Persona: A Critical Evaluation of Theories of Personality

Introduction

Human personality is a complex and variable phenomenon. Throughout human evolution, our ancestors fashioned tools to solve problems (Washburn, 1960, p. 63). Similarly, personality can be seen as a tool that has evolved to solve problems that have faced us through the ages: functioning by influencing our perceptions, motivations, emotions, and actions, people with different personalities experience the world in fundamentally different ways. Personality psychologists are interested in studying the psychological mechanisms underlying personality with the aim of understanding and predicting human behaviour (Funder, 2019, p. 68). Learning about personality and its functions facilitates understanding ourselves and others, in turn helping us to lead more harmonious lives.

The Trait Approach to Human Personality

While many theories of human personality have been offered, the trait approach has domainted the field in recent years. Traits can be defined as ‘dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thought, emotions, and actions’ (McCrae & Costa, 1990, p. 23). Central to the trait approach is the belief that a core number of key characteristics, or traits, help in understanding human behaviour. Traits are distributed along a continuum, meaning that while a few people land in either extreme— highly introverted or highly extroverted —most fall in the middle of the distribution. In contrast to other theories of personality, the trait approach has two notable differences: 1) all trait research relies on correlational design, meaning individual scores are measured against a separate indication of that behaviour; and 2) trait theories focus exclusively on individual differences (Funder, 2019, p. 274). Common to all trait theories of personality— Eysenck’s P-E-N, Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Costa & McCrea’s Big Five —is the statistical tool factor analysis: a method of grouping idem according to their similarity, simplifying the process of identifying trends in large sets of data. Each group of variables define a factor, and each factor, in turn, summarizes the variables (Costa, 1998, p. 107). For example, we might find individual scores for personality-themed variables diligent, dedicated and hardworking to be highly correlated with one another, and in turn, we can group summarize them using the factor conscientiousness. 

In what is known as the lexical hypothesis, trait theory assumes that our vocabulary has captured the essential elements of human life: if something has been truly important throughout human evolution, it’ll likely have been expressed in a single word (Funder, 2019, p. 450). Foundational to the trait approach is research by Allport & Odbert (1936), who catalogued the trait lexicon, 18,000 English words that described aspects of human personality. Building on Allport & Odbert work, Cattell (1943) used factor analysis to reduce the trait lexicon to 16 basic dimensions of personality, informing his Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) personality assessment questionnaire. However, attempts to replicate Cattell’s work were unsuccessful (Fiske, 1949; Tupes & Christal, 1961). In the years following, multiple studies have supported a five-factor model of personality (Borgatta 1964; Norman, 1963), setting the ground for the model of personality that predominates psychological science today.

Contemporary personality psychologists have embraced the five-factory theory of personality, commonly referred to as the Big Five. Big Five traits— openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness —have been observed across multiple studies, using many different lists of traits (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996; Conley, 1985). On factor analysing other personality questionnaires, as well as the trait lexicon, results have repeatedly demonstrated the existence of the Big Five traits: as a result, the Big Five can be viewed as an integration rather than an opponent of the other theories of personality (Saucier & Goldberg, 2003 as cited in Funder, 2019; Shafer, 1999). Additionally, the Big Five trait factor have appeared across cultures (Rolland, 2002), age ranges (Donnellan & Lucas, 2008), and even when people rate themselves or are rated by others (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Taken together, these studies imply that broad personality traits not only exist and are useful for predicting behaviour, but are stable across time and situation.

Trait psychology has proved useful in both personal and professional contexts. Many industries— financial, political, military —have used personality assessments to optimize personnel selection. In their meta-analytic study, Barrick & Michael (1991) explored the relationship between personality dimensions and job performance. Comparing occupational groups (police, managers, sales professionals) with job performance criteria (proficiency, leadership) across 162 samples, they found that traits conscientiousness (consisting of traits duty, purpose, persistence) and extraversion (consisting of traits flexible, sociable, outgoing) were consistent predictors of favourable job performance. Additionally, research has found a consistent correlation (.43) between conscientiousness-related traits and long-term educational success (Digman & Tekemoto-Chock, 1981, p. 167). Taken together, these studies imply that the trait approach to personality is helpful in both understanding and predicting human behaviour. 

