An Introduction to Psychology:
The Science of Mind and Behavior

What Is A Theory?

When we say that we want to understand something, we typically mean that we want to know its causes. For example, if we want to understand what happened at the scene of a murder, we want to know the causes of the murder: specifically, who the murderer is and why he or she did it. When there are no eyewitnesses to a murder, the evidence implicating a defendant must be “circumstantial” in nature. That is, the defendant’s guilt or innocence must be inferred from an analysis and evaluation of evidence that may indirectly link him to the crime. For example, from evidence found at the scene, it might be known that the perpetrator wore size-12 shoes and extra-large gloves. If the defendant can wear shoes and gloves of these sizes, we have linked him to the crime with circumstantial evidence. Additional circumstantial evidence may indicate that the perpetrator had hair, blood, and DNA profiles that are the same as those of the defendant. Lastly, if the defendant had a strong motive for committing the crime and his whereabouts at the time of the crime are unknown, the conclusion that he very likely committed the murder becomes difficult to resist. A circumstantial case, then, is based on associations (correlations[∂]) between the evidence collected by investigators, on the one hand, and what is known about the defendant, on the other hand. Any one link probably will do little to convince a jury of the defendant’s guilt. But the more evidence that exists indirectly linking him to the crime, the more confident the jury can feel in deciding that he is guilty.

The defense attorneys, on the other hand, develop competing explanations using the same evidence. They may argue that the evidence only appears to link the defendant to the crime — that there are better explanations than the one implicating the defendant. For example, although the defendant is able to fit into size-12 shoes and extra-large gloves, he usually wears a double extra-large glove and a size-13 shoe. Or they may question the validity[∂] of the evidence. For example, they may argue that the investigators did not show enough care in the collection of evidence and, hence, that it was contaminated or not thoroughly analyzed. The defense attorneys even may suggest that the evidence is fraudulent: that investigators or others “planted” evidence in order to implicate their client falsely.

The jury must evaluate each of the competing explanations presented by the prosecuting and defense attorneys and decide which explanation is best — which explanation seems most consistent with the evidence. Nevertheless, regardless of their decision, the fact that the evidence is circumstantial means that we will never know beyond any doubt whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime. All the jury can decide is whether the defendant was guilty or not beyond a reasonable doubt (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Continuum of Doubt Based on the Amount of Evidence
Supporting the Guilt of a Defendant in a Criminal Court Case.

As scientists trying to understand nature, we are in much the same position as the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and jury of a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence: there generally are no eyewitnesses to the origins and development of most of the phenomena in which we are interested. For example, no one was around during the creation of any of the species now extant[∂]. No one is “around” inside a person’s mind when a decision is being made. No one was around when the dinosaurs became extinct about 66 million years ago. No one was around to see whether or not the landmasses of the earth were in different positions 250 million years ago. No one is “around” inside a person’s unconscious mind to determine if there exists a repressed memory causing that person to exhibit abnormal behavior. The evidence used to support explanations of these phenomena generally is circumstantial in nature; and these explanations are based on linkages (sometimes very complex) between different pieces of evidence. Scientists who have developed alternative explanations of the same phenomenon use methods of argument similar to those used by the prosecuting and defense attorneys. The jurors evaluating the merits of the different arguments are scientists and informed lay people (you, for example). These scientific jurors must decide which explanation seems most likely to be true. Regardless of the ultimate consensus, we will never know beyond any doubt whether the chosen explanation is correct. Nevertheless, there can be so much supporting evidence of high quality that it becomes unreasonable for any informed person to seriously doubt that the explanation is true. At this point, the explanation would be considered to be a fact.

Many accepted explanations in science, in court cases, and in our everyday lives, are held tentatively: we are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the explanation is correct, but not beyond any doubt. As stated in Section 1-1, a theory is a causal explanation of a phenomenon, such as how a crime occurred, the causes of a mental disorder, why there are more murders in the United States than in other western countries, what causes the movements of the planets, or why someone is performing poorly in school. A theory is tentative in that, although at least some may consider it to be the best explanation, it typically is not considered to be the final word. This cautious attitude also is reflected in jury verdicts: the jury does not decide that a defendant is "innocent," only “not guilty.” That is, a "not guilty" verdict means that, although there was not enough evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, he or she still may have done so. And, when a jury decides that the evidence demonstrated the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the appeal process allows for the possibility that their decision was incorrect. Thus, the decisions of juries in court cases are made tentatively, just as are the decisions about scientific theories.

What is a Scientific Theory?

