Personality Development
Imagine you are filling out a dating profile. When you are asked to
describe yourself, do you include characteristics such as
extroverted/introverted, down-to-earth, adventurous, laid back, etc.? Do
you discuss the things that are important to you, such as being an honest
person, loyalty, speaking up for yourself, being respectful? What about a job
interview, do you use descriptors such as hard working, punctual, efficient?
Questions such as these on a dating profile or in a job interview are
attempting to reveal aspects of your personality. Personality has been a
major topic and research area of modern psychology since the early 20 th
century. Having a good understanding of your own personality is beneficial
to how you interact with others.
To further build upon our foundation for understanding human relations
we will now examine the role that our personality plays and the personalities
of others in our personal and professional experiences. In this chapter you
will explore various theoretical perspectives of personality, major trait
theories of personality, how values, behaviors, and attitudes affect the
workplace, and the influence of culture on personality. To begin, we will look
at the definition of personality and the various theoretical perspectives of
personality.
Introduction to Personality
When you first think of personality, what comes to mind? When we refer
to certain people as being “personalities,” we usually mean they are famous,
people like movie stars or your favorite band. When we describe a person as
having “lots of personality,” we usually mean they are outgoing and fun-
loving, the kind of person we like to spend time with. But does this tell us
anything about personality itself? Although we may think we have an
understanding of what personality is, professional psychologists always
seek to move beyond what people think they know in order to determine
what is actually real or at least as close to real as we can come. In the pursuit
of truly understanding personality, however, many personality theorists
seem to have been focused on a particularly Western cultural approach that
owes much of its history to the pioneering work of Sigmund Freud.
Freud trained as a physician with a strong background in biomedical
research. He naturally brought his keen sense of observation, a
characteristic of any good scientist, into his psychiatric practice. As he
worked with his patients, he developed a distinctly medical model: identify
a problem, identify the cause of the problem, and treat the patient
accordingly. This approach can work quite well, and it has worked
wonderfully for medical science, but it has two main weaknesses when
applied to the study of personality. First, it fails to address the complexity
and uniqueness of individuals, and second, it does not readily lend itself to
describing how one chooses to develop a healthy personality.
Quite soon in the history of personality theory, however, there were
influential theorists who began to challenge Freud’s perspective. Alfred
Adler, although a colleague of Freud’s for a time, began to focus on social
interest and an individual’s style of life. Karen Horney challenged Freud’s
perspective on the psychology of women, only to later suggest that the issue
was more directly related to the oppression of women as a minority, rather
than a fundamental difference based on gender. And there were Carl Jung
and Carl Rogers, two men profoundly influenced by Eastern philosophy.
Consequently, anyone influenced by Jung or Rogers has also been
influenced, in part, by Eastern philosophy. What about the rest of the world?
Have we taken into account the possibility that there are other, equally
valuable and interesting perspectives on the nature of people? Many fields
in psychology have made a concerted effort to address cross-cultural
issues. By the end of this chapter, you will have a broad understanding of the
field of personality, and an appreciation for both what we have in common
and what makes us unique, as members of our global community.
Definition and Descriptions of Personality
Personality refers to the long-standing traits and patterns that propel
individuals to consistently think, feel, and behave in specific ways. Our
personality is what makes us unique individuals. Each person has an
idiosyncratic pattern of enduring, long-term characteristics and a manner in
which they interact with other individuals and the world around them. Our
personalities are thought to be long term, stable, and not easily changed.
The word personality comes from the Latin word persona. In the ancient
world, a persona was a mask worn by an actor. While we tend to think of a
mask as being worn to conceal one’s identity, the theatrical mask was
originally used to either represent or project a specific personality trait of a
character. But are our personalities just masks? Freud certainly considered
the unconscious mind to be very important, Cattell considered source traits
to be more important than surface traits, and Buddhists consider the natural
world (including the self) to be an illusion. Adler believed the best way to
examine personality is to look at the person’s style of life, and Rogers felt that
the only person who could truly understand you is yourself. In order to better
understand how some of the different disciplines within the field of
psychology contribute to our definition of personality, let’s take a brief look
at some of the widely recognized factors that come into play.
Psychodynamic Factors
The very word “psychodynamic” suggests that there are ongoing
interactions between different elements of the mind. Sigmund Freud not
only offered names for these elements (id, ego, and superego), he proposed
different levels of consciousness. Since the unconscious mind was very
powerful according to Freud, one of the first and most enduring elements of
psychodynamic theory is that we are often unaware of why we think and act
the way we do. Add to that the belief that our personality is determined in
early childhood, and you can quickly see that psychological problems would
be very difficult to treat. Perhaps more importantly, since we are not aware
of many of our own thoughts and desires, it would difficult or even
impossible for us to choose to change our personality no matter how much
we might want to.
Most psychodynamic theorists since Freud have expanded the
influences that affect us to include more of the outside world. Those
theorists who remained loyal to Freud, typically known as neoFreudians,
emphasized the ego. Since the ego functions primarily in the real world, the
individual must take into account the influence of other people involved in
their lives. Some theorists who differed significantly from the traditional
Freudian perspective, most notably Alfred Adler and Karen Horney, focused
much of their theories on cultural influences. Adler believed that social
cooperation was essential to the success of each individual (and humanity
as a whole), whereas Horney provided an intriguing alternative to Freud’s
sexist theories regarding women. Although Horney based her theories
regarding women on the cultural standing between men and women in the
Victorian era, to a large extent her theory remains relevant today.
