Personality is “a dynamic organization inside the person of psychophysical systems that create the person’s characteristic patterns of behavior, thoughts, and feelings.” Personality itself is such an abstract concept and has been difficult for psychologists across the field to define. The use of the term personality conveys a sense of consistency about the being of an individual.
The Trait Perspective is one approach to describing personality that suggests that people are consistent in their actions, thoughts, and feelings and that people differ from each other. The perspective assumes that traits are always changing and that this is reflected in our behaviors. Its basis is on a continuum that a set of traits can be applied to anyone, but individuals are different in what traits influence their personalities and behaviors. It indicates that our personality structures are based on a series of traits (Carver & Scheier, 2017).
The Five-Factor Model is a model that suggests that personality incorporates five superordinate factors. The model was first put forth by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal in 1961. It was further developed by JM Digman in 1990 and then Lewis Goldberg (2018). The system itself was created through a statistical procedure known as factor analysis. Factor analysis determines how ratings of different personality types are related in humans (Srivastava, 2018). The model itself took many years to develop as more and more evidence was discovered. Initially, psychologists attempted to recreate Raymond Cattell’s 16 factor model but found instead that there were 5 main personality traits. This occurred with many psychologists over the span of 20 years. All were able to conclude that 5 factors, rather than 16, was the most efficient and effective model to describe personality. This conclusion has been cross-cultural, as well. Studies conducted in the Philippines and Turkey have produced similar results.
The five factors are neuroticism, openness to new experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness. Neuroticism is considered to be a measure of one’s confidence. A high score would suggest more negative traits. A low score would indicate more emotional stability and better temper. Some traits associated with a high neuroticism score include insecurity, nervousness, anxiety, oversensitivity, and awkwardness. Those who score low in neuroticism tend to be more self-confident while those who score high are likely to be awkward, temperamental, or worrisome.
Openness to new experience is the depth of someone’s mental state regarding life experiences. It can also be referred to as imagination. Some traits that are associated with a high openness to new experience score are intellectual, creative, adventurous, curious, and imaginative. Someone with a high score would think outside of the box, be vulnerable, and have a love learning. An individual with a low score would prefer a more routine lifestyle and would steer away from abstract ideas.
Conscientiousness is the ability to control an impulse. Conscientious people generally work towards goals, are organized, and act in socially acceptable ways. Traits that are associated with a high conscientiousness score are ambitious, reliable, self-disciplined, and thorough. Generally, conscientiousness is associated with success.
Extraversion is how someone interacts with others and how they garner their social energy. Extroverts prefer to spend time with others while introverts tire from interacting with others. A high score on the extroversion scale would indicate an extrovert while a low score would indicate an introvert. Extroverts generally tend to be social, outgoing, energetic, and friendly. Introverts are usually more quiet and reserved.
Lastly, agreeableness is how well an individual gets along with, and interacts with, others. Those who score highly in terms of agreeableness are helpful, considerate, loyal, and patient. Agreeable people are well respected, liked, and easy to work with. Unagreeable individuals are rude, unsympathetic, and can be abrasive.
The Trait-Perspective best explains personality because there is consensus across the field about its assessment and claims. In addition, the perspective has roots stemming in history, showing that the perspective has withheld time and is reliable. Lastly, the perspective accounts for a broad-range of factors that contribute to personality. Traits are relatively stable when it comes to personality and the perspective accounts for individual differences among people based on what traits dominate their personalities (Carver & Scheier, 2017).
Evidence
One unique aspect of the Trait Perspective and its assessment forms is that it can be used in the diagnosis of mental illnesses. One of the main forms of assessment in the Trait Perspective is the Five-Factor Approach which assesses openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. A study conducted in 2014, “Psychopathy from a Basic Trait Perspective: The Utility of a Five‐Factor Model Approach,” investigated how psychopathy can be related to the traits outlined in the Five-Factor Model. The study also aimed to determine the usefulness of the Five-Factor Model, which was later determined to be very functional. Lynam concluded that those who suffer from psychopathy produce very similar trait profiles based on the Five-Factor Model. Because of this, the Model allows for personality psychologists to better understand psychopathy, trait by trait (Lynam & Miller, 2014).
