EVIDENCE FOR BILOGICAL BASES OF PERSONALITY

ADRIAN OPRE Personality is extremly complex . There will never be one single approach in terms of re !ctionist explanation" that will cover the whole concept. Therefore psychological phenomena have allways been approache from several perspectives" eg. the behavioral perspectives" the cognitive perspective" the biological perspective" an the interactional perspective. Each of these approaches to in ivi !ality offers a somewhat ifferent explanation of why in ivi !als act as they o" an in oing so" each approach ma#es a contrib!tion to an integrate conception of the total person. This m!ltiple approach to the phenomena of in ivi !ality an personality has its a vantage. There is an proverb$ % let &''' flowers flower" beca!se this will always bring !p something goo an !sef!l in the en (. An still act!al ma)or iss!e in the omain is the genes vers!s!s the enviroment ebate * Eaves an +o!ng" &,-&. Plomin" Defries an /c0learn" &,,'1. Are we biological or a social creat!re2 Or are we both2 This ebate is a conse3!ence of a m!ch ol er ebate" a very infl!ential controversy #nown as the 4nat!re5n!rt!re ebate6. This longstan ing isc!sssion is abo!t the relative importance of biologiical an social factors in the evelopment of in ivi !al ifferences. 7or a long time biological an social explanations seeme to be m!t!ally excl!sive" an always one approach seeme to be overri ing the other" epen ent on the 8eitgeist. 9ere we will try an psychobiological approach to personality. 7or cent!ries h!mans trie to !n erstan the relation between bo y an min " between constit!tion an personality. :ree# physicians in the fifth cent!ry ;.0. propose biochemical bases *h!mors1 for normal an isor ere personalities. In the first part of the <'th cent!ry" the psycho ynamic perspective emerge from the wor# of 7re! an his isciples. 7re! " the ne!rologist an %biologist of the min ( *=!lloway"&,>,1 regar e his psychological theories as an expe ient strategy pen ing the evelopment of a mat!re ne!roscince *7re! "&,<'?&,@@1. In the secon half of the cent!ry" the iscovery of the effective r!gs for treatments of anxiety" moo " an schi8ophrenic isor ers res!lte in a new science$ psychopharmacology. Reasearch on the ne!rochemical basis of brain f!nctions an then elineation of ne!rochemical patways me iate by specific ne!rotransmitters enlarge o!r !n erstan ing of the chemistry of brain f!nction an its relation to cognition" emotion" an behavior. The last eca e of the cent!ry has been calle the %Deca e of ;rain(. 9ave the insights gaine we will get others explanations abo!t the relation beetween brain f!nctioning an personality. To ay everybo y are agree that the :ree# physicians ha the right i eea b!t the wrong h!mors. :iven the a vances in the brain sciences in the last 3!arter of the cent!ry" 7re! wo!l probably have agree that it is time to have another loo# at the psychobiology of personality * A!c#erman" &,,&1. Traits mo els Tra itionally the essence ogf the trait approach has been the ass!mtion that behavio!r is primarily etermine by stable generali8e traits B broa ispostions to behave in partic!lar ways. :!i e by this ass!mption" many investigators have searche vigorosly for these traits. Perhaps the chief goal of trait psychology has to fin the person6s position on one or more trait imensions * for eaxmple" inteligence" introversion" anxiety etc1 by comparing the in ivi !al with pthers !n er similar !niform con itions. /ost of the psychologists consi er that these imensions ten to be stable across the sit!ations an over time" theier foc!s in the st! y of in ivi !ality becomes the search to i entify the person6s basic traits. The last eca es witnesse a narrowing of the range of what are consi ere the basic imnesions of personality from &C or so to five or three. In fact the n!mber of factors is not so important beca!se broa factors incorporate narrower factors in a hierarchal or er

