Week 5 Discussion: Biological and Evolutionary and Integrative Personality Theories

Journal of Research in Personality 56 (2015) 1–3

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j r p

Editorial

Introduction to the special issue on integrative theories of personality

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.001 0092-6566/� 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Every scientist involved in the study of personality is likely to agree that the field needs integrative frameworks for understand- ing individuals. Earlier in its history, personality psychology offered various grand theories (e.g., psychoanalytic, humanistic, or behaviorist), but it has since changed course to focus on taxonomic concerns and on theoretical models that are smaller in scope, aimed at explaining specific phenomena rather than personality as a whole. This historical trend led much of the field to lose sight of the question of how to knit these narrower theories together to explain personality more comprehensively. Now, however, we see promise that personality psychology is moving once again toward integrative theories (e.g., Block, 2002; Cervone & Bartoszek, 2013; Cervone & Shoda, 1999; McAdams, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2008; Sheldon, 2004).

Undoubtedly, the idea of delivering ‘‘an integrative framework for understanding the whole person’’ (McAdams & Pals, 2006, p. 204) is not a new one. The field of personality psychology has a rich legacy of efforts to advance the development of unifying models of personality (e.g., Allport, 1937; Bandura, 1977; Cattell, 1943; Eysenck, 1970; Murray, 1938). Nonetheless, one may wonder about the feasibility of a complete or cohesive personality theory. Is this not an unrealistic mission? One may wonder, as well, what we gain by an orientation toward such comprehensive theory. Many authors have argued that the diversity of incompati- ble viewpoints might be a strength (e.g., McNally, 1994) or that science is often best served by a richness of many different theories, competing with each other, operating at different levels of analysis and searching for explanation of rather different aspects of reality (see Lakatos, 1970; Leary, 2005).

Our answer to these questions is that, most probably, the existing or future integrative frameworks are or will be far from complete, but they suggest the right direction: a focus on the individual as a whole. This direction can potentially help to restore the original identity of personality psychology as ‘‘the study of the whole person’’ (Hall & Lindzey, 1957, p. 6) or the whole, coherent individual (Stern, 1935). The individual is an integrated system of psychobiological function, and we believe that only integrated theory can hope to offer an adequate explanation of that system. A shift toward integration within personality psychology will also require further integration of personality psychology with the larger body of psychological knowledge and with knowledge from related disciplines. Perhaps the most important challenge for the integrative approach to personality is to address the main short- comings of both major and minor theories of personality, including

untestable principles, over-reliance on speculation, lack of empiri- cal research, and deficiency of theoretical grounding (cf. Petocz & Mackay, 2013).

The seven papers included in this special issue address this challenge in a variety of different ways, with what we hope is a reasonable degree of success. The contributions made by these papers can usefully be divided into three general thematic cate- gories: (1) metatheory, (2) integrative explanatory theory, and (3) integrative methods. Most of the papers make some con- tribution in more than one of these categories, though usually emphasizing one or two of them, rather than all three. In the rest of this introduction we discuss the nature of these three themes and how the papers relate to them.

2. Metatheory

‘‘What we seem to have overlooked is that a science, much like a bird, must have two strong wings if it is to fly . . . theory and research. . .’’ (Wallis, 2010, p. 74). Indeed, theory and research are closely interrelated and both are necessary to advance science. If the bird symbolizes a science that is focused on relatively narrow theories, then these two wings may be enough to keep it aloft and moving forward. However, the wings do not help to chart out the general course of the bird’s flight; theory and research alone do not adequately specify the larger scope of what a science should address or how it can and should go about doing so. For this we need metatheory. Metatheory involves systematic description and analysis of theory itself, identifying the entities and processes under study and the types of approach that can or should be applied to understand them. Metatheory in personality psychology must identify the range of phenomena that the term ‘‘personality’’ encompasses, as well as the various aspects of personality that must be explained, such as its structure and dynamics, consistency and variability, and fundamental functions (cf. Fajkowska, 2013). By explicitly addressing the nature of the theories used to explain personality, metatheory allows one to analyze theoretical assump- tions and makes implicit assumptions explicit (cf. Dervin, 1999).

The papers most intensively focused on metatheory are Mayer’s and Fajkowska’s. Both ground their approach in von Bertalanffy’s (1950) General Systems Theory, using it to characterize the ele- ments and dynamics of personality as a system. Mayer describes a meta-theoretical framework for personality psychology, the Personality Systems Framework, and uses his theory of personal intelligence (the capacity to reason about personalities) to illustrate how his metatheory can aid in theory development. Fajkowska describes the Complex-Systems Approach to Personality, which

2 Editorial / Journal of Research in Personality 56 (2015) 1–3

combines metatheoretical assertions about the structures and pro- cesses of personality with more specific explanatory theory about the temperament traits and attentional processes that are crucial mechanisms for understanding personality and personality coherence.

Other papers in the special issue also evince metatheoretical concerns. Poropat and Corr critique the two major approaches to the study of personality traits, which they term ‘‘Wundtian’’ and ‘‘Galtonian,’’ and propose a novel approach that they term ‘‘Cronbachian.’’ DeYoung touts cybernetics (the study of control systems relying on feedback) as a framework in which to develop a theory of personality. Revelle and Condon identify temperament, abilities, and interests as the major components of personality that need explanation through dynamic feedback models. Little advo- cates a social ecological framework for approaching personality theory. And Fleeson and Jayawickreme discuss the longstanding tensions between process oriented (‘‘social-cognitive’’) and trait oriented approaches to personality, before developing a theory that integrates them. The prevalence of metatheory in this special issue is unsurprising, given our request for contributions to the develop- ment of integrative theory in personality psychology. Effective integration often requires the guidance of metatheory.

One of the major projects for metatheory is to identify the levels of analysis at which a phenomenon can and should be investigated and the formal nature of connections between those levels. The papers in this special issue illustrate the wide variety of dimen- sions along which such levels can be identified. Here again, Mayer and Fajkowska are very explicit. Mayer’s framework identi- fies a molecular-molar dimension, characterizing different levels of the size of phenomena analyzed by personality psychology, and an inner-outer dimension, characterizing different loci of analysis in personality psychology, from the private world within the person to broad aspects of the environment in which the person is situated. Fajkowska in contrast identifies exactly three levels, one encompassing underlying mechanisms, one encompassing persis- tent personality patterns, including traits and types, and one encompassing specific behaviors. Again, discussion of levels and their relations appears throughout the special issue, even in papers less intensively focused on metatheory. For example, Revelle and Condon discuss levels of aggregation in statistical analysis, including within-person, between-person, and between-group, and DeYoung discusses the relation of psychological and biological levels of explanation. The diversity of metatheoretical dimensions along which levels are identified serves to illustrate that, although we may not have reached the ultimate destination of a fully unified personality theory, we are nonetheless moving toward the study of the whole person as a system, across many levels of organization.

3. Integrative explanatory theory

This second theme forms the core of our hopes for the special issue. A focus on metatheory is beneficial precisely to the extent that it allows the development of integrative explanatory theories. DeYoung describes such theories as being ideally ‘‘comprehensive, synthetic, and mechanistic,’’ and many of the papers aim in this direction. We will let the reader judge how well they succeed. To be fully comprehensive, a personality theory must cover every- thing that personality psychologists mean by ‘‘personality.’’ To be synthetic, the various parts of the theory must all fit together coherently, tying together disparate approaches to personality within a single explanatory framework. To be mechanistic, they must provide a causal explanation of the nature and function of the elements of personality. Rather than attempting to summarize all of the theories presented, we will allow the papers to speak for themselves on this theme. We hope that the theories in this special issue will substantially advance the field of personality psychology.

We believe they offer many testable hypotheses and will, therefore, further not only theorizing about personality but also empirical research.

4. Integrative methods

Finally, some of the papers contribute methodological innova- tions that facilitate integrative theory and research. Three in par- ticular stand out in this regard, by Little, Revelle and Condon, and Poropat and Corr. Little discusses the need for integrative units of analysis and proposes personal projects as such a unit and his Personal Projects Analysis (PPA) as a method for assessing them. An integrative unit of analysis should facilitate the merger of disparate perspectives on personality. A number of well-known conceptual dichotomies still accurately characterize personality psychology, such as person vs. situation, structure vs. process, and idiographic vs. nomothetic perspective. Because these dichoto- mies divide the field, integrative units are particularly important for the shift from relatively narrow theory to broad, integrative theory. They can help to bridge the gaps between researchers ensconced in particular research traditions. Little’s PPA seems particularly promising for its ability to carry out simultaneous assessment of both sides of each of the three dichotomies just listed.

In contrast to Little, Revelle and Condon and Poropat and Corr do not provide assessment tools; they provide new analytical tools: formal models for describing certain aspects of personality. Revelle and Condon’s Dynamics of Action (DOA) model offers a reparameterization of the original DOA model called ‘‘cues-tenden- cies-actions’’ (cta), as well as computer code that instantiates their model in the statistical program R. The DOA-cta model provides a simple, mechanistic model for explaining not only variation of behavior over time within individuals, but also variation in typical patterns of behavior across individuals. Because it is easily mod- eled in freely available software, it is optimally positioned to ren- der their theory both usable and testable.

