; Personality
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>



  • pg 1

       Simply stated, personality refers to a person's style of interacting with the
environment, especially the social environment. Personality is often considered to be
relatively stable across time and from situation to situation.
Trait Theories
        Unlike states (which are considered to be temporary, such as hunger or thirst), a
trait is a relatively stable tendency to behave in a certain way. Although the trait
may require some environmental trigger to release the behavior, the trait is considered
to be part of the person, not the environment. For example, a person who has the trait
of high aggressiveness probably behaves aggressively only in certain situations,
situations in which less aggressive persons do not show aggressive behavior.
      Traits are generally considered to be continuously distributed, not all or
nothing characteristics. You and I may both be aggressive, but you more so than I.
      The goal of trait theories to construct a relatively small number of personality
dimensions that is useful for summarizing the differences between individuals.
       Gordon Allport, one of the major figures in the study of personality, found that
the English language contains at least 18,000 words that describe personality
characteristics. For example, consider these: Friendly, agreeable, amiable, cordial,
kind, sociable, warmhearted. Clearly we need to reduce the number of words in our
vocabulary of personality.
        Surface Traits are those that are inferred from individual differences in specific
behaviors. To identify surface traits, personality researchers collect data on a large
number of behaviors from a large number of persons and use statistical techniques to
identify clusters of behaviors that correlate well with one another within each cluster.
       Central Traits are those which are inferred from surface traits. Statistical
techniques are employed to identify clusters of surface traits that correlate well with one
another but not with the surface traits in other clusters.
        The hierarchical nature of specific behaviors, surface traits, and central traits is
illustrated in Gray's Figure 15.1.

      Can you describe specific behavior that might be included in the surface cluster
"pugnaciousness" (prone to physical fighting) or "competitiveness?"
       Do note that the inclusion of "argumentativeness," "pugnaciousness," and
"competitiveness" under the central trait of "aggressiveness" is based on empirical
grounds -- if our research were to find that there is not a good correlation between
verbally sparring and physically sparring, then those two surface traits would not be
included in the same central trait.
         Raymond Cattell developed a personality questionnaire called the 16 PF.
Cattell reduced the 18,000 personality adjectives in English to about 170 surface traits
and then clustered these into 16 Personality Factors (central traits). A person taking
this questionnaire responds "yes, occasionally, or no" to about 200 statements such as
"I like to go to parties." From these responses, a score is computed for each of the 16
central traits.
     Hans Eysenck developed a model in which there are only three central traits:
     Introversion - Extroversion: Introverts try to avoid (social) stimulation while
      extroverts seek it.
     Neuroticism - Stability: Neurotics get emotionally upset and thus are moody,
      anxious, impatient, etc.
     Psychoticism - Nonpsychotism: Psychotics are aggressive and lack concern
      for others.
     The Big Five Theory proposes the following five central traits:
     Introversion - Extroversion: As above
     Neuroticism - Stability: As above
     Openness to Experience - Nonopenness: Open folks are imaginative,
      independent, curious, interested in many things, etc.
     Agreeableness - Antagonism: Being courteous, selfless, trusting, and
      cooperative going along with agreeableness
     Conscientiousness - Undirectedness: The conscientious are careful,
      reliable, diligent, ambitious, etc.
      Stability of Traits. The research here involves testing the personality of many
 people at various times throughout their lives. These measurements may involve the

