What Is Personality?

We are all happy to refer to our personalities, and to speak in social situation of our own and others’ personality traits. But how many of us actually know what we are really talking about when it comes to discussing what makes up our personality? It once would suffice that we were introverts or extroverts, neurotic or stable. Yet since the dawn of time people have racked their brains to come up with plausible theories around what makes us individuals.

It may surprise some to find the first personality theories were developed not in the modern world laboratories or classrooms by modern psychological thinkers, but rather by the Ancient Greek philosophers of which we have all heard. Hippocrates (460 – 377 BC) was one of the first, proposing the all famous theory which for over two thousand years dominated the world of individualism, mental stability and even medical science. The dominant theory throughout much of history, relating to all things down to the physical health of an individual based around the concept of internal bodily humours (or fluids) of which there were four:

• Black Bile
• Blood
• Phlegm
• Yellow Bile.

Each of these humours stood for their own thing. It was thought that when these humours were in complete balance with one another, the person was in a state of stability and were mentally, physically and emotionally healthy individuals. However, the theory starts to get darker when we look into the "cause" for multiple problems, or the prominence of certain characteristics in a person.

An excess in one’s black bile would lead to a melancholic temperament. In this one would suffer high levels of anxiety and likely depression. Today they would likely be deemed as introverted individuals. A strong activity of bodily fluids (related to ones levels of yellow bile) would lead to them being deemed to have a choleric temperament and suffer heightened levels of anger, and would be easily irritable. Low fluid activity deemed one a phlegmatic individual, leading to a calm nature and a sanguine temperament (linked to the blood) lead to one being seen as confident or optimistic. This, as you can see, covers only the emotional/mental health side of the past system which determined every part of ones life, and was the reason for "bleeding" in the medieval times; to rid the patient of an overbalance of certain humours.

This theory went unchallenged for over a millennia, until in the 18th century some forward thinkers thought it time for change. Yet the longest running theory around personality and individuals did not receive much reform until well into the 19th century. The 18th century thinkers proposed a different look upon the theory, suggesting those with melancholic temperaments experienced weak emotions, those with sanguine, strong. Those who displayed a phlegmatic temperament had low activity levels, those choleric individuals high.

It was not until the work of Sheldon in the early 20th century we begin to see theories far more recognisable to our views today. Of course, those theories proposed by Sheldon are now regarded obsolete, outdated and rather controversial; with male body types being the focus around personality. Yet the argument seems more recognisable to contemporary perspectives.

Sheldon proposed that there were three different body types, controlled by different parts of the body.

1. Ectomorphic (light boned with slight muscle) > Related to nervous system and Brain > Linked to Cerebrotonia (a need for privacy, the individual is restrained and inhibited)
2. Mesomorphic (well defined muscles) > Related to muscular and circulatory system > Linked to Somatotonia (physically assertive, competitive and keen on physical activity)
3. Endomorphic (large, rounded body) > Related to stomach > Linked to Viscerotonia (love of relaxation and comfort; like food and are sociable)

It was here that, although Sheldon only focused on the male body type, he did admit that everyone had the same organs, and it was not one lacking or excesses of certain things which would determine one's physique and thus personality type. Rather the activeness of one's organs and which organs that would be determinate for all these things.

Lexical approaches toward personality arrived in the early 20th century, moving more away from science to focus on a more qualitative approach, and the importance of language and association. The task here was to look at dictionaries (and such reference books) to determine the importance of certain personality descriptives by finding a word and its synonyms. The more synonyms, the more important/desirable. The theory is then quite simple, and supposedly applicable across cultures if the theory works correctly, as it has done with the English language thus far. Gordon Allport was one of the figureheads for the move toward Lexical approaches. He was able to define 4,500 words which were directly attached to personality traits. Yet, even he was able to add criticism to such works, stating that although words could define a person, it was not suitable to suppose they could act as a predictor for ones behaviour (which, here one could draw on another and similarly linked theory from social psychology; attribution theories). Yet Allport directly stated his belief that some behaviours would remain a constant in the individual and that these, only these are personality traits, which are responsible for a person’s consistent behaviour(s).

We saw from Allport the first definitions of traits when he proposed:

• Common Personality Traits
• Personal Disposition of the Individual

- Cardinal (Singular and dominant) traits
- Central (5-10 personality descriptive) traits
- Secondary (preference) traits.

The work of Cattell (1965) expanded on such ideas, the proposal of two theories can now be seen. Primarily, types of traits and secondly, factor analysis. Cattell here defines personality traits as “characteristics of the individual that allow prediction of how they will behave in a given situation.”

Cattell’s proposals were that one could gain these traits in two ways: genetically and environmentally. Thus we see the introduction of the all famous "nature or nurture" debate.

We once again see a division of traits into three simple points, one of which divides into further subpoints.

• Ability (how well one deals with a situation; the probability of one achieving their goal.)
• Temperament (how one pursues their goal)
• Dynamic (motivation and how one gains their energy):

These sub-dynamic traits all align with one another to create a "dynamic lattice", or so it is proposed by Cattell.

Much like Allport, emphasis is also placed on other particular groupings of traits. Common and unique traits once again play a part (common traits are those possessed by everyone, unique traits those which act to make the individual). An important thing to stress is that we all have a unique mixture of common traits, thus making our unique traits and us individuals. We also have surface traits (a collection of traits which cluster in individuals and situations) and source traits which act to control and regulate the surface traits.

The theory of factor analysis exists around the idea that although one can not ultimately determine and positively predict behaviour, the ability of psychologists to correctly identify major personality traits can help to establish what may underlie specific behaviours. Thus Cattell proposed the following, that one could have a singular trait from each factor – and all would be relating traits.

1. Factor A – Outgoing or Reserved
2. Factor B – Intelligence (high or low)
3. Factor C – Stable – Emotional
4. Factor E – Assertive or Humble
5. Factor F – Happy-go-lucky or Sober
6. Factor G – Conscientious or Expedient
7. Factor H – Venturesome or Shy
8. factor I – Tender-Minded or Tough-Minded
9. Factor L – Suspicious or Trusting
10. Factor M – Imaginative or Practical
11. Factor N – Shrewd or Forthright
12. Factor O – Apprehensive or Placid

Following this was four Q Factors:

1. Factor Q – Experimenting or Conservative
2. Factor Q – Self Sufficient or Group Tied
3. Factor Q – Controlled or Casual
4. Factor Q – Tense or Relaxed.

Following these sixteen key traits, Eysenck tried to reduce the points made by Cattell into a simplified approach. It was belief is Eysenck to contradict the previous suggestions made by John Locke, objecting to the idea that children were born as blank slates, and that they indeed enter the world inheriting certain characteristics and later becoming more aware of themselves as a singular individual. Eysenck proposed habitual traits, those behaviours we offer repeatedly in a situation and the personality type, the combination of the these reponses to create a personality type, of these he suggests just three.

• Extroversion – a sociable person.
• Neuroticism – anxious, more introverted person
• Psychoticism – inhostile, cruel and insensitive.

This has been now suggested to be too simplistic and people have argued that there are more than three personality types to consider when it comes to any individual. So we move onto the final proposed, more contemporary theory called the five factor model (or OCEAN). This covers five personality trait (it is debated if there should be a sixth).

At current the theory outlines the following:

• Openness
• Conscientiousness
• Extroversion
• Agreeableness
• Neuroticism

In conclusion, it would seem there is no singular correct argument around personality and behaviour, and one could not reasonably use one's personality type to accurately predict behaviour; just as one cannot rely on attributions alone to define causation, or to predict a person's future actions. We rely on multiple resources to do this, and still cannot do it accurately. It also seems in the world of social sciences, that we will never be able to agree on a singular perspective, it will either be too scientific or lacking in sound empirical evidence, thus accepted on a broad line of research. Also, science allows room for development and evolution, so it could be some time before we expect a singular model to explain to us personality, that is if we can ever hope for an accurate manmade description.