Chapter Focus
Chris has just graduated from college and started a job in a new city. He
feels lonely and wants to meet some new people. After some hesitation,
he decides to place a personals ad. He stares at his blank computer screen
—what should he write? What kinds of personality characteristics would
you choose to describe yourself? He chooses “Unconventional, sensitive,
fun-loving, happy, humorous, kind, slender, graduate, 22, seeks similar
qualities in same soulmate.” Somebody who can be described this way
may indeed be a desirable date!
The personality characteristics that Chris has described are what are
known as personality traits. Personality traits are psychological
characteristics that are stable over time and across situations; it’s a good
bet that somebody who is sensitive and kind today will also be sensitive
and kind a month from now. This chapter is about traits, defined as broad
dispositions to behave in particular ways.
Specifically, in this chapter, you will learn about three personality trait
theories and their associated research programs. Two of these theories—
those of Hans Eysenck and of Raymond Cattell—attempt to identify the
basic dimensions of personality traits, that is, basic characteristics that
everyone shares to a greater or lesser degree. The two associated
research programs rely on a particular statistical procedure, factor
analysis; this statistical procedure is used to identify the most basic
individual differences in personality traits.
Historically, the trait approach has been popular in American and British
psychology and, in the field’s recent era, in personality psychology in
Europe as well. Part of this popularity reflects the methodological
sophistication of factor-analytic research methods and the relatively
consistent research results that they yield. Part of this popularity is also
rooted in the commonsense nature of trait theory; the scientific theories of
personality traits have an intuitive appeal because their basic units of
analysis—personality traits—are similar to simple nonscientific, “folk”
understandings of personality.
Questions to Be Addressed in This Chapter
1. What are the main ways in which individuals differ from one another
in their feelings, thoughts, and behavior? How many different traits
are needed to adequately describe these personality differences?
2. Does every person have a unique set of personality traits, or is it
possible to identify a set of traits that is universal and that can serve
as a taxonomy of individual differences?
1
, 3. If individuals can be described in terms of their characteristic traits,
how are we to explain variability in behavior across time and
situations?
If we did not have accurate measurements, we would not have
contemporary science. In the history of physics, Galileo and Newton
needed more than sophisticated mathematics. They also needed relatively
precise measures of time and mass, to verify the accuracy of their
mathematically grounded predictions.
Contemporary psychological scientists understand the value of
measurement. In fact, the formal study of measurement practices is a
distinct branch of the field (e.g., Flake & Fried, 2020; Uher, 2021). But
early in the history of personality psychology, considerations of
measurement were lacking. As one writer put it, “There is not a single
measurement in the work of . . . Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, and Carl
Jung. . . . When Jung tells that patient X became more and more out of
touch with his ‘archetypal unconscious,’ no measurements are offered to
verify it, such as we would require if a doctor argued that a patient’s
illness arose from a continued elevation of his blood sugar” (Cattell, 1965,
p. 15).
That writer, Raymond Cattell, was a founder of a theoretical approach
known as trait theory. Trait theorists called for an alternative to
psychodynamic speculations. They wanted to build a theory of personality
on a foundation of data: reliable numbers that would reveal the structure
of personality. This chapter and the next review the progress they made.
A View of the Trait Theorists
There is no one trait theorist of singular importance—no “Freud of trait
theory.” The trait approach is just that—an “approach.” Numerous scholars
have contributed to it. Yet, three 20th-century investigators stand out:
Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, and Hans Eysenck. Biographical sketches
of each introduce their ideas in the material below. Chapter 8 introduces
additional contemporary investigators who have contributed substantially
to the trait approach.
Although the theorists are large in number, their contributions have much
in common. On “big picture” issues, their ideas overlap. So let’s look at
this big picture: trait theory’s view of the person. It may seem familiar to
you. The variables of trait theory resemble words you might use when
talking about personality.
