Describe the personality and associated factors to it.

The meaning of the word personality has traceable roots to Latin

culture. With a similar Latin word persona in the psychology of C. G.
Jung the mask or façade accessible with the ability to satisfy the
anxieties of the situation, one’s environment and not representing
the inner personality of the individual the public personality
contrasts to the anima (Collins English Dictionary, 2009). The post
modern view or definition of personality is far different then long
ago. The integration of personality traits has driven a new view into
the human personality. The definition of personality traits is
behaviors that observation ensue can and contain a unique aspect
of the human personality. The traits will also help a person when
establishing his or her place in society. For an example a person
would not want to work with a person whom is disloyal and is said
to be a lair. People will align themselves with people who have like
mind values and traits.

Personality is difficult to describe, but nearly impossible to define in

a universally acceptable way. Throughout history many definitions
of personality have been proposed but none universally accepted.
This is because of the reality that each individual’s definition comes
with a unique spin placed upon it by that individual’s life experience,
surroundings, and personal viewpoint. Personality can be described
as the regular presentation of certain traits and attributes that lend
cohesion and uniqueness to behavior and thought (Feist & Feist,
2009). Although there is not a single, universally accepted definition
of personality, theorists agree on the word’s etymological roots.
Persona, a Latin word used in reference to the masks worn by
actors in Greek dramas seems to be the most likely origin of the
word. The actors wore masks to facilitate the playing of their roles.
Essentially a mask is a false face; however, one’s personality is the
farthest thing from false. It is quite real, and it is relatively
permanent (Feist & Feist, 2009). Personality is made up of traits
and characteristics. Traits can be shared by entire species,
completely unique to a single individual, or somewhere in between.
They lend both consistency and individuality to behavior (Feist &
Feist, 2009). While traits can be shared their pattern is unique to
each person (Feist & Feist, 2009). Like trait patterns, characteristics
are unique to each individual. Intellect, physique, and temperment
are examples of characteristics (Feist & Feist, 2009).

"Personality is the essence of a human being." (Hall & Lindzey,

1957, p. 9). Through out psychology, many different definitions have
been offered for identifying personality. Most of the definitions refer
to a cognitive framework within the brain. Personality is thought of
as collaboration between of several mental systems, including
motives, emotions, and thoughts, used to provide a foundation of
an individual. Various definitions argue over the exact terms to
define personality, but they all agree personality involves a pattern
of mental systems. Psychologists seek to understand personality
through finding a consensus of its definition, theories explaining
possibilities of how it is developed and the influences that factor
into creating traits and characteristics.
Defining Personality Personalities are qualities that make each
person unique from one individual to the next. Personality is the
sum of reoccurring behaviors and attitudes that remain constant
through out a person’s life. It is a pattern of psychological
processes that occur through motives, feelings, and thoughts
(Mayer, 2005). Personality is regularly publicized traits and
characteristics that are individualistic to a person and their behavior
(Feist & Feist, 2009). It is made up of permanent traits and specific
characteristics personalized to an individual 's behaviors (Feisty &
Feisty, 2009).Variations in individual behavior can be understood as
traits. Traits and characteristics combine together to create the
foundation of personality. Traits are variations in individual behavior
that are consistent through out time and remain stable during many
situations (Feisty & Feisty, 2009).
The study of personality within the science of psychology is a very
complicated process. This is because of the individuality of
personalities. There are as many personalities as there are
individuals within an environment. Each personality is shaded and
biased in its own way due to their human nature. On the topic of
human nature within the scientific study of psychology, there are six
factors to consider:
Write down the contribution of Allport.
A lot of evidence points to the conclusion that individual differences, mostly
measured as psychological traits are substantially influenced by genetic factors
(Carver & Scheier, 2000). This conclusion raises questions about research and theory
in Psychology in terms of the variation of these traits in the population and the
existence of psychopathology (Bouchard, 2004). Trait psychology has a clear set of
assumptions including the heritability of traits and a causal model attributing
individual differences in brain function into behavioural and learning differences
(Gale & Eysenck, 1992). The behaviour and molecular genetic evidence confirm that
biology has its role in personality traits (Carey, 2002).

