Personality System Concepts and Their Implications

Personality System Concepts and Their ImplicationsAuthor(s): Kenneth H. CraikSource: Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1998), pp. 145-148Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449107 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 11:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PsychologicalInquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:19:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1449107?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Psychological Inquiry Copyright 1998 by 1998, Vol. 9, No. 2, 145-168 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

COMMENTARIES

Personality System Concepts and Their Implications

Kenneth H. Craik Institute of Personality and Social Research

University of California, Berkeley

An ambitious scholarly project of conceptual inventory and taxonomy, such as that undertaken by Mayer, inevitably raises a host of issues. This commentary deals with three such issues: (a) the subject matter of personality psychology, (b) the scientific utility of holistic system formulations of personality, and (c) the criteria for inclusion within Mayer's personality systems framework.

The Subject Matter of Personality Psychology

One aim of Mayer's personality systems framework is to identify and organize the subject matter of personality psychology for purposes of designing textbooks and other systematic reviews of the field. At its broadest level, his framework generates subject listings for (a) the identification and definition of personality; (b) the components of personality; (c) the dynamic organiza- tion of personality; (d) personality development; and (e) interactions of personality with situations, biologi- cal factors, and social influences.

Thus, his framework usefully returns textbook de- sign to the kind of sensible and comprehensive format employed by Allport (1937) and Stagner (1937) in their pioneering textbooks (Craik, 1993; Mendelsohn, 1993). Allport's major sections included: (a) the approach to personality and its definition, (b) development of personality, and (c) structure of personality. He also featured sections on personality analysis, dealing with methods, and on understanding personality, dealing with observer impressions and judgments. This last topic, of major importance in personality research, tends to get lost within the "external situation" in Mayer's framework. Stagner's format included (a) a description of personality; (b) dynamics of personality; and (c) determinants of personality, including family, school, economic system, culture, and social values. In his third edition, he added a section on personality development.

Note, however, that neither Allport nor Stagner re- quired a commitment to a system formulation of personality in deriving their subject matter inventories for the field.

The Scientific Utility of Holistic System Formulations of Personality

Mayer's personality systems framework aspires not only to identify the major categories of subject rnatter for our field but also to integrate them, by mobilizing holistic system concepts. In making this choice, Mayer argues on the grounds of general consensus and obvi- ousness. However, system concepts carry implicit implications regarding holism and functionalism that war- rant more explicit attention. A substantial literature of criticism and debate exists concerning the scientific utility of certain applications and variants of holism and functionalism in the social sciences (Abrahamnson, 1978; Philiips, 1976). Does a system formulation of personality add anything distinctive? And if so, do we wish to take on what it does add?

On holism, for example, Phillips (1976) argued that some versions are generally acceptable to most scien- tists; for example, that parts cannot be understood if considered in isolation from the whole, that parts are dynamically interdependent, and that predicting before- hand the emergent properties resulting when new ele- ments are brought into combination is difficult. How- ever, other tenets are controversial; for example, Mayer's Holism 2, which states that the emergent whole, even after it is studied, cannot be explained in terms of its parts. Concerning functionalism, Cancian (1968) identified at least two variants. Traditional functionalism requires specifying the functional prerequisites for the maintenance or viability of the system or unit of study, defining the stable integration of functions and structures, delineating the adaptive and dysfunc- tional consequences of specific functions, and so forth (Levy, 1968). In contrast, formal functionalism incor-



COMMENTARIES

porates notions of system constraints, self-corrective mechanisms, and feedback loops (see, e.g., Vallacher & Nowak, 1994, who imported promising develop- ments in formal systems analysis from the natural sciences). Functional analysis stands in contrast to several nonfunctional scientific approaches, for example, those that explain phenomena by their causes, rather than by their consequences (functions) with regard to adaptation or integration of a system.

Two specific issues illustrate the possible limitations of a universal, fieldwide commitment to a holistic system formulation. First, certain functional-system formulations entail concepts (e.g., equipotentiality, mul- tidetermination, equifinality; Meehl, 1970; Pervin, 1991) that suggest the feasibility of postdiction but engender doubts about the prospect of prediction. Sec- ond, not all concepts currently entertained within personality psychology are amenable to a holistic system model. Thus, some conceptions of traits as dispositions are quite compatible (e.g., purposive-cognitive), whereas others are much less so (e.g., categorical sum- mary, hypothetical-conditional; Craik, in press).

These brief points hint at the array of implications and choices entailed by commitment to some form of system model. As a final instance, the traditional functional system formulation is especially, although not necessarily, compatible with an evolutionary perspective (Phillips, 1976). Thus, the potential pertinence of evolutionary psychology (Buss, 1995) to a personality systems framework may extend well beyond the issue of trait heritability cited by Mayer to encompass the specification of functional prerequisites and the analysis of structural-functional adaptation and dysfunction. Although Mayer views his formulation as a framework and not a theory, it is the system notion that promises an integration rather than a mere listing of concepts, and any system notion inherently carries a heavy burden of conceptual-theoretical choice and implication. Further- more, the issue of functionalism must be addressed with regard to the personality system as a whole, and not only with regard to specific components.

