Datasets:

hienbm
/

psychology_dataset

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 3.31k rows

page_content stringlengths 39 150k
they get very happy. When they get down, they get very down. We say these people are unpredictable, they fly off the handle, they ’re moody. Today they might be pumped up and enthusiastic, tomorrow frustrated and hostile. Personality researchers would say the two students differ in terms of their affect intensity (Jones, Leen-Feldner, Olatunji, Reardon, & Hawks, 2009;Larsen & Diener, 1987). Affect intensity refers to the strength or degree to which people typically experience their emotions. At one end we find peoplewho respond to emotional situations with relatively mild reactions; at theother we find people with strong emotional reactions. As shown in the two students ’data, high-intensity people not only experience their emotions more intensely, they also tend to be more variable. They experience higher highs and lower lows. Notice that affect intensity applies to both positive and nega- tive emotions. A person who experiences strong positive emotions also tends to experience strong negative emotions (Schimmack & Diener, 1997). Wherewe find peaks, we also find valleys. We might think that the difference between high- and low-intensity peo- ple is that the former simply have more emotionally loaded events in their lives. However, this does not seem to be the case. When researchers compare the kinds of activities high- and low-intensity people experience, they find no differences (Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1986). High- and low-intensity peo- ple tend to go to the same number of parties and concerts, and they have the same number of hassles and setbacks. The difference lies in how they react to those events. In one study, researchers presented participants with identical hypothetical situations, such as receiving a letter from a friend or discovering a flat tire on your bicycle (Larsen et al., 1986). When asked to imagine how they would respond, high-intensity participants said they would enjoy the positive events to a greater degree and be more upset by the negative events than did the low-intensity participants. Even relatively mild situations can evoke strong reactions in high-intensity individuals. High-intensity participants in one study had stronger emotionalreactions than lows to magazine ads for alcoholic beverages (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999). Other studies find that high-intensity people tend to over-estimate the extent to which events will affect them and are guilty of drawing unwarranted conclusions based on one good or one bad experience (Larsen, Billings, & Cutler, 1996; Larsen, Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987). To a high-intensity individual, one friendly smile suggests a blossoming relationship, one bad grade the end of the world. No doubt high-intensity people are often told they are overreacting by those from the other end of the affect intensitydimension. These observations lead to another question: Is it better to be high on af- fect intensity and really experience life or low on this dimension and maintaina steady and calm approach to achievements and calamities? In other words, how does affect intensity relate to well-being? The answer is that high- and low-intensity people tend to score about the same on measures of happinessand well-being (Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1985). High-intensity people ex- perience more positive affect, of course. But this seems to be offset by the fact that they also experience more negative affect (Kring, Smith, & Neale, 1994).Emotions 209
However, there does seem to be a difference in the way these two kinds of people experience happiness. For high-intensity people, happiness means a lot of exhilarating and enlivening experiences. For low-intensity people, hap- piness takes the form of a calm, enduring sense of contentment (Larsen & Diener, 1987). In short, these people simply lead different, not necessarily bet- ter or worse, emotional lives. Moreover, both kinds of individuals can be pro- ductive, but again in different ways. One researcher found that scientists tend to be low in affect intensity, whereas artists tend to be high (Sheldon, 1994).These findings fit the stereotypes of the pondering scientist satisfied with in- cremental steps toward his or her goal and the temperamental artist operating on bursts of inspiration-driven energy. Both get where they want to be, buteach takes a different emotional route. Emotional Expressiveness If I tell you Maria is an emotional person, you probably have little difficultyimagining what she is like. The “emotional ”people I know cry at sad movies, tell friends they are loved, and move about excitedly when given good news.If Maria is an emotional person, you could probably tell me what kind of mood she is in just by seeing the expression on her face. No doubt her friends share her joys as well as her disappointments. Most of us know someone like Maria, but what is it that makes these people stand out from the crowd? By now it should be clear that the kinds of emotions we experience (affectivity) and the strength of our emotions (intensity) represent importantaspects of our emotional lives. Yet when we identify someone as an “emo- tional ”person, we probably aren ’t referring exactly to either of these individ- ual differences. Rather, I suspect what distinguishes these people from most ofus is that they are high in what researchers call emotional expressiveness. Emotional expressiveness refers to a person ’s outward display of emo- tions. Some people tend to be particularly expressive of their feelings. We say these individuals “wear their emotions on their sleeves ”or that we can “read them like a book. ”If they ’re feeling a little down today, it shows. They move slowly; their shoulders sag; they wear sad faces. And if these same peoplehave just received good news or simply feel good about what they ’re doing, we can tell in a minute. They bounce when they walk; they grin. We hearthe enthusiasm in their voices. When highly expressive women in one study were told they had answered some difficult problems correctly, they could not keep themselves from smiling (Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991). As with affectivity and intensity, researchers find relatively stable differ- ences in the extent to which we express our emotions (Friedman, Prince,Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980; Gohm & Clore, 2000; Kring, Smith, & Neale, 1994). Like other personality traits, we can place people along a continuum ranging from those who are highly expressive to those who show few outward signs of how they are feeling. Consistent with common observations, research- ers find that women tend to be more expressive of their emotions than men(Gross & John, 1998; Kring & Gordon, 1998; Lavee & Ben-Ari, 2004; Timmers, Fischer, & Manstead, 1998). Interestingly, women also tend to be bet- ter than men at reading the emotions in other people ’s faces (McClure, 2000).210 CHAPTER 8 The Trait Approach
ASSESSING YOUR OWN PERSONALITY Emotional Expressiveness Indicate the extent to which each of the following statements describes you. Indicate your response using a 6-point scale with 1 = Never true and 6 =Always true. 1. I think of myself as emotionally expressive. 2. People think of me as an unemotional person.* 3. I keep my feelings to myself.* 4. I am often considered indifferent by others.* 5. People can read my emotions. 6. I display my emotions to other people. 7. I don ’t like to let other people see how I ’m feeling.* 8. I am able to cry in front of other people. 9. Even if I am feeling very emotional, I don’ t let others see my feelings.* 10. Other people aren ’t easily able to observe what I ’m feeling.* 11. I am not very emotionally expressive.* 12. Even when I ’m experiencing strong feelings, I don’ t express them outwardly.* 13. I can ’t hide the way I ’m feeling. 14. Other people believe me to be very emotional. 15. I don ’t express my emotions to other people.* 16. The way I feel is different from how others think I feel.* 17. I hold my feelings in.* To calculate your score, first reverse the answer values for the items w i t ha s t e r i s k s .T h a ti s ,f o rt h e s ei t e m so n l y ,6=1 ,5=2 ,4=3 ,3=4 , 2 = 5, 1 = 6. Then add all 17 answer values. The higher your score, the more expressive you tend to be. When the test developers gave t h i ss c a l et oag r o u po fu n d e r g r a d u a t e s ,t h e yc a m eu pw i t ht h e following norms: Mean Standard Deviation Females 66.60 2.71 Males 61.15 12.69Total Sample 64.67 12.97 Scale: The Emotional Expressivity Scale Source: Copyright © 1998 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permis- sion. Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66, 934– 949. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.934. No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without written permission from the American PsychologicalAssociation.Emotions 211
How well we express our feelings has important implications for how we get along with others. In particular, the more people express their emotions, the fewerproblems they have in romantic relationships (Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005; Lavee & Ben-Ari, 2004; Noller, 1984). Communication is aided when partners understand what the other person is feeling, and communication almost always contributes to harmony and satisfaction in relationships. Moreover, people who express their emotions freely tend to experience less confusion when trying to read another person ’s emotions (King, 1998). Expressing emotions also seems to be good for our psychological health. Participants in one study completed a series of well-being measures and keptdaily records of their moods for 21 consecutive days (King & Emmons,1990). The participants identified as highly expressive were happier and expe- rienced less anxiety and guilt than those who were low in expressiveness. Other researchers using similar procedures found that expressive people wereless prone to depression (Katz & Campbell, 1994). Highly expressive people also tend to be higher in self-esteem than those on the other end of this trait dimension (Friedman et al., 1980). In short, emotional expressiveness is goodfor us. In Chapter 12 we ’ll return to some of the reasons for this relation between well-being and expressing one ’s emotions. OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM For many years researchers have recognized that a positive outlook is related to high achievement and a positive mood (Taylor, 1989). People who ap- proach an upcoming event believing they will do well tend to perform better and feel better about themselves than those who enter the situation thinking things will likely turn out poorly. Similarly, when people face a specific prob- lem, those who believe they will beat the odds tend to do better and feel bet- ter than those who think the odds will beat them. Heart transplant patients inone study were asked about their expectations prior to the surgery (Leedham, Meyerowitz, Muirhead, & Frist, 1995). Those with positive expectations did a much better job of adjusting to life after the surgery than those with amore pessimistic outlook. But optimism and pessimism aren ’t simply tied to specific events or pro- blems. Rather, like the other traits reviewed in this chapter, psychologists canidentify individual differences in the manner in which we typically approach life’s challenges (Scheier & Carver, 1985). We can place people on a contin- uum ranging from those who look at life in the most optimistic light to those who view the world through the most pessimistic lenses. Because people are relatively consistent in the extent to which they adopt one of these view- points, researchers sometimes refer to this personality variable as disposi- tional optimism. When researchers compare people high in dispositional optimism with those who are not, they usually find clear advantages for the optimists. People who take an optimistic approach to life tend to achieve more than those who don ’t (Crane & Crane, 2007; Brown & Marshall, 2001; Segerstrom, 2007). Optimists set their goals higher, effectively prioritize their212 CHAPTER 8 The Trait Approach
goals, and believe they can reach those goals (Geers, Wellman, & Lassiter, 2009). Just like the moral of so many stories, researchers find that havingconfidence in one ’s abilities is often the key to success. In particular, optimists are less likely to allow setbacks and temporary failures to get them down (Gibbons, Blanton, Gerrard, Buunk, & Eggleston, 2000). One team of re- searchers looked at how new life insurance agents reacted to the inevitable rejections they face when selling policies (Seligman & Schulman, 1986). They found the pessimists were more than twice as likely as the optimists to quitwithin the first year. When the going got tough, many of the pessimists decided it was never going to get any better. Meanwhile, the undiscouraged and persis- tent optimists sold more insurance policies than their pessimistic colleagues. As with many other personality variables, researchers find optimism and pessimism are related to culture (Chang, 2001; Fischer & Chalmers, 2008).Much of this research has compared people in individualistic cultures withthose from collectivist cultures (Chapter 1). One study asked Canadian and Japanese students to estimate the likelihood that certain events (e.g., live a long life, develop skin cancer) would happen to them (Heine & Lehman,1995). The Japanese students consistently expressed a more pessimistic out- look than the Canadians. Other investigators have compared scores on mea- sures of optimism and pessimism between cultures (Chang, 1996; Lee & Seligman, 1997). These researchers also find Asian participants are more pes- simistic than participants from individualistic cultures. Because, as we will see, optimism and pessimism are related to coping, well-being, and health, these cultural differences have important implications for counselors working with people from diverse cultural backgrounds (Chang, 2001). Dealing with Adversity Investigators find clear differences in the way optimists and pessimists deal with unexpected, stressful events (Nes & Segerstrom, 2006; Rasmussen,Wrosch, Scheier, & Carver, 2006). Consider the stress experienced by Israeli citizens in a study conducted during the Persian Gulf War (Zeidner & Hammer, 1992). The researchers looked at coping and adjustment among residents of Haifa, an area repeatedly threatened with SCUD missile a ttacks during the time the study was conducted. The investigators found that the dispositionaloptimists in their sample experienced less anxiety and less depression than those identified as pessimists. Similar results are found when less acute sources of stress are examined. One team of researchers looked at adjustment levels in men and women who had spent at least one year caring for aspouse diagnosed with Alzheimer ’s disease (Hooker, Monahan, Shifren, & Hutchinson, 1992). The spouses who generally approached life with an opti-mistic outlook experienced less stress and less depression than the pessimisticcaregivers. Another study examined the health of individuals who experienced the death or severe illness of a loved one (Kivimaki et al., 2005). Optimistic participants had fewer health problems in the 18 months following the eventthan those low in optimism. Other investigators look at how optimists and pessimists react to health problems and medical procedures. In one study, optimistic women who hadOptimism and Pessimism 213
surgery for breast cancer reported less distress during the year following the surgery and showed higher levels of adjustment several years later than pessi-mistic women going through the same experience (Carver et al., 1993, 2005). In another investigation, rheumatoid arthritis patients high in dispositional optimism scored higher on measures of psychological adjustment than did pessimistic patients (Long & Sangster, 1993). In yet another study, men re- covering from coronary artery bypass surgery were compared for general mood and quality of life 6 months after the surgery (Scheier et al., 1989). Asin the other investigations, the dispositionally optimistic men looked much better after their surgery than did the pessimists. The results of these studies clearly demonstrate that optimists deal with adverse situations better than pessimists. But the benefits of optimism are notlimited to extreme situations like war and surgery. One team of investigators looked at students ’adjustment to college life (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992). Freshman students with an optimistic outlook had a significantly easier time adjusting to the demands of their first quarter of college than did pessimistic students. Clearly, dispositional optimists do a better job of handling stressful situa- tions than pessimists. But why is this the case? What is it about an optimistic disposition that helps some people come through life ’s crises and challenges so well? One answer is that optimists and pessimists use different strategies to cope with their problems (Lai & Wong, 1998; Peacock & Wong, 1996; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 2001; Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986). Optimists are more likely to deal with their problems head-on —that is, to use active coping strategies (Chapter 6). On the other hand, pessimists are more likely to distract themselves or resort to denial when faced with a diffi- cult problem. Consider an investigation that compared the coping strategies optimistic and pessimistic college students used when facing a big exam (Chang, 1998). As shown in Figure 8.4, the optimists dealt with the stress ofthe upcoming exam by using direct problem solving, such as preparing for the test and talking with other students about their experience. In contrast, the pessimists dealt with their anxiety by relying on wishful thinking and with-drawing from others. Researchers find a similar pattern when examining optimists and pessi- mists facing other types of stressors. Optimistic cancer patients in one studywere more likely than pessimists to use active coping strategies (Friedman et al., 1992). The optimistic patients did what they could to deal with their cancer and talked to other people about their feelings. The pessimistic patientsavoided thinking about their situation and kept their feelings to themselves. The optimistic women in the breast cancer study mentioned earlier were more likely than the pessimists to make plans early in the course of the dis-ease and to rely on such positive coping strategies as humor (Carver et al., 1993). The pessimistic patients were more likely to use denial. A similar pattern was found for the men recovering from bypass surgery (Scheier et al.,1989). Even the freshman students dealing with the stresses of entering college showed this different use of coping strategies. The optimistic students dealt with the stress of new classes, new friends, and new social pressures214 CHAPTER 8 The Trait Approach
by trying to do something about these problems directly. The pessimistic stu- dents were more likely to pretend the problems did not exist or simply avoided dealing with them for as long as possible. Optimism and Health Researchers also find that optimism may be good for your health. Optimists are typically in better physical health than pessimists (Baker, 2007; Conway,Magai, Springer, & Jones, 2008; Rasmussen et al., 2006; Segerstrom, 2007). In one study, researchers used essays written years earlier to determine how opti- mistic or pessimistic a group of men had been when they were 25 (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988). The investigators found that the optimists were in better health at ages 45 through 60 than the pessimists in their sample. Why are optimists healthier than pessimists? The relationship between optimism and health appears to be complex, but investigators have identifiedseveral possible links (Peterson & Bossio, 2001). For example, we know that optimists are more likely to develop wide social networks and turn to friendsin times of crisis (Brissette, Scheier, & Carver, 2002). In contrast, one study found pessimistic women diagnosed with breast cancer tended to reduce con- tact with friends (Carver, Lehman, & Antoni, 2003). Numerous studies findsocial support often contributes to better health. One team of researchers found evidence of a stronger immune system for optimists (Kamen-Siegel, Rodin, Seligman, & Dwyer, 1991). And because they more often experience05101520253035Pessimists Optimists Social WithdrawalSelf- CriticismWishful ThinkingProblem AvoidanceSocial SupportExpress EmotionsProblem SolvingStrategy Use Score Active Strategies Avoidance StrategiesCognitive Restructuring FIGURE 8.4 Use of Coping Strategies Source: From “Dispositional optimism and primary and secondary appraisal of a stressor,” by E. C. Chang, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1998, 74, 1109 –1120. Copyright © 1998 by the American Psychological Association.Optimism and Pessimism 215
negative emotions, pessimists tend to have higher blood pressure, and this can have an impact on their health (Raikkonen & Matthews, 2008). Perhaps the most likely reason that optimists are healthier than pessimists is that an optimistic outlook leads to the kinds of attitudes and behaviors that contribute to good health. One team of researchers looked at patients in a cardiac rehabilitation program (Shepperd, Maroto, & Pbert, 1996). Each par- ticipant entered the program after suffering a heart attack or having been di- agnosed with some other cardiovascular problem. Compared to the pessimistsin the program, the optimistic patients were more successful in reducing satu- rated fat from their diet, decreasing body fat, and increasing their aerobic ca- pacity. These optimistic patients apparently decided they could reach theirrehabilitation goals and did what it took to succeed. Other studies find that optimists pay more attention to relevant health information than do pessi- mists (Aspinwall & Brunhart, 1996), are more physically active, eat healthierfoods (Giltay, Geleijnse, Zitman, Buijsse, & Kromhout, 2007), and are less prone to health-destructive habits, such as substance abuse (Carvajal, Clair, Nash, & Evans, 1998). In addition, the fatalistic view taken by pessimistsmay prevent them from practicing reasonable safety and health precautions, such as wearing a seat belt or using a designated driver. One team of investi- gators found pessimists —particularly those who expect bad events to occur in a wide range of situations —were more likely than optimists to be involved in fatal accidents (Peterson, Seligman, Yurko, Martin, & Friedman, 1998). Defensive Pessimism The research discussed thus far makes it clear that an optimistic outlook is more likely to lead to happiness and success than a pessimistic approach. But thenhow do we account for Sparky Anderson? Sparky Anderson was one of the most successful baseball managers in the history of the game. He was a major league manager for more than a quarter of a century, led his teams to more vic- tories than all but two managers in baseball history, and was the first person to manage a World Series champion in both the American and National Leagues. We might guess that Sparky Anderson was as confident and optimistic as any-one ever hired to manage a sports team. But we would be wrong. Something else motivated Sparky every time he put on his uniform —he was terrified of los- ing. Although he managed nearly 4,000 games, he still became nervous the morning of a game and stayed that way all day. He considered all the things that could go wrong, all the ways his team might lose. After all his experience and all his success, just thinking about an upcoming game could make SparkyAnderson ’s hands shake enough to spill his cup of coffee (Antonen, 1993). Sparky Anderson represents another type of strategy some people use when approaching a task. Researchers refer to these people as defensive pessi- mists (Norem, 2001, 2008). Unlike pessimists who simply expect the worst, defensive pessimists generate their gloomy expectations as part of a deliberate strategy for dealing with upcoming events. Defensive pessimists think about failure. Not only do they worry and fret over what may be a worst-case out- come, they even tell themselves that they probably won ’t do well on the up- coming task. When researchers ask students to estimate how they will216 CHAPTER 8 The Trait Approach
perform on an approaching exam, defensive pessimists predict they will do significantly worse than most students (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b). But why would anyone deliberately take this pessimistic approach? It ’s not that defensive pessimists want to fail. On the contrary, it is the defensive pessimists ’fear of failure that motivates them. Defensive pessimists appear to take a dismal outlook for two reasons. First, one way these people prepare themselves for failure is by setting low expectations in advance. The sting of defeat is lessened for the defensive pessimist if it was expected all along. Andto actually succeed after such low expectations is probably all the sweeter. Second, the real possibility (for them) that they might fail may actually push defensive pessimists to try harder. In some ways, it ’s as if the pleasure that comes from success is not enough to motivate these people. Rather, it is the fear that they might do poorly that provides the incentive. Are there really people who strategically expect the worst? Consider the results of a study with college honors students (Cantor, Norem, Niedenthal, Langston, & Brower, 1987). The researchers used a self-report inventory to identify the defensive pessimists as well as some dispositional optimistsamong freshman students. Both groups had done equally well in high school. The defensive pessimists had a mean grade point average (GPA) of 3.81, which was comparable to the optimists ’GPA of 3.83. Yet when these stu- dents were asked what grades they expected their first semester, the defensive pessimists gave an average GPA estimate of 3.24, whereas the optimists guessed 3.64. Clearly, the two kinds of students had different expectations for how they would do in their classes. How did these different expectations affect the students ’actual classroom performance? On one hand, we might expect a kind of self-fulfilling prophecyto operate here. That is, psychologists find people sometimes do poorly on a test because they expect a poor outcome. On the other hand, the defensive pessimists ’strategy is not to fail but simply to prepare themselves for the worst possible outcome. In fact, the defensive pessimists and the optimists de- voted an equivalent amount of time to their schoolwork. Consequently, when first semester grades arrived, the defensive pessimists had an average GPA of3.34, nearly identical to the optimists ’3.38. Their lowered expectations did not appear to have hurt them after all. Other studies confirm that defensive pessimists deliberately think about the very things that make them anxious when facing a potential failure (del Valle & Mateos, 2008; Gasper, Lozinski, & LeBeau, 2009; Norem & Illingworth, 2004; Sanna, Chang, Carter, & Small, 2006). But do defensivepessimists actually benefit from focusing on the negative rather than the positive? What would happen if defensive pessimists didn ’t engage in this worrisome thinking? To find out, one team of investigators told defensive pessimists they would soon be tested on a series of mental arithmetic pro- blems (Norem & Illingworth, 1993). Half the participants were allowed to do what defensive pessimists typically do when facing this kind of task. Theywere instructed to reflect on their thoughts and feelings about the upcoming test and to list those thoughts for the experimenter. The remaining defensive pessimists were given a proofreading exercise that effectively prevented themOptimism and Pessimism 217
from thinking about the upcoming arithmetic problems. The researchers mea- sured the participants ’mood just prior to taking the test and looked at how well they did on the problems. As shown in Figure 8.5, the defensive pessi- mists allowed to worry and fret about the upcoming test actually felt better than the participants not allowed to do this. Moreover, the defensive pessi- mists who were allowed to list their thoughts performed better on the arith- metic problems than the participants who were distracted prior to the test. The results of this experiment suggest that thinking about all that can go wrong before a test actually helps some people. But is this true for everyone? Anxiety Level Listed ThoughtsDistracted304050 OptimistsDefensive PessimistsArithmetic Test Score Listed ThoughtsDistracted3035Optimists Defensive Pessimists4045 FIGURE 8.5 Anxiety Level and Arithmetic Test Scores Source: From “Strategy-dependent Effects of Reflecting on Self and Tasks: Some Implications of Optimism and Defensive Pessimism, ”by J. K. Norem and S. S. Illingworth, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1993, 65, 822 –835. Copyright © 1993 by the American Psychological Association.218 CHAPTER 8 The Trait Approach
The answer is “No.”In the same experiment, the researchers also looked at dispositional optimists. In contrast to the defensive pessimists, thinking about their thoughts beforehand made the optimists more anxious and caused them to perform more poorly on the arithmetic problems. If given a choice, optimists expect to succeed and prefer not to think about failure. In this way, optimists avoid the anxiety that comes from fretting over worst-case scenarios. One study found that optimists did best at a dart-throwing game when allowed to relax for 10 minutes as they waited to play (Spencer & Norem, 1996).Predictably, defensive pessimists in this study did better when given 10 minutes to think about how they would deal with all the things that might go wrong. The benefits defensive pessimists derive from focusing on the negative are not limited to achievement situations. Defensive pessimists in one study weretold they were to have a short conversation with a stranger and that this other person would evaluate them afterward (Showers, 1992). In many ways this ex-perimental situation is similar to dates, first meetings, and other social situa- tions in which we are concerned about making a good impression. As in the earlier experiment, half the defensive pessimists were allowed to engage in theirtypical strategy. These participants were instructed to think about all the things that could go wrong in the upcoming conversation (for example, long, awk- ward silences). The other half was told to imagine positive outcomes (for exam- ple, an easy-flowing conversation). The participants then spent 5 minutes talking to a student they did not know. How did the conversations go? The de- fensive pessimists allowed to contemplate potential negative consequences talked significantly more and were liked more by the person they spoke with than the defensive pessimists forced to think about potential positive outcomes only. Again, this pattern was not found when the researchers looked at people who generally take an optimistic approach to their social encounters. Thus, in social settings as well as achievement situations, thinking about the worst ap- pears to help some people do their best. SUMMARY 1. Achievement motivation has been an important research topic for several decades. Much of the early work in this area was based on Henry Murray’ s description of people high in need for Achievement. More recent investigations look at the effects of attributions and achievement goals on achievement behavior. Researchers find mastery goals often lead to more achievement than performance goals. 2. Research on the Type A behavior pattern developed out of observations by medical professionals about people who suffer heart attacks. Althoughearly researchers found a strong link between Type A behavior and car- diovascular problems, later studies did not always replicate these find-ings. Researchers now know that one Type A component —hostility —is responsible for the increase in cardiovascular problems found in the ear-lier studies. 3. Research on socially anxious people finds a number of characteristic be- haviors that interfere with the shy person ’s ability to interact effectivelySummary 219
with others. Shy people tend to be self-conscious during social encoun- ters, are reluctant to ask others for help, and often interpret feedbackfrom their conversation partners as rejection. Research suggests that so- cially anxious people suffer from evaluation apprehension. Shy people avoid negative evaluation from others by limiting their social interactions or by keeping these interactions short and pleasant. The socially anxious persons’ lack of confidence makes initiating conversations especially diffi- cult for them. 4. Although emotions fluctuate considerably over time and across situations, researchers have identified three ways our emotions can be examined in terms of relatively stable individual differences. Researchers place ouremotions along two major dimensions, which they identify as positive affect and negative affect. Personality researchers also look at emotional intensity and at individual differences in the extent to which people ex-press their emotions. 5. People can be identified along a continuum from dispositionally optimis- tic to dispositionally pessimistic. Researchers find optimists typically deal more effectively with adversity, probably because they use more active and direct coping strategies than pessimists. Researchers have also identi- fied people they call defensive pessimists. These individuals deliberately focus on all the things that can go wrong in an effort to motivate them- selves to do well. KEY TERMS achievement goals (p. 191) affect intensity (p. 209)defensive pessimists (p. 216) dispositional optimism (p. 212)emotional affectivity (p. 205) emotional expressiveness (p. 210)evaluation apprehension (p. 202) need for Achievement (p. 184) social anxiety (p. 199) MEDIA RESOURCES Visit our website. Go to www.cengage.com/ psychology/burger to find online resources directly linked to your book, including quizzing, glossary, flashcards, and more.220 CHAPTER 8 The Trait Approach
