The Construction of Personality

An Introduction (Second Edition)

Sarah E. Hampson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429656590
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Originally published in 1988, this second edition of The Construction of Personality has been substantially revised and updated. The author provides an introduction to current theory and research in the psychology of personality at the time and examines this work from the perspective of constructivism. As a consequence of this constructivist approach, the book covers topics from social psychology (e.g. person perception, impression formation) as well as more conventional areas of personality.

In this new edition the constructivist perspective is emphasized by the addition of a new chapter in which the constructivist approach to personality is presented, and the chapters on the lay and self perspectives have been extensively re-written. All the other chapters have been revised to include recent material.

1 The concept of personality

A definition of personality

Personality has different meanings for theologians, philosophers, and sociologists, and within psychology it has been defined in many ways (Allport, 1937). Rather than give examples of the diversity of the definitions, which tends to be confusing rather than illuminating, we will begin by considering just one definition of personality considered acceptable by many psychologists today (Block, Weiss and Thorne, 1979): personality refers to ‘more or less stable, internal factors that make one person’s behaviour consistent from one time to another, and different from the behaviour other people would manifest in comparable situations’ (Child, 1968, p.83).

In a few words, this definition manages to encompass all the major assumptions of a generally accepted definition of the concept of personality. These assumptions are that personality is stable, internal, consistent and different.

Stability

The definition begins by stating that the personality is more or less stable. It is not assumed that personality is entirely stable but rather that it can, to a limited extent, undergo changes. Such a view allows for the possibility of long-term personality growth and change over the life-span and short-term fluctuations in personality from day to day. Nevertheless, these instabilities are regarded as relatively superficial when compared with the underlying core of continuity implied by the personality concept. The assumption of stability corresponds to our everyday experience: friends and acquaintances do not present radically different personalities on every fresh meeting, but instead are likely to be approximately the same from occasion to occasion. Even when we are taken by surprise by an old friend’s dramatic new image, we are usually able to fit the new and old selves into a coherent whole, and to be reassured that deep down the person is still the same.

Internality

Next, the definition states that personality is internal. Personality cannot be observed directly; it can only be measured indirectly by making observations of that which is available externally. For example, on the basis of a personality test, a psychologist will infer the level of the underlying personality trait presumed to determine responses on that test. Similarly, we make inferences about the personalities of our friends and acquaintances on the basis of observations of their behaviour.

Consistency

The definition goes on to state that personality makes one person’s behaviour consistent from one time to another. The assumption that behaviour is consistent is one of the most controversial issues in personality (see chapter 4). Consistency over time refers to the similarity between a person’s behaviour on two different occasions. Everyday life is full of examples of consistency, from trivial daily routines such as the order in which you do your morning toilette to more weighty matters such as which way you vote in a general election. Personality is assumed to explain behavioural consistency because it is assumed to be a major determinant of behaviour and, since personality remains relatively stable, the behaviour it determines will be consistent.

Individual differences

Finally,the definition states that personality makes a person’s behaviour different from the behaviour other people would manifest in comparable situations. It is a major assumption underlying the personality concept that there are individual differences in behaviour which are large enough to warrant investigation: people respond to the same situation in different ways. For example, even in such a constrained situation as a lecture, students’ behaviour will vary from sleep to furiously energetic note taking. Individual differences in response to the same situation are assumed to be the product of variations in personality.

The emphasis on traits

The definition refers to stable, internal factors of personality, and personality psychologists differ substantially in how they conceptualise these ‘factors’ or elements. Indeed, the question as to what is the basic element of personality has been an enduring point of controversy (e.g. Fiske, 1974). At various times, rivals to traits have included instincts, motives, goals, desires, beliefs, and attitudes (Alston, 1975). Recently, goals (e.g. Pervin, 1983), and motivational states (e.g. Apter, 1984) have been favoured as alternatives to traits. Nevertheless, the majority of past and present research in personality has centred on the trait concept.