An attractive feature of Mayer's framework is that it offers a generic model of a personality system. Sev- eral decades ago, Sanford (1963) outlined a generic holistic formulation of personality, whereas Smelser and Smelser (1964) offered generic models of both personality systems and social systems. In doing so, they identified the following classes of concepts and variables as constituting a system formulation of personality: (a) directional tendencies, (b) capacities, (c) structure, (d) unifying principles, (e) sources of strain, (f) responses to strain, (g) attempts to control responses to strain, and (h) emergent processes of change. This model readily accommodated components of the classic

dynamic system formulation of psychoanalysis (Ra- paport, 1959) while offering a taxonomic framework for a comprehensive array of other concepts and variables of personality. Smelser and Smelser's model for social systems employed the same array of basic con- cept categories, not because of simple-minded reason- ing from analogy but because they were deploying the principles of traditional functional analysis, such as functional prerequisites and adaptation, to each unit of study. Their contribution was intended to foster systematic interactive research across personality and social systems.

These efforts at generic system models were not picked up by personality textbook authors at that time, however; and indeed this line of inquiry unfortunately fell from view. In the late 1960s, personality and social system models were both challenged, on parallel and perhaps equally unwarranted grounds (Craik, 1976). For example, the case was argued that (a) system models presume more order and integration for individual conduct and societal life than the empirical evidence supports, (b) impressions of structure and stability in persons and societies represent nonveridical attribu- tions, and (c) these theoretical models fail to recognize or tend to thwart adaptive change and are ideologically tilted in a conservative direction (Gouldner, 1970; Mis- chel, 1968).

Now that specific dynamic system models of personality are appearing in the literature again (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1995; Mischel & Shoda, 1995), it may be timely to revisit prior models (Rapaport, 1959; Smelser & Smelser, 1964), to make explicit the pertinent conceptual commitments, and to consider critically the option of striving for a consensual generic model, perhaps along the lines advocated by Mayer.

The Criteria for Inclusion Within Mayer's Personality Systems

Framework

In developing his personiality systems framework, Mayer set the standards of impartiality, clarity, and inclusiveness. In moving from a review of its broad outlines and generic nature to its detailed fine structure, the question of criteria for inclusion of concepts and notions within this framework comes to the forefront.

In recent years, various compendia of personality and attitude scales have been published, sometimes selected uncritically, with little regard for reliability and construct validity. Thus, measurement instruments that have rightly gone unnoticed in the research literature for a long time are suddenly and unduly resurrected. Such efforts appear to thwart the adaptive scientific

146



COMMENTARIES

pruning function of neglect. Does a similar danger lurk within Mayer's inventory of concepts? The entry criteria include presence in the glossaries of recent personality textbooks (Mayer, 1995). However, the value of certain concepts for the communication challenges of writing introductory textbooks may differ substantially from their utility for guiding scientific research programs.

The very comprehensiveness of the present framework may yield its own benefits but it does not ensure them. In the 1950s, when the psychology of motivation was a basic and active field of inquiry, Madsen (1968) initiated several editions of a comprehensive scholarly taxonomy and comparative analysis of theories of motivation. His volumes did not deal with a taxonomy of motives nor of those experiences and behaviors that provoked the study of motivation, but instead with a taxonomy of the then available and overly abundant concepts about motivation. Nevertheless, his efforts did not sustain the field's research program on motivation. After an eclipse of several decades, the study of motivation reappeared in a new and conceptually pared down character, centered on a "bottom-up" examination of purposive action in everyday life, guided by notions such as life tasks, personal projects, personal strivings, and goal structures (Little, 1989; Pervin, 1983). In time, we will learn whether Mayer's enterprise has signaled merely a culmination of a particular tradition of textbook content, or has constituted the inspiration for a revival of systems thinking in personality.

Conclusion

To study personality as a whole carries a methodological meaning and a conceptual meaning. The field of personality psychology has long recognized that persons are complex and multifaceted entities, generating varied forms of information that must be assessed and conceptualized. The requirement of integrative methodological pluralism (Craik, 1986) has a parallel at the conceptual level. However, even after our wealth of specific conceptual resources has been organized within an overarching personality systems framework of the sort advanced by Mayer, the scrutiny of specific concepts for the presence or absence of opportunities for integration.will continue to require painstaking, detailed conceptual-empirical comparative analyses (see, e.g., Craik, 1997; Nasby & Read, 1997; Wiggins, 1997).

Note

Kenneth H. Craik, Institute of Personality and Social Research, 4143 Tolman Hall #5050, University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley, CA 94720-5050.