CHAPTER9 The Biological Approach Theory, Application, and Assessment Hans Eysenck ’s Theory of Personality Temperament Evolutionary Personality Psychology Application: Children ’s Temperaments and School Assessment: Brain Electrical Activity and Cerebral Asymmetry Strengths and Criticisms of the Biological Approach Summary 221
Have you ever been told that you act like one of your parents? Perhaps a rel- ative has said, “You’re your mother ’s son (daughter), all right. ”My brother ’s quick temper has often been described as “inherited from his father.” I know one couple who were more interested in learning about the family of their daughter ’s fiancé than about the fiancé. They told me that meeting the new in-laws would help them see what their future grandchildren would be like. As these examples suggest, the notion that children inherit characteristics from their parents is widely held in this society. Not only do people acceptthat parents pass physical characteristics, such as eye color or height, through their genes, but we often expect children ’s personalities to resemble their parents ’. Although conventional wisdom has for years acknowledged the role of biology in the development of personality, the same cannot be said of many psychologists. Several decades ago, many academic psychologists looked atall healthy newborns as blank slates, perhaps limited by differences in intelli- gence or physical skills but otherwise equally likely to develop into any kind of adult personality. Different adult personalities were attributed to differ-ences in experiences, particularly in the way parents raised their children dur- ing the child ’s early years. However, this view has changed. No reputable psychologist would argue that people are born with their adult personalities intact, but today few psychologists would deny that personality is at least partly the result of inherited biological differences. This acceptance of a genetic influence on personality has coincided with a growing recognition that personality cannot be separated from other biologi-cal factors. Research tells us that not all people have identical physiological functioning. We can identify differences between people in terms of brain- wave activity, hormone levels, heart-rate responsiveness, and other physiolog- ical features. More important for personality psychologists, researchers find these biological differences often translate into differences in behavior. We ’ll review an example of this later in this chapter when we look at individual dif- ferences in brainwave patterns. We also have seen in recent years a growing recognition that human per- sonality, like other human features, is the product of many generations ofevolutionary development. Just as biologists find it useful to ask about the evolutionary function of the physical characteristics of a species, some psy-chologists have found this same question useful in understanding certain fea- tures of personality. This growing acceptance of a biological influence on personality is partly a reflection of behaviorism ’s declining influence on the thinking of academic psychologists. As described in Chapter 13, early behaviorists tended to ignore individual differences among newborns, and a few even claimed that with en-ough control over the child ’s experiences they could shape a child into what- ever personality they wanted. Probably no behaviorist would argue such anextreme position today. The movement away from the “blank slate ”position has also been stimulated by research demonstrating rather clearly that at least some of our personality is inherited from our parents. This research is re- viewed in Chapter 10.222 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
In this chapter, we ’ll look at three ways psychol ogists have used biological concepts to explain personality . First, we examine Hans Eysenck ’s description of personality, which has been an influential model in personality research for sev- eral decades. From the beginning, Eysenck maintained that the individual differ- ences in personality he described are base d on physiological differences. Second, we look at individual differences in gener al dispositions, called temperaments. A strong case can be made that temperamen ts are based on biological differences. Psychologists have been succ essful in identifying some of these temperamental differences among very young children. Th ird, we examine an area of personality research called evolutiona ry personality psychology. Psychologists using this ap- proach borrow the concept of natural sele ction from biology to explain a large number of human behaviors. What each of these three theoretical perspectives makes clear is that a complete understanding of human personality requires us to go beyond some of the early boundaries of the discipline. It is no longer useful to think of our personality as somehow separate from our physiological makeup. HANS EYSENCK ’S THEORY OF PERSONALITY Many years ago, when the conventional wisdom in psychology traced an individual ’s personality to his or her experiences, a respected psychologist argued that personality was, in fact, determined more by biological makeup than by any actions or mistakes made by one ’s parents. Although Hans Eysenck ’s (pronounced Eye-Zinc) theory of personality has always been accorded respect within the field, his initial claims about such a large biologi-cal determinant of personality were met by many with a mix of skepticism and tolerance. But today Eysenck ’s emphasis on biological aspects of indivi- dual differences is increasingly compatible with the recognition of biology ’s role in personality. The Structure of Personality Like Raymond Cattell and other psychologists described in Chapter 7, Eysenck was concerned with discovering the underlying structure of personal- ity. Also like these trait researchers, Eysenck employed factor analysis to iden-tify the basic number of what he called types, or supertraits. However, unlike most of the trait researchers, Eysenck ’s conclusion after years of research was that all traits can be subsumed within three basic personality dimensions. He called these three dimensions extraversion –introversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Eysenck ’s research strategy begins by dividing the elements of personality into various units that can be arranged hierarchically (Figure 9.1). The basic structure in this scheme is the specific response level, which consists of spe- cific behaviors. For example, if we watch a man spend the afternoon talking and laughing with friends, we would be observing a specific response. If this man spends many afternoons each week having a good time with friends, weHans Eysenck ’s Theory of Personality 223
have evidence for the second level in Eysenck ’s model, a habitual response. But it is unlikely that this man limits himself to socializing just in the after- noon and just with these friends. Suppose this man also devotes a large partof his weekends and quite a few evenings to his social life. If you watch long enough, you might find that he lives for social gatherings, group discussions, parties, and so on. You might conclude, in Eysenck ’s terms, that this person exhibits the trait of sociability. Eysenck also argued that traits such as socia- bility are part of a still larger dimension of personality. That is, people whoare sociable also tend to be impulsive, active, lively, and excitable. All of thesetraits combine to form the supertrait Eysenck calls extraversion. How many of these supertraits are there? Originally, Eysenck ’s factor an- alytic research yielded evidence for two basic dimensions that could subsumeall other traits: extraversion –introversion and neuroticism . Because the dimen- sions are independent of one another, people who score on the extraversion end of the first dimension can score either high or low on the second dimen- sion. Further, as shown in Figure 9.2, someone who scores high on extraver- sion and low on neuroticism possesses traits different from a person who scores high on both extraversion and neuroticism. If you are the prototypic extravert, you are “outgoing, impulsive, and un- inhibited, having many social contacts and frequently taking part in group ac-tivities. The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and does not like reading or studying by himself ” (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968, p. 6). An introvert is “a quiet, retiring sort ofSupertrait Level:Extraversion Trait Level:Sociability Impulsiveness Activity Liveliness Excitability HabitualResponseLevel: Specific ResponseLevel: HR1 HR2 HR3 HR4SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 SRn–1SRnHRn–1 HRn FIGURE 9.1 Eysenck ’s Hierarchical Model of Personality224 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
person, introspective, fond of books rather than people; he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends” (p. 6). Of course, most people fall some- where between these two extremes, but each of us is perhaps a little more one than the other. The second major dimension in Eysenck ’s model is neuroticism . High scores on this dimension indicate a tendency to respond emotionally. Wesometimes refer to people high in neuroticism as unstable or highly emo- tional. They often have strong emotional reactions to minor frustrations and take longer to recover from these. They are more easily excited, angered, anddepressed than most of us. Those falling on the other end of the neuroticism dimension are less likely to fly off the handle and less prone to large swings in emotion. Research findings later led Eysenck to add a third supertrait: psychoti- cism. People who score high on this dimension are described as “egocentric, aggressive, impersonal, cold, lacking in empathy, impulsive, lacking in con- cern for others, and generally unconcerned about the rights and welfare of other people ”(Eysenck, 1982, p. 11). Needless to say, people scoring particu- larly high on this dimension are good candidates for some type of judicial correction or psychotherapy.Moody Anxious Rigid Sober Pessimistic Reserved Unsociable QuietTouchy Restless Aggressive Excitable Changeable Impulsive Optimistic Active Sociable Passive Outgoing Careful Talkative Thoughtful Responsive Peaceful Easygoing Controlled Lively Reliable Carefree Even-tempered Leadership CalmUnstable (Neurotic) StableExtraverted Introverted FIGURE 9.2 Traits Associated with Eysenck ’s Two Major Personality Dimensions Source: From Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, B. G. (1968), Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory , San Diego: EDITS. Reprinted by permission of Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Hans Eysenck ’s Theory of Personality 225
Physiological Differences: Stimulation Sensitivity and Behavioral Systems Eysenck argued that extraverts and introverts differ not only in terms of behavior but also in their physiological makeup. He originally maintained that extraverts and introverts have different levels of cerebral cortex arousal when in a nonstimulating, resting state (Eysenck, 1967). Although it may sound backward at first, he proposed that extraverts generally have a lower level of cortical arousal than do introverts. Extraverts seek out highly arous- ing social behavior because their cortical arousal is well below their desiredlevel when doing nothing. In a sense, highly extraverted people are simply try- ing to avoid unpleasant boredom. Their problem is feeding their need for stim- ulation. Introverts have the opposite problem. They typically operate at anabove-optimal cortical arousal level. These people select solitude and nonsti- mulating environments in an effort to keep their already high arousal level from becoming too aversive. For these reasons, extraverts enjoy a noisy partythat introverts can ’t wait to leave. Unfortunately, a great deal of research has failed to uncover the different levels of base-rate cortical arousal proposed by Eysenck. Introverts and extra- verts do differ in how certain parts of their brains respond to emotional sti- muli (Canli, 2004). However, they show no differences in brain-wave activity when at rest or when asleep (Stelmack, 1990). But this does not mean that Eysenck ’s original theorizing was entirely off base. Rather, there is ample evidence that introverts are more sensitive to stimulation than extraverts (Bullock & Gilliland, 1993; Stelmack, 1990; Swickert & Gilliland, 1998). That is, introverts are more quickly and strongly aroused when exposed to external stimulation. Introverts are more likely to become aroused when they encounter loud music or the stimulation found in an active social encounter. Introverts are even more responsive than extraverts when exposed to chemi- cal stimulants, such as caffeine or nicotine. As a result of these research findings, many researchers now describe extraverts and introverts in terms of their different sensitivity to stimulation rather than differences in cortical activity. However, the effect is essentially the same. Because of physiological differences, introverts are more quicklyoverwhelmed by the stimulation of a crowded social gathering, whereas ex- traverts are likely to find the same gathering rather pleasant. Extraverts are quickly bored by slow-moving movie plots and soft music, but introvertsoften find these subtle sources of stimulation engaging. Other researchers tie differences in extraversion and neuroticism to bio- logically based differences in sensitivity to reinforcement. According to rein- forcement sensitivity theory (Gray, 1982, 1987; Gray & McNaughton, 2000), each human brain has a behavioral approach system (BAS) and a behavioral inhibition system (BIS) . The exact regions of the brain and the specific pro- cesses involved in each of these hypothetical systems remain to be deter- mined. Nonetheless, like other persona lity concepts, individuals are said to differ in the strength of these two systems and these individual differences are relatively stable over time. People with a highly active BAS are intensely motivated to seek out and achieve pleasurable goals. Compared to people226 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
low on this dimension, they get more pleasure out of rewards and more en- joyment out of simply anticipating that rewards are coming. Individualswith an active BAS also experience more anger and frustration when they fall short of reaching their anticipated pleasure. People with a highly active BIS tend to be more apprehensive than others. They approach new situa- tions warily, are on the constant lookout for signs of danger, and are quick to retreat from a situation that they sense might lead to problems. Not surprisingly, they also are more likely to experience anxiety than peoplelow on this dimension. Just how these two hypothetical systems are related to extraversion and neuroticism remains a matter of debate (Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006).But most researchers see a connection between the BAS and extraversion and between the BIS and neuroticism. That is, people with a highly active BAS are similar to those scoring high in extraversion, and those with a highlyactive BIS are similar to people scoring high in neuroticism. Scales designed to measure BAS and BIS do correlate with scales measuring extraversion and neuroticism, respectively, but the correlation is far from perfect (Jackson,2009). Thus, although the concepts are related, they probably are not the same thing. Nonetheless, when looked at in these terms, we can think of extraverts as more aware of and more attracted to situations that promise rewards. Whenextraverts encounter an opportunity to have a good time, they are motivated to approach the object of their desire. As a result, extraverts are more impul- sive than introverts and are more likely to find themselves in the middle of a party or riding on a roller coaster. One implication of this description is that extraverts aren ’t necessarily attracted to all social situations, but only to those that are likely to be enjoyable (Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000). One team of researchers found that extraverts actually preferred nonsocial situations, such as going for a walk alone, more than introverts did ifthey thought the experience would be pleasant (Lucas & Diener, 2001). A Biological Basis for Personality Eysenck (1990) pointed to three arguments when making the case that indi- vidual differences in personality are based in biology. First, he noted the consistency of extraversion –introversion over time. Participants in one study found scores on measures of extraversion –introversion remained fairly consis- tent over a span of 45 years (Conley, 1984, 1985). Of course, this finding alone does not establish that extraversion –introversion is determined through biology. It is possible that people remain in similar environments throughout their lives or throughout the time period in which this personality trait is developed. Second, Eysenck pointed to the results of cross-cultural research. He argued that researchers find the same three dimensions of personality — extraversion –introversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism —in research con- ducted in many different countries with different cultural backgrounds and histories (Barrett & Eysenck, 1984; Lynn & Martin, 1995). Moreover, Eysenck argued that the three “superfactors ”not only appear in his research“Heritability is not a fixed number. Once you realize what ’s inherited, there ’s a lot you can do about it. ” Hans EysenckHans Eysenck ’s Theory of Personality 227
but also in the work of other investigators using different data-gathering meth- ods (Eysenck & Long, 1986). Eysenck reasoned that this cross-cultural consis- tency would be highly improbable if biological factors were not largelyresponsible for personality. Third, Eysenck pointed to the results of several studies indicating that ge- netics plays an important role in determining a person ’s level on each of the three personality dimensions. As presented in detail in Chapter 10, research strongly suggests that each of us inherited a predisposition to be introverted or extraverted. Hans J. Eysenck 1916 –1997 If heredity plays a large role in determining personality,we might say that HansEysenck was born to be thecenter of attention in whatever field he entered.Eysenck was born inGermany into a family ofcelebrities. His father, Eduard Eysenck, was an accomplished actor andsinger, something of a matinee idol in Europe. Hismother, whose stage name was Helga Molander, was asilent film star. They planned a glamorous career in theentertainment field for Hans, who at age 8 had a small role in a motion picture. However, like manyHollywood marriages today, Eysenck ’s parents divorced when he was young (only to marry other show business people later). Most of Eysenck ’s early years were spent with his grandmother in Berlin. Upon graduating from public school in Berlin, the rebellious Eysenck decided not only to pursue a career in physics and astronomy, much to his family ’s displeasure, but to do so abroad. After a year in France,he moved to England, where he eventually completedhis PhD at the University of London. Like so manyothers at the time, Eysenck left Germany in 1934 inpart to escape the rise of the Nazis. “Faced with the choice of having to join the Nazi storm troops if Iwanted to go to a university, ”he wrote, “I knew that there was no future for me in my unhappy homeland ” (Eysenck, 1982, p. 289). Because he was a Germancitizen, Eysenck was prohibited from joining the Britishmilitary and spent World War II working in anemergency hospital. Following the war, Eysenck returned to the University of London, where his longcareer produced 79 books and more than 1,000 journalarticles (Farley, 2000). Although he never pursued the career in show business his parents desired, he did not avoid the public ’s eye. Eysenck appeared to seek out and dive right into some of the biggest controversies inpsychology. In 1952 he published a paper challengingthe effectiveness of psychotherapy. He was especiallycritical of psychoanalysis, pointing out that empiricalevidence at the time showed psychoanalysis to be nobetter than receiving no treatment at all. Morecontroversy occurred when he stated that individualdifferences in intelligence are largely inherited. As aresult, Eysenck was sometimes unfairly associated with those who proposed inherent racial differences inintelligence. In 1980 Eysenck published a book arguing that the case for cigarettes as a cause of health problems was not as strong as many people claimed.Critics were particularly harsh when they discoveredthat some of this work had been sponsored byAmerican tobacco companies. This lifelong combative style caused one biographer to call Eysenck the “controversialist in the intellectual world ”(Gibson, 1981, p. 253). Eysenck would no doubt have enjoyed this title. “From the days of opposition to Nazism in my early youth, through my stand against Freudianism and projective techniques, to my advocacy of behavior therapy and genetic studies,to more recent issues, I have usually been against theestablishment and in favor of the rebels, ”he wrote. “[But] I prefer to think that on these issues the majority were wrong, and I was right” (1982, p. 298).Reproduced by permission from The H. J. Eysenck Memorial Fund/University of London228 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
After examining the evidence from all of these sources, and no doubt adding a bit of his own intuition, Eysenck (1982) asserted that about two- thirds of the variance in personality development can be traced to biologicalfactors. Although the exact figure may not be this high, data from a con- tinuing stream of studies suggests that extraverts and introverts differ on a number of biological measures (Cox-Fuenzalida, Gilliland, & Swickert,2001; Doucet & Stelmack, 2000; Stelmack & Pivik, 1996). This is not to say that environmental factors do not play a role. But, as the evidence re- viewed in Chapter 10 makes clear, bi ology probably sets limits on how much we can change an introverted friend into a highly sociable individual or the likelihood of shaping an impulsive, outgoing child into a calm, easy- going adult. How do you spend your spare time? If you ’re an extravert, it probably never occurs to you to take a long walk by yourself. If you ’re an introvert, you may rely on a long walk to reduce your arousal level after an intense and active day. Photo by Marlene SomsakHans Eysenck ’s Theory of Personality 229
TEMPERAMENT If you were to spend a few minutes watching toddlers in a nursery school, you most likely would notice that even before they are a year old, some chil-dren clearly act differently than others. If you were to spend a week working in the nursery, you could probably identify the active babies, the ones who cry frequently, and (hopefully) a few who are usually quiet and happy. Although it is possible these differences are the result of different treatment the children receive at home, a growing number of researchers are convinced these general behavioral styles are present at birth. Further, they argue thatthese general styles are relatively stable and influence the development of per- sonality traits throughout a person’ s life. But does this mean that some people are born to be sociable and others are born to be shy? Probably not. More likely we are born with broad dispo-sitions toward certain types of behaviors. Psychologists refer to these general behavioral dispositions as temperaments . Temperaments are general patterns of behavior and mood that can be expressed in many different ways and that, depending on one ’s experiences, develop into different personality traits. How these general dispositions develop into stable personality traits de- pends on a complex interplay of one ’s genetic predispositions and the envir- onment that a person grows up in. Temperament and Personality Although researchers agree that temperaments are general behavioral pat- terns that can often be seen in newborns (A. H. Buss, 1991), they do not al-ways agree on how to classify the different kinds of temperaments they observe (Caspi, 1998; Clark, 2005; Clark & Watson, 1999; Evans & Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000; Shiner, 1998). Indeed, re- searchers often disagree on the number of basic temperaments. One popular model identifies three temperament dimensions —emotionality, activity, and sociability (Buss & Plomin, 1984, 1986). Emotionality refers to the intensity of emotional reactions. Children who cr y frequently, are easily frightened, and often express anger are high in this temperament. As adults, these indi- viduals are easily upset and may have a “quick temper. ”Activity refers to a person ’s general level of energy. Children high in this temperament move around a lot, prefer games that require running and jumping, and tend tofidget and squirm when forced to sit s t i l lf o ra ne x t e n d e dp e r i o do ft i m e . Adults high on this dimension are alw ays on the go and prefer high-energy activities like playing sports and dancing in their free time. Sociability re- lates to a general tendency to affiliate and interact with others. Sociable chil- dren seek out other children to play with. Adults high in this temperament have a lot of friends and enjoy social gatherings. Where do temperaments come from? Because we can identify temperamen- tal differences in babies, it is not surprising that researchers find evidence thattemperaments are largely inherited (Neale & Stevenson, 1989). In contrast to the approach taken by many physicians and psychologists a few decades ago,230 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
it is now widely agreed that not all babies are born alike. Parents with difficult- to-manage babies are often troubled by descriptions of the “typical ”newborn who sleeps whenever put into a crib, eats meals on a regular schedule, and re- sponds to parental attention with calm, loving sounds. Fortunately, most popu- lar baby books today assure parents that some babies are going to be more active and more emotional than others. Consistent with common observation, researchers also find gender differ- ences in temperament (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006).Girls are more likely than boys to exhibit an effortful control temperament, which includes the ability to focus attention and exercise control over impul-sive urges. On the other hand, boys are more likely than girls to be identifiedwith a surgency temperament. This temperament pattern includes high levels of activity and sociability. These gender differences can be seen in children asyoung as 3 months of age. Can we look at temperament levels in preschool children and determine what kind of adult personalities they will have? To a certain degree, the an- swer is “Yes.”Consider the results of an ongoing longitudinal study con- ducted in Dunedin, New Zealand (Caspi, 2000; Caspi et al., 2003; Moffitt et al., 2007). Ninety-one percent of the children born in this town between April 1, 1972, and March 31, 1973, were tested for temperament at age 3. The researchers identified three temperament types in these toddlers. The well-adjusted children exhibited self-control and self-confidence and were ca- pable of approaching new people and situations with little difficulty. The un- dercontrolled children were impulsive and restless and easily distracted. The inhibited children were fearful, reluctant to get involved in social activities, and uneasy in the presence of strangers. The investigators examined personal- ity development and behavior at several points as the children moved through childhood and adolescence and into their young adult years. Although the well-adjusted children became relatively healthy, well-adjusted adults, the un-dercontrolled and inhibited children ’s lives were different. During the elemen- tary school and adolescent years, undercontrolled children were more likelyto have problems with fighting, lying, and disobeying at both school andhome. As young adults, they were more likely to experience legal, employ- ment, and relationship problems. Inhibited children showed more signs of worrying and fussing when growing up, and as adults they were less sociallyengaged and more likely to suffer from depression. Although temperament by no means is the sole determinant of adult personality and behavior, this study and others make the case that temperament plays an important role in per-sonality development. The process through which general temperaments develop into personal- ity traits is complex and influenced by a large number of factors (Caspi,1998; Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994; Rothbart, 2007). Although the child ’s gen- eral level of emotionality or activity points the development of personality ina certain direction, that development is also influenced by the child ’s experi- ences as he or she grows up (Ganiban, Saudino, Ulbricht, Neiderhiser, & Reiss, 2008). For example, a highly emotional child has a better chance ofTemperament 231
becoming an aggressive adult than does a child low in this temperament. But parents who encourage problem-solving skills over the expression of angermay turn a highly emotional child into a cooperative, nonaggressive adult. A child low in sociability is unlikely to become an outgoing, highly gregarious adult, but that child might develop excellent social skills, be a wonderful friend, and learn to lead others with a quiet, respectful style. One reason general dispositions set the direction for adult personality traits is that a child’ s disposition influences the type of environment he or she lives in (Caspi, 1998; Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994). How other people react to us, and whether they will be a part of our environment at all, is partly de- termined by our temperament. Thus, children high in sociability are likely toseek out situations with other people. Parents react differently to a baby who is constantly fussing and restless than to one who sleeps calmly. As a result, the restless baby experiences a different parent-child relationship than chil-dren with other temperaments. Temperament also generates expectations in other people that can affect the way they treat a child. Preschool teachers in one study expected different personalities in the children in their classes basedon observations about the child’ s general activity level (Graziano, Jensen- Campbell, & Sullivan-Logan, 1998). It is not hard to imagine that these dif- ferent expectancies lead to different treatment. In short, adult personalities are determined by both inherited tempera- ment and the environment. Moreover, temperament influences the environ-ment, and the environment then influences the way temperament develops into stable personality traits. Two children born with identical temperaments can grow up to be two very different people. A child with a high activity level may become an aggressive, achieving, or athletic adult. But that child will probably not become lazy and indifferent. A child does not represent a blank slate on which parents may draw whatever personality they desire. But nei- ther is a child ’s personality set at birth, leaving the parents and society to set- tle for whatever they get. Inhibited and Uninhibited Children Several decades ago, two developmental psychologists reported the results of an investigation on personality tr ait stability (Kagan & Moss, 1962). They had measured traits when the participants were 2 or 3 years old and again when these same people were 20. Although most traits showed at least a little change over time, one appeared remarkably stable. The researchers found that children who were passive and cautious when faced with a newsituation usually grew up to be adults who showed a similar pattern of shy- ness around strangers. Because envir onmental explanations of behavior were prevalent at the time, the researchers assumed this stable trait was the result of some type of “acquired fearfulness ”shaped by the parents during childhood. Today those psychologists have a different interpretation. They argue that these different styles are the result of inherited dispositions (Kagan, 2003; Kagan & Snidman, 2004). Moreover, they find that approximately 10% of Caucasian American children fall into a category they refer to as “inhibited ”(Kagan &232 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
Snidman, 1991a). Inhibited children are controlled and gentle. When they throw a ball or knock over a tower of blocks, they do so in a manner that is “monitored, restrained, almost soft. ”Inhibited children are the ones who cling to their mothers or fathers when entering a new playroom or when meeting new children. They are slow to explore new toys or equipment and may go for several minutes without saying a word. Uninhibited children show the opposite pattern. Approximately 25% of the children in the researchers ’samples fall into this category (Kagan & Snidman, 1991a). These children jump right in to play with a new toy or to climb on a new piece of playground equipment. They usually start talking soon after they enter a new play area, even if they don ’t already know the other children playing there. On the surface, the difference between the two kinds of children appears to be their level of anxiety. But inhibited children are not simply more afraidof everything. Rather, they are vulnerable to a specific form of anxiety psy- chologists refer to as anxiety to novelty . These children are cautious about and at times fearful of new people and new situations. Inhibited toddlers of- ten turn away from strangers and bury their face in mother ’s or father ’s leg. As adults, they may express their discomfort in a new situation by withdraw- ing socially and waiting for others to speak first. Researchers find evidence from a number of sources that these inhibited and uninhibited styles represent inherited biological temperaments. Inhibitedand uninhibited children show a number of physical differences almost from the moment of birth (Fox, Henderson, Rubin, Calkins, & Schmidt, 2001; Moehler, Kagan, Brunner, Wiebel, Kaufmann, & Resch, 2006; Rosenberg & Kagan, 1989). They differ in terms of body build, susceptibility to allergies, and even eye color (inhibited children are more likely to have blue eyes). Inhibited children are more likely than uninhibited children to show signs of ir- ritability, sleep disturbances, and chronic constipation during the first fewmonths of life. Newborns later identified as inhibited children respond to unfa- miliar stimuli with increased heart rate and pupil dilation (LaGasse, Gruber, & Lipsitt, 1989). Additional evidence for a biological foundation comes from research with older children and adults. In particular, neuroimaging studies find inhibited anduninhibited children ’s brains react differently to events and images (Bar-Haim et al., 2009). In one investigation, 10- to 12-year-old boys and girls classi- fied as inhibited reacted to noises with different brain stem responses than did uninhibited children (Woodward et al., 2001). Other investigators findinhibited children have an abnormally high amygdala response when pre- sented highly novel or uncertain stimuli (Perez-Edgar et al., 2007; Schwartz, Wright, Shin, Kagan, & Rauch, 2003). Of course, how inhibited children express their anxiety changes as they mature. Nonetheless, researchers find evidence for a fear of the unfamiliarthroughout childhood and into adulthood (Gest, 1997; Kagan & Snidman,2004; Moehler et al., 2008). Trained judges in one study looked at motor activity —arm and leg movements, tongue protrusions, crying —in 4-month-old infants to place the children into inhibited and uninhibited categories (Kagan, 1989; Kagan & Snidman, 1991a, 1991b). The psychologists observed theTemperament 233