As with definitions of personality, definitions of traits abound. We shall be examining specific uses of the term when particular theories are described (see chapters 2 and 3). Despite differences in detail, traits are generally seen as ‘broad, enduring, relatively stable characteristics used to assess and explain behavior’ (Hirschberg, 1978, p. 45). One of the main differences between definitions of traits concerns whether the trait is considered to be a summarising concept serving descriptive purposes (e.g. Buss and Craik, 1983) or whether it is also endowed with causal potency (e.g. HJ. Eysenck and M.W. Eysenck, 1985). Both points of view accept that traits are inferred from observations of past behaviour and provide a convenient way of describing consistent behavioural patterns. Both points of view also assume that the occurrence of similar behaviours in the future may be predicted from patterns of past behaviour. However, some theorists prefer a descriptive but non-causal view of traits because they regard it as tautological to argue that a trait is inferred from the same behaviours that it is also assumed to have caused.

Regardless of a theorist’s position on the nature of traits, it is generally agreed that traits are manifested in behaviour. This is the trait’s advantage over many other person concepts. Alston (1975) argued that whereas other person concepts can be attributed to an individual in the absence of direct behavioural evidence, this is not true of traits. For example, it makes no sense to claim that a person is very sociable but never talks to people, whereas it is reasonable to say that a person has a need to be sociable but never talks to people. Thus, given that traits are a kind of person concept which is usually reflected in behaviour, this makes them accessible for research purposes.

An alternative to the personality trait, which enjoyed popularity in the past and is presently receiving renewed attention, is the personality type (e.g. Gangestad and Snyder, 1985). A type theory of personality assumes that all individuals can be allocated to one of a limited number of types. Although not a scientific theory of personality (Startup, 1985), the astrological theory of star signs is a good example of the type approach since it assumes that everyone falls into one of twelve mutually exclusive personality types. Types differ from traits primarily in that a person cannot be described as possessing a type to varying degrees; the person either is or is not a member of the type. Traits, on the other hand, are dimensions that are believed to be normally distributed throughout the population and therefore are characteristic of all people, but to varying degrees. The main criticism against types is that there is an arbitrariness and simplicity about them which does not match our intuitions. Personality is a rich and complicated concept, and individual differences cannot be adequately captured by slotting people into a few all-or-none categories.

Perspectives on personality

This book is organised around three different perspectives on personality, which have generated three kinds of personality theory: explicit theories of personality from the personality psychologists’ perspective; implicit theories of personality from the lay person’s perspective; and the perspective from the standpoint of the self, which is concerned with the theories people have about their own personalities.

The distinction between explicit and implicit theories refers to the distinction between psychologists’ theories of personality derived from formal investigations versus lay persons’ theories or systems of beliefs about personality derived from everyday experience (Sternberg, 1985). Explicit theories constitute one way of looking at personality: the personality theorist’s perspective, in which the actual manifestations of personality in observable behaviour are studied. Implicit theories provide another viewpoint: the lay perspective, in which people’s beliefs about personality are the object of study. The self perspective refers to both the scientific and lay theories developed to study the way people perceive and understand themselves.

A similar distinction to explicit versus implicit theories was made by Wiggins (1973) in his separation of external from internal personality data, and by Buss and Craik (1983), who distinguished between manifested and conceptual personality. Research into external, manifested (i.e. explicit) personality is typically conducted in the context of real individuals by observing their patterns of actual behaviour. The focus is on the personalities of the individuals under investigation. In research into internal, conceptual (i.e. implicit) personality, the focus is on the knowledge and beliefs about personality held by the individuals under investigation.

Explicit personality and the personality theorists’ perspective

Psychologists have studied personality by observing behaviour and developing formal theories to account for their observations. Personality theories typically consist of propositions concerned with three main areas: the structure, dynamics and development of personality (Hall and Lindzey, 1978). Propositions about personality structure are meant to specify more precisely the nature of the internal factors making up personality; the study of personality dynamics is concerned with what drives the structure to result in behaviour; and personality development has to do with the origins of the mature structure and its dynamics.