References

Abrahamson, M. (1978). Functionalism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice Hall.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.

Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-30.

Cancian, F. M. (1968). Functional analysis: Varieties of functional analysis. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 29-43). New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

Craik, K. H. (1976). The personality paradigm in environmental psychology. In S. Wapner, S. Cohen, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the environment (pp. 55-79). New York: Plenum.

Craik, K. H. (1986). Personality research methods: An historical perspective. Journal of Personality, 54, 18-51.

Craik, K. H. (1993). The 1937 Allport and Stagner texts in personality psychology. In K. H. Craik, R. Hogan, & R. N. Wolfe (Eds.), Fifty years of personality psychology (pp. 3-20). New York: Plenum.

Craik, K. H. (1997). Circumnavigating the personality as a whole: The challenges of integrative methodological pluralism. Journal of Personality, 65, 1087-1112.

Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis in Western sociology. New York: Basic Books.

Levy, M. J., Jr. (1968). Functional analysis: Structural-functional analysis. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 21-28). New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, mag- nificent obsessions, and the search for coherence. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15-31). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Madsen, K. B. (1968). Theories of motivation: A comparative study of modern theories of motivation (4th ed.). Kent, OH: Kent University Press.

Mayer, J. D. (1995). A framework forthe classification of personality components. Journal of Personality, 63, 819-878.

MeCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 9, 231-252.

Meehl, P. E. (1970). Some methodological reflections on the diffi- culties of psychoanalytic research. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. IV, pp. 403-416). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Mendelsohn, G. A. (1993). It's time to put theories of personality in their place, or, Allport and Stagner got it right, why can't we? In K. H. Craik, R. Hogan, & R. N. Wolfe (Eds.), Fifty years of personality psychology (pp. 103-118). New York: Plenum.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: 'Wiley. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system

theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psycho- logical Review, 102, 246-268.

Nasby, W., & Read, N. W. (1997). The life voyage of a solo circum- navigator: Integrating theoretical and methodological perspectives. Journal of Personality, 65, 785-1068.

Pervin, L. A. (1983). The stasis and flow of behavior: Toward a itheory of goals. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 20, pp 1-53). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Pervin, L. A. (1991). Transversing the individual-environmenit land- scape: A personal odyssey. In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, & R. H. Price (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: Models and

147



COMMENTARIES

perspectives (pp. 71-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Phillips, D. C. (1976). Holistic thought in social science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Rapaport, D. (1959). The structure of psychoanalytic theory: A systemizing attempt. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 55-183). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sanford, R. N. (1963). Personality: Its place in psychology. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 6, pp. 488-592). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smelser, N. J., & Smelser, W. T. (1964). Analyzing personality and social systems. In N. J. Smelser & W. T. Smelser (Eds.), Personality and social systems (pp. 1-18). New York: Wiley.

Stagner, R. (1937). Psychology of personality. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (Eds.). (1994). Dynamical systems in social psychology. New York: Academic.

Wiggins, J. S. (1997). Circumnavigating Dodge Morgan's interper- sonal style. Journal of Personality, 65, 1069-1086.

A Systems Framework or Systems Frameworks?

Robert A. Emmons Department of Psychology

University of California, Davis

A number of years ago, I was interviewing a finalist for a position in personality psychology in the department that I am in. When I queried her on how she planned to teach the undergraduate course in personality, she casually remarked "Oh, I'm not really interested in teaching personality-it bores me." Needless to say, she removed herself from contention at that moment. Occa- sionally I find myself reflecting on her comments, and wondering about the degree to which her lack of enthu- siasm is shared by others who are responsible for repre- senting what it is we do to our colleagues in other fields, administrators, our families, and to future generations of scholars. A recent debate among contemporary per- sonologists centered on just how personality should be taught (Maddi, 1993; Mendelsohn, 1993). One of the sticking points remains the degree to which grand theories or a research topics approach should constitute the core of the course. Mayer suggests that instead of viewing these as mutually exclusive alternatives, it may be possible to accomplish both goals within an alternative middle ground, represented in a systems framework.

It is clear that the state of the field of personality psychology today as well as psychology more generally is one of fragmentation, as several authors have recently implied (Maddi, 1993; Magnusson & Torestad, 1993). There is a gap between what the field should be about and what it is actually about. The field of personality, as traditionally defined, has as its subject matter the organi- zation, functioning, and development of persons. The object of study in personality is "the total person over the entire life span, and the ultimate goal is the integration of all aspects of human behavior into a single theoretical framework" (Wallace, 1993, p. 3). To quote Levy (1970), in his important but widely ignored book, "comprehensiveness and integration are the goals that inform all theoretical and research endeavors stemming

from systems conceptions of personality" (p. 194). Yet personality is typically studied at an atomistic level of analysis, with researchers free to choose among the myriