Lecture Notes for Unit 2 (revised August 22, 2005)
See main textbook chapters 4-7, especially chapter 4.
Basic concepts
The dispositional school of thought was the first to emerge historically -- millennia before the onset of scientific psychology as a discrete discipline. The first known personality theory (in the West, at least) is the "four humours" theory, which posited four distinct types of people (phlegmatic, choleric, melancholic, and sanguine). Even though this theory was primitive by modern standards, it prefigured many of the features of modern day dispositional theories:
1. It suggested that there are a finite number of discrete or distinct types of people, in this case, four. (Four is a very popular number, for reasons that are interesting to speculate about. I've asked the anthropology department about it and have gotten some intriguing replies.)
2. It presumed that the type categories are exhaustive (everyone fits one of the types; no one is left out) and mutually exclusive (no one belongs to more than one type category). The second part of this assumption is often relaxed by means of the idea of "secondary types" or "degrees of fit".
3. It presumes minimal variation within any type; that is, one melancholic is seen as pretty much like another -- not identical, of course, but generally alike in the ways considered most psychologically important. Differences between individuals in a type are put down, often, to noise, random variation, or other theoretically negligible factors.
4. It presumes minimal overlap between types; that is, the types are seen as appreciably, significantly, and distinctly different.
From this description, you can probably imagine many difficulties with type theories, though they remain popular today, as a heuristic shorthand way of talking about human differences if nothing more. Easily identified problems with type theories that are taken too literally or too seriously include labeling effects, self-fulfilling prophecy effects, stereotypy and prejudice, a tremendous oversimplification of reality, schematically-based cognitive distortions and more.
Most contemporary dispositional theorists are not type theorists in the narrow sense outlined above (though many use the language of type as a sort of heuristic or shorthand as noted above). It's important to understand the difference between traits, states, and types to make sense of modern dispositional theory.
A trait (or disposition) is "a broad tendency to think, act, or feel in a certain way". Note that it is easy for traits to be used tautologically, and a brief detour to understand exactly what that means is in order.
We must establish what is meant by a tautology. This is more easily done by example than by a formal, abstract definition. Consider the following statement.
All mortals will eventually die.
On the surface, this sounds like a scientifically testable hypothesis; at least, it has the verbal form of one. We can imagine designing a study to test this hypothesis. First, we would select a random sample of mortals. Then, we would carefully track each over a long period of time, noting when a given individual died. When (as we can assume would happen) all of them die, we assume that our hypothesis is confirmed. What’s the problem?
Note the first step in the process: we obtain a sample of mortals. To do so, we must ask and answer the question, “What is a mortal?” or “How do we recognize a mortal when we see one?” After all, it would be fatal (no pun intended) to our study if we accidentally included an immortal in our research sample. Consulting a dictionary, we find that the word “mortal” means “an individual who will eventually die”. Substituting this definition in for the word “mortal” in our original statement, we find that
All individuals who will eventually die will eventually die.
This is a tautological statement: it is true by definition, for it says nothing other than “X is X”. Like the statement “A tree is a tree”, it is true (at least under the rules of logic we assume valid in our culture), but valueless to anyone other than a linguist or a philosopher. It is not a true hypothesis because there is only one variable (mortality), not two (mortality and the probability of dying) as appeared on the surface.
This problem often crops up in psychological research. For instance, consider the following hypothesis:
Introverts are generally shy around people they do not know well.
Again, it’s easy to imagine an appropriate research design to test this hypothesis. A group of introverts and, for comparison purposes, a group of extraverts are both placed in a situation with people they do not know well. Their behavior is monitored for evidence of shyness (assuming that we have defined shyness in sufficiently operational terms, so we can recognize shyness when we see it and quantify the degree of shyness that is present). If the introverts exhibit more shy behavior than the extraverts, the hypothesis is proven. Or is it?
Ultimately this depends on how we define the term “introvert”. If by “introvert” we simply mean “someone who is generally shy around people s/he does not know well”, then the statement is tautological:
Those who are generally shy around people they do not know well are generally shy around people they do not know well.
To get around this problem, let’s try to define introversion differently. What if we define it in terms of scores on a personality assessment device? An introvert is someone who obtains an above average score on an introversion scale (paper and pencil questionnaire). This is no longer tautological, but it is what we might call “near tautological”. That’s because the items on the introversion questionnaire probably ask questions like, “Are you generally shy around people you do not know well?” In other words, our hypothesis is:
Those who claim to be generally shy around people they do not know well, usually are shy in fact.
This is no longer a tautology: it hypothesizes that people’s internal self-concept or self-perception usually matches their outward observable behavior, at least in the area of shyness. There are now two variables (how shy someone thinks her/himself to be, and how shy s/he actually is in terms of outward behavior), but the hypothesis is not a particularly earth-shattering or surprising one. We expect that people can evaluate themselves accurately in terms of behaviors of this sort, and to find that they can is not ground-breaking research. Because the relationship between these two variables is so obvious, though not a sheer necessity, we might call this a “near tautology”.
