9780198811398_Ch1

Chapter 1 Introduction to Personality Psychology 32

• William James suggested that there are two oppos ing tendencies in psychology: the tough-minded versus the tender-minded. • Experimental approaches lean towards the tough- minded pole whereas humanistic and other per spectives (e.g. storytelling and narrative analysis) lean towards the tender-minded pole. • Understanding the nature of psychological theo ries in some instances is advanced by understand ing the personal preferences and inclinations of their advocates. We have discovered in this chapter how the conceptual and historical origins of personality psychology go back a very long way, all the way to Ancient Greek thinkers. We have learnt not only how it began, but why—and what scientific problems it attempted to solve. Although much of the work of the Ancient Greeks was speculative, they were inspiring, leading psychologists to think along the lines of related physiological processes to individual differences in personality. Ivan Pavlov played a large role in advancing the science of the behavioural and physi ological roots of individual differences. Slowly, around the turn of the twentieth century, major texts that had a bearing on personality psychology were published, and specific texts were then devoted to the topic. This led to a search for the defining features of personality as well as ways to measure it, and something of a consensus about its major features. Major perspectives developed—psy chodynamic, behavioural, and cognitive, detailed in the following chapters—including ones based on body type. CONCLUSION

• This division is not inevitable as shown by those personality psychologists (e.g. Gordon Allport) who used both approaches. • Sometimes a tough-minded approach can lead to the investigation of apparently tender-minded theories (e.g. Eysenck and astrology, and Gray and consciousness), although the opposite trend is less frequently observed.

1

The brain was a major focus of interest, starting with the ‘laughably wrong’ phrenology but soon extended to the effects of brain damage on personality, as seen in the famous case of Phineas Gage. Today, we have a fully fledged neuroscience of personality that owes much to these earlier works, however flawed they now seem. However, in all of this progress, it is clear that now, as then, there is a major divide between the two schools of psychology, one devoted to experimental methods and the other to individual differences in various sta tistically defined factors. This divide is paralleled in the distinction between short-term temporary states and long-term stable traits— we see in Chapter 5 how states and traits can be combined in a coherent and unitary theory of personality. We also noted that the personal preferences and inclinations of researchers might have an influence on their choice and construction of theo ries, in this way we may need a personality psychology of psychology itself.

© Oxford University Press

PSYCHOLOGY IN CONTEXT (RECONSIDERED) After reading this chapter, reconsider the ‘Psychology in Context’ feature, and answer the following questions us ing your newly gained knowledge. Compare your initial answers to your new answers, and reflect on what you have learnt.

2. Can you imagine what Bruce might look like according to the description from the feature? 3. Do you think that you could recognize that someone is depressed, and moreover, detect the personality of an individual, just by looking at that person?

1. To what extent are thoughts, behaviours, and feelings the product of biological origins or social influences?

© Oxford University Press