children again at ages 9, 14, and 21 months to see how the toddlers would re- act to unfamiliar events, such as seeing a puppet speaking in an angry tone orbeing shown a large metal robot they could play with. Forty percent of the infants classified as inhibited showed signs of fear, such as crying or hiding, at 14 and 21 months, but none of the uninhibited children did. These temperamental differences can also be seen when the children reach school age (Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005). One team of investigators mea- sured children ’s fear of unfamiliar situations at 21 months of age (Reznick et al., 1986). When the children reached age 5 1/2, they were brought back into the laboratory and examined in a number of situations. Experimenters coded how much the children played with unfamiliar children in the labora-tory playroom, how spontaneously they allowed themselves to fall onto a mattress when playing a falling game, and how risky they were in a ball- tossing game. As shown in Table 9.1, the children who had shown an inhib-ited behavior pattern as infants exhibited similar behaviors at age 5 1/2. In other words, the toddler who clung to mother or father in a new situation showed a similar style of behavior when examined 4 years later. Some children appear to inherit a tendency to respond to unfamiliar situations with increased arousal. When entering a new situation with new people, many of thesechildren display what we typically call “shy”behavior.234 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
It is easy to see how this fear of the unfamiliar can set inhibited children on a path toward shyness. Indeed, one in vestigation found inhibited chil- dren were significantly more likely than uninhibited children to become shy teenagers (Schwartz, Snidman, & Kagan, 1999). But what about after that? Do inhibited children become inhibited adults? To answer this question, one study measured inhibition in a group of children between the ages of8 and 12 (Gest, 1997). These same participants were tested again nearly 10 years later, just as they were entering early adulthood. The investigator found an impressively high correlation of .57 between the two measures, indicatingthat quiet, apprehensive children retain many of these characteristics when they become adults. Another study found that being an inhibited child was a risk factor for adult anxiety disorders, especially social phobia (Biedermanet al., 2001). Do these results mean inhibited children are sentenced to become shy adults? Fortunately, the answer is “No.” Parents of inhibited children can do their offspring a favor by becoming sensitive to the child ’s discomfort in unfa- miliar settings and by teaching the child how to deal with new situations and people. Research indicates that many business leaders, community work- ers, and entertainers have learned to overcome their shyness and lead very social lives. Finally, although most of the research in this area has been focused on in- hibited children, researchers also find that uninhibited children are susceptibleto their own set of potential problems. In particular, uninhibited children are more likely than most to exhibit disruptive behavior disorders, including aggressiveness and attention problems (Biederman et al., 2001; Schwartz, Snidman, & Kagan, 1996). But once again, parents and others have a handTABLE 9.1 Correlations Between Inhibition Measures at 21 Months and Behaviors at Age 5 1/2 Years Behavior at Age 5 1/2 YearsCorrelation with Inhibition Score at 21 Months Play with unfamiliar children .43 Laboratory activity level .38 Look at experimenter .22 Play with new toys .19 Spontaneous falling .40 Ball-toss riskiness .35 Social interaction in school .34 Mother ’s rating of shyness .36 Note: The higher the score, the better the inhibition score predicts the behavior. Source: Fr om “Inhibited and uninhibited children: A follow-up study, ”by J. S. Reznick et al., Child Development , 1986, 57, 660 –680. Reprinted by permission of the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.Temperament 235
in determining how this inherited temperament expresses itself by the time these uninhibited children become adolescents and adults. EVOLUTIONARY PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY Think for a moment about some recent experiences you have had with anxi-ety. That is, what happened to you the last two or three times you felt nervous, worrisome, or anxious? Although direct threats to one ’s well-being —such as an earthquake or physical assault —are certainly sources of anxiety, these events are relatively rare for most of us and probably did not make your list. Instead, if you are like most people, you probably thought of something like talking in front of a group, making a fool of yourself at a party, orhaving a fight with a friend. In other words, you probably thought of at least one situation that involved some sort of negative evaluation and possi- bly even rejection by other people. Other situations on your list may haveonly suggested that some sort of negative social evaluation might be com- ing, such as forgetting to turn in an assignment or discovering that you for- got to use deodorant one morning. What this simple exercise illustrates isthat negative evaluation by other people, either directly or potentially, is a common source of anxiety. But why might this be the case? Is this a learned behavior? Do we fear that others will punish us or refuse to give us something we want? That ’s cer- tainly possible. Or could there be a psychoanalytic basis for this anxiety? At some deep level are we reminded of a traumatic separation from our parents? Perhaps. But another explanation suggests that the roots of anxiety go back much further than this. According to this approach, we react to negative so- cial evaluation in the same way our ancestors did. We inherited this tendency to become nervous and upset in certain situations because experiencing this anxiety has allowed humans to survive over many generations. This different approach is known as evolutionary personality theory (Buss, 1995, 1997, 2009; Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield,1998). Proponents of this theory use the process of natural selection, bor- rowed from the theory of evolution, to explain universal human characteris- tics such as anxiety. These psychologists argue that many characteristics of “human nature ”make sense if we understand the evolutionary function they serve. We ’ll return to the example of anxiety later to illustrate this point. First, we need to examine some of the assumptions underlying evolutionary person-ality theory. Natural Selection and Psychological Mechanisms Evolutionary personality psychology is based on the theory of evolution, as developed in the field of biology for more than a century. According to evolu-tion theory, physical features evolve because they help the species survive the challenges of the environment and reproduce new members of the species. The key to this process is natural selection. That is, some members of a spe- cies possess inherited characteristics that help them meet and survive the threats from the natural environment, such as severe climate, predators, and food shortages. These survivors are more likely than those less able to deal236 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
with the environment to reproduce and pass their inherited characteristics on to their offspring. The net result over many generations is the evolution ofspecies-specific features. Through the process of natural selection, those spe- cies developing features that help them survive prosper, and those failing to develop these features die out. In many cases, physical features evolve because they provide solutions to a serious threat to species ’survival. For example, in humans, the problem of disease was resolved by the evolution of an immunesystem, and the potential problem of bleeding to death when cut or woundedled to the evolution of blood clotting (D. M. Buss, 1991). This is not to say that these features were created because they were needed. Rather, the theory of evolution maintains that because of these changes our species was better prepared to survive. According to evolutionary personality theory, just as the natural selection process has led to the evolution of certain physical characteristics in humans,this process is also responsible for what are called psychological mechanisms . These psychological mechanisms are characteristically human functions that allow us to deal effectively with common human problems or needs. Throughthe process of natural selection, mechanisms that increased the chances of human survival and reproduction have been retained, and those that failed to meet the challenges to survival have not. Psychologists have identified a large number of these mechanisms. For ex- ample, most humans have an innate fear of strangers. Evolutionary personal-ity psychologists argue that this fear evolved to meet the problem of attack by those not belonging to the group or tribe (D. M. Buss, 1991). Similarly, anger might have assisted our ancestors in such survival behaviors as asserting authority and overcoming enemies (McGuire & Troisi, 1990). Thus it makes sense that anger is a common human characteristic. Some psychologists argue that humans have an innate need to belong to groups and form attachments (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). It is not difficult to imagine how a species thatworked together would survive better than a species that did not. But whereas the survival function of some human characteristics may be easy to explain, the advantages of other psychological mechanisms might not be so obvious.We turn next to an example of one such mechanism. Anxiety and Social Exclusion Evolutionary personality theory maintains that human characteristics such as anxiety evolved because they proved beneficial to the survival of our ances- tors. But how can this be? Anxiety is an unpleasant emotional state, some-thing a normally functioning person would prefer to avoid. Moreover, anxiety is almost always problematic. It interferes with our ability to learn new tasks, remember information, perform sexually, and so on. How can something asdisruptive as anxiety help the species? We can answer this question by looking at what causes anxiety. Some psychologists have argued that one of the primary causes of anxiety is socialexclusion (Baumeister & Tice, 1990). These investigators propose that all humans have a strong need to belong to groups and to be in relationships. Consequently, when we experience exclusion or rejection from social groups, weEvolutionary Personality Psychology 237
suffer great distress. This distress is not just limited to those relatively rare instances when we are literally rejected from a group or tossed out of a relation-ship. Rather, any information that suggests we might be excluded socially or that we are no longer attractive to other people is threatening to our need to belong. As you thought about the situations that recently caused you to feel anxious, you may have recognized that many were related to a fear of social rejection. You may also have noticed that you didn ’t have to experience ac- tual exclusion from a group or relationship to feel anxious. Rather, infor- mation that even hints that someday you might be rejected by others is often enough to bring on anxiety. Thinking about anxiety as fear of socialrejection helps us understand why people feel anxious when they have to give a speech in front of an audience or when they discover that first gray hair. The speaker is afraid the audience members will evaluate him or hernegatively, a form of social rejection. The 30-ish adult discovering a gray hair worries about his or her attractiveness to others. Although outright so- cial rejection is not common, fear of what others will think of us may be aneveryday experience. This social exclusion explanation of anxiety fits nicely with evolutionary personality theory. Primitive people who lived together in small groupswere more likely to survive and reproduce than those living alone. An iso- lated person would be more susceptible to injury, illness, lack of shelter, and limited resources and would be less able to mate and raise offspring than individuals living in groups or tribes. Consequently, anything that moti- vates people to avoid behaviors that might lead to their exclusion from the group would help the species survive. Anxiety serves this purpose, and evolutionary personality psychologists argue that anxiety evolved to meet the needs of the species. Proponents of this view point out that anxiety, although expressed in different ways, is found in nearly al l cultures (Barlow, 1988). Moreover, the kinds of behavior that lead to so cial exclusion are typically those that impair the survival of the species (Buss, 1990; Sloman, 2008). These in- clude adultery, aggression, and taking valuable resources away from others. In this sense, evolutionary theory crosses paths with Sigmund Freud. Freud also argued that primitive people came to live in groups and developedlaws against many sexual and aggressive behaviors so that the species might survive. Although Freud was concerned with repressing unconscious im- pulses, his analysis is in many ways similar to that of more recent evolution-ary theorists. In short, what we call “human nature ”can be thought of as a large number of psychological mechanisms that have allowed humankind to sur-vive as long as we have. Advocates of this approach do not argue that all human characteristics are necessarily beneficial. It is even possible that some of our psychological mechanisms could someday contribute to the ex-tinction of the species. Nonetheless, evolutionary personality psychology ap- pears to provide a fruitful approach for understanding some basic features of human personality.238 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
APPLICATION: CHILDREN ’S TEMPERAMENTS AND SCHOOL Most of us have been exposed at one time or another to a parent ’s or grand parent ’s description of the strict and regimented way teachers used to run their classes “when I was a kid.” According to these stories, all children were treated alike. Each was expected to sit quietly during reading period, to work at the pace set by the teacher, and above all, to pay full attention at all times. Any deviations from the routine were met with strict and sometimes severe punishment. Although the accuracy of these descriptions might be challenged, teachers today do not approach their job the same way they did a few generations ago.One important difference between teaching then and teaching now is an aware- ness that not all children approach learning the same way. Because children areborn with different temperaments, some jump right in and begin participating in lessons, but others are slow to warm up to new tasks. Some students have difficulty focusing their attention on any one activity for very long, whereasother students become frustrated when forced to move on to a new assignment before they are ready. In fact, the transition from a familiar home environment to an unfamiliar classroom is just the kind of event that is likely to highlight differences intemperament. This was illustrated in a study in which researchers used mea- sures of inhibition taken at age 21 months to predict how children would react upon entering kindergarten (Gersten, 1989). Observers watched the children during a relatively unstructured free-play period their first day of school. The children who had earlier been identified as inhibited responded to this unfamiliar situation by keeping to themselves and watching their new classmates. Compared to their classmates, the inhibited children were less likely to play with the other boys and girls, to touch other children, or even to laugh. Clearly inhibited and uninhibited children respond very differently to the first day of class, and researchers find these differences often continue throughout the school year (Gersten, 1989). One team of investigators identified nine temperamental differences that affect a child’ s performance in school (Chess & Thomas, 1996; Thomas & Chess, 1977). As shown in Table 9.2, children ’s temperament can vary in terms of activity level, adaptability, approach or withdrawal, distractibility, intensity, mood, persistence, rhythmicity, and threshold. However, research with these nine dimensions led to the identification of three basic tempera-ment patterns among elementary school children. First, there is the easy child, who eagerly approaches new situations, is adaptive, and generally experiencesa positive mood. Most teachers would probably prefer an entire classroomfull of these students. However, classes are likely to include some examples of the difficult child . These children tend to withdraw rather than approach new situations, have difficulty adapting to new environments, and are often in a negative mood. A classroom is also likely to include some children who fall in the third general pattern, the slow-to-warm-up child . These children are similar to the inhibited children described earlier in the chapter. They tend to withdraw from unfamiliar situations and are slow to adapt to new academic tasks and new activities.Application: Children’ s Temperaments and School 239
A 6-year study of children primarily from middle-class backgrounds found that about two-thirds of the elementary school children could be placed into one of these three categories (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Forty per-cent of the students fell into the easy child category, 10% into the difficult child group, and 15% into the slow-to-warm-up category. Thus, the typical elementary school classroom contains a mix of children with different tem-perament patterns. Obviously, this represents a significant challenge for the teacher. Temperament and Academic Performance Numerous studies find that a child ’s temperament affects how well that child does in school (Coplan, Barber, & Lagace-Seguin, 1999; Cowen, Wyman, & Work, 1992; Keogh, 2003; Rudasill & Konold, 2008; Stright, Gallagher, & Kelley, 2008). As you might expect, children with either the difficult or slow- to-warm-up pattern tend to perform more poorly than students with the easy child pattern. Children with an easy temperament get higher grades and better evaluations from their teachers. Differences related to temperament are also found in standardized achievement tests. But studies indicate that temperament is not related to intelligence (Keogh, 1986). So how does temperament affect a child ’s academicTABLE 9.2 Thomas and Chess ’Nine Temperament Dimensions Activity Level General level of motor activity during such periods as eating, playing, walking, or crawling. Rhythmicity Predictable or unpredictable patterns of behaviors, such as sleeping and hunger. Also known as regularity. Approach or Withdrawal Initial response to new situations or experiences, either to approach eagerly or to pull away and wait. Adaptability Ability to respond to a new or altered situation (after the initial reaction). Threshold ofResponsivenessAmount of stimulation necessary to evoke aresponse. Includes reactions to new sensations,objects, or people. Intensity of Reaction Amount of energy behind response regardless of type of response. Quality of Mood General mood level, either pleasant and friendly or unpleasant and unfriendly. Distractibility Ability to stay with ongoing behavior in the face of environmental distractors. Attention Span and PersistenceHow long child can focus his or her attention onone task; how long child persists at a task in theface of obstacles.240 CHAPT ER 9The Biological Approach
performance? Researchers have identified several possibilities. First, some temperaments are probably more compatible with the requirements of thetypical classroom than others. In most classes, children who are attentive, adaptable, and persistent are likely to do better than those who are low on these temperament dimensions. Children with short attention spans and chil- dren who are easily distracted may have difficulty completing assignments or paying enough attention to learn their lessons the first time. Students who take a long time to adapt to new situations often find themselves behind therest of the class. Moreover, children who fall behind or do poorly on assign- ments may become discouraged or give up, thus adding to their academic problems. Second, students ’behavior evokes responses from the teacher. The stu- dent who is attentive and seemingly eager to learn is going to draw a differentreaction from the typical elementary school teacher than the student who iseasily distracted and withdrawn. Working with the former student probably will be pleasant and rewarding; working with the latter may be frustrating and demanding. Perhaps quite unintentionally, teachers may pay more atten-tion to and work more closely with some students than with others. As a re- sult, opportunities for learning and achievement may be shaped by the child’ s temperament. Third, teachers sometimes misinterpret temperamental differences in their students (Keogh, 1989). Slow-to-warm-up children may be seen as unmoti- vated when they fail to eagerly attack an assignment or as unintelligent when they require several tries to master a new task. A highly active student might be identified as a troublemaker. An easily distracted student might be seen as uninterested in learning. These false impressions can then color the way a teacher responds to the student. A large amount of research demonstrates that teachers ’explanations for their students ’behavior often affect how the teacher interacts with the student and subsequently how well the student does in school (Cooper & Good, 1983). This indirect impact of temperament on learning is illustrated in the real- life case of an elementary school student who approached schoolwork with ahigh-intensity, high-persistence style (Chess & Thomas, 1986). This boy had a long attention span and preferred to spend an extensive amount of time absorbed in one lesson before moving on to the next. Unfortunately, the tea-cher’s schedule rarely allowed for this. The boy became upset whenever the teacher interrupted his lessons. Initially, the teacher interpreted the boy ’s reac- tion as an indication of some underlying behavior disorder. Fortunately, theproblem was resolved when the boy ’s parents transferred him to a school that encouraged the kind of persistent and intense involvement that had beenlimited in the earlier class. The “Goodness of Fit ”Model It is tempting to ask, “What temperament characteristics contribute to better school performance? ”However, this is probably not the right question. Most researchers prefer to ask, “What kind of environment and procedures are most conducive to learning for thisstudent, given his or her temperament? ”Application: Children’ s Temperaments and School 241
The second question reflects the thinking behind the goodness of fit model . According to the model, how well a child does in school is partly a function of how well the learning environment matches the child ’s“capabilities, char- acteristics, and style of behaving ”(Thomas & Chess, 1977). In other words, not all children come to school with the same learning styles or abilities. Wecan’t do much to change a child ’s temperament, but an optimal amount of learning can take place if lessons and assignments are presented in a waythat matches the child’ s learning style. Several investigations find support for the goodness of fit approach (Keogh, 2003). Students get higher grades and better evaluations from teachers when the student ’s temperament matches the teacher ’s expectations and demands. These research findings provide an obvious strategy for improved teach- ing. Classroom assignments that require extensive concentration create a problem for the easily distracted girl with a short attention span. However,this girl will probably have little difficulty mastering the assignment if the same material is presented in short, easily processed segments. A slow-to- warm-up boy will fall behind when his teacher works at a pace set for theaverage member of the class. If allowed to progress at his own rate, however, the boy eventually will do as well as his classmates. The goodness of fit model can also be applied to preschool settings. Of particular importance is the child ’s ability to adjust to the regimen and rules of an organized social situation. Of course, as part of their preparation for elementary school, children must learn to follow rules and consider the needs of others. But impulsive chil dren who have a difficult time sitting still are likely to be frustrated and get into trouble in a rigid one-size- fits-all preschool (Coplan, Bowker, & Cooper, 2003; De Schipper, Tavecchio, Van IJzendoorn, & Van Zeijl, 2004; Rudasill, Rimm-Kaufman, Justice, & Pence, 2006). P reschool teachers find fewer adjustment problems when they adapt their style in consideration of the child ’s temperament, and improved adjustment paves the way for academic development. Onestudy found that a good match between Head Start teachers ’styles and stu- dent temperament was associated with higher math and preliteracy scores (Churchill, 2003). Teachers who match teaching style with temperament not only increase the child’ s chances of academic success, they also contribute to the child ’s feelings of self-worth (Chess & Thomas, 1991). Children who do poorly in school begin to blame themselves. These feelings are often reinforced by par- ents and teachers who accuse the child of not trying or communicate to thechild in various ways that he or she simply may not have the ability to keep up with classmates. The resulting decline in self-esteem may add to the child ’s academic difficulties, which can create a downward spiral effect. Fortunately, today most teachers are aware of differences in temperament and take steps to adapt their teaching to meet students ’individual styles (Keogh, 2003). Although time and resources may limit teachers ’abilities to meet the individ- ual needs of all their students, recognizing temperament differences is an im-portant step toward that goal.242 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
ASSESSMENT: BRAIN ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY AND CEREBRAL ASYMMETRY The next time you ’re talking to some friends, you might try this quick experi- ment. Ask your friends some reflective questions, such as “How do you feel when you are anxious? ”or“Picture and describe the most joyous scene you have recently been in. ”When people engage in a little reflective thought, most tend to look off to one side. Some people consistently, although not always, glance to the right, whereas others tend to look to the left. As described later, the significance of this difference lies in what it may tell us about our friends ’ tendency to experience happiness or sadness. The direction in which people look when contemplating may be a general indicator of brain activity patterns psychologists associate with emotion. The notion that we can examine personality with physiological measures has been around a long time. Freud speculated that scientists would one day dis-cover the neurological underpinnings of personality. Similarly, Allport arguedthat future technological advances would identify differences in the central nerv- ous system associated with different traits. Although we have yet to fulfill these prophecies, personality researchers have come to use a wide variety of physio- logical measures in their experiments. For many years now, researchers have used physiological indicators of arousal, such as heart rate, respiration and gal- vanic skin response. Other investigators examine hormones, immune systems, neurotransmitters, respiration, automatic muscle reflexes, and enzymes in the blood. More recently, researchers have turned to neuroimaging techniques to pinpoint the location of neural activity in the brain. These techniques include functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ( fMRI) and positron emission tomo- graphy (PET). In this section, we look at another example of how psychologists use physiological measures to examine differences in brain activity level. Measuring Brain Activity How can we measure brain activity without going into a person ’ss k u l l ? Fortunately, technology provides some relatively nonintrusive procedures for obtaining these measurements. One relatively simple and inexpensive procedure uses an instrument called an electroencephalograph (EEG) to measure electrical activity in different parts of the human brain. Personality researchers find EEG measurements particularly useful for several reasons. The procedure is relatively simple and does not harm the individual in any way. Typically, small electrodesare attached to the person ’s head with hair clips and elastic straps. Participants report that the procedure is not uncomfortable although electrode paste cansometimes leave messy spots in their hair. In addition, the EEG enables re-searchers to record brain activity in very quick intervals. Some instruments can measure this activity within milliseconds. This sensitivity is particularly impor- tant when looking at emotions, which often change very rapidly. EEG data are usually described in terms of cycles per second, or waves. One kind of wave identified through this process, known as an alpha wave , has proven particularly useful for research on personality and emotion. The lower the alpha wave activity, the more activation in that region of the brain.Assessment: Brain Electrical Activity and Cerebral Asymmetry 243
Cerebral Asymmetry Although EEG data can be used to assess activity level in many different re- gions of the brain, research on alpha wave levels in the anterior (front) regions of the cerebral hemisphere has proven particularly useful in understanding in- dividual differences in emotion. This region has considerable connections with the parts of the brain that regulate emotions. More important, researchers find the anterior region of a person’ s right cerebral hemisphere often shows a different activity level than the anterior region of that same person’ s left cere- bral hemisphere. Researchers refer to this difference in right and left hemi-sphere activity as cerebral asymmetry . Investigators find that different patt erns of cerebral asymmetry are associ- ated with differences in emotional experi ence. Originally researchers noticed that higher activation in the left hemisphere was associated with positive moods, whereas higher activation in the right hemisphere was indicative of negativemoods (Wheeler, Davidson, & Tomarken, 1993). In one study, researchers showed emotion-arousing films to participants while taking EEG measures of right and left hemisphere activity (Davidson, Ekman, Saron, Senulis, & Friesen, 1990). When participants experienced happiness, as determined by their facial expressions, the activity in their left cerebral hemisphere increased. When partici- pants experienced disgust, there was more activity in the right hemisphere. Researchers measure brain activity levels with an instrument known as an EEG. This information may tell us about the person ’s tendency to experience different emotions.244 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
Similar patterns have been found in children less than a year old. In one study with 10-month-old infants, smiling was associated with higher left hemisphere activity, whereas crying was associated with higher right hemisphere activity (Fox & Davidson, 1988). In other experiments, infants showed increases in left hemisphere activity when their mothers reached down to pick them up (Fox & Davidson, 1987), when they heard laughter (Davidson & Fox, 1982), and when they tasted something sweet (Fox & Davidson, 1986). In all cases, the children experiencing positive emotions had relatively more activity in their lefthemisphere than in the right. Because the infants had not yet reached their first birthday, researchers argue that the association between cerebral asymmetry and emotion is something we are born with rather than the result of learning. Individual Differences in Cerebral Asymmetry Additional research has taken the association between cerebral asymmetryand emotion one step further. Most people typically have higher activation in one hemisphere than in the other, even when in a relatively nonemotional resting state. However, which hemisphere displays the higher activity level is not the same for everyone. Some people tend to have higher activity in the left hemisphere when resting, whereas others tend to have more right hemi- sphere activity. Moreover, like other individual differences, differences in ce-rebral asymmetry tend to be fairly stable over time. If you show a higher level of activity in one hemisphere over the other today, you probably will show the same pattern when taking an EEG test next week or even next year. This observation leads to another intriguing question. Because left and right hemispheric activity is associated with positive and negative moods, canwe use EEG data to predict moods? The answer appears to be “Yes.” Participants in one study were identified as having either higher left hemi- sphere or higher right hemisphere activity when resting (Davidson & Tomarken, 1989). These individuals then watched films designed to elicit cer- tain emotions, such as happiness or fear. As expected, people with a higher level of left hemisphere activity were more responsive to the positive mood films, whereas participants with higher right hemisphere activity levels reacted more to the films that produced negative moods. Again, similar patterns can be found in infants. Ten-month-old babies in one study were identified as having either higher left hemisphere or higherright hemisphere activity when resting (Davidson & Fox, 1989). The babies were then divided into those who cried and those who did not cry when separated from their mothers. As expected, the criers tended to have higher right hemisphere activity, whereas the noncriers were those with higher left hemisphere activity. How can we account for these findings? Initially researchers explained the results in terms of thresholds for positive and negative mood (Davidson & Tomarken, 1989). They speculated that people with higher right hemisphere ac- tivity require a less intense negative event to experience fear or sadness. A minordisappointment or a rude remark might be enough to push them over the threshold into a negative emotional state. On the other hand, people who gener- ally have a higher level of left hemisphere activity may require a less intenseAssessment: Brain Electrical Activity and Cerebral Asymmetry 245