Of course, we can try to get around even this problem by defining introversion in still another way, one that has little or nothing to do with social behavior. For instance, one current theory defines introversion in terms of brain activation levels. In this model, an introvert is someone who has an unusually low threshold of brain activation; it takes very little external stimulation to produce an overexcited state, and as a result, the person seeks quiet environments. In contrast, an extravert is someone with an unusually high threshold of brain activation; it takes a great deal of external stimulation to produce internal excitement or interest, so the person seeks highly active environments to avoid understimulation and boredom. Defining introversion in this way, we find that the hypothesis is neither tautological nor near tautological, and therefore scientifically interesting and worth examining:
Those with low thresholds of brain activation are generally shy around people they do not know well (because the stimulus of meeting a new person produces an overexcited, hence anxious state).
Here’s another example. Try to figure out for yourself whether the statement is tautological, near tautological, or scientifically meaningful and testable.
People tend to rate attractive individuals highly.
Are there two variables or not? On the surface, yes: (a) the attractiveness of the individual being rated, (b) the extent to which positive ratings are given. Whether or not the statement is tautological depends on whether these two variables are names for the same entity, or whether they are two distinct and independent entities. But what is attractiveness? If by an attractive person we simply mean “one who is rated highly”, we have a tautology.
We can refine our statement to avoid any danger of tautology:
People tend to rate physically attractive individuals more highly in terms of task performance than an objective assessment of their skill would warrant.
While not too surprising, the statement is not tautological, because physical attractiveness (even though this probably boils down to one person’s rating of another) is not the same as rated skill on a task. The statement has some near tautological properties when one restates it in this way:
If you rate someone highly on one trait, you are likely to rate them highly on another trait.
However, what rescues the statement is the fact that there appears to be something special about perceived physical attractiveness: this variable is more likely to “swamp” other ratings than are other self-rated positive qualities. The hypothesis presumes that physical attractiveness is more “salient” than other personal characteristics an individual may have. Thus, the statement is neither tautological nor near tautological, though again far from being a complete surprise.
Watch for the presence of tautologies and near tautologies as we look at specific content areas in this course. When a magician puts a rabbit in a hat, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, he forfeits the right to be surprised when he then finds it there.
Traits have an honorable and lengthy history in the psychology of personality, despite the danger of using them tautologically or, as others put it, reifying them. For instance, the Big Five model of normal personality differences is a tremendously influential one these days. Even though we have to ask whether traits like extraversion, neuroticism, and so forth are "real" (whether they are anything more than patterns of behaviors), they are -- if nothing more -- useful shorthand descriptions of common, central, and important human differences.
How do traits differ from types?
1. Traits are continuous (can vary quantitatively, and are usually normally distributed), while types are discrete (all-or-none, varying only qualitatively, and distributed bimodally or in some similar fashion).
2. Traits are single entities, while types are (or can be thought of as) clusters of related (that is, correlated) traits.
How do traits differ from states? Traits are (or are thought to be) more stable over time and more consistent across situations. States (such as moods or role-related behaviors) vary. Note however that this is a matter of degree; a "bad mood" is thought of as a state (is not permanent), but a person who is frequently in a bad mood is thought of as having the trait of "moodiness" (which is, relatively speaking, permanent).
Why do traits matter?
1. They tend to be self-reinforcing through the process of niche picking, in which individuals select situations and roles that reinforce existing patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving.
2. They often come to have what is known as functional autonomy in that, once developed, they "take on a life of their own" or become self-perpetuating even in the absence of the factors that led to their initial development. (For instance, a child who originally strove to do well in school to please her parents may come to have a generalized achievement motive derived from the joy of doing things well as an end in itself.)
An important question related to trait theory involves the so-called lexical hypothesis, which is that all important trait differences are identified in language (those not captured in language can safely be ignored). If a trait is important enough, it will become lexically marked. This implies links to the Whorfian hypothesis, which is that a person's language system constrains what she is capable of thinking, feeling, and doing, and suggests important questions related to the cross-cultural generalizability of personality theories (see material from Unit 1).
Jung's theory of psychological types
Let's begin with the concept of mental functions. A function is a way of using your mind. There are two basic types of functions:
1. Perceiving functions, utilized when you are gathering information, exploring experience or possibilities, or in some other way taking in information without filtering or assessing it in any way. Jung actually called these "irrational functions", but "perceiving functions" is a more understandable and neutral term (used by many of Jung's contemporary followers).
2. Judging functions, utilized when you are evaluating or assessing information, sifting and weighing, making decisions, or in some other way attaching a weight, value, or conclusion to something. Jung's term was "rational functions", but again, "judging functions" is a more widely used term these days.
There are two opposing ways of perceiving, and two opposing ways of judging:
1. One can take in information either through the five senses (sensing input -- Jung actually used the term "sensation", but since this is easily misunderstood, modern theorists usually use the term "sensing"), or can "read between the lines" or look beyond the literal, immediate sensory input to speculate, imagine, hypothesize, extrapolate, envision, or in some other way view reality more metaphorically (intuitive input). A person using sensing is focusing on present realities, often with a pragmatic, practical, detail-minded, or experiential focus. A person using intuition is focusing on future possibilities, often with a creative, insightful, big-picture, or theoretical focus. All of us are more prone to take in information about the world through one of these modes more than the other; in Jung's terminology, one of these two functions is better differentiated than the other. The other is more primitive, more childlike, and less likely to be trusted by the individual who has not developed it well. Hence we can speak of "sensing types" (those whose primary mode of perceiving is through sensing, and for whom intuition is relatively undifferentiated) and "intuitive types" (those whose primary mode of perceiving is through intuition, and for whom sensing is relatively undifferentiated).