Learning and Cognitive Factors
As a species, human beings are distinguished by their highly developed
brains. Animals with less-developed nervous systems rely primarily on
instinctive behavior, but very little on learning. While the study of animals’
instinctive behavior is fascinating, and led to a shared Nobel Prize for the
ethologists Nikolaas Tinbergen, Konrad Lorenz, and Karl von Frisch, animal
behavior remains distinctly limited compared to the complex learning and
cognitive tasks that humans can readily perform (Beck, 1978; Gould, 1982).
Indeed, the profound value of our abilities to think and learn may be best
reflected in the fact that, according to Tinbergen’s strict definition of instinct
(see Beck, 1978), humans appear not to have any instinctive behavior
anymore. Yet we have more than made up for it through our ability to learn,
and learning theory and behaviorism became dominant forces in the early
years of American psychology.
John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner are among the most famous and
influential of American psychologists. Learning about their groundbreaking
research on classical and operant conditioning is standard fare in
psychology courses. More recently, Albert Bandura has enjoyed similar
popularity and respect in the field of social learning theory. Anyone who has
children knows full well how eagerly they observe us and mimic our actions
and speech. An important aspect of the learning perspective is that our
personalities may develop as a result of the rewards and/or punishments we
receive from others. Consequently, we should be able to shape an
individual’s personality in any way we want. Early behaviorists, like Watson,
suggested that they could indeed take any child and raise them to be
successful in any career they chose for them. Although most parents and
teachers try to be a good influence on children, and to set good examples for
them, children are often influenced more by their peers. What children find
rewarding may not be what parents and teachers think is rewarding. This is
why a social-cognitive approach to learning becomes very important in
understanding personality development. Social-cognitive theorists, like
Bandura, recognize that children interact with their environment, partly
determining for themselves what is rewarding or punishing, and then react
to the environment in their own unique way.
As suggested by the blend of behaviorism and cognition that Bandura
and others proposed, there is a close association between behaviorism and
the field of cognitive psychology. Although strict behaviorists rejected the
study of unobservable cognitive processes, the cognitive field has actually
followed the guidelines of behaviorism with regard to a dispassionate and
logical observation of the expression of cognitive processes through an
individual’s behavior and what they say. Thus, the ability of human beings to
think, reason, analyze, anticipate, etc., leads them to act in accordance with
their ideas, rather than simply on the basis of traditional behavioral controls:
reward, punishment, or associations with unconditional stimuli. The
success of the cognitive approach when applied to therapy, such as the
techniques developed by Aaron Beck, has helped to establish cognitive
theory as one the most respected areas in the study of personality and
abnormal psychology.
Biological Factors
Although humans may not exhibit instinctive behavior, we are still
ultimately a product of our biological makeup, our specific DNA pattern. Our
individual DNA pattern is unique, unless we happen to be an identical twin,
and it not only provides the basis for our learning and cognitive abilities, it
also sets the conditions for certain aspects of our character. Perhaps the
most salient of these characteristics is temperament, which can loosely be
described as the emotional component of our personality. In addition to
temperament, twin studies have shown that all aspects of personality
appear to be significantly influenced by our genetic inheritance (Bouchard,
1994; Bouchard & McGue, 1990; Bouchard et al., 1990) (Figure 4.4). Even
such complex personality variables as well-being, traditionalism, and
religiosity have been found to be highly influenced by our genetic make-up
(Tellegen et al., 1988; Waller et al., 1990).
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists also emphasize the role
of genetics and adaptation over time. Sociobiologists consider how
biological factors influence social behavior. For example, they would
suggest that men are inclined to prefer multiple sexual partners because
men are biologically capable of fathering many children, whereas women
would be inclined to favor one successful and established partner, because
a woman must physically invest a year or more in each child (a 9-month
pregnancy followed by a period of nursing). Similarly, evolutionary
psychologists consider how human behavior has been adaptive for our
survival. Humans evolved from plant-eating primates; we are not well suited
to defend ourselves against large, meat-eating predators. As a group,
however, and using our intellect to fashion weapons from sticks and rocks,
we were able to survive and flourish over time. Unfortunately, the same
adaptive influences that guide the development of each healthy person can,
under adverse conditions, lead to dysfunctional behaviors, and
consequently, psychological disorders (Millon, 2004).
Inherent Drives
Freud believed that we are motivated primarily by psychosexual
impulses, and secondarily by our tendency toward aggression. Certainly, it
is necessary to procreate for the species to survive, and elements of
aggression are necessary for us to get what we need and to protect
ourselves. But this is a particularly dark and somewhat animalistic view of
humanity. The humanistic psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow
believed in a positive view of people, they proposed that each of us contains
an inherent drive to be the best that we can be, and to accomplish all that
we are capable of accomplishing. Rogers and Maslow called this drive self-
actualization. Interestingly, this concept is actually thousands of years old,
and having spent time in China, Rogers was well aware of Buddhist and Yogic
perspectives on the self.
Somewhat related to the humanistic concept of self-actualization, is
the existential perspective. Existential theorists, like Rollo May, believe that
individuals can be truly happy only when they find some meaning in life. In
Eastern philosophical perspectives, coming from Yoga and Buddhism,
meaning in life is found by realizing that life is an illusion, that within each of
us is the essence of one universal spirit. Indeed, Yoga means “union,”
referring to union with God. Thus, we have meaning within us, but the illusion
of our life is what distracts us from realizing it.
Sociocultural Influence
Culture can broadly be defined as “everything that people have, think,
and do as members of a society” (Ferraro, 2006a), and appears to be as old
as the Homo genus itself (the genus of which we, as Homo sapiens, are the
current representatives; Haviland et al., 2005). Culture has also been
described as the memory of a society (see Triandis & Suh, 2002). Culture is
both learned and shared by members of a society, and it is what makes the
behavior of an individual understandable to other members of that culture.
Everything we do is influenced by culture, from the food we eat to the nature
of our personal relationships, and it varies dramatically from group to group.
What makes life understandable and predictable within one group may be
incomprehensible to another. Despite differences in detail, however, there
are a number of cultural universals, those aspects of culture that have been
identified in every cultural group that has been examined historically or
ethnographically (Murdock, 1945; see also Ferraro, 2006a). Therefore, if we
truly want to understand personality theory, we need to know something
about the sociocultural factors that may be the same, or that may differ,
between groups.
In 1999, Stanley Sue proposed that psychology has systematically
avoided the study of cross-cultural factors in psychological research. This
was not because psychologists themselves are biased, but rather, it was due
to an inherent bias in the nature of psychological research (for
commentaries see also Tebes, 2000; Guyll & Madon, 2000; and Sue, 2000).
Although some may disagree with the arguments set forth in Sue’s initial
study, it is clear that the vast majority of research has been conducted here
in America, primarily by American college professors studying American
psychology students. And the history of our country clearly identifies most
of those individuals, both the professors and the students, as White, middle-
to upper-class men. The same year, Lee et al. (1999) brought together a
collection of multicultural perspectives on personality, with the individual
chapters written by a very diverse group of authors. In both the preface and
their introductory chapter, the editors emphasize that neither human nature
nor personality can be separated from culture. And yet, as suggested by Sue
(1999), they acknowledge the general lack of cross-cultural or multicultural
research in the field of personality.
Times have begun to change, however. In 2002, the American
Psychological Association (APA) adopted a policy entitled “Guidelines on
Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational
Change for Psychologists. The year 2002 also saw a chapter in the
prestigious Annual Review of Psychology on how culture influences the
development of personality (Triandis & Suh, 2002). In a fascinating article on
whether psychology actually matters in our lives, former APA president and
renowned social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (2004) identified the work of
Kenneth and Mamie Clark on prejudice and discrimination, which was
presented to the United States Supreme Court during the Brown vs. Board of
Education of Topeka, KS case (which led to the end of school segregation in
America), as one of the most significant impacts on American life that
psychology has contributed to directly (see also Benjamin & Crouse, 2002;
Keppel, 2002; Pickren & Tomes, 2002). Finally, an examination of American
Psychologist (the principle journal of APA) and Psychological Science (the
principle journal of the American Psychological Society) since the year 2000
reveals studies demonstrating the importance of cross-cultural research in
many areas of psychology. So, although personality theorists, and the field
of psychology in general, have been somewhat slow to address cross-
cultural and diversity issues, in more recent years psychologists appear to
be rapidly gaining a greater appreciation of the importance of studying
human diversity in all its forms.
One of the primary goals of this chapter is to incorporate different
cultural perspectives into our study of personality theory, to take more of a
global perspective than has traditionally been done. Why is this important?
The United States of America has less than 300 million people. India has
nearly 1 billion people, and China has over 1 billion people. So, two Asian
countries alone have nearly 7 times as many people as the United States.
How can we claim to be studying personality if we have not taken into
account the vast majority of people in the world? Of course, we have not
entirely ignored these two particular countries, because two of the most
famous personality theorists spent time in these countries when they were
young. Carl Jung spent time in India, and his theories were clearly influenced
by ancient Vedic philosophy, and Carl Rogers spent time in China while
studying to be a minister. So, it is possible to draw connections between
Yoga, Buddhism, psychodynamic theory, and humanistic psychology.
Sometimes this will involve looking at differences between cultures, and
other times it will focus on similarities. At the end of this chapter, you will
have gained a sense of the diversity of personality and personality theory,
and the connections that tie all of us together.
Some Basic Questions Common to All Areas of Personality Theory
In addition to the broad perspectives described above, there are a
number of philosophical questions that help to bring the nature of
personality into perspective. Thinking about how these questions are
answered by each theory can help us to compare and contrast the different
theories.
Is our personality inherited, or are we products of our environment?
