Clinical Application of the Trait Theory of Personality

Introduction

Trait theory is an increasingly important area in personality psychology. A trait can be defined as a psychobiological structure underlying a relatively enduring behavioural tendency (Tellegen, 1988, p. 622). Vertebrates evolved adaptive exploratory and inhibitory systems to handle moment-to-moment responses to incoming stimuli. Traits characterise the enduring operational settings of these systems (Harkness, 2007, pp. 266-267). While trait psychologists differ on whether traits are descriptive or explanatory, they are generally seen as the fundamental building blocks of personality.

Research into trait theory has a long history. Building on Allport, Ogden, & Cattell’s pioneering work (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Cattell, 1943), research in the last 30 years has supported a five-factor model (FFM) of personality and highlighted the robustness of FFM-based personality inventories (Harkness, 2007; John et al., 1999; Widiger & Presnall, 2013). The trait theory of personality has the capacity to increase the performance of your clinic as a whole. We will consider the real-world applicability of FFM of personality.

Applying Trait Theory in Real-World Settings

Trait theory has proven useful in multiple real-world settings. A great deal of previous research has demonstrated its clinical value in alleviating maladaptive behaviour (Costa, 1991; Harkness et al., 2012; Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Widiger & Presnall, 2013) and increasing organisational success by correlating personality assessments to personnel selection, training proficiency, and job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goodstein & Lanyon, 1999). Creators of the NEO Personality Inventory Costa & McCrea propose that personality assessment can assist “in understanding …, formulating a diagnosis, establishing rapport, developing insight, anticipating the course of therapy, and selecting the optimal form of treatment for the patient” (1992, p. 5).

Administering a trait theory-based personality inventory as part of a client consultation can assist your clinicians in gaining a deeper understanding of client vulnerabilities, laying out personalised treatment plans, and anticipating difficulties in the therapeutic alliance (Harkess and McNulty, 2006). The effectiveness of matching treatment planning to personality traits was demonstrated in a study by Ogrodniczuk, Piper, Joyce, McCallum, and Rosie (2003). Results suggested that individuals high on agreeableness will experience great responses from treatments that give insights through exploring negative thoughts and emotions (psychodynamic therapy) as opposed to treatments that focus on problem-solving techniques (CBT). The evidence reviewed here suggests experienced and less experienced clinicians alike will benefit from trait theory: the former bringing a wealth of experience to help validate and shape the use of trait theory for treatment planning; the latter learning from experienced peers, leading to more effective treatment planning and better patient outcomes.

Prevailing personality disorders are described in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the current authoritative source for the description and diagnosis of mental health disorders. For clinical purposes, personality disorders described in the DSM can be thought of as maladaptive variants of the domains of the FFM (Widiger & Costa, 1994; Saulsman & Page, 2004). Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, and Costa (2002) provided five-factor profiles for each personality disorder described in the DSM. When treating patients, your clinicians can diagnose & plan treatment for personality disorders by comparing disordered five-factor profiles to those that have emerged from research on normal personality.

Trait theory has proven effective in identifying personality configurations that lead to better job performance. Barrick & Mount (1991) found aspects of the FFM to be consistently valid predictors of job success: openness to experience predicted job success through indicating a willingness to engage in new learning experiences; extraversion predicted success in managerial and sales roles; and conscientiousness showed itself to be the most robust indicator of job success because it assesses personal characteristics such as persistence, discipline, & responsibility. Considering all of this evidence, it seems that applying trait theory to your clinical practice may increase the likelihood of favourable outcomes for clientele while upskilling less experienced staff, ideally improving the effectiveness of your clinic as a whole.