In everyday life, the word "theory" refers to an opinion or speculation about an event or events, words that imply that the theory is based on little or no evidence. For example, if you see an elderly woman driving very slowly down a highway, you may "theorize" that she doesn't see well and/or has slow reflexes. Satisfied with your "theory," you honk your horn several times in annoyance and frustration, and then pass her quickly so that her presumed inability to drive well cannot endanger you. But, because your theory is based on little evidence other than your observations that she was elderly and driving slowly, it is quite possible that your theory is wrong. For instance, the woman may have become sick and was close to fainting; or her car may have been having engine trouble; or she may have just received bad news about a friend and was very upset. As this example suggests, theories developed to explain everyday events tend to be simple, often are based on social stereotypes[∂] (and other kinds of rigid thinking), and rarely are tested to evaluate their accuracy.

Scientific theories, on the other hand, typically are complex, based on careful and logical reasoning, and tested by making additional observations designed to evaluate their accuracy. In its scientific meaning, a theory is an explanation supported by evidence — evidence that provides reasons for believing the explanation to potentially be a valid one. Specifically, a scientific theory is a tentative explanation of a phenomenon that consists of one or more general principles[∂], each of which describes an important relationship among concepts[∂]. For example, a comprehensive theory of how to receive a high grade in a course probably would include (but not be limited to) the following general principles:

• studying for short periods of time each day (or several times per day) leads to higher grades;
• studying a total of about 6-10 hours per week outside of class leads to higher grades;
• studying by making the material personally meaningful (thinking of examples, writing out definitions in one's own words, relating the material to other knowledge one has, etc.) leads to higher grades;
• identifying the material most likely to be included on tests leads to higher grades;
• performing more work than the minimum assigned by the instructor leads to higher grades;
• continuing to study after one has learned the material well (overlearning) leads to higher grades;
• having higher general intelligence leads to higher grades;
• participating in class discussion leads to higher grades;
• teaching the material to others leads to higher grades;
• being "test-wise" leads to higher grades.

Each of the bullet points indicates a general principle, which is a claim about the general relationship between two or more concepts. For example, the general principle that, having higher general intelligence leads to higher grades, refers to a causal relationship between the concepts of general intelligence and grades. In fact, scientific theories that specify important causal relationships are highly valued because they tend to inspire research that eventually may lead to beneficial applications in everyday life. For instance, the general principles listed above specify activities that, if performed, will cause students to receive higher grades, on average. This is very useful information for anyone engaged in academic pursuits.

General principles describe relationships among concepts. A concept is a mental category that refers to a group of objects, events, activities, or situations that are meaningfully related to each other, such as computers, marathon runners, historians, cost-benefit analysis, and music. Concepts are constructed primarily because of sociocultural[∂] influences, which indicate groups of objects, events, activities, and situations, important for us to distinguish from related groups. For example, western societies long ago constructed the concept of desk, and distinguished it from the related concept of table. On the other hand, these societies have never constructed the following concepts: tables that have one leg slightly shorter than the others; tables that have legs of equal lengths; and tables that have one leg slightly longer than the others. Apparently, there have been no sociocultural influences suggesting to us that such distinctions are important ones to make explicit.

Within the discipline of psychology (or any other academic discipline), there exists specific sociocultural influences that derive from and that affect society. For example, these influences have led psychologists to distinguish between different types of learning; to distinguish between different types of unconscious processes; to distinguish between different types of mental disorders; and so on. Specific psychological concepts tend to develop within specific "subcultures" of psychology — subcultures that, later in this section, will be referred to as "theoretical approaches." For example, within the approach known as behaviorism, the concepts of classical and operant conditioning were developed; and behaviorists assumed that the development of personality is determined primarily by learning. Within the approach known as psychoanalysis, the concepts of repression and dissociation were developed; and it was assumed that the development of personality is determined primarily by unconscious conflicts involving motives. As you will learn, each theoretical approach tends to a unique view of human nature that often conflicts with the views of other approaches.

Summary. A comprehensive scientific theory includes a description of the causal relationships inferred from empirical observations to be most important for explaining changes in a phenomenon. Although theorists realize that it is very likely that other causal factors not mentioned in their theories also affect the phenomenon, they decide in their theories to focus on a particular set of factors. This is because, when developing a theory, researchers typically do not attempt to explain a phenomenon in all of its mind-numbing complexity. Instead, they try to focus on what they consider to be the most important aspects of the phenomenon and its causes; and, in doing so, they typically are concerned with solving a particular problem related to the phenomenon.

You may understand this better if you think of a theory as if it were a map. No map of a geographic region attempts to describe that area down to its smallest detail. Instead, the map focuses on general aspects of the region — aspects selected with a particular purpose in mind (that is, a particular problem to solve). For example, a relief map focuses on describing variations in the elevation of a region, whereas a road map focuses on describing the primary and secondary roads in a region. You would not use a relief map to drive from Chicago, Illinois, to Bettendorf, Iowa, just as you would not use a road map to determine the height of particular hill outside of Bettendorf.

