Additional Lecture Notes for Unit 6
Why do adults differ in personality, and to what extent are these differences formed in childhood or significantly shaped in childhood? That's a huge question -- too big, really, for us to cover in its entirety in this class. But since we addressed one key theory of how "the child is father of the adult" (attachment theory), it's only fair to take a stab at some of the other ideas floating around in the literature. This will be a selective review (meaning, I've pieced together other research findings and theories of particular interest to me).
Clearly, any theory of the development of personality has to take into account the remarkable consistency and stability in personality. Longitudinal studies over as much as a 30-year time period show a remarkable level of consistency within adulthood; basic personality markers, such as the Big Five traits, appear to change little from age 30 to 60. The question: why?
The role of temperament
Temperament, as used by developmentalists, means the biologically based, emotional and motivational core of personality, the genetic and neurophysiological foundation on which personality is based. It is the earliest expression of individual differences and can reliably be assessed within a few months of birth. Adult personality is presumed to emerge developmentally from temperament. Temperament has been likened to a hard ice ball (core) around which the softer snowball (surface) of personality accumulates developmentally.
While we learned in Unit 3 that the heritability of basic personality traits is modest (around 0.3), at least three of the Big Five dimensions (the first three to be isolated by the original research) can be at least partially explained neurologically, strengthening the notion that they have roots in infant temperament.
The general direction of longitudinal changes in the Big Five also fit this general model. By modest but measurable amounts, people in general tend to become more E-, O-, A+, C+, and N- with age (over, say, a five-decade period starting in young adulthood).
The role of macroculture
Switching to the other extreme, large-scale cultural differences are observable. Each culture tends to have personality biases (for instance, modern American culture tends to favor E+, C+, N-, and to a somewhat less certain extent moderate O+ and moderate A+). One influential model of cultural differences classifies cultures along two independent dimensions:
Since the two dimensions are independent or orthogonal, there are four culture types overall:
Contemporary America is presumably a V-I culture, though there are undercurrents of other themes (the "hippie" movement of the 60's was an attempt to push culture in a more H-I direction, for instance). Subcultures may have a different ethos (the military, for instance, is presumably V-C in outlook).
Since each type of culture looks for and reinforces certain kinds of behaviors and seeks to repress others, what is seen as maladaptive in one culture may be another culture's ideal. For instance, in China (probably a H-C culture), shyness is seen as an asset: it means self-restraint, submission to the social order, and a lack of the pathological desire to "stand out". In V-I America, shyness is often viewed by parents and others as a liability!
And now, a word from microculture
Between the individual (with her/his innate temperament) and the wider macroculture lie a range of microcultures, starting with the family, that mediate these two kinds of relationships in a host of complex ways. Presumably, most parents have implicit beliefs about the meaning and value of their children's behavior patterns. A parent who believes that shyness is "bad" may encourage extraversion (reinforcing the temperament of an E+ child, but negating it for an E- child). The reverse would be true for a parent that believes that shyness is "good"; and, of course, the parents' beliefs and expectations may or may not match those of the wider culture. (More on this later in the course when we talk about family systems theory.)
In other words, family systems are a "filtering device" that amplify some cultural messages, mute others. Thus, when macroculture, microculture, and temperament all point in the same direction (I am shy by temperament, my family encourages shyness, and so does the wider culture), the trait is strongly reinforced (I become a "super-shy" person) -- and likely becomes a source of self-worth. But when internal (temperament) and external (cultural) influences clash, the trait is not only suppressed (my shyness is masked; I learn to "pass" as an extravert), but it becomes a source of shame or self-reprobation. When microculture and macroculture agree, the cultural messages seem "self-evident", and (especially if they reinforce my innate temperament) I may not think to question them. But when microculture and macroculture disagree, then I may develop a sense of divided loyalties, confusion, or a compartmentalized (public vs. private) self.
Study Guide
1. What relevance does the consistency or stability of personality have to the field of child development?
2. How do the concepts of temperament and personality differ? How might they be related?
3. Discuss physiological or neurological correlates of the Big Five dimensions of Extraversion, Openness, and Negative Emotionality.
4. How do the Big Five personality traits change over time (longitudinally) in the general population? Why does this make sense?
5. Discuss how macrocultures can be classified along the two dimensions of individualism vs. collectivism and horizontal vs. vertical structure. What might each of the four resulting macrocultural types be like?
6. What role does macroculture play in shaping personality? How might it interact with temperament?
7. Discuss the role of microculture in this process. What are implicit beliefs, and what role do they play? What does it mean to say that the family system is a filtering device? What happens when the three influences on personality are aligned... or not? Discuss.