Since the 1950’s Eysenck claimed that most of the differences we observe between
people’s personalities can be accounted for by just three factors, expressed as bi-
polar dimensions: (1) introversion-extraversion; (2) neuroticism-stability and (3)
psychoticism. Eysenck (1994) also gave his typology a biological basis, linking it not
with body fluids but with the central nervous system (introversion-extraversion) and
the autonomous nervous system (neuroticism-stability). He proposed that individual
differences in introversion-extraversion are explained by inherited differences in the
excitatory potential of central nervous systems (CNS). Individuals whose excitatory
potential is low are predisposed towards extraversion since the bias in their CNS is
towards cells being inactive (inhibition) rather than active (excitation). This means
extraverts require more going on around them for their brains to function
adequately, and to maintain a reasonable level of alertness, than introverts do.
Extraverts are ‘stimuli-hungry’ and not only have a CNS which switches off more
readily, they take longer to dissipate the inhibition that has built up in their CNS
while attending to a stimulus. Conversely, introverts, through their high excitatory
potential, are already reasonably alert and thus less prone to switching their
attention to other sources of stimuli; in other words, introverts are less easily
distracted than extroverts. Introverts would also be less likely to have what is termed
as ‘micro sleeps’ (switching off for a few seconds), because they dissipate any
inhibition much more rapidly than extraverts do.

Even before Eysenck’s theory was available, large individual differences had been
observed in the ease with which individuals, in some occupational settings, doing
jobs like radar and sonar operations, could cope with the low levels of signals on
their screens or reported signals when none were present, while the performance of
others seemed relatively unaffected by the low level of simulation (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985). Eysenck’s theory seemed to offer an explanation of this and other
similar differences of behaviour. Extraverts because of the low level of activation in
their nervous systems, find it difficult to cope with environments which provide low
levels of unvarying stimulation. Introverts, on the other hand, with central nervous
systems already reasonably activated find these environments ideal. Conversely they
would be swamped by high levels of stimulation, which would cause a considerable
reduction in their performance.
Much of the impact of these physiological differences on psychological differences
between individuals was presumed to arise from its effect on an individual’s
conditionability (Eysenck, 1994). Introverts, since they build up inhibition slowly, are
easier to condition than extraverts. This implies that introverts are constitutionally
more likely to assimilate, through conditioning, the rules, obligations and attitudes of
their social environment. Conversely, the impact of socialisation on extraverts is
attenuated by their weaker conditionability. Extraverts are therefore less likely to
acquire conforming and conscientious behaviour patterns than introverts.

Though Eysenck, for the most part, has focused on exploring the biological
substructure of the introversion-extraversion dimension, he has suggested that an
individual’s position on the second dimension, neuroticism-stability, reflects the
stability of the autonomic nervous system (ANS). The ANS is the part of the nervous
system, not directly under the conscious control, that carries a number of reflex
activities; it is also involved in certain emotional responses. Some people inherit a
labile ANS, which responds vigorously to stress and also takes some time to return to
baseline. In addition, they experience more spontaneous activity, that is, shifts in
activation which are not clearly attributable to external events. Conversely, some
individuals are born with stable ANS characterised by weaker responses to stress, a
more rapid return to baseline and spontaneous activity. This means individuals with a
labile ANS are constitutionally more prone to worry, anxiety, embarrassment and
stress than those with a stabile ANS. Thus, individuals towards the neuroticism end of
the dimension have greater ‘free floating’ anxiety which, through conditioning, can
become attached to events or people. This may mean that social interaction can, for
some individuals, become ‘loaded’ with a considerable amount of anxiety. However,
an important implication of Eysenck’s theory is that neuroticism is normally
distributed along a continuum. In other words, there is not a discontinuity between
normal people and conditions such as agoraphobia (i.e. fear of open spaces), which
are simply the result of somewhat higher levels of anxiety response. If the
agoraphobics can learn a more neutral response he or she will be able to resume a
normal life.