A theory is analogous to a map in that a theory also focuses on general and selected aspects of a phenomenon and its causes. Theorists begin with a particular problem that they would like to solve and then develop a theory that focuses only on those aspects of the problem that they believe will be important for its solution. The results of their observations will tell them whether or not their theory is good enough for the problem they are trying to solve.

Study Questions 1-2

1. Why were the evaluation of theories compared to the evaluation of the guilt of defendants in a criminal court case?
2. Why can theories, like jury verdicts, only be accepted tentatively?
3. How would you define in your own words the concept of a "scientific theory"?
4. How do scientific theories differ from the kinds of theories we develop to explain everyday events?
5. How would you define a "general principle" in your own words?
6. What is an example of a general principle that you have developed to explain some set of events that occurs in your everyday life?
7. How would you define a "concept" in your own words?
8. Why do we develop concepts?
9. Why do theorists generally not attempt to "explain a phenomenon in all of its mind-numbing complexity"?

What is a Good Scientific Theory?

In Section 1-1, we discussed attempts to explain why the sun appears to rise from below the eastern horizon, travel across the sky from east to west, and set below the western horizon. The theory considered by virtually everyone to be the best theory that a spherical earth rotates on its tilted axis once every 24 hours as it makes an elliptical orbit around the sun once every 365 days. What makes this theory such a good one? It is a good theory because it successfully accomplishes the three major functions of a scientific theory:

1. it allows us to meaningfully organize observations;
2. it allows us to accurately predict future observations;
3. it allows us to explain observations in terms of their causes.

The theory that a spherical earth rotates on its axis each 24 hours as it makes an elliptical orbit around the sun once every 365 days allows us to meaningfully organize observations such as the following:

• the regularity of the pattern of lightness and darkness over each 24-hour period;
• the moon, stars, and planets rise in the east and set in the west;
• the changes in the length of daylight hours over the four seasons;
• the changes in the position of the sun on the horizons over the four seasons;
• and so on.

This theory also allows us to predict what we will observe in the future. For instance, we can accurately predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, what time it will rise, what time it will set, and exactly where it will be located on the horizons at different latitudes in the norther and southern hemispheres. Finally, we are able to organize and predict these observations because we know that the earth's rotation and its revolution around the sun are the causes of these observations.

In order for a theory to fulfill these three functions, it must be supported by a large amount of empirical evidence — evidence that rules out other competing theories. This requires that the theory be exhaustively tested by:

• making predictions about what should be observed if the theory is true;
• making the relevant observations to determine if these predictions are accurate.

For example, if we develop a theory that test grades are caused by the number of hours spent studying — specifically, more hours spent studying leads to higher grades, on average — we might make the following prediction: if a sample of 60 psychology students are divided into three groups, with Group 1 studying for 20 hours over a two-week period for the first test, Group 2 studying for 10 hours, and Group 3 studying for zero hours, we predict that Group 1 will receive the highest average score on the test, Group 2 will receive the next highest score, and Group 3 will receive the lowest score. In order to test this prediction, we must make the relevant observations (that is, we collect test scores and calculate the average test score for each group) and evaluate the results. If the results come out as predicted, the theory is supported. If Group 2 gets the highest score, Group 1 gets the next highest score, and Group 3 gets the lowest score, we may need to modify the theory. If Group 3 gets the highest score, Group 2 gets the next highest score, and Group 1 gets the lowest score, we may need to discard the theory and develop a new one, such as, fewer hours spent studying leads to higher grades, on average. This theory would be consistent with claims made by some students that, "the more I study, the worse I do on tests,"

Scientific theories, therefore, are subjected to continual testing until they either are confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt, are modified to make them more accurate based on repeated testings, or are rejected because most tests fail to support them.

Study Questions

10. What are the three major functions of a scientific theory?
11. How do we test whether or not a theory is likely to be true?
12. What are the three possible outcomes from repeated testings of a theory?

What is a Theoretical Approach?

Researchers' assumptions[∂] about how the world works are very important influences on the theories they develop, on the predictions they derive from these theories to test, and on the types of research studies they design to test the predictions. If their initial assumptions are such that they inevitably lead to predictions that are not confirmed by empirical observations, then these assumptions are likely to be inaccurate. For instance, let's suppose that we assume that the relative positions of the moon, stars, and planets at birth and throughout life affect human behaviors, cognitions, and emotions; and that, fromthese assumptions, we develop specific theories about the causes of individual differences in personality development. If we use an astrological approach to develop theories about personality development, it will not matter whether we follow rigorous scientific standards and procedures in our research studies: our initial assumptions make the validity[∂] of our theories suspect from the start. This is because there exists no good evidence to support the claim that the relative positions of the moon, stars, and planets affect human behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (see Astrology & Science).