2. One can evaluate and decide either impersonally and analytically, by focusing on causes and effects, or logically anticipatable consequences (thinking); or, alternatively, personally and empathically, by focusing on personal values and commitments, or the desire for interpersonal harmony (feeling). Again, because of the oppositional quality of these two functions, to develop one is to neglect the other; hence, "thinking types" tend to be skilled at logic but weak in handling emotions, while "feeling types" are sensitive and harmonious but often lack objectivity.
Since each of us has a primary way of perceiving (either sensing or intuition) and a primary way of judging (either thinking or feeling), this yields a quadrant system of four basic type categories: sensing-thinking (ST), sensing-feeling (SF), intuitive-thinking (NT), and intuitive-feeling (NF). One can readily imagine vocational choices that might likely be associated with each: for instance, most accountants are ST (S for realism, T for analytical skill); most nurses are SF (S for realism, F for empathy and caring); most research scientists are NT (N for creative vision, T for analytical skill); and most counselors are NF (N for creative vision, F for empathy and caring).
Each of these four categories can be subdivided into two by considering the basic mental attitude that is dominant for that person. For Jung, the primary attitudes -- again, oppositional -- were introversion and extraversion (for a physiological explanation, see Reading 6). This yields eight basic types: IST, EST, ISF, ESF, INT, ENT, INF, ENF. These were (fundamentally, though note the complexities below) the eight types about which Jung wrote in his book Psychological Types. From the descriptions above, can you identify which of these eight categories best characterizes you?
In fact, Jung left one element of his model implicit; it remained for others (most notably Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers) to elucidate it explicitly. It may seem a bit complex, but here goes:
1. Of the two well differentiated functions (remember, one of them is a perceiving function, either S or N; the other is a judging function, either T or F), one is primarily used outwardly, to deal with the demands of the outer (extraverted) world; hence, we say that this is a person's extraverted function. The other is primarily used inwardly, to deal with the demands of the inner (introverted) world; this is a person's introverted function. We all have one of each.
2. A person who is an introvert is one for whom the introverted function is the so-called "dominant", that is, the best differentiated. The dominant function (for anyone, E or I) is the "captain of the ship"; it sets the basic course of personality development for that person. A person who is an extravert is one for whom the extraverted function is dominant. The other well-differentiated function (for both E's and I's) plays a secondary, supporting role and is called the auxiliary function. Thus, in fact each of Jung's eight types can be split in two. For instance, among INF's, there are two varieties:
a. Those for whom N is dominant (hence is the introverted function), making F auxiliary (hence extraverted)
b. Those for whom F is dominant (hence is the introverted function), making N auxiliary (hence extraverted)
There are differing schemes for indicating this in a shorthand way, but the most popular (yielding the so-called "Myers-Briggs type") is to use the letters P (for perceiving) and J (for judging) as the last letter of a four-letter type. This works as follows: if a person's extraverted function is her or his better-differentiated perceiving function (S or N), the last letter is P; but if the person's extraverted function is the better-differentiated judging function (T or F), the last letter is J. The last letter of the type points to the extraverted function in all cases: for extraverted people this is also the dominant, but for introverted people it is the auxiliary (see above). A few cases may help make this clear:
1. Type: INFP (happens to be my type)
Last letter (P) means that the perceiving function is used outwardly (is extraverted)
That specific function is N (second letter of the type)
Hence, the other differentiated function (F) is used inwardly (is introverted)
First letter (I) means that the introverted function is dominant.
Hence, for any INFP,
a. Feeling is introverted and dominant
b. iNtuition is extraverted and auxiliary
2. Type: ESTJ (exact opposite of my type, or the "shadow carrier" for my type -- see below)
Last letter (J) means that the judging function is extraverted (used outwardly)
That function is T (third letter of the type)
Hence, the other differentiated function (S) is introverted (used inwardly)
First letter (E) means that the extraverted function is the dominant, so:
a. Thinking is extraverted and dominant
b. Sensing is introverted and auxiliary
Notice that this is the exact opposite of INFP (which is part of what a "shadow carrier" means): the dominant is different both in aspect (F vs. T) and in attitude (I vs. E), and the same is true of the auxiliary.
Cattell and the 16PF
See the supplementary textbook for excruciating details. You are expected to know the standard 16PF nomenclature (A+, Q4-, etc.)
Factor A (Warmth) measures a person's emotional orientation toward others - the degree to which contact with others is sought and found rewarding as an end in itself. This is sometimes known as a person's "affiliative tendency".
High scorers like and need to be with others. They rarely like to be alone, and may indicate that spending large amounts of time alone is very difficult or demotivating for them. They need and want high levels of interpersonal contact and have a "the more, the merrier" approach to life.
Low scorers are more interested in tasks or ideas than in people-interaction. They may like and value other people, but don't enjoy "small talk" or superficial social interactions. They are more prone to spend longer periods of time in solitary activities and to enjoy that. They may or may not be shy, but simply don't tend to find social interaction rewarding.
Factor B (Reasoning) measures a person's way of thinking and reasoning. It is correlated with what we conventionally think of as intelligence or problem-solving ability, but low scorers should not be thought of as lacking in intelligence. It's better to think of them as having a different kind or style of intelligence - as being "street smart" as opposed to "book smart".
