Essay Title: Pervin (2003) distinguishes three basic approaches to personality research. Critically evaluate these and their strengths and limitations.
One side of the definitional debate concerning the nature of human personality has focused on the relative importance of attributing psychophysical systems to personality, the hardware of human personality if you will, replete with its inherent underlying structures which exist independently of human action. Allport has been a key proponent of this conceptualisation of human personality, asserting it:
refers to the dynamic organisation within the individual of those psychosocial systems that determine his characteristic behaviour and thought. Allport (1961, p.28)
His view is intended to preserve the objectivity of human personality (Vollmer 1974). The opposing side of this definitional debate advocates the importance of the measurability of human personality, opting for some variation of an operational definition, claiming that an emphasis upon non-observable phenomena does not advance the science of personality (Vollmer, 1974). At this end of the definitional continuum, lies the phenomenological conviction, that:
the phenomena of everyday life are reality…Things and people are the way they appear in the world, and there is no reality beyond phenomena. Vollmer (1974, p.2)
Pervis (2003) cites Sechrest (1976, p. 4) who, while underscoring the “emphasis on individual differences” in definitions of personality, allegedly underplays the greater importance of understanding the basic processes of personality.
In light of the preceding definitional discussion, Pervis’ definition is inclusive and takes the above debate into account very effectively. He states that:
personality is the complex organisation of cognitions, affects, and behaviours that gives direction and pattern (coherence) to the person’s life. Like the body, personality consists of both structures and processes and reflects both nature (genes) and nurture (experience).
In any event, there is a consensus across the relevant academic terrain, that:
the notion of organisation indicates that personality is not just a list of traits, but that there is a coherent whole. Gazzaniga and Heatherton (2003, p. 488)
In addition, personality includes the effects of the past, including memories of the past, as well as constructions of the present and future. Pervis (2003, p. 447)
As important as clarifying nuances of the definitional debate concerning the nature of
human personality, the scientific approaches to personality research need to be clearly understood, to permit an evaluation of their respective contributions to our knowledge of the complex dynamics of human personality. To this end, Pervis (2003) has identified three major approaches to personality research, each a unique method of observing the human personality, namely the clinical, correlational and experimental approaches.
The clinical approach to personality research involves the “systematic, in-depth study of
individuals” (Pervis, 2003, p. 3). According to Pervis (2003), this research approach has considerable longevity within the field of Psychology, with key adherents including French physician Jean Charcot (1825-1893), Pierre Janet (1859-1947), American Morton Prince (1854-1929), Henry Murray (1883-1988), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Carl Rogers (1902-1987) and George Kelly (1905-1966). It contains a long-standing tradition of systematic observation of dysfunctional behaviour, combined with acquiring an extensive repository of clinical observations aimed at examining the presence and influence of the unconscious level of human experience. Highlights include Janet’s systematisation of clinical observations of hysteria; Charcot’s case study descriptions of multiple personalities; Freud’s observations and descriptions of patients’ fears, wishes, anxieties and memories; Murray’s use of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) prompting individuals to project a deeper layer of themselves; Rogers’ awareness of the centrality of the self in personality theory, visible through Psychotherapy and Kelly’s observations of ways people build personal constructs to order their experience.
Prolonged clinical observations of individuals provide psychologists with unique insight into the holistic operation of the human psyche. Indeed:
the clinical method provides the opportunity to observe a great variety of phenomena, as well as the functioning of the person as a whole. Pervis (2003, p.10)
The clinical approach to personality research has the potential to generate a large number of hypotheses, which may in turn be studied through other research design methods (Pervis, 2003). It is also known as an idiographic approach, where it is person-centre (Gazzaniga and Heatherton 2003).
The limitations of the clinical research method include the difficulty in replicating the experimental conditions, to permit other researchers to confirm the alleged findings, or test the universality of the observations (Pervis, 2003). In spite of the greater level of subjectivity involved in clinical based observational experimental design research, relative to the correlational and experimental design, most of the leaders in this field of clinical observation, were scientifically trained and valued reliability of observation and the testing of hypotheses (Pervis, 2003).