* eysenc#" &,C>. 0osta an /c0rae"&,-@. A!c#erman et al." &,--1" an a factoring of narrower factors !s!ally reconstit!es the broa er factors so that how many factors epen s on the level of analysis. Disagreements on what is a basic factor ofetn stem from ifferences in initial selection of variables. The importance of a factor in the analysis epen s !pon how many mar#ers were chosen to represent the factor. If there is only one mar#er for a factor it is !nli#ely to emerge as an important one in the analysis. A itionally" there is s!bstantial agreement on two of these basic traits * extraversion" or socaibility" an ne!roticism or anxiety1 in nearly all taxonomic systems. Eysenc# *&,C>"&,,&1 has propose three basic personality factors$ extraversion *E1" ne!rotiscism *N1" an Psychoticism *P1. Tellegen6s *D,-@1 three5factor mo el incl! es positive afectivity *PA1" negative affectivity *NA1" an constraint as the basi factors. Tellegen has fon consistent corelation between his %big three( an Eysenc#6s three *E corrlates with PA" N with NA" an P with 01. The %;ig five( mo el merge from rating scales base on lexical analyses an was translate into a 3!estionaire form by 0osta an /c0rae *&,,<1. Thre big faive factors are extarversion" ne!roticism" conscientio!sness" agreeableness" an openness to experience *or intelect1. Esing factor analyses of personality scales *A!c#erman" F!hlman" Thorn3!ist" G Fiers"&,,&1 an 3!estionaires items *8!c#erman" F!hlman" Hoireman" Teta" G Fraft"&,,I( A!c#erman"&,,J1 have propose an %alternative 7ive($ sociability" ne!roticism5anxiety"imp!lsive sensation see#ing" aggresion ostility" an activity. A!c#erman *&,,I1 examin e the relation between Eysenc#6s three" 0osta an /c0rae6s ;ig 7ive an Alternative 7ive. The res!lts of corelations an factors analyses showe strong e3!ivalence between extarversion *socaiability1 an ne!roticism meas!res in all systems an a strong negative relationship between agreeableness an aggresion5hostility in the two five factor mo els. Kess strong relationships were fo!n between P an Imp!lsive sensation see#ing" an both of these were negatively relate to conscintio!sness. 0loninger *&,->1 evelope a biologically base three5factor system for personality incl! ing traits of novelty see#ing" harm avoi ance" an rewar epen ence. Kater he expan e his system to seven factors" a ing traits of cooperativeness" persistence" self5 etermination" an spirit!ality to the first three. Lor#ing together" A!c#erman an 0loninger" have examine the realationships between Eysenc#6s three" Alternative five an =even factor6s mo el. The res!lts reveal interesting relations. 9arm avoi ance was negatively relate to extraversion *sociability1 an positively relate to ne!roticism meas!res in the other two systems. Novelty see#ing was primarily relate to imp!lsive sensation see#ing in the Alternative 7ive an e3!ally to P an E In Eysenc#6s system. 0ooperativeness was negativell8 relate to aggression5hostility an persistence was relate to activity in the Alternativre 7ive. =elf5 etermination showe a wea# negative relation to ne!roticism in the other two systems. Rewar epen ence an spirir!ality showe few or only wea# relationship with other meas!res. The folowing table s!mmari8es the relationships beetween personality variables in the five systems * ap! . A!c#erman" &,,@1. As we saw" enorms efforts have been ma e by personality psychologists to establish trait mo els an tie to specific biological processes * 0loninger" =vra#ic" G Pr8ybec#"&,,I$ A!c#erman"&,,&" &,,C Dep!e.&,,C" Dep!e an 0olins" &,,,. Eysenc#" &,,'$ :ray" &,,>. Pic#ering G :ray" &,,,. Tellegen" &,-@.1. Altho!gh similarities appear among almost all of these mo els" an clear relationship between theier basic imensions" they o not allways overlap in clear ways with one another. Therefore" rather than exploring a n!mber of s!ch mo els" here we will present )!st %The =even 7actor /o el( of h!man temperament an character *0loninger" &,,J1. ;efore starting the presentation of 0loninger mo el is necessary to mention that many in epen ent investigators" incl! ing 0loninger" have eval!ate the psychometric properties of 3!antitative tests for meas!ring personality an its isor ers in the general pop!altion as well as in clinical samples. This assessment pro !ce evi ence of the vali ity of two tests calle the Tri imensional Personality M!estionnaire *TPM1 * 0loninger" &,->1 an the more comprehensive Temperamnet an 0haracter Inventory *T0I1 * 0loninger" et.al.&,,I1 that was evelope after the initial wor# on the TPM. /ore

recently" extensive wor# has been carrie o!t by many investigators internationally to characteri8e the ne!roanatomy" ne!ropsychology" ne!rochemistry an ne!rogenetics of h!man personality !sing TPM an T0I. The =even57actor /o el of Personality Personality can be efine as the ynamic organi8ation of the psychobiological systems that mo !late a aptation to experience *0loninger" &,->1. A long tra ition in psychology isting!ishes two ma)or omains of personality5temperament an character. Accor ing to early psychologists" temperament referre to o!r congenital emotional pre isposition" whereas character was what people ma e of themselves intentionally *see Fant &>,-?&,>J1. To carry o!t psychobiological research" it !sef!l to operationali8e this istinction in5terms of in ivi !al ifferences in ne!roa aptive processes. Accor ingly" temperament can be efine as the a!tomatic associative responses to basic emotional stim!li that etermine habits an s#ills" whereas character refers to the self5aware concepts that infl!ence o!r vol!ntary intentions an attit! es *0loninger et al. &,,I1. Psychosocial researchers have !s!ally efine temperament as those components of personality that are heritable" evelopmentally stable" emotion base " or !ninfl!ence by socioc!lt!ral learning *:ol smith et al. &,->1. 7ort!nately" these fo!r alternative efinitions are highly convergent. recent wor# shows that all imensions of temperament" efine as in ivi !al ifferences in emotion5base habit patterns" are mo erately heritable" stable from chil hoo thro!gh a !lthoo " an str!ct!rally consistent in ifferent c!lt!res an ethnic gro!ps *0loninger &,,@1. Abo!t @'N of the variance in temperament among in ivi !als is heritable an stable from chil hoo thro!gh a !lthoo *see Table I5&1. In contrast" character is wea#ly heritable b!t mo erately infl!ence by socioc!lt!ral learing. It mat!res in a stepwise maner from infancy thro!gh late a !lthoo " an the timing an rate of transition between levels of mat!rity are nonlinear f!nctions of antece ent temperament config!rations an socioc!lt!ral e !cation *=vra#ic et al. &,,C1. Table 3-1. Difference in learning" brain systems" an etiology between temperament an character Temperament A!tomatic 9abits" s#ills Associative con itioning Kimbic system striat!m J'N5C'N ' J'N5C'N Character Intentional :oals" val!es 0oncept!al insight Neocortex hippocamp!s &'N5&@N I'N5I@N J'N5C'N

Learning variable 7orm of learning Kevel of awareness Type of activity Kearning principle ;rain systems Etiologic components :enetic heritability =hare sibling environment Ran om environment