Heavy criticism has been laid against the trait approach to personality. Emerging consensus around the Big Five traits led theorists to assume those who share specific traits would behave similarly across various situations (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1990, p. 21). Walter Mischel is critical of the conclusions that trait theorists draw from their findings. Mischel argued that human behaviour is much more situationally specific, stating that behaviour is largely shaped by the intricacies of a given situation (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Believing that personality psychologists commit a form of fundamental attribution error— overemphasizing traits while underemphasizing situations —when explaining behaviour, Mischel claimed that ‘personality traits exist nowhere but in the mind of the observer’ (McAdams, 2008, p 143). Supporting this situationist perspective is a study by Hartshorne & May (1928), in which they found that individual differences in moral behaviour— the propensity to cheat on a test —was not consistent across situations: children who cheated one test did not necessarily cheat on another. Showcasing that behaviour differs unpredictably across situations, these results imply that the trait theorists’ attempt to predict behaviour using one specific attribute is misleading. While many explanations of human behaviour have been offered, one remains arguably the most influential and contentious of them all; that is the psychodynamic approach to personality.

The Psychodynamic Approach to Personality

Based on the work of Sigmund Freud, psychodynamic approaches explain human behaviour as the result of unconscious forces—  hidden beliefs, memories, wishes, and desires —that, while not immediately available to awareness, influence personality (Gazzaniga, 2019). Freud (1923) introduced a tripartite model of the mind: the id, the repository of instinctual drives that demand immediate satisfaction; the superego, the repository of internalized societal rules; and ego, the conscious part of the mind, reconciling the claims of the id, superego, and the real world in a socially acceptable way (Funder, 2019, p. 744). According to psychodynamic theory, individual personality differences are the result of interactions between the unconscious id, the partly conscious superego, and the conscious ego.

Central to psychodynamic approaches to personality is psychic conflict. Because the mind was divided into separate parts, psychodynamic theorists believe it can conflict with itself. These conflicts result in anxiety, which in turn can be dealt with using defense mechanisms: unconscious mechanisms that serve to shield us from reality (Funder, 2019, p. 789). Among these defense mechanisms are denial, refusing to acknowledge reality to avoid anxiety; repression, pushing uncomfortable thoughts out of awareness; and reaction formation, where feelings causing anxiety or guilt are compensated for by behaving in a directly opposite manner (Funder, 2019, 791). Psychodynamic theorists believed that with specialized techniques— dream analysis and free association —a psychotherapist, a practitioner of psychodynamic theory, can reveal unconscious content, resolving the patient’s conflicts, resulting in a healthy mental life. 

Showcasing the effects of psychodynamic concepts is a meta-analysis by Gerber et al. (2011), who compared the outcomes of patients using psychotherapy with outcomes of patients using other interventions. Results showed that 72% (39) of the studies demonstrated that psychotherapy and active comparators (e.g., psychopharmaceutical drugs) resulted in similar outcomes. Comparing psychotherapy to inactive comparators (e.g., waiting lists, placebo), 75% (24) of studies showed psychotherapy was superior. Investigating the effects of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (average 150 sessions) for adult outpatients with diagnosed mental health issues, de Matt et al. (2009) ran a meta-analysis of 27 studies (n = 5063) that was published in the highly esteemed Harvard Review. For cases of mild pathology (e.g. anxiety disorder), researchers found a large mean effect size on both treatment end and follow-up (.78, .94); for severe pathology (e.g. personality disorder), similar effect sizes were observed (.87, 1.18). Taken together, the above evidence suggests that Freud’s psychodynamic concepts are not only helpful, but when employed, have an increasing benefit over time.

