Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nature of Human Nature 2018.01.28
Nature of Human Nature 2018.01.28
Pre-print under review for special issue at Personality and Individual Differences
Abstract
This overview of modern personality theory makes six points. First, personality theory is crucial
for understanding life. Second, life is largely about competition. Third, there is competition
within groups for individual status, and there is competition between groups for collective
survival. Fourth, academic psychology focuses on within group competition, but between group
competition can be more consequential. Fifth, successful within group competition depends on
social skill; successful between group competition depends on leadership. And finally,
People are the deadliest invasive species in the history of the earth. People have the
potential to kill every living thing and, in certain instances have already done so (e.g., passenger
pigeons, western black rhinoceros, great auk) or are on their way to doing so (e.g., sea turtles,
elephants, tigers, polar bears). Given their frightful potential and world-wide presence, it would
be useful to know something about people. Personality psychology is the “go-to” discipline for
understanding people; personality psychology is the only discipline whose primary focus is the
nature of human nature. What does personality psychology tell us about human nature? The
answer depends on whom you ask; or more precisely, to which theory of personality you
subscribe.
Modern personality psychology began in Vienna at the end of the 19 th century, where an
amazing flowering of human creativity brought revolutions in a wide variety of fields including
architecture, music, physics, medicine, music, painting, literature, economics, and especially
was hypothesized to be a function of intra-psychic dynamics and the physical symptoms were
secondary. The pioneers of this new way to conceptualize psychic troubles included Pierre Janet
(who was French), Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Otto Rank, Erik Erikson, and
others. Personality theory was a vibrant intellectual activity for 70 years but by the early 1970s,
some prominent personality psychologists began to argue that personality theory was pointless,
that only data mattered. In retrospect, Walter Mischel’s (1968) critique of personality psychology
was more a symptom of the decline of personality theory than a cause—it reflected a changing
our assumptions about human nature. Even social psychology depends on (often untenable and
unspecified) assumptions about human nature. We need to make these assumptions explicit for
two reasons: (1) ideas have consequences—they drive everything we do; and (2) knowledge
proceeds more efficiently from error than from confusion—bad ideas can be corrected, but
There are three major theories of personality, with sub-types within each theory. The first
is the many versions of psychodynamic theory associated with clinical psychology. The second
is trait theory, which concerns cataloguing dimension of individual differences. The third is
interpersonal theory which largely concerns career coaching and development—i.e., applications
to everyday life. In the following paragraphs, we briefly describe the history of each theory,
identify its core assumptions, and evaluate the consequences of these assumptions.
many valid insights. For example, early experience shapes later personality, much social
behavior is unconsciously motivated, people are inherently irrational, and psychology can be
used for human betterment. The three major assumptions of psychodynamic theory are: (1)
everyone is somewhat neurotic; (2) the goal of life is to overcome one’s neurosis; and (3) the
goal of personality assessment is to identify the sources of one’s neurosis. The problem with
psychodynamic theory is the first assumption; everyone is not neurotic. Although most people
have issues that bother them from time to time, to be neurotic is to be dysfunctional on a
continuing basis and that is obviously not true for most people. In addition, as positive
psychology points out, the absence of neurosis does not guarantee happiness or success. Lastly,
diagnosing psychopathology is not the primary goal of personality assessment. Despite its
compelling subject matter, psychodynamic theory pointed personality psychology in the wrong
direction for 70 years. Positive psychology (Seligman, 2002) is a superficial, but natural, reaction
Trait theory began in the 1930s as an academic exercise in classification and is largely
defined by the writings of Gordon Allport (1937), Raymond Cattell (1943), Hans Eysenck
(1947), and their students. The goal of trait theory is to classify the structure of personality; the
units of analysis are “traits,” defined as (a) recurring behavioral tendencies; and (b) neuropsychic
structures. The behavioral tendencies can be observed; the neuropsychic structures are inferred
and believed to correspond to the behavioral tendencies. Trait theory makes three major
assumptions: (1) everyone has traits; (2) the goal of life is to discover one’s traits; and (3) the
goal of personality assessment is to measure traits. Despite the immense popularity of trait theory
in modern psychology, it has limited utility as a theory of personality for several reasons; here
we will mention three. First, trait theory describes behavior in terms of traits, and then explains
behavior in terms of traits (e.g., Mike Tyson is aggressive because he has a trait for
aggressiveness); this is a tautology—as Walter Mischel (1968) pointed out long ago. Second, the
search for the neuropsychic structures that explain the consistencies in behavior is a worthy
project, but it is a project for neuro-scientists, not personality psychologists (it is also a project
that has, thus far, yielded less than spectacular results). And third, the accepted taxonomy of
traits, the Five-factor model (Wiggins, 1996), is based on ratings of school children in Hawaii
(Digman, 1963) and Air Force enlisted men in Texas (Tupes & Crystal, 1961). Trait theory has
in fact produced an common language for describing the reputation of others and identified a
replicable structure underlying the trait terms. Nonetheless, it is not clear that the Five-Factor
Model is (a) the most useful model for describing or predicting human behavior. In fact, there is
compelling evidence showing that lower-order trait variables predict important outcomes better
than the higher-order variables of the Five Factor Model (Brown & Sherman, 2014; Luminent,
Bagby, Wagner, Taylor, & Parker, 1999; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001; Watson, 2001).
