Personality Stability and Change in Trait Theories of Allport and Eysenck

Hans Eysenck, a psychologist well known in the field of personality based his trait theory on biological explanations; whereby he believed genetic and biological factors were significant elements of personality (Eysenck 1990). Eysenck also held the view that an individual’s personality traits, or what he referred to as ‘temperament’ was an exact result of one’s genetic make-up (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). Eysenck encompassed the idea that there was a need to highlight the significant dimensions of personality, create a way in which they could be measured and then link them with experimental procedures. Subsequently, Eysenck developed a model of personality based on a theoretical and statistical approach to the classification of traits. This is

Personality is a complex area of Psychology, which has been studied for many years, by many experts in the field. Each having their own ideas about how to understand, study and evaluate it. Here I will introduce personality briefly, looking at the theories behind it. Then explain the need for testing. As there are many test that are available to use, for the purpose of this essay I will look at The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and discuss the reliability and validity of some studies around these tests.

In this essay I aim to discuss the different views of each side of this argument and then later conclude as to whether personality is stable or changing across the lifespan.

Trait theories assume people have many traits that are continuing qualities that individuals have in different amounts. Allport’s theory suggests that there are 3 main traits: central, secondary, and cardinal. A central trait is a characteristic that controls and organizes behavior in various situations. A secondary trait can be described as a preference and is specific to certain situations. A cardinal trait is very general and pervasive. It is so pervasive that an individual is governed by it and it dictates everything a person does.

Personality and how we behave have been of much interest to psychologists for a long time now and because of this there have been many theories and theorists that have been developed. Personality is defined as consistent behavior patterns and intrapersonal processes originating within and individual (Fritzley, 2012, p. 10). There are six main approaches to personality psychology they include: biological approach, humanistic approach, behaviorist approach, trait approach, psychoanalytic approach and cognitive approach. Each approach shines a little light onto why we behave the way we do and how our personalities are formed, the approaches contain many different theories from

The article was written by Sharon Begley, who is a science writer. It published on December 1, 2008, and it has been illustrated by Harry Campbell for Newsweek. We always think our personality is related to our genes, which is stable or cannot be changed. However, Begley assume we can change our personality as we grow up. It depends on environment and our parents. They both play a great role in shaping our personality.

in order to analyze the patterns that determine personality, certain issues need to be addressed

In the article “Our Personality- Is it Genetically Inherited or Determined by The Environmental Factors” written by Alexandra Lupu, she demonstrates three possible process that is done to form one’s personality and argues that she believes individual’s personality is formed uniquely with environment inheritage interacting with each other. After stating her argument, Lupu explains the three types of approaches that divides the psychologist that determines one’s personality. First, nomothetic approaches, which is believed that one’s personality is constant and it is minimally influenced by external factors. Second, Idiographic approaches, which is similar to Lupu’s argument that both factors takes a big role in personality and finally, the complementary

The evidence is accumulating that contends individuals maintain the ability to adapt personality traits through all stages of life. Roberts and Mroczek (2008) emphasize that personality changes in middle and old age may appear subtle, however, they are apparent which supports a growing census that personality traits continue to evolve throughout one’s lifetime. It has been shown that the longer a period of time a study follows a specific personality characteristic change, the more evident the change will become, this provides data that opposes the general theory that personality traits have a limited level of alteration from which traits may show variation (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008). The changes evident in personality during middle adulthood

Eysenck’s theory of personality is based on physiology and genetics. According to him our personality is inherited and determined by environment. He believed that our personality traits had psycho-physiological foundation.

“Personality refers to individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving” (American Psychological Association, 2017) and is both socially and culturally constructed. The psychology of personality deals with how and why people differ. There is no unifying theory to describe personality, although many descriptions and structures have been proposed. Theories of personality specify the central elements of personality and these are the characteristics by which people differ. Such theories include the psychodynamic, humanistic and trait perspectives.

Analyses shows that personality changes throughout life as different personality traits are used and forgotten. The results are generalized and don’t always apply to people but typically the results are correct.

Introversion was defined as “withdrawn and often shy, and they tend to focus on themselves, on their own thoughts and feelings” (Jung, 1923) Therefore focusing on this personality trait can help to better understand why people tend to be reserved and withdrawn from everyday life. Carl Jung was the creator of the neopsychoanalytical approach, which focused on psychic energy. While Gordon Allport and Hans Eysenck contributor to the trait theory, focused on biology and individualized traits. Jung, Eysenck and Allport focused on extrovert vs. introvert, yet had completely different ideas of how introversion is seen in everyday life. Personally believeing this trait is one I carry, focusing on completely different approaches will bring light to many explanations of why people act the way they do, including myself. By using both case studies and personal work from the works of Jung, Eysenck, and Allport researching introversion should not be a an issue. Although there is a lot of work to do with introversion, through this research one can get a better overview.

Cardinal traits were rare and included traits that dominated a person, central traits were more general and descriptive of the individual, secondary traits were situational and related to an individual’s attitude and preference (Srivastava, 2005, p. 231). According to Buchanan (2010), German born psychologist Hans Eysenck devoted much of his career to both personality and intelligence research with much of this time spent in British universities. According to Haggbloom (2002), Eysenck’s research was thoroughly respected with him being the most regularly cited psychologist in science journals at the time of his passing. In 1947 Eysenck’s first book outlined what Eysenck viewed as the two central factors of personality; neuroticism and introversion/extraversion. Five years later Eysenck added another factor; psychoticism (Buchanan, 2010, p. 73). According to Carnivez & Allen (2005), British born psychologist Raymond Cattell centred his studies on factor analysis. His work observed him meticulously reduce Allport’s list of traits to less than two hundred. Applying his factor analysis knowledge, Cattell developed the 16PF questionnaire in 1949. Now in its fifth edition, it is still in wide use to this day (Boyle, Matthews & Saklofske, 2008). According to Tucker (2009), Cattell argued that while Eysenck’s three factor approach to personality was simpler, his own method was more thorough.

“We are influenced by our own internal forces, forces of which we are unaware, have feelings towards, or urges we do not quite understand “(Freidman, 2012, p. 17). This is the struggle that personality psychology tries to understand, how and to what extent the unconscious forces plays a role in human behavior. It is believed that people are responsible for their own actions. There is a continuous struggle with personality psychology and the comprehension of and to what extent unconscious forces play in human behavior. “Meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances; if there is any reaction both are transformed” (Carl Jung 1993, p.57). There are various questions that are asked about the issues in personality psychology such as, “How important are social influences on the self, such as parental deprivation or excessive praise? Is the sense of self merely an inconsequential epiphenomenon or secondary perception arising from other forces that really matter? What is the core of who we are? A second core issue with the studies of personality studies is does each person require a unique approach? “Gordon Allport argued that a key aspect of the study of personality must focus on the individual and thus be idiographic” (p.18). To generalize an individual is a complication in itself because the personality of each person is complex in its own way so how can we generalize? Obtaining an answer to that question is still a dilemma. Allport complained