subjects taking personality tests and/or may involve having others rate the subjects'
personalities. The Big Five traits are remarkably stable across time, at least after the
age of about 30. Correlations between one administration and another run between
.50 and .70, even when there are many years (30 or more) between measurements,
and even when the persons rating the subjects differ between one time and the other.
      Maturation. There are some common changes with increasing age. For
example, as we get older we tend to get less neurotic (thankfully!), less extroverted,
less open to experience, more conscientious, and more agreeable.
      Predicting Behavior. There is considerable evidence that knowing an
individual's personality test scores helps us predict his or her behavior. For example,
persons who score high on Extroversion are, compared to introverts, less disturbed
by intense stimuli, more likely to choose to live and work with many people, more
adventuresome in their sexual behaviors, more likely to look a person in the eye when
speaking with em, and more likely to talk a lot at group meetings.
      Sometimes we can even predict adult behavior from personality tests given
during childhood. For example, children who were at age 3 identified as having low
self-control were, at age 21, more likely to have been fired from a job or convicted
of a crime.
       We should keep in mind that individual differences in personality may often be
masked by social forces. In a familiar social situation, persons all acting in the same
social role may all act pretty much the same -- but observe them in a novel,
ambiguous, or stressful situation and individual differences related to personality are
likely to emerge.
      Walter Mischel has argued that we could predict behavior much better if we
measured situation specific dispositions rather than global traits. Mischel et al.
observed, repeatedly, 19 different types of behavior which would reasonably be
considered to be related to the global characteristic of conscientiousness. They found
high consistency within each of these 19 different types of behavior but much lower
consistency across categories. For example, a student who was likely to prepare very
neat notes for one class was also likely to do the same for e's other classes, but that
student was not much more likely than average to keep e's bed nicely made every day.
      The Physiology of Personality. Individual differences in central traits can be
related to individual differences in physiology. For example, Eysenck suggested that
the brains of introverts are more easily aroused than those of extroverts. He also
suggested that all persons try to achieve an optimal level of arousal. Accordingly, to
achieve such an optimal level of arousal introverts would be expected to avoid highly
stimulating environments while extroverts would be expected to seek great stimulation.
    Evidence supporting Eysenck's suggestions include the following:
    Introverts outperform extroverts on tasks that require focused concentration in
     situations where there is little stimulation.
    Extroverts do better in tasks that require attending to many stimuli in an
     arousing environment.
    Introverts show a greater physiological response to a sudden noise

       Introverts' performance on a learning task is more affected by a distracting
        noise than is extroverts' performance.
       Introverts are less tolerant of painful electric shock than are extroverts.
       In a quiet situation, PET scans show that the frontal lobes of introverts are more
        active than are those of extroverts.
       A stimulant drug (caffeine) worsened performance on a learning task for
        introverts, but facilitated performance for extroverts.
       And introverts even salivate more when lemon juice is squired in their mouths
        than do extroverts.
     The Genetics of Personality. There is considerable evidence of heritability of
personality traits. For example, identical twins (even when reared apart) are much
more similar in personality than are fraternal twins. For most traits that have been
evaluated, including all of the Big Five, heritability estimates range from about .40 to
about .50.
      Heritability has even been found to be high in traits that one would think are
greatly influenced by environmental factors. Consider Traditionalism (conservative
values and respect for discipline and authority), for example -- heritability for this
characteristic has been estimated to be about .60. As another example, the heritability
of one's attitude about the death penalty has been estimated to be about .50.
      I expect that most genetic effects on personality are polygenic rather than
resulting from the action of a single gene. There is, however, some evidence of single
gene effects. For example, there is a significant relationship between neuroticism
and the presence of a singe allele that increases the action of serotonin. Likewise,
there is a significant relationship between the trait of novelty seeking (impulsiveness,
excitability, and extravagance) and another single allele, one that decreases the action
of dopamine.
Ultimate Explanations of Individual Differences in Personality
   Why are there individual differences in personality?
   Why hasn‟t natural selection simply given us all the one best set of personality
   Even in many nonhuman animals, there is considerable diversity in behavioral
    styles. What is the adaptive value of such diversity?
      Diversified Investment. One answer to these questions has to do with a
parental strategy that is similar to diversification in one‟s investment portfolio. As you
are no doubt aware, at any given time some investments will do very well, some
investment so-so, and others will do very poorly. At other times the investments that
did poorly at an earlier date might do marvelously, and those that did well earlier might
do poorly later. If you put all of your assets into one type of investment, you risk
loosing it all during a time when that type of investment crashes and burns. On the
other hand, if you diversify your investments, then you greatly reduce your risk of
loosing it all.
      From the genetic perspective, producing offspring is an investment in the
future. If those offspring prosper and multiply, our genes live on. If those offspring