Despite being heavily influential, the psychodynamic approach is by far the most contested. Integral to the scientific method is the principle that data must be public so that conclusions can be revised and retested. Much of psychodynamic evidence has been through case studies, which not only have several intrinsic limitations, but by the manner of ethics and law must be kept confidential (Funder, 2019, p. 800), leaving early psychodynamic theories unfalsifiable. Other critics argue that Freud may use the power of suggestion, consciously or unconsciously, resulting in him implanting ‘repressed’ memories of events that had never taken place (McCullough, 2001, pp. 18-19). 

Contemporary research challenges psychodynamic theory. Briere & Conte (1993) interviewed 450 clinical clients who reported a history of sexual abuse. Of those surveyed, 59% reported periods where they could not recall the event. Briere & Conte did not attempt to quantify the variable repression. Without adhering to the scientific principle operationalization, turning abstract concepts into measurable variables (Gazzaniga, 2019, p. 47), we run the risk of falling prey to the false attribution effect. To produce reliable results, it is critical that psychological scientists clearly define variables to be sure of where observed effects are coming from. Seeing as repression is not measured directly in the above study, it could be the case that these are false memories. Researchers have found that people are often extremely confident in recollecting memories that are later proven false (Roediger & McDermott, 1995, p. 812). More research using controlled trials with strict adherence to scientific methods would help in further determining the efficacy of psychodynamic theories of personality.

Conclusion

Personality shapes how we perceive, think and act in the world. Introduced by Gordon Allport, the trait approach understood personality as groups of characteristics that combine to illustrate individual disposition. One major drawback to the trait approach is its underestimation of how situations can influence behaviour. Popularized by Freud, the psychodynamic approach held that hidden beliefs and emotions are the chief determinants of personality. Critics have highlighted that many ideas within the psychodynamic approach are not scientifically sound. Regardless of their school of thought, personality psychologists are united by one fundamental premise: an interest in interpreting and predicting human behaviour. While our understanding of personality has come a long way in recent years, the information presented here highlights that human personality remains a cryptic and largely contested phenomenon.

**

References

Abbass, A. A., Hancock, J. T., Henderson, J., & Kisely, S. (2006). Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies for common mental disorders. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (4), CD004687. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004687.pub3

Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090103

Briere, J., & Conte, J. (1993). Self-reported amnesia for abuse in adults molested as children. Journal of traumatic stress, 6(1), 21-31.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Trait Theories of Personality. Advanced Personality, 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8580-4_5 

de Maat, S., de Jonghe, F., Schoevers, R., & Dekker, J. (2009). The effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic therapy: a systematic review of empirical studies. Harvard review of psychiatry, 17(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10673220902742476

Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: evidence from two national samples. Psychology and aging, 23(3), 558.

Digman, J.M. (1990). PERSONALITY STRUCTURE: EMERGENCE OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(2), 149–170.

Eysenck, H. J. (1984). Cattell and the Theory of Personality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19(2-3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.1984.9676938 

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198

Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. W. W. Norton & Company.

Funder, D. C. (2019). The Personality Puzzle. W. W. Norton & Company.

Gazzaniga, M. S., Heatherton, T. F., & Halpern, D. F. (2019). Psychological Science (6th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Gerber, A. J., Kocsis, J. H., Milrod, B. L., Roose, S. P., Barber, J. P., Thase, M. E., Perkins, P. & Leon, A. C. (2011). A quality-based review of randomized controlled trials of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(1), 19-28.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. Review of personality and social psychology, 2(1), 141-165.

McAdams, D. P. (2008). The person: An introduction to the science of personality psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

McCullough, M. L. (2001). Freud’s seduction theory and its rehabilitation: A saga of one mistake after another. Review of General Psychology, 5(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.1.3

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. Guilford Press.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291

Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803

Rolland, J.-P. (2002). The Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_2 

Shafer, A. B. (1999). Factor analyses of big five markers with the Comrey Personality Scales and the Howarth Personality Tests. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(5), 857-872.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x 

Washburn, S. L. (1960). Tools and human evolution. Scientific American, 203(3), 62-75