positive event before they experience happiness. An enjoyable conversation or a favorite song on the radio might be enough to trigger pleasant emotions. However, subsequent research findings have caused psychologists to re- think the relationship between cerebral asymmetry and emotions. Instead of looking at positive and negative emotions, psychologists now describe the differ- ences in terms of approach and withdrawal tendencies (Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1997; Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001; Pizzagalli, Sherwood, Henriques, & Davidson, 2005). Studies find that left hemisphere activity is related to move-ment toward the source of the emotion, whereas right hemisphere activity is re- lated to movement away. Thus higher right hemisphere activity is associated with sadness because depression is essentially an effort to withdraw from what-ever is causing the emotion. Higher left hemisphere activity is associated with joy because happiness draws us toward the source of the emotion. Consistent with this analysis, researchers find that anger is related to higher left hemisphereactivity (Harmon-Jones, Lueck, Fearn, & Harmon-Jones, 2006; Hewig, Hagemann, Seifert, Naumann, & Bartussek, 2004; Wacker, Chavanon, Leue, & Stemmler, 2008). Although anger is a negative emotion like depression, angrypeople tend to approach or even attack the source of their distress. The demonstrated association between cerebral asymmetry and emotion leads researchers to yet another question: Do differences in hemisphericactivity level play a role in the development of emotional disorders? Some research findings suggest that they may. Depressed participants in these studies show more right-side activat ion than nondepressed participants (Accortt & Allen, 2006; Thibodeau, Jorgensen, & Kim, 2006). In one inves- tigation, researchers examined EEG patterns in people who were currently not depressed but who had suffered from previous bouts of depression (Henriques & Davidson, 1990). These individuals tended to have less left hemisphere activity in the anterior region of the brain when resting than a group of participants who had never suffered from depression. Inother words, these previously depressed individuals may have a physiologi- cally based vulnerability to experience bouts of depression. Other investiga- tions find anxiety sufferers also have higher right-side activation thannonanxious individuals (Crost, Pauls, & Wacker, 2008; Mathersul, Williams, Hopkinson, & Kemp, 2008; Thibodeau et al., 2006). Clearly, whether we suffer from any emotional disorder depends on many factors,including the kinds of experiences we have. But it may be that some people require fewer or less intense negative experiences than others before suc- cumbing to feelings of depression or anxiety. Let’s return now to the eye-drift example at the beginning of this discus- sion. Although not nearly as reliable as EEG data, research suggests thatright-handed people who typically glance to the left when engaged in reflec-tive thought are likely to show a higher level of right hemisphere activation when resting. Those who tend to glance to the right are likely to be higher in left hemisphere activity (Davidson, 1991; Gur & Reivich, 1980). Of course,many other variables affect emotion, but studies suggest that which way you look during a reflective moment may be a telltale sign of your proclivity to experience certain emotions.246 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
STRENGTHS AND CRITICISMS OF THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH Strengths One of the strengths of the biological approach is that it provides a bridge be- tween the study of personality and the discipline of biology. For too many years, personality psychologists often ignored the biological roots of human behavior. But it has become increasingly difficult to disregard the fact that we are the product of an evolutionary history and our individual genetic makeup. Human behavior is influenced by many factors, one of which is biol- ogy. By incorporating what biologists know about such concepts as evolutionand genetics, personality psychologists come closer to understanding what makes each of us the kind of person we are. The biological approach also has succeeded in identifying some realistic parameters for psychologists interested in behavior change. The “blank slate ” image of humankind can be very appealing. If the newborn personality is like clay, then with enough knowledge, resources, and effort we should be able tomold that personality any way we want. If all babies are essentially alike, then with enough research psychologists could advise parents and teachers on the “correct ”way to raise all children and teach all students. Unfortunately, past acceptance of the blank slate notion created many problems. Parents with difficult-to-control babies were blamed for not knowing how to raise their children. Highly active children were punished for not sitting as still as their classmates. Advocates of the biological approach argue that our inherited bio- logical differences probably place limits on the kind of children and adults we become. Some people are born with a tendency to be more introverted than others, and there is probably little a parent, teacher, or spouse can do to turn an introvert into an extravert. Another strength of the biological approach is that most of its advocates are academic psychologists with a strong interest in testing their ideasthrough research. Consequently, investigators have generated empirical sup- port for many of the hypotheses advanced from this perspective. In addition, psychologists from the biological approach have often modified their theories as a result of research findings. For example, after Eysenck outlined a com- prehensive model of personality several decades ago, he and others conductedresearch on many of the predictions generated from the model. Much of this work supported Eysenck ’s ideas, but investigators altered other ideas to better reflect the research findings. Criticisms Advocates of the biological approach often face inherent limits on their ability to test some of their ideas. In particular, evolutionary personality psycholo- gists must often argue from the relatively weak position of analogy and de- duction (Eagly, 1997). A reasonable case can be made that anxiety helps the species survive because it prevents social isolation. But how can we test this hypothesis? Direct manipulation is often out of the question, making demon- strations of cause-and-effect relationships difficult, if not impossible. Theproblem is that we can probably think of a potentially adaptive function for nearly every human attribute. For example, some psychologists have arguedStrengths and Criticisms of the Biological Approach 247
that depression is adaptive because it leads us to give up on unattainable goals and thereby save resources (Wrosch & Miller, 2009). There is somelogic to this position, but it is quite a leap to say that we were better able to survive as a species because we have the capacity to become depressed. To fully appreciate this limitation, consider the example offered by one psychologist (Cornell, 1997). As discussed in Chapter 10, some researchers use evolutionary theory to explain gender differences, such as why men are more dominant, stronger, and more sexually promiscuous than women (Archer,1996; Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997). But imagine if just the opposite were the case —that men were more timid and physically weaker than women, and less likely to seek out multiple sex partners. One could use evolutionary theory to explain these results as well. We could speculate that because men were free to roam and did not have to protect offspring, the tendency for them to timidly run away from potential fights evolved. Women evolved to be stronger becausechild-care responsibilities required them to carry children, lift them into trees for safety, and fight off predators. And sexual promiscuity allowed a woman to avoid the risk of pairing up with a man who might be unable to make herpregnant and thus not allow her to pass along her genes. As this example illus- trates, if a theory can explain all possible outcomes, it cannot be tested. As a result, the research support for many of the ideas postulated by evolutionary personality psychologists remains relatively weak. Another criticism is directed at theory and research on temperament. Students and researchers may be bewildered by the lack of an agreed-uponmodel. One prominent model identifies three basic temperaments. Yet other models describe five, seven, and nine temperament dimensions (Bates, Wachs, & Emde, 1994). Students have a right to ask which of these is correct. More impor- tant, it is difficult to make comparisons across investigations when researchers rely on different names and descriptions for these temperaments. Is the “inhib- ited”child the same as the “slow-to-warm-up ”child? We can hope that clearer answers about the number and description of basic temperaments will be forth-coming as researchers continue to work in this area. Like the trait approach, the biological approach offers few suggestions for personality change. Although many ideas from this approach are probably use-ful for psychotherapists, there are no schools of psychotherapy based on this perspective. On the contrary, the message from the biological approach is thatwe need to be more aware of some of the limitations on how much we can change people. Therapists might do better to recognize that, because of biologi- cal differences, not all clients will respond identically to their treatments. SUMMARY 1. Hans Eysenck was an early proponent of the biological approach to per- sonality. He argued that personality can be divided along three primary dimensions. He called these extraversion –introversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Research suggests that introverts are more sensitive to stimulation than extraverts and that extraverts may be more attracted to rewards. Eysenck argued that differences in personality are largely basedin inherited biological differences.248 CHAPTER 9 The Biological Approach
2. Personality researchers have identified general inherited dispositions called temperaments. Psychologists argue that temperaments are largely inherited and that these inherited dispositions interact with experiences to form adult personality traits. Children identified as inhibited show a fear of unfamiliar situations that other children do not. There is evidence that this tendency is inherited and that it remains fairly stable throughout childhood. 3. Evolutionary personality psychology uses the concept of natural selection to explain the development and survival function of human personalitycharacteristics. Theorists point out that anxiety often results from events related to social rejection. They argue that because social isolation de- creases the chances of survival and reproducing, the evolution of anxietyhas helped the species survive. 4. Research on temperament has important implications for teaching. Studies find that children identified with a difficult temperament pattern and thoseidentified with a slow-to-warm-up pattern perform more poorly in school than children identified with an easy temperament pattern. The goodness of fit model suggests that children will learn best when the demands of thelearning environment match the child ’s temperament. 5. Personality researchers have often used physiological measures in their research. Some researchers use EEG data to look at individual differencesin emotions. They find that differences in the activity levels of the right and left halves of the cerebral hemispheres are associated with differences in mood. Some research indicates that people inherit different base-rate levels of brain activity in the two hemispheres and that this difference may make them more vulnerable to certain emotional experiences. 6. One strength of the biological approach is that it ties personality psychol- ogy to the discipline of biology. In addition, research in this area has iden- tified realistic limitations for the blank slate model of personality development. Another strength of the biological approach is its strong em-phasis on research. Criticisms of the approach include the difficulty re- searchers have when testing some of their ideas. Other criticisms are that researchers have not agreed upon a single model for temperament and thatthe biological approach provides little information about behavior change. KEY TERMS behavioral approach system (p. 226) behavioral inhibition system (p. 226)cerebral asymmetry (p. 244) goodness of fit model (p. 242)inhibited/uninhibited children (p. 233)temperaments (p. 230) MEDIA RESOURCES Visit our website. Go to www.cengage.com/ psychology/burger to find online resources directly linked to your book, including quizzing, glossary, flashcards, and more.Summary 249
CHAPTER10 The Biological Approach Relevant Research Heritability of Personality Traits Extraversion-IntroversionEvolutionary Personality Theory and Mate Selection Summary 250
Today most psychologists readily embrace the notion that biology plays a role in human personality, but students are often surprised to hear that thiswas not always the case. In truth, many psychologists came to accept this conclusion rather reluctantly. Why the resistance? One reason is that the “blank slate ”view of humankind has great appeal. If we accept that person- ality is formed largely or exclusively by experiences, in theory we can mold an individual into whatever kind of person we want. With enough knowledge and resources, we could change the parts of personality that create problems.Low self-esteem, pessimism, neuroticism, and other personality traits could be altered through therapy or avoided altogether with appropriate child rearing. Accepting the role of biology in personality development usually means limit-ing these possibilities for change. Another reason some psychologists were hesitant to accept the biological approach was a concern about inappropriate and even offensive interpretations that come from placing too much emphasison biological determinants. In the past, some people have argued against so- cial programs by maintaining that certain racial or gender differences are the result of biological rather than cultural factors. Of course, accepting a biological component to personality does not mean that personality is fixed at birth. Those who resign themselves with “That’ s the way men/women are” or“It’s just my nature ”are foolishly ignoring the power of experience. But it would be equally foolish to ignore the wealth of evidence indicating that biology has a hand in shaping personal- ity. The most persuasive case for the biological approach can be found in the growing amount of supportive research findings. We ’ll review some of those findings in this chapter. As with research from other approaches to personal- ity, the studies reported here are sometimes subject to criticisms and alternate interpretations. However, taken together the data make it difficult to ignore the importance of biological determinants of personality. We begin by looking at research on the heritability of personality charac- teristics. More specifically, we examine the methods researchers use to deter-mine how much of our personality is inherited from our parents. As you will see, this research is not without its critics, and identifying the precise strengthof the genetic component remains elusive. Next we ’ll review research generated from Hans Eysenck ’st h e o r yo fp e r s o n - ality. Specifically, we ’ll look at some of the differences between extraverts and introverts. This research suggests that your level of extraversion –introversion affects a wide range of behavior, including how happy you are and where yousit in the library. We ’ll also examine one application of evolutionary personality theory. According to this theory, men and women should differ in what they look for in a romantic partner. HERITABILITY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS How much of your personality is the result of your genetic makeup, and how much is the result of the environment you grew up in? This “nature –nurture ” question is one of the oldest and most enduring issues in psychology.Heritability of Personality Traits 251
Interestingly, people with little or no exposure to personality research seem to readily accept that both genetic background and experiences are important inshaping personality. Parents often point to personality traits their children “got from me, ”but few would deny that the way they raise their children also plays a large role in what kind of adults the children become. Thus the ques- tion is not which of these —genetics or environment —shapes our personalities but rather to what extent and how our personalities are shaped by each. So we might rephrase the question this way: To what degree was the mold for your adult personality already cast by the time you were born? Researchers now agree that relatively stable abilities and aptitudes, such as in- telligence, appear to have a genetic component (Plomin & DeFries, 1998).This is not to say that a highly intelligent child cannot be born to relatively unintelligent parents or that a child ’s environment plays no role in intellectual development. But it does appear we are born with a potential for intelligence that combines with environmental influences to determine adult intelligence le- vels. Similarly, many psychological disorders appear to be affected by the genes we inherited (Crabbe, 2002; DiLalla, Carey, Gottesman, & Bouchard, 1996;McGue & Christensen, 1997; Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Again, this does not mean people are born to be schizophrenic or depressed. Rather, some people are born with a higher susceptibility to these disorders than are others. What about personality traits? Are people born to be aggressive or extra- verted? There is now ample evidence that genetics influences these and otherpersonality traits. However, collecting evidence on this issue is not easy, and many questions remain about how to interpret the data that are available. Separating Environmental from Genetic Influences Psychologists working on the environment –genetics question have a some- what different task facing them than those working in other areas of person- ality research. For technological and ethical reasons, it is not possible tomanipulate people ’s genes and observe the kind of adults they become. Instead, researchers must rely on less direct means. Like detectives trying topiece together a picture of how we got to where we are, these researchers use innovative and sometimes clever experimental procedures to track down the roots of adult personalities. Each method has limitations and weaknesses,but data from a number of sources suggest a significant role for genetics in the development of our personalities. The most obvious source of information on this question is the similarity of parents and children. Aggressive parents often have aggressive offspring;shy children often come from homes with shy parents. Similarly, we often see brothers who are both outgoing or sisters who are both sensitive and car- ing. Casual observers look at these relationships and often assume the chil- dren inherited these traits from their parents. However, there is an obvious alternative explanation for these similarities. Members of a family not only share genes, they share living environments as well. Siblings ’personalities may be similar because the parents raised them in the same basic manner. Children of introverted parents might become introverted because of the calm and quiet home they grow up in.252 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
In most cases, therefore, shared genes and shared environments seem hopelessly confounded. Can we peel one of these influences away from the other? Fortunately, there are ways. The most popular procedure for separating the role of genetics from the role of environment is the twin-study method. This method takes advantage of a naturally occurring phenomenon: the twoIN THE NEWS Genetics and Intelligence A large amount of research indi- cates that, as with personality traitsand psychological disorders, a sig-nificant portion of intelligence isdetermined by our genetic inheri- tance. Although at first glance thisconclusion hardly seems surprising,it is in fact at the heart of a con-troversy that flares up periodicallyamong psychologists and those who debate social policy. Several decades ago psychologist Arthur Jensen(1969) considered the research onintelligence and the finding that Black Americans typically scorelower on standard intelligence teststhan Whites. He suggested fromthese observations that Blacksmight be genetically less intelligentthan Whites. Richard Herrnsteinand Charles Murray rekindled thedebate in 1994 when they publishedThe Bell Curve: Intelligence andClass Structure in American Life . These psychologists also began bypointing out that intelligence islargely inherited. They argued thatany gains from educational inter-vention programs such as HeadStart will be short-lived because achild’s genetically determined apti- tude will ultimately determine his orher success. Herrnstein and Murraythen touched a social and politicalnerve when they tied their analysisto the question of race. They arguedthat if Black Americans on averagescore lower on IQ tests than WhiteAmericans, perhaps efforts toprovide educational opportunities for African Americans are a wasteof time. More recently, racistgroups seized on the findings ofgenetics researchers who identified recent (within the past 40,000years) evolutionary changes inbrain-related genes (Regalado,2006). Because differences werefound between European and African samples, these individuals drew the scientifically inappropriateconclusion that the research verifiedclaims of genetically based differ- ences in intelligence among racialgroups. In each of these situations, re- action was strong and swift. Newsanalysts, political commentators,and political leaders were quick tochallenge the interpretations.Reaction from academic psycholo-gists was equally intense. Not onlydo the vast majority of psycholo-gists find the suggestion of inherentracial differences in intelligence of-fensive, they also maintain that sucha conclusion is simply not sup-ported by research findings (Flynn,1999; Neisser et al., 1996; Nisbett,2009; Sternberg, Grigorenko, &Kidd, 2005). Moreover, it is incor-rect to say that intelligence level isfixed by nature and is not amenableto environmental influence (Nisbett,2007). Psychologists are quick topoint out that Black children oftengrow up in an environment that isless intellectually stimulating thanthat of the average White family (Zernike, 2000). Indeed, researchersfind that Black children adopted byWhite families of reasonable socio-economic means develop IQ scores no different from those of adoptedWhite children (Nisbett, 2007). Notsurprisingly, as preschool and othereducational opportunities have be-come more available to children of all backgrounds, the gap between White and Black students ’IQ scores has narrowed considerably(Dickens & Flynn, 2006). Beyond this, critics have raised the issue of culture-bound intelli- gence tests. They argue that thequestions asked on most intelligencetests reflect what White, middle-class Americans consider important.One subtest on the widely usedWechsler intelligence tests asksabout general knowledge. The as-sumption behind these questionsis that although all children are ex-posed to this information, the moreintelligent ones will attend to andretain it. But clearly a child growingup in an African American culture isexposed to different informationfrom one growing up in a White,middle-class culture. Because of thisproblem, many psychologists havebeen working to develop “culture- free” intelligence tests, and recent versions of the adult and children ’s Wechsler tests have been revisedto account for some of theseconcerns.Heritability of Personality Traits 253
types of human twins. Some twins are monozygotic (MZ); that is, the two ba- bies come from the same fertilized egg. These are the twins that look alike physically, the ones we commonly call identical twins. The important point for researchers is that MZ twins have identical genes. The other type, dizygotic (DZ) twins, come from different eggs. These two babies, commonly called fra- ternal twins, are no more alike genetically than any two siblings. The logic behind the twin-study method is illustrated in Figure 10.1. We assume that two same-sex DZ twins and two MZ twins (who are always thesame sex) share very similar environments. That is, in studies using this method, twin pairs, regardless of type, are the same age and the same sex and live in thesame house under the same rules. Therefore, the extent to which the environ- ment is responsible for their personalities is going to be about the same for both types of twin pairs. However, if there is also a genetic influence on personality,we would expect the MZ twins to be more like each other than are the DZ twins because the MZ twins also have identical genes, but the DZ twins do not. Researchers using the twin-study method give personality trait measures to both members of both kinds of twins. They then look at how similar the twin brothers and sisters are on the traits. If trait scores for the MZ twin pairs are more highly correlated than the scores for the DZ twin pairs, we have evidence for genetic influence on personality. Because the environmental influence is roughly the same for both kinds of twins, it is assumed that the MZ twins are more alike because they also have identical genes. Identical twins not only share physical features but also have similar personalities. Researchers attribute this similarity in part to genetic influences although the extent ofgenetic influence on personality continues to be debated.254 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
Twin-study research usually generates correlation tables similar to the one found in Table 10.1. In this example, adult MZ and DZ twin pairs were compared on the Big Five personality traits (Chapter 7). As seen in the table,the MZ twin pairs were more similar than the DZ twin pairs in each case (Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997). The data in the table are similar to those obtained in other twin studies looking at different measures of the BigFive dimensions (Borkenau, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2001; Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998; Loehlin, McCrae, & Costa, 1998; McCrae, Jang, Livesley, Riemann, &Angleitner, 2001). When we combine twin studies examining many different personality traits, we find that MZ twins ’scores tend to correlate on average about .50, whereas DZ twin correlations are in the .25 to .30 range (Loehlin, 1992). Behavior genetics researchers plug these numbers into formulas to esti- mate that between 40% and 50% of the stability in our adult personalities can be attributed to what we inherit from our parents (Krueger & Johnson, 2008; Loehlin, 1992; Plomin, Chipuer, & Loehlin, 1990). Other methods for teasing apart genetic and environmental influences also find evidence for genetic influence, but usually not as strong as in thetwin-study data (Plomin & Caspi, 1999). One example comes from research with adopted children. When children are raised from birth by someone othersame same same differentMonozygotic (MZ) Twins Environment GeneticsDizygotic (DZ) Twins FIGURE 10.1 Twin-Study Research Diagram TABLE10.1 Correlations from a Twin Study MZ Twins DZ Twins Neuroticism .53 .21 Extraversion .56 .33 Openness .54 .35Agreeableness .42 .24Conscientiousness .54 .23 Source: Riemann, Angleitner, and Strelau (1997).Heritability of Personality Traits 255
than their biological parents, genetic and environmental influences are not confounded. Think of a family in which parents raise one child they adoptedand one they gave birth to. Which child should have a personality similar to the parents ’? If genes are playing a role, we would expect the biological off- spring to be more like the parents because that child shares not only the envi- ronment but also some genes with the parents. In fact, this is what researchers find (Scarr, Webber, Weinberg, & Wittig, 1981). However, calculations with the data from these studies indicate the genetic influence is less thanthat suggested by the twin-study data. In fact, data from adoption studies suggest that the heritability of personality is about half what the twin-study data suggest (Plomin et al., 1990; Plomin, Corley, Caspi, Fulker, & DeFries,1998). But the adoption situation provides even more opportunities to test the genetic-environmental influence question. What would you expect if youcompared the personalities of the adopted children with those of their biolog- ical mothers? The children have shared no environment with the mothers but are still linked by genes. When the personality scores of adopted children arecompared with those of their adoptive parents and their biological mothers, the children look more like the biological mothers, whom they have never known (Loehlin, Willerman, & Horn, 1982, 1987). Although the strength of the relationship is also weaker than that suggested by the twin-study data, we have evidence from yet another source that genetics plays at least some role in the formation of adult personalities. It is also possible to combine the twin-study and adoption situations. Although rare, some researchers have taken advantage of situations in whichMZ twins are separated from their parents at birth and in addition are raised in two different households. The twins in these pairs share genes but not en- vironments. These twins are then compared with MZ twins raised in the same household, who share both genes and environments. A summary of thefindings from studies using this method is shown in Table 10.2. As you can see, the MZ twins tend to be quite similar to each other regardless of whether they are raised with or separated from their twin brother or sister (Rowe, 1987).The obvious explanation for this similarity is that the twins ’genes shaped their personalities in a similar manner regardless of the environments theygrew up in. TABLE10.2 Correlations for Twins Raised Apart and Twins Raised Together Identical Twins Raised ApartIdentical Twins Raised Together Extraversion .61 .51 Neuroticism .53 .50Intelligence .72 .86 Source: From “Resolving the person-situation debate: Invitation to an interdisciplinary dialogue, ”by D. C. Rowe, American Psychologist , 1987, 42, 218 –227. Reprinted by permission of the American Psychological Association.256 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
In summary, researchers have used a variety of clever procedures to separate the influence of genetics on personality from the influence of the environment. Although the precise extent of the genetic influence is still un- certain, the consistency of the findings from so many sources suggests that adult personalities clearly are affected by heredity. However, the book is far from closed on this issue. As discussed in the next section, there are rea- sons to question some of the conclusions behavior geneticists draw from their data. Problems with Genetics Research The strongest and most consistent evidence in favor of genetic influence onpersonality comes from twin-study research. However, researchers using thismethod make two key assumptions. The first is that twin pairs can be accu- rately identified as MZ or DZ twins. Many “identical ”twins may in fact be DZ twins who look very much alike. Fortunately, biological advances have made this less of a problem than it once was. Today, zygosity can be determined in almost all cases through blood tests. The second assumption presents a bigger problem. Researchers assume that MZ and DZ twins have equally similar environments. However, there isevidence that MZ twins may share more of their environment than DZ twins (Hoffman, 1991; Lytton, 1977; Scarr & Carter-Saltzman, 1979). That is,identical twins may be treated more alike than are DZ twins. Identical twins are often thought of as one unit —they are dressed alike, given identical pre- sents, and so on. DZ twins grow up in similar environments, but they are usu- ally allowed to dress differently, join different clubs, and have different friends. DZ twins may even experience environments that are less similar than those typical for siblings (Hoffman, 1985) because parents may look for and em-phasize their differences (for example, “Terry is the studious one ”;“Larry is the troublemaker ”). If this is the case, we would have to modify Figure 10.1. The environmen- tal influence on personality traits may not be as similar for DZ twins as it is for MZ twins. This possibility creates a problem when interpreting the twin- study findings. We can ’t be certain if the higher correlations between MZ twins are caused by greater genetic similarities or greater environmental simi- larities. This interpretation problem may explain why data from twin-study research suggest a larger role for genetic influences than is found with other procedures. However, some of these other procedures also rely on questionable as- sumptions (Hoffman, 1985, 1991; Stoolmiller, 1999). Adoptions are not ran-dom events. Families who adopt children are typically older, more affluent, more stable, and without many of the problems found in families that do not adopt. Although separated twins may be placed in different homes, the homestypically selected for placement are very similar. Perhaps more misleading is the assumption that parents treat an adopted child the same way they do their biological offspring. It is likely parents have different expectations for adoptedchildren. Because they don’ t know the biological parents, adopting parents may have few preconceived ideas about how the child ’s personality will unfold.Heritability of Personality Traits 257