A theoretical approach is a set of assumptions and concepts used to construct theories. In other words, a theoretical approach is the general viewpoint or perspective one takes when developing, organizing, and testing the general principles that make up a theory. For example, behaviorists (see Section 3-1) assume that personality is learned from past experiences and that personality can be changed by providing people with new learning experiences. Behaviorists use concepts such as classical conditioning, operant conditioning, acquisition, and extinction in their theories. Freudian psychoanalysts, on the other hand (see Section 6-1), assume that adult personality is strongly determined by experiences from early childhood and that it is very difficult to change personality after that time. Psychoanalysts use concepts such as the unconscious, ego, penis envy, and repression. These two theoretical approaches have extremely different perspectives on what are the fundamental aspects of human nature.

Although it is true that some psychotherapists use astrology in their practice (see, for example, Astrology & Psychotherapy), astrology is not a scientific approach to understanding personality development because most astrologers exhibit neither an empirical nor a skeptical attitude in their work:

• they readily accept implausible astrological claims without question (they lack a skeptical attitude) ;
• they discount the overwhelming empirical evidence that exists disconfirming their claims (again, they lack a skeptical attitude);
• they do not test their claims by deriving predictions and performing observations that are able to rule out alternative explanations (they lack an empirical attitude).

In order to be scientific, a theoretical approach must lead to the development of theories supported by adequate evidence — evidence that consists of direct observations designed to test predictions derived from the theories.

Over the past 100 years, many different approaches to the study of personality have been developed. Each of them represents a particular way of looking at human nature. That is, each tries to answer specific questions about what it is to be human. Some representative questions are:

• Do internal and external forces determine our behavior or do we shape our own behavior through the use of free will?
• Is human personality influenced primarily by mental processes at the unconscious or the conscious level?
• Is human personality caused primarily by inherited factors or learned factors?
• If experiences are important for personality development, are those from childhood more important than later ones?
• Does personality develop gradually over the lifespan or in discrete stages?

The theoretical approach adopted by each personality researcher reflects his or her preferences and decisions about the most important causal factors for explaining personality development, both normal and abnormal. For example, most researchers studying schizophrenia have adopted a biological approach rather than a learning approach because past research has shown that the development of schizophrenia is better explained by the effects of abnormal biological factors (such as disturbances in brain activity) than it is by the effects of abnormal learning experiences. On the other hand, biological factors in combination with learning seem to be best for explaining the development of phobias. As you will see, scientific psychologists use as many different theoretical approaches as is required to fully explain the development of personality characteristics. They do this because they understand that human cognitions, emotions, and behavior are caused by many factors that interact with one another — a notion referred to as multifactorial causation. Because of multifactorial causation, different theoretical approaches often complement[∂] one another: they focus on different sets of causes that, when considered together, form a relatively complete picture of how personality characteristics developed in particular ways.

Study Questions

13. How would you define "theoretical approach" in your own words?
14. What is the role of assumptions in theoretical approaches?
15. How are theories and theoretical approaches similar to one another?
16. How do theories and theoretical approaches differ from one another?
17. What makes a theoretical approach scientific?
18. What does it mean to say that different theoretical approaches have different views of human nature?
19. Can a researcher use more than one theoretical approach when developing and testing his or her theories? Why or why not?
20. How would you define the concept of multifactorial causation in your own words?

What is Personality?

Let’s now examine the rest of the definition I presented above. The word integrated refers to the idea that the components of personality are organized into a whole—that they “stick together” and interact in a way that is typical for that person. When we say that someone is “acting out of character” or is “acting strangely,” we are suggesting that this person’s particular actions do not seem to be well integrated with the rest of his/her personality. The extreme of this might be the mental disorder known as dissociative identity disorder, abbreviated as DID (and formerly known as multiple personality disorder), in which an individual’s actions seem to be caused by several separate fragments of personality. Let’s look at an example of DID in order to illustrate what is meant by the word “integrated.” During the late-nineteenth century, Weir Mitchell reported the case of Mary Reynolds—a person whom, today, we probably would diagnose with DID. In 1811, she

was found one morning, long after her habitual time for rising, in a profound sleep from which it was impossible to arouse her. After eighteen or twenty hours of sleeping, she awakened, but in a state of unnatural consciousness. Memory had fled. To all intents and purposes she was as a being for the first time ushered into the world. (quoted in James, 1890/1950, p. 381)

She seemed to know very little about her former life or about the world around her. For example, she appeared not to recognize her family or friends; and she apparently could not speak, read, or write. It was as if she had been born for a second time, with only the knowledge that an infant would have. After being taught to communicate, she claimed not to realize that she had been alive before the day on which she had awakened from her long sleep. When she again had learned all the knowledge that someone of her age should have, it became obvious that her personality had undergone striking changes:

Instead of being melancholy [depressed] she was now cheerful to extremity. Instead of being reserved she was buoyant and social. Formerly taciturn [talking very little] and retiring, she was now merry and jocose [joking and playful]. Her disposition was totally and absolutely changed. While she was, in this second state, extravagantly fond of company, she was much more enamoured of nature’s works, as exhibited in the forests, hills, vales, and water-courses.... She knew no fear, and as bears and panthers were numerous in the woods, and rattlesnakes and copperheads abounded everywhere, her friends told her of the danger to which she exposed herself, but it produced no other effect than to draw forth a contemptuous laugh.... (p. 382)

This new personality continued for some time until she fell into another long sleep and awoke again with her first personality. She alternated between these two personalities for about fifteen years until the final twenty-five years of her life, during which time she seemed to develop a third personality—one that shared many similarities with the second personality, but with some important differences:

The most of the twenty-five years which followed she was as different from her melancholy, morbid self as from the hilarious condition of the early years of her second state. Some of her family spoke of it as her third state. She is described as becoming rational, industrious, and very cheerful, yet reasonably serious; possessed of a well-balanced temperament, and not having the slightest indication of an injured or disturbed mind. (p. 383)

In this unusual case study, it seems as if there were three personalities (with the third being an offshoot of the second) that were not integrated with one another. As I will discuss in Chapter 7, many modern cases of DID may be due to suggestions made by therapists and the media. That theory, however, seems to have some difficulties explaining cases such as that of Mary Reynolds. It may be that Mary’s unusual behaviors and mental events were caused by other problems, such as organic (brain-related) ones. Regardless of the particular cause or causes of her problems, it seems likely that, for some people, a breakdown in the normal integration of personality can sometimes occur.

Some of you will answer this question by saying that, “personality is the way that people act.” By the word “act,” you must mean something like "how people respond behaviorally to environmental events.” All animals, however, respond to the environment. Would you say that all animals have personalities? You might claim that your dog or your cat has one. But would a hamster have a personality? Those who have raised hamsters probably would answer, "yes." Then, how about a fly, or an earthworm? Individuals from each of these species also respond to environmental events, but not many people would insist that either a fly or an earthworm has a personality (although perhaps members of these two species would disagree).

Thus, the ability to take action is only part of what is meant by personality. What needs to be added to the definition? It seems that, when we are able to predict how an individual is going to respond to a particular event or situation, and when that way of responding is unique to that individual, we conclude that the individual (whether a human or nonhuman animal) has a personality. Each dog that has ever allowed me to live with it has had its own unique temperament, favorite treats, disliked activities, reactions to bad weather, sleep habits, relations with people (and other animals), and so on — enduring characteristics that, when taken as a whole, distinguished that dog from all others I've known. In other words, an individual's personality is something that not only is idiosyncratic[∂], but also is stable enough over time to allow others to predict (more or less accurately) how that individual will respond to various events or situations.

Let's look at an example in order to clarify this discussion. If I sneak up behind you and crash a pair of cymbals behind your head, I can predict accurately that you will exhibit a startle response[∂]. Although this response would be a stable one (that is, you would repeat it each time I snuck up behind you and crashed a pair of cymbals), it would say nothing about your personality: anyone able to hear would respond in the same way. On the other hand, if I sneak up behind you and softly call your name, and you fall to the ground, curl up into a ball, and lay there quivering and crying, your response would be unique. Furthermore, if you typically respond with exaggerated fear to such benign[∂] events, I probably would infer that you have a “jumpy” or “nervous” personality. In general, we conclude that an individual has a personality when he, she, or it expresses stable and unique reactions to environmental events. Because the reactions that make up an individual's personality are idiosyncratic to but also typical for that individual, we can predict with varying degrees of accuracy how he, she, or it will respond to diverse events and how these responses will differ from those of other individuals.

Because personality psychologists use different theoretical approaches when investigating human personality development, it is impossible to provide a definition that would be acceptable to all. Nevertheless, let's use this discussion to develop a definition that may at least "point at" a general meaning of the concept of personality:

Personality is an integrated pattern of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors — a pattern with three major characteristics:

1. The pattern distinguishes each individual from others (it exhibits uniqueness).
2. The pattern endures over long periods of time (it exhibits stability).
3. The pattern is similar across many different situations (it exhibits generality or pervasiveness[∂]).

