Chapter 2
Personality Psychology:
Havings, Doings, and Beings in Context
Brian R. Little
Carleton University and
Murray Research Center
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
Harvard University
Introduction: Voices in the Cafeteria
Imagine that we are listening in on a conversation between three
students in the college cafeteria. Their discussion weaves around
many topics but the dominant theme is their common project of
applying to graduate school in psychology. Speaking animatedly
and downing her third cup of coffee, Eve declares that she is
only applying to her top three choices and she's looking forward
to dragging her boyfriend to Ann Arbor. She suddenly bolts from
the group realizing she's late for her stats class. Adam says
little, nods often, and is wondering whether he really is grad
school material. Besides, his parents want him to go back home
after graduation to work in the family business. Nikki isn't really
listening at all; she's hung over again, hadn't realized grad
application deadlines were coming up, and frankly is fed up with
Adam and Eve and the whole human condition. She mumbles something
they can't quite hear and heads for the restroom.
If you are sitting in the adjacent booth in the cafeteria, would
you linger a bit, intrigued by the differing styles, contrasting
concerns, and singular stories you hear emerging in the snatches
of conversation? If so, then you probably have a natural affinity
for personality psychology. This chapter surveys the past and
present state of personality psychology as a core specialty within
psychology and examines how it goes about understanding the lives
of the Eves, Adams, and Nikkis of this world.
The field of personality psychology is flourishing. In many respects
the current buoyancy of the field reflects important shifts, both
methodological and conceptual, that have occurred over the past
two decades. Some of these changes arose in response to conceptual
crises within the field, particularly the Great Trait Debate that
occupied much of the field in the seventies. (Mischel's (1968)
critique, which launched the debate, and reactions to it are discussed
in a later section) .Other shifts reflect the gradual maturing
of intellectual agendas that were present at the modern inception
of academic personality psychology in the nineteen thirties (Craik,
1986). After sketching very briefly the nature and challenges
of the field of personality psychology, I will present a perspective
(admittedly an idiosyncratic one) on some of the currently active
research programs in the 'new look' in personality psychology.
The Core Project of Personality Psychology: The Integrative
Challenge
Within the social and behavioral sciences, personality psychologists
have chosen to specialize in comprehensiveness (Little, 1972).
As an intellectual field its scope of inquiry is inordinately
extensive. Personality psychology seeks to integrate diverse influences
on human conduct ranging from the genetic and neurophysiological
underpinnings of traits to the historical contexts within which
individual life stories can be rendered coherent. Pervin (1996)
has provided a thoughtful definition of personality which, in
part, characterizes it as "the complex organization of cognitions,
affects, and behaviors that gives direction and pattern (coherence)
to the person's life" (p.414). The study of personality seeks
to understand how individuals are like all other people, some
other people, and no other person (to revise slightly the classic
phrase of Kluckhohn & Murray, 1953, p.53). It formulates theories
about the nature of human nature, the role of individual differences,
and the study of single cases. Personality psychology provides
one of the core basic sciences underlying many of the fields of
applied psychology, including clinical, counseling, health, and
organizational psychology.
Classical Voices and the Conceptual
Foundations of Personology
Even a cursory history of the classical theoretical and methodological
perspectives in personality psychology exceeds the limits of this
chapter, but fortunately two recent reviews provide authoritative
and concise accounts of the history of personality psychology
(McAdams, 1997; Winter & Barenbaum, 1999). But it will advance
the purpose of this chapter if we have some major historical figures
in the field, metaphorically descend (or ascend) from their places
in posterity to offer their perspective on the cafeteria conversation
with which we began this survey. Their role will be like that
of the Greek Chorus in classical drama that offered commentary
about the ongoing action. (Except that none will speak in Greek
and some won't speak, but sing. Or hum.) They will introduce some
of the concerns and admonishments of classical personology and
provide a bridge to contemporary discourse about the field.
Let us start with a Freudian chorus (perhaps the Vienna Old Boys
Choir?). There is little doubt that psychoanalysis has had a profound
impact on the intellectual climate of the twentieth century. Many
in fact would claim that its impact has been greater in the arts
and humanities than in the social and behavioral sciences. In
essence the Freudian psychodynamic perspective held that unconscious
wishes and the vicissitudes of their expression comprised the
core integrative concepts necessary to understand the complexities
of both normal and abnormal personality. Thus the reach of psychoanalytic
theorizing extended from the clinical couch to the psychopathology
of daily life, from the deepest neuroses to the seeming innocence
of typing misrakes. Through the theoretical lenses provided by
Freudian theory, Eve's tardiness, Adam's ambivalence, and Nikki's
petulance might reflect the subtle operation of unconscious wishes
and defenses against them. Such influences would likely be sexual
or aggressive at root. A Freudian chorus might choose Nikki as
the most obvious case for explication of the possible influences
of unconscious and destructive forces in human personality because
of the welling up of impulses that compromise her ability to muddle
through this particular Monday. But they would also have comments
to make about why Eve is late only for her stats class and why
Adam has never fully been able to break away from the Edenic security
of his home.
The Personological Chorus would feature Henry Murray with counterpoint
commentary by Gordon Allport, both of whom would be draped in
Harvard Crimson. Like Freud, Murray would insist that the motivation
of the students would run deep. Rather than focusing exclusively
upon sex and aggression, he would insist that there are diverse
needs that underlie human motivation, such as the need for affiliation
or need for achievement. He would voice concern that the environments
within which human motives play out should also receive our attention,
and that for each need operating in personality there is a corresponding
"press" in the environment that can facilitate or frustrate
its achievement. Finally, Murray would be concerned that we expand
the time line to look at "serials"--the sequences of
action that extend over longer periods of time and without which
the significant motivational agendas of people's lives may be
given shorter shrift than they deserve.
Allport would generally concur, but would suggest that traits
are the substantively real and dynamic sources of human personality
and that both the nature and organization of such dispositions
are patterned idiosyncratically. He would also argue that although
pursuits may originally be undertaken for one set of motives,
they may eventually become independent or "functionally autonomous"
of the originating motivation.
For these personologists, the ways in which the three students
are approaching their last weeks as undergraduates may reflect
different patterns of needs and the ways in which the environments
are fulfilling or frustrating the achievement of the needs. Eve
may be primarily concerned with a need for power, and her seeking
admission only to the elite schools may help her to develop influential
connections. This would contrast with her classmates, high in
achievement motivation, who may apply to a greater range of schools
to optimize likely success. (See Winter (1996) for an excellent
description of need research in the tradition of Murray and his
followers such as McClelland). Adam may have a strong need for
self-abasement--a need his parents are only too happy to satisfy
when he broaches the topic of heading off for grad school. Nikki
might be particularly intriguing to the personologists. Not satisfied
to dismiss her behavior simply as aggressive or neurotic, they
may see her as a complex person--perhaps a highly creative personality
whose needs are being systematically frustrated by environmental
press that keeps her from exploring ideas that she and others
find strange and disturbing.
We might hear next from the Behaviorist
Chorus comprising the early learning theorists and joined by those
such as Dollard and Miller who attempted to translate psychodynamic
theory into behaviorist principles and of course Skinner whose
clear voice of confidence about the power of operant conditioning
would likely drown out the rest of the Chorus. The behavioral
analytic units would be stimulus-response bonds that would allow
an integration not only of human personality but the behavior
of all organisms. This perspective placed considerable emphasis
upon the shaping of personality by environmental contingencies,
particularly by the rewards and punishments that reinforced behavior.
