ABSTRACT
Chapter summary
The assumption that our behaviour is strongly influenced by our personality is more relevant in individualistic than collectivistic cultures.
Personality tests need to be standardised and to have high reliability and validity.
Cattell argued that there are 16 personality traits, many of which are closely related. In fact, however, there are no more than about eight different personality traits in his questionnaire designed to assess 16.
H. J. Eysenck identified three unrelated superfactors (extraversion; neuroticism; and psychoticism). However, he ignored other factors or traits such as agreeableness, openness and conscientiousness.
H. J. Eysenck argued that genetic factors account for 60%–80% of individual differences in his superfactors. In fact, the true figures are 30%–40%.
333H. J. Eysenck’s theory of personality is limited because it ignores cognitive factors.
The five-factor model is highly influential. According to the model, the Big Five personality factors are conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness, and agreeableness. Cross-cultural research has mostly supported this model.
As predicted by the five-factor model, there are moderately strong genetic influences on individual differences in all of the Big Five personality factors.
There is much evidence for the validity of the Big Five personality factors. For example, they predict marital satisfaction and mental disorder.
The assumption within the five-factor model that the Big Five personality factors are all independent is incorrect. For example, there are strong negative correlations between conscientiousness and neuroticism and between neuroticism and agreeableness.
The five-factor model is limited because it lacks a theoretical account of how genetic and environmental influences on personality interact with each other.
Mischel argued in his situationist approach that behaviour is determined far more by the current situation than by individual differences in personality. This argument has been disconfirmed by the research evidence.
Mischel argued that self-reports of personality are systematically distorted by faking and other motivational factors and that other-ratings reflect inaccurate preconceptions about personality. The finding that self-reports and other-ratings of personality are often highly correlated is inconsistent with these arguments.
Bandura has identified several factors responsible for changing an individual’s self-efficacy and self-regulation through learning.
Bandura’s social cognitive theory is more successful in predicting and understanding individuals’ behaviour in specific situations than in broad areas of life.
Bandura has ignored evidence that individual differences in self-efficacy and self-regulation are partly determined by genetic factors and are related to various personality dimensions (e.g., high conscientiousness; low neuroticism).