Another study, “Human nature and culture: A trait perspective,”explores how the Trait Perspective is promising in understanding human nature. Through this study, the Five-Factor Model was applied cross-culturally and was found to have validity in many different countries. The Model was best applied in countries that foster individualism rather than collectivism. The study was able to conclude that the Trait Perspective allows us to better understand personality and behavior, even in at an international setting. This is important in establishing which perspective best describes personality because it accounts for differences of all natures. The paper also discusses how the perspective continues to advance and celebrates the consensus of the Five-Factor Model (McCrae, 2003).
Lastly, in “Trait-Based Perspectives of Leadership,” Stephen Zaccaro argues that because of the Trait Perspectives advances in its methods over the last ~15 years, the Perspective has become the most prominent in addressing differences among individuals and in the identification of leaders. Zaccaro suggests that the Trait Perspective can be used to predict whether or not someone has leadership capability based on trait patterns they exhibit. He also argues that the presence of certain traits can be situationally-based, especially when it comes to leadership effectiveness (Zaccaro, 2007).
The aforementioned studies and papers further indicate that the Trait Perspective has the most validity when explaining personality. They demonstrate that the Trait Perspective allows for psychologists to understand individual differences, trait by trait, can be used in the diagnosis of certain mental illnesses (especially personality disorders), has cross-cultural application, and can be used to predict how someone behave, especially based on situation.
Limitations of the Trait Perspective
While the Trait Perspective is the most comprehensive approach to understanding and explaining personality, there are also limitations to the approach. One of the biggest limitations is that the perspective doesn’t explain how an individual goes from trait to action. It doesn’t provide any information on intrapersonal functioning. Because of this, the Trait Perspective suggests that personality is unchanging. The traits outlined in the Five-Factor Model can characterize someone, but doesn’t explain why a person is that way or acts that way.
The Trait Perspective unfortunately can also be viewed as circular in its explanation of personality. Often times, personality psychologists (or individuals in general) determine that someone has x trait and use that to explain a behavior. Similarly, traits can be “concluded” from certain behaviors forming a circular explanation.
Lastly, because the Trait Perspective has been so consistent over time, it doesn’t always account for certain traits only being present in certain situations. It suggests that behavior is more static than it actually is. Despite this, the perspective is long-rooted in history and has been tested over time, implying some validity to its explanation of personality.
Limitations of Other Perspectives
Apart from the Trait Perspective, there are many other theories and perspectives that suggest explanations for behavior. However, these perspectives also have their limitations. One of these perspectives is the genetic influence of behavior. This perspective suggests that personality is inherited and certain behaviors are a result of evolution. While this may hold true, there is still much research left to be done regarding how genes influence our environment and how that later influences our behavior. In addition, it’s unclear how many traits are heritable and genetically influenced. Furthermore, the field of evolutionary psychology is mostly based off of hypotheticals and predictions due to how recent the field itself is. Evolutionary psychology is also criticized for its social implications due to its sometimes political and social overtones.
Another perspective is the motive perspective. This approach assumes that behavior is based on a set of needs. As these needs become more and more intense, behavior is more likely to be influenced. These needs include things such as need for affiliation, need for intimacy, need for power, and need for achievement. Because a lot of this perspective is based on assumption, the qualities that have been studied in this perspective have been arbitrary. The psychologist behind this study, Henry Murray, used his own intuition, rather than concrete scientific thought. Additionally, Murray said that personality was influenced by multiple needs. This has not been demonstrated in research as only individual needs and their influence on perspective have been investigated.
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Trait Perspective best explains personality. There is strong research evidence and data that further supports this claim. The Trait Perspective focuses on personality differences among individuals, measures different personality characteristics, and takes into account a range of personality traits. Finally, the perspective has cross-cultural evidence accounting for individual differences amongst a wide-range of individuals.