This is the classic debate on nature vs. nurture. Are we born with a given
temperament, with a genetically determined style of interacting with others,
certain abilities, with various behavioral patterns that we cannot even
control? Or are we shaped by our experiences, by learning, thinking, and
relating to others? Many psychologists today find this debate amusing,
because no matter what area of psychology you study, the answer is typically
both. We are born with a certain range of possibilities determined by our
DNA. We can be a certain height, have a certain IQ, be shy or outgoing, we
might be Black, Asian, White or Hispanic, etc. because of who we are
genetically. However, the environment can have a profound effect on how
our genetic makeup is realized. For example, a child with both parents over
six feet in height, will likely have inherited genes to also be over six feet in
height. However, while the child was growing up, their family was very poor
and they were malnourished, stunting their growth. The end result might be
that this child is several inches shorter than their parents. Our genetic make-
up provides a range of possibilities for our life, and the environment in which
we grow determines where exactly we fall within that range.
Are we unique, or are there common types of personality?
Many people want to believe that they are special and truly unique, and
they tend to reject theories that try to categorize individuals. However, if
personality theories were unique to each person, we could never possibly
cover all of the theories. In order to understand and compare people,
personality theorists need to consider that there are common aspects of
personality. It is up to each of us to decide whether we are still willing to find
what is unique and special about each separate person.
Which is more important, the past, present, or future?
Many theorists, particularly psychodynamic theorists, consider
personality to be largely determined at an early age. Similarly, those who
believe strongly in the genetic determination of personality would consider
many factors set even before birth. But what prospects for growth does this
allow, can people change or choose a new direction in their life? Cognitive
and behavioral theorists focus on specific thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors
that are influencing our daily lives, whereas existential theorists search for
meaning in our lives. Other theorists, such as the humanists and those who
favor the spiritually-oriented perspectives we will examine, consider the
future to be primary in our goals and aspirations. Self-actualization is
something we can work toward. Indeed, it may be an inherent drive.
Do we have free will, or is our behavior determined?
Although this question seems similar to the previous one, it refers more
to whether we consciously choose the path we take in life as compared to
whether our behavior is specifically determined by factors beyond our
control. We already mentioned the possibility of genetic factors above, but
there might also be unconscious factors and stimuli in our environment.
Certainly, humans rely on learning for much of what we do in life, so why not
for developing our personalities? Though some students do not want to think
of themselves as simply products of reinforcement and punishment (i.e.,
operant conditioning) or the associations formed during classical
conditioning (anyone have a phobia?), what about the richness of
observational learning? Still, exercising our will and making sound choices
seems far more dignified to many people. Is it possible to develop our will,
to help us make better choices and follow through on them? Yes, according
to William James, America’s foremost psychologist. James considered our
will to be of great importance, and he included chapters on the will in two
classic books; Psychology: Briefer Course, published in 1892 and Talks to
Teachers on Psychology and to Students on Some of Life’s Ideals, which was
published in 1899. James not only thought about the importance of the will,
he recommended exercising it. In Talks to Teachers…, he sets forth the
following responsibility for teachers of psychology:
But let us now close in a little more closely on this matter of the
education of the will. Your task is to build up a character in your pupils;
and a character, as I have so often said, consists in an organized set of
habits of reaction. Now of what do such habits of reaction themselves
consist? They consist They consist of tendencies to act
characteristically when certain ideas possess us, and to refrain
characteristically when possessed by other ideas (pg. 816).
Culture and Personality
We will examine some of the issues that arise when examining
personality development in a sociocultural context. The United States,
Canada, and Western Europe represent only about one tenth of the world’s
population. Thus, it is essential that we consider the influence of different
cultures around the world if we are going to claim that we have really
examined human personality in all its variations.
The Influence of Culture and Society on Personality
Many psychology textbooks mention a few famous anthropologists,
such as Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, whose research included work
on child development and personality. However, less well-known in the field
of psychology is the renowned anthropologist Ralph Linton, who paid
particular attention to personality development in relation to culture and
society. Linton also collaborated with Abram Kardiner, a founding member
of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute (and who was analyzed by Sigmund
Freud himself in 1921-1922). Linton and Kardiner freely acknowledged the
connections between anthropology and psychology, noting the influence of
Benedict and Mead, Franz Boas (recognized as the father of American
anthropology and mentor to both Benedict and Mead), and the
psychoanalysts Anna Freud, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, and Wilhelm Reich
(Kardiner, 1939; Kardiner, Linton, DuBois, & West, 1945; Kardiner & Preble,
1961).
Linton described personality as existing on three levels. First,
personality can be described based on either its content or its organization.
The organization, furthermore, can be examined in terms of its superficial
organization or its central organization. The central organization of
personality gives the whole personality its distinctive character, and
includes the most invariant aspects of personality, such as the degree of
introversion/extraversion, or other aspects of temperament (Linton, 1936,
1945). Although these temperamental attributes are present at birth, they do
not comprise personality per se. The superficial organization of personality,
however, is based on the goals and interests of the individual, and
incorporates the individual’s experiences in life within the context of the
central organization. In this regard, the superficial organization should not
be confused with something transient or insignificant. It is “superficial” only
in the sense that it is on the surface of the personality, and the goals and
interests of the person are based on the content of personality that
represents their life experiences as they are organized within the personality.
The goals and interests themselves, which incorporate the content of
personality, are determined almost entirely by the culture in which the
individual is raised. According to Linton (1936), the process of integrating the
individual’s experience within the context of one’s temperament (or
“constitutional qualities”) forms a “mutually adjusted, functional whole.”
A critical question, of course, is whether cultural experiences can affect
the central organization. Linton (1936, 1945, 1955) believed that no matter
how an individual receives the cultural characteristics of their society, they
are likely to internalize them, a process known as enculturation. One of the
main reasons that enculturation is so influential in every aspect of the
person’s being, is that it pervades every aspect of the society in which the
person lives. Thus, even someone who is considered a rebel, most likely
exists within a range of rebellion that is possible within that particular
culture. This is directly related to the apparent reality that cultures do give
rise to certain types of personalities. Making the matter even more
complicated, or simpler depending on one’s perspective, is the role of status
within a culture. Thus, although a given culture or society, or one’s own
temperament, may influence personality in one direction, a particular social
class might influence personality in a different direction. An individual born
into a given class, whose personal constitution does not fit that class, may
develop what Linton called a status personality, i.e., a persona that fits with
society’s expectations for the individual in certain settings. For example,
someone born into an upper middle-class family involved in business, who
is personally rather introverted and withdrawn, may present a confident and
outgoing personality when working, and only upon returning home do they
revert to their natural inclination to be shy and quiet.
One of the most interesting points made by Linton is that individuals
with complementary personalities are also mutually adjusted. The most
obvious example is that of the gender roles of men and women. Men are
expected, in many cultures and societies, to be the dominant member of the
family, as well as the “bread-winner.” Conversely, women are expected to be
submissive, and to remain home and care for the household and the
children. In this way, the men and women together complete the necessary
tasks for family life without entering into conflict (at least in theory). In some
cultures, these gender roles are quite relaxed with regard to the sex of the
individual. Amongst the Comanche (a Native American tribe), men whose
personalities were not at all suited to being warriors assumed a special role,
that of berdache (Linton, 1936). The berdache wore women’s clothes, and
typically fulfilled a woman’s role, but they were treated with somewhat more
respect than women (in keeping with the patriarchal nature of the society).
Some were homosexuals (though not all), and even married. This was
generally accepted, and any disapproval these relationships received was
directed toward the warrior husband, not the berdache.
Abram Kardiner, a psychoanalyst who collaborated with Linton, shared
the same general perspective on the relationship between personality and
culture, and attempted to put the relationship into psychological terms. He
distinguished between the basic personality, or ego structure, which he
considered to be a cultural phenomenon, and the individual’s character,
which is their unique adaptation to the environment within their cultural
setting. Thus, each individual develops a unique character, but only within
the constraints of the culturally-determined range of potential ego structure
(Kardiner, 1939). The process of personality development, within a cultural
setting, results in what Kardiner called a security system. The security
system of the individual is the series of adaptations that serve to ensure the
individual’s acceptance, approval, support, esteem, and status within the
group. Thus, for each person within a given cultural group, their basic
personality is formed through an ongoing interaction with the very culture in
which that person needs to be (and, hopefully, will be) accepted as a
member. Both of Kardiner’s major books, The Individual and His Society
(Kardiner, 1939) and The Psychological Frontiers of Society (Kardiner, et al.,
1945), offer extraordinary examples of detailed anthropological studies of a
wide variety of cultures followed by psychoanalytic evaluations of the
functions served by various aspects of the cultural practices of those
people.
Robert LeVine, like Kardiner, was an anthropologist and psychoanalyst
with a strong interest in personality (LeVine, 1973, 1974). He begins by asking
the question of whether there are differences in personality between
different cultural groups. If there are not, then any analysis of the nature or
causes of those alleged differences is meaningless. If there are differences,
can we then point to specific evidence that the environment can elicit
changes in those differences? The answer is yes to both, and as one example
LeVine points to the dramatic acculturation of rural immigrants from
underdeveloped areas of Europe and Asia who emigrated to industrialized
countries, such as the United States, and within two or three generations
had radically altered not only their basic ways of life, but also their social
class (moving from traditional peasantry to the middle-class; LeVine, 1973).
LeVine also continued Kardiner’s approach of using a psychoanalytic
perspective to evaluate and compare the nature of different cultures, and he
proposed the term psychoanalytic ethnography. In an effort to justify the use
of psychoanalytic ethnography, LeVine argues that there are enough
common elements in the nature of all people and cultures to provide for
valid comparisons of the differences between those same people and
cultures (LeVine, 1973).
One of the most striking discussions of the relationship between
culture and the potential for personality development was offered by Pitirim
Sorokin, the founder of Harvard University’s sociology department and a
colleague of the trait theorist Gordon Allport. Sorokin points out that culture
can have a dramatic influence on the biological substrates of personality.
For example, through the use of contraception, abortion, etc., many
potential individuals are never born. Conversely, if such measures are
prohibited, many unwanted children are born. In addition, cultural rules and
norms against sexual intercourse and/or marriage between certain age
groups, races, social classes, families, religions, etc., directly influence the
potential for genetic variation within and across different groups of humans
(Sorokin, 1947). Indeed, Sorokin took such a broad view of the role of society
and culture in the environmental universe of each individual, that he
described trying to understand sociocultural phenomena by locating them
in terms of sociocultural space and sociocultural distance. The concept of
sociocultural distance has taken on new meaning since Sorokin proposed it
over 50 years ago. Today, anyone can travel around the world in a matter of
hours or days, and many people do so regularly. Technology and
globalization have dramatically reduced the distance between people, and
consequently brought their cultural differences into contact with one
another. Efforts to study cultures and societies alter the location of
sociocultural phenomena within our own sphere of personal development.