For the behaviorists, the differences between our three students,
Eve's ascendancy, Adam's diffidence, and Nikki's emotionality
(and drinking problems), arise from differences in their reinforcement
histories and the commonalities arise from their desire to avoid
painful stimulation and seek out rewards.
A third distinctive voice can be heard in the cafeteria: that
of George Kelly. At the same time as behavioral theories were
in ascendancy in psychology, Kelly proposed an original and audacious
theory. His integrative mission was to weave theoretical, assessment,
and clinical concerns into a seamless model of human personality.
Kelly postulated that to understand individuals was to understand
the personal constructs through which they viewed their worlds.
Kelly saw each of us as a "lay" scientist--testing out
hypotheses about ourselves and our worlds and revising those hypotheses
(constructs) in the light of experience. These personal constructs
are organized into systems such that some of them become core
role constructs, centrally important to the lives of individuals.
Their preservation and continued validation have a profound effect
on emotional experience. For example, according to Kellian theory,
threat is awareness of an imminent and comprehensive change in
one's construct system. Guilt is awareness of being dislodged
from one's core constructs, aggression is the expansion of core
constructs to subsume new domains, and hostility is the attempt
to extort validation for a construct one already feels has been
invalidated (Kelly, 1955). So how would the Kellian Chorus in
the cafeteria (more likely an Irish tenor solo) attempt to understand
our three students? Kelly would likely see all three students
as feeling threat at the prospect of being in transition between
undergraduate life and their futures. Adam may feel guilt in that
he is being dislodged from a core construct of being loyal to
his family. Eve may be aggressively pursuing confirmation of her
construct of herself as successful. Nikki, we can now disclose,
has experienced a series of abusive relationships. She may have
experienced what Kellians refer to as serial invalidation of her
core constructs, in which each attempt to anticipate her world
is painfully disconfirmed. Her only strategy left is to attempt
to extort validation of her worth by acting abrasively toward
those who have failed to notice her pain. For Nikki, only a worthy
person has the temerity to tell her friends to "piss off".
Or so she tells herself.
These classic voices from personality psychology each approach
the integrative task by developing overarching theories of considerable
scope, though each selectively highlights a particular aspect
of human conduct as its integrative center. Thus classical psychodynamic
theory is primarily concerned with emotional experience, learning
theory with overt behavioral processes, and Kellian theory with
the cognitive systems through which personality unfolds. Yet each
extends the range of its theoretical constructs to include phenomena
that are of more focal concern for alternative perspectives. Indeed,
within psychodynamic theory, a major historical progression involved
a shift from emphasis upon unconscious motivation, to a conflict
free domain in which conscious goal pursuit could be carried out
without being subordinated to the pressures of irrational impulses
and wishes. Thus, psychodynamic theory was able to push its conceptual
agenda into an area that would be regarded as more the domain
of cognitive psychology. Similarly, learning theorists over the
century have moved from drive-reduction and peripheralist theories
to cognitive social learning theories (e.g., Bandura, Mischel),
in which the influence on human action has shifted from classical
and operant conditioning, or rewards and punishments to more cognitive
concerns, such as schemata, encoding skills etc. (e.g., Mischel,
1990).
Critical Voices: Challenge and Restoration in Personology
The field of personality psychology was thrown into considerable
conceptual turmoil with the publication of Walter Mischel's (1968)
Personality and Assessment. Mischel mounted a detailed critique
of broad dispositional traits as units of analysis in personality
psychology. Specifically, he argued that there was little evidence
for broad-based generalities of trait dispositions (e.g., an Adam
may be submissive around his fellow students and his parents but
assertive and confident when playing in his jazz band). He also
provided evidence that specific tests of personality traits had
little predictive validity in accounting for actual behavior and
seldom exceed a "personality coefficient" limit of .30.
Thus, Mischel's attack was antagonistic to the classical personological
perspectives and particularly to those who offered fixed traits
as analytic units for the field. His allies, interestingly, were
rather strange bedfolk: behaviorists (who by then were transforming
into cognitive social learning theorists) and personal construct
theorists--a direct reflection of Mischel having been a student
of George Kelly's. Mischel's central contentions were that human
action was finely attuned to situational influences, and that
such action was less the product of fixed traits than of the personal
constructs or conceptual lenses through which individuals viewed
the world.
The impact of Mischel's critique was pivotal for the field of
personality in three ways. First, it had a major effect upon personality
testing by calling into question the validity of such tests. Second,
it encouraged greater collaborative linkages with social psychologists,
who had traditionally regarded the major sources of human action
to lie in the situations and environmental contexts with which
individuals were confronted (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Finally,
and most significantly, it stimulated an immediate, protracted,
and eventually successful defense of the orthodox trait model
by personality psychologists. While feeling that the strengths
of the personological tradition had been underestimated by Mischel,
they also conceded that greater conceptual grappling with some
of the foundational issues in personality measurement were now
urgently needed (Wiggins, 1997). The result of the clash between
these critical voices was an enrichment and broadening of the
conceptual base of personality psychology. The social cognitive
learning alternative, espoused by Mischel, continues to generate
considerable research (e.g., Cervone & Shoda, 1999; Mischel
& Shoda, 1995). But a full scale restoration of trait psychology
also came about as a result of the Great Trait Debate and, as
we shall see, it now constitutes one of three major contemporary
perspectives in the field. It is to these contemporary voices
that we can now turn.
Contemporary Voices: Three Tiers for Personality Psychology
Contemporary personality psychology is multifaceted, complex,
and dynamic. One particularly helpful way of organizing this complexity
for expository purposes has been proposed by McAdams (1995). I
will adopt this as a starting point to review three different
levels at which personality psychologists are exploring the nature
of human nature and explaining the ways in which individuals live
out their lives.
Havings, Doings, and Beings in Personality Research
The first level of inquiry in contemporary personality research
is that of relatively fixed features of individual differences
emphasizing personality traits. The second level explores more
contextually sensitive and dynamic units of analysis that McAdams
labels personal concerns. (McAdams includes many more constructs
at this level than I will treat in this chapter. I have tried
to make the case that the central integrative units at this level
are Personal Action Constructs (PAC units) (Little, 1989, 1996)).
The third level addresses individuals' life stories and the narrative
identities that people construct to make sense of their lives.
Invoking terms introduced by Allport and re-introduced by Cantor
(1990), we can refer to Levels 1 and Levels 2 as reflecting the
"having" and "doing" aspects of human personality
respectively. "Having" refers to that which we are endowed
with and carry with us and "doing" refers to that which
we intentionally perform. Because Level 3 is concerned with identity
and the sense of self that individuals construct, and to preserve
the gerundial form of depicting the field, we can refer to this
as the "being" aspects of personality. Collectively
this structure of the contemporary field of personality research
can be thought of as exploring the havings, doings, and beings
of individuals.
For initial expository purposes, we can conceive of these three
levels as different tiers or floors of a house. Thus, personality
psychology can be thought of as having trait psychologists on
the ground floor exploring the nature of stable dispositions.
On the second floor are a group of psychologists who are interested
in people's personal concerns, and carry out research with PAC
units, such as current concerns, personal strivings, personal
projects, and life tasks (Little, 1996, 1999a). On the third floor
are the narrative theorists and psychobiographers who are examining
identity and life stories. As I have suggested elsewhere however,
(Little, 1996), the "house of personality" would be
incomplete unless we added a basement in which would be housed
two other active groups of contemporary personality psychologists,
psychodynamic theorists and evolutionary psychologists. I wish
to turn now to a description of some of the important questions,
methodological tools, and research findings on the three main
levels of personality psychology. We shall deal with the cellar
in due course.
Level I ("Havings"): Traits as Enduring Dispositions
Stable traits of personality were not only a foundational unit
of analysis in academic psychology, they have been invoked ever
since humans have communicated about their lives and those of
others. The notion that stable individual differences arise out
of differences in bodily humors is an ancient one and there has
been an enduring interest in attempting to classify and predict
individuals on the basis of traits assumed to be part of the constitutive
nature of human beings. These have often been thought of as aspects
of people that they "have" and that they carry with
them through the contexts, challenges, and pivotal moments of
their lives.
The Big Five: Major Factors of Personality Traits
Consensus has gradually emerged that stable features of human
personality can be adequately described by five factors of neuroticism,
extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness
(e.g., McCrae & John, 1992; Wiggins, 1996). Neuroticism is
characterized by attributes such as being nervous, worried and
feeling emotionally insecure. Extraversion is depicted by attributes
such as excitement seeking and activity level. Openness entails
broad interests and imaginative dispositions. Agreeableness involves
tendencies toward being good natured and trusting. Conscientiousness
is associated with characteristics such as being organized and
disciplined.
Thus, at first blush, Eve, in our opening image, might be described
by others as being a rather extraverted, open individual; Adam
could be regarded as agreeable and conscientious, while Nikki
might be seen as at least incipiently neurotic.
Much of the current conceptual and empirical research in the field
of personality is concerned with the descriptive, explanatory,
and predictive implications of the five factor model. The five
factor model is seen by most psychologists as primarily a taxonomic
description of personality structure rather than a causal model
that precisely predicts behavior. Indeed, there are a number of
different explanatory models for each of the big five factors
of personality, two of which in particular, extraversion and neuroticism,
have been well developed. As one example, extraversion has been
postulated by Eysenck (1970) as a dispositional tendency to seek
out stimulation, particularly social stimulation, as a result
of chronically low levels of activation in the neo-cortex.
A somewhat different model of extraversion formulated by Gray
(1981), assumes that extraverts are particularly sensitive to
reward cues, while introverts are more sensitive to punishment
cues (particularly so if the individuals in both cases are also
high in neuroticism). Both these and other models of extraversion
based on a biological model have been bolstered by evidence that
there appears to be a strong genetic base underlying extraversion
as well as the other big five factors.
Thus, under these models, we might expect the extraverted Eve
of our example to be particularly keen to seek out stimulation
and to absorb herself in the conversation about grad school, and
not to notice that it was time to go to class. We might also predict
that she would be more likely than her introverted peers to need
a good dose of caffeine in the cafeteria to sustain her through
her stats class. And we might anticipate that she may not yet
have thought through some of the down side issues in applying
for graduate school ("Hey, what are these GRE thingies we're
supposed to take"?).
As well as having descriptive and explanatory functions, traits
are increasingly being used for purposes of prediction in applied
areas. For example, there is evidence that conscientiousness is
a robust predictor of success in many areas where achievement
is important, particularly achievement based on conformity to
clearly specified goals (see Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp,&
McCloy, 1990). However, there appears to be one intriguing exception.
Hogan and Hogan (1993) have reported that conscientiousness is
negatively correlated with peer rated success among Tulsa jazz
musicians. Given that the ability to "jam" involves
being able to "flex" to the shifting cadence and intonations
of others, the goal-oriented persistence of the conscientious
person may become a liability. This exception may not, in fact,
be so exceptional. It is interesting to speculate whether organizational
life, particularly in fast-paced high tech companies, is more
likely to require the skills of juggling and jamming than those
of dogged linear pursuit. So even though traits may be fairly
stable, the personality psychologists using them as predictive
instruments are fully aware of the need to monitor their predictive
validity in domains that are changeable and dynamic.
How might our three students be understood in terms of the Big
Five trait approaches to contemporary personality psychology?
Eve would appear to be an open, agreeable extravert, seeking stimulation,
confident in her expectations, and generally engaged in zestful
project pursuit. Adam might be seen as more introverted and conscientious.
He seems to be agonizing over the question of grad school and
is trying to balance it against other claims on his life. We might
see Nikki as distinctly neurotic: she is angry, anxious, hurting,
and inexpressibly sad.
Level II ("Doings"): Personal Projects, Tasks, and
Strivings
Over the past couple of decades, another family of conceptual
units of analysis in personality psychology has arisen which complement,
and in some ways challenge, trait units. They have as a common
focus an emphasis upon personal action: on the doing side of personality
(Cantor, 1990; Little, 1999a). These personal action constructs
(or PAC units) include personal projects (Little, 1972, 1983;
1989), personal strivings (Emmons, 1986), and life tasks (Cantor,
1990).
Personal projects are extended sets of personally salient activity
that can range from short bursts of action, such as "meeting
Adam for coffee" to the defining commitments of one's lifetime,
such as "try to respect my parent's wishes." Projects
are conceived of as middle level units in personality (Little,
1987, 1989) in that they are influenced by superordinate goals
such as core values, and they generate subordinate acts through
which the project is implemented. Though projects are action units,
the fact that they are personal means that they cannot be directly
inferred from mere observation of an individual's acts. Personal
projects typically proceed through the stages of project inception,
planning, action, and termination. However, the fact that they
are embedded in a daily ecology that involves flu bugs, returning
boyfriends, irate roomates and computer system crashes (sometimes
simultaneously) means that projects are in continual flux and
their successful management involves a blend of tenacity and suppleness.
Quintessentially, personal projects analysis is about the social
ecology of muddling through.
To illustrate, let's follow Adam for a while. We catch sight of
him as he arrives on campus on Wednesday morning. He sits alone
in the cafeteria, skims a few pages of his Personality text, and
heads off to a Physics lecture. He sits frozen faced, trying to
suppress his yawning, leaves quickly after class, pauses momentarily
in the hallway, and then slowly walks along the river to his residence.
He slams the door, puts on a CD, and starts to cry: What's up?
From a trait perspective we might say that he is showing signs
of introversion by avoiding much contact with others and perhaps
that he is a bit neurotic (his crying might be seen as dysphoric).
But at Level II his behavior is approached rather differently.
From a personal projects perspective we would ask the crucial
question "What have you been up to today" to which he
may well respond with "trying to get a date with Jennifer".
The outward and visible signs of his behavior may have made little
thematic sense until we get that crucial piece of personal construing.
His cafeteria stop prior to class had been a reconnaissance mission
to see if Jenn was there that morning. His boredom in class may
have made more sense to the physics professor (who may have been
attributing unwarranted "thickness" to the student)
if he had known that Adam wasn't even registered in the course:
the only reason he was there was to be near Jennifer, a physics
major. Adam's dithering in the hall was a failed implementation
of his intention to approach Jennifer, who only knows him as a
rather "wimpy" person who seems to be following her
around. His emotional release back in residence was in frustration
that once again he lacked the courage to ask her out.
Research on personal projects involves asking people what their
current personal projects are, and then to appraise each project
on a set of approximately twenty dimensions that have both theoretical
and applied importance for personality psychology (e.g., enjoyment,
stress, control). These ratings, which can be appraised at both
the individual level of analysis and normatively, can be summarized
as falling under five major theoretical factors: project meaning,
structure, community, efficacy, and stress. Research to date confirms
the proposition that subjective well-being is related to the extent
to which people are engaged in personal projects that are worthwhile
(meaning), managed effectively (structure), supported by others
(community), likely to succeed (efficacy), and not unduly onerous
(low stress) (Little, 1989, 1999a, b, 2000a, b).
The content of personal projects has also been shown to be important.