crash and burn, our genes disappear. If our environment were unchanging, it might be
possible to construct the perfect personality for that environment. In that case, the
best strategy would be to produce only offspring with that perfect personality. But our
environment is not constant. When our environment is constantly changing, the
perfect personality is a moving target. If we were to give all our children the wrong
personality for the environment in which they will reach reproductive age, then we
might loose all. A safer strategy might be to diversify our investment by producing
children with a variety of personalities. In that way, it is more likely that at least some
of them will survive and thrive, those who happen to have the personalities best to take
advantage of the environment as it is when they mature.
      Filling Different Niches. A niche is a role that an organism can adopt in a
dynamic biological system. In a typical biological system there is a variety of different
niches. Each niche has a limited capacity -- that is, it can support only so many
individuals living in that niche. Genetic diversity among organisms may allow them
better to exploit all the possible niches in an environment. This may be true even
within a single species. Gray uses the example of pumpkinseed sunfish. One niche
available to them is to stick close to the shore, hiding among the vegetation there,
and not moving about much. A quite different niche also exploited by these fish is that
in the open water, where the fish who does not move about quickly will be eaten by
predators. Pumpkinseeds that occupy these different niches tend to differ on both
physical and behavioral characteristics. Diversity in the species allows it to be more
successful in exploiting the environment, with some individuals specialized for the one
niche, while other individuals are specialized for the other niche.
      The environments of humans (including their social environments) provide them
with a multitude of niches to be filled. It is almost certain that the best personality to fill
one niche is different from the best personality to fill a different niche. Accordingly,
producing humans with diversity of personalities may enable our species to more
successfully exploit its environment.
      Intra-familiar Diversity. If we compare the personalities of individuals who live
in the same family, we find that they are not much more similar than are equally
related individuals who live in different families. For example, the correlation between
the personalities of brothers that live in the same family is about the same as that of
brothers who have been reared apart. Some have interpreted this to mean that the
family has little effect on personality development, other than by the sharing of genes.
      Others have pointed out that siblings raised in the same family do not really
share identical environments. Family environments change with time. For
example, consider my family. I was born in to a family that was, in many ways, a
typical working class family, lower middle class. My father who worked in a glass
factory, received a lot of promotions during his lifetime, which caused a considerable
change in the family environment across the years. By the time my younger brother
was born ten years later, our family was solidly middle executive class. After I left
home to make my own life, my younger siblings moved with my parents to Paris,
where my father headed the European division of Corning Glass Works. This was an
environment totally foreign to me. In many ways they were raised in a family quite
different from that in which I was raised.

      Sibling Diversity. Within a single family with two or more children, there may be
additional factors that promote diversity in personality. Consciously or unconsciously,
both children and parents may act in ways that increase diversity in personality among
the children within a family. If all the children try to fill the same niche, then sibling
rivalry may become dangerously high. If each child can find a niche that is his or hers
alone to exploit, then there is likely to be less competition among siblings and each
child can the best within e‟s own niche.
      Birth Order. Clearly the family environment for first born children would be
expected to be different from that of later born children. There have been many
studies of the effect of birth order on personality and other characteristics. In my
opinion, the demonstrated effects of birth order have been neither clear nor large.
       Gray discusses Frank Sulloway‟s research on effects of birth order. He argues
that first-borns are, for a while, the only child in the family, and this leads them to
identify with the parents, to fill the niche that the parents most support. As a result,
first-borns tends to be more conscientious, achievement oriented, conservative,
traditional, and respectful of authority than are later-borns. Later born children cannot
compete effectively within the niche that the first born has exploited, so they must
carve out their own niches, adopting alternative roles in which they can excel. This
causes later-borns to be more open to new experiences and more friendly than first-
      Gender Differences. Women score, on average, about one standard deviation
higher than men on measures of friendliness. This is considered to be a very large
difference, equivalent in magnitude to a 200 point difference in total SAT score. This
gender difference is found across cultures. Women also tend to score higher on
measures of anxiety and conscientiousness, but the magnitude of these differences
is considerably smaller. Men score higher on measures of sensation seeking,
although the difference between men and women tends to decline with age.
      Gender, Personality, and Life Satisfaction. Persons whose personality is
atypical for members of their gender are likely to be less satisfied with life than are
those who fit the stereotype. For example, young men who are shy tend to be
emotionally distressed and unhappy, but there is no such association between
shyness and unhappiness in young women. Likewise, women who have competitive
personalities tend to have low self-esteem, but in men competitiveness is associated
with high self-esteem.
      Natural Selection and Gender Differences. One can argue that men and
women have faced different reproductive challenges over many generations, and
that natural selection has accordingly equipped men and women with different
personalities, each best suited to the type of challenges typically encountered by
gender-mates. For example, women are specially equipped (with breasts) to take
care of infants, and accordingly they are also equipped with traits of nurturance,
cooperation, and caution. Men, on the other hand, have had to compete with one
another for access to women and other reproductive resources, and accordingly they
have been equipped with traits of competitiveness, aggressiveness, and risk-taking.
There even appears to be a hormonal basis for sex differences in personality, with