In other words, by studying the relationships between society, culture, and
personality, we are altering the meaning and influence of those
relationships, hopefully for the better.
Although this section has highlighted the influence of anthropologists
and sociologists on cross-cultural research in the study of personality, there
has also been an influence from psychology on these investigators. As noted
above, both Abram Kardiner and Robert LeVine were psychoanalysts. In
addition, Kardiner acknowledges having learned a great deal from a
professor named John Dollard. Dollard was a sociologist who had studied
psychoanalysis and who collaborated with Neal Miller (a psychologist
trained in learning theory) in an effort to apply classical learning theory to
psychodynamic theory. Dollard contributed a chapter to one of Linton’s
books, and was cited by both LeVine and Sorokin (who was, again, also a
colleague of Allport). Given such an interesting interaction between the
fields of psychology, anthropology, and sociology over half a century ago, it
seems surprising that psychology is only now emphasizing the value of
focusing on cultural influences on personality development.
Different Cultural Factors Affecting Personality
Since culture pervades every aspect of our lives, the number of cultural
factors that we might examine in the study of personality is quite large.
However, there are a few major factors that stand out, and that have been
the subject of significant research in the field of psychology. Thus, we will
take a brief look at four major factors that influence personality: religion,
race, gender, and age.
Religion as a Cultural Influence
…religion in its turn exerts the most decisive influence upon all groups
and systems of culture, from science and the fine arts to politics and
economics. Without knowing the religion of a given culture or group – their
systems of ultimate values – one cannot understand their basic traits and
social movements. (pg. 228; Sorokin, 1947)
The essential importance of religion was also recognized by Abram
Kardiner and Robert LeVine, both of whom, as noted above, studied
anthropology and psychoanalysis (see Kardiner, et al., 1945; LeVine, 1973).
The recognized founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, also placed
great emphasis on the influence of religion and religious symbolism (though
he did not believe in God).
Despite the importance of religion, as perhaps the most significant
cultural factor, there is variation in the extent to which formal religious
beliefs and practices are a part of the routine life of people in different
cultures (see Matsumoto & Juang, 2004). Since most psychologists were not
emphasizing cultural factors as an essential aspect of the early
development of the field (leaving that to anthropologists and sociologists),
and given Freud’s powerful and convincing arguments against religion, it is
not surprising that psychology has not focused on the influence of religion
on personality. But that is changing, and despite the role that religion has
played in many political battles and outright war, religion and spirituality are
also recognized as potentially favorable aspects of psychological
development in general, and personality development in particular, in the
field of positive psychology (Compton, 2005; Peterson, 2006; Peterson &
Seligman, 2004; Snyder & Lopez, 2005).
The Question of Race and Ethnicity as Cultural Influences
Although the terms race and ethnicity are often used interchangeably
with culture, they are quite different. The United States, for example, has
large populations of people from different races, ethnic groups, religions,
and nationalities, but they all contribute to the greater cultural identity of
“American.” Indeed, the very concept of America as a “melting pot” defies
the use of racial or ethnic characterizations of the American people. This
argument goes both ways, of course. We cannot simply refer to people who
live within the boundaries of the United States as American, and expect that
they are similar in every other cultural respect. Although this may seem
rather confusing, that is exactly the point. This does not mean they are not
useful, just that we must be careful in our interpretations of people’s
behavior and personality if they are from another culture.
Although ethnicity and race may be of questionable value as cultural
factors, there are two critically important issues that arise from them. A
common problem in cross-cultural research is that of ethnocentrism, the
belief that one’s own culture has the right beliefs and practices, whereas
other cultures have wrong beliefs and practices (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004;
Whitley & Kite, 2006). Such value judgments interfere with the objectivity of
cross-cultural research, and can have negative effects on intercultural
communication. The other, very serious problem is that of racism. Race is
very real if people believe in it and act according to their perception of it. We
will examine racism later in the textbook. For now, consider the following
quote from a recently published book entitled Racism in the United States:
Implications for the Helping Professions:
Racism has evolved as a persistent part of the human condition. Its
obstinacy and intractability are frustrating and at times baffling. We live in a
world in which most nations have signed United Nations declarations of
human rights and claim to be democracies, yet racial and ethnic conflict
abound. (pg. xvii; Miller & Garran, 2008).
Gender and Culture
Gender has been the subject of a wide range of studies, from
poppsychology books like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus
(Gray, 1992) and Self-Made Man: One Woman’s Journey into Manhood and
Back Again (Vincent, 2006) to such ominous sounding titles in academic
psychology as The Longest War: Gender and Culture (Wade and Tavris,
1994). In 2005, the president of Harvard University suggested that one of the
reasons there were so few women in math and science fields was that they
lacked the intrinsic aptitude. The subsequent uproar led to the end of his
presidency at Harvard, and a renewed effort to examine the reasons why few
women succeed in math and science careers. An extensive study, led by
former APA President Diane Halpern came to no specific conclusions, due
to the complex interactions of a variety of factors, but in so doing made it
clear that no blame can be placed directly on inherent/genetic ability
(Halpern, et al., 2007; see also Barnett, 2007).
