. Studies show that we are more comfortable describing acquaintances than family members, but the final descriptions seem to be more accurate as a function of how well we know who we are describing. D. Generality of dispositions -- dispositional psychologists usually assume that a person who acts in a particular way in one situation will probably act in that same way in others. E. Pervasiveness of dispositions -- dispositional psychologists define this as the degree to which one disposition affects the totality of the personality...consider, the person with the "one-track mind" History The Dispositional Approach probably owns the longest history of any of the approaches to personality, harkening back to the days of humankind's earliest thinkers. A. When early physicists were determining the contents of matter, it was decided that everything was made up of one of, or combinations of, the four "temperaments" -- air, earth, fire and water. B. Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, adapted this knowledge to apply it to rudimentarily personality and postulated that people were made up of four "humors" -- blood, black bile, yellow bile and phlegm C. Galen, a protÈgÈ of Hippocrates, advanced the discipline by suggesting that personality differences, personality types, resulted from an imbalance in one of the humors...such that: An excess of... ...led to the personality ...showing the characteristic type called... mood of... blood sanguine hopefulness black bile melancholic sadness yellow bile choleric hot-temperedness phlegm phlegmatic apathy While this view is no longer taken very seriously, it certainly did have a significant impact in the thinking of Galen's day and continues to be seen in our personality adjectives even today. Indeed, your text (C&S/3rd) notes how these four types can be associated with contemporary types discussed today. Maybe Galen's view is making a come- back. D. The most striking effect on the historical thinking about personality, though, was probably the view that physical appearance reflected one's behavior and personality. We have already considered the Biological and Genetic Perspectives on personality which could very properly be seen as Dispositional views. Assumptions of the Dispositional Strategy A. A person's behavior is controlled to a significant degree by relatively stable, enduring dispositions. B. Dispositional theory assumes an additive model of personality assessment, a model which is directly opposed to the psychoanalytic view. The dispositional view distinctly holds that the strength of various dispositions is assumed to be the sum of various individual response tendencies. C. Dispositional theory also holds the related concepts of (1) Consistency and (2) Generality...such that -- (1) Traits or dispositions will be stable day in and day out; and, (2) Traits or dispositions will cross situations, and apply to a number of different circumstances. Three Ways to Identify Dimensions of Personality The dispositional theorists hold that personality dimensions can be... A. Distilled from common lore -- although only Gordon Allport strongly advocated this notion B. Anticipated from theory C. Derived from empirical research -- this is the most widely accepted view perhaps because it has been the arena from which notions in re: the usefulness of personality dimensions has been delineated. 1. To wit...let's consider... Indicators of the usefulness of dimensions found by empirical means -- a. Consistency we've seen these before, but these alone are not enough b. Generality to be really useful, dimensions must also show c. Discriminative, i.e., predictive, power Dispositional Personality Assessment Like other theoretical constructs, dispositions must be inferred from behavior. Dispositional assessment, then, has employed almost all the major assessment methods, but perhaps one more than any other -- the self-report test or inventory. It is assumed, however, that a number of indices exist to measure dispositions, while holding that if any such measurements are to be worthwhile, they must demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity. A. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Campbell and Fiske cogently argued that the standards for any dispositional measurements should be convergent and discriminant validity. 1. Convergent validity -- tests that purport to measure the same disposition should converge, or correlate highly with one another. 2. Discriminant validity -- tests that purport to measure different dispositions should diverge, or not correlate highly with each other. Dispositional Research The Dispositional Strategy is almost locked into using the correlational approach. Researchers using this method are looking for behaviors that go together, that seem to be related to one another in stable, consistent, reliable ways. A. The durability of dispositions and the possibility of personality change Dispositional psychologists are not generally concerned with therapy or personality change. Such a position would run counter to their theoretical hypothesis that relatively enduring, stable personality characteristics exist. Many dispositional psychologists have come from academic, rather than clinical, settings and this, in great part, has influenced the focus of their position toward measurement and prediction of behavior, rather than on control of behavior. Attributive vs. Propulsive Approaches Essentially, dispositional approaches to personality fall into one of two categories -- A. Attributive approaches -- these are the trait and type approaches; they are descriptive in nature, explaining behavior by delineating the attributes of the individual. B. Propulsive approaches -- these are the need and motive approaches; they are more dynamic in nature, explaining behavior by pointing to particular forces within the individual which direct that person's behavior. We will look at the Attributive Approaches first. GORDON ALLPORT'S TRAIT APPROACH G. A.'s trait theory was neither a biological nor a genetic approach; it was his fervent belief that personality actually exists, that it is there to be found in each individual. A.'s eight assertions about traits -- 1. Traits have more than nominal existence...they are more than summary labels 2. Traits are more generalized than habits...they may underlie habits, but they are more pervasive 3. Traits are dynamic, or at least deterministic, in causing behavior...they don't come into existence only in response to appropriate stimuli...in fact, they need no other energizing source 4. Traits may be established empirically...since they are real, we should be able to verify their existence and nature 5. Traits are only relatively independent of one another...they may overlap...they are often highly correlated with one another 6. Traits are not synonymous with moral or social judgments...but they may result from social pressure to behave in certain ways 7. Traits may be viewed idiographically or nomothetically, but, according to Allport, the only way to study personality is idiographically, because each personality is unique and cannot be compared to any other 8. Acts or habits inconsistent with traits do not disprove their existence A. was careful to distinguish traits from other personal characteristics which were capable of initiating and guiding behaviors...things like habits and attitudes. Habits obviously have a determining influence on behavior; just look at your own for evidence. They are, however, much more narrow in their influence. Habits are inflexible, involving a specific response to a specific stimulus. A number of habits, though, can blend or fuse to become a single trait, if they all have in common the performance of the same adaptive function for the person. A. noted that it was a bit more difficult to distinguish an attitude from a trait, but there were two ways in which this could be accomplished. 1) Attitudes always have very specific objects of reference. We always have attitudes toward something. Traits are not so specifically directed. 2) Attitudes are either for or against something...that is, they carry an evaluative aspect, pro or con, which a trait does not. What, then, are traits? To A., a trait is a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual), with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guideconsistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior. Dissimilar Stimuli Functionally Equivalent Responses Karate Bragging about male physical superiority Wife Hostile remarks NOW Literature Voting for Claytie Trait: Misogyny Math books by female authors Criticizing women's lib Daughters of the American Revolution Calling women drivers names Female employee Rejecting promotion request by female employee These are all capable of arousing a single trait These all serve the purposes of the same trait With this backdrop, we can now turn our attention to some particulars of traits, as depicted in A.'s view. The Dimensions of Traits -- these reflect the nomothetic aspects of traits Common traits -- these are shared by large numbers of people, e.g., members of a particular culture. They are abstractions, formed primarily by social pressure to conform, and thus do not really define one's personality. A. posited that common traits are normally distributed -- charting them will generate a bell curve, but if the social standards or mores change, they, too, will change. Individual traits -- common traits can only give general approximations of one's personality. To really assess the uniqueness of a person's personality, we must find the "key-qualities," the personal, not the universal, dispositions. To distinguish them more clearly from common traits, A. later revised his terminology and called these "personal dispositions," and defined them as neuropsychic structures, peculiar to the individual, which serve to initiate as well as guide behavior. Three levels of traits -- these reflect the idiographic aspects Not all traits are of the same intensity or significance; some are more masterful, meaningful, or powerful than others. Consider: Cardinal traits -- these are rare in the population, but they cannot be hidden if they exist; they are totally pervasive in the individual's life-space. E.g.'s...Mother Theresa's altruism, Hitler's dogmatism. A. called these "master sentiments" or "ruling passions." Central traits -- these are the 3 to 10 descriptors we would use to depict a person's behavior. We would consider them to be highly characteristic of the individual. Secondary traits -- these are the least important and least general kind of trait. They operate in limited settings, something akin to preferences, but they may be so seldom displayed that only a very close friend might notice them. "A. believed that the central problem in any theory of personality is how it handles the concept of motivation." His analysis of a theory began with a judgment of how well it met his four requirements of a theory of motivation. 1) A focus on the contemporaneity of motivation...immediacy, the present, is what counts most in understanding motivation. Hang toilet training or weaning, it's the present state of the individual that is central. "Whatever happened in the past is exactly that: past." 2) Pluralistic...the theory must recognize many different types of motives. It is oversimplifying to reduce human motivation to a few drives, like sex and aggression, pleasure-seeking, or tension reduction. 