The second research approach is known as the Correlational approach to personality research (Pervis, 2003). This approach places individual differences at the centre of the theoretical construction process, when considering personality dynamics, and controls sets of variables to determine the relationship between differences on traits of personality (Pervis, 2003; Eysenck & Eysenck 2008). This approach relies upon the collation of large bodies of data to establish statistically valid comparisons between a few specific and isolated personality factors (see Eysenck 2001). The approach also relies upon reliable systems of quantitative measurement, permitting the researcher to draw valid conclusions, based upon patterns within the data. Prominent advocates of Correlational research methods include Francis Galton (1822-1911), founder of Individual Psychology (Pervis, 2003), who emphasised the contribution of heredity, and introduced an array of quantitative measurement techniques which remain today, namely ratings, questionnaires, and large sample sizes in experimental design (Pervis, 2003). Galton also introduced the duality of nurture and nature into the personality theory discourse, dedicated to the study of intellectual difference and its link to heredity (Pervis, 2003). He is also credited with implementing the Correlational coefficient, a cornerstone of quantitative method to this day (Pervis, 2003), as well as the antecedents for the now well established Five-Factor model of personality, (see John, 1998 and 1999 for its development) a scale of dominant personality factors, against which everyone can reputedly measure their inherited personality traits (Pervis, 2003). Known also as a Nomothetic approach, which focuses exclusively upon characteristics common to all people,
The British psychologist Charles Spearman (1863-1945) developed factor analysis, as a means of grouping common characteristics among people, mostly in relation to his research on general intelligence (Pervis, 2003). Under Cattell and Eysenck in the 1940’s, the correlational approach to the study of personality came into its own, by combining factor analysis and trait theory (Pervis, 2003). Under the watch of these researchers, a lexicon of personality terminology was developed, with Eysenck (see famous for the “three basic trait dimensions of personality- introversion-extraversion, neuroticism (stable-unstable) – and psychoticism (insensitive-sensitive)” (Pervis, 2003, p. 14) continuums, using quantitative measures to test the three dimensions.
Correlational research approaches rely heavily upon the self reporting technique of experimental subjects, so a large element of subjectivity can be present, as respondents may contribute what they think is the desired response, rather than their genuine feeling or thought about the subject or scenario. The value of this method hinges upon the level of consensus among personality psychologists concerning the identified core elements underpinning the human personality. Where there is disagreement about the building blocks of human personality, the findings on a particular personality inventory test does carry the same level of significance.
The third research approach to personality articulated by Pervis (2003) is the Experimental approach. The quest to determine causal relationships is the basis of this research approach. In essence, human experience is viewed as a set of responses to impacting variables. The aim is to “manipulate one variable, known as the independent variable, in order to measure the effects upon the second variable, known as the dependent variable” Pervis, (2003, p. 19). William Wundt (1832-1920), father of general Psychology, viewed the discipline as the “science of immediate experience” (Pervis, 2003, p. 20), while Russian Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), developed the process of classical conditioning, manipulating aversive and positive stimuli, conducting experiments with dogs and rats (Pervis 2003). Watson (1878-1958) extended this paradigm, developing a form of stimulus-response Psychology, on the premise that observable human behaviour was the only objective measurable human behaviour, thereby dismissing the kinds of data that would be of critical interest to clinical observers, such as dream states and free association.