Critical Consideration of the Efficacy of Trait Theory

Trait theory does not come without complications. Fundamental to trait theory is the assumption that traits exert a steady influence on behaviour regardless of the situation. While proven to be a reliable indicator of individual differences, trait theory presents us with a static picture of an individual embedded within a dynamic, interdependent system (e.g., family, friends, colleagues). Systems-oriented psychologists have demonstrated that one change to a node in an individual’s network can attenuate maladaptive behaviours (Helps, 2016). As clinicians, it would benefit us to use tools that account for both individual and situational factors influencing our clients to not miss out on potentially critical influences on behaviour.

Another caution with the clinical application of trait theory is the neglect of mental processes. Trait theories have traditionally focused on overt behaviour, putting less emphasis on internal factors such as attitudes, beliefs, motives, and desires that may drive behaviour. Initially a trait psychologist, Murray (1938) rejected the trait concept, which he views as being invested in overt behaviours while neglecting internal factors that do not appear in, but can be a driving force of, overt behaviour. In focusing on external factors, trait theorists may find it hard to explain inconsistencies like individuals who simultaneously act in risk-seeking and risk-averse ways (Hertwig & Gigerenzer, 2011). Clinicians and their clients would benefit from the psychodynamic or humanistic schools that seek to explain the mental processes that shape personality and drive behaviour.

The conceptual status of traits is also a point of contention. Many trait psychologists consider traits indicative of future behaviour. Conversely, Pervin (1994) argues that trait psychologists’ tendency to refer to traits as if they were a cause of the behaviour is misleading. In his view, it is more helpful to consider traits descriptive rather than explanatory. Wiggins (1973) goes so far as to say that traits are “lost causes, because their existence requires, rather than provides, a scientific explanation”. Through this lens, trait theory would help inform your clinicians’ view of patients at a specific point in time but neglects the individuals’ capacity to change and grow.

Conclusion

The main goal of this report was to assess the efficacy of trait theory in real-world settings. The investigation has revealed the usefulness of trait theory while uncovering potentially hazardous gaps in understanding. Trait theory has the capacity to increase the performance of your clinic as a whole: by aiding in understanding, diagnosing, and treating maladaptive symptoms, as well as improving your clients’ workplace success. That said, the trait approach has its limitations. One major blindspot of trait theory is the lack of attention to situational determinants of behaviour. Trait theory is but one tool of many, fitting into a wider array of tools that help to give clients and patients the best outcomes possible.

References

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5

Costa, P. T. (1991). Clinical use of the five-factor model: An introduction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(3), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5703_1

Goodstein, L. D., & Lanyon, R. I. (1999). Applications of Personality Assessment to the Workplace: A Review. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(3), 291–322.

Harkness, A. R. (2007). Personality traits are essential for a complete clinical science. In The great ideas of clinical science: 17 principles that every mental health professional should understand (pp. 263–290). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (2006). An Overview of Personality: The MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales. In MMPI-2: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 73–97). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11287-004

Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S. M. (2012). The Personality Psychopathology—Five (PSY–5): Recent constructive replication and assessment literature review. Psychological Assessment, 24, 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025830

Helps, S. (2016). Systemic psychotherapy with families where someone has an autism spectrum condition. NeuroRehabilitation, 38(3), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-161314

Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Behavioral Inconsistencies Do Not Imply Inconsistent Strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00292

John, O. P., Srivastava, S., Sanjay Srivastava, & Srivastava, S. K. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford Univ. Press.

Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Piper, W. E., Joyce, A. S., McCallum, M., & Rosie, J. S. (2003). NEO-Five Factor Personality Traits as Predictors of Response to Two Forms of Group Psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 53, 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijgp.53.4.417.42832

Pervin, L. A. (1994). A Critical Analysis of Current Trait Theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0502_1

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002

Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1055–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001

Tellegen, A. (1988). The Analysis of Consistency in Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality, 56(3), 621–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00905.x

Widiger, T. A., & Presnall, J. R. (2013). Clinical application of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 81(6), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12004

Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2002). A description of the DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality. In Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality, 2nd ed (pp. 89–99). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10423-006

Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Longman Higher Education.