However, despite clear connections between an individual’s biological status and

neuroticism, there are clearly very significant environmental considerations. Tong et
al., (2000) found that levels of neuroticism (N) were causally related to environmental
factors and, in particular, to the failure of affect ional bonds provided by a social
network of friends and acquaintances. Similarly, Bouchard (2004) found that women
with children at home under 15 years old and men and women who are unemployed
are more likely to have neurotic problems. Thus, 25.4% of unemployed women and
13.6% of unemployed men had neurotic illness as compared with 8.9% of employed
women and 5.5% of full or part-time employed men. The employed status of the
subject’s spouse also plays a part in the prevalence of neurotic symptoms. Men with
a wife at home are less at risk than those who have a wife at work. In women, those
with an unemployed husband at home are more at risk than their peers with a
husband at work. Thus neuroticism, though having a large genetic component,
seems to be also partly environmental, although the direction of cause-and-effect in
such studies should not be presumed.

Children in maturation process value immensely consistent parental, familial and

peer encouragement and emotional support (Bouchard, 2004). Inadequate or
culturally atypical child rearing practices, parental illness, marital disharmony and
family disturbance are all associated with personality disorder. Nevertheless, the role
of learning cannot be over-estimated. Many personality disorders, for example, can
be described in terms of inappropriate thresholds to incoming stimuli (Krueger &
Markon, 2006). Low thresholds to frustration or tolerance lead to impulsive behaviour
or loss of temper. A high threshold in relation to emotional sensitivity leads to over
defensiveness and emotional coldness. Thus, a child with little innate tendency to
loss of temper but, in a family where tempers are regularly lost and are socially
effective and valued, will model this behaviour and lower her threshold. Impulsive
behaviour may be more likely in children where impulsive behaviour flourishes in the
family and subculture.

In terms of genes and cognitive abilities, several researchers have estimated the
separate effects of genes and environment in the expression of intelligence by
comparing monozygotic and dizygotic twins raised in the same environment with
those raised in different environments (Bouchard et al., 1990). These can be viewed
as experiments of nature (monozygotic and dizygotic twins) and experiments of
nurture (raised in birth or adoptive families). Genes and environment are both
correlated in birth families because the same parents provide both genes and
environment. In adoptive families, the birth parents provide the genes and the
adoptive families provide the environment. These studies have demonstrated that
the correlation of the IQs of siblings raised in different environments is low, just over
0.20 (Bouchard & McGue, 1981). Monozygotic twins of course share 100 percent of
their genes, whereas dizygotic twins and other siblings share 50 percent. Clearly
genes have stronger effect on IQ. However, the outcomes of twins studies do not
refer to individual members of the populations under investigation. In other words,
conclusions about the relationship between genes and IQ do not apply to individuals
regarding the research evidence available. Nevertheless, the decreasing role of the
environment in IQ seems to be counter-intuitive because research by Petrill et al.,
(1998) has shown that the longer twins experience different environments the more
dissimilar should become. In other words, the effect of the environment on IQ is
important in childhood but becomes increasingly unimportant in adulthood (Petrill et
al., 1998).

Nowadays, trait psychology has been challenged in terms of whether or not should
we maintain individual differences in the functioning of broad neural systems as the
principal explanations of personality? Cognitive and social-cognitive models may
provide viable alternatives considering the impact of moderating factors. Further,
both Eysenck and Gray assume that each trait relates to a single, key underlying
system, but there might not be any simple one-to-one mappings between brain
functions and traits (Zuckerman, 1991). These challenges presented by cognitive
theorists and multiple-systems models of traits may be met in various ways. For
example, improvements in the methodology for assessing brain functions may reveal
that Eysenck and Gray are correct. Another approach maintains the centrality of
neurophysiological explanations and seeks to develop more complex physiological
models (e.g. Zuckerman, 1991). Furthermore, an alternative is to consider cognitive
variables as mediating constructs so that they facilitate neural processes.