While reliance upon statistically generated data to provide information about pre-determined components of personality can bring precise, accurate results, which are in turn able to be replicated by other researchers, or used as a comparison by modifying dependent and independent variables, the validity of the research findings is contingent upon the quality of the research design and the accuracy of the statistical computation processes. At times, the elaborate mathematical manipulation process may do little more than confirm common sense. Experimental research can also be said to be only as useful as its ability to identify dependent variables and isolate them in the experimental design. Additionally, the context for the examination of dimensions of personality is often highly contrived, in order to isolate variables to make valid comparisons. The contrivance itself may be said to limit the significance of the findings. Hull and Skinner (1904-1990) extended these principles to form the significant paradigm of Psychology known as Behaviourism. Skinner’s solution to dysfunctional personality behavior manifestations was to employ behaviour modification programs, by changing the key stimuli, in order to orchestrate an alternate (and more desired) response.
When evaluating the relative merits of the clinical, correlational and experimental approaches to the study of personality, it is helpful to concede the fundamental notion that human personality is only indirectly observable, inviting the use of a variety of assessment measures to analyse its manifestations, comprehend its patterns and detect its aberrations (Gazzaniga and Heatherton 2003). Personality, after all, is expressed through a complex matrix of cognitions, affects, behaviours as Pervis (2003) has noted. The perceptions of the experimental subject are an important variable or component of research practices, since in the correlational and clinical observational settings, the experimental subject has the freedom to convey what they think the research team aims for, which may be different to the actuality of the subject’s experience. The clinical observational research approach, does allow the researcher to glean a more holistic impression of the context in which the experimental subject operates. The experimental design certainly omits the rich data derived from the array of familial connections, which in turn shape much behaviour. Pervis (2003, p. 25) observes that “whereas the experimenter seeks to manipulate variables and establish uniform patterns, the correlational psychologist studies phenomena as they occur, and is interested in individual differences as a central matter of concern” (Pervis, 2003, p. 25).
Clearly, one of the debates concerning the relative merit of these competing research traditions concerns the need for precision when dealing with complex phenomenon (which is almost always the case when the subject is human personality). This view lends support to the efficacy of a quantitative scientific experimental approach to psychological research. The counteraction to this position however, is equally important, notably that the human personality operates within a relational framework, so the quest to isolate and control specific variables may introduce as much contrivance, as it may remove unintended influences.
Some researchers opt to use the terms projective measures and objective measures of personality traits. Those favourable toward the use of projective measures, argue that personality, in accordance with psychodynamic theory, “is influenced by conflicts the people aren’t aware of” Gazzaniga and Heatherton, (2003, p. 498), rendering self-reporting relatively meaningless, and methods which explore the human consciousness are to be favoured. Conversely, objective measures can accurately divulge what the subject believes, but the value of what they believe must then be scrutinized by another valid follow up process.
There remain potential advantages to using each research method addressed, and today, a multi-modal approach is needed in an inter-disciplinary educational framework. Some reiterate the complexity of the human personality, “which has interactions that range from biology to history,” John et al. (2008, p. 19), as well as the importance of considering the individual holistically rather than mechanistically.
References
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Eysenck, M.W. & Eysenck, H.J. (1980) Mischel and the Concept of Personality, [Electronic Version], British Journal of Psychology, (1980), 71, 191-204, Retrieved from Ebsco Host March 7, 2009.
Gazzaniga, M. S. & Heatherton, T. F. (2003), Psychological Science, London, W.W. Norton and
Company.
John, O. P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy. in L. Pervin and O.P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford (in press).
John, O.P., Robins, R.W., & Pervin, L.A. (2008), Handbook of Personality: Theory and
Research, New York, Guilford Press.
John, O.P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F.(1988), The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research, [Electronic Version] European Journal of Personality, Vol 2, 3, 171-203, 1988 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from Wiley, Interscience.
Pervin, L. A. (2003), The Science of Personality. London, Oxford University Press.
Sechrest, L. (1976), Personality Theory and Identity Advocacy. [Electronic Version] Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 3, 230-233, 1976. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from Sage Journals Online.
Vollmer, F (1974). Gordon Allport on the Definition of Personality. [Electronic Version]
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1974, 15, 1-3. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from Wiley- Blackwell Full Collection.