Herbert Mead (1934), Henry Stack Sullivan (1953), George Kelly (1955), Timothy Leary (1957),
and Jerry Wiggins (1996). The goal of interpersonal theory is to understand how people interact
with others and how those interactions influence subsequent interactions. Interpersonal theory
makes three major assumptions: (1) almost everything consequential in life occurs during social
interaction, or as part of preparation for future social interaction, (2) the goal of life is to find and
retain a productive place in one’s social network, and (3) the goal of personality assessment is to
describe and predict how people will behave in social interactions. Interpersonal theory differs
from trait and psychodynamic theory in three important ways. First, trait and psychodynamic
theory assume that the way we think about ourselves drives our social interaction whereas
interpersonal theory assumes that our social interaction drives how we think about ourselves
(others teach us how to think about ourselves). Second, trait and psychodynamic theory define
interact productively with others (i.e., as social skill). Third, trait and psychodynamic theory
ignore reputation, whereas interpersonal theory assumes that establishing and maintaining one’s
theory with evolutionary psychology. Socioanalytic theory makes three major assumptions: (1)
People always live in groups, and every group has a status hierarchy and a religion; (2) the goals
of life concern getting along, getting ahead, and finding meaning; and (3) the goal of assessment
is to predict individual differences in the ability to get along, get ahead, and find meaning. There
are huge individual differences in peoples’ ability to get along, get ahead, and find meaning and
there are huge payoffs in terms of fitness for being able to do so.
Evolutionary theory tells us that life is about competition. There is competition at the
individual level (within groups) for status, power, and social acceptance; this competition is
driven by sexual selection (Ridley, 1991). Then there is competition between groups for territory,
market share, political dominance, and ultimately survival. Warfare drives human evolution at
the group level (Turchin, 2006). There are major individual differences in the ability of
individuals to compete for status, and there are major differences in the abilities of groups to
compete for survival (e.g., the Rohingya). Although psychologists focus almost exclusively on
within group competition, between group competition is more consequential. What is good for
the individual may or may not be good for the group. Free riders—rent seekers who enjoy the
benefits of group living without contributing to its maintenance and functioning—represent one
such example (Cornes, 1986). On the other hand, what is good for the group is usually good for
the members. Success at within-group competition is a function of social skill, which includes
the ability to get along with others (to avoid expulsion from the group) and to get ahead (to
Socioanalytic theory concerns predicting and explaining effectiveness of both individuals and
groups.
Individual Effectiveness
Within group competition takes place during social interaction—interaction is where the
action is. In order to interact, people need an agenda for the interaction and they need roles to
play. Overt agendas vary across interactions, but the covert agenda for most interactions concern
negotiations for belonging and status. Three components of personality shape interactions:
identity, reputation, and social skill. Our identities are the generic roles we take with us to each
interaction; they determine the roles we play and how we play them. After every interaction there
is an accounting process and people gain or lose a little bit of status; our reputations reflect the
outcome of this accounting process. Reputations are inherently evaluative and indicate how well
we are doing in the process of within-group competition. Social skill is what translates identity
into reputation. Dysfunctional people choose maladaptive identities, create bad reputations for
themselves, and lack the social skill needed to change the cycle. Competent people use their
social skill to create reputations that match their identities and maximize their social and
economic wellbeing.
Personality research has traditionally focused on studying the self and identity, but that
search has not been productive. After 100 years, we still have no taxonomy of identities, no
agreed upon methodology for measuring identity, and no useful generalizations about identity to
report. Identity concerns the “you” that you know, and Freud would say (correctly) that the
“you” that you know is hardly worth knowing—because you made it up. Your identity is the
story you tell yourself about yourself, it is largely imagined and only loosely tied to reality. In
contrast, Socioanalytic theory focuses on reputation—reputation is the “you” that others know.
