Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

The Science Behind Personality

By Daniel Nettle, The Independent UK. Posted September 18, 2007.


Why do some of us worry endlessly about our lives, while others sail through without a care?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

At some point in your life, you've probably filled in a personality questionnaire ("Do you see yourself as ... ?"), and wondered as you ticked the boxes if there can really be any validity to such a simplistic way of assessing people. Surely the scores just reflect your mood on the day, or what you want the investigator to think. Surely everyone gives the same answer, which is "it depends." Or even if the scores measure something, surely it is how the person sees themselves, rather than how they actually are.

In a new book, I examine what the extent of the science underlying personality psychology really is. The answer is: more than you would think. While it has always been popular in business and pop psychology, and within academic psychology, personality research has been a poor relation to the parts of the discipline with experiments and hard objective measures. However, this is changing fast. The field of personality is undergoing a renaissance.

The reasons for the renaissance are several. Academics now have some really good long-term studies of the same individuals, and it turns out that those brief, simplistic, pencil-and-paper questionnaires have surprisingly useful properties. They produce a wide range of self-descriptions. The responses are fairly repeatable over intervals of many years. They also correlate quite well with ratings of the person given by their spouse, friends or colleagues.

Much more importantly, though, the responses turn out to predict objective events. For example, in a famous cohort of gifted Californian children recruited in the 1920s, and who are elderly or deceased now, personality "scores" -- numerical representations of answers to questions -- are significant predictors of life expectancy. In another long-term study, this time of American married couples, the quality and duration of the marriage is predicted by the personality scores of both parties prior to marriage.

There are many other examples, with personality scores predicting substance addiction, problem gambling, and the onset of psychological illnesses. Of course the prediction is a statistical one -- you can assign odds, not make oracular pronouncements -- but this is how it always is in psychology. Humans are such complex systems that you are happy to explain a portion of the variation in outcomes, and never expect to explain it all.

In recent years there has been renewed interest in personality assessment. This has been greatly aided by the fact that there is now a consensus on what the key variables are. Its early development, the field was greatly hampered by every investigator having his or her own scales, often using different names and measures for what turned out to be the same thing, or indeed the same names for what turned out to be different things.

But over the last 20 years, many studies in several different cultures have shown that much of the systematic variation in personality can be reduced to scores along five dimensions (the "Big Five"): Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness. It's important to stress that these are all continuous dimensions. That is, there are no discrete "types" of person. Personality dimensions are like height or weight, which vary continuously, not like being a left- or a right-hand writer. Your score on one dimension is independent of your scores on all the others, so there is an almost infinite diversity of different overall profiles possible.

If developments within psychology have facilitated the renaissance of personality studies, it is at the interface with biology where the exciting developments are beginning to come. Neuroscientists have shown, mainly using the increasingly sophisticated brain imaging techniques that are now available, that those simple pencil-and-paper personality scores correlate significantly with the size or neurophysiological reactivity of specific regions of the brain.

Moreover, these turn out to be the very regions that other types of evidence (evidence from brain damage, for example) would lead us to expect would be involved in that particular area of psychological function. Geneticists, too, are getting involved in personality research. It has recently become apparent that more of the human genome differs from individual to individual, even within our rather genetically homogenous species, than was previously thought.

We know this inter alia from the complete sequence of Dr Craig Venter's genome, which was published earlier this month. About 0.5 percent of the genetic information in his maternally-inherited genome is different from his paternally-inherited one. Variant sequences affect nearly half his genes, and it is likely that in many cases those variants will have some functional effect on body, brain or behaviour.

In a few cases, we even know which genetic variants have effects on personality. There is a gene that encodes a receptor molecule for the neurotransmitter dopamine, and which contains a repeating sequence whose length varies from person to person. A number of studies have found that the length of this sequence correlates with self-reported extraversion and reward-seeking behaviour.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: psychology, personality, behavior, mind, genome

Daniel Nettle is the author of Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are, published by Oxford University Press.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Know Thyself
Posted by: Dadster3 on Sep 18, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cool! I'm a big fan of the Myers-Briggs inventory (MBTI). I'm an INTJ, and getting the MBTI info explained a lot about my sense of not fitting in. It made me a lot more comfortable in my own skin, and much more knowledgeable about strengths and weaknesses.