Poropat and Corr present a model, based in Cronbach’s gen- eralizability theory, that provides an extensive decomposition of the sources of variance in the typical form of trait measurement, the personality questionnaire. Their Cronbachian approach assumes that both psychological phenomena and measurement reflect a variety of factors (including not only those influencing the target of the questionnaire ratings, but also those systemati- cally influencing the perceptions of the person making the ratings), and that all of them must be adequately modeled to produce a comprehensive account of the sources of trait variation. They advance integrative theory not only through a strong critique of typical assumptions regarding the function linking questionnaire scores to actual personality, but also through a new and improved formulation of that function.

5. Conclusions and future directions

This special issue of the Journal of Research on Personality serves as a portrait of current research on integrative approaches to per- sonality and reveals it to be a dynamic and expanding area of the field. Looking to the future, we are optimistic about the long-term value of integrative theorizing in personality. One reason for this optimism comes from the fact that the theories presented here strive for balance between their speculative elements and empiri- cal validation of theoretical propositions. Thus, they attempt to overcome the main limitations of both major and minor theories of personality. Another reason for optimism is that they provide a foundation to build upon in the years ahead. Some potential areas of expansion can be easily identified. First, additional focus on per- sonality development in childhood is desirable. Second, integrative

Editorial / Journal of Research in Personality 56 (2015) 1–3 3

theories should attend even more closely to personality processes and structures that account for the capacity of individuals to adapt to changing situations and contexts. Third, one important goal of integrative approaches can be to further the reintegration of theories of normal personality with theories of abnormal per- sonality. Fourth, integrative approaches may pay more attention to the distinction between unconscious and conscious processes, and the conscious construction of identity (Epstein, 2003; McAdams & Pals, 2006). And fifth, integrative theories would, ide- ally, be sensitive to the cultural construction of some theoretical terms or units of analysis (reflecting, for example, the idea that personality coherence is grounded primarily in the notion of con- sistency in Western cultures, whereas it is grounded primarily in the notion of balance in Eastern cultures; Kitayama & Markus, 1999).

To conclude, we would like to express our thanks to all the authors who contributed papers to this Special Issue. Their com- mitment to providing theoretically and empirically advanced papers made our job as guest editors both stimulating and gratifying. We extend our gratitude, as well, to the reviewers who contributed much to this Special Issue by suggesting improvements to the manuscripts. We hope that the readers of the Journal of Research on Personality will be as stimulated by the articles that follow as we were.

References

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect-processing system: Toward an integrative

theory. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into

clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506. Cervone, D., & Bartoszek, G. (2013). Knowledge, appraisal, and personality

dynamics. In D. Cervone, M. Fajkowska, M. W. Eysenck, & T. Maruszewski (Eds.), Personality dynamics: Meaning construction, the social world, and the embodied mind. Clinton Corners, NY: Eliot Werner Publications.

Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Social-cognitive theories and the coherence of personality. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social- cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 3–33). New York: Guilford Press.

Dervin, B. (1999). On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting metatheory to method. Information Processing & Management, 35, 727–750.

Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Personality and social psychology (5, pp. 159–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd ed.). London: Methuen. Fajkowska, M. (2013). Personality coherence and incoherence: A perspective on anxiety

and depression. Clinton Corners, NY: Eliot Werner Publications. Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957). Theories of personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Inc. Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. S (1999). Yin and Yang of the Japanese self. The cultural

psychology of personality coherence. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 242–302). New York: Guilford Press.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leary, M. R. (2005). The scientific study of personality. In V. J. Derlega, B. A. Winstead, & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Personality: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 2–26). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

McAdams, D. P. (2006). The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (2008). The five factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford Press.

McNally, R. J. (1994). Disunity in psychology: Chaos or speciation? American Psychologist, 47, 1054.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Petocz, A., & Mackay, N. (2013). Unifying psychology through situational realism.

Review of General Psychology, 17, 216–223. Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Optimal human being: An integrated multi-level perspective.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stern, W. (1935). Allgemeine Psychologie auf personalistischer Grundlage. Dordrecht:

Nijoff. von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general systems therapy. British Journal of

the Philosophy of Science, 1, 134–165. Wallis, S. E. (2010). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review, 6, 73–120.

Małgorzata Fajkowska Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

Colin G. DeYoung Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, USA

Available online 4 April 2015