Gender is a distinctly cultural term, representing the behaviors or
patterns of activity that a given culture or society expects from men and
women. It is perhaps most commonly used to address differences between
males and females, with an underlying assumption that sex differences lead
to gender differences. However, apparent sex differences may actually be
cultural gender differences, and cultures and societies exert significant
influence on gender roles from a very early age (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto &
Juang, 2004; Stewart & McDermott, 2004). Still, some cultural factors may
also have a basis in biological reality. For example, males are typically larger
and stronger than females, so it makes sense for males to do the hunting and
fight the wars. Women become pregnant and then nurse the infants, so it
makes sense for them to provide early childcare. How this led to men having
greater control and prestige in society, however, remains unclear, especially
since that is not universally the case (Wade & Tavris, 1994). In addition, older
men often become involved in childcare after their hunting/warrior days are
behind them, further complicating the issue.
Among the differences between men and women that seem to be fairly
common across cultures, and which may stem from sex differences, are
aggression and emphasizing relationships. Men are typically more
aggressive, and women seem to focus more on relationships with other
people. In accordance with these tendencies, women typically defer to men,
particularly in situations that may be confrontational. It also leads to conflict
between men and women due to their difficulties communicating, hence the
popularity of John Gray’s book suggesting that men and women are from
completely different planets. Given the status of men, the challenges that
these gender differences create for women were not typically given a great
deal of attention. However, Karen Horney and more recently the women of
the Stone Center Group have made great strides in changing that situation.
Not only have the members of the Stone Center Group provided a number of
collected works on the psychology of women (Jordan, 1997b; Jordan,
Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Jordan, Walker, & Hartling, 2004), there
are also textbooks devoted exclusively to the subject (e.g., Matlin, 2004).
Aging Within a Cultural Context
Age is used as routinely as sex to divide people in a society. All societies
recognize at least three age groups: child, adult, and elderly. Childhood is
typically further divided into young childhood and adolescence. Each group
has different rights, responsibilities, roles, and status (Linton, 1936; Sorokin,
1947). Sometimes, these can come into conflict. For example, among the
Comanche, as with most Plains tribes in North America, the adult male was
expected to be a warrior, whereas the elderly man was respected for his
wisdom and gentleness. Transitioning from being a warrior to being an elder
was very difficult, and Comanche men often hoped to die in battle in order
to avoid the transition. Those who were forced to make the transition
became very dangerous adversaries for the young men transitioning from
childhood to adulthood, and often the old men would kill the young men
when they could (out of sheer envy). Moving even beyond old age, into death,
there are many societies in which the dead remain in the minds of the
community members, and deceased relatives and heroes are even
worshipped. In some cultures, the relationship with those who are dead is a
very important part of daily life (Linton, 1936).
Throughout history, as societies have changed, so have the ways in
which they treated and cared for (or did not care for) aged individuals.
Although modern industrialization is correlated with a significantly longer
lifespan, such dramatic cultural changes favor the young people who can
more readily adapt to those changes. In addition, industrialized societies
typically shift some of the responsibility of caring for the aged from the family
to the state. Curiously, this removes the responsibility of caring for aged
persons from the very family whom those aged individuals had cared for and
raised themselves. The one area in which aged members of the community
are likely to retain their leadership status is religion, and the rituals
associated with it (Holmes, 1983; Johnson & Thane, 1998; Schweitzer, 1983).
David Gutmann, an early gerontologist with an interest in the effects of
aging on personality, has focused his career on studying men in four
cultures: a typical American population (to the extent that there is such a
thing), the Navajo in the United States, both Lowland and Highland Maya in
Mexico, and the Druze in Israel (see Gutmann, 1987, 1997). One of the most
interesting realities that he begins with is the recognition that the human
species is the only one in which aged individuals remain active long past
their reproductive prime. What possible evolutionary advantage does this
offer our species? Gutmann believes that our elders fill unique roles in
society, thus providing essential benefits to the extended family and the
community, particularly for the young. Indeed, Gutmann points out that it is
uniquely human to favor the ends of the lifespan, both childhood and old
age, over the middle of the lifespan, when reproductive fitness is at its
biological peak. As we noted above, however, the transition into old age is
not always easy, and this leads to some unique changes in personality
associated with aging.
The beginning of old age is marked by the maturity of one’s children,
such that the adult individual no longer needs to provide care for their
children. Thus, both men and women can begin to express those aspects of
their personality that were set aside in order to mutually facilitate raising
children. Consequently, there is often a relaxing, or even reversal to some
extent, of gender roles. A particularly significant change for men who no
longer have the physical strength to be warriors (or to engage in the physical
labor of their community) is the manner in which they seek mastery over
their lives. Young men have the ability to seek active mastery, they strive
toward autonomy, competence, and control. Older men must seek passive
mastery, through adaptation and accommodation. The oldest men must rely
on magical mastery. The world becomes one of potential providers and
potential predators. They rely on primitive defense mechanisms, and wish
fulfillment becomes synonymous with reality. Their relationship to the world
is marked by feelings of vulnerability (Gutmann, 1987, 1997). In such
societies, we can more involvement in religious practice that would lead to
a degree of respect, or at least acknowledgement, as religious leaders. Of
course, the degree to which a society provides for its oldest members, such
as through retirement benefits, would have a significant effect on this aging
process. Nonetheless, Gutmann found evidence for these changes in
mastery style amongst men in mainstream America as well as in the Navajo,
Maya, and Druze cultures.