I do find that, for me, the Kiersey use of "temperament" (Kiersey Temperament Sorter) to be more helpful than the MBTI "personality" in dealing with others. There are differences in individuals of even the same MB type; i.e., between me and any other INTJ for example, but we will share the larger characteristics common to the NT temperament. (The other temperments are NF, SJ and SP.) It's like saying that my particular INTJ traits & characteristics form the personalized version of the general NT temperament.

Anyway, MORE on this stuff, please! I would like to see how this system corelates to the Myers-Briggs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Know Thyself Posted by: kestral
» RE: Know Thyself Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Know Thyself Posted by: abbadon2007
» i'm an INTP Posted by: nor cal surfer
» RE: i'm an INTP Posted by: sterlingdave54
Who's kidding who?
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 19, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the people who sail through life without a care are wealthy, and most of the people who worry endlessly are poor, and this cannot be a coincidence, so....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who's kidding who? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Who's kidding who? Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: Who's kidding who? Posted by: Overburdened Planet
I don't want to be just another rat in your laboratory.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 20, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will never understand how what began as a technique for helpers to use with people who ask for help can become a body of literature that claims to tell people who they are.

Claiming to be able to fit people to a lifetime vocation sells. The fact that all it does is match people with others who are already in that vocation, who may or may not be able and happy, gets ignored. The fact that it "sells" makes it appear self-justifying.

The result, instead, is that kids in elementary school are told who to become so they will make a decision that will locate them in one or another academic track. Sorry. That is not helpful.

But the most anoying consequence is when psychological diagnoses are prated as if they were scientific facts rather than some one or another systems' way of offering guidance, not to the client, but to the therapist. The "Big Five" here fits that bill. A diagnosis without a theraputic plan is at best entertainment and at worst stereotyping.

If psychologists want to help people, OK. If they want to tell us what it means to be a human being, then they are just fascists in lab coats. In other words, add to the Big Five a Bigger Six: Controller, a helper with hands the size of Allstate. Oh, and ask the Katrina people about being in those good hands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is pseudoscience at its best
Posted by: borat99 on Sep 20, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a bunch of hokum. Why? Simple, it's based on empirical evidence, which means that it is inherently flawed, since human biases skew the data immensely. There is no theoretical basis for these dimensions. All these scientists are simply fitting people to prescribed categories according to how they behave, which is not necessarily a reflection of how they actually feel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not pseudoscience Posted by: Iconoclast421
Nervous system sensitivity -- and psyche rewards
Posted by: Smartcookie on Sep 20, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real issue with personality is what behaviours reward a person with pleasure versus pain, the other is the nervous system.

I've spent years deconstructing my own personality because I was diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and I found out also that I have been in a kind of diffuse tension/stress and pain most of my life due to my nervou system which interfered greatly with my 'perosnality', I am recharged by being alone and people exhaust me...

The pain / pleasure and resistance to stress and negative thinking dynamic is probably one of the most important components of personality that won't be recognized for a while just yet... since people who are "grumpy" or "Sensitive" and whose ego's break down easily obviously are under stress and in some kind of pain which they dislike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too hard on the conscientious people
Posted by: robchapman on Sep 20, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoyed reading this article and got a lot out of it and extend my appreciation to the author.

The discussion of the down side of conscientiousness seemed a little overdone.

I want my carpenter, my physician, my chef and even musicians playing at events to show high levels of proficiency and this can only come through a massive dose of conscientiousness.

OC is a personality disorder, but lack of conscientiusness leads immediarely to massive societal disorder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There may be flaws, but still. . . .
Posted by: clthompson on Sep 20, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While no instrument is 100% accurate in describing the human personality, instruments like the one described in this article (and I would like to know more), and the MBTI do remarkably well in describing overall patterns of personality and helping us to understand the patterns others exhibit. The MBTI was that way for me. I finally understood why my former husband and I did not get along. Many years later the MBTI opened a dialog between us and we could see how our differences grated on each other. I have never believed that I am totally an INFP, for example. I can and do exhibit other traits, but I prefer to be slightly introverted, an abstract thinker, make my decisions taking others into consideration and I am open to possibilities. I have always exhibited those characteristics and my children emerged with an imprint of personality as well. This does not mean that that's only what they can be; that imprint is only where you start; people can become all things.