High scorers are mentally quick and absorb new information rapidly and efficiently. As a result, they are often easily bored by mundane or routine tasks and often have a high need for intellectual challenge. They often enjoy mental complexity or difficulty. They may enjoy formal or academic learning contexts.
Low scorers are most comfortable with familiar, well-known tasks in which they can draw heavily on past experience and can utilize a concrete style of learning by doing. They may be very effective hands-on learners but often need more time to assimilate and adjust to new information. They may find mental complexity aversive or unpleasant. They may prefer practical, experiential learning contexts.
Factor C (Emotional Stability) measures a person's proneness to mood swings or "ups and downs" in the emotional life. High scorers are less likely to experience wide variations in mood, and are more emotionally stable or "steady as she goes" in their emotional experience. Low scorers more characteristically experience a wider range of emotional fluctations - peaks and valleys on the "roller coaster" of life.
As a result, high scorers are usually better able to manage stress in a positive, proactive way - to remain solution-focused under stress or to "keep their cool" in a crisis. However, for the same reason, some others may experience or perceive them as unduly stoic or "above it all" in a fashion that could be seen as either reassuring or annoying, depending on the perceiver's own personality and needs.
Low scorers typically struggle more with stress, yet may also experience a richer and fuller emotional life (the bitter as well as the sweet). In some cases, low scorers can be strong advocates for others because of their capacity to empathize with the "underdog" - they know from experience what it means to struggle. (A high proportion of effective counselors score on the low side of factor C for this reason.)
Factor E (Dominance) measures a person's place on the "pecking order" of interpersonal assertiveness. It is a measure of dominance versus submissiveness in an interpersonal context. It is also a measure of the extent to which a person likes to be in control of situations involving other people.
High scorers enjoy being in control and value power. They are often seen as "natural leaders" by others (but may, if scores are excessive, strike others as domineering or autocratic if their control orientation is not moderated by other factors). It is common for high scorers to use competitive terms like "mastering" a subject or "conquering" a problem; a positive correlate is tenacity and force of will. High scorers tend to like competition and to think of interpersonal situations in primarily competitive terms.
Low scorers make few demands on others and instead like to accommodate the needs and wishes of other people, sometimes making insufficient room for their own to be expressed. They dislike conflict, enjoy pleasing others, and like cooperativeness and harmony-seeking. They may not enjoy or seek leadership roles, and if placed in such roles, may not be seen as "conventional" or "strong" leaders; they lead, not by the force of their will or personality, but by other traits such as positional authority and responsibility.
Factor F (Liveliness) measures a person's natural exuberance or energy level. Thinking of the same factor in a different way, it provides a measure of deliberateness and caution (low scores) versus impulsivity and lack of inhibition (high scores).
High scorers are usually uninhibited, playful, adventurous types who enjoy being the center of attention. They may become bored easily and like to jump from one thing to another. As a result, they are at their best in "generalist" work roles that allow them to wear many different hats and to move from one activity to another without investing too deeply in any one of them. As a result, they need to watch their tendency to overgeneralize ("jack of all trades, master of none") and may need to strengthen their ability to maintain interest and attention in the face of difficulty or complexity. "Variety is the spice of life" is a high F slogan. In extreme cases, high F types can be seen as rather fickle, self-focused, or superficial by others who have a different pattern of traits.
Low scorers are usually deliberate, cautious, careful, focused, and serious-minded types. Their sense of humor is more of the wry, subtle form, and even if they have a dry wit, others are likely to perceive them as sober, serious, even perhaps rather dour people. They usually like to "dig deep" into what interests them, having longer attention spans than high F types, and so are at their best in "specialist" work roles that allow them to become technical experts in a chosen field of endeavor. However, they need to watch their tendency to overspecialize ("learning more and more about less and less") and may need to strengthen their ability to deal well with more casual, superficial interactions and roles. In extreme cases, low F cases can be seen as rather dull, plodding, or one-sided (monomanically devoted to a single cause, issue, value, or role) by others who have a different pattern of traits.
Factor G (Rule Consciousness) measures a person's orientation to rules, procedures, and social expectations. To a considerable extent, it is a measure of ethical and moral responsibility and dutifulness. High scorers are usually highly ethically driven and responsible, although the reverse is not always the case: low scorers are not necessarily irresponsible or unethical, but are, at a minimum, prone to think of ethics in unconventional terms. High scorers are more rule- or principle-governed, while low scorers are more results-governed. Thus, a high scorer is likely to stick to the rules even if this means that a desired result cannot be obtained. "I'd rather be right than President" is a high G dictum.
High scorers' dutifulness and moral conventionality make them desirable in the eyes of most employers, which is why factor G correlates with employer ratings of workers to a stronger degree than any other personality factor. However, very high scorers may become unnecessarily rigid or unbending about the rules or about ethical principles.
Low scorers are prone to think that rules are made to be broken (or at least bent) if this is what it takes to achieve a desired result. This does not necessarily translate into unethical behavior (though very low scorers are statistically likely to strike others as ethically challenged or, in the extreme case, even rather conscienceless), but it does suggest a different kind of focus - on in which outcomes, not rules, are the major emphasis.
Factor H (Social Boldness) measures social initiative taking and, to a lesser extent, a general orientation toward risk taking of any sort. "Shyness" versus "social boldness" is one way to think of this factor. However, other kinds of risks besides social risks are also in view in this factor.
