Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian perspective.

Abstract

Since the inception of the psychology of personality, psychologists have been trying to account for regularities in behavior. The preferred construct has been the personality trait as an inner disposition that directs conduct and which is common to all people. Although found lacking during the 1970s, the search for sources of direction from within has been resurrected in the form of the five-factor theory. According to this approach there are five underling structural factors common to all people and independent of cultural influences-an asocial, ahistorical, biologically based conception. Examination of the theory finds it to be dealing with traits of temperament rather than personality and judges it insufficient on that basis. Rather than conceiving of personality as fixed and universal, it is argued that personality is an adaptation worked out in the cultural and historical context of the individual life. It is further contended that a reconsideration of the personality theory of Gordon Allport will provide a better basis for understanding personality and personality traits specifically.

Fundamental Questions in Personality

“…Recent works that criticise the position of Five‐Factor Model theorists on the causal nature of traits as tautological (Boag, ; Piekkola, ) side with Cramer et al, and we agree (and have long argued) with the sentiment that latent factors should not be reified (Revelle, 1983). However, not all theorists advocating for a causal model of traits reify the latent factors emerging from factor analysis of personality items.…”

Personality Dynamics, Motivation, and the Logic of Explanation

“…There are already promising directions in this respect (e.g., Corr & Krupić, 2017; Read, Smith, Droutman, & Miller, 2017). It might also be added here, following Mischel (2004) and Scott and Cervone (2016), that temperament and biological-process trait accounts may also relevant here for any comprehensive account of persons (e.g., Eysenck, 1991)—so long as these are not simply referring to reified concepts (see Piekkola, 2011). Bringing these aspects of personality together promises to provide a better perspective on the “whole person,” as well as greater amalgamation of personality perspectives at a time when psychological science is looking for greater integration.…”

Measures of Values and Moral Personality

“…As one of the clearest instantiations of Allport's 'idiographic' approach to personality (cf. Piekkola, 2011), the measure reveals (only) the relative emphases placed on each value; it does not permit between-person comparisons. It is possible for the highest value of an apathetic person to be less intense and effective than the lowest value of a person in whom all values are prominent and dynamic (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1960).…”