Addressing the Degree of Cultural Integration
Adding to the complexity of culture’s role in shaping our personalities
are two important factors. First is the degree to which an individual is
integrated into their culture, and vice versa. As Sorokin points out, it is
exceedingly rare that an individual is either totally integrated into their
culture or not integrated into it at all (Sorokin, 1947; see also Kardiner, et al.,
1945; Linton, 1936). Thus, culture provides a framework within which
individual variation is possible, but at the same time there will always be
some consistent basis for understanding the people within a given culture.
This becomes particularly important when considering crosscultural
research, since it may be reasonable to make some general assumptions
about an individual from another culture, but we must also be prepared for
their own unique variation as a person in that cultural group.
A second important factor is that cultural phenomena do not exist in
isolation. Both gender and race/ethnicity, for example, influence how one
adapts to the aging process (see, e.g., Arber, Davidson, & Ginn, 2003;
Barrow, 1986; Calasanti & Slevin, 2001; Cool & McCabe, 1983; Holmes,
1983). Gender also interacts with race/ethnicity in determining one’s
reactions to group psychotherapy (Pack-Brown, Whittington-Clark, & Parker,
1998) and/or adapting to life as a minority student on a majority campus
(Levey, Blanco, & Jones, 1998). Religion is considered to be such an
important factor in the African American community that its role has been
the subject of special interest (see, e.g., Belgrave & Allison, 2006; Taylor,
Chatters, & Levin, 2004). Obviously, many more examples can be found, the
point being that as an individual develops, with multiple cultural factors
influencing them, and each factor being integrated to a greater or lesser
degree, the potential for individual personality differences is extraordinary,
even when the overall effect of the specific culture, or society, is to guide its
members toward certain underlying tendencies that become characteristic
of that culture’s members.
Culture and Diversity
The importance of studying culture can be found in the diversity of
people both around the world and within our own communities. For
example, although many communities may be quite limited in terms of
religion and race/ethnicity, nearly all communities have a mixture of gender
and age. Although religion, race/ethnicity, gender, and age may be the major
factors that have traditionally been studied in the field of psychology, in the
instances where culture was studied, it is important to remember two
additional points. First, there are other cultural factors that may be very
important for certain individuals and/ or select groups of people, and
second, people can be excitingly (or frustratingly, depending on your point of
view) unique in their individuality.
One area of diversity that has been receiving more attention as a
cultural factor affecting the lives of many people is that of physical disability.
In the past, although it was recognized that individuals with physical
disabilities experience basically the same personality development
processes as other people, disabilities were considered to be specific
conditions that isolated the disabled person from their surroundings (Barker
et al., 1953; Pintner et al., 1941). Over time, as more research became
available on the psychology of people with disabilities (e.g., Goodley &
Lawthorn, 2006; Henderson & Bryan, 1984; Marks, 1999; McDaniel, 1976;
Roessler & Bolton, 1978; Stubbins, 1977; Vash, 1981; Wright, 1983),
perspectives on how to study these individuals changed as well. In 2004, the
Society for Disability Studies adopted preliminary guidelines for developing
programs in disability studies. They emphasize challenging the previously
held view that disabilities are individual deficits or defects that can or should
be fixed by “experts.” Rather, they recommend exploring models that
examine cultural, social, political, and economic factors which integrate
personal and collective responses to difference.
A few academic authors have made passing mention of the value of
exercise, self-defense training, and spirituality in coping with physical
disabilities (Nardo, 1994; Robinson, West, & Woodworth, 1995; Sobsey,
1994), one particularly interesting area in which culture, physical disability,
the mind-body connection, positive psychology, and spirituality all come
together is martial arts training (see Kelland, 2009, 2010). A number of
notable martial arts experts actively encourage people with disabilities to
practice the physical, psychological, and spiritual aspects of these ancient
exercises (such as Grandmaster Mark Shuey Sr. of the Cane Masters
International Association, Master Jurgen Schmidt of the International
Disabled Self-Defense Association, and Grandmaster John Pellegrini of the
International Combat Hapkido Federation), and several books are available
on this subject (McNab, 2003; Robertson, 1991; Withers & Sims, 2007).
Consider the diversity of cultures and personal interests that come together
when, for example, a disabled American living in the modern world pursues
the spiritual and physical development associated with an ancient, Asian
practice of self-development.
A Final Challenge
As important as it is to keep cultural factors in mind when studying
personality, the unfortunate reality is that the major personality theories in
psychology, as we recognize psychology today, have arisen within Western
intellectual settings. Thus, we do not have corresponding systems of
personality theory that arose in other cultures that we might compare to the
theories we do have. This somewhat limits our perspective on cross-cultural
personality theory to attempts to apply our Western theories to people of
other cultures. This limitation should not, however, keep us from considering
these issues. Culture is an allencompassing factor in the development and
psychology of both individuals and the groups in which they live. Indeed, in
Personality and Person Perception Across Cultures, Lee, McCauley, &
Draguns (1999) boldly state that “human nature cannot be independent of
culture” (pg. vii). Thus, it is essential that we learn as much as possible about
culture.