High scorers are social initiative takers who are comfortable with such activities as networking, self-marketing, introducing themselves to others, small talk, and "schmoozing". As a result, nearly all sales and marketing professionals are high H types. High H types show more "courage", social and otherwise, and in the extreme show a high need for thrill seeking or "living on the edge". Most people who engage in "extreme sports", for instance, are high H types.
Low scorers are more likely to be shy and to find social initiative taking aversive and difficult. They prefer a small number of close relationships to a large number of more superficial ones and probably do not enjoy meeting new people in large group contexts. They may show a more general pattern of risk aversion and timidity, and probably enjoy more quiet, "safe" pursuits.
Factor I (Sensitivity) is a complex factor that is difficult to summarize in a single phrase. It has to do with two related qualities: objectivity versus subjectivity, and tough-mindedness versus tender-mindedness.
High scorers are generally emotionally sensitive, empathic, aware of feelings, and prone to make decisions on a more personal or subjective basis (focused on personal values or the needs of others). As a result, they do well in roles that call for interpersonal sensitivities and an emphasis on "feeling" issues. (Note that these qualities are not necessarily related to extraversion versus introversion; a person may be very focused on others' needs and yet not drawn to superficial sociability.) However, they may, especially in the extreme, lack objectivity, and may have a difficult time seeing the dark side of something about which they care deeply. Others may see them as "thin-skinned" or "wearing their heart on their sleeve."
Low scorers are generally objective, analytical, logical, and prone to make decisions on a more impersonal basis (focused on cause and effect or rational consequences). As a result, they do well in roles that call for analytical logic or impersonal objective reasoning (which are more likely to involve working with things, ideas, or data rather than with human beings and their needs and problems). However, they may, especially in the extreme, lack sensitivity, and may seem to have an "emotional blind spot" - lacking an emotional vocabulary or the ability to sense their own needs and feelings as well as those of others. Others may see them as "armor-plated" or "having ice in their veins".
Factor L (Vigilance) has to do with the balance between trust and skepticism. Erik Erikson wrote about this issue as being the first major challenge people face when growing up: learning how to be appropriately (but not excessively or indiscriminately) trusting of others.
High scorers are more careful, vigilant, wary, or skeptical about trusting others and are less likely to assume that others' motivations are trustworthy or benign. They are more likely to "read between the lines" in evaluating others - which means that they are less likely to be taken in by those who have a hidden agenda, but also that they are more likely to imagine a hidden agenda when, in fact, none exists. Very high scores are associated with a tendency to blame or suspect others in unnecessary ways.
Low scorers are more prone to take others at face value and to trust others' motivations, sometimes in excessive or unrealistic ways. The positive side of low scores is a natural tendency to feel a sense of "connectedness" with others and to "give others the benefit of the doubt" in dealings with them. The negative side, especially with extreme scores, is a certain naivete or gullibility in dealing with others - a tendency to be taken in by those who are not worthy of trust. Some professions require higher L scores than others: those which require skepticism or an ability to read between the lines. Examples of professions that reward higher than average L scores are IRS auditors, police detectives, and insurance underwriters.
Factor M (Abstractedness) has to do with practicality versus creativity, or a literal detail orientation versus an imaginative big picture orientation. Think of a camera with two different lenses: a close-up lens that reveals fine details, and a telephoto lens that shows how elements in a scene are associated with one another. Low scores are like the close-up view, high scores are like the wide-angle view.
High scorers are generally creative, imaginative, and insightful. Often, they are abstract or theoretical in orientation (focused on ideas, not their practical implementation). Their focus is generally strategic (the "thousand-year view"). However, in their ideophoria, they can miss or underattend to details and can lack practicality. Under stress they tend to obsess about specific details (which they would usually not notice). The absent-minded professor is that of a very high M person.
Low scorers are very much in touch with practical realities, live by them, make decisions on a literal and factual basis. They tend to be focused on here-and-now results and outcomes, and ask "how", not "why". Their focus is generally tactical (this hour, this day, this week). However, they can be blind to wider meanings and implications, can be overly literal or even nitpicky about details, and generally can miss the forest for the trees. Under stress they tend to "catastrophize" about imagined negative future possibilities (which they would usually not consider).
Factor N (Privateness) has to do with self-disclosure, and consequently, how easy a person is to get to know, as well as how well s/he keeps private matters confidential. Low scorers are more forthright; high scorers are more discreet.
High scorers are careful and selective about self-disclosure (when, where, and with whom they share information). They are slower to open up to others and, as a result, may strike others as hard to get to know. "I respect her/him, but I really don't know her/him" is something that others may often say about high N types. These people tend to do well in roles that require caution about the disclosure of information (such as a diplomat, a payroll clerk, or a human resource professional) or that require political "savvy".
Low scorers are "what you see is what you get" or "shoot from the lip" types who are quick to disclose information and are much less selective about when, where, and with whom they share. They strike others as more open and forthright, but may be more politically naďve or may not keep secrets well. People usually know exactly where they stand, but may not trust them with confidential or private information.
Factor O (Apprehension) has to do with apprehension in two senses. One is a general proneness to worry. The other is a propensity to self-doubt and self-blame (intrapunitiveness): being hard on oneself, selling oneself short, treating oneself stringently or harshly.
High O persons tend to be merciless self-critics. While this suggests high performance standards (and, indeed, high O types are often also high on factor G and, to a lesser extent, Q3), it also suggests a general tendency toward self-blame that is not necessarily productive. High scorers are also prone to experience such states as worry and guilt.
Low O persons are self-assured, self-confident, and rarely worry about themselves. They are certain of their capabilities and invest little energy in introspection of a self-evaluative sort. However, with very low scores, these positive traits can turn into complacency, blindness to areas of needful self-improvement, arrogance, or even denial of one's true faults (so-called "anxiety binding"). In general, low O persons might profitably learn to be a bit harder on themselves, and high O persons might learn to cut themselves some slack. While our current culture tends to favor low O, Raymond Cattell strongly emphasizes the adaptive value of high O, which includes a tendency to project blame inward rather than outward (the latter usually being more destructive, at least to others).
Factor Q1 (Openness to Change) has to do with a person's orientation to change, novelty, and innovation. The Chinese word for change literally means "dangerous opportunity" - low scorers are more attuned to the danger side (and hence tend to resist change), while high scorers are more oriented to the side of opportunity (and hence tend to seek out change).
High scorers like change, respond positively to change, seek change, and want to "boldly go where no one has gone before". They are quick to jump on the change bandwagon and tend to become bored, frustrated, or demoralized by situations that provide insufficient change. In the extreme, they can be "change junkies" who see change for change's sake, who needlessly reinvent the wheel, or who are intolerant or dismissive of tradition, convention, and stability.
Low scorers like the known, the tried and true, and the time-tested. At least initially, they tend to be skeptical of change or to respond negatively to it, avoid needless change, like things as they are, and say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They are guardians of stability and constancy and tend to be threatened, frustrated, or demoralized by situations that provide excessive change. In the extreme, they can drag their feet about change or can seem reactionary to others.
Factor Q2 (Self Reliance) has to do with a propensity to seek group support - or to strike out on one's own. Nicholas Lore divides the vocational world into "tribals" (those who like to be "a bee in the hive") and "lone wolves" (those who like to do be a one-man or one-woman show). This captures factor Q2 well.
High scorers like to solve problems on their own - in the extreme, they "ask for help when the request is pried out from between their cold, dead fingers" - and prize self-reliance. They like to act independently and may be attracted to entrepreneurial roles or to individual contributor roles for this reason. They may find it hard to delegate or may run the risk of overly isolating themselves, being seen as "not a team player" in a culture that may consist of more low Q2 types.
Low scorers like group support and group consensus, think in terms of collaborative, team-based action, and may have a hard time acting alone or independently. They may be attracted to "corporate" roles in which there are high levels of social support for what they do and in which team outcomes, not individual outcomes, are emphasized.
Factor Q3 (Perfectionism) is another complex factor that encompasses more than one core element. Part of the factor has to do with "task orientation" versus "process orientation". Another has to do with a "structure seeking" versus "structure avoidant" tendency. A third has to do with image management. Think of a person driving cross-country. One person might have a goal of getting to the destination as quickly and efficiently as possible (the high Q3 style). Another might have a goal of enjoying the trip, taking the scenic route, stopping along the way whenever the mood struck them (the low Q3 style). Thus, the idea of "the destination versus the journey" is one way to differentiate high versus low scorers.
High scorers are more organized, systematic, methodical, goal oriented, focused on conventional achievement (including outward status markers of success and image), like high levels of structure, and tend to have steady work habits oriented around starting tasks promptly, working first and playing second, and taking deadlines seriously. When taken to excess, these traits may degenerate into rigidity, inflexibility, and an inability to handle the unexpected or to stop and smell the roses. High scorers lose efficiency as the amount of environmental structure decreases.
Low scorers are more flexible, adaptable, spontaneous, emergent, and process oriented. They are often less focused on achievement as an end in itself, and may care less about what "the Joneses" think. They are better starters than finishers and tend to work in "feast or famine" spurts, mixing work and play and treating deadlines flexibly. When taken to excess, these traits may degenerate into procrastinating, drifting, waffling, and an inability to hold oneself accountable. Low scorers lose efficiency as the amount of environmental structure increases.
Factor Q4 (Tension) is about patience or impatience in response to environmental delays, stresses, and demands. A good informal test for a person's Q4 score is to watch their behavior in a crowded grocery store when the "express lane" is crawling along at molasses-in-February speed.
High scorers are "always on the go", "fidgety", constantly busy, efficiency-minded, and driven to make things happen. Delays frustrate them, producing impatience, tension, and irritability. However, they also get things done.
Low scorers are patient, relaxed, placid - "don't worry, be happy", hakuna matata. They take life in stride, which means less stress, but also less of a sense of internal urgency, hence less done.
The 16PF can be linked to other personality models discussed in lecture by way of the second-order factors:
Thus, the 16PF factors can be thought of as "facets" of the more global Big Five dimensions. Deviations from the expected patterns above are psychologically meaningful and interesting. See in-class material on profile analysis for more.
You are expected to be able to translate between Big Five, Jungian, and 16PF "language" for the exam. For instance, an ENFP (MBTI language) = E+ O+ A+ C- (Big Five language) = would be expected to be A+, I+, M+, Q3-, etc., on the 16PF.