The three areas described by personality theories may be illustrated by reference to Freud’s theory of personality (which is dealt with in more detail in chapter 9). First, the id, ego, and superego are the three interrelated systems which make up the structure of personality. Second, they are regarded as being in constant competition for control of psychic energy, which is the basis of the Freudian account of dynamics. Finally, Freud proposed that personality develops predominantly as a sequence of three stages which is completed around the age of 5 years. These are the oral, anal, and phallic stages, their names deriving from the part of the body assumed to provide the major source of gratification during the particular stage. Other personality theories, such as Eysenck’s and Cattell’s, are based on more objective observations of normal populations.

Part One of this book is concerned with explicit theories. A selection of explicit personality theories is presented in chapters 2 and 3, and in chapter 4 the most challenging issue for explicit theories – behavioural consistency – is discussed.

Implicit personality and the lay perspective

The implicit approach refers to the study of widely shared beliefs about personality which are not generally made explicit, but which remain implicit and form the basis of lay or everyday theories of personality, theories which we all use in an informal and often unconscious way (Bruner and Tagiuri, 1954). Lay theories have become embodied in the language of personality description. For example, we might be telling friends about a person we had recently met and describe this new person as ‘warm’ and ‘friendly’. Our friends would have no difficulty in understanding this description and would probably infer that were they also to meet this person it would be easy to strike up a conversation, since the person would be likely to be ‘sociable’ as well. In short, we tend to believe that certain personality characteristics like ‘warm’, ‘friendly’, and ‘sociable’ go together, and we use these beliefs to make additional inferences about personality on the basis of limited information. These beliefs help us to simplify and organise our social world by enabling us to categorise people in terms of their personality characteristics in ways which then allow us to make predictions about their future behaviour. Lay personality theory is a form of general knowledge comparable to our knowledge about other aspects of the animate and inanimate environment. One does not need to be a biologist to know that dogs can bite, or a chemist to know that paper dissolves in water.

General knowledge about personality is of interest to personality psychologists for at least two reasons. First, in order to understand social behaviour it is necessary to understand the informal personality theories people use to categorise one another and to make predictions about additional characteristics and behaviour. Second, the existence of the lay perspective raises the question of how it relates to the personality theorists’ perspective. They are both concerned with the same subject matter, but how far are they the same? These issues will be considered in chapter 6. Part Two reviews research into implicit personality and compares implicit and explicit theories.

The self perspective

The final approach to personality that we shall be considering is the combination of both explicit and implicit personality that arises in the concept of the self. Psychologists have been concerned with the origins of our self-awareness (Mead, 1934) and the form in which our self-perceptions are structured (Rogers, 1959). One of the most interesting issues raised in connection with the concept of the self is the extent to which our self-perceptions are accurate. Although we may think that no one knows us better than we do ourselves, there is evidence to suggest that this self-knowledge is not as accurate as we would like to believe. The self is discussed in chapter 7.

These three approaches are not the only standpoints from which observations about personality can be made; theologians, philosophers, and sociologists all have their own perspectives from which to think about and study personality. However, the three perspectives to be described here incorporate the main areas of psychological research into personality. Traditionally, these three approaches have not been given equal weight in personality textbooks. Accounts of implicit personality and the self are more commonly found in social psychology texts. However, the intention is to show that the understanding of personality is enhanced by a consideration of all three perspectives.

The construction of personality

The combined study of explicit and implicit personality, and the self, is necessary because personality is a social construction. Therefore, it is important not only to study what the actor displays to others (explicit personality) but also how the actor is construed by observers (implicit personality) and how the actor construes her or himself (the self perspective).

The social constructivist approach is ‘principally concerned with explicating the processes by which p...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1 The concept of Personality
• Part One. Explicit Personality: The Personality Theorist’s Perspective
• Part Two. Implicit Personality: The Lay Perspective
• Part Three. The Self Perspective and Personality Construction
• Part Four. Applications of the Constructivist Approach
• Bibliography
• Author index
• Subject Index