For example, being engaged in intrapersonal projects, those dealing
with trying to change or deal with aspects of one's own personality
(e.g.,"be less subservient to my parents", "try
to figure out why I am always so angry", "be more outgoing"),
is positively associated both with a tendency to experience depressive
affect but also with the Big Five factor of Openness to Experience
(Little, 1989). From a personal projects view then, Nikki might
be expected to be engaged in a number of such intrapersonal projects.
But whether she sees them as likely to succeed or not might well
influence whether she flourishes as a creative intellectual or
becomes immobilized in self-hatred.
Two other PAC units, each in part derived from personal projects
methodology, have stimulated considerable research interest. Nancy
Cantor and her colleagues (e.g., Cantor, 1990) have examined personal
action in the context of what they term "life tasks".
Life tasks are undertakings that are important to accomplish at
different stages of life. Cantor explored these in her influential
study of the transition of University of Michigan students through
undergraduate life (Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, &
Brower, 1987). Students generated lists of personal projects which
they then categorized in terms of alignment with several types
of life task deemed important for university students. Subjects
were able to categorize many of their projects as being in the
service of life tasks such as "getting independent of parents,"
"forming friendships," or "succeeding academically."
Cantor's research has shown how the successful management of life
tasks requires social intelligence, particularly the sensitive
deployment of appropriate strategies through which tasks can be
successfully accomplished (Cantor & Fleeson, 1994). Two such
strategic approaches have been identified by researchers on life
tasks: defensive pessimism and illusory glow optimism (Norem,
1989). The former strategy involves envisaging a worst case scenario
("I'm going to fail this exam") and harnessing the anxiety
to motivate studying and task persistence. The opposite strategy
involves imaging best case scenarios ("I'm going to ace this
exam!") and having this positive incentive motivate studying.
The life task researchers have shown some intriguing implications
of the adoption of these two strategies. They seem to be equally
effective in terms of actual academic attainment, but the defensive
pessimists seem to incur social costs in terms of being more of
a burden on others. Thus, Nikki's repeated bemoaning of the difficulties
of finishing up term without falling apart may work just as well
as a motivational strategy for studying as Eve's optimism. But
friends start to tune Nikki out and potentially valuable resources
for her appear not to be answering their phones at college that
month.
Another PAC unit that has stimulated considerable research activity
is that of Emmons' personal strivings (Emmons, 1986). A personal
striving is something that a person is typically trying to do.
Thus, Adam's acts of listening empathetically to Nikki and writing
a letter home may be in the service of the personal striving of
"being nice to people." Emmons and his colleagues have
shown that human well-being is enhanced to the extent that personal
strivings are appraised as likely to be accomplished and are not
in conflict with each other. If Adam's "Be nice" striving
is in conflict with a "be intellectually tough" striving,
his well-being is likely to be compromised (Emmons & King,
1988).
Clearly, these three PAC units are closely related, though each
has a particular zone of applicability that suggests it is worthwhile
to preserve the subtle distinctions between them (cf. Krahe, 1992).
My own perspective sees personal projects as middle level units
that can be in the service of both personal strivings and life
tasks. Eve's personal project of completing her stats assignment
may serve both her striving of "competing with her brother"
and the normative life task of "doing well in academic tasks."
But she may also be involved in personal projects that are only
loosely coupled with a personal striving or life task such as
"talking to Nikki about the way she dresses."
Nikki's whole project system at college may be a protracted exercise
in meaningless pursuits, unlinked to superordinate goals, and
bereft of intrinsic meaning. Each of the PAC perspectives would
see this state of affairs to be problematic. It should also be
noted here that one of the major differences between the Big Five
and PAC units is that the former are postulated to be relatively
unchangeable after about the age of thirty (Costa & McCrae,
1994). So, while there may be some latitude left for Nikki to
change her trait of neuroticism as she stumbles through her early
twenties, there is greater tractability for change in her personal
projects, and perhaps in her life tasks and personal strivings
. At the very least there is the possibility of helping to clarify
them and enhance the likelihood of them being pursued effectively.
And, unlike traits, these reformulations and transformations can
be tried on throughout the life-span--even when Nikki gets old
and wobbly.
Level III ("Beings"): Life Stories and Personal Narratives
A third major growth area in contemporary personality theory and
research is the narrative turn that has occurred in recent years
(Sarbin, 1986). The major thrust of this perspective is that humans
have a deeply rooted need to construct narratives within which
their lives make sense. We construct stories not only about our
relationships, our achievements, and our aspirations, but we also
tell stories in order to establish an identity, to establish validation
about the type of "being" we are or are becoming.
McAdams (1993) has developed an elegant theory of personality
in which life stories form the central focus. Life stories are
built around various representations of self. Indeed, the very
process of "selfing" as McAdams calls it, emerges only
in the construction of a compelling life story that meets certain
critical features such as being coherent. A key element of the
life story is the development of "imagoes" which are
like stock characters in a story and are often personifications
of the themes of agency and communion.
The narrative theorists in contemporary personality psychology
would have much to say about our cafeteria conversations. First
and most obviously, the students are conversing! During conversation
we typically tell each other stories about how things are going,
what's up, who's doing what (and where and why). Second, the stories
we tell as we talk with others enable us to tie together personally
salient information from the other two levels of personality research.
Eve doesn't just list her trait characteristics or her projects,
she casts them in narrative form ("I know I'm too pushy with
Eric, and he really doesn't want me to go to grad school, but
I think he's fooling himself and I'll straighten him out before
the end of April. More coffee Adam?" ) In these conversations
and story telling, Eve's imago seems to be a blend of agency and
communion--perhaps seeing herself as the Directive Therapist.
Eric, on the other hand, may see her as Eve, the Avenging Traveler.
A third consequence of the narrative perspective to personality
is that the mere telling of our tales can have a salutary effect.
Pennebaker (1989) has shown that when students are asked to write
personal narratives that deal with previously unshared painful
material, there is an initial increase and then a long term decrease
in measures of autonomic arousal. The effect is particularly notable
with students who choose to tell deeply revealing stories. These
results are consistent with the research of Wegner (1994) who
has shown that "not thinking" about certain things can
be taxing. (Wegner directs his subjects, for example, to not think
of a White Bear. I admonish the reader not to think about this
example.) Thought suppression actually increases the likelihood
of thinking about the suppressed image and can extract an autonomic
cost. If Nikki, then, were finally to get the chance to unload,
to open up and tell her story, she may be less likely to anesthetize
herself against the unspoken aspects of her life.
Voices from the Cellar: Psychodynamic and Evolutionary Perspectives
in Personality
We have tried to capture the kind of theoretical conversations
that we would hear at each of three different levels in the house
of personality. In some respects, the metaphor is fitting-- often
the research being carried out on one floor is done in ignorance
(not necessarily willful) of work going on at the other two levels.
I also think that the second floor offers ways of "listening
in"on conversations on the narrative upper deck and down
below with the trait-ers. But, to extend the metaphor one level
further, I think there is a need to acknowledge some very strong
rumblings from the basement cellar. Here is where power plants
and sump pumps are chugging along and the kind of discourse going
on down there about personality is similarly foundational and,
some would say, earthy.
I see two basement areas operating at this deepest level of personality:
psychodynamic theory and evolutionary psychology. The first provides
a line of continuity with the modern origins of personality theory.
The second provides a link with the Darwinian roots of modern
life sciences.
A spirited treatment of the contemporary revival and sustained
relevance of psychodynamic theory for personality psychology can
be found in Westen (1990). One of the most noteworthy accomplishments
of contemporary psychodynamic theory has been wide spread acceptance
of one of its most basic assumptions: the pervasive impact of
unconscious influences on personality functioning (Erdelyi, 1974).
