Table of Contents General Personality General Psychology Personality Research Programs Attachment Theory Behavior Genetics Behaviorism Cognitive Social Theories Evolutionary Psychology Five-Factor Model Intelligence Interpersonal Theory Personality Disorders References Home

This page provides a forum for visitors' frequently asked questions. Although unable to answer all questions, I try to answer as many as possible. Answers to many questions can be found on-line, either in students' Web Projects or in the Personality Links.
 

I like your setup and would like to do something similar. How can I get started?

My website started as a list of references on personality. I was reading a lot of articles, and I wanted to organize my knowledge so that it would be cumulative. Eventually, it kind of took on a life of its own, and now it includes about 150 documents. The important elements are content and organization--either without the other is unlikely to draw visitors. Another important element is having people link to you, but that will happen if you have content and organization. Previously, the basic requirement for creating a website was to learn HTML, but web editing programs are making this less necessary. Good luck!

~ Flip to top ~

I decided this past year that I want to go into psychology. Would you tell me a little about your field such as what classes it takes and what kinds of careers it leads to?

Psychology is an interesting an exciting field. Perhaps for that reason, many people want to go into it, which makes for stiff competition. Getting into graduate school in psychology is statistically more difficult than getting into medical school. It usually requires an overall good academic record, including GPA, GRE scores, recommendations, and research experience. The best college major for going into psychology is psychology.

By far the area with the most people is clinical psychology, which deals with diagnosing people's problems using tests and interviews, and conducting therapy. You can read all about another area, personality psychology, by visiting my website. The jobs available to psychologists normally require a Ph.D. This is particularly true if you want to become a professor. Some (clinical) psychologists go into private practice; other (primarily industrial/organizational) psychologists find their niche in the business world.

 
What form of psychology do you believe in and what made you want to follow the field?

I believe that people are biopsychosocial beings, that is, that inheritance, cognitions and affect, and environment are all important determinants of personality. In high school, I was most interested in clinical psychology, particularly how an understanding of people's social systems can lead to more healthful interpersonal relations. In college, I grew more interested in the hard scientific aspects of psychology, such as ability testing and personality research. Currently, I combine all these interests in researching tests that measure interpersonal traits, problems, and goals.

~ Flip to top ~

I would like to change more towards the secure type of personality, rather than the anxious type, but how does one do this?

One theory is that stressful life events bring about attachment style change. However, this theory was not supported by Davila, Burge, and Hammen (1997), who found in a sample of young women that attachment style change is an individual difference in susceptibility to change. Specifically, persons with insecure attachment (especially anxious-ambivalent attachment; Baldwin & Fehr, 1995) are more vulnerable to fluctuations in attachment style than persons with secure attachment. This finding holds out hope that persons with insecure attachment may experience a change in attachment style, whereas persons with secure attachment will remain secure.

~ Flip to top ~

I am looking for some views on what is more important, nature or nurture.

For questions regarding genes and environment, I would look into behavior genetics. A good question to consider might be, Why does parents' behavior seem to have little impact on how children turn out? This behavior genetics finding is highly counter-intuitive, especially from a Freudian perspective. It does not mean that environment is ineffectual; it does mean that shared environment (such as parents' education, socioeconomic status, or behavior during toilet training) is ineffectual. Unique environment, however (such as a favorite teacher or group of friends), does have an impact. Harris (1995) contends, in "Where Is the Child's Environment?," that peer group is the key to understanding child development.

~ Flip to top ~

Can you give me some background information about John Dollard and Neil Miller's stimulus-response theory?

Yale University's interdisciplinary work-group, the Institute of Human Relations, was established in 1933 to encourage collaboration among psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, and anthropologists. The Institute was guided by the theoretical ideas of behaviorist Clark L. Hull, but its activities ran the gamut from psychoanalytic observations, to psychological experiments, to anthropological fieldwork in non-literate societies. Important former members of the Institute include Judson Brown, John Dollard, Donald Marquis, Neal Miller, O. Hobart Mowrer, Robert Sears, Kenneth Spence, and John Whiting (Hall, Lindsey, & Campbell, 1998). Dollard and Miller's theory, which grew out of this work-group, is basically a coupling of ideas from behaviorism and psychoanalysis.

 
I was very interested when I read the arguments for and against the behavioral perspective. I believe in a mixture of biological, social, and cognitive perspectives.

I think most personality psychologists today subscribe to a biopsychosocial perspective. If you have some good ideas about personality that you would like to put into writing, I am always looking for contributions of papers and peer commentaries to the Great Ideas in Personality website. Let me know if you're interested!

~ Flip to top ~

Do you know anything about Torry Higgins' theories?

Higgins (1987) proposed that each person has multiple mental representations of the self, and that a discrepancy between any pair of these representations has emotional consequences. The three big categories of representations are actual, ideal, and ought self. The actual self is who one really is. The ideal self is who one would like to be. The ought self is who one feels it is one's duty to be.

The actual, ideal, and ought selves can be further divided according to whether they are held by oneself or by others. For example, there is an actual/own self, an ideal/own self, and an ideal/other self. An actual/own:ideal/own discrepancy (for example) results in dejection, whereas an actual/own:ideal/other discrepancy results in shame.

Higgins' (1987) theory is an elaborate way of subdividing personality. Higgins' division of personality into six components might be compared to Freud's division into three (id, ego, and superego), or Sullivan's division into three ("good me," "bad me," and "not me").

~ Flip to top ~

Why are there so many different kinds of personalities in the world?

The raw material of evolution is variation. If humans did not vary, then bacteria would quickly adapt to the human species and wipe it out, because bacteria go through many generations within a single human generation (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Variation has allowed previous humans to pass their genes along to the present generation.

~ Flip to top ~

How do I get the NEO-PI-R? Can I find a Swedish version of the five-factor model?

A contemporary measure of the five-factor model, which measures the same constructs as the NEO-PI-R and is available for free, is the International Personality Item Pool. I would start looking for a Swedish version of the five-factor model in the European Journal of Personality.

What is the difference between personality and character?

Personality can be thought of as comprised mainly of temperament and character. Temperament is how a person feels, and character is how a person makes other people feel. For example, in the five-factor model, Extraversion and Neuroticism are dimensions of temperament (Extraversion is associated with positive emotions and Neuroticism is associated with negative emotions), whereas Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are dimensions of character (both make other people happy to be around a person).

~ Flip to top ~

I was wondering why Robert Sternberg, whose work appears to aim toward cognitive psychology, was listed among the personality psychologists.

Sternberg's research is on cognitive abilities, or intelligence. Whether intelligence is best considered a dimension of personality is open to debate, but the question is largely one of definition, and hence nothing substantive hinges on it.

Plato's division of personality into three components (intellect, emotion, and will) corresponds to the modern division into three components (ability, temperament, and character; Jensen, 1998). All three are represented, for example, in the five-factor model: openness is related to cognitive abilities; extraversion and neuroticism are related (respectively) to positive and negative affect; and agreeableness and conscientiousness are related to character.

Given the fuzziness of the categories (ability, temperament, and character), we should be neither surprised nor distressed at some overlap. Their importance is undeniable, and a savvy personality psychologist will know about all three. Conversely, a savvy cognitive psychologist will know about individual differences in cognition.

 
I'm trying to get into Mensa and I was wondering if you are able to answer a few questions about IQ tests.

For those who don't know, Mensa is an organization for high IQ people. I can suggest a few general principles regarding intelligence. First, tests of cognitive ability generally have a large positive correlation with each other. This means that most of these tests probably measure at least partly the same thing, called general intelligence (g). However, there is also some residual variance specific to each test. If you want to predict general academic performance, then g is probably the best predictor; but if you want to predict grades in calculus, then the quantitative SAT is probably better than g. The argument can be taken to the extreme of specificity--if you want to predict performance on a particular calculus problem, then a test made up of that problem is probably the best predictor. What I have just described is a hierarchical model of intelligence: it starts broad and narrows to specifics.

Mensa is probably most interested in g, rather than in specific areas of talent. However, be warned that high g alone does not mean that someone will do well in life. Other personality factors such as persistence also figure prominently in significant life achievements. Probably these factors are synergistic, or multiplicative.

 
I wouldn't necessarily agree that all IQ tests are more or less the same. According to one webpage, the best correlation between two of the main IQ tests was .70.

In assuming that most tests of IQ measure mostly the same thing, I am following Jensen (1992), who noted, "The correlations among all these tests [of 'intelligence' and 'scholastic aptitude'] range from .60 to .90, averaging approximately .75" (p. 275). Spearman (1927) called the idea that g loadings among ability tests scarcely differ the principle of the indifference of the indicator. However, this principle does not deny that some of the intercorrelation among tests is also based on group factors, such as verbal, numerical, and spatial ability--it only claims that such tests are (approximatly) equally good measures of g.

~ Flip to top ~

What are the advantages and disadvantages of working with people of similar personalities?

Where dominance is concerned, opposites attract. People prefer to form complementary partnerships (dominant people with submissive partners, submissive people with dominant partners). This works in two ways. First, people like to be with partners whose behavior complements their own interpersonal traits. For example, if you are a strong leader, you will prefer to be with people who will follow. Second, people like to be with partners whose behavior complements their own interpersonal goals. For example, if, when working others, it is important to you to be in charge, then you will prefer to be with people who will follow. Paradoxically, if two partners both have dominant interpersonal goals and submissive interpersonal behaviors, then both will be happy with the relationship (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997).

~ Flip to top ~

I am looking for information on the causes of criminal behavior.

A large proportion of criminals are what psychologists refer to (somewhat interchangeably) as psychopaths, sociopaths, or persons with antisocial personality disorder. Such persons may be both charming and intelligent, but basically have no conscience, which often leads them to commit criminal acts.

R. D. Hare is the leading expert on psychopathy, and H. J. Eysenck presented a theory of criminality in book form. Mealey's (1995) article deals with both the evolutionary basis and proximate causes of sociopathy.

~ Flip to top ~

References

Baldwin, W. M., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247-261.

Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826-838.

Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603.

Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., & Campbell, J. B. (1998). Theories of personality (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

Jensen, A. R. (1992). Vehicles of g. Psychological Science, 3, 275-278.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523-599.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. London: Macmillan.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17-67.

~ Flip to top ~

Last modified January 2002
Comments?

Home to Great Ideas in Personality