by Unknown
Psychologists sometimes invent new words to describe specific aspects of personality – for instance, it was Freud who invented the terms extrovert and introvert. However, for the most part, ordinary words are used to describe personality, although psychologists may be more exact about what they mean by a term than when it is used in everyday speech. Many adjectives can be thought of as personality descriptors – optimistic, cantankerous, cautious, ambitious and so on. The four humours discussed above can be thought of as personality traits. The choleric person is irritable; a phlegmatic individual tends to be lethargic; the melancholic person is brooding and morose; and a sanguine person is cheerful and optimistic.
Behavioural style
Behavioural style refers to personality characteristics that relate to how people act or respond to their environment – how they interact with other people, how they approach tasks and difficulties, how they feel and respond emotionally to things. Thus the same event or situation can be perceived positively and as attractive by one person and negatively by another. For instance, someone who is highly extrovert may be pleased to be invited to a party, look forward to the event with pleasure, behave in a lively and engaged manner at the party and afterwards feel energized by the event. Someone who is highly introverted may look forward with trepidation to a party and perhaps try to find excuses not to attend. At the party the introvert may be diffident, sitting on the sidelines and speaking to just a few very familiar people. Attending the event may be quite stressful and leave the person feeling tired and jaded with the effort of being sociable. This illustrates how personality can affect how events are perceived, how people think and feel about them and how they most naturally behave in response to those events.
Although it is difficult to control the way we perceive the world or what we think about it, we can control our behaviour. If we hear an upsetting remark or some criticism we think is unfair we can feel angry or humiliated, and we could give vent to these feelings by answering back in an angry manner or by running away. However, we do not have to act out these feelings. We can hide the degree to which the remarks affected us and offer a gentler denial or ignore the remark. It takes an effort of will to smother our feelings, but we all control our behaviour to some extent according to what we think is right or appropriate or because of the way we would like others to perceive us. It is harder to change the way we feel about the remark, to learn to take criticism as a positive learning opportunity and not to be hurt by it or become defensive. It is even harder to change the way we perceive the world, to stop seeing the remark as a criticism and to understand it as something else – the other person’s attempt to help us improve or even the result of their own need for attention rather than any real response to our performance. However, all these elements are potentially subject to our own conscious control to some degree, if we have the desire and the energy to control our more natural response.
When we describe someone’s personality we are thinking about their natural response rather than how they might have learned to respond. However, if learned responses become so well embedded that they become second nature then we can think of them as part of the personality. For most people, these learned responses are a thinner veneer, which can be maintained only with some investment of energy.
When employers measure personality they are particularly interested in how people behave in work situations. However, people do not change their personalities at work. Although they may moderate their behaviour in line with work requirements and conventions, they still have the same types of thoughts, feelings and behavioural instincts.
Personality can be broken down into a number of domains – for instance, motivation, attitudes, values, interests, behavioural style and thinking style – and we will explore some of these areas in more detail in Chapter 4. First, however, we will consider two ways of thinking about personality. These are traits and types.
Traits
Personality is often described in terms of traits or characteristics. A personality trait is a disposition to behave or respond in a particular manner. The idea of a personality trait is that it is a dimension of personality along which people can differ. We might think of people as having a little or a lot of a particular trait. Often the two extremes of a trait reflect contrasting personalities. Examples might be extrovert and introvert or highly anxious and calm people. People at either extreme of the trait typically tend to have opposite reactions to the same situation. Extroverts, for example, have a positive response to meeting new people, whereas introverts might find this rather a trial. Introverts enjoy an evening engaging in a solitary pastime such as reading or craftwork; extroverts, on the other hand, would find this at best a dull way to spend so much time.
The trait can be thought of as a continuum, with some people distinctly at one end and some people distinctly at the other. Most people, however, will be somewhere between these two extremes. We could imagine taking a class full of people and lining them up with the most anxious at the extreme right of the line and the most relaxed at the extreme left. We could order the people in the line so that everyone was at least as anxious as everyone to their left and no more anxious than everyone to their right.
Figure 1: People lined up by their level of anxiety
In personality assessment we try to assign numerical scores that reflect where individuals fall on this line between the two extremes of a trait. A scale of a personality questionnaire is a set of questions that can be used to assign scores to an individual for a particular trait. It is typically found that there are many people with a moderate position on the line or scale and relatively few people with more extreme scores – that is, most of us are neither extremely relaxed nor extremely anxious. Rather, the majority are reasonably calm and alert rather than overly anxious or extremely relaxed. There is also a substantial proportion of people who are more anxious than this, but few who are very anxious and stressed most of the time. Similarly, there is a substantial proportion of people who are moderately relaxed most of the time, but few who are nearly always severe and relaxed.
In understanding individuals we look at their position on scales measuring a variety of personality traits. This is often referred to as a personality profile. For instance, Jay may be described as a very structured individual, who is moderately extroverted, is imaginative and likes change, is moderately helpful and sympathetic to others but can be quite anxious. Personality profiles are often provided in diagrammatic form. For instance, Jay’s profile might look like this:
Figure 2: Personality profile for Jay
Unstructured <> Structured
Introvert <> Extrovert
Down to earth <> Imaginative
Independent <> Sympathetic
Anxious <> Relaxed
Of course, this description and the profile are an abbreviated description of the person. Jay is described as ‘structured’, and this may be the name of the scale used in the personality questionnaire, but ‘structured’ will have an exact meaning in this context that will have been defined by the questionnaire’s developers, and it would not be possible to know exactly what it implied without being familiar with the questionnaire itself. It might, for example, include some or all of the following: planful, tidy, inflexible, disciplined, conscientious, rigid, neat, punctual, ordered, controlled and forward thinking.
The principle of a profile should be clear, however. It provides a picture of the individual in terms of the personality traits measured, and this can be interpreted by someone who is trained in the use of the personality questionnaire. From the profile an experienced tester can derive a portrait of the person’s behavioural style and emotional responses, and this can be used in determining the person’s suitability for a job. Of course, it can have many other uses, including helping a person to understand themselves better, advising individuals on their development needs or helping them to work better in a team or as a manager.
Traits can be quite broad, encompassing a wide range of beh
aviours, or narrow, relating to only a specific aspect of behavioural style. Extroversion is a broad trait as it refers both to the way a person feels and acts with other people and also to their mood (extroverts tend to be lively and cheerful). Extroversion can also encompass narrower traits such as emotional control, outspokenness, energy, optimism and (lack of) modesty. These traits are grouped together in the broad extroversion trait because they typically occur together. Someone who is outgoing is more likely to be energetic than lethargic. A trait such as emotional control is much narrower than extroversion, because it refers only to how a person controls the expression of their emotions to others. Extroverts tend to be lower on emotional control than introverts, but this is only one aspect of their behaviour.
Broad traits provide a description of personality at a very general level, whereas narrow traits are needed for more detailed descriptions. Broad traits allow for short, relatively simple descriptions of personality, which can provide a good overview without becoming bogged down in detail. However, they may be over generalized and not reflect the exact personality style of the individual. They may overlook ways in which a person is different from the norm of people with similar positions on a broad trait.
Narrow traits are more useful when a detailed description of a person’s behavioural style is needed because they can be used to make fine discriminations. Someone who is generally highly extrovert may have more emotional control than is usual for people in this group, and narrower trait descriptions make it possible to elicit these fine distinctions. However, this will require a longer and more detailed description, which may be more than is required for some purposes. When working with narrower trait descriptions it is possible to lose sight of the overall personality of an individual through concentrating on the detail of specific aspects of their behaviour.
Questionnaires designed for a broad level of description typically have between four and eight scales. Questionnaires that have narrower scales tend to have 16 to 30 scales to cover all aspects of personality, and they typically take longer to complete. When employers are deciding which personality questionnaire to use, they will try to choose one that will provide an appropriate level of description of the individual for the purpose in question, but when a broad level of description is appropriate it must be remembered that this can conceal some fine distinctions. Measuring at a fine level will require a longer questionnaire. Some broad traits are described in Chapter 4, along with some of the narrower traits that could be embedded within them.
Types
Some personality theorists disagree with a trait-based approach. One criticism of the approach is that it is purely descriptive – that is, it tells us how people behave or think but not why they do what they do. It cannot explain why some people develop in one way and others in another. Type theories of personality are also generally used in a descriptive manner, but they are often supported by an underlying theory of how types emerge and develop.
In the discussion of traits above we looked at the four humours as personality traits. However, it might be better to characterize these as personality types. Although we could imagine a person who is both irritable and lethargic, the humours were actually conceived as personality types. People were not thought of as being moderately melancholic and moderately sanguine, very choleric but not at all phlegmatic. Rather, each person was thought to be of one particular humour. The rather strange names are because the humours were thought to be caused by excesses in different bodily fluids – for example, the sanguine personality was fed by the blood. The star signs are also types in that your birthdate determines the zodiac category you belong to. Even if you are born close to the cusp between two star signs it is the controlling sign at the time of birth that is most important. You are not a mixture of the two.