Let's examine this definition by applying it to the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of a man convicted during the 1980s for a number of murders (and suspected by police of committing many more), Henry Lee Lucas:

I hated all of my life. I hated everybody. ... I was treated like what I would call the dog of the family. I was beaten; I was made to do things that no human bein' would want to do.... I started to steal, do anything else I could do to get away from home ... but I couldn't get away from it. I even went to Tecumseh, Michigan, got married, and I started livin' up there, and my mother came up there, and we got into an argument in a beer tavern ... that’s when I killed her. (Norris, 1989, pp. 109-110)

In this short statement, you get a very good idea of the central features of this man’s personality. First, Lucas obviously had antisocial[∂] cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that were unique: few people hate others so deeply and feel such intense rage that they would kill their own mothers after an argument. Lucas, on the other hand, expressed a pervasive hatred that was quite extreme: “I was bitter at the world.... I hated everything. There wasn't nothin' I liked” (p. 115). In fact, he reported that he eventually decided to kill as many people as possible, including his young girlfriend, whom he had known since she was nine years old (he had been 40) and whom he had taken care of as a surrogate[∂] father.

Second, Lucas’ antisocial cognitions, emotions, and behaviors were stable: they endured over long periods of time (in fact, over much of his life). He stated that, during his early teenaged years, he would slash the throats of animals before having sex with them; or he would simply skin them alive for pleasure. He reported that he committed his first murder at the age of fifteen when he killed a 17-year-old girl whom he had attempted to rape. He also claimed to have killed hundreds of people before being convicted and placed on death row in Texas at the age of 46. (Although it is very likely that he exaggerated to a large degree the number of people that he murdered, many still believe that he was a prolific[∂] serial killer.)

Third, his antisocial cognitions, emotions, and behaviors were expressed generally across many situations (they were pervasive). For example, his murderous rage might be expressed towards strangers, acquaintances, or people with whom he was intimate, such as family members. Nevertheless, he also could appear normal and even charming — to such an extent, in fact, that people would hire him for odd jobs around their homes or workplaces. At such times, it was almost as if he were two people: in different situations, Lucas had the ability to act in very different ways, even if his cognitions and emotions remained similar.

The case of Henry Lee Lucas shows us that the generality of the behaviors that one expresses may not be as important for defining personality as are their uniqueness and stability. In fact, social psychologists (see Section 5-1) have argued that our cognitions, emotions, and behaviors are strongly dependent upon the social situation in which we find ourselves, sometimes to such a degree that the influence of personality is overwhelmed. To the extent that social situations determine our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings, we should them to vary across situations. Some personality and social psychologists have even suggested that each of us has a group of overlapping personalities, with somewhat different patterns of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors emerging in different situations. For example, perhaps you've noticed that, with your family, you express one personality pattern, which is distinct to some extent from the personality pattern that emerges when you are with your friends. Thus, situational factors (external influences that result in tendencies to act, think, or feel in particular ways) also are important causes of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors.

Let’s now continue to examine the definition of personality presented above: Personality is an integrated pattern of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. The word integrated refers to the idea that the components of personality are organized into a whole — that they “stick together” and interact in a way that is typical for that person. The personality of Henry Lee Lucas forms an integrated pattern that we would classify as antisocial personality disorder or, to be more precise, psychopathy. A psychopath is a person whose integrated pattern of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors include the following:

• inability to feel remorse
• extreme self-centeredness
• inability to feel empathy[∂]
• inability to experience emotions deeply (especially anxiety)
• manipulativeness
• deceitfulness
• impulsiveness
• inability to take responsibility
• thrill-seeking behavior

Because of these personality characteristics, psychopaths often leave a trail of devastated lives in their wake (Hare, 1993).

When we say that a person is “acting out of character," we are saying that his or her thoughts, emotions, and/or behaviors are not what we would expect (predict) based on our knowledge of the person — on what we know about the integrated pattern that is typical of that person. For example, if a man who typically is easy-going and even-tempered suddenly gets angry for no apparent reason, we would conclude that he is acting "out-of-character." In such instances, we may realize that our thoughts, feelings, or actions are not characteristic of our personality:

I feel disorganized, muddled; I've lost all direction; my personal life has disintegrated. ... I haven't been acting like myself; it doesn't seem like me; I'm a different person altogether from what I used to be in the past.... I don't understand myself; I haven't known what was happening to me.... I have withdrawn from everything, and feel all right only when I'm all alone and no one can expect me to do things.... I don't know anything anymore. (Rogers, 1947)

Although the woman describing herself in this passage seems to have experienced a severe degree of personality disintegration, the extreme may be represented best by the mental disorder known as dissociative identity disorder, abbreviated as DID (and formerly known as multiple personality disorder). In the case of DID, an individual’s actions appear (at least on the surface) to be caused by a number of distinct and independent fragments of personality. For example, in 1888, S. Weir Mitchell described the case of Mary Reynolds (which had first been reported in 1816). Mitchell stated that Reynolds:

was found one morning, long after her habitual time for rising, in a profound sleep from which it was impossible to arouse her. After eighteen or twenty hours of sleeping, she awakened, but in a state of unnatural consciousness. Memory had fled. To all intents and purposes she was as a being for the first time ushered into the world. (quoted in James, 1890/1950, p. 381)

Reynolds seemed to know very little about her former life or about the world around her. For example, she appeared not to recognize her family or friends; and she apparently could not speak, read, or write. It was as if she had been born for a second time, with only the knowledge that an infant would have.