Trait Theory’s View of the Person
2
,People love to talk about personality. We can spend hours discussing
people’s characteristics: Our boss is grumpy; our roommate, sloppy; our
professor, quick witted. (Well, we hope your professor is quick witted
rather than sloppy and grumpy.) We even discuss the loyalty of our dog
and the laziness of our cat. When talking about people, we commonly use
personality trait terms—words that describe people’s typical styles of
experience and action. Apparently, people think that traits are central to
personality. Likewise, personality researchers associated with the trait
approach consider traits to be the major units of personality. Obviously,
there is more to personality than traits, but traits have loomed large
throughout the history of personality psychology.
The Trait Concept
What, then, is a “trait”? Personality trait terms refer to consistent styles of
behavior, feelings, or thought. Suppose you describe someone as “kind” (a
trait term). You mean that, fairly consistently, they act in a kindly manner
and display kind thoughts and feelings. You also mean that, if you observe
them over time (weeks or months) and situations (with friends, family,
strangers, etc.), they would be distinctly kind: more kind than the average
person. Otherwise, you would not have called them “kind.”
Trait terms thus have two connotations: consistency and distinctiveness.
1. Consistency means that the trait describes a regularity in the
behavior. The person seems to be predisposed to act in a way that is
described by the trait term; indeed, traits often are referred to as
“dispositions” or “dispositional constructs” (e.g., McCrae & Costa,
1999, 2008). Trait theorists recognize that a person won’t be trait-
consistent across all contexts. The Dutch trait psychologist De Raad
(2005) explains that trait terms implicitly refer to behaviors in types
of social context. For example, one would expect a “sociable” person
to be consistently sociable toward other people in settings in which
sociable behavior is allowed by prevailing social norms—but not to
be social toward, for example, inanimate objects, or when social
norms prohibit sociability.
2. Distinctiveness means that trait theory is concerned primarily with
psychological characteristics that differentiate people from one
another—in other words, that make people distinct. Trait theorists
explore psychological characteristics for which there are significant
differences among people. There thus is little discussion in trait
theory of psychological abilities that are possessed by all people
(e.g., the capacity to use language and to consciously reflect on
oneself).
3
, If you decide to build a personality theory on trait constructs, you implicitly
are adopting a particular view of persons. You are saying that the core
feature of persons is their consistency in behavior. In trait theory, average
styles of behavior reveal what a person is like. This view is attractively
straightforward. It also facilitates personality measurement: To learn about
people, what you need to do is to measure their typical behavioral and
emotional tendencies. But ...note how this view contrasts with that of
virtually every other personality theory discussed in this book. Freud
(Chapter 3) thought that psychodynamic structures reveal themselves in
variable behaviors, not behavioral consistency. (For example, the Oedipus
complex produced different behavior toward one versus another parent.)
Behaviorists (Chapter 9) expected behavior to vary across situations with
different reinforcement contingencies. Personal construct theory (Chapter
10) and social-cognitive theory (Chapters 11 and 12) propose a cognitive
structure that promises to explain variability in behavior across the varying
roles and contexts of social life. Evolutionary psychology (Chapter 14)
posits mental modules that are domain-linked. Trait theorists of course
recognize that people’s behavior varies from situation to situation. Yet,
trait theory is unique among the personality theories in adopting core
theoretical variables—the trait variables—that correspond to consistent,
average-level behavioral tendencies that people exhibit across diverse
social situations.
In adopting these variables, the trait theorist is telling us this.
Contemporary social life may present many changes: People change
schools and jobs, meet new friends, marry, un-marry, remarry, and move
to different communities if not different countries. And social life at any
given point in time may place us into different roles: student, employee,
son or daughter, parent, community member. But across these variations,
there exists a consistent personality “in there.” People possess
psychological qualities that endure across time and place.
Trait Theory’s View of the Science of Personality
The trait theorists’ primary view of personality science is revealed in the
previous comments about measurement. The first step in building a theory
is to establish valid and reliable measurement of personality traits. Trait
theorists have felt that measurement should constrain, and determine,
theorizing. They posited a personality structure if, and only if, the
statistical analysis of carefully constructed measures suggests the
existence of that structure.