In short, some of the discrepancies between the results of twin studies and studies using other methods might be attributed to methodological issues. However, twin studies might produce higher estimates of heritability for an- other reason. Research suggests that personality traits aren ’t passed down from parents to child in a simple, direct manner. Rather, the inherited part of personality is often the result of a complex combination of more than one gene (Finkel & McGue, 1997; Plomin et al., 1998). That is, the genetic influ- ence of some personality traits may not be seen unless a unique combinationof more than one gene is inherited. Researchers refer to these complex influ- ences as nonadditive effects . DZ twins share many genes, but they may not share the exact combination of genes that make up a specific personality trait. However, because MZ twins have identical genes, they also share any unique combinations of genes that come together to influence personality. Thus, non- additive effects would show up in identical twins but not in fraternal twins. Ifthis is the case, it could explain why twin studies find evidence for a larger genetic influence on personality than studies using other methods. So where does this leave us? Exactly how or how much genes determine our adult personalities remains an open question. Some of the answers to thisquestion may come from new methodological and technological developments (Krueger, South, Johnson, & Iacono, 2008). For example, researchers are be- ginning to identify connections between personality traits and DNA markers for specific genes (Gillespie et al., 2008; Plomin & Crabbe, 2000). But regard- less of what future discoveries tell us, at this point it seems foolish to ignore the relatively strong case that genetics has an influence on personality. EXTRAVERSION-INTROVERSION Few personality variables have received as much attention from researchers and theorists as extraversion and introversion. Clearly, this aspect of Hans Eysenck ’s personality theory has drawn more attention than any other. As de- scribed in Chapter 9, extraverts are less sensitive to stimulation than introverts. This is why extraverts can drink more coffee than introverts without being overtaken by the effects of caffeine. It also explains why it is not uncommon to find extraverts at loud social gatherings or in the middle of a crowd, whereasintroverts seek out solitary activities and gravitate to a quiet corner at a party. Space allows us to examine only three of the many topics investigated by researchers in this area. First, we ’ll tie individual differences in extraversion- introversion to the research covered in the previous section by looking at the evidence for the heritability of this personality variable. Second, we ’ll look at research examining one of the basic differences between introverts and extra- verts postulated by Eysenck: preference for arousal. Third, we’ ll address the question, Who is happier, introverts or extraverts? The Heritability of Extraversion If you are an introvert, it ’s likely you’ ve been given some of the following pieces of advice: “You need to get out more often, ”“Why can ’t you be more sociable? ”or“Loosen up and enjoy yourself a little. ”Extraverts have258 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
probably heard some of these: “There ’s more to life than having fun all the time,”“Can’t you think a little before you do something? ”or“Slow down and enjoy life. ”In short, whether you are introverted or extraverted, someone has probably asked you to become more of the other. Even the most extreme extravert can sit still for a few minutes, and the most introverted person you know occasionally cuts loose and has a good time with friends. But is it pos- sible for an extravert to become permanently more introverted? Can you raise your child to be less introverted or more extraverted? The answer to these questions depends on what causes a person to be- come an extravert or an introvert. Eysenck championed the role of geneticsin answering this question. As seen in the previous chapter, the exact natureof the physiological differences between extraverts and introverts is still being investigated. Nonetheless, these inherited differences are said to remain fairly constant throughout one ’s life and eventually develop into the adult behavior styles of extraversion or introversion. Although little evidence for heritability was available when Eysenck first introduced his theory of personality, today an impressive body of work appears to support Eysenck on this point. As described earlier, researchers often use the twin-study method to deter- mine the role of genetics in the development of personality. Consequently, much of the evidence for the heritability of extraversion –introversion comes from research comparing correlations between pairs of MZ twins with correla- tions between pairs of DZ twins. Studies using this procedure find consis- tent evidence for a genetic component of extraversion –introversion (Baker & Daniels, 1990; Eaves & Eysenck, 1975; Heath, Neale, Kessler, Eaves, & Kendler, 1992; Neale, Rushton, & Fulker, 1986; Scarr, 1969). In fact, the findings suggest such a strong genetic influence that some researchers are convinced the heritability estimates for this personality variable are somehow exaggerated (Plomin et al., 1990). Nonetheless, two of these studies deserve special attention. One group of researchers gave a version of the Eysenck Personality Inventory to 12,898adult twin pairs in Sweden (Floderus-Myrhed, Pedersen, & Rasmuson, 1980). This number represents virtually all of the contactable twins born in Swedenbetween the years 1926 and 1958. Another team of researchers tested 7,144 adult twin pairs in Finland (Rose, Koskenvuo, Kaprio, Sarna, & Langinvainio, 1988). This is nearly every living twin in that country born before 1958.Several features of these samples make them particularly important. Not only are the samples large, but they represent nearly every twin in these two coun- tries. This means researchers don ’t have to worry about only a certain kind of person volunteering to participate in the study. When the within-pair correlations for DZ and MZ twins in these samples were compared, considerable evidence fo r a genetic component for extraversion- introversion was uncovered. As shown in Table 10.3, the MZ twins were more like each other than were the DZ twins, which argues for a genetic influence. Beyond this, the researchers in the Finnish study examined the amount of socialcontact between the members of the twin pairs as well as the amount of social contact the twins generally engaged in. Although the researchers did find that MZ twins were more likely to stay in communication with each other, thisExtraversion-Introversion 259
factor alone was not sufficient to explain the differences in MZ and DZ corre- lations on the extraversion-introversion measure. Another study takes the twin-study method one step further (Pedersen, Plomin, McClearn, & Friberg, 1988). As in the earlier studies, the investigators compared MZ and DZ twins who grew up together. However, these research- ers also located 95 pairs of MZ twins and 220 pairs of DZ twins reared apart. Again, a positive correlation between the scores of identical twins separated atbirth and reared in different environments would provide strong evidence for a genetic component. And indeed, as shown in Table 10.4, there was a relatively strong correlation between the scores of MZ twins reared in separate environ-ments, albeit not as strong as that for MZ twins reared together. In short, extraversion appears to have one of the strongest genetic components of any personality variable studied. Moving forward, recent scien-tific and technological advances have provided researchers with new ways to examine the question of heritability and extraversion (Canli, 2006). One team of researchers conducted genome-wide scans on adolescents to see which chro- mosomes were related to various personality measures (Gillespie et al., 2008). They found links between extraversion and chromosomes 2, 3, 8 and 12. We can conclude from all this research that how introverted or extraverted you are probably is strongly influenced by the set of genes you inherited. Thisis not to say that you can ’t be more outgoing at times if you are highly intro- verted or learn to stop and introspect for a few minutes if you ’re an extravert.TABLE10.3 Within-Pair Extraversion Correlations for MZ and DZ Twins Males Females MZ Twins DZ Twins MZ Twins DZ Twins Swedish sample .47 .20 .54 .21 Finnish sample .46 .35 .48 .14 Source: From Floderus-Myrhed et al. (1980) and Rose et al. (1988). TABLE10.4 Within-Pair Correlations of Extraversion Scores for Twins Reared Apart and Together Twins Reared Apart Twins Reared Together MZ Twins DZ Twins MZ Twins DZ Twins .30 .04 .54 .06 Source: From “Neuroticism, extraversion, and related traits in adult twins reared apart and reared together, ” by N. L. Pedersen, R. Plomin, G. E. McClearn, and L. Friberg, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1988, 55, 950 –957. Reprinted by permission of the American Psychological Association.260 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
How often you act in either of these styles, however, was probably deter- mined largely by the genetic hand you were dealt many years ago. Extraversion and Preferred Arousal Level Imagine it ’s a few days before a big test in one of your classes. You ’ve put off preparing for the exam long enough, so tonight you ’ll go to the library and spend a few hours behind the books. There are two study areas in this library. One contains a series of one-person desks where you can isolate yourself be- hind the quiet of the book stacks. Few people walk by these desks, and the room is relatively free of whispers, photocopy machines, and other library noises. The other study area consists of long tables, sofas, and easy chairs.You can easily scan the room to see who else is there. Many people walk by on their way to other parts of the library, and short conversations with those passing through are common. Which of these study areas will you choose? Your choice in this situation depends in part on whether you are an ex- travert or an introvert. One team of researchers demonstrated this phenome-non when they asked students studying in the two kinds of library rooms justdescribed to complete the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Campbell, 1983; Campbell & Hawley, 1982). Students in the noisy, open room were more likely to be extraverts, whereas the ones in the isolated, quiet room were Is this student an introvert or an extravert? According to research, his choice of study area provides a clue. Extraverts prefer this type of open study area where opportunitiesfor interruptions and occasional social stimulation are possible.Extraversion-Introversion 261
more likely to be introverts. Those in the noisy room said they preferred the amount of noise and the opportunities for socializing. The others said theychose the quiet room to get away from these distractions. These findings are entirely consistent with the theorists ’descriptions of extraversion-introversion. Introverted students are more sensitive to stimula-tion. Thus an introvert in a noisy room is probably so disturbed by all the activity that he or she will have a difficult time studying. On the other hand, the understimulated extravert probably finds the quiet room boring. Unlessthe study material is particularly exciting, the extravert will probably take a number of breaks, look around for distractors, and generally have a difficult time keeping his or her mind on the task. This difference in preferred stimulation level also is found in more con- trolled laboratory experiments (Geen, 1983). For example, extraverts morequickly press a button to change slides on a visual learning task, presumablybecause they become bored more quickly with the pictures and designs (Brebner & Cooper, 1978). One team of researchers found that extraverts, but not in- troverts, showed a sudden drop in their ability to perform a listening exercisewhen the task was suddenly made less challenging by slowing down the pace (Cox-Fuenzalida, Angie, Holloway, & Sohl, 2006). In another study, extraverts and introverts worked on a word-memory task while listening to noise through earphones (Geen, 1984). When given the opportunity, introverted participants set their earphones at considerably lower levels than did extraverts. However, some introverts in this study were forced to listen to loud noise and some extra- verts were restricted to soft noise. Consistent with Eysenck ’s model, the intro- verts did worse when exposed to higher levels of stimulation, whereas the extraverts performed worse when listening to the softer noise. This last finding helps to explain why some students can study only with music or a TV blaring, whereas other students have to find a quiet library room and then stuff pieces of foam into their ears to block out any remainingnoise. Too much stimulation makes it difficult to concentrate, and even extra- verts can reach a point when they have to turn their radios down. But for in- troverts this point comes much earlier. Of course, the other side of the coin isthat too little stimulation also interferes with performance. Whereas it may take hours of solitude to bring an introvert to this point, a few minutes in quiet isolation might be tough on a high extravert. Extraversion and Happiness Clearly, extraverts and introverts lead different lives. We are more apt to find extraverts at parties, visiting friends, going places, and generally being active.Introverts are more likely to spend time alone, engaging in quiet, low- stimulation tasks. Who do you suppose is happier? Not surprisingly, I usually find introverts guess introverts are happier people, whereas extraverts can ’t imagine how anyone could lead a life as boring as the introverted style. Although introverts may have difficulty understanding this at first, re- searchers find that on average extraverts report higher levels of happiness than introverts (DeNeve, 1999; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Lucas & Baird, 2004; Lucas, Le, Dyrenforth, 2008). Extraverts and introverts in one investigation262 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
were asked to provide a daily mood report for 84 consecutive days (Larsen & Kasimatis, 1990). As shown in Figure 10.2, the researchers found an interestingpattern when they compared moods on days of the week. Perhaps not surpris- ingly, Monday was the students ’least favorite day, with the week becoming progressively better as Saturday approached. But the figure also illustrates that no matter what the day of the week, extraverts reported higher levels of posi- tive mood than introverts. One team of researchers found that extraversion scores could predict levels of positive affect measured 2 years later (Headey &Wearing, 1989). Another investigation used extraversion scores to predict the number of pleasant experiences people would have over a 4-year period (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993). Finally, one team of researchersfound that the higher the average extraversion score in a country, the higher the average citizens ’sense of well-being (Steel & Ones, 2002). In short, extraverts generally experience more happiness than introverts. But why might this be the case? Researchers have uncovered at least two reasons. First, extraverts tend to socialize more than introverts (Srivastava, Angelo, & Vallereux, 2008). Extraverts have more friends, and they interactwith those friends more often. Researchers have repeatedly found that social contact is closely tied to feelings of well-being (Diener, 1984). Interacting with friends is usually pleasant, as are other extraverted behaviors, such as going to dances, parties, and football games. Many basic needs, such as feeling competent and worthwhile, are also satisfied in social settings. In addition, friends often serve as a buffer against stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985). That is, people usually cope with their problems better with friends ’help than when they try to handle the situation alone. Consistent with this observation, one study found that extraverts were more likely than introverts to seek out friends when they had a problem (Amirkhan, Risinger, & Swickert, 1995). Positive Mood Scores Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun..51.01.52.02.53.0 IntrovertsExtraverts FIGURE 10.2 Happiness Ratings of Extraverts and Introverts Source: Adapted from Larsen and Kasimatis (1990).Extraversion-Introversion 263
The second explanation for extraverts ’happiness is that, as explained in the previous chapter, they may be more sensitive to rewards than are introverts (Rusting & Larsen, 1998; Strelau, 1987). An extravert who receives a good grade on a test may be more pleased than an introvert receiving the same news. In a laboratory test of this hypothesis, extraverts and introverts were given a test of“Syncretic Skill, ”supposedly a new type of intelligence (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989). Although the test was bogus, participants received information indi-cating either that they had done well on the test or that they had done poorly.Mood measures indicated that extraverts were much happier than introverts after receiving the positive feedback. Interestingly, extraverts were no more disappointed than introverts when told they had done poorly. Other studies find extraverts are more likely than introverts to seek out tasks they think will make them happy (Tamir, 2009) and find rewards insituations that introverts don ’t see (Noguchi, Gohm, & Dalsky, 2006). Participants in one investigation simply wrote down words as if taking a spell- ing test (Rusting, 1999). However, many of the words were homonyms (words that sound like other words). Thus in some cases it was possible to hear ahappy word ( peace instead of piece ) and in other cases to hear a sad word (mourning instead of morning ). Although either answer was correct, extra- verted participants were more likely than introverts to hear the happy words. Does this mean extraverts are always happier than introverts? Not neces- sarily. Extraverts are not only more sociable than introverts; they also are more impulsive. Extraverts are more likely to act on the spur of the moment, and this impulsivity can create problems (Emmons & Diener, 1986). Saying the first thing that comes to mind often is not a good idea. Doing what feels good at the moment without considering the eventual consequences is also fraught with danger. Anyone who has enjoyed a trip to the beach or an even- ing with friends instead of writing a term paper can appreciate the problem of acting impulsively. Thus extraversion appears to be a two-edged sword.Extraverts are more likely than introverts to have friends and have fun, but they also are more likely to act before thinking and get themselves into trou- ble. Introverts may not always reap the benefits of social interactions, butthey avoid the price of lapses in judgment. EVOLUTIONARY PERSONALITY THEORY AND MATE SELECTION Imagine that, like many people these days, you decide to look for a romantic partner through an online dating service. As you move through the process of entering information about yourself, you find that you are faced with two challenging tasks. First, you must describe yourself in a way that will make you attractive to others. Second, you must identify the kind of person you are looking for. What do you say? Once they get past favorite songs, dream evenings and references to piña coladas, researchers find that how people describe themselves and the kind ofperson they are looking for in these situations depends largely on whether they are male or female (Harrison & Saeed, 1977). Women tend to identify264 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
themselves as physically attractive and say they are looking for someone who is older and can provide financial security. Fortunately, these requests fitrather well with what the men say. Men typically are looking for someone who is younger and physically attractive. They also are likely to describe them- selves as someone who can provide financial security. In addition to their practical uses for someone seeking romance, do these results tell us something about the nature of personality? According to advo- cates of evolutionary personality theory, the answer is “Yes.”These psychol- ogists think of romantic relationships in terms of male and female members of a species getting together to (eventually) reproduce. Consequently, choos- ing a partner is based in part on concerns for parental investment (Geary, 2000; Trivers, 1972). That is, as members of a species, we are concerned about reproducing and passing our genes along to the next generation. Because ofthis concern, we select mates who are likely to be a part of successful repro-duction and effective child raising. This analysis does not suppose that we actively consider reproduction success when we select among potential dating partners but that certain mate-selection preferences have been passed down tous through the evolutionary process. According to the evolutionary analysis, men and women have different ideas about parental investment. Because they bear and in most cases raisethe offspring, females are more selective about whom they choose to mate and reproduce with. In contrast, in many species males are free to attempt to reproduce with as many females as they can. Frequent mating with many dif- ferent females increases the probability that one will pass along the male’ s genes to the next generation. In evolutionary terms, the investment in select- ing a mate is larger for women than for men. She has more to lose by making a poor choice than he does. Because they have different ideas about parental investment, evolutionary personality theory predicts that men and women look for very different characteristics in their partners. What do men look for in a woman? What do women want in a man? Complete answers to these commonly asked questions have eluded the mostinsightful of us. Although they cannot explain everything, evolutionary per-sonality psychologists argue that men and women select their mates based in part on what serves the needs of the species. As described in the next section, research supports many of these speculations. What Men Look for in Women From an evolutionary perspective, men can best serve the needs of the species by reproducing as frequently as possible (D. M. Buss, 1991). Consequently, men should be attracted to women with “high reproductive value. ”In other words, a man should select a woman who is likely to give him many children. But what outward signs do we have of a woman ’s likely fertility? One indi- cator is the woman ’s age. A young wife has the potential to produce more offspring than an older wife. Thus some evolutionary personality psycholo- gists predict that men prefer younger women to older women. Moreover, physical features associated with young adult women, such as “smooth skin, good muscle tone, lustrous hair, and full lips, ”provide “cues to femaleEvolutionary Personality Theory and Mate Selection 265
reproductive capacity ”(D. M. Buss, 1991, p. 2). Not coincidentally, these physical attributes are the ones our society associates with beauty. Evolutionary personality psychologists thus predict that men prefer partners who are physically attractive and probably younger than they are. But can the same reasoning be applied to women? Probably not. If anything, a young man is probably less likely than an older man to provide a woman and her offspring with the kinds of material resources she seeks from a partner. As a result, we would expect most couples to consist of an older husband and a younger wife. Research tends to support these speculations. A national survey of un- married American adults found that men preferred younger women as poten-tial marriage partners, whereas women expressed a preference for older men(Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994). Married couples in one study were asked about the importance they placed on various characteristics when choosing their spouse (Buss & Barnes, 1986). As expected, husbands weremore likely than their wives to rate physically attractive and good looking as features they sought in a marriage partner. Another study found the more at- tractive their partner, the more efforts men make to retain their relationshipwith that woman (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Men also are more likely to be upset if their partner becomes less attractive (Cramer, Manning-Ryan, Johnson, & Barbo, 2000). The importance of a woman ’s physical attractiveness can also be seen in the tactics women use to gain a man ’s attention (Buss, 1988). In evolutionary personality theory, this is known as intrasexual selection— the competition among members of one gender for mating access to the best members of the other gender. If men select partners who are youthful and beautiful, a woman can improve her chances of pairing up with the most desirable partner by em- phasizing these attributes. To test this possibility, newlyweds in one study were asked to describe what they did to attract their spouse when they first began dating (Buss,1988). As predicted, the women tended to report that they altered their ap- pearance with makeup and jewelry, wore stylish clothes, wore sexy clothes, and kept themselves clean and groomed. In another study, investigatorsscheduled undergraduate women to attend experimental sessions on two sep- arate occasions (Durante, Li, & Haselton, 2008). Although the women did not know it, the sessions were scheduled for different times in their ovulatorycycle. Hormone tests verified that one of the visits was on a high-fertility day and the other on a low-fertility day. The women also did not know that the researchers were primarily interested in what they would wear to the session.Consistent with the intrasexual selection notion, the women wore clothes judges rated as more revealing and more sexy on high-fertility days. These were the days in which the women presumably were more interested in cap-turing the attention of a potential partner. In short, there is abundant evidence that men are more likely than women to look at physical attractiveness when selecting a dating or marriagepartner (Feingold, 1990). However, it is important to keep in mind that it is fertility men are said to be seeking in younger women, not necessarily youth- fulness. When one team of investigators interviewed teenage boys, they founda preference for slightly older women (Ken rick, Keefe, Gabrielidis, & Cornelius,266 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
1996). In other words, the boys were more attracted to the females most likely to reproduce regardless of their age. Nonetheless, there is one important limitation in the studies reviewed so far. That is, they tell us a lot about the preferences of American men and women, but little about romantic choices in other cultures. To make a strong case for the evolutionary personality position, we need to demonstrate that this effect is not limited to certain social or cultural groups. If men were found to rely on physical attractiveness only in Western cultures, a strong ar-gument could be made that this behavior reflects social learning patterns rather than an inherited human characteristic. To solve this problem, one team of researchers conducted an elaborate cross-cultural investigation (Buss, 1989). The researchers looked at genderdifferences in partner preferences in 37 cultural groups. These groups were located in 33 different countries, on six continents and five islands, and in-cluded people from cultural backgrounds very different from Americans, such as South African Zulus, Gujarati Indians, and Santa Catarina Brazilians. Participants in each of these samples were asked what they considered the idealage for themselves and their partner when marrying. Participants were also asked how important each of 18 personality traits were for choosing a poten- tial mate (for example, intelligence, good financial prospect , and good looks ). The findings provide strong support for evolutionary personality theory. As shown in Table 10.5, in each of the 37 samples men preferred partnerswho were younger than they were. Additional evidence was found when re- searchers looked at the actual age at which people first married. This infor- mation was available in 27 of the countries studied. Men in each of these cultures not only said they preferred younger partners but also tended to marry women younger than themselves. Although the investigators made no predictions about the women ’s preferences, the women in all 37 cultures said they preferred an older partner. More evidence for the evolutionary personality position was found when the researchers looked at the importance men and women placed on physical attractiveness when selecting a mate. In each of the cultures, men were morelikely than women to say that good looks are important. This difference was statistically significant in all but three of the samples. Thus the tendency for men to prefer youthful and physically attractive women appears to be fairlyuniversal despite differences in cultures and social norms. Evolutionary per- sonality psychologists interpret these findings as evidence for universal char- acteristics handed down from our ancestors. What Women Look for in Men According to evolutionary personality theory, men prefer a female partner who provides maximal opportunity for successful reproduction. But women have a different role to play in reproduction and child rearing. According to the parental investment analysis, women prefer to mate with men who can provide for their offspring. In nonhuman species this may simply mean a mate who can provide food and protection. In humans this means providing the financial resources required to raise the children. Some men are betterable to do this than others. Men also differ in their ability to take care ofEvolutionary Personality Theory and Mate Selection 267
and nurture their sons and daughters as well as in their ability to transfer sta- tus or power to their children. Evolutionary personality psychologists argue that women prefer partners who possess these abilities. Again, some research supports this speculation. When investigators asked married couples to describe what they found attractive in their spouse,women were more likely to identify such characteristics as dependable, good earning capacity, ambitious ,a n d career-oriented (Buss & Barnes, 1986). Other investigations find women are more interested in locating a partner high in so-cioeconomic status and ambitiousness (Ben Hamida, Mineka, & Bailey, 1998;Feingold, 1992). However, no gender difference is found for characteristics unrelated to parental investment, suc h as sense of humor (Feingold, 1992). In another study, more women than men said they would be upset if their partner was unable to hold a good job (Cramer et al., 2000). When forced to make choices about hypothetical romantic partners, women in one study were more willing to give up physical attractiveness in their partner than high status and resources (Fletcher, Tither, O ’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004). Other research suggests that men are aware of these preferences and, like women, compete among themselves for the most desirable partner. Newlywedhusbands in one study were more likely than their spouses to say they bragged about their financial resources as a way to catch their future wives ’attention (Buss, 1988). In other words, the men let it be known that they made a lot of money or went out of their way to show off a new car or condominium. Similarly, men are more likely than women to display their material resources when trying to retain a partner ’s affection (Buss & Shackelford, 1997).Evolutionary Personality Theory and Mate Selection 269 Text not available due to copyright restrictions