oxytocin causing greater friendliness in women and testosterone causing greater
aggressiveness in men.
     Culture and Gender Differences. An opposing viewpoint is that culture has
been a greater force than natural selection in the shaping of gender differences in
personality. According to this theory, biological differences between the sexes may
have shaped different cultural expectations for men and women very early in our
species‟ history, with these cultural expectations then causing even greater differences
between men and women. Across the generations these gender differences caused
by cultural expectations may have become greater and greater, by a sort of positive
feedback loop -- when men and women differ in personality, that reinforces the cultural
expectation of gender differences, which may create even greater gender differences,
and so on.
      Gender versus Sex. These days it can be confusing to know when to use the
term “gender” and when to use “sex.” In general, it is appropriate to use the term “sex”
when referring to characteristics that are more influenced by biology and “gender”
when referring to characteristics that are more influenced by culture. It is not,
however, always very clear to me whether a particular characteristic really is more
influenced by culture than by biology or vice versa. See my document
Sex/Gender/Whatever for more on this.
Psychodynamic Theories
      These theories emphasize the role of mental forces in determining personality.
The founding father of these theories was Sigmund Freud. Freud was not a
psychologist. He was a medical doctor practicing in Vienna, Austria in the late 1800‟s.
Freud came to believe that many of the problems which his patients presented were
not caused by diseases of the body but rather by mental conflicts.
        Freud theorized that the most basic instincts or drives of humans are related to
sex (eros) and death or aggression (thanatos). These drives live in the
unconscious id. Is his native German, the word Freud used was "es," which means
"it" -- that animal thing down there that drives me towards eros and thanatos. When
translated to English, somebody decided to use the term "id" instead. I guess the third
person generic pronoun was just not mysterious enough for the translator. The id's
eros and thanatos motivate us to think about and even act out behaviors that are
socially unacceptable. If these bad thoughts from the id break through to
consciousness, they make us anxious. Accordingly, he conscious part of our mind
needs somehow to manage to keep id-motivated thoughts from breaking through to
consciousness. We employ a variety of ego defense mechanisms for that purpose.
The ego ("ich" in the original German, which means "I"). While the id operates on the
"pleasure principle" (do what feels good and do it now regardless of any
consequences, the ego operates on the "reality principle" (try to satisfy the id in ways
that not destructive to the self and society). A third part of the mind, not mentioned by
Gray, is the superego ("über ich" in the original German), which operates according to
the morality principle -- it makes us feel bad when we behave contrary to accepted

      According to Freud, individual differences in personality are caused by
differences in our unconscious motives, how they are manifested, and how we defend
against them.
      Repression is the most basic of the ego defense mechanisms. It operates by
putting up mental barriers to prevent socially undesirable thoughts from entering
consciousness. This is done without our awareness of the construction of barriers.
But these barriers are not perfect. Bad thoughts may slip through. When they do, we
employ other ego defense mechanisms to distort those bad thoughts in ways that
make them seem not so bad. I shall discuss only a few of the more common ego
defense mechanisms here.
      Suppression involves the conscious avoidance of thinking about unpleasant
things. This differs from repression in that we are aware that we are erecting barrier to
the unpleasant thoughts.
      Projection involves our attributing the undesirable motives or characteristics to
others rather than to ourselves. As an example of projection, consider research done
by Robert Sears. He asked fraternity members to rate themselves and their
fraternity brothers on various characteristics, such as stinginess. He found that men
who were rated as high in such a characteristic but who denied having it themselves
tended to rate their brothers as high in that characteristic -- projecting their own
characteristics onto others.
      Reaction Formation is when we turn a bad thought or motive into its good
opposite thought or motive. As an example, consider homophobia, the irrational fear
and hatred of homosexuals. It has been argued that homophobia results from a
reaction formation -- that is, persons who have unconscious desires to engage in
homosexual activity become very anxious about that when these desires start leaking
into consciousness, so they think very contrary thoughts. One research study testing
this hypothesis measured male subjects‟ homophobia (by a questionnaire) and then
directly measured engorgement of their penises while they were watching videos of
men engaging in homosexual activities. Despite admitting to feeling any arousal while
watching such videos, homophobic men’s penises became significantly more
aroused than then those of non-homophobic men.
      Displacement occurs when the energy from a bad desire is redirected to an
acceptable behavior. For example, the boy whose id wants to kill his father (to
remove the primary rival for his mother‟s love) may displace the energy from that bad
motive into boxing, football, or rugby. Interestingly, the basic idea of displacement is
also found in some theories of nonhuman animal behavior -- for example, an animal
who really wants to bite his rival may funnel that energy into less dangerous behaviors,
such as grooming itself or pawing the earth repeatedly.
      Sublimation is just a special case of displacement in which the substitute activity
is not only acceptable but also highly meritorious. For example, a man with the id of
Jack the Ripper might become a first-rate surgeon.
      Rationalization is my favorite sort of defense mechanism. Here we come up
with socially acceptable reasons for our behavior or our thoughts, but they are not

the real reasons. For example, I convince myself that my great interest in the study of
sexual behaviors is because I am a scientist interested in the effects of natural
selection on behavior, and reproductive behaviors are those which are most likely to
be greatly affected by natural selection. Yeah, sure -- that is what I say, even what I
think myself, but the truth is to be found in my horny id!
     I should note that there are other psychodynamic theories that do not
hypothesize that sex and aggression are the most basic human drives. Karen Horney
emphasized the drive for security, stemming from the child‟s dependence on its
parents for survival. Alfred Adler stressed the drive to achieve. Object Relations
Theorists stress the conflicting drives of attachment versus autonomy.
     I should also note that all of these psychodynamic theories suppose that the first
few years in life are the most critical years for the formation of one‟s personality.
Social/Cognitive Theories
      These theories suppose that it is learned beliefs and habits that shape one‟s
personality. Here too there may be unconscious elements, but here they are not
from repressed bad motives but rather from habits that have been practiced so
much that they become automatic, executing without consciousness. Some
psychologists even argue that the majority of human behavior is controlled by
such unconscious learned habits. For example, when I drive to work, I don‟t think
about what I am doing -- I am on auto pilot, I think about other things, but my
unconscious does the driving. Likewise, when you interact socially with others, you
don‟t have time to stop and think about every thing to say -- you are on automatic pilot
there too. Sometimes you may later ask yourself “What was I thinking when I said
„so and so.‟” The truth is, you weren‟t thinking at all, you were on auto-pilot!
      Julian Rotter was a pioneer in the development of social/cognitive theories of
personality. He is best known for his work on Locus of Control. The basic idea here
is that individuals have different beliefs with respect to the extent to which they are in
control of the rewards that they get or don‟t get in life. The person with an external
locus of control believes that it is mostly luck and the influence of powerful others
that control whether you get rewards or not. Persons with an internal locus of control
believes that they themselves control whether they get rewards or not, through their
ability and their effort. There is considerable evidence that persons with an internal
locus of control are more likely to take charge of their lives and be less anxious and
more content with life than are those with an external locus of control, but the effects
of locus of control are often not very impressive in magnitude. Rosina Chia and two
of her colleagues in our department have conducted numerous research projects
involving locus of control, both in this country and several other countries.
      My first exposure to Rotter‟s locus of control instrument was as a freshman at
Corning (NY) Community College. I had just gotten out of the military and was going
through all these moronic activities for freshman orientation. One of the things they
did was to sit us down and make us fill out some questionnaires. One of them was
Rotter‟s scale. I hated it, because of its forced-choice format (see Table 15.3 on
page 600 of our text for some example items). On nearly every item I thought “how
can I choose one of these two extreme alternatives, the truth is somewhere in