I suspect the instrument described in this article is similar, but it measures other dimensions of personality. That's exciting because it provides us with knowledge about who we are, while recognizing that as thinking human beings, we can work toward exhibiting other traits as the situation demands. Thank god I am not stuck in predictable patterns. While I prefer some patterns based on the imprint of personality, I can be an extroverted/organizer/planner/tough decision maker if I want to be!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Psychology of a Prison State
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 20, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you were running a gigantic prison, what psychological traits would you promote?

Extraversion - extremely high
Conscientiousness - low
Neuroticism - low
Agreeableness - extremely high
Openness - extremely low

The high extraversion may seem counterintuitive, but it is necessary in a controlled group to avoid introspection, even at the risk of collaberation. More talking equals less thinking!

Now look at what our culture promotes... you think this is an accident? Most people with the above psychological map do not have a strong belief in freedom. Some want to be slaves, other want to be... pets? (That's the only word I can think of to describe it.) Most just want to be taken care of... "let someone else deal with it" is their mantra... but that implies submission to authority as a way of life.

To further complicate things, many of those who believe in freedom have a low agreeableness! Which means freedom lovers have to share the room with all the sociopaths and cutthroats ... the greedy lawyer, job-killing CEO, corrupt politician, professional liar, etc. This is why the elites of the world actually consider freedom to be sociopathic, and are actively working to promote that belief.

Our culture should contain all personality types. The more diverse it is, the healthier we will be. But in the US today, about half of us align ourselves in exactly the way I have shown above. It is really shocking to see it in graphical form. This is not a coincidence. The odds of such a thing happening naturally are incredibly low. And for it to continue for any length of time is astronomically low! The only conclusion one can make is that our culture and even our personalities are being carefully engineered. To what end, if not a prison state?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOTHING NEW
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 20, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But It is fascinating that over the years not much has changed. The numbers of people represented by the various groups are probably different. We seem to be losing the personality types who are curious and require explanations for various things. Despite increased numbers of educated people we are turning out too many blind followers. I don't believe it's because they are 'agreeable'. They seem indifferent and self absored. ??? Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, where's the test?
Posted by: SoCalLib on Sep 20, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A three page story about the newly discovered validity of personality tests, but no where within the text is there a link to actually take one?

Perhaps I'm being overly Neurotic, but I think a little more Openness and Agreeableness on the author's part would have helped this immensely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So, where's the test? Posted by: Beagle17
Tease
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 20, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In another long-term study, this time of American married couples, the quality and duration of the marriage is predicted by the personality scores of both parties prior to marriage."

"There are many other examples, with personality scores predicting substance addiction, problem gambling, and the onset of psychological illnesses."

So where are these studies? I understand the need to sell books, but damn ... like I'm going to buy a book just to find out later that the results of these studies are posted online somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the "psychology of the stranger"
Posted by: Beagle17 on Sep 20, 2007 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From this Wiki page

"One common criticism is that the Big Five do not explain all of human personality. Some psychologists have dissented from the model precisely because they feel it neglects other domains of personality, such as Religiosity, Manipulativeness/Machiavellianism, Honesty, Thriftiness, Conservativeness, Masculinity/Femininity, Snobbishness, Sense of humour, Identity, Self-concept, and Motivation. Correlations have been found between some of these variables and the Big Five, such as the inverse relationship between political conservatism and Openness (see McCrae, 1996), although variation in these traits is not entirely explained by the Five Factors themselves. McAdams (1995) has called the Big Five a "psychology of the stranger," because they refer to traits that are relatively easy to observe in a stranger; other aspects of personality that are more privately held or more context-dependent are excluded from the Big Five."
end quote


That sounds reasonable to me. It seems overly simplistic, but if it keeps showing up in studies (the number 5), it may be a shadow of an actual biologic reality. Reading strangers is important for evolution of the species. And, in the end, it all depends on what you consider personality. We makes decisions all the time that we might have made differently (Don't we?) but personality must be something that enforces tendency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Five points indeed
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Sep 20, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Extraverts are driven by success, which through aggression, infidelity and believing the hype of the market, still find it’s never enough. The low scorer is less likely to do any of these things to others, which reminds me of anthropologists (or anthro-apologists?) who support testosterone’s contribution to early humankind’s survival, that without aggression, supposedly we’d never have survived. Competition vs Cooperation: Computer game runs separate competitiveness and cooperation scenarios which always shows gains through cooperation, but the real world shows us only the extraverts win through competition so for cooperation to work, we need our basic needs met: Housing, Healthcare, Childcare, Nursing Care, Education, Jobs, Retirement. Too bad most extraverts don’t aren’t competitive when it comes to cooperation.