Other studies find that women prefer dominant men over relatively meek men (Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987). This preference for a dominant man is even stronger when women have first been made to think about objects related to being a parent (Miller & Ostlund, 2006). According to evolutionary personal- ity theorists, a dominant man is better able to provide needed resources for his family than a man at the bottom of the pecking order. But do these findings mean that, given a choice, women prefer loud and brutish men? In other words, in the game of love, do nice guys finish last? Additional studies indicate that thisis not necessarily the case (Burger & Cosby, 1999; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Todd, & Finch, 1997). Mating with a dominant man may have its advantages, but not if he is unwilling to share resources or invest in the welfare of hischildren. In other words, dominance alone may not be a very attractive trait. In support of this reasoning, when undergraduate women observed and evaluated interactions between men, they reported that helpful and generous men were farmore appealing for both short- and long-term relationships than men who were simply dominant (Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995). In summary, research finds patterns of attraction that support evolution- ary theory ’s predictions about what women find attractive in men. But once again, we need to ask if the findings are limited to American samples. Data from the 37-culture study described earlier indicate that women around the world report similar preferences (Buss, 1989). As shown in Table 10.6, women in each culture were more likely than men to prefer a spouse who had good financial prospects. Only in Spain did this difference fail to reach statistical significance. Similar patterns were found when the men and women rated the importance of such characteristics as ambition and industriousness in a part- ner. In short, there is a nearly universal tendency for women to prefer men who can provide financial resources. Conclusions and Limitations Research findings on what men and women look for in romantic partners tend to be consistent with the predictions from evolutionary personality psy- chology. Men around the world prefer younger and physically attractive women, whereas women look for a man who can provide the material resources they need to raise their children. However, as intuitive and consistent as these findings may be, there are reasons to take them with at least a grain of salt. As described in the previous chapter, researchers testing these hypotheses are necessarily limited in their ability to make strong tests of causal relation-ships. Because they cannot manipulate variables like gender and physicalattractiveness, investigators are unable to rule out many alternative explana- tions for their findings (Wood & Eagly, 2002). For example, differences in the ages men and women marry may simply have to do with differences inmaturity level, with women becoming physically and perhaps emotionally mature more quickly than men. Moreover, investigations do not always produce findings consistent with evolutionary personality theory ’s predictions (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). For example, evolutionary person- ality psychologists argue that men should be more upset when discovering their spouse’ s sexual infidelity, but women will be more concerned about270 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
TABLE10.6 Importance of “Good Financial Prospects ”When Selecting a Mate Sample Males Females Africa Nigeria 1.37 2.30 South Africa (Whites) 0.94 1.73 South Africa (Zulus) 0.70 1.14 Zambia 1.46 2.33 Asia China 1.10 1.56 India 1.60 2.00 Indonesia 1.42 2.55 Iran 1.25 2.04 Israel (Jewish) 1.31 1.82 Israel (Palestinian) 1.28 1.67Japan 0.92 2.29 Taiwan 1.25 2.21 Eastern EuropeBulgaria 1.16 1.64Estonia 1.31 1.51Poland 1.09 1.74Yugoslavia 1.27 1.66 Western Europe Belgium 0.93 1.36Finland 0.65 1.18France 1.22 1.68Germany 1.14 1.81Great Britain 0.67 1.16Greece 1.16 1.92Ireland 0.82 1.67Italy 0.87 1.33Netherlands 0.69 0.94 Norway 1.10 1.42 Spain 1.25 1.39Sweden 1.18 1.75North AmericaCanada (English) 1.02 1.91Canada (French) 1.47 1.94 (continued)Evolutionary Personality Theory and Mate Selection 271
losing their partner ’s emotional fidelity. These predictions stem from the men’s theoretical needs to be assured the offspring they raise are their own, and from the women ’s desire that their partners continue to support them and the offspring after reproduction. However, studies often fail to support either of these predictions (Berman & Frazier, 2005; DeSteno, Bartlett, Braverman, & Salovey, 2002; Harris, 2003). In addition, it ’s entirely possible that instincts inherited from our ances- tors are overshadowed by learned preferences we develop for romantic part-ners. The basic needs of animals in the wild may be quite different from the needs of men and women in modern society. Many women probably prefer a partner who spends time with them rather than one devoted to an ambi-tious climb up the corporate ladder. This is not to say that tendencies passed down from our ancestors do not influence our choices. The research suggests that they do. But our preferences for a physically attractive woman or awealthy man might play a relatively small role in this process. In one study both men and women rated mutual love and affection the most important consideration when selecting a romantic partner (Ben Hamida et al., 1998). Common sense also tells us there are a number of exceptions to the rule. Many women no doubt prefer a man who is more sensitive than dominant. Many men prefer an older woman to a less mature partner. Evolutionary per- sonality psychology also is limited to heterosexual mating choices. The pre- diction of partner choice based on parental investment says little or nothing about choices for lesbians and gay men. The analysis also may not apply to women who are past their reproductive years and older men who are inter- ested in an intimate relationship but not in raising a family.Sample Males Females United States (Mainland) 1.08 1.96 United States (Hawaiian) 1.50 2.10 OceaniaAustralia 0.69 1.54 New Zealand 1.35 1.63 South America Brazil 1.24 1.91Colombia 1.72 2.21Venezuela 1.66 2.26 Note: Participants rated on a scale from 0 (Unimportant) to 3 (Indispensable). Source: From Buss (1989).TABLE10.6 Importance of “Good Financial Prospects ”When Selecting a Mate (continued)272 CHAPTER 10 The Biological Approach
SUMMARY 1. Research suggests both genetics and the environment have an influence on the development of adult personalities. Psychologists use a variety of methods to determine the extent to which personality is inherited, most notably the twin-study method. However, questions surface when interpreting these studies, particularly with some of the underlying assumptions of the methods. Nonetheless, the cumulative evidence argues strongly for a significant heritability component in adult personality. 2. Extraversion-introversion is probably the most widely researched aspect of Eysenck ’s personality theory. Evidence indicates that this personality variable has a large heritability component. Consistent with Eysenck ’s theory, researchers find extraverts seek out stimulating environments and perform better in these environments than introverts. Research also finds that extraverts are generally happier than introverts. 3. Evolutionary personality theory predicts that men and women look for different features when selecting romantic partners. Consistent with this view, research shows that men are more likely to consider physical at- tractiveness when selecting a dating partner or spouse. In addition, menare more likely to prefer a younger partner. Studies also indicate that women prefer a man who possesses the resources necessary for raising a family. Cross-cultural research suggests that these preferences may be universal. KEY TERMS twin-study method (p. 253) MEDIA RESOURCES Visit our website. Go to www.cengage.com/ psychology/burger to find online resources directly linked to your book, including quizzing, glossary, flashcards, and more.Summary 273
CHAPTER11 The Humanistic Approach Theory, Application, and Assessment The Roots of Humanistic Psychology Key Elements of the Humanistic ApproachCarl Rogers Abraham Maslow The Psychology of Optimal Experience Application: Person-Centered Therapy and Job Satisfaction Assessment: The Q-Sort TechniqueStrengths and Criticisms of the Humanistic ApproachSummary 274
I was once involved in a discussion about Jim Morrison, the leader of the 1960s rock group The Doors. For a few years Morrison was a rock legendwho personified counterculture thinking. But he also abused his body with drugs and alcohol and died of an apparent heart attack at age 27. One man in this discussion blamed society for Morrison’ s self-destructive behav- ior and death. He argued that Morrison’ s alienation from his parents, ha- rassment by police, and pressure from music industry executives pushed the singer to his tragic death. A woman in the group disagreed. She arguedthat no one forced Jim Morrison to take outrageous doses of dangerous drugs or to go on daily drinking binges. For that matter, no one kept him in the music business. If it was that much hassle, he could easily havegotten out. Which of these views do you suppose is more “humanistic ”? You may be surprised to find that the woman who blamed Morrison ’s problems on him- self is probably more aligned with the view of humanistic psychology than the man who pointed to society and the hassles Morrison faced. This is not to say that humanistic psychologists are heartless or insensitive to the pro-blems society tosses our way. But failure to take personal responsibility for how we react to those problems is completely foreign to the humanistic ap- proach to personality and well-being. This perspective is easier to understand if we look at the circumstances that gave birth to the humanistic view. By the middle of the 20th century,two major views of humanity had emerged from the discipline of psychology. One was the Freudian concept. According to this perspective, we are all vic- tims of unconscious sexual and aggressive instincts that constantly influence our behavior. The other view came from the behaviorists (discussed in Chapter 13), who, in the extreme, view humans as little more than large, complex rats. Just as a rat is conditioned to respond to laboratory stimuli, humans are said to respond to stimuli in their living environments over whichthey have no control. We act the way we do because of the situation we are in or the situations we have been in before —not because of some personal choice or direction. Many psychologists had difficulty accepting either of these descriptions of human nature. In particular, important aspects of human personality such as free will and human dignity were missing from the Freudians ’and behaviorists ’descriptions. Behavior was said to be under the control of id impulses or learning histories rather than personal choices. In response tothese concerns, a so-called third force was born. The humanistic approach(sometimes, perhaps incorrectly, referred to as existential orphenomenological psychology) paints a much different picture of our species. A key distinction between the humanistic approach and other theories of personality is that people are assumed to be largely responsible for their actions. Although we sometimes respond automatically to events and may at times be motivated by unconscious impulses, we have the power to determineour own destiny and to decide our actions at almost any given moment. We have free will. Jim Morrison may have found himself under tremendous pressure and difficulties, but how he responded to that situation was his ownThe Humanistic Approach 275
choice. Had Morrison seen a humanistic therapist, he probably would have been encouraged to accept this responsibility and make choices about his life-style consistent with his individuality and personal needs. The third force in American psychology caught on rapidly with a large number of psychotherapists and personality theorists. The emphasis on indi-viduality and personal expression in the 1960s (which gave rise to the coun- terculture movement personified by Jim Morrison) provided fertile soil for the growth of humanistic psychology. The election of prominent humanisticpsychologist Abraham Maslow to president of the American Psychological Association in 1967 symbolized the acceptance of the humanistic approach as a legitimate alternative perspective. But before we explore in depth whatthis alternative view is all about, let ’s examine where the humanistic ap- proach came from. THE ROOTS OF HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY Although humanistic psychology evolved from many sources, its roots lie pri- marily in two areas: existential philosophy, which is decidedly European in flavor, and the work of some American psychologists, most notably CarlRogers and Abraham Maslow. Existential philosophy addresses many of the questions that later became cornerstones of the humanistic approach. Some of these include the meaningof our existence, the role of free will, and the uniqueness of each human being. Many psychologists, primarily European, align themselves so closely with existential philosophers that they have adopted the label existential psychologists . These psychologists rely heavily on the works of the great exis- tential philosophers —such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Søren Kierkegaard, and Jean-Paul Sartre —in developing their theories of personality. The list of prominent existential psychologists includes Ludwig Binswanger, Medard Boss, Viktor Frankl, R. D. Laing, and Rollo May. Existential psychotherapy frequently focuses on existential anxiety —the feelings of dread and panic that follow the realization that there is no meaning to one ’s life. Therapy often emphasizes the freedom to choose and develop a lifestyle that reducesfeelings of emptiness, anxiety, and boredom. At about the time existential philosophy was making its way into conver- sations among psychologists, two American psychologists were writing abouttheir personal transitions from traditional psychology theories to a humanistic perspective. Early failures as a psychotherapist led Carl Rogers to wonder about his ability to decide for clients what their problems were and how to solve them. “It began to occur to me, ”Rogers reflected many years later, “that unless I had a need to demonstrate my own cleverness …I would do better to rely upon the client for direction ”(1967, p. 359). The turning point for Abraham Maslow came while watching a World War II parade. Although the parade was supposed to promote American patriotism and the war effort, it caused Maslow to question just how276 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
much psychology had contributed to th e understanding of human behavior. He became determined “to prove that human beings are capable of some- thing grander than war and prejudice and hatred ”(as cited in Hall, 1968, p. 55). Promoting their new ideas about human behavior became a life ’s work for Rogers and Maslow. Their writings found a receptive audience among psychologists also bothered by the limitations and deficiencies they saw in other approaches. We will review the theories of both of these men after firstidentifying some of the key elements of the humanistic approach. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE HUMANISTIC APPROACH Describing humanistic psychology is difficult because there is no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a humanistic personality theory. This was made obvious in the 1960s and early 1970s when it seemed nearly everyone identi-fied himself or herself as “humanistic ”in an effort to capitalize on the popu- larity of the approach. As a result, humanistic psychology sometimes wasassociated with faddish therapies that promised to solve problems and providethe key to happiness for the price of a paperback book. Efforts to exploit the humanistic association have faded as the public ’s fascination with humanistic psychology has declined. But there remain a large number of psychologists — especially psychotherapists —who identify with this perspective. Although no clear criteria exist for identifying which approaches to psychotherapy fall into the humanistic category, it is safe to say that the following four elementsare central to the general viewpoint to which we apply the “humanistic ”label: (1) an emphasis on personal responsibility, (2) an emphasis on the “here and now,”(3) a focus on the phenomenology of the individual, and (4) an empha- sis on personal growth. Personal Responsibility Although we may try to deny it, we are ultimately responsible for what hap- pens to us. This idea, borrowed from exi stential philosophers, is central to the humanistic approach to persona lity and is illustrated in the way we commonly use the phrase “I have to. ”We say, “I have to go to class, ”“I have to meet some friends, ”“I have to take care of my children,” and so forth. But the truth is that we don ’thave to do any of these. Within limits, there is practically nothing we have to do. Humanistic psychologists argue that our behaviors represent personal choices of what we want to do at a particular moment. People choose to remain in relationships; they do not have to. We choose to act passively; we could decide to act forcefully. We choose to go to work, call our friends, leave a party, or send a Christmas pres- ent. We do not have to do any of these things. The price we pay for makingsome of these choices can be steep, but they are choices nonetheless. Unlike the Freudian or behavioral descriptions of people at the mercy of forces they cannot control, humanistic psychologists see people as active sha- pers of their own lives, with freedom to change limited only by physical con- straints. A typical goal of humanistic psychotherapy is for clients to acceptKey Elements of the Humanistic Approach 277
that they have the power to do or to be whatever they desire. Of course, for many this freedom can be frightening. The Here and Now Think about the last time you walked to a class or some other appointment.Perhaps you spent the time thinking about what you did last weekend or ru- minating over an embarrassing incident. Maybe you rehearsed something you wanted to say to someone or thought about how nice it would be to get through this week. A humanistic psychologist might say that what you really did was to lose 10 minutes. You failed to experience fully the 10 minutes that life handed you. You could have enjoyed the fresh air, appreciated the blue sky, or learnedsomething from observing or talking with other people. According to the humanistic perspective, we can ’t become fully function- ing individuals until we learn to live our lives as they happen. Some reflectionon the past or future can be helpful, but most people spend far too much time thinking about events that have already happened or planning those that might. Time spent on these activities is time lost, for you can live life fullyonly if you live it in the here and now. A popular poster reminds us, “Today Is the First Day of the Rest of Your Life.”This phrase could well have been coined by a humanistic psychologist. The humanistic view maintains that we need not be victims of our past. Certainly our past experiences shape and influence who we are and how we behave. But these experiences should not dictate what we can become. People do not need to remain shy and unassertive just because they “have al- ways been that way. ”You do not have to remain in an unhappy relationship simply because you don’ t know what else to do. Your past has guided you to where you are today, but it is not an anchor. The Phenomenology of the Individual No one knows you better than yourself. This observation is a cornerstone of humanistic psychology. Humanistic psychologists argue that it ’s absurd for therapists to listen to clients, decide what their problems are, and force them to accept the therapist ’s interpretation of what should be changed and how it should be changed. Instead, humanistic therapists try to understand where cli- ents are “coming from ”and provide what clients need to help themselves. Some people find this approach to therapy a bit puzzling at first. What about people incapable of understanding their problems? And if the answerswere easy and therapy the client ’s job anyway, why would anyone need to see a psychotherapist? The reply is that, whereas some people may not be able to un-derstand the source of their difficulties right now, the therapist also has no accessto this information. During the course of therapy, clients come to understand themselves and develop an appropriate strategy for resolving their problems. You may have had a similar experience when dealing with personal issues.Friends offer advice, but allowing someone else to decide what is best for you is unsatisfying and probably ineffective. If you are like many people, it was only when you weighed the advice of others and came to a decision on your ownthat you were able to resolve the problem.278 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
Personal Growth According to humanistic psychology, there is more to life than simply having all of your immediate needs met. Suppose tomorrow you inherited several million dollars, settled down with someone who will admire and love you always, and were promised a long and healthy life. Would you be happy? For how long? Humanistic theorists maintain that people are not content when their immediate needs have been met. Rather, they are motivated to continue their development in a positive manner. If left alone, unencumberedby life ’s difficulties, we eventually progress toward some ultimately satisfying state of being. Carl Rogers referred to this state as becoming a fully func- tioning individual. Abraham Maslow (1970) borrowed the term self- actualization to describe it: We become self-actualized as we become “more what one idiosyncratically is, to become everything that one is capable ofbecoming ”(p. 46). This growth process is assumed to be the natural manner of human de- velopment. That is, we progress toward this satisfying state unless certain problems prevent us from doing so. When these obstacles block our growth, humanistic psychotherapy can be helpful. However, the therapist does not put clients back on track. Only the client can do that. Rather, the therapist allows clients to overcome their problems and continue growing. Rogers describes this ever-unfolding of one ’s self as a “process of becoming. ” CARL ROGERS Humanistic psychology could ask for no better example of how to live life fully than the career of Carl Rogers. Rogers pioneered humanistic psycho- therapy and was the first therapist to popularize a “person-centered ”ap- proach (Rogers, 1951). He later became an important figure in the growth of encounter groups as a means of therapy (Rogers, 1970) and expanded what he learned from psychotherapy into a general theory of personality (Rogers,1961). Late in his career, Rogers applied the humanistic approach to social is- sues such as education and world peace (Rogers, 1969, 1977, 1982). For many people, Rogers ’optimistic view of humanity and belief in each indivi- dual’s potential for fulfillment and happiness provide a pleasant alternative to some of the approaches to personality covered thus far. The Fully Functioning Person “The good life, ”Rogers said, “is a process, not a state of being. It is a direction, not a destination ”(1961, p. 186). Like other humanistic theorists, Rogers maintained that we naturally strive to reach an optimal sense of satisfaction with our lives. He called people who reach this goal fully functioning. So what are fully functioning people like? Rogers identified several char- acteristics. Fully functioning people are open to their experiences. Rather than falling into familiar patterns, they look to see what life will throw their way. Related to this, fully functioning people try to live each moment as itcomes. The idea is to experience life, not just pass through.“Whether one calls it a growth tendency, a drive toward self-actualization, or a forward-moving directional tendency,it is the mainspring of life.” Carl RogersCarl Rogers 279
Fully functioning people learn to trus t their feelings. If something feels right, they ’ll probably do it. They aren ’t insensitive to the needs of others, but they aren’ t overly concerned with meeting the standards of behavior so- ciety sets for them. If a fully functioning woman wants to cut her hair or quit her job, she probably won ’t stop herself just because others might notCarl R. Rogers 1902 –1987 Like the inevitable unfolding of one ’s true self that he promoted, Carl Rogers ’ interest in science and hisconcern for people carried him from Midwest farm boyto leader of the humanisticmovement in psychology. Carl was a shy but very intelligent boy growing up inIllinois. He had a particular fondness for science, andby the time he was 13 had developed a reputation asthe local expert on biology and agriculture. Ironically, the Rogers household was anything but warm and affectionate. Openly expressing emotions, later a key feature of Rogerian therapy, was notallowed. As a result, like two of his siblings, Carldeveloped an ulcer by age 15. Rogers went to his mother and father ’s alma mater, the University of Wisconsin, in 1919 to studyagriculture. He planned a career in farming but soonfound agriculture unchallenging. He took acorrespondence course in psychology one summer butfound it boring. He finally settled on religious studies.When he left Wisconsin with his new wife, Helen, in1924, he went to Union Theological Seminary in NewYork to prepare for a career as a minister. Two developments in New York changed the direction of his life. First, intensely studying theologycaused him to question his own religious beliefs. “The Christian religion satisfies very different psychologicalneeds in different men, ”he observed. “The important thing is not the religion but the man ”(as cited in Kirschenbaum, 1979, p. 45). The second developmentwas a renewed introduction to psychology. While atthe seminary, Rogers and several classmates tookpsychology courses across the street at ColumbiaUniversity. These classmates included TheodoreNewcomb and Ernest Hilgard, who also went on to become important figures in psychology. A career in theology promised Rogers an opportunity to help people, but his faith continued towane. “It would be a horrible thing to have to profess to a set of beliefs in order to remain in one ’s profession, ”he said. “I wanted to find a field in which I could be sure my freedom of thought would not be limited ”(as cited in Kirschenbaum, 1979, pp. 51 –52). Much to his parents ’dismay, Rogers left the church to pursue graduate study in psychology at Columbia. After graduation, Rogers worked at a child guidance clinic in Rochester, New York. Later hejoined the faculty at Ohio State University and theUniversity of Chicago before returning to theUniversity of Wisconsin in 1957. Throughout this time, Rogers battled with the established Freudian approachto psychotherapy and the dominant behavioral influence in academia. But in time he began to win many of these battles. When the AmericanPsychological Association handed out its first annualaward for distinguished scientific contribution in 1956,Carl Rogers was the recipient. In 1963 Rogers moved to La Jolla, California, where he founded the Center for Studies of the Person.The thread that ties Rogers ’career together is his genuine concern for people. “Rogers seemed ordinary, ” a colleague wrote. “He was not a sparkling conversationalist. [But] he would certainly listen toyou, and with real interest ”(Gendlin, 1988, p. 127). Rogers devoted the last 15 years of his life to the issuesof social conflict and world peace. Even in his 80s heled workshops and communication groups in suchplaces as the Soviet Union and South Africa. Rogerscontinued to write extensively and to shape thediscipline of psychology until his death in February1987. Roger Ressmeyer/Roger Ressmeyer-Starlight/CORBIS280 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
approve. Fully functioning people are less prone to conform to the roles dictated by societal expectations. It ’s not that fully functioning people are rebellious. They may follow the traditional path of college, job, marriage, and family, but only if each of these choices is consistent with their own interests, values, and needs. Fully functioning people experience their feelings more deeply and more intensely than others. This applies to both positive and negative emotions. Fully functioning people accept and express their anger. To do otherwisewould be to cut themselves off from their feelings. Because of this sensitivity, these individuals experience a greater richness in their lives. Anxiety and Defense If we all have the potential to be fully functioning, constructive members of society, why is there so much unhappiness in the world? Why doesn ’t every- one get the maximum enjoyment out of life? Rogers was well aware that we often fall short of becoming happy, fully functioning adults. The problem be- gins when we experience anxiety and respond with various psychological de- fenses. According to Rogers, anxiety results from coming into contact withinformation that is inconsistent with the way we think of ourselves. You may believe that you are a good tennis player, a kind person, a good student, or a pleasant conversationalist, but occasionally you receive information thatcontradicts this self-concept. For example, you may think of yourself as the kind of person everybody likes. But one day you overhear someone say what a jerk he thinks you are. How do you react? Let’s first describe how a fully functioning person would react. If you were fully functioning, you would accept the information. Here is someone who does not like you. You might want to think about this new information for a while and then incorporate it into your self-concept. You might recognize that, although you are a fine person, not everyone is going to find you pleasant and wonderful. Unfortunately, most of us are not capable of such a well-adjusted reaction. More commonly, the information leads to anxiety. You believe you are liked by everyone, and here is some evidence that not everyone likes you. If the information is excessively threatening to your self-concept, the anx- iety will be difficult to manage. This is where Rogers ’theory takes on a slight Freudian flavor. Rogers proposed that we receive this threatening information at a level somewhere below consciousness. Rogers called this process subception rather than perception . If the information is not threatening, it easily flows into awareness. But if it contradicts our self-concept, we ’ll rely on defenses to keep the information from entering consciousness and therebykeep the anxiety at bay. The most common defense is distortion . Returning to the example, you might convince yourself that the person who called you a jerk was in a badmood or is just a rude person. In more extreme cases, you might even resort to outright denial . No, you might convince yourself, he wasn ’t really talking about me but about someone else with a name that sounds like mine. An interesting twist to Rogers ’theory is that we can also become anxious when encountering positive information if that information is inconsistent with our self-concept.Carl Rogers 281
People who consider themselves socially undesirable may turn to defenses when they hear that someone is attracted to them. They might tell themselves thea d m i r e ri sj u s tb e i n gp o l i t eo rm a y b ei ss c h e m i n gt og e ts o m e t h i n gf r o mt h e m . Sometimes we defend ourselves from threatening observations we make about ourselves. Each of us on occasion acts in ways that fall short of ourpersonal standards. Perhaps you have cheated a friend out of money, said some hurtful things to a loved one, or lied to take advantage of an acquain- tance. Even fully functioning individuals sometimes disappoint themselves. Inmost cases these people acknowledged their shortcomings and try to learn from their mistakes. More commonly, people distort the situation ( “She really shouldn ’t get that upset by what I said ”) or deny the facts ( “I didn ’t know the money was his ”). Distortion and denial often succeed in the short run by reducing anxiety. But this relief comes at a price. Each distortion takes us further and further away from experiencing life fully. In severe cases, people replace reality with fantasy. A man may think of himself as the world ’s most desirable bachelor when in fact there are no objective reasons to draw this conclusion. A student with poor grades might convince herself that she is a genius whose thoughts are simply too sophisticated for her instructors to understand. But a t some point the gap between self-concept and reality is so large that even our defens es are inadequate. In this case, people experience what Rogers called a state of disorganization . The protective barrier against threatening information colla pses, and the result is extreme anxiety. Conditions of Worth and Unconditional Positive Regard Why is it so difficult to accept and incorporate certain information into our self-concept? Rogers ’answer is that most of us grow up in an atmosphere of conditional positive regard . As children, our parents and caregivers provide love and support. However, they rarely do this unconditionally. Rather, most parents love their children as long as the children do what is expected of them. When parents disapprove of their children ’s behavior, they withhold their love. The children get the message they are loved, but only when they do what their parents want. The positive regard the children need and want is conditional upon their behavior. As a result of this conditional positive regard, children learn to abandon their true feelings and desires and t o accept only the parts of themselves their parents deem appropriate. In short, they deny their weaknesses and faults and become less and less aware of themselves. Unfortunately, we con-tinue this process as adults. We incorpo rate into our self-concept only those aspects that are likely to win the approval of significant people in our lives. Instead of acknowledging and expressi ng feelings others might not like, we deny or distort them. As a result, we lose touch with our feelings and be- come less fully functioning. The antidote for this self-defeating sequence is unconditional positive regard . When we experience unconditional positive regard, we know we will be accepted and loved no matter what we do. Parents should communicate to their children that although they don ’t approve of a specific behavior, they will always love and accept them. Under these conditions, children no282 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
longer feel a need to deny thoughts and feelings that might otherwise have led to a withdrawal of positive regard. They are free to experience all of them-selves, free to incorporate faults and weaknesses into their self-concepts, free to experience all of life. Fortunately, parents are not the only source of unconditional positive re- gard, and growing up in a family without this acceptance does not condemn a person to a less-than-full life. Adult relationships with friends and romantic partners can be based on unconditional positive regard. Similarly, therapistscan create an atmosphere of unconditional positive regard during psychother- apy. Rogers maintained that such an environment is a requirement for effec- tive treatment. We ’ll examine more of Rogers ’ideas about psychotherapy later in this chapter. ABRAHAM MASLOW Abraham Maslow spent most of his career filling in the gaps he found inother approaches to personality. At a time when the field was largely con-cerned with psychological disorders, Maslow wondered what psychology Is the child a bad boy, or has he merely done a bad thing? Rogers argues that parents should provide children with unconditional positive regard. Although the boy may havedone something the mother did not like, he is still loved and prized by her.Abraham Maslow 283