between.” Well, a couple of weeks later I was asked to see one of the school
psychologists. He explained that they had reason to believe that I was doomed to
failure at school unless I got some counseling. He did not tell me how he knew my
fate, but I later learned it was because I scored extremely external on Rotter‟s scale --
duh, I just got out of the military, where it seemed like some Arschloch (that is German
for “powerful other”) was telling me what to do every minute.
       Well, external that I was, I consented to the counseling when asked to do it by a
powerful other. Near the end of the semester the psychologist asked me to fill out a
questionnaire. It was Rotter’s scale, again. I asked if this was the same
questionnaire that I had filled out during freshman orientation. He said “yes.” I said
that I had the feeling that he wanted me to answer these questions quite differently
than I had during freshman orientation and I asked him if that were true. Without
saying “yes,” he indicated that I was correct. Again, being the true external that I was,
I consented to his request and scored highly internal. He was happy, especially since I
had very high grades that semester. I gave him data that suggested that his program
of counseling was effective in modifying the locus of control of external students who
would otherwise have failed in school.
     Philosophically I am still very much external in locus of control. I am a strict
determinist, one who thinks that nothing happens without a cause -- and ultimately the
causes of every action one takes, every thought one has, and every decision one
makes can be traced to events that have taken place outside of one self. I have
argued earlier that I think that “free will” is a delusion, but a useful one, one that
makes it more likely that the individual will try to take charge of his or her life and make
something out of it.
       Albert Bandura stressed individuals‟ self-efficacy, their beliefs about their
ability (or lack of ability) to accomplish specific tasks. This sounds a lot like Rotter‟s
locus of control, but it differs in you can think that you are quite able to accomplish
some specific task but not think that doing so will necessarily bring you rewards. For
example, you might have very high self-efficacy with respect to doing college work
but an external locus of control with respect to being able to get a good, satisfying
job after graduation -- after all, who know what the economy will be like then, how
lucky you will be in your job search, what powerful others may help or hinder you, and
so on.
      Research on the topic of self-efficacy indicates that thinking that you can
accomplish some task may actually help you accomplish the task. After all, if you are
not capable of doing it, why waste your time trying? Both parents and teachers might
be more successful at their jobs if they were to spend a little time convincing their
children and their students that they are capable persons.
      Optimism vs Pessimism. I have often said that pessimism is the better strategy
because the pessimist is either going have the satisfaction of seeing that he is right or
will be pleasantly surprised that he was wrong. I, however, am the sort of pessimist
who expects things to go bad, but who works very hard to try to prevent that from
happening. There is no doubt that I have paid for that by suffering more from anxiety
than I would if I were an optimist, but my pessimism has not prevented me from

 leading a very productive life. Pessimism can be counterproductive, however, in those
 who decide that there is no sense in even trying if everything is bound to go wrong.
 Optimism may motivate one to take charge and work hard, but in some it can be
 counterproductive -- the person who thinks that nothing bad can come to him (Alfred E.
 Neuman‟s “What, me worry?”) is likely to act in ways that increase the chances that
 bad things will come to him.
 Humanistic Theories
        These theories stress the uniquely human (or so we think) ability to perceive
 ourselves as apart from the rest of the world. I happen to think that we share this
 ability with some other animals, but this is not the time for that discussion.
       Humanists speak of one‟s “phenomenological reality.” This phrase refers to an
 individual‟s conception of self and world. Similar to Kantian transcendentalism, the
 notion of a phenomenological reality may include a recognition that we cannot be
 directly aware of any concrete reality, that “reality” in human experience is a mental
 event and a very personal thing, something that we each construct from our sensory
 and social experiences. Our personalities differ because we have constructed
 different phenomenological realities. Kant might add that they don‟t differ all that
 much, because we all have common intuitions (Anschauungen).
        Carl Rogers stressed the role of self-concept. His patients seemed to
 obsessed with “finding their true selves” and “becoming their true selves.” Whether
 this is something common to humans or just common to the sort of clients who sought
 treatment to Rogers can be disputed. In any case, Rogers argued that when people
 find their true selves (or are deluded into thinking they have), they are happier and
 more productive, felling like they are in charge of their lives rather than being told what
 to do by others. Hmmm, sounds a bit like locus of control and the delusion of free will,
 doesn‟t it?
       Abraham Maslow stressed the importance of “self-actualization” as the highest
 level need in a hierarchy of human needs, from the very basic (like having enough
 to eat and drink, shelter from the elements and predators), to the nice (being loved
 and feeling good about oneself), to the ultimate achievement of self-actualization in
 which one has become all he can and is at one with the world. Maslow argued that the
 needs lower in the hierarchy must be satisfied before one is motivated to achieve the
 higher level needs. This always makes me think of the starving artist or musician
 who sacrifices his or her basic needs in exchange for opportunities to excel artistically.
 Cultural Relativity of Personality Theories
       All of the theories we have discussed were created by, and validated with,
 Western European or North American people. Do they do an adequate job of
 describing and explaining individual differences in personality in persons from other
 cultures? There is some evidence that they do not. Those interested in this question
 are encouraged to check out the literature in cross-cultural psychology.
Back to the PSYC 1000 Lecture Notes Page

To top