For example, when patients are exposed to subliminal stimuli that
are symbolically related to their particular problem, there appears
to be some relief of symptoms ( Silverman & Weinberger, 1985).
That such messages are not consciously recognized yet have a discernible
impact on human functioning means that at least some of the dynamics
going on in the college cafeteria are not accessible to the participants
or to their personality research professors (not unless armed
with hidden portable tachistoscopes). A general sense of tension
and pervasive unease between Nikki and Adam, for example, may
be the result of the continuous influence of impulses that each
has imperfectly repressed. To an astute psychodynamicist, there
may be subtle hints revealed in gesture and the parapraxes (such
as slips of the tongue and memory lapses) that lead to mixed messages
and missed meetings. Such influences are perplexing and their
detection requires probative work that is both demanding and subtle.
On the other side of the basement are the evolutionary psychologists.
David Buss (1991), in particular, has pioneered the study of how
evolutionary adaptation has shaped human personality. The essential
argument of this perspective is that in the course of evolution
various strategies which conferred adaptational advantage were
selectively retained and transmitted to the next generation. Though
these adaptations evolved in adaptive landscapes radically different
from those that confront us today, the mammalian brain still shows
evidence of these primordial adaptations.
One of the important claims of the evolutionary perspective is
that there will be sex differences in the criteria that guide
selection of future mates. It is argued that women will place
a premium on the status of prospective mates, while men will regard
the physical attractiveness of mates as differentially important.
Note that it is not being claimed that these will be the most
important or the only important criteria, in fact pleasantness
of personality is the top criterion in mate selection for both
sexes. But it is argued that the sexes should differ in the rankings
of these attributes for evolutionary reasons. Physical attractiveness
serves as a marker of potential fecundity in the female, and status
cues serve as markers that a male will be able to provide resources
that will support the viability of offspring.
Evolutionary personality theory also posits that there will be
important sex differences in emotions, such as jealousy. Males
are more jealous when their mates engage in sexual infidelity
and women more if their mates establish emotional romantic interests
in another woman.
An early and similar perspective to the evolutionary personality
psychologists is Hogan's (1982) socioanalytic theory. Hogan was
one of the first to emphasize the significance of the fact that
human personality evolved in the context of group life. Group
living requires that individuals be particularly sensitive to
two key issues--establishing social bonds with others and negotiating
the power hierarchy: in short of "getting along" and
"getting ahead" (Hogan,1982).
Like psychodynamic forces, those arising from evolutionary principles
may have an influence that eludes awareness. Adam may not have
consciously chosen to ask Jennifer out because she was "drop
dead gorgeous" (let alone likely to bear his child), though
she is sure that this is the main reason he keeps hanging around.
He may well have consciously formulated the goal of taking her
out because she seemed nurturing and responsive at a party in
September. Meanwhile Eve will feel deep frustration when Nikki
asks her why she wore provocative clothes when Professor Buss
gave a colloquium in their department. "Give me a break"
says Eve, and rolls her eyes, while Nikki responds with a smile
that is part twinkle, part smirk.
My own view of the evolutionary perspective in personality theory
is that it provides some intriguing hypotheses about the distal
roots of human personality that otherwise seem inexplicable. My
concern is that we not underestimate the importance of another
achievement of mammalian evolution--the development of a neocortex
that allows us to formulate and carry out core projects that can
override the primitive motivational processes of more ancient
origin. In my view, peoples' accounts of what they are doing should
take initial priority particularly when we are dealing with things
that are important to them in their lives. Thus, I would be more
inclined to believe Adam's explanation of his reasons for pursuing
Jennifer than those that might be offered under the evolutionary
hypothesis. Such a "credulous" approach, which is consistent
with Kelly's view of the individual as co-scientist, works well
within the normal boundaries of daily conduct. If, however, there
is consistent evidence that all of the people Adam finds nurturing
just happen to be beautiful women, I would be inclined to look
to evolutionary theory to help explain why this is so. Perhaps
it is in the dark passages of personality and the extreme edges
of human conduct that both the psychodynamic and evolutionary
perspectives deservedly attract our attention. The prevalence
of violent jealousy and the pervasiveness of "powerful man,
nubile woman partnerships" reminds us that we are, after
all, an evolved mammalian species with adapted minds and that
this heritage has the potential to influence us in powerful ways.
(Do not think of a White House.)
Personality in Context: Situations, Places and Environments
One of the central tenets of behaviorism, as well as the Mischellian
critique of traits, was that human conduct is often generated
by the context within which it is embedded. Murray, too, it will
be recalled, insisted on the need to appraise the press of the
environments within which human needs were satisfied or frustrated.
A brief word, then, about the role of contextual features in contemporary
personality. How do the theorists on the three levels view the
environments within which personality processes are played out?7
On the first floor, trait psychologists are concerned with the
extent to which there is an appropriate degree of "fit"
between persons and their environments. Extraverts, for example,
require stimulating environments for optimal functioning, while
more introverted individuals require more structured and modulated
environments. While Eve may thrive on a week filled with parties
and recreational diversions, Adam may find walking by the river
for getting his thoughts together about Jennifer, his folks and
the upcoming GRE exams. Along with tools for the assessment of
personality characteristics, there are abundant scales and inventories
for the appraisal of the "personality" of environments,
so that there are practical ways of determining the degree of
fit between people and their contexts along a number of key dimensions.
Such tools allow us to formulate and answer the essential question
about persons and environments talked about on the first floor:"got
a match"?
On the second floor, the PAC theorists are more concerned with
the extent to which environmental contexts serve to generate,
facilitate, or frustrate personal action. The pursuit of one's
core projects, cherished strivings, or vital life tasks requires
an environment within which such pursuits are valued, or at the
very least not impeded. Personal contexts may be the major source
of the projects that people regard as worthy of exploration ,
but they may also proscribe the kind of pursuits that people even
dare to consider. Eve's home environment may have been such that
the thought of doing anything other than pursue a graduate degree
after college was simply not an option. Nikki's home environment
may have been one in which the possibility of graduate school
brought blank stares of incredulity and the blunt question of
"who the hell is going to pay for that?" Unlike trait
perspectives, then, second floor theorists are more likely to
look at the environment less in terms of "fit" than
in terms of ecological factors such as affordances, resources,
impedances, and constraints (Little, 1999b; Phillips, Little &
Goodine, 1997).
The third floor narrative theorists are positioned to view the
environment with a broader sweep and they are particularly interested
in locating individual life stories in their historical contexts.
Sarbin provides a fascinating analysis of how life trajectories
can be entrained to the cultural myths that define a particular
historical time and place--for example, the pervasive myth of
the avenging hero who sacrifices his life to avenge wrongs done
against his people in the past (Sarbin, 1996).
Linking Levels: A Contemporary Example of Meeting the Integrative
Challenge
Personality theorists have argued that the enduring mission of
personality psychology has been to provide both theoretical and
methodological tools for integrating the diverse system of influences
affecting the lives of individuals and accounting for their differences.
We have also shown that much of contemporary personality research
is taking place in three relatively independent sectors concerned
with traits, action, and narratives, each of which has its own
integrative task. Trait psychology provides an impetus for integration
of taxonomic work on stable personality characteristics with,
as just one example, neurophysiological research thus providing
an integrative bridge to the neurosciences. Personal action psychology,
particularly in the focal role given to the concept of goals,
provides a natural bridge to cognitive science as well as to social
ecological perspectives that explore the ways in which goal pursuit
is embedded in and contributes to middle level dynamic contexts.
Narrative psychology provides a natural bridge to the humanities
and to a broad corpus of literary, historical, and political scholarship
that charts the larger currents of thought, tradition, and myth
that define culture.
Although we may well have horizontal integration within each of
these three levels of contemporary personality research, is there
a way of vertically integrating them so that we might bridge the
full spectrum of influences on human personality? Not only do
I think the answer is a strong "yes, indeed", I also
think that it is precisely in this bridging research between levels
in personality that some of the most interesting new findings
are emerging. Such bridging or linking research should also allow
us access to the theoretical insights of the classical perspectives
in personality whose voices guided us through the early history
of the field.
Not surprisingly, given my own theoretical orientation, I feel
that it is on the second floor--where the action is--that we are
offered the best opportunity for conceptual commerce with the
trait-ERs downstairs and the narrative theorists up in the loft.
We shall even show how our understanding of personal projects
can be enriched by taking a trip down to the basement on occasion.
I want to illustrate this by showing how research on personal
projects allows us to move through each of the different levels
of research in personality and, in this way, to continue to struggle
with the broad band integrative challenge that defines our field.
To illustrate this, let's return to the cafeteria and take "Getting
into graduate school in psychology" as a prototypical personal
project and one shared by all three students. Research studies
from several different theoretical perspectives and levels of
analysis in personality have addressed the content, appraisal,
and dynamics of personal projects.
We can start in the basement. Although the evidence from this
level is more indirect than at the other levels, it offers one
of the most intriguing areas of interlevel influences on personality
and one of the most challenging areas for future research.
Unconscious Influences: Particularly at the inception stages of
a personal project, it is likely that unconscious processes may
play a subtle, even powerful role, in directing its course of
including whether the project is even considered in the first
place. For example, Baldwin, Carrell & Lopez (1990 ) reported
an intriguing study in which graduate students at the University
of Michigan appraised the likely success of their research projects
for the next term. For half the students, prior to their ratings,
a tachistoscopic image was flashed of the scowling face of a highly
distinguished and rather threatening Michigan professor. For the
other half, the smiling face of a less threatening post-doctoral
fellow was flashed. Those exposed to the threatening face rated
the likely success of their research projects to be lower.
In other words, pre-conscious images that involve threat may lead
us to evaluate our projects in powerful ways. Indeed, such images
may actually serve to proscribe a project as something that one
simply cannot do or should not do. Thus Adam's ruminations about
grad school as he walks by the river, may well be guided by the
image of his parents' disapproving looks and snippets of conversation
about grad school being a waste of time.
Do the other cellar dwellers have relevance to the pursuit of
our students' projects? Though more speculative, I think the evolutionary
perspective offers some intriguing possibilities for explaining
project choice (see Buss, 1989). When we look at the content of
the projects generated in the listing of our student research
collaborators, it is easy to see projects that represent quintessential
evolutionary tasks of mate selection, competition, social bonding,
etc. It would be possible to create an evolutionary task template
(based on relevant project appraisal dimensions such as the extent
to which this project involves competing with other males, etc.)
that would allow a researcher to estimate the degree to which
appraisals of projects can be explained by their match with the
theoretical expectations of evolutionary theory.
Moving up a level to that of the trait psychologists, there has
been extensive research showing the relationships between traits
and the content and appraisal of personal projects (e.g., Little,
Lecci, & Watkinson, 1992; Salmela-Aro, 1992). Among the most
robust findings have been that conscientiousness is strongly related
to the personal project factors, such as efficacy and absence
of stress. Perhaps more surprisingly is the consistent evidence
that conscientiousness is also strongly related to the perceived
meaningfulness of projects, particularly to its enjoyment. The
image of someone who is highly conscientious as a rather joyless
creature slogging away on her ANOVAs at the computer terminal
is more myth than reality. If Eve happened to score high on conscientiousness,
her seemingly cavalier tactic of applying only to three schools
may not be so cavalier at all. She may already have thrown herself
into researching the schools, having email correspondence with
prospective advisors, and actually visiting the campuses before
sending off her applications. And our research would suggest that
for Eve these projects would be a delight, not a drag. Nikki,
on the other hand, has probably procrastinated again, and regards
the whole application process as a Royal Pain. This pattern likely
reflects Nikki's status on another of the big five dimensions,
neuroticism. Salmela-Aro (1992) has provided important evidence
that depression is significantly associated with the tendency
for personal projects to be pursued with less effectiveness and
less likelihood of successful completion, and Pychyl's extensive
program of research on procrastination and well-being provides
clear evidence of the deleterious effects of Nikki's style of
dealing (or not dealing) with her projects (e.g., Pychyl &
Little, 1998).
Two aspects of environmental influences have also been shown to
be associated with appraisals of our personal projects. For example,
Ruehlman and Wolchik (1988) have explored the extent to which
people in our social networks can both help and hinder the likelihood
of successful project pursuit. Eve's project of going to Ann Arbor
may be frustrated by Erik's apparent disapproval, but facilitated
by the fact that beyond any one else, Erik has challenged her
intellectually and given her the confidence to aspire well beyond
where she had thought possible in September. The reason we choose
to undertake certain projects rather than others has been approached
in a very imaginative way by Ogilvie and Rose (1995) who, after
grappling with the difficulties of categorizing projects in terms
of content, realized that projects fall neatly into four categories
that are rooted in classical learning theory: whether the project
is a positive or negative goal and whether it is something that
is being sought or avoided.
Omodei & Wearing (1990) provided a clear demonstration of
the relationship between the classical Murrayan needs, personal
projects, and well-being. They had respondents rate each of their
current personal projects on dimensions that represented each
of the major needs posited by Murray as central to individual
differences, and found that the extent to which projects were
satisfying their needs, overall life satisfaction was higher.
Indeed, they were able to show that need satisfaction of personal
projects served as an excellent proxy for overall life satisfaction
ratings. Thus, Nikki may be deeply unhappy at this point in her
life because she has been unable to formulate and act upon personal
projects that satisfy some of her most important needs. Though
changing the needs may be very difficult, finding projects through
which they might be met may offer greater tractability for Nikki
at this stage in her life (Little & Chambers, 2000).
Finally, there are also compelling theoretical reasons to see
personal projects as interpenetrating with the narrative level
of personality theory and research. Sarbin (1996), in tracing
through the importance of cultural myth and its impact on lives,
suggests that tragically conceived projects, such as terrorist
campaigns, may derive their motivational force from the myths
to which children are exposed from an early age, and which are
reinforced by media attention and the collective stories about
heroes and villains which saturate our cultural landscape. Under
such a view, and depending on one's belief systems, another Adam's
project ("Do not eat that Apple") may be seen as a generative
proto-project of humankind.
The Prospects for Personology: Consolidating the Integrative
Center in Psychology
It should be apparent that I feel that the field of personality
psychology is an exceptionally exciting place in which to take
up permanent residence. I see its aspiration to provide the integrative
center for psychology as a continuing challenge. The three levels
that we have discussed in this chapter, will, I believe, continue
to grow in importance and yield insights that will advance both
theoretical understanding and applications in fields such as clinical,
health, and organizational psychology. So too, undoubtedly, will
the personologists in the basement continue to expand our understanding
of the remote roots of human conduct. In addition to these, I
think there are five areas that deserve to be promoted to positions
of importance in our collective research agenda.
First, I think there are rich possibilities for expansion of our
understanding of the biological base of personality traits, particularly
given the rapid advances in techniques for monitoring brain activity
on-line. Though there is a fairly substantial research literature
on the neurophysiological substrates of extraversion and neuroticism,
work on the rest of the big five dimensions is still in the early
stages. Recent advances in the neurobiology of temperament (with
its own Big Three factors) seems particularly promising (Clark
& Watson, 1999).