Conscientiousness and people should also be measured by their means, because it’s easier to lose weight when you can afford a personal chef and personal trainer and have a multi-million dollar contract waiting for you when you lose weight for that blockbuster movie role. Low scorers can be weak willed about their addictions, but also successful in other areas of life, so how can conscientiousness be measured in the wealthy? What about people that appear successful, but are deep in debt and/or addicted to possessions, drugs, sex? What about rich but addicted?

Neuroticism can affect others who are less neurotic than you but also, worrying can be the first step to recognizing problems and worrying can be applied to setting goals to help yourself. Worry too much and you’re in trouble, worry too little and you’re in trouble, so it’s a matter of perception. We all react to worry differently, but to be thoughtful vs thoughtless has it’s advantages, at least if you believe the test for liberals and conservatives pressing buttons for “W” and “M”, liberals think more, so what does that say about neuroticism and political leanings? Is it better to worry or not? Do people who worry lean towards liberalism and think and worry more than conservatives? Do conservative neurotics worry about useless things; do liberal neurotics worry more about world events?

Agreeableness is low for success stories? Nice people aren’t competitive and women “find it difficult to be callous enough” (in positions of power). What does this say about society in general? Are women or people who are nice to be blamed for being this way, or should we blame those who aren’t nice? How about blaming people that aren’t nice, and punish those who are callous, and stop rewarding the jerks?

Openness is delusional? Less open in this example means practical and scientific? So people with religious beliefs have more “openness” here, whereas atheists and those who follow the skeptic’s path of rational thought have less “openness”?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personality tests are a capitalistic scam and are
Posted by: psychochurch on Sep 20, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all based on the cognitive perspective. In short, the categories, as they are defined in various "self-reported" personality tests, reflect only the social constructs embedded within us via the culture at large. The truth is we are more controlled by environmental factors, such as peer groups we join (or are forced into), stereotypical thinking, conformity, etc. (Notice one of the above posters stated all the engineers in his class tested out w/ basically the same personality characteristics and yet he just accepted the frame that all these similiar people ended up in engineering because of some internal trait) Americans are capitalists, which means we are competative, with severe consequences on the losing end, which ultimately manipulate life choices. We can be classified by environment/group type much more accurately than self-reports (which are nothing more than frames implanted by our culture) but this focus is deliberately ignored due to domination of both clinical and/or cognitive perspectives that control study of psych in US today....challenge the zeitgeist and risk losing your funding, tenure, chance of getting published, etc...Main thing to remember is the focus...everything in US psych is INDIVIDUAL BASED and not environmental based. Why? Because the ruling class does not want social scientists running around proving social environments influence us more than self-determination/genetics, etc. All of this is fraud committed on the ill-informed american...check out some critical social psych if your interested in learning the truth about who we really are and how we got that way. Remember: Personality tests report only the stereotypes that particular person has been conditioned by.... and dont forget to enjoy your wal-mart shopping experience...you have no other choice!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Society?
Posted by: Cathyc on Sep 20, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Society offers certain incentives; money, power, fame, attention, sex, thrills, and so on, and some people pursue them full-out, while others have a more muted response and thus won't work so hard to capture them.

America, like all religious-based countries is not a society but a culture, or cultural phenomenom.


There is even a name for excessive Conscientiousness -- obsessive-compulsive personality disorder -- and this is a very socially disabling condition.

There is no comparison to be made between Conscientiousness and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. People with OCD are far from conscientiouness: they are psychologically imbalanced, or emotionally sick, which makes me question the agenda of the author of this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Society?People with OCD Posted by: JERSEYDAN
» RE: Society? Posted by: Ames
Selecting for a population of sheep?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Sep 20, 2007 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find these sort of studies to be worriesome, in that corporations may seize upon them and let them influence their hiring decisions.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to discover that a survey, with a broad stroke of a pen, makes you unemployable, even though all the survey suggests are tendencies that some overcome in the course of their lives or compensate for in some way?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]