The narrative approach
If you've ever watched the award-winning television series Biography on television, you probably know their tag line, "Every life has a story." That's a good way to introduce the narrative approach, which looks at human personality as the unfolding of a story, or of a conversation-in-progress. We say "in progress" because, as I listen to you tell your life story, that story by definition is incomplete. You are in the middle of your own story as you tell it; you don't yet know how the story will turn out; the process of telling your story may be an important tool for revising (or planning or thinking through or anticipating or readying yourself for) the part of the story that has not yet happened, for helping to make the story come out in a certain way (or to attempt to shape it into a certain mold, or conversely, to discover how the story "wants to be told" as your life unfolds from that point onward). Here are some truths about storytelling that inform the narrative approach:
The narrative approach is explicitly emic: it does not stand "outside" the storyteller's world and attempt to judge or evaluate it from some putatively objective stance (not necessarily because such a stance does not exist as such, but simply because this is not within the spirit of the narrative approach), but rather attempts to enter the storyteller's own world and view it "from the inside". Hence, it has as much in common with approaches that we associate with the humanities (history and literature, for instance) as with those we conventionally associate with the sciences. We may or may not be concerned with the question of how "accurately" a person tells her/his story, or with the need to separate "fact" from "fiction" in the story. We try to see the narrator's world as s/he sees it, to adopt an internal frame of reference.
The narrative approach is explicitly idiographic in that it does not assume that "everyone's story is alike"; rather, it assumes and expects that everyone has a unique, irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind story to tell. While we might expect certain common elements to occur within all or most stories, we are listening for this particular story as an end in itself (ens entium) and not merely as an illustration of some "generic story structure".
The narrative approach acknowledges that stories/narratives are inevitably and invariably selective, not only in the obvious sense above that a person telling her/his own story doesn't yet know what the ending will be, but in the sense that the narrator is making choices about which elements are worth repeating (or elaborating or interpreting or expanding upon) and which elements are irrelevant for her/his purposes (hence omitted, glossed over, or minimized). The process of storytelling thus "shapes" the raw facts of the story and gives them a structure. Stories are always structured, not random. They are not a mere catalog of life events.
The narrative approach, by definition, makes use primarily of self-report data (or, if approached as a historical retrospective, of life-record data such as written products generated by an individual during her/his lifetime).
While the general spirit of the narrative approach is to let each story "speak for itself" in a self-contained way (to interpret itself), we might identify some general features that are true of most if not all stories. Four such elements might be the setting or context of the story, the plot of the story, the characters of the story, and the theme or meaning of the story.
Setting/context
Stories never take place in a vacuum. The setting/context shapes the story in various ways, by setting limits on what is (or is not) possible, by explaining why the story begins as it does, by providing the narrator with a starting point. We can characterize three kinds of contextual influences:
Physical context
Life stories unfold in physical places, with physical properties. The physical context may provide advantages, or conversely obstacles to be overcome. They provide a defined "spot in the world" or "point of view" that may lead to a "worldview" in a more psychological or philosophical sense. People's experiences are shaped by the physical context of the worlds in which they live.
Cultural context
Life stories unfold in social "places" or cultural contexts that shape experience by providing preset ways to think about and to understand life events. These include expectations provided to us by parents, siblings, peers, and others about how life is "supposed" to turn out, what is likely (or unlikely), what is desirable (or undesirable), and so on. Individuals may accept (assimilate/incorporate) various cultural elements into their own personality makeup and value structure, "making them their own", or alternatively may reject or rebel against various cultural elements (hence mandating the search for an alternative).
Historical context
Earlier in this course, we discussed at length the notion of historical embeddedness and the role of age cohort (generational) influences on personality development, using the Strauss-Howe model as a specific example of how this might work or might be systematized. Individuals share certain formative experiences with others of their age cohort or "generation" (by virtue of experiencing these events at the same or similar times in their life cycle), and these often shape the mindset, values, and life perspective of an entire generation. Historical changes include changes in technology, changes in social mores, changes in social institutions and structures, and more.
Plot
Life stories unfold in time. They involve beginnings and endings, firsts and lasts. Time sets a limit on stories: there is only so much time within which certain events can occur (or fail to occur), certain challenges be faced (or avoided). The "ticking clock" of the individual life cycle -- with, of course, an ending-point in death whose precise location in time is humanly unknown and unknowable -- provides a sense of urgency. There is only so much time available. Hence tradeoffs are necessary: to choose one path is to choose against another, alternative path. Hence there are choices -- and consequences, sometimes foreseen, sometimes not; sometimes controllable, sometimes not. Life is a mixture of the planned and the unplanned, the expected and the unexpected.
A life narrative's plot can thus be characterized in terms of turning points -- major watersheds or "chapter divisions" in the story. Some are seen by the narrator as positive, others negative; though at times, what seems positive at the time can be regarded in retrospect as negative, or vice versa.
Not all plot events are outward. Some involve inward change. In fact, the interplay between the outward and the inward comprises a major component of the plot of one's life.
Some, though not all, turning points may involve (or be preceded by or followed by) a time of life crisis, where there is a major challenge to the self or a need to face a major redefinition or restructuring to either inward or outward elements of the self. The Greek root word from which we get our English term (krisis) literally means "judgment", for the circumstances of life sit in judgment on, or force us to judge and evaluate, who we have been, who we are, and who we want or hope to be (or fear that we will become).