A second notable position concerns the evidence that is used to validate
scientific theory. Trait theory historically has emphasized correlational
evidence. Investigators have determined whether ...assessed personality
4
Chris has just graduated from college and started a job in a new city. He
feels lonely and wants to meet some new people. After some hesitation,
he decides to place a personals ad. He stares at his blank computer screen
—what should he write? What kinds of personality characteristics would
you choose to describe yourself? He chooses “Unconventional, sensitive,
fun-loving, happy, humorous, kind, slender, graduate, 22, seeks similar
qualities in same soulmate.” Somebody who can be described this way
may indeed be a desirable date!
The personality characteristics that Chris has described are what are
known as personality traits. Personality traits are psychological
characteristics that are stable over time and across situations; it’s a good
bet that somebody who is sensitive and kind today will also be sensitive
and kind a month from now. This chapter is about traits, defined as broad
dispositions to behave in particular ways.
Specifically, in this chapter, you will learn about three personality trait
theories and their associated research programs. Two of these theories—
those of Hans Eysenck and of Raymond Cattell—attempt to identify the
basic dimensions of personality traits, that is, basic characteristics that
everyone shares to a greater or lesser degree. The two associated
research programs rely on a particular statistical procedure, factor
analysis; this statistical procedure is used to identify the most basic
individual differences in personality traits.
Historically, the trait approach has been popular in American and British
psychology and, in the field’s recent era, in personality psychology in
Europe as well. Part of this popularity reflects the methodological
sophistication of factor-analytic research methods and the relatively
consistent research results that they yield. Part of this popularity is also
rooted in the commonsense nature of trait theory; the scientific theories of
personality traits have an intuitive appeal because their basic units of
analysis—personality traits—are similar to simple nonscientific, “folk”
understandings of personality.
Questions to Be Addressed in This Chapter
1. What are the main ways in which individuals differ from one another
in their feelings, thoughts, and behavior? How many different traits
are needed to adequately describe these personality differences?
2. Does every person have a unique set of personality traits, or is it
possible to identify a set of traits that is universal and that can serve
as a taxonomy of individual differences?
1
, 3. If individuals can be described in terms of their characteristic traits,
how are we to explain variability in behavior across time and
situations?
If we did not have accurate measurements, we would not have
contemporary science. In the history of physics, Galileo and Newton
needed more than sophisticated mathematics. They also needed relatively
precise measures of time and mass, to verify the accuracy of their
mathematically grounded predictions.
Contemporary psychological scientists understand the value of
measurement. In fact, the formal study of measurement practices is a
distinct branch of the field (e.g., Flake & Fried, 2020; Uher, 2021). But
early in the history of personality psychology, considerations of
measurement were lacking. As one writer put it, “There is not a single
measurement in the work of . . . Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, and Carl
Jung. . . . When Jung tells that patient X became more and more out of
touch with his ‘archetypal unconscious,’ no measurements are offered to
verify it, such as we would require if a doctor argued that a patient’s
illness arose from a continued elevation of his blood sugar” (Cattell, 1965,
p. 15).
That writer, Raymond Cattell, was a founder of a theoretical approach
known as trait theory. Trait theorists called for an alternative to
psychodynamic speculations. They wanted to build a theory of personality
on a foundation of data: reliable numbers that would reveal the structure
of personality. This chapter and the next review the progress they made.
A View of the Trait Theorists
There is no one trait theorist of singular importance—no “Freud of trait
theory.” The trait approach is just that—an “approach.” Numerous scholars
have contributed to it. Yet, three 20th-century investigators stand out:
Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, and Hans Eysenck. Biographical sketches
of each introduce their ideas in the material below. Chapter 8 introduces
additional contemporary investigators who have contributed substantially
to the trait approach.
Although the theorists are large in number, their contributions have much
in common. On “big picture” issues, their ideas overlap. So let’s look at
this big picture: trait theory’s view of the person. It may seem familiar to
you. The variables of trait theory resemble words you might use when
talking about personality.