In conclusion, some personality characteristics (such as general mood and energy

level) are influenced by inherited biological factors. Eysenck (1985; 1994) thought
that personality was determined more by genes than by environmental factors.
Various personality attributes seem to be identifiable within weeks of birth and
remain relatively stable in each child during the first three years. Although this clearly
attests to the large genetic influence on early personality development, these
biological factors cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Experiences that are common to the
culture and the subculture group (such as gender roles) and experiences that are
unique to the individual interact with inborn predispositions to shape personality.
Personality develops in a constant interactive process between biological potential,
environmental circumstances and social opportunity.
The study of personality started with Hippocrates' four humors and gave rise to four temperaments
[2]. Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems
that determine his characteristics behavior and thought [3]. Weinberg and Gould [4] defined
personality as the characteristics or blend of characteristics that make a person unique. The
American Psychological Association defines personality as individual differences in characteristic
patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving [5]. The study of personality focuses on two broad areas:
[1] understanding individual differences in particular personality characteristics, such as sociability or
irritability and [2] understanding how the various parts of a person come together as a whole [5].
Biological Basis of Personality The biological perspective on personality emphasizes the internal
physiological and genetic factors that influence personality. It focuses on why or how personality
traits manifest through biology and investigates the links between personality, DNA, and processes
in the brain. It is primarily accomplished through correlating personality traits with scientific data
from experimental methods such as brain imaging and molecular genetics [6]. The biological basis of
personality is the theory which states that the anatomical structures located in the brain contribute
to personality traits. This is derived from neuropsychology, a branch of science which studies how
structure of the brain is related to various psychological processes and behaviors. For instance, in
human beings, the frontal lobes are responsible for foresight and anticipation, and the occipital
lobes are responsible for processing visual information. In addition, certain physiological functions
such as hormone secretion also affect personality. For example, the hormone testosterone is
important for sociability, affectivity, aggressiveness, and sexuality [7]. Other studies also show that
the expression of a personality trait depends on the volume of the brain cortex it is associated with
[8]. Personality neuroscience involves the use of neuroscience methods to study individual
differences in behavior, motivation, emotion, and cognition. Personality psychology has contributed
much to identifying the important dimensions of personality, but relatively little to understanding
the biological sources of those dimensions. However, the rapidly expanding field of personality
neuroscience is increasingly shedding light on this topic. DeYoung [8] provided a survey of progress
in the use of neuroscience to study personality traits, based on the Big Five dimensions:
extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness or intellect. The
biological approach to personality has also identified areas and pathways within the brain that are
associated with the development of personality. A number of theorists, such as Hans Eysenck,
Gordon Allport, and Raymond Cattell, believe that personality traits can be traced back to brain
structures and neural mechanisms, such as dopamine and serotonin pathways [6]. One of the best
known biological theorists was Hans Eysenck, who linked aspects of personality to biological
processes. Eysenck argued that introverts had high cortical arousal, leading them to avoid
stimulation. On the other hand, he believed that extroverts had low cortical arousal, causing them to
seek out stimulating experiences [9]. The emphasis is placed on the biochemistry of the behavioral
systems of reward, motivation, and punishment. This has led to a few biologically based personality
theories such as Eysenck's three factor model of personality, Grey's reinforcement sensitivity theory,
and Cloninger's model of personality. The Big Five model of personality is not biologically based, but
still some studies provided biological support for this model [10]. The most influential scientists in
the field of biology-based personality theories are Hans Eysenck and Jeffrey Alan Gray. Eysenck used
both behavioral and psychophysiological methodologies to test and develop his theories [11]