One type theory of personality that is the basis for a commonly used personality questionnaire, the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator(®), is founded on the work of Carl Jung. He initially worked closely with Freud but over time developed his own theory of personality. He suggested that there are different modes of interacting with the world, and when we are quite young we develop preferences for certain of these modes. Because of these preferences we develop some modes more than others, and these become our typical behavioural style. For instance, we can focus on the here and now of what we see, hear and sense in other ways to gain a practical acquaintance with the world, or we can perceive things more indirectly through our understanding of what they are or their possibilities and potential. One person, for example, might experience a garden in terms of the colours and scents of the flowers, the sound of bird song and the feel of walking on grass. For another person the same garden might trigger a raft of thoughts – about the ecosystem as a whole, the signs of the impact of pollution or how symbolic it is of the interconnectedness of all living things. These two modes of perception, one with a practical focus on perception and the other with a more abstract focus on intuitions and possibilities, are not on a continuum: they are fundamentally different ways of approaching things.
Having developed a preference for one of these modes we will tend to use it more than the other. We will, therefore, become more skilled and used to using that approach, and we will be more comfortable using that way of perceiving the world. It will become natural to us to adopt that approach rather than the other, and it will become our dominant way of perceiving things. We will still be able to use the alternate mode, but it will be less well developed, more awkward and less familiar to us. We will most naturally use our chosen way. Thus the theory explains how types develop as they do.
Because these alternate modes are fundamentally different, people belong to either one or the other. Further, the theory says that once you have chosen a preference for a particular mode you develop the behaviour and thinking style that are typical of that mode even further. If we were to characterize a class full of people by type they would be in separate silos, each belong to one group or the other.
Figure 3: People arranged by type
In the questionnaire based on Jung’s theory a person’s type is determined not just by the mode of perceiving (see above) but by three other areas or personality dimensions, each of which has two alternate modes. One of these dimensions is extroversion and introversion. This dimension can be thought of as a continuum, as discussed in the section on traits. However, Jung’s view was that extroverts and introverts represent fundamentally different types. Extroverts are focused on the outside world of other people and things, whereas introverts are directed by their own inner world of thoughts and feelings. Introverts evaluate things internally before trying them out in public. They think things through before acting. They are more socially self-sufficient than extroverts, who need to try out ideas on other people to see how they will react. Extroverts need to use the outside world as a sounding board in order to understand their own behaviour and feelings. Extroverts often feel that they need to talk through an idea with someone in order to evaluate it. This leads to a strong need to be with other people, and extroverts have a more active experimental approach to doing things than introverts. Introverts tend to think things through internally before engaging in any action. Again, these are fundamentally different ways of approaching things, and Jung’s theory says that once we have a slight preference for one over the other, it will tend to develop more so that we become much more effective and more comfortable at using that approach than the other, and it will colour our way of interacting with the world.
We have now discussed two of the dimensions of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator: sensing–intuiting and extrovert–introvert. The other two are: thinking–feeling and perceiving–judging. As with the sensing–intuiting and extrovert–introvert dimensions, these also have specific meanings within the theory rather than what might be expected from everyday language. A person’s personality type is revealed by evaluating which four choices they make. There are 16 possible personality types, and these are determined by four choices betwee
n two modes. One of the most common personality types is the extrovert–sensing–thinking–judging type (ESTJ). These people tend to be realistic and practical and good at organizing and managing. They take a rational rather than an intellectual approach, come to decisions quickly but may sometimes ride rough shod over other people’s feelings. A different type is the introvert–sensing–feeling– perceiving type (ISFP). They have one element in common with ESTJs, but are very different in style. ISFPs are quiet, friendly and loyal. Modest about themselves, they dislike disagreements. You may need to get to know an ISFP well to appreciate their warmth and flexibility. Each of the other 14 types can be similarly characterized.
One of the advantages of a type approach to personality is that it is possible to combine the different facets of personality into an integrated understanding of the whole person in terms of their particular type. The individual’s overall personality type, which may stem from a combination of a number of type dimensions, is seen as a united whole rather than as a series of independent features. Most people find their type descriptions quite accurate and insightful. One of the difficulties with type theories is that the approach is about sorting people into categories, and some people may not fit any of the posited categories very well. It is not possible to take an intermediate position on any of the dimensions. For instance, types based on Jungian theory do not allow you to be both analytic (thinking) and warm (feeling).