Second, I think that non-human studies of personality, particularly
among the higher primates, but involving a whole range of species,
will pay very rich dividends in understanding how evolutionary
forces have shaped human personality. There are already signs
that an emerging animal personality psychology research agenda
is well under way (Gosling, in press). Given my conviction that
project pursuit is an inherently mammalian propensity, I do not
see such research as restricting itself to trait-like behaviors.
Extended sets of salient activity in the pursuit of valued goals
applies to Nikki's cat as well as Nikki. While we will never be
able to herd either Nikki or her cat, I think the comparative
psychology of unpredictability is itself an intriguing focus for
collaborative research between ethologists and personality psychologists.
Third, particularly at Level II, I believe there is considerable
scope for expanding personality psychology's intellectual collaboration
with the fields of ethical philosophy, legal theory, and the philosophy
of action (Little, 1987, 1999a). Scholars in these areas are already
grappling with questions of how the nature of our ground projects
or core tasks bear upon issues of ethics and of different conceptions
of justice. (For a compelling treatment of such issues see Nussbaum
(1992). Nussbaum looks at various Hellenistic philosophies through
the eyes of Nikidion--a probably fictitious student of Epicurus,
who is seeking instruction on living a flourishing life. Nikki
in the present chapter is a modern descendent of Nikidion. Some
day I hope to take her on a more extensive trip through what contemporary
personality psychology can say about human flourishing.) I believe
that such discourse will be enriched by the importation of empirical
work of personality psychologists, and that our work will be enriched
by the conceptual precision afforded by philosophical inquiry.
As one example of this kind of interdisciplinary analysis, I have
recently been exploring the concept of free traits, which I see
as trait-like behavior carried out in the service of a personal
project even though it may run against one's "first nature".
For example, some of us are "pseudo-extraverts," by
which I mean we are Eysenckian introverts who, because of professional
duty or love, act extravertedly in order to accomplish valued
goals. I believe such apparently disingenuous behavior can extract
a toll on the autonomic nervous system and that this can lead
to burn out. However, such a consequence can be mitigated by the
availability of restorative niches in which we can, every now
and then, indulge our first natures ( Little, 1999b, 2000a). One
of the intriguing questions raised by such an analysis (which
integrates research from Levels I and II), is whether such disingenuous
behavior is, in fact, a "bad thing" (not only in the
sense of possibly being stressful, but in terms of being unnatural,
even phony). If Adam decides to go back to the family business
and forego grad school, how should we think about the tradeoff
between fidelity to family and honesty to oneself? Clearly these
are questions of value that can not be exclusively adjudicated
by empirical inquiry. But I strongly believe they can be informed
by such inquiry, and personality psychologists are ideally positioned
to provide precisely the kind of rich textured information about
the complexities of people's lives.
Fourth, I believe the narrative perspective in personality will
continue to flourish and I hope that the traditional ways of getting
individuals to tell their stories will be enriched by adoption
of new technologies and methodologies. For example, simply asking
individuals to tell about their daily lives by providing us with
images and captions from an imaginary videotape (called an idio-tape
machine), allows individuals some adaptive flexibility in bringing
into conceptual focus concerns and elements of emotional significance
to them (Little, 2000a). Similarly, just as computing science
and cognitive psychology have proceeded in virtual lock step,
I believe that the field of personality can benefit from joining
forces with the "New Media", including the imaginative
use of interactive multi-media to assist individuals in exposing
and exploring their personal wishes, needs, projects, traits,
and life narratives. For example, Nikki has been depicted throughout
this essay as someone who has pain beyond words. Perhaps by using
media that do not rely solely upon words, she will be able to
construct images and scenarios with greater richness and precision.
Such multimedia meditations might help her both express and expunge
some of that hurt.
If students ask me if I think they should pursue graduate work
in personality psychology, I usually schedule two meetings. In
the first meeting I tell them that I cannot think of a more fascinating
area of research and proceed to tell them much of what has been
compressed into this chapter.
They occasionally ask me how I got into the field of personality
psychology. Depending on how much time they have to indulge what
I call my "anecdotage", I tell them the following. I
have long felt a strong attraction to both the humanities and
the biological sciences, with classics and microbiology being
among my favorite undergraduate courses. When it came time to
choose a major, psychology seemed to be the most likely field
in which I could maintain a joint focus on ions and Ionians. Though
I had originally been accepted at Berkeley to study neuropsychology,
a chance event in the library just prior to leaving for graduate
school launched me on another trajectory. I was searching for
a book called the Stereotaxic Atlas of the Brain when I accidentally
pulled down a wayward copy of George Kelly's Psychology of Personal
Constructs. I leafed through the first few pages, developed a
very severe intellectual itch and have been scratching it ever
since. I do not recommend to my students that they take this random
walk through the stacks as a strategy for choosing their specialties
in psychology, though it is an honest account of how our professional
lives can sometimes wind their ways along unpredictable paths
(Bandura, 1982).
In the second meeting, I am usually rather more cautious. Personality
psychology is a fundamentally intellectual pursuit--it is concerned
with themes that go back to antiquity and challenges its serious
students to ponder issues that cut across the full spectrum of
the humanities and sciences. I point out that if the student's
overriding concern is with a particular practical problem, such
as abuse or depression or occupational success or criminal behavior,
then that student should seriously consider going into an applied
field such as clinical or organizational psychology. But if they
are interested in how all of these disparate phenomena are linked
together, then they may well have found an intellectual home.
We usually discuss where the strong programs are in personality
psychology and I direct them to the splendid website called the
Personality Project run by Bill Revelle at Northwestern. I am
also delighted as of a few months ago, to be able to direct them
to the Association for Research in Personality website and urge
them to join the Association immediately. The philosophy and sense
of excitement for the personality field in this new Association
overlaps exactly with my own and I see it as a major source of
stimulation and support for the field in the future.
If the student comes back for a third meeting, I know that the
line of succession from Freud, Murray, Allport, Kelly, and all
the secular saints of personology will likely remain unbroken.
But if that particular student doesn't come back, I can take some
solace from knowing that there are three other students waiting
outside at this very moment. They want me to go have a coffee
with them in the cafeteria and chat about grad school. In fact
there's loud banging on my door even as I wrap up this chapter.
Hang on, Nikki, I'm coming.
References
Baldwin, M.W., Carrell, S. E,. & Lopez, D.F. (1990). Priming
relationship schemas: My advisor and the pope are watching me
from the back of my mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
26, 435-454.
Bandura, A. (1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life
paths. American Psychologist, 37, 747-755.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual
Review of Psychology (pp. 459- 491). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews, Inc.
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: "Having"
and "Doing" in the study of personality and cognition.
American Psychologist, 45, 735-750.
Cantor, N. & Fleeson, W. (1994). Social intelligence and intelligent
goal pursuit: A cognitive slice of motivation. In W. Spaulding
(Ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 125-180).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Cantor, N., Norem, J., Niedenthal, P., Langston, C., & Brower,
A. (1987) Life tasks, self-concept ideals, and cognitive strategies
in a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 1178-1191.
Cervone, D. & Shoda, Y (Eds. (1999). The coherence of personality:
Social cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization.
New York: Guilford.
Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (1999). Temperament: A new paradigm
for trait psychology. In L.A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: theory and research. 2nd edition.
(Pp.399-423). New York: Guilford.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence
for the stability of adult personality. In T. Heatherton &
J. L. Weinberger (Eds.). Can personality change? (Pp.21-40).
Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Craik, K. H. (1986). Personality research methods: An historical
perspective. Journal of Personality, 54, 18-51.
Emmons, R.A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality
and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1058-1068.