Temperament and Character The istinction between temperament an character appears to correspon to the issociation of the ma)or brain systems for proce !ral vers!s propositional memory an learning" as epicte in 7ig!re I5& an oc!mente in st! ies s!mmari8e in later tables an text. In other wor s" temperament involves in ivi !al ifferences in habit learning *i.e." proce !ral learning1" whereas character involves ifferences in higher cognitive processing" s!ch as concepts abo!t self an relations to others. The istinction between these two ma)or ne!ral systems for a aptation to experience has ha a variety of labels" s!ch as percept vers!s concept" emotion vers!s volition" instinct vers!s will" an habit vers!s cognition. Accor ing to this psychobiological perspective" character evelopment can be operationali8e in terms of abstract symbolic processes that are most highly evelope in h!mans" s!ch as se&f5 irecte behavior" empathic social cooperation" an creative symbolic invention. The hipocampal formation an cerebral neocortex are essential for enco ing s!ch concept5base " symbolic representations of experience. In contrast" temperament or basic emotionality can be operationali8e in terms of associative habit learning that is percept!ally base an well evelope at an early age in nearly all vertebrates" even those witho!t ifferentiation of the cerebral neocortex *0loninger &,,Jb" &,,@1. Recent wor#" escribe later" shows that psychophysiological mar#ers of neocortical processing" s!ch as the PI'' evo#e potential to target stim!li" are correlate with in ivi !al ifferences in character b!t not temperament. This issociation !n erscores the ne!robiological importance of the istinction between temperament an character" which is neglecte by factor analytically erive mo els of personality. The fo!r imensions of h!man temperament correspon closely to those observe in other mammals" s!ch as ro ents an ogs *Lilsson an =!n gren" &,,>1. 0linical escriptors of the fo!r imensions of h!man temperament an the three imensions of character are s!mmari8e in Tables I5< an I5I" respectively. In partic!lar" the same m!lti imensional str!ct!re is observe in the general pop!lation *0loninger et al. &,,I1 an in samples of psychiatric patients *=vra#ic et al. &,,I1 or o!tpatients *;ayon et al. &,,C1. The relationship of this m!lti imensional mo el to the cl!sters of D=/5IO *American Psychiatric Association" &,,J1 personality isor ers is shown in Table I5J. All cl!sters of personality isor ers are characteri8e by low scores in T0I self irecte ness an cooperativeness. Deviations in temperament are associate with partic!lar D=/5IO cl!sters$ the anxio!s *01 cl!ster with high harm avoi ance" the imp!lsive *;1 cl!ster with high novelty see#ing" an the aloof *A1 cl!ster with low rewar epen ence. 7!rthermore" in ivi !al D=/5IO categories can be isting!ishe by a !ni3!e profile of T0I scores. 7or example" bor erline personality isor er is characteri8e by an explosive temperament proffie *i.e." high harm avoi ance" high novelty see#ing" an low rewar epen ence1 together with low character scores. =!ch m!lti imensional ecomposition allows a cli5 nician to ma#e m!t!ally excl!sive classifications witho!t the !s!al problem of m!ltiple overlapping iagnoses !sing ambig!o!s D=/5IO chec#lists.

Table 3-2.

Temperament imensions De#%r"p $r# $& e' reme (ar"an # )"*+ L$, Pessimistic Optimistic 7earf!l Daring =hy O!tgoing 7atigable Energetic Exploratory Imp!lsive Extravagant Irritable =entimental Open Larm =ympathetic In !strio!s Determine Ambitio!s Perfectionistic Reserve Rigi 7r!gal =toic 0ritical Aloof Detache In epen ent Ka8y =poile En erachieving Pragmatic

Temperamen !"men#"$n 9arm avoi ance

Novelty see#ing

Rewar

epen ence

Persistence

Table 3-3.

Descriptors of in ivi !als who score high an low on the three character imensions De#%r"p $r# $& e' reme (ar"an # )"*+ L$, Responsible ;laming P!rposef!l Aimless Reso!rcef!l Inept =elf5accepting Oain Discipline En iscipline Ten er hearte Empathic 9elpf!l 0ompassionate Principle =elf5forgetf!l Transpersonal =pirit!al Enlightene I ealistic Intolerant Insensitive 9ostile Revengef!l Opport!nistic Enimaginative 0ontrolling /aterialistic Possessive Practical

C+ara% er !"men#"$n =elf5 irecte ness

0ooperative

=elf5transcen ent

Table 3--.

0orrelations between Temperament an 0haracter Inventory *T0I1 scales an n!mber of D=/5III5R personality isor er symptoms DS.-III-R per#$nal" / !"#$r!er #/mp $m %$0n # b/ %l0# er An'"$0# Imp0l#"(e PP PP 55 5 55 55

TCI dimension 9arm avoi ant Novelty see#ing Rewar epen ent Persistent =elf5 irecte 0ooperative =elf5transcen ent
Source. .

T$ al P P 555 55

Al$$& P 55 55 55

:ol man et al. &,,J. Nagoshi et al. &,,<. =vra#ic et al. &,,I