After being taught to communicate, she claimed not to realize that she had been alive before the day on which she had awakened from her long sleep. When she again had learned all the knowledge that someone her age should know, it became obvious that her personality had undergone striking changes:

Instead of being melancholy [depressed] she was now cheerful to extremity. Instead of being reserved she was buoyant and social. Formerly taciturn [untalkative] and retiring, she was now merry and jocose [joking and playful]. Her disposition was totally and absolutely changed. While she was, in this second state, extravagantly fond of company, she was much more enamoured of nature’s works, as exhibited in the forests, hills, vales, and water-courses.... She knew no fear, and as bears and panthers were numerous in the woods, and rattlesnakes and copperheads abounded everywhere, her friends told her of the danger to which she exposed herself, but it produced no other effect than to draw forth a contemptuous laugh. (James, 1890/1950, p. 382)

This new personality continued for some time until she fell into another long sleep and awoke again with her first personality. She alternated between these two personalities for about fifteen years until the final twenty-five years of her life, during which time she seemed to develop a third personality — one that shared many similarities with the second, but with some important differences:

The most of the twenty-five years which followed she was as different from her melancholy, morbid self as from the hilarious condition of the early years of her second state. Some of her family spoke of it as her third state. She is described as becoming rational, industrious, and very cheerful, yet reasonably serious; possessed of a well-balanced temperament, and not having the slightest indication of an injured or disturbed mind. (p. 383)

In this unusual case study, it seems as if there were three unintegrated and independently acting personalities.

Study Questions

21. Which characteristics distinguish an animal with a personality from one without a personality?
22. What are the three major characteristics listed in the definition of personality presented above?
23. How would you define each of these characteristics in your own words?
24. Choose a particular trait important in your own personality (such as extraversion, conscientiousness, or being likable). With respect to this trait, what examples from your everyday life illustrate each of the major characteristics of personality?
25. What is integrated in personality?
26. How does the example of psychopathy demonstrate this integration?
27. Are all of our cognitions, emotions, and behaviors part of this integrated pattern? Why or why not?
28. In what way does DID illustrate a breakdown of the integration of personality?

What Causes Personality?

Personality psychologists assert that our personalities are caused by underlying biological or psychological determinants[∂] that we will refer to as personal factors: internal tendencies to act, think, or feel in particular ways. The personal factors that underlie personality may be divided into three broad categories: motives, traits, and schemas.

A motive is an internal factor that compels (pushes or pulls) a person to accomplish a goal. A drive such as hunger creates an internal physical tension that “pushes” us to seek out stimuli that will reduce the tension. A wish for something that we want in the future, such as a desire to get a bachelor’s degree in psychology, “pulls” us to seek out situations (for example, to take classes) that will get us closer and closer to that result. Thus, both biological drives and cognitive goals are motives, as is any other internal factor that compels us to work towards a particular end. We must remember, however, an important point when speaking of motives as parts of personality — only those motives that tend to (a) distinguish us from others, (b) remain relatively stable over time, and (c) affect our cognitions, emotions, and behavior across situations, are aspects of personality. For example, a strong motive to become famous, if it is stable and pervasive, is also unique enough to be a part of one's personality. On the other hand, the motive of thirst that occurs after being outside on a hot day will cause us to get something to drink; but this motive is experienced by everyone in such a situation and will disappear just as soon as we get something to drink. Thus, it is not a motive that would be included as a cause of personality. is a because you feel thirsty after roller blading on a hot day is not a part of your personality.

A trait is an internal factor (for example, a physiological process in the brain) that has a pervasive and automatic influence on cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. A trait is something that causes us to respond automatically (without thought) to environmental events. In fact, one may think of a trait as something like a “mental reflex” that causes us to respond automatically to many situations with one or more of a range of related behaviors, cognitions, and emotions (unlike the more specific responses to specific events that make up actual reflexes; see Section 2). For example, a man who is relaxed and difficult to "rattle" in most situations would be said to be a calm person — he would exhibit the trait of calmness. On the other hand, we would not say that he had this trait if he acted calmly only at religious services. Only personal factors that directly and automatically cause cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that exhibit uniqueness, stability, and generality would be called "traits."