3) A consideration of cognitive processes...the individual's plans and intentions must be considered. A.'s is a teleological view, which emphasizes that "deliberate, conscious intention...is the most important key we have to understanding [a] person's present behavior." 4) A recognition of the concrete uniqueness of motivating forces...a motive must be defined concretely rather than abstractly. Consider A.'s e.g. -- Concrete: Mary has a strong desire to become a neurosurgeon. Abstract: Mary is cathecting an aim-inhibited sexual wish. Not surprisingly, the four characteristics A. considered necessary to a motivational theory are accounted for very nicely in his own theory. A.'s source of motivation, the aspect of personality that impels one to act, is formulated in his principle of "functional autonomy." Functional Autonomy is really a simple concept: A motive, in the normal, mature adult, is not functionally related to the past experiences in which it may have originally appeared. A motive can, and does, become autonomous and independent of its original circumstances. Consequently, behavior very often derives from habits which, although established early in life, no longer require historical referents for their motivational force in the present. That such habits, behaviors, served a purpose at one time, but may no longer do so, in no way diminishes their power to direct how one acts now. Put another way, the means used to achieve an earlier goal become an end in themselves. Later in his theory development, A. proposed two different levels of autonomy. Two levels of Functional Autonomy -- 1. Perseverative autonomy...is typified by routines which are familiar, but not necessarily very useful. It is the more elementary and basic of the two and concerns such things as addictions and repeated physical movements. Re: your morning toilet, or feelings of homesickness even while on vacation. 2. Propriate autonomy...is by far the more important type and essential to understanding adult motivation. It describes the status of interests, sentiments, values, attitudes, intentions, the self-image, and the life-style. It is specific to the individual, unique, and highly necessary to "proprium," or that which determines which motives are maintained and which are discarded. It is "self"-serving in that motives which enhance the self-image are kept. It means that there is a direct relationship between one's interests and one's abilities...we usually won't do something unless we can excel at it. A. made three observations about "Propriate Autonomy" -- a. It accounts for why ability often turns to interest; b. It accounts for why acquired interests and values have the power to influence our perceptions selectively; and, c. It promotes "propriate patterning," a striving for consistency and integration of the personality. The "Proprium" Almost invariably, personality theorists invoke some executive of the personality that runs things -- for Freud, it was the "ego"; for Rogers, it was the "self." For A., this was embodied in the proprium, which he used more as an adjective really for self-hood, or a sense of identity. He used this term to mean what is "peculiarly ours" -- "all aspects of one's personality that make for inward unity." It was a developmental construct, that is, it moves through several stages to culminate in the seven aspects of selfhood: 1) the bodily self -- the infant is always receiving sensory input which begins to define its bodily boundaries. These are very intimate sensations as this exercise will demonstrate: Swallow what's in your mouth right now, do it quickly, don't think about it or what I'm up to, just swallow. Any problems doing this? Okay, now, imagine spitting that same stuff into a drinking glass half full or water and drinking it again. Any problems now? For most of you, what was natural and "mine" suddenly became cold and foreign. Want another example? Consider...sucking blood from a paper cut on your finger...or from the pad of the bandage you put on it. In A.'s words, "What I perceive as belonging intimately to my body is warm and welcome; what I perceive as separate from my body becomes, in the twinkling of an eye, cold and foreign." A. strongly believed this bodily sense forms the core of the self and is an important aspect of selfhood throughout life. 2) Self-identity -- this is our sense of continuity and sameness 3) Self-esteem -- is marked by our growing sense of pride as we become more familiar with our environment and our ability to master it; it also underlies the symptomatic opposition of 2- and 3-year-olds to parental suggestions and limit- testing. 4) Self-extension (4 to 6 years) -- now shows the primary concern with possessions 5) Self-image -- has two components...the learned expectations of our roles and the kinds of aspirations we should have for the future 6) Self as rational coper (6 to 12 years) -- is characterized by reflective thought, as the child now devises strategies to cope with problems or to test his/her intellectual skills 7) Propriate striving -- happens when we realize long-range purposes, goals, intentions; it is "ego-involved" behavior, and closely related to the development of the conscience. Gordon Allport saw humankind as being in conscious control of our lives, as always in a state of becoming. We creatively design and implement a satisfactory life-style, if we attained adequate affection and security during the development of our "proprium." To serve in this endeavor, Allport believed we had, as a biological given, a need for autonomy, individuality and selfhood. This view certainly presages our next concerns, theories of needs and motives.