Reputation is easy to study by means of observer ratings. The Five-Factor Model (Wiggins,
1976) is a robust taxonomy of reputation and, over the past 20 years, we have accumulated an
abundance of findings regarding personality and many important life outcomes: marital
satisfaction, health status, academic performance, substance abuse, driving records, income,
social class, etc. (Roberts, et al., 2007; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). The best predictor of
future behavior is past behavior, reputation is the summary of peoples’ past behavior, therefore
reputation is the best data source we have regarding peoples’ future behavior. In our view,
assessment should focus on reputation and not identity. Let us clarify a key point here: although
reputation (i.e., how others evaluate you) is the best predictor of future behavior, this does not
mean that self-report assessments are useless. In our view, self-reports contain both identity
claims (i.e., views of yourself that might not be true) and reputational information (certain
identity claims are reliably associated with reputational outcomes). The reputational information
is important, and the identity claims often muddy the water. Moreover, self-reports that are
empirically tied to reputation (i.e., people with high scores on scale X are described by others as
Y) are enormously useful. For example, the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI: Hogan & Hogan,
2007) includes a scale called “Learning Approach.” People with high scores on this scale are
described by others as smart, up-to-date and well-informed. Our emphasis on reputation does not
Nonetheless, we understand that identity research will not go away because people enjoy
navel gazing and find discussions of identity fascinating. Although the academic study of
identity has not been productive, there are three points about identity that are worth noting. First,
Erikson (1963) argued that maturity depends on achieving a stable sense of identity. He defined
identity in interpersonal terms—when behaving in ways that are most comfortable to yourself,
you are most valuable to those people whom you most value—and we agree with him. Second,
the Identity scale on Holland’s (1973) Self-Directed Search is the most valid scale on the
inventory, based on external correlates. Third, the Identity HIC on the Hogan Personality
Inventory is a highly valid component of the HPI based on external correlates. When identity is
defined as having a sense of where your life is headed and what that means to others—not who
you are but what you are trying to do—it is a meaningful and consequential concept.
Before ending this discussion of competition at the individual level, we should note how
Psychodynamic theory and Trait theory define self-awareness and how we define self-awareness.
Freud and Allport thought introspection and self-analysis leads to self-awareness, whereas we
think performance analysis leads to self-awareness. The distinction is the same as that between
Freud’s and Socrates’ definitions of self-awareness. The ancient Greeks valued self-knowledge:
the inscription over the tomb of the Cumaean Sybill was “Know Thyself.” But for the Greeks,
awareness” and enhance peoples’ ability to get along and get ahead.
Group Effectiveness.
Testament of the Bible is full of suggestions of the following variety: “When you capture a city,
put to the sword all the men in it…utterly destroy them…save alive nothing that breatheth…As
for the women and children, you may take them as plunder for yourselves” (Deuteronomy 2:10-
20). In the history of our species, if your tribe was overrun by another tribe, your opportunities
for reproductive success ended abruptly. This is the reason we believe between-group
But from WWII until the early 1980s, academic psychology thought individual differences in the
talent for leadership was a myth, that leadership was situational, and if you were successful in a
leadership role, you were just lucky. As of today, there is still no consensus regarding the
characteristics of competent leaders. In our view, the academic study of leadership suffers from
five major problems: (1) the wrong definition of leadership; (2) no attention to the consequences
derailment; and (5) no attention to personality. Progress is being made, but these issues remain
Defining Leadership.
Most research defines leadership in terms of the people at the top of organizations. But
who gets to the top of large, hierarchical, bureaucratic, male dominated organizations? People
with good political skills who win the within-group competition for status. A meta-analysis of
leader personality (i.e., the personality of people in leadership roles) indicates that leaders tend to
score low on Neuroticism and high on Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness (Judge,
Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Clearly these individuals have talent for acquiring status. But, do
An alternative view of leadership, and one that we prefer, is to define leadership from the
perspective of group effectiveness. For the most part, people are biologically wired to behave
selfishly (Dawkins, 1976). However, people are also capable of altruism when altruism (a) serves
their long-term self-interest or (b) promotes the interests of those sharing their genetic material
(Fletcher & Doebeli, 2008; Hamilton, 1964a, b; Nowak, Tarnita, & Wilson, 2010; Trivers,
1971). Further, the history of human warfare and modern team sports indicates that cohesive and
coordinated groups outperform disorganized groups. Thus, in our view, the primary goal of
leadership is to persuade people to temporarily set aside their selfish desires for the good of the
group. In this view, leadership should be evaluated on the basis of the group’s performance, not
on the basis of one’s ability to gain leadership positions. Politicians are skilled at gaining
leadership positions; effective leaders are skilled at building and maintaining high-performing
teams.
When it comes to competition between groups, leadership plays a critical role (Hanson,
2001; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). Obvious examples include:
The recent and sustained success of the New England Patriots football team compared to
the recent and sustained failure of the Cleveland Browns football team
The success of the Union Army over the Army of Northern Virginia in the US civil war
The sustained success of Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum company compared to the colossal
failure of Enron
There are many such lists of competing organizations outperforming one another. Researchers
are finally beginning to understand that the leadership of an organization has consequences for
the members of the organizations. For example, economists (who are interested in the financial
consequences of personality) estimate that CEOs account for between 17% to 30% of the
variance in firm financial performance (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hambrick & Quigley, 2014;
Mackey, 2008; Quigley & Graffin, 2016; Quigley & Hambrick, 2014). CEO personality is more
important for firm performance than any other factor except the industry sector in which the firm
competes.
If leadership is about building teams, then it is important to know how the teams react to
the leadership to which they are exposed. The team members are the consumers of leadership
and will react accordingly. Employee engagement can be easily assessed using survey
methodology. Over the past 20 years, overwhelming evidence shows that employee engagement
turnover, productivity, quality, and customer service ratings. The lower the engagement levels,
the worse the outcomes, the higher the engagement levels the better the outcomes (Harter,
Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). But most importantly for this discussion, the personalities of the
managers create the engagement levels of their staff. And, on average, what do those
Incompetent Leadership
Consider the following from various lines of survey research. A recent survey of the UK
public indicated that 22% of people hate their boss, 52% of people name their boss as their main
cause of dissatisfaction, 20% would forgo a pay raise if someone would fire their boss, and an
astonishing 12% of respondents admit to having imagined killing their boss (Whitfield, 2018). In
a similar US survey, 65% of Americans say they would prefer getting rid of their boss to
receiving a pay raise (Casserly, 2012). On this basis, we estimate that 65% to 75% of managers
in the U. S. economy, public and private sector, are incompetent and alienate their subordinates.
In an important piece of unpublished research, V. Jon Bentz, Vice President for Human
Resources at Sears during the 1970s, hired hundreds of new managers using an assessment
center (Bentz, 1985). All newly hired managers were bright and personally attractive. Bentz was
a meticulous record keeper; he found that 65% of these new managers failed (the number is
important). He found that the reasons for their failure nicely fit into 11 categories which, upon
closer examination, nicely paralleled the DSM III, axis 2 personality disorders. Thus, managerial
failure seems unrelated to intellectual competence (e.g., IQ), and directly related to interpersonal
competence. Personality is the core of interpersonal incompetence and thus the core of
managerial failure.
Effective Leadership
There is little agreement in the academic research regarding effective leadership (i.e., the
characteristics of people who can build and maintain high performing teams), though three lines
of research converge to define effective leadership: (1) Implicit leadership theory (Kouzes and
Posner, 2008); (2) Research on emergent vs. effective managers (Luthans, Hodgetts, &
Implicit leadership theory. Implicit leadership theory is based on the assumption that,
because leadership has been such an important factor in human history, people have a rough
intuitive sense of the characteristics of good leaders. Kouzes and Posner devised a simple but
effective way to summarize those intuitions: ask people to describe the best and the worst bosses
they ever knew. The results, aggregated over millions of responses, suggest that people believe
good leaders share four characteristics. First, effective leaders have integrity—they keep their
word, they do not play favorites, they do not self-deal, and they live up to their obligations.
Because lying, along with money, is the mother’s milk of politics, many politicians quickly lose
their credibility as leaders. Second, team captains are usually the best players on the teams,
professional sports coaches are usually former athletes, etc. Consequently, effective leaders need
to have real expertise in whatever business a team’s major focus might be. Newly minted officers
in the military have credibility issues because they lack deep knowledge of operations at the
daily level, and experienced enlisted personnel tend not to take them seriously as a result.
Subordinates are more likely to have faith in leaders who know something about the business
that they are leading. Third, the fate of any organization depends on the outcomes of all the
decisions that are made on a daily basis. Good leaders need to be able to make sound, defensible
decisions quickly and on the basis of limited information. Making good decisions also involves
changing bad decisions when it becomes apparent that they are wrong—good leaders can admit
their mistakes. Finally, good leaders project a vision and create persuasive stories about why
what the team or group is doing is important. In summary, implicit leadership theory offers a
great deal of evidence to indicate that effective leaders are perceived as having integrity,
Emergent versus Effective Leaders. Luthans and his colleagues (1988) gathered
comprehensive data on 457 managers from several organizations over a four-year period. At the
end of the study, they collected performance data on the managers. They found two groups of
high performers: (1) those who advanced rapidly in the organization; and (2) those whose teams
performed well. There was a 10% overlap in the groups (r = .30). The important finding
concerned how the two groups spent their time. The people who advanced rapidly spent their
time networking. The people whose teams performed well spent their time working with their
teams. These two types of managers map directly on to the concepts of leadership emergence and
effectiveness previously discussed. Emergent managers are regularly identified as high potential
employees, while effective managers are overlooked because they do not stand out and play
effective managers, that creates the high rate of managerial failure in corporate affairs.
Organizational Effectiveness. Collins and his colleagues (2001) studied the Fortune 1000
companies to identify companies with 15 years of mediocre financial performance and then 15
years of superior performance. He found 11 companies that fit this profile. For comparison
purposes, he also identified 11 companies, in the same industry, who showed only mediocre
performance across the same time period. Analyses revealed that the cause of the turnarounds
was the arrival of new CEOs. But the crucial finding is not that CEOs matter, but rather what
kind of CEO matters. And the answer is the CEO personality is what mattered. In particular, the
11 successful CEOs were: (1) fiercely competitive and hard-working; and (2) humble, modest,
and understated. That is, this group of high-performing CEOs were, in Luthan’s (1988) terms,
effective not emergent. Thus, the available evidence indicates that effective leaders are (a)
trustworthy, (b) competent, (c) have good judgment, (d) project an appealing vision, and (e)
blend fierce ambition with personal humility. Thus, leadership effectiveness is a function of
personality.
Last Thoughts
Personality psychology began as an applied activity (Stagner, 1937) and at its best it
remains an applied activity directed at solving real problems for real people. The key problems
for personality research concern predicting and explaining the outcomes of within and between
group competition. Career success (the result of within-group competition) and organizational
effectiveness (the result of between-group competition) are the most crucial issues in life. How
can personality psychology help people have more successful careers? Mostly by creating
psychology help organizations become more effective? Mostly by helping them hire effective
leaders.
Personality assessment is not an exact science; neither is drilling for oil, but both have
better than IQ, but do not discriminate against minorities, and the longer the tenure on the job,
the better personality predicts performance. Personality predicts leadership better than any
known alternative. Many people outside our profession equate personality assessment with the
MBTI and ignore the accumulated data on the validity of assessment. This is a challenge for all
personality psychologists. The future of personality psychology depends on its ability to solve
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Bentz, V. J. (1985). A view of the top: a thirty-year perspective of research devoted to the
discovery, description and prediction of executive behavior. Invited address, Division 14,
Brown, N. A., & Sherman, R. A. (2014). Predicting interpersonal behavior using the inventory of
individual differences in the lexicon (IIDL). Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 23-28.
Casserly, M. (October, 2017). Majority of Americans would rather fire their boss than get a raise.
of-americans-would-rather-fire-their-boss-than-get-a-raise/#37f6c2ae6610
Cornes, R. (1986). The Theories of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods. Cambridge,
Fletcher, J. A., & Doebeli, M. (2008). A simple and general explantion for the eovluton of
Hambrick, D. C., & Quigley, T. J. (2014). Toward a more accurate contextualization of the CEO
Hanson, V. D. (2001). Why the West has Won. London, UK: Faber and Faber.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level-relationships between
Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2007) Hogan Personality Inventory, 3rd Edition. Tulsa: Hogan Press.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership. Journal
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations.
between alexithymia and the five-factor model of personality: A facet-level analysis. Journal
Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M., & Rosenkrantz, S.A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Mackey, A. (2008). The effect of CEOs on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,
29, 1357-1367.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nowak, M., Tarnita, C., E., & Wilson, E. O. (2010). The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 466,
1057-1062.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of
Quigley, T. J., & Graffin, S. D. (2017). Reaffirming the CEO effect is significant and much
larger than change: A comment on Fitza (2014). Strategic Management Journal, 38, 793-
801.
Quigley, T. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2014). Has the “CEO effect” increased in recent decades? A
new explanation for the great rise in America’s attention to corporate leaders. Strategic
HarperCollins.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of
Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize
Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. New York: The Free Press.
Tupes, E. C., and Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings
(USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97); Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U. S Air Force.
Turchin, P. (2006). War and peace and war. New York: Penguin.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-
57.
Watson, D. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A face level analysis. Personality
Whitfiled, H. (2018). Horrible bosses: Have you ever imagined killing your boss? Focus.
https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/focus/horrible-bosses
Wiggins, J. S. (1996). The five-factor Model of personality: Theoretical Perspectives. New York:
Guilford.