could do for the happy, healthy side of personality. “Freud supplied to us the sick half of psychology, ”he wrote, “and we must now fill it out with the healthy half ”(1968, p. 5). Maslow replaced Freud ’s pessimistic and dismal view of human nature with an optimistic and uplifting portrayal. In addition, although he acknowledged the existence of unconscious motives, Maslow fo- cused his attention on the conscious aspects of personality. Motivation and the Hierarchy of Needs For a moment, contrast the concerns of the average middle-class American to- day with those of the typical blue-collar worker during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Today ’s financially secure professionals fret over their personal relationships and their standing in the social community. Many are concerned making a contribution with their lives. Some find satisfaction working in community service projects and for charitable organizations. Others read no-vels, get involved with social causes, and take classes to develop their writing skills or appreciation for the arts. But things were very different when nearly a third of the workforce lost their jobs in the 1930s. Feeding oneself andone’s family became the dominant concern of many Americans. A job, any job, was of primary importance. Spending time contemplating the directionof one ’s life and experimenting with various avenues to express one ’s poten- tial were luxuries reserved for those who did not have to worry about day- to-day existence. The contrasting experiences of today’ s middle-class citizens and those of Depression-era workers (and, sadly, those of many impoverished people throughout the world today) illustrates a key aspect of Maslow ’s theory of personality. Maslow identified two types of motives. Deficiency motives result from a lack of some needed object. Basic needs such as hunger and thirst fallinto this category. Deficiency motives are satisfied, and for a period of time stop directing behavior, once the needed object has been obtained. In con- trast, growth needs are not satisfied once the object of the need is found. Rather, satisfaction comes from expressing the motive. Growth needs include the unselfish giving of love to others and the development of one ’s unique po- tential. Satisfying a growth need may even lead to an increase in, rather than a satiation of, the need. Maslow identified five basic categories of needs —both deficiency and growth —and arranged them in his well-known hierarchy of needs . As shown in Figure 11.1, he placed the five kinds of needs into a hierarchy of promi- nence. That is, some needs demand satisfaction before others. Although thereare exceptions, we typically attend to needs at the lower levels before focusing on higher level needs. If you are hungry, your attention will be focused on ob- taining food. Until this need is met, you won ’t be very concerned about mak- ing new friends or developing a romantic relationship. Of course, once satisfied, the lower need may return, causing you to divert your attention again. But over the course of a lifetime, most of us progress up the hierarchy,until satisfying our need for self-actualization dominates our actions. Let ’sg o through the hierarchy one step at a time.“I’m someone who likes plowing new ground then walkingaway from it. I get bored. I like discov- ery, not proving. ” Abraham Maslow284 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
Physiological Needs Physiological needs, including hunger, thirst, air, and sleep, are the most de- manding in that they must be satisfied before we can move to higher level needs. Throughout history —and in many places today —many people ’s lives have been focused on meeting these basic needs. Finding enough food and water for survival takes priority over concerns about gaining the respect of peers or developing potential as an artist. Safety Needs When physiological needs are met, we become increasingly motivated by our safety needs. These include the need for security, stability, protection, structure, Abraham H. Maslow 1908 –1970 The evolution of Abraham Maslow ’s personal and professional life resemble inmany ways the personalgrowth he described in his writings. Although generallyregarded as a warm andgregarious adult, Maslow had a cold and lonely childhood. “I was the little Jewish boy in the non-Jewish neighborhood, ”he recalled. “I was isolated and unhappy. I grew up in libraries and among books, without friends ”(cited in Hall, 1968, p. 37). His professional career also started on a path far from his eventual position as the father of humanistic psychology. His parents, uneducated Russianimmigrants, encouraged Maslow to go to law school.He went to City College of New York in this pursuitbut found it uninteresting and dropped out during thefirst year. Maslow went to Cornell and then to theUniversity of Wisconsin to study psychology.Ironically, what initially attracted him to psychologywas behaviorism, particularly the works of John B.Watson. “I was so excited about Watson ’s program, ” he said. “I was confident that here was a real road to travel, solving one problem after another and changingthe world ”(cited in Hall, 1968, p. 37). Although his enthusiasm for behaviorism would eventually wane,Maslow ’s desire to solve the world ’s problems through psychology never diminished.Maslow stayed at Wisconsin to finish his PhD in 1934. He remained a loyal behaviorist throughout this period, working closely with Harry Harlow in his animal lab. After graduation, Maslow went to Columbia University to work with the famous learningtheorist E. L. Thorndike. But with the birth of his first daughter, Maslow went through a mystical experiencesimilar to the peak experiences he later studied.Looking at his newborn child, Maslow realized thatbehaviorism was incapable of providing theunderstanding of human behavior that he now needed.“I looked at this tiny, mysterious thing and felt so stupid, ”he said. “I was stunned by the mystery and by the sense of not really being in control. …Anyone who had a baby couldn ’t be a behaviorist ”(cited in Hall, 1968, p. 56). After Columbia, Maslow taught at Brooklyn College for 14 years, where he came into contact with Karen Horney and Alfred Adler. Most important, hemet Max Wertheimer, one of the founders of Gestaltpsychology, and Ruth Benedict, a culturalanthropologist. It was his desire to better understandthese two people, whom he called “the most remarkable human beings, ”that led him to his exploration of self-actualized people (Maslow, 1970).Maslow moved to Brandeis University in 1951 andremained there until shortly before his death in 1970.He hoped to leave a new movement in psychology as his legacy. “I like to be the first runner in the relay race,”he once said. “Then I like to pass on the baton to the next man ”(cited in Hall, 1968, p. 56)Bettmann/CORBISAbraham Maslow 285
order, and freedom from fear or chaos. These needs are most evident when the future is unpredictable or when stability of the political or social order is threatened. People who perceive threats to their safety may build large savings accounts or settle for a job with a lot of security rather than pursue a better but riskier position. People stuck at the safety-need level in their personal devel- opment may tolerate an unhappy marriage or a military dictatorship if these situations provide stability or a sense of security. Belongingness and Love Needs For most middle-class American adults, the need for food and water and theneed for security and stability are fairly well satisfied. Most of us have jobs, homes, and food on the table. But satisfaction of these lower level needs does not guarantee happiness. The need for friendship and love soon emerges. “Now the person will feel keenly, as never before, the absence of friends, or a sweetheart, or a wife, or children, ”Maslow wrote. “He will hunger for affec- tionate relations with people …for a place in his group or family ”(1970, p. 43). Although some adults remain slaves to their safety needs and devote most of their energy to their careers, most people eventually find work unsa- tisfying if it means sacrificing time spent with friends and loved ones. Maslow identified two kinds of love. D-love , like hunger, is based on a deficiency. We need this love to satisfy the emptiness we experience withoutit. It is a selfish love, concerned with taking, not giving. But it is a necessarystep in the development of the second type of love. B-love is a nonpossessive, unselfish love based on a growth need rather than a deficiency. We can never satisfy our need for B-love simply with the presence of a loved one. Rather, B-love is experienced and enjoyed and grows with this other person. It is a “love for the Being of another person. ”Need for Self- Actualization Esteem Needs Belongingness and Love Needs Safety Needs Physiological Needs FIGURE 11.1 Maslow ’s Hierarchy of Needs286 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
Esteem Needs Although poets and songwriters might disagree, there is more to life than love. Satisfying our belongingness and love needs directs attention to our es-teem needs. Maslow divided these into two basic types: the need to perceive oneself as competent and achieving, and the need for admiration and respect. But he cautioned that this respect must be deserved. We cannot lie or cheat our way into positions of honor and authority. Even with money, spouse, and friends, failing to satisfy our need for self-respect and admiration will result in feelings of inferiority and discouragement. Need for Self-Actualization Nearly every culture has a story about someone who, by virtue of a magic lamp or contact with a supernatural being, receives everything he or she wishes. But inevitably, granting wishes for wealth, love, and power does notresult in happiness. As Maslow explained, when all our lower level needs are satisfied, a new source of discontent surfaces. We turn our attention inward and ask ourselves what we want out of life, where our lives are headed, andwhat we want to accomplish. The need for self-actualization is satisfied when we identify our true self and reach our full potential. “A musician must make music, ”Maslow wrote. “An artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. He must be true to his own nature ”(1970, p. 46). Misconceptions About Maslow ’s Need Hierarchy Maslow was quick to acknowledge that the five-level hierarchy oversimplifies the relationship between needs and behavior. Although the order makes sense for most of us, there are some noteworthy exceptions. Some people have to satisfy their needs for self-esteem and respect before they can enter a romantic relationship. Some artists are so intent on expressing their creative desires that they forego basic needs and friendships. And we’ ve all heard stories about martyrs who sacrifice life itself for an ideal. Upon first glance at the hierarchy, people sometimes assume that lower needs must be satisfied 100% before we turn to higher needs. But Maslow maintained that at any given moment needs from all five levels are potentiallyshaping our behavior. Moreover, we rarely satisfy any of the five need levels for very long. Maslow estimated that for the average person in our culture, 85% of physiological needs, 70% of safety needs, 50% of belongingness andlove needs, 40% of esteem needs, and 10% of self-actualization needs are satisfied. Although Maslow described the need hierarchy as universal, he acknowl- edged that the means of satisfying a particular need varies across cultures. An individual can earn respect from others in our society by becoming a success- ful businessperson or a community leader. But in other societies this esteem is awarded for good hunting or farming skills. Nonetheless, Maslow maintained that the needs and their arrangement within the hierarchy are the same across cultures. Only the manner in which they are satisfied varies.Abraham Maslow 287
Another oversimplification of Maslow ’s theory is that any given behav- ior is motivated by a single need. Maslow argued that most behavior is the result of multiple motivations. He used the example of sexual activity. It iseasy to see that physiological needs are satisfied through sexual behavior. But that behavior can also be motivated by a desire to express affection, a need to feel masterful and competent, or a desire to act masculine orASSESSING YOUR OWN PERSONALITY Self-Actualization Indicate the extent to which each of the following statements applies to you, using this 4-point scale: 1 ¼Disagree, 2 ¼Disagree somewhat, 3 ¼ Agree somewhat, 4 ¼Agree. 1. I do not feel ashamed of any of my emotions. 2. I feel I must do what others expect of me. 3. I believe that people are essentially good and can be trusted. 4. I feel free to be angry at those I love. 5. It is always necessary that others approve of what I do. 6. I don’ t accept my own weaknesses. 7. I can like people without having to approve of them. 8. I fear failure. 9. I avoid attempts to analyze and simplify complex domains. 10. It is better to be yourself than to be popular. 11. I have no mission in life to which I feel especially dedicated. 12. I can express my feelings even when they may result in unde- sirable consequences. 13. I do not feel responsible to help anybody. 14. I am bothered by fears of being inadequate. 15. I am loved because I give love. To calculate your score, first reverse the values for items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 (1 ¼4, 2¼3, 3¼2, 4¼1). Then add the values for all 15 items. The higher the score, the more self-actualized you are said to be at this point in your life. You can compare your score with the norms forcollege students reported by the test developers: Standard Mean Deviation Men 45.02 4.95 Women 46.07 4.79 Scale: Index of Self-Actualization Source: Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin by A. Jones and R. Crandall. Copyright 1986 by SAGE Publications Inc. Journals. Reproduced with permission of SAGE Publications Inc. Journals in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.288 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
feminine. People engage in sexual activity to satisfy one or any combination of these needs. The Study of Psychologically Healthy People Psychologists traditionally turn their attention to people suffering from psy-chological problems. But Maslow ’s research looked in the opposite direction. He asked, What are self-actualized people like, and what can we learn fromthem? To answer these questions, Maslow interviewed people he knew who appeared to have satisfied their need for self-actualization. He also turned to records and documents to learn about historic figures who seemed to have lived a self-actualized life. That list included Thomas Jefferson, AlbertEinstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Albert Schweitzer. By his own admission, Maslow ’s methods were far from scientifically rigorous. Rather than using statistical analyses, he relied on what he called “holistic analysis. ”He consid- ered all of the information he collected about an individual and arrived at hisown general impressions of that person. From these impressions, he created a list of characteristics common to psychologically healthy people. What are self-actualized people like? You may notice as we go through some of the list that these individuals sound a lot like the fully functioning people described by Rogers. To begin, self-actualized people tend to accept themselves for what they are. They admit to personal weaknesses, and they work to improve themselves where they can. But because of this self- acceptance, they don ’t spend a lot of time worrying or feeling guilty about the bad things they have done. They aren ’t perfect, but they respect and feel good about themselves for what they are. Psychologically healthy people are also less restricted by cultural norms and customs than the average person. They express their thoughts and desires in a way that suits them, regardless of whether society approves. This freedom from social expectations is especially evident when it comes to self-expression. Self-actualized people often dress differently, live differently and spend their free time differently than the typical citizen. It ’s not that they are insensitive to or unaware of social rules and societal expectations. On the contrary, Maslow described them as very perceptive. They understand how they are “supposed ”to act. They simply feel little need to structure their lives like everyone else ’s. Maslow was surprised to find that every psychologically healthy person he studied was in some way quite creative. But not all expressed their creativ- ity through traditional outlets like poetry and art. Rather, they often exhib-ited what he called self-actualizing creativity . Self-actualizing creativity shows up in the way people approach routine tasks. A self-actualized teacher devel-ops innovative ways to communicate ideas to students. A self-actualizedbusinessperson thinks of clever ways to improve sales. Maslow compared self-actualizing creativity with the spontaneous way a child interacts with the world. Just as a child uses fresh and naïve eyes to discover the little thingsthat make the world such an interesting place, self-actualizing people look at their world in an open-eyed way that helps them find new solutions to old problems.“Self-actualizing in- dividuals have more free will than average people. ” Abraham MaslowAbraham Maslow 289
Maslow discovered several other characteristics common to psychologically healthy people. It may surprise you to find that these people have relatively few friends. However, the friendships they do have are deep and rewarding. Self-actualized people also have a “philosophical, unhostile ”sense of humor. They poke fun at the human condition and at themselves but rarely target a particular person or group with their humor. These individuals also have a strong need for solitude, as we ’ll explore in the next chapter. Perhaps the most intriguing characteristic Maslow discovered in psycho- logically healthy people is the tendency to have peak experiences. During a peak experience, time and place are transcended. Anxieties and fears disap- pear, replaced by a sense of unity with the universe and a momentary feelingof power and wonder. However, peak experiences are different for each per- son. Maslow likened them to “a visit to a personally defined Heaven. ” Above all else, they are growth experiences. People typically report that the problems that concerned them before the peak experience no longer seem so important. Old fears are replaced with a sense of spontaneity and a greater appreciation of life. Maslow soon discovered that psychologically healthy people are not the only ones who have these experiences. But he maintained self-actualized peo- ple had more intense and more frequent peak experiences than the average person. Maslow also discovered that not all self-actualized people had peak experiences, which led him to talk about two kinds of psychologically healthy individuals, the “peakers” and the “nonpeakers. ”Nonpeaking self-actualizers are“the social world improvers, the politicians, the workers of society, the re- formers, the crusaders. ”They have their feet planted firmly on the ground and have a clear direction in life. The peakers tend to be less conventional and more concerned with abstract notions. They “are more likely to write the poetry, the music, the philosophies, and the religions ”(1970, p. 165). THE PSYCHOLOGY OF OPTIMAL EXPERIENCE What makes people happy? This question threads its way through much of the writings of the humanistic personality theorists. As Maslow argued, people are not content simply because they have no pressing problems. Moreover, attain- ing the prescribed goals most of us think of as signs of success —ag o o dj o b ,a nice car, an attractive family —fails to provide the sense of meaning and value to one ’s life that most people desire. So where does one find happiness? Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced Chick- Sent-Me-High) has one suggestion. He maintains that opportunities for happiness lie all around us in the everyday, routine activities that fill our lives. Optimal Experience Can people structure the events in their daily lives in a way that promotes a sense of personal fulfillment and self-worth? One starting point for answeringthis question is simply to ask people to describe the activities that make them happy. That’ s what Csikszentmihalyi did. Try it yourself. Think of a time when you felt alive and totally engaged in an activity, when what you were doing was290 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
more than pleasurable, but truly enjoyable. When Csikszentmihalyi asked people to identify one such experience, he found a wide variety of answers (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1999; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Some people talked about mountain climbing, others about playing tennis, others about performing surgery. But when he asked people to describe the experience, he found they used surprisingly similar terms. Csikszentmihalyi ’s participants talked about becoming so involved in what they were doing that nothing else seemed to matter. Climbing the mountain or performing the surgery demanded all their attention. Although each step seemed to flow almost automatically to the next, the task was al- most always challenging and demanded the person ’s full concentration. Reaching the goal provided a sense of mastery, but the real pleasure came from the process rather than the achievement. Csikszentmihalyi refers to these moments as optimal experience. Because people typically describe a feeling of being caught in a natural, almost ef- fortless movement from one step to the next, psychologists sometimes refers to the experience as flow. Optimal experiences are intensely enjoyable, but they are usually not restful, relaxing moments. On the contrary, most often flow experiences are quite demanding. “The best moments usually occur when a person ’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish somethin g difficult and worthwhile, ”Csikszentmihalyi explains. “Optimal experience is thus something that we make happen ” (1990, p. 3). Interestingly, the flow experience is described in fairly identical terms by people of all ages and in all cultures. After examining thousands of descrip- tions of people ’s most satisfying and enjoyable moments, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) identified eight characteristics of the flow experience. These are listed in Table 11.1. Not every flow experience contains each of these eight, but any flow experience you can think of probably includes many of these com-ponents. The flow experience that comes to mind for me happens when I be- come lost in my writing. I sometimes find myself writing for hours, almost totally unaware of anything around me. I become so absorbed in what I ’m doing that I ’ve written through ringing telephones and important meetings. When I finally stop after 3 or 4 hours, it often seems as if I had been workingfor only 10 minutes. Optimal Experience and Happiness in Everyday Activities Like other humanistic theorists, Csiks zentmihalyi recognizes that many peo- ple suffer from a sense that their lives have no meaning. Some people re- spond to this feeling by acquiring mate rial possessions. Some turn to fitness c e n t e r sa n dp l a s t i cs u r g e r yi na ne f f o r tt oh a n go nt oy o u t h .O t h e r st r yo u t new and seemingly mystical religions . But Csikszentmihalyi (1999) argues that none of these diversions brings permanent happiness. True happiness comes when we take personal responsibility for finding meaning and enjoy-ment in our ongoing experiences. That is, we can enjoy life to its fullest by discovering what makes us feel alive (i.e., optimal experiences) and then doing it.The Psychology of Opt imal Experience 291
Of course, in a perfect world we could all do what we wanted when we wanted, and thereby fill our lives with a series of exciting flow activities. But reality simply does not grant most of us that luxury. The common lament these days seems to be that we face so many demands, yet have so little free time. This observation brings us to an important question: When are people more likely to experience flow —at work or during leisure hours? Most of us answer quickly that we are happier during time away from work. In fact, people often point to their long working hours as a cause of their unhappiness. However, research- ers find this is not the case. Although people often have flowlike experiences when engaging in sports and other recreational activities (Stein, Kimiecik,Daniels, & Jackson, 1995), these experiences are far more likely to happen when people are at work than during off-hours (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989). A job filled with challenges provides many more opportunities for opti-mal experience than the usual kinds of easygoing activities that typically fill our time away from work (Keller & Bless, 2008). Unfortunately, most of us buy into the conventional wisdom that says work is work and play is play. Consequently, we fail to recognize the frequency with which our jobs provide us with a sense of mastery, accomplishment, and enrichment.TABLE11.1 Eight Components of Optimal Experience 1.The Activity Is Challenging and Requires Skill . The task is sufficiently challenging to demand full attention, but not so diffi- cult that it denies a sense of accomplishment. 2.One ’s Attention Is Completely Absorbed by the Activity . People stop being aware of themselves as separate from their actions, which seem spontaneous and automatic. 3.The Activity Has Clear Goals . There is a direction, a logical point to work toward. 4.There Is Clear Feedback.We need to know if we have succeeded at reaching our goal, even if this isonly self-confirmation. 5.One Can Concentrate Only on the Task at Hand . During flow, we pay no attention to the unpleasant parts of life. 6.One Achieves a Sense of Personal Control . People in flow enjoy the experience of exercising control over their environment. 7.One Loses Self-Consciousness . With attention focused on the activity and the goals, there is little opportunityto think about one ’s self. 8.One Loses a Sense of Time . Usually hours pass by in what seems like minutes, but the opposite can alsooccur.292 CHAPT ER 11 The Humanistic Approach
Fortunately, this is not true of all people. A woman I know, a writer, keeps her computer near her bed so that she can turn to her work even before her first cup of coffee in the morning. Friends say she often has to be pried away from her writing at night. She doesn’ t understand the fuss; she loves what she does for a living. Time spent writing is time spent learning and growing. Each day her work produces more challenges and more opportu- nities for personal development. Moviemaker Woody Allen is another exam- ple. Friends and colleagues are constantly amazed at the energy and attentionhe gives to his movies. “I love to work, ”he once said. “I’d work seven days a week. I don ’t care about hours. When we solve this problem, whether it ’s five o’clock or ten at night, we move on to something else. Hours or days mean nothing ”(cited in Lax, 1991, p. 337). Woody Allen clearly experiences flow when he ’s working. That his movies also provide money and fame seems to be secondary. Of course, not everyone can be a writer or a movie maker. What about the average person who puts in 40 hours a week at a less glamorous profes- sion? Csikszentmihalyi argues that nearly any job can become a flow experi-ence if we approach it the right way. Even mowing the lawn or making dinner can be a source of happiness if we look at these chores as challenges and take pride and satisfaction in a job well done. Rather than thinking of such jobs as something we have to do or something others expect us to do, we can approach these daily tasks by searching for what we can get out of them. This advice also applies to students (Schmidt, Shernoff, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). High school students are most content when they face academic assign-ments that are challenging but still within their power to accomplish (Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Researchers in one study identified high school students who studied and participated in their classes not because they wanted good grades but because they found the learning process fascinating and satisfying(Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). Interestingly, these students ’grades were not particularly high. But they did take more advanced courses than thegrade-driven students, probably because they wanted to learn more aboutthe subjects they found most interesting. Intrinsically motivated undergraduates in another study were more likely to lose track of time and to report that time passed quickly than students who were less interested in the learning experience(Conti, 2001). In summary, Csikszentmihalyi ’s prescription for happiness contains many of the elements traditionally embraced by humanistic personality psy-chology. Flow experiences require people to live in the present and to get the most out of their lives in the here and now. Achieving the goal is not the point. Rather, it is the struggle and experience along the way that pro-vide the enjoyment. Happiness comes from taking control of your life rather than caving in to conventional standards or demands from others. In the flow state people are intensely in touch with themselves and their experi-ences. They feel a sense of mastery and an awareness of finding themselves. Like the peak experiences described by Maslow, flow experiences are occa- sions for personal growth.The Psychology of Opt imal Experience 293
APPLICATION: PERSON-CENTERED THERAPY AND JOB SATISFACTION You may have noticed that many of Carl Rogers ’observations about person- ality seem closely tied to therapy situations. This is not a coincidence. Rogers developed many of his ideas from his work with therapy clients. Among his most important contributions to the field was a new way to approach psycho- logical counseling, an approach that places much of the responsibility for change in the hands of the client. But the humanistic approach to personality is not limited to psychotherapy. As we will see, Maslow ’s theory of motiva- tion and the hierarchy of needs have been used to address issues related to structuring work environments and job satisfaction. Person-Centered Therapy Carl Rogers ’personality theory presents an interesting challenge for humanistic psychotherapists. According to Rogers, a therapist cannot possibly understand clients as well as clients understand themselves. He also maintained that clients, rather than the therapist, are responsible for changing themselves. So what is left for therapists to do with people who come to them for help? Rogers ’answer was that a therapist ’s job is not to change the client but to provide an atmosphere within which clients are able to help themselves. He called his approach to treatment person-centered therapy. Rogers believed each of us grows and develops in a positive, self-actualizing fashion unlessour progress is in some way impeded. The therapist simply allows the clientto get back on that positive growth track. After successful Rogerian therapy, clients should be more open to personal experience, more able to accept all aspects of themselves, and therefore less likely to use defenses when encoun-tering information that threatens their self-concept. In short, they should be more fully functioning and happier people. But how is this accomplished? Therapists must first create the proper re- lationship with their clients. The most important rule here is to be open and genuine. Therapists should be themselves rather than play the role of thera- pist they were taught in graduate school. This means being honest with cli- ents, even if that includes being very frank (but not cruel) at times. Rogers believed clients can always tell when a therapist isn ’t being genuine with them, and the mistrust that comes from this perception can doom a therapeu- tic relationship. The proper therapeutic relationship also requires unconditional positive regard from the therapist, something many clients have been denied elsewherein their lives. Clients must feel free to express and accept all their thoughts and feelings during therapy without fear of rejection from the therapist. Un- conditional positive regard does not mean therapists must approve of every- thing clients say and do. Indeed, in the safe atmosphere provided by the therapist, clients may disclose some disturbing information about themselves. But because therapists accept clients with positive regard despite these faultsand weaknesses, clients learn to acknowledge —and eventually change —these aspects of themselves.“When I accept myself as I am, then I change. ” Carl Rogers294 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