Trait Theory’s View of the Person
2
,People love to talk about personality. We can spend hours discussing
people’s characteristics: Our boss is grumpy; our roommate, sloppy; our
professor, quick witted. (Well, we hope your professor is quick witted
rather than sloppy and grumpy.) We even discuss the loyalty of our dog
and the laziness of our cat. When talking about people, we commonly use
personality trait terms—words that describe people’s typical styles of
experience and action. Apparently, people think that traits are central to
personality. Likewise, personality researchers associated with the trait
approach consider traits to be the major units of personality. Obviously,
there is more to personality than traits, but traits have loomed large
throughout the history of personality psychology.
The Trait Concept
What, then, is a “trait”? Personality trait terms refer to consistent styles of
behavior, feelings, or thought. Suppose you describe someone as “kind” (a
trait term). You mean that, fairly consistently, they act in a kindly manner
and display kind thoughts and feelings. You also mean that, if you observe
them over time (weeks or months) and situations (with friends, family,
strangers, etc.), they would be distinctly kind: more kind than the average
person. Otherwise, you would not have called them “kind.”
Trait terms thus have two connotations: consistency and distinctiveness.
1. Consistency means that the trait describes a regularity in the
behavior. The person seems to be predisposed to act in a way that is
described by the trait term; indeed, traits often are referred to as
“dispositions” or “dispositional constructs” (e.g., McCrae & Costa,
1999, 2008). Trait theorists recognize that a person won’t be trait-
consistent across all contexts. The Dutch trait psychologist De Raad
(2005) explains that trait terms implicitly refer to behaviors in types
of social context. For example, one would expect a “sociable” person
to be consistently sociable toward other people in settings in which
sociable behavior is allowed by prevailing social norms—but not to
be social toward, for example, inanimate objects, or when social
norms prohibit sociability.
2. Distinctiveness means that trait theory is concerned primarily with
psychological characteristics that differentiate people from one
another—in other words, that make people distinct. Trait theorists
explore psychological characteristics for which there are significant
differences among people. There thus is little discussion in trait
theory of psychological abilities that are possessed by all people
(e.g., the capacity to use language and to consciously reflect on
oneself).
3
, If you decide to build a personality theory on trait constructs, you implicitly
are adopting a particular view of persons. You are saying that the core
feature of persons is their consistency in behavior. In trait theory, average
styles of behavior reveal what a person is like. This view is attractively
straightforward. It also facilitates personality measurement: To learn about
people, what you need to do is to measure their typical behavioral and
emotional tendencies. But ...note how this view contrasts with that of
virtually every other personality theory discussed in this book. Freud
(Chapter 3) thought that psychodynamic structures reveal themselves in
variable behaviors, not behavioral consistency. (For example, the Oedipus
complex produced different behavior toward one versus another parent.)
Behaviorists (Chapter 9) expected behavior to vary across situations with
different reinforcement contingencies. Personal construct theory (Chapter
10) and social-cognitive theory (Chapters 11 and 12) propose a cognitive
structure that promises to explain variability in behavior across the varying
roles and contexts of social life. Evolutionary psychology (Chapter 14)
posits mental modules that are domain-linked. Trait theorists of course
recognize that people’s behavior varies from situation to situation. Yet,
trait theory is unique among the personality theories in adopting core
theoretical variables—the trait variables—that correspond to consistent,
average-level behavioral tendencies that people exhibit across diverse
social situations.
In adopting these variables, the trait theorist is telling us this.
Contemporary social life may present many changes: People change
schools and jobs, meet new friends, marry, un-marry, remarry, and move
to different communities if not different countries. And social life at any
given point in time may place us into different roles: student, employee,
son or daughter, parent, community member. But across these variations,
there exists a consistent personality “in there.” People possess
psychological qualities that endure across time and place.
Trait Theory’s View of the Science of Personality
The trait theorists’ primary view of personality science is revealed in the
previous comments about measurement. The first step in building a theory
is to establish valid and reliable measurement of personality traits. Trait
theorists have felt that measurement should constrain, and determine,
theorizing. They posited a personality structure if, and only if, the
statistical analysis of carefully constructed measures suggests the
existence of that structure.
A second notable position concerns the evidence that is used to validate
scientific theory. Trait theory historically has emphasized correlational
evidence. Investigators have determined whether ...assessed personality
4