Characters
The unfolding of the life plot usually involves our interactions with other people, whether directly or indirectly. (Indirect interactions involve the books we read -- a form of "relationship" between author and reader, even if the two have never met -- or the mental conversations we have with hypothetical or intangible characters such as our memory of a departed relative, or a spiritual being in whom we believe.) Hence, human lives involve a "cast of important characters" who likely change over time, both in the sense that our list of "most important others" is likely to change as we mature and in the sense that the other individuals are also themselves changing. One might also consider one's own self as a "character", in the sense that the I-as-narrator am telling a story about what I-as-actor was doing at a given time, and thus I am adopting a dual role as storyteller, being reflective or recursive in looking at myself, the story serving as a sort of "mirror" with which I can see myself in a new way.
Allport divides the task of analyzing autobiographical narratives into that of assessing three different elements or aspects of the personal story. Primarily these are three types of characters:
The innermost circle, the Eigenwelt represents an individual’s view of herself or himself: how s/he portrays her/himself to her/himself. This may correspond to a greater or lesser degree to others’ perceptions or to the way things really are; some people see themselves more clearly and honestly than others (what phenomenological psychologists call “congruence”). We all have areas of distorted self-perception or (at least partial) denial; a person's story may in some cases may make it clear (both to the narrator her/himself as well as to other listeners) that this has been taking place in the past. Hence, storytelling can be a route to self-knowledge; I may come to know myself only through telling my story. On the other hand, stories can sometimes be a means of concealing unwanted truths from myself and others (by only narrating those elements that fit a preconceived plan or pattern), as in a job interview narrative where I talk about my successes but not about my failures.
The middle of the three concentric circles, the Mitwelt represents the person’s view of the key individuals or core relationships in her/his life. You can identify your own Mitwelt easily enough: for each five-year time period in your life (or any other longitudinal sampling of the historically embedded and ever-changing you), make a list of the most important people in your life at that time, and briefly discuss why each person made the list and what key qualities or characteristics they had which made them either similar to or different from you. Note that the Mitwelt includes both people you liked and people you didn't, people you respected and people you didn't, people you saw as similar to you and people you saw as different from (perhaps even as polar opposites of) you. All of the people were significant to you, however, in some positive or negative way; they are an integral part of the story, as is your interaction (direct or indirect) with them.
Think
of the Umwelt as the outermost in a ring of three concentric circles
surrounding the individual. The Umwelt, then, is the person’s view of what life, reality,
and the world (particularly the social world) are like in general.
Theme/meaning
What is the point behind the story as it is being told? What message is it intended to convey? Or, to put it differently, how might a person (explicitly or implicitly) summarize (first and foremost to her/himself, then secondarily to others) what her/his life was/is all about? This might include a person's statement of her/his core values, whether expressed in an abstract philosophical way, or concretely in the world of (examined or unexamined) action. It includes the answer to the question, "Why is this person choosing to tell this particular story in this particular way at this particular time?" It includes a person's overall philosophy of life: what life is about in general, as well as what her/his life is about in the particular. It may include a sense of the individual's overarching purpose, mission, meaning, or (in the general sense, whether or not related to paying work) vocation: what s/he is here to do, to be, to become, or to accomplish. It may include a lesson s/he wants to pass on to others, an insight s/he wants others to share, a psychological legacy s/he wants to leave behind, an impact s/he wants to have on others. (If you could carve one sentence on your tombstone to summarize what your life was all about, what would you choose and why?) The underlying theme may involve a search for meaning in the face of apparent randomness or meaninglessness -- see the coming unit on Viktor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning, see Reading 5) for more about that idea. The plot events may be viewed or interpreted in terms of the overarching theme: how they contribute to it (positively or negatively), how they represent an unfolding awareness or elaborating or development of it, how they exemplify or lead to it.
Study Guide 2
1. Discuss four key assumptions of type theories of personality. What is meant by exhaustiveness? By mutual exclusivity? Give some examples.
2. What are some problems with traditional type theory that has caused many modern personality psychologists to reject (or significantly modify) this point of view? What is a heuristic?
3. How do traits, states, and types differ?
4. What is a tautology? How do tautologies emerge in personality research and theory? Why are tautologies problematic, and how can they be avoided?
5. How do continuous and discrete variables differ? Qualitative and quantitative variables? Normally and bimodally distributed variables?
6. What is niche picking? Functional autonomy? Lexical marking and the lexical hypothesis? The Whorfian hypothesis?
7. How do functions and attitudes differ in Jung's theory?
8. How do Perceiving and Judging functions differ? How can each be recognized? Give some examples of each.
9. What are two forms of Perceiving and how do they differ? What are two forms of Judging and how do they differ?
10. What is meant by the notion of introverted versus extraverted functions? How does this differ from, or how is it related to, the concept of Introversion vs. Extraversion as personality types (kinds of people)?
11. What is meant by the hierarchy of functions? How do dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions differ? Be able to identify or define the specific hierarchy of functions for any given Jungian personality type.
12. What are the sixteen personality factors of the 16PF? How do high and low scorers on each factor differ motivationally and behaviorally from one another?
13. What is an "oops"? Be able to recognize specific instances of this phenomenon.
14. How do extreme and moderate scorers on the 16PF generally differ? What are some advantages, and some disadvantages, of each kind of profile?
15. Be able to write a personality narrative based on a 16PF profile (see sample problems as provided in class).
16. How do the Umwelt, Mitwelt, and Eigenwelt differ? Define each; give specific examples of each. Be able to identify specific examples of each kind of component above based on narrative data such as those utilized in the in-class exercise.