Emmons, R. A. & King, L. A. (1988) Conflict among personal
strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological
and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1040-1048.
Endler, N. S. & Magnusson, D (1976). Toward an interactional
psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83,
956-974.
Erdelyi, M. H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual
defense and vigilance. Psychological Review, 81, 1-25.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality.
(3rd edition). London: Methuen.
Gosling, S. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about
personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin, 127,
45-86.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality.
In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.). A model of personality (pp.246-276).
New York: Springer.
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M.
Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 55-89).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1993, May). Ambiguities of conscientiousness.
Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. San Francisco.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D. &
McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality
constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities,.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-589.
John, O. P. (1990. The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions
of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires.
In L. Pervin (Ed.). Handbook of personality theory and research
(pp. 66-100). New York: Guildford Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs.
New York: Norton.
Kluckhohn, C. & Murray, H.A. Personality formation: The determinants.
In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. Murray & D. M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality:
in nature, society and culture. (Pp. 53-67). New York: Knopf.
Krahe, B. (1992). Personal and social psychology: Toward a
synthesis. London: Sage.
Little, B. R. (1972). Psychological man as scientist, humanist
and specialist. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality,
6, 95-118.
Little, B. R. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and method
for investigation. Environment and Behavior, 15 (3), 273-309.
Little, B. R. (1987a). Personal projects and fuzzy selves: Aspects
of self-identity in adolescence. In T. Honess & K. Yardley
(Eds.), Self and identity: Perspectives across the life span.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Little, B. R. (1987b). Personality and the environment. In D.
Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology,
Volume 1 (pp.206-244). New York: Wiley.
Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits,
magnificent obsessions, and the search for coherence In D. Buss
& N. Cantor (Eds.). Personality psychology: Recent trends
and emerging directions (pp. 15-31). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Little, B. R. (1993). Personal projects and the distributed self:
Aspects of a conative psychology. In J. Suls (Ed), Psychological
perspectives on the self. (Vol. 4, pp.157-181). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Little, B. R. (1996). Free traits, personal projects and idio-tapes:
Three tiers for personality research. Psychological Inquiry,
8, 340-344.
Little, B. R. (1998). Personal project pursuit: Dimensions and
dynamics of personal meaning. In P.T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry
(Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of research
and clinical applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Little, B. R. (1999a). Personality and motivation: Personal action
and the conative evolution. In L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (Eds.).
Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. 2nd Ed. (pp.
501-524). New York: Guilford.
Little, B. R. (1999b). Personal projects and social ecology: Themes
and variations across the life span. In J. Brandtstadter &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Action and self-development: Theory and
research through the life span. (Pp.197-221). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Little, B. R. (2000). Free traits and personal contexts: Expanding
a social ecological model of well-being. In. W. B. Walsh, K. H.
Craik, & R, Price. Person-environment psychology (2nd edition).
(pp.87-116). New York: Guilford.
Little, B.R. (2000b). Persons, contexts, and personal projects:
Assumptive themes of a methodological transactionalism. In S.
Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto & H. Minami (Eds.), Theoretical
perspectives in environment-behavior research. (Pp. 79-88).
New York: Plenum.
Little, B. R. & Chambers, N. (2000). Analyse des projets personnels:
Un cadre intéRevue qué
Little, B. R., Lecci, L. & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality
and personal projects: Linking Big Five and PAC units of analysis.
Journal of Personality, 60, 501-525.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories
we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New
York: W. Morrow.
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person?
Journal of Personality, 63, 365-396.
McAdams, D. P. (1997). A conceptual history of personality psychology.
In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology, pp.3-39. San Diego: Academic Press.
McCrae. R. R. & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the
five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality,
60, 175-215.
McGregor, I. & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness
and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 494-512.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York:
Wiley.
Mischel, W. (1990) Personality dispositions revisited and revised:
A view after three decades. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook
of Personality: Theory and Research, pp. 111-134. New York:
Guilford Press.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system
theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions,
dynamics and invariance in personality structure. Psychological
Review, 102, 246-268.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Norem, J. (1989). Cognitive strategies as personality: Effectiveness,
specificity, flexibility, and change (pp.45-60). In D. Buss &
N. Cantor (Eds.). Personality psychology: Recent trends and
emerging directions. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1994). The therapy of desire: Theory and practice
in Hellenistic ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Ogilvie, M. D., & Rose, K. M. (1996). Self-with-other representations
and a taxonomy of motives: Two approaches to studying persons.
Journal of Personality, 63 (3), 633-679.
Omodei, M. M., & Wearing, A. J. (1990). Need satisfaction
and involvement in personal projects: Toward an integrative model
of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59 (4), 762-769.
Pervin, L. A. & O.P. John (Eds.), (1999). Handbook of personality:
theory and research. 2nd edition. New York: Guilford.
Palys, T. S., & Little, B. R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction
and the organization of Palys, T. S., & Little, B. R. (1983).
Perceived life satisfaction and the organization of personal project
systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (6),
1221-1230.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Confession, inhibition, and disease.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 22, pp. 211-244). New York: Academic Press.
Pervin, L. A. (1996). The science of personality. New York:
Wiley.
Phillips, S. D., Little, B. R. & Goodine, L. A. (1997). Reconsidering
gender and public administration: Five steps beyond conventional
research. Canadian Journal of Public Administration, 40, 563-581.
Pychyl, T. A. & Little, B. R. (1998). Dimensional specificity
in the prediction of subjective well-being: Personal projects
in pursuit of the Ph.D. Social Indicators Research.
Ruehlman, L. S., & Wolchik, S. A. (1988). Personal goals and
interpersonal support and hindrance as factors in psychological
distress and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55 (2), 293-301.
Salmela-Aro, K. (1992). Struggling with self: The personal projects
of students seeking psychological counseling. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 33, 330-338.
Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J. (1996). Depressive symptoms and
personal project appraisals: A cross-lagged longitudinal study.
Personality and Individual Differences.
Sarbin, T. R. (1986). (Ed.). Narrative psychology: The stored
nature of human conduct. New York: Praeger.
Sarbin, T. R. (1996). The poetics of identity. Henry Murray Award
Address, American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, New
York.
Silverman, L. H. & Weinberger, J. (1985). Mommy and I are
one: Implications for psychotherapy. American Psychologist,
40, 1296-1308.
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological
Review, 101, 34-52.
Westen, D. (1990). Psychoanalytic approaches to personality. In
L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research
(pp.21-65). New York: Guilford.
Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles
of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wiggins, J. S. (1996). (Ed.). The five-factor model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1997). In defense of traits. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson,
& S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology.
(Pp.95-115). New York: Academic Press.
Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: Analysis and interpretation
of lives. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Winter, D. G.& Barenbaum, N. B. (1999). History of modern
personality theory and research. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John
(Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd edition
(pp. 3-27). New York: Guilford.
| Brian Little received his early education in British Columbia and his Ph.D. in personality psychology from the University of California at Berkeley. He was a Commonwealth Scholar and faculty member at Oxford University in England and Professor of Psychology at Carleton University. Dr. Little holds joint positions at Carleton and Harvard Universities. At Carleton he is Distinguished Research Professor. At Harvard he is Lecturer in the Department of Psychology and an Affiliated Scholar of the the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. He has won numerous awards for both research and teaching and was one of the early pioneers of the "new look" in personality psychology with his research on personal projects. It is rumored he still plans to play professional basketball for the Toronto Raptors. |
The author may be reached at blittle@fas.harvard.edu |
Originally posted: 11/29/01 Slight editorial corrections made on 9/6/02. E-mail address correction 10/5/04