A schema is a set of acquired beliefs and knowledge about a category of objects, events, people, or situations. For example, if you were asked to describe the typical kindergarten teacher, you probably would mention characteristics such as "woman, caring, young, good with children, patient, gentle, kind." You have acquired this schema from many sources, such as your own personal experiences, television, and others. If you met a woman and was told that she was a kindergarten teacher, you immediately would experience or express particular cognitions ("I bet that she's kind"), emotions (probably a positive emotion), and behaviors (you might refrain from telling her a "dirty" joke). Social stereotypes, such as this set of beliefs about kindergarten teachers, are one type of schema very important for differences in personality.

Another important type of schema important for differences in personality is the self-schema — a set of beliefs and knowledge about one's self, such as “I am intelligent” or “I am funny.” Whenever you are in a situation in which intelligence is required (such as when taking a test), your self-schema about your level of intelligence is activated, thereby producing cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that reflect your beliefs and knowledge about how intelligent you are. For example, if you believe that you are not intelligent and you are taking a very difficult test, you most likely will say things to yourself such as, "I'm stupid," will feel bad about yourself, and perhaps will drop out of the course right after finishing the test. Because self-schemas are activated in every situation we are in, and because they begin to develop very early in life so that they become deeply ingrained and resistant to change, they have extremely strong and stable effects on our personalities.

Schemas differ from traits in many ways. One important difference is that schemas, but not traits, can be hidden from others. For example, if I had a negative schema concerning people who are Druids (Druidism was an ancient religion practiced millennia ago in present-day Great Britain and France), then every time I met a Druid, I would experience negative thoughts and feelings towards that person. Nevertheless, I could keep my thoughts and emotions hidden from Druids and even act in a friendly manner, which would come in handy if I had to deal often with Druids. Schemas also differ from traits in that they do not necessarily have a general influence on our behaviors. That is, a schema may give rise to particular cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in only a limited range of situations (for example, when we meet a kindergarten teacher or interact with a salesperson). Schemas, therefore, do not necessarily have a pervasive influence on our cognitions, emotions, or behaviors (although particular schemas — such as self-schemas — typically do influence us across many situations).

Motives are distinguished from schemas because, whereas motives compel us to achieve certain goals, schemas influence how we will attempt to achieve those goals. For example, if your self-schema contains the belief that you have a good sense of humor, you might be likely to tell jokes at a party if you also have a strong motive to be liked by others. On the other hand, if your self-schema contains the belief that, “I am intelligent,” you might try to satisfy the motive to be liked by others by talking about a book you are reading. Motives are similar to schemas in that they, too, can be hidden from others. For example, if you experience the motive of strong sexual desires for a person whom you have just met, it often makes sense to keep these desires hidden (at least until you get to know him or her better).

Motives also differ from traits. Traits are automatic ways of responding (behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally) to situations — they are unique, stable, and general behavioral tendencies. When we are trying to satisfy a motive, such as the motive to be liked by others, our traits will be expressed, generally without our awareness, which may make it easier or harder to satisfy the motive. For example, if you are at a party and have a strong motive to be liked by others, but you also are high on the trait of shyness, you will find it very difficult to satisfy your motive (to achieve the goal of being liked). If, on the other hand, you are high in the trait of extraversion or sociability, your motive is more likely to be satisfied. Motives differ from traits in another way: we can hide our motives from others, but we cannot hide our traits (although we may be able to suppress them temporarily). For example, you might act in a helpful manner towards another person, not because you have the trait of kindness, but because you want that person to do something for you (for example, to get the person to help you satisfy a strong sexual motive). If you truly were high on the trait of kindness, you would tend to express this trait almost regardless of whatever motives were dominant in a situation.

How does personality emerge from these three personal factors? It is the interactions between traits, schemas, and motives, on the one hand, and situational factors, on the other hand, that give rise to the integrated pattern of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that constitute our personalities. For example, if you are high on the trait of aggressiveness, it probably will be expressed differently when you are participating in a football game than when you are participating in a conversation with your grandmother. In the first situation, you are more likely to express physical aggression, whereas in the second situation you are more likely to express verbal aggression. Personality, then, is caused by the interaction of personal factors and situational factors (see Figure 2) — an interaction that produces a unique, stable, and (in many cases) pervasive pattern of cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that are integrated in such a manner that responses to particular events and situations can be predicted with varying degrees of accuracy.

Figure 2. The Interaction of Personal and Situational
Factors in the Production of Personality

It is important to keep in mind that personality is not the set of personal factors (traits, motives, and schemas), or the interaction between personal and situational factors: personality is the result of this interaction between personal and situational factors.

Study Questions 1-2

29. How would you define the concept of "personal factors" in your own words?
30. What are some examples of personal factors in your own life?
31. What are the three main personal factors listed above that cause personality?
32. How would you define in your own words each of these personal factors?
33. What some examples of each of these personal factors in your own life?
34. How are motives similar to and different from traits?
35. How are motives similar to and different from schemas?
36. How are traits similar to and different from schemas?
37. What causes personality?