In addition to providing an accepting relationship, therapists can help cli- ents understand themselves better through a process of reflection . Rather than interpret what clients really mean, as a Freudian therapist might, a Rogerian therapist helps clients listen to what they are saying. Part of this comes about when clients are given the opportunity to put their feelings into words. By translating vague feelings into precise words, clients come to understand their feelings. Clients listen to their words and examine their thoughts, perhaps for the first time. One technique a therapist can use to further this process is torestate the client ’s statements. Some people mistakenly think this means the therapist simply repeats the client ’s words verbatim. But as the following ex- cerpt demonstrates, the goal is to help clients explore their thoughts and feel-ings by directing their attention to what they are saying. In this example, Rogers is working with a woman who is struggling with her sense of personal identity: Client: I suppose I want to know just what to do, but then maybe nobody could give me that. Therapist: You realize that you are probably looking for immediate answers that nobody could give you. C: I just don ’t know. I don ’t know what I ’m looking for. It ’s just that I wonder if I’ m insane sometimes. I think I’ m nuts. T: It just gives you concern that you ’re as far from normal as you feel you are. C: That’s right. It ’s silly to tell me not to worry because I do worry. It ’s my life. … Well, I don’ t know how I can change my concept of myself —because that ’s the way I feel. T: You feel very different from others and you don’ t see how you can fix that. C: I realize, of course, that it all began a long time ago —because everything begins somewhere. I wasn ’t just—somehow or other something failed somewhere along the line. And I guess we sort of have to get at it, a sort of reeducation. But I don ’t feel as though I can do it myself. T: You realize that the roots must go a long way back, and that at some point you will have to start in reworking it, but you ’re not sure whether you can do it. C: That’s right. It ’s just the idea that I can see myself going through life this way, 50-, 60-, and 70-years-old —still thinking these horrible thoughts. And it just doesn ’t seem worthwhile —I mean, it’ s so ridiculous. While everybody else is going their way and living life, I ’m sort of at the edge, and looking on. It just isn ’t right. T: The future doesn ’t look very bright when you look at it that way. C: No. I know I ’m lacking in courage, that ’s the big thing I ’ml a c k i n g .T h a tm u s tb ei t , ’cause other people aren ’t swayed so easily. …It’s a hard thing to explain these things. It ’sj u s ta st h o u g h —it’s—true but I laugh at it in a way. …It’s a very confused feeling. T: Logically, you realize that courage is one of your deficiencies, but inside yourself you find yourself laughing at that notion and feeling that it doesn ’t really have anything to do with you. Is that it? C: That’s right. I always sort of make myself different. That ’s it. (1947, pp. 138– 140)Application: Person-Centered Therapy and Job Satisfaction 295
Therapists never tell clients what they really mean to say. Instead, thera- pists offer restatements of what they believe they are hearing, but these are only suggestions for the client to agree with or reject. If the process is effec- tive, clients come to see themselves as others do and eventually accept or modify what they see. Clients may come to understand that they have been distorting or denying parts of their experiences. A man may realize he has been trying to live up to his father ’s impossibly high expectations, or a woman may come to understand she is afraid to commit herself to a serious relationship. In the freedom provided by the therapist ’s unconditional sup- port, clients peel away their defenses, accept who they are, and begin to ap-preciate all of life ’s experiences. Today a large number of psychotherapists identify their approach as human- istic (Mayne, Norcross, & Sayette, 1994), and many others include aspects ofperson-centered therapy in their work (Cain & Seeman, 2002). A recent reviewfound considerable evidence for the effectiveness of humanistic psychotherapy (Elliott, 2002). Not only do many clients benefit from the person-centered approach, but the effects of the treatment often can be seen many months afterthe therapy sessions end. Job Satisfaction and the Hierarchy of Needs Think for a moment of two or three careers you would like to have someday (maybe you already work at one of these). Ask yourself what it is about each of these jobs that makes it appealing. That is, what do you hope to gain fromit that you can ’t get from just any job? Now, take the answers to this last question and apply them to Maslow ’s hierarchy of needs. Which of the five levels of needs will your chosen occupation satisfy? If a job pays a lot ofmoney or provides good job security, it probably will satisfy your safety needs. On the other hand, a job may appeal to you because it brings respect and admiration while allowing you to express yourself artistically. This latterjob might go a long way toward satisfying your need for esteem or your need for self-actualization. The point of this exercise is that your occupation can provide more than a paycheck. Besides sleeping, there is no single activity that will take up moreof your adult life than your job. Maslow argued that to spend 40 hours a week at a job that pays well but doesn’ t allow for development of personal potential is a tragic waste. “Finding one ’s lifework is a little like finding one’s mate, ”he wrote. “If you are unhappy with your work, you have lost one of the most important means of self-fulfillment ”(1971, p. 185). Maslow was critical of job counselors who direct young people into careers simply be- cause they pay well or fit the needs of the job market. A better approach matches a person ’s unique talents and potential to an occupation that allows the expression and development of that potential. Maslow promoted what he called Eupsychian management —rearranging an organization to help employees satisfy higher level needs. Employers can structure jobs so that workers take pride in their performance and thereby de- velop a sense of self-worth about what they do for a living. Employees might296 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
also be given opportunities to suggest creative solutions to problems. And em- ployers can do what they can to foster a sense of belongingness and feelings of camaraderie among workers. In short, careers can provide an avenue for personal growth as well as a means for paying the bills. ASSESSMENT: THE Q-SORT TECHNIQUE A persistent challenge for psychotherapists of all stripes is to demonstrate the effectiveness of their treatment. Carl Rogers was very aware of this challenge and strongly encouraged research on the effectiveness of person-centered psy-chotherapy. Too often therapy is declared a success simply because the therapist and client feel there has been improvement. But without empirical evidence of therapeutic change, Rogers argued, psychologists are in danger of foolingthemselves. But how can a humanistic psychologist establish that a client is more fully functioning or closer to self-actualization after a few months of therapy?One tool that has proven useful is a procedure called the Q-Sort . The Q-Sort technique was developed by Stephenson (1953). The basic procedure has beenused to assess a wide variety of psychological concepts, including parent –child attachment (Tarabulsky et al., 2008), defense mechanisms (Davidson & MacGregor, 1996), temperament (Buckley, Klein, Durbin, Hayden, & Moerk, Is the job a chore that must be endured 8 hours a day, or does this man get more out of work than just a paycheck? According to Maslow, occupations should provide opportu-nities for personal growth and the satisfaction of higher order needs. Besides money, ajob can satisfy our needs for belongingness, self-esteem, and respect for others.Assessment: The Q-Sort Technique 297
2002), and strength of romantic relationships (Bengston & Grotevant, 1999). Rogers also saw that the procedure fit nicely with the humanistic model ofpersonality and quickly adopted it. The California Q-Sort (Block, 1978, 2008) is a good example of a Q-Sort procedure used by many humanistic therapists. The materials for this test arenot very elaborate. They consist of a deck of 100 cards. A self-descriptive phrase is printed on each card, such as “is a talkative individual, ”“seeks re- assurance from others,” or“has high aspiration level for self.” If you were a client about to begin a series of sessions with a Rogerian ther- apist, you might be instructed to read the cards and sort them into categories. On the first sort, you would be asked to place the cards into nine categories ac-cording to how much you believe the description on the card applies to you. The nine categories represent points on a normal distribution (Figure 11.2), with the categories on the extreme ends representing characteristics most de-scriptive of you (Category 9) and least descriptive of you (Category 1). Extremely UncharacteristicQuite UncharacteristicFairly UncharacteristicSomewhat UncharacteristicRelativelyNeutral Somewhat CharacteristicFairly CharacteristicQuite CharacteristicExtremely Characteristic(5) (8) (12) (16) (18) (16) (12) (8) (5) FIGURE 11.2 Distribution of Cards on Block ’s Q-Sort298 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
Let’s suppose the description on the first card is “is a talkative individual. ” If this phrase describes you very well, you would place the card in Category 9 or 8. If this phrase describes you only slightly, you might place it in Category 6. If you think you are a very quiet person, you might put the card in Cate- gory 1 or 2. There is a limit to how many cards can be placed in each cat- egory, so indecisive test takers are forced to select cards that are most descriptive of them. In this manner, you provide the therapist and yourself with a profile of your self-concept. After recording which cards went into which categories, you would be asked to shuffle the deck and take the test again. However, this time youwould distribute the cards according to your “ideal”self. If “is a talkative in- dividual ”does not describe you very well, but you want to become more talkative, you would move this card to a higher category than you used dur-ing the first sort. When you have laid out descriptions of your “real”and “ideal”selves, you and the therapist can compare the two profiles. The Q-Sort technique fits very nicely with Rogers ’theory for several rea- sons. Consistent with Rogers’ assumption that clients know themselves best, clients are allowed to describe themselves however they please. Of course, a therapist will not always agree with a client ’s placement of the cards. A client might describe herself as socially aware, polite, and sensitive to the needs of others when a perceptive therapist sees right away that her crude insensitivity may be part of her problem. The task for the therapist in this case is to help the client come to see herself as she really is. By assigning each card a number from 1 to 9 according to its category, we can compute a correlation coefficient between a client ’s real self and his or her ideal self. For a psychologically healthy person, the two should be very similar. If category values are identical for both profiles, a perfect 1.0 correlation would be obtained, although it is difficult to imagine people being just like their ideal selves in every way. The further the correlation is from 1.0, the lessaccepting people are of themselves and the less fully functioning. Clients whose real and ideal selves are completely unrelated would have a zero correlation. Clients ’profiles can also be negatively correlated if their real and ideal selves are at opposite sides on many of the descriptions. Consistent with Rogers’ de- scriptions, researchers find that a high correlation between a person’ s real and ideal self is related to positive well-being (Gough, Fioravanti, & Lazzari, 1983;Gough, Lazzari, & Fioravanti, 1978). Other studies find that real –ideal self correlations increase as clients move through client-centered psychotherapy (Butler, 1968). To illustrate how theQ-Sort can be used to track therapeutic progress, let ’s look at one of Rogers’ clients (Rogers, 1961). This 40-year-old woman came to Rogers with pro-blems that included an unhappy marriage and guilt about her daughter ’s psy- chological problems. The woman attended 40 therapy sessions over the course of 5 1/2 months and returned a few months later for some additional sessions. She completed the real and ideal self Q-Sorts at the beginning and atvarious stages during her treatment. She also completed the Q-Sort at two follow-up sessions, 7 and 12 months after her therapy. The correlations among the various Q-Sorts are presented in Figure 11.3.Assessment: The Q-Sort Technique 299
Several important changes in the way the woman viewed her real self and her ideal self occurred during her treatment. The similarity between her real and ideal self increased significantly over the course of the therapyand continued to grow even after she discontinued the sessions. At the be- ginning of her treatment, her real and ideal self Q-Sorts were quite discrep- ant, correlating at only .21. In other words, when she first entered CarlRogers ’office, she did not see herself at all as the kind of person she wanted to be. However, as therapy progressed, the two descriptions becamemore and more alike. In particular, the client changed the way she viewedherself. We can tell this from the low correlation (.30) between the way she described herself at the beginning of the therapy and the way she de- scribed herself at the end. By exploring her feelings in these person-centeredsessions, the client came to see herself in very different and presumably more accurate terms. There also were some noticeable but less dramatic changes in the way the woman described her ideal self. She may have come to realize throughBefore Therapy51/2 months 7 months 5 months After TherapyFirst Follow-UpSecond Follow-UpSelfSelf-Ideal .21 .47 .45 .69 .71 .79.72 .30.75 .39.78 .65 FIGURE 11.3 Changing Real and Ideal Self Q-Sorts for a 40-Year-Old Female Client Source: From Rogers, C., International Journal of Social Psychiatry, June 1955; vol. 1: pp. 31 –41, Copyright © 1955. Reprinted by Permission of SAGE.300 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
therapy that the goals she set for herself were far too ideal. It is not uncom- mon for clients to enter therapy expecting near perfection of themselves andto consider themselves failures when they fall short of these impossible goals. It is clear from this example that Rogers ’therapy was successful in bringing the client ’s real and ideal selves closer together. No doubt she was better able to experience life as a fully functioning person than she was before enter- ing therapy. STRENGTHS AND CRITICISMS OF THE HUMANISTIC APPROACH The humanistic movement hit psychology like a storm in the 1960s. Therapists from every perspective were converted to the person-centered ap-proach. Humanistically oriented encounter groups and workshops sprang up everywhere. Psychologists applied Rogers ’and Maslow ’s ideas to such areas as education and the workplace. Then, almost as quickly as it arrived, the third force movement seemed to fade in the late 1970s. Many converts became disenchanted, some humanistically oriented programs were declared failures, and the number of popular paperbacks capitalizing on the movement dwin-dled. But, also like a storm, the humanistic approach to personality has left reminders of its presence. Today a large number of practicing psychotherapists identify themselves as humanistic in their orientation (Mayne et al., 1994),and many others have adopted various Rogerian techniques in their prac- tice. Humanistic psychologists enjoy an active division in the American Psychological Association and publish their own journal. Although the move-ment never replaced the well-entrenched psychoanalytic or behavioral ap- proaches, it remains an appealing alternative view of human nature for many psychologists. This ebb and flow of popularity suggests that the humanisticapproach, like other approaches to personality, has both strengths and points for criticism. Strengths Because personality theorists often dwell on psychological problems, the hu- manists ’positive approach offers a welcome alternative. The writings of Rogers and Maslow remain popular with each new generation of students.These theorists also should be credited for drawing the attention of many per- sonality researchers to the healthy side of personality. Recently we have seen a huge interest in what has been called positive psychology (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005; Lopez, 2009). An increasing number of researchers are turning their attention to such topics as creativity, happiness, and sense of well-being. Not surprisingly, humanistic psychology has had a huge impact on the way psychologists and counselors approach therapy. Many therapists identifythemselves as “humanistic. ”More important, several aspects of the humanistic approach to therapy have been adopted or modified in some form by a large number of therapists from other theoretical perspectives (Cain & Seeman,Strengths and Criticisms of the Humanistic Approach 301
2002). Many therapists embrace Rogers ’suggestion to make their clients the center of therapy. In addition, many therapists include in their practices such Rogerian techniques as therapist empathy, positive regard for clients, giving clients responsibility for change, and self-disclosure by client and therapist. The humanistic approach also sparked the growth of encounter groups in the 1960s. Variations of encounter groups remain today in the form of group ther- apy and other self-improvement and personal-growth therapies. Humanistic psychology ’s influence has not been limited to psychology and psychotherapy. Students in education, communication, and business areoften introduced to Rogers and Maslow. Many employers and organizational psychologists are concerned about promoting job satisfaction by taking careof employees ’higher needs. And many teachers and parents have adopted or modified some of Rogers ’suggestions for education and child rearing. Because they focus on issues that many of us address in our lives —fulfilling personal potential, living in the here and now, finding happiness and meaning —books by Maslow, Rogers, and other humanistic psychologists can still be found in popular bookstores. Criticisms Like all influential personality theories, humanistic psychology has its critics. One area of controversy concerns humanistic psychology ’s reliance on the concept of free will to explain human behavior. Some psychologists argue that this reliance renders the humanistic approach unfit for scientific study. Science relies on the notion that events are determined by other events. Thus the science of behavior relies on the assumption that behavior is determined and therefore predictable. However, if we accept the idea that behavior is sometimes caused by free will, which is not subject to these laws of determi-nation, these assumptions fall apart. How can we scientifically test whether or not free will exists? Because we can explain any behavior as caused by “free will, ”no investigation will ever fail to support a free will interpretation. Free will by definition is not under the control of any observable or predict- able force. These observations do not mean free will does not exist —only that it cannot be explored through scientific inquiry. In response to this prob- lem, Maslow pointed out that there are more avenues for understanding human personality than the scientific method. Another criticism of the humanistic approach is that many key concepts are poorly defined. What exactly is “self-actualization, ”“fully functioning, ” or“becoming ”? How do we know if we ’re having a “peak experience ”or just a particularly pleasant time? Maslow argued that we simply don ’t know enough about self-actualization and personal growth to provide clear defini-tions. But this defense is far from satisfying for most researchers. This vague- ness prevents psychologists from adequately studying many humanistic concepts. How can we investigate self-actualization if we can ’t decide who ’s got it and who hasn ’t? Because most psychologists are trained as researchers, the inability to pin down humanistic concepts causes many to challenge theusefulness of the approach.302 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
Many humanistic psychologists p rovide research findings to support their views. However, some psychologists have challenged the data upon which many of these studies are based. Although Rogers is to be com- mended for his efforts to assess the effectiveness of person-centered therapy, he still relied too heavily on his intui tion to satisfy many hard-nosed re- searchers. Similarly, Maslow selected people for his list of “self-actualized ” individuals based on his own subjective impressions. Because of these weak data, much of what humanistic theorists say must be taken more as amatter of faith than as scientific fact . Most likely, psychologists and lay readers embrace the humanistic approach because it is consistent with theirown observations and values, not because they are persuaded by theevidence. Other psychologists point to the limited applicability of humanistic psy- chotherapy techniques. These critics argue that humanistic psychotherapymay be limited to a narrow band of problems. Creating the proper atmo- sphere for personal growth might be of value for many of Rogers ’clients, but it may provide little help to someone with an extreme psychological dis- order. Similarly, reflecting on one ’s values and direction in life might prove beneficial for well-educated, middle-class clients. But these questions might be irrelevant to someone from a different background. Person-centered ther- apy may be useful for working through certain kinds of adjustment problems, but not for dealing with the myriad serious psychological disturbances that cause people to seek therapy. Humanistic psychologists have also been criticized for making some overly naive assumptions about human nature. For example, most humanistictheorists assume that all people are basically good. Although this is more a theological than an empirical question, many people find the premise hard to accept. Another assumption many find difficult to swallow is that each of us has a desire to fulfill some hidden potential. Maslow ’s description of self- actualization implies that each individual is somehow destined to become, for example, a painter, a poet, or a carpenter. For Maslow the key is discov- ering which of these true selves lies bottled up inside waiting to be developed.This predeterministic tone seems to contradict the general free will emphasis of the humanistic approach. SUMMARY 1. The humanistic approach to personality grew out of discontent with the psychoanalytic and behavioral descriptions of human nature prominent in the 1950s and 1960s. Humanistic psychology has its roots in European existential philosophy and the works of some American psychologists, most notably Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. 2. Although many approaches to psychotherapy have been described as humanistic, four criteria seem important for classifying a theory under this label. These criteria are an emphasis on personal responsibility, anemphasis on the here and now, focusing on the phenomenology of the individual, and emphasizing personal growth.Summary 303
3. Carl Rogers introduced the notion of a fully functioning person. According to his theory, we all progress toward a state of fulfillment and happiness unless derailed by life ’s obstacles. People who encounter evidence that contradicts their self-concept often rely on distortion and denial to avoid the anxiety this might create. People who grow up in families that give only conditional positive regard may come to deny certain aspects of themselves. Rogers advocated the use of unconditional positive regard by parents and therapists to overcomethis denial. 4. Abraham Maslow introduced a hierarchy of human needs. According to this concept, people progress up the hierarchy as lower needs aresatisfied. Maslow also examined psychologically healthy people. He found several characteristics typical of these self-actualized indivi- duals, including the tendency by some to have frequent peakexperiences. 5. One recent outgrowth of the humanistic approach to personality is presented by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He finds people describe the happiest and most rewarding moments in their lives in terms of a “flow” experience. Csikszentmihalyi argues that turning one’ s life into a series of challenging and absorbing tasks, what he calls optimal experiences, isthe key to happiness and personal fulfillment. 6. One of Rogers ’contributions to psychology is the person-centered approach to psychotherapy. Rogers said the therapist ’s job is to create the proper atmosphere for clients ’growth. This is accomplished by entering a genuine relationship with clients, providing unconditional positive regard, and helping clients hear what they are saying. Maslow ’s hierarchy of needs concept has been applied to the problem of job satis- faction. He argued that one ’s career provides an opportunity for personal growth and that employers should arrange working situations to better meet employees ’higher order needs. 7. Many person-centered therapists have adopted the Q-Sort assessment procedure. This procedure allows therapists and clients to see discrepan-cies between clients ’images of themselves and the person they would like to be. Therapists can administer the Q-Sort at various points duringtreatment to measure therapy progress. Improvement is seen when clientsclose the gap between their real and ideal selves. 8. Among the strengths found in the humanistic approach to personality are the attention given to the positive side of personality and theinfluence this approach has had on psychotherapy and job satisfaction. Criticisms include the unscientific reliance on free will to explain behavior and the difficulty in dealing with many of the poorly definedconstructs used by humanistic theorists. Some therapists have challenged the usefulness of person-centered therapy for many types of clients and psychological problems. The humanistic approach hasalso been criticized for making many naive assumptions about human nature.304 CHAPTER 11 The Humanistic Approach
KEY TERMS conditional positive regard (p. 282) deficiency motives (p. 284)fully functioning person (p. 279) growth needs (p. 284) hierarchy of needs (p. 284)optimal experience (p. 291) Q-Sort (p. 297)self-actualization (p. 279)subception (p. 281) unconditional positive regard (p. 282) MEDIA RESOURCES Visit our website. Go to www.cengage.com/ psychology/burger to find online resources directly linked to your book, including quizzing, glossary, flashcards, and more.Summary 305
CHAPTER12 The Humanistic Approach Relevant Research Self-Disclosure LonelinessSelf-Esteem Solitude Summary 306
The rapid growth of humanistic psychology a few decades ago was in part a reaction against the research-oriented approaches that had come to dominatepsychology in American universities. Humanistic psychologists argued that people cannot be reduced to a set of numbers. Scores on a battery of person- ality tests don’ t capture a person ’s inner strength, feelings, and character. Most important, finding a person ’s place along a trait continuum erases that person ’s uniqueness and individuality. As the name implies, the third force in psychology was developed to attend to the “human ”element lost in number- crunching approaches. Ironically, this strength also proves to be one of humanistic psychology ’s weaknesses. Critics sometimes refer to the approach as “soft”psychology. Flowery descriptions of a person ’s unique character are fine, but it ’s often dif- ficult to translate these descriptions into testable hypotheses. Clinical observa- tions and intuitive feelings may provide insights into personality and thetherapy process, but they cannot replace reliable assessment procedures. This is not to say that humanistic psychologists don ’t conduct research. On the contrary, Carl Rogers continually evaluated the effectiveness of person- centered therapy, as do many other humanistic therapists (Cain & Seeman, 2002). But on the whole, advocates of the humanistic perspective have proba- bly generated less empirical research than psychologists from the other ap- proaches covered in this book. Nonetheless, Rogers, Maslow, and other humanistic psychologists introduced a number of intriguing hypotheses and concepts that have led toextensive empirical work. Although the original investigations on some of these topics were conducted by humanistic psychologists, in most cases the better empirical research was done by investigators outside the humanistic cir- cle. A good example of this is research on self-disclosure, the first topic we ’ll explore in this chapter. Rogers and other therapists argued that the act of re-vealing personal information has important psychological consequences. Thisnotion stimulated decades of research. Most of this work has been conducted by psychologists who probably would shun the “humanistic ”label. Nonetheless, the findings from this research have important implications for humanistic theory and therapy. Similarly, research on the other three topics we ’ll examine in this chapter — loneliness, self-esteem, and solitude —was inspired in part by humanistic writers but largely conducted by more empirically oriented academic psycholo- gists. Of course, there is some irony in this situation. The cold, empirical ap- proach to understanding personality once rejected by many humanistic typeshas popularized many of the concepts central to the humanistic perspective. SELF-DISCLOSURE Imagine you are with someone you don ’t know very well but who seems to be a pleasant person. You both have time to kill, so you begin to talk. The conversation starts casually with a discussion about the classes you’ re taking. However, soon this person mentions some difficulties she ’s having with her“Facts are always friendly. Every bit of evidence one can acquire, in any area, leads one that much closer to what is true. ” Carl RogersSelf-Disclosure 307
parents. You find yourself talking about similar experiences you have had. Before the conversation is over, you learn quite a lot about this individual — problems with her family, with dating, with her self-confidence. You reveal that you, too, sometimes have difficulty with relationships. Perhaps you tell this person about an embarrassing dating situation you ’ve been in. When the conversation ends, you feel good about her and maybe even about yourself. Most of us have participated in this kind of conversation. If you think back to your own experience, you may recall that the conversation began with relatively impersonal topics and gradually worked toward more private information. Most likely, the conversation was anything but one-sided. You and this other person probably took turns sharing information aboutyourselves. And it ’s quite possible you left the conversation feeling good about your new acquaintance and perceiving that he or she also felt goodabout you. This may well have been the first step toward a long-lastingfriendship. Moreover, the whole encounter may also have put you in a pleas- ant mood and kept you in good spirits for the rest of the day. Researchers find that these experiences are typical when two individuals share personalinformation. People engage in self-disclosure when they reveal intimate information about themselves to another person. The discloser considers the informationpersonal, and the choice of whom to disclose to is fairly selective. Many hu- manistic psychologists argue that self-disclosure is important for our personal growth and happiness. Rogers (1961) maintained that disclosing openly within a trusting relationship is a necessary step for understanding oneself. However, the causal arrow between self-disclosure and well-being runs both ways (Jourard, 1971). People freely reveal information about themselvesto others because they are psychologically healthy, and our psychological health increases because we disclose personal information to friends and loved ones. Of course, this is far from the way most people act. We often goto great lengths to keep others from finding out about bad habits and parts of our character they might not like. We ’re afraid of embarrassing ourselves or perhaps losing the respect of the people we love and admire. But Rogers argued that the result of all this deception is simply more to worry about and the ever-present fear that the real you might be revealed. More important, it is only through self-disclosure that we can truly come to know ourselves.Putting feelings into words allows us to understand those feelings in a way that simply thinking about emotions cannot. And if we are not aware of all aspects of ourselves, we cannot grow and become fully self-actualized. Self-disclosure also plays a role in psychotherapy. Many humanistic psychologists argue that clients benefit most when they engage in an openexchange of thoughts and feelings with the therapist. When clients feel freeto explore their true feelings, they move closer to understanding and becom- ing their true selves. Today, therapists from many approaches acknowledge the important role self-disclosure plays in the psychotherapeutic process (Farber,2006). But a therapeutic relationship is not one-sided. Rogers maintained that appropriate self-disclosure by the therapist is also beneficial. Disclosing308 CHAPTER 12 The Humanistic Approach
therapists create an atmosphere of trust and elicit more disclosure from cli- ents. Consistent with this position, some studies find a positive relationship between therapist disclosure and client progress (Hill & Knox, 2001). One team of investigators instructed counselors to either increase or decrease the amount of personal information they disclosed to clients during therapy ses- sions (Barrett & Berman, 2001). After four weeks, clients receiving the in- creased disclosure reported fewer symptoms of distress than clients whoexperienced a decrease in disclosure. However, self-disclosure by therapists is a controversial issue (Farber, 2006; Zur, Williams, Lehavot, & Knapp, 2009). Many psychologists are concerned about potential harm to the therapeutic pro-cess when therapists talk about themselves (Bridges, 2001). Although many therapists reveal information about themselves on selected topics (Jeffrey & Austin, 2007), the appropriate level of self-disclosure for therapists remains anopen question. Disclosure Reciprocity If you are like me, you have had the unfortunate experience of being stuck ona plane or a bus sitting next to a stranger who wanted to tell you all about Self-disclosure plays a key role in the development of personal relationships. However, researchers find that this is rarely one-sided. Instead, relationships develop as eachperson reveals intimate information about him- or herself at roughly the same level ofintimacy.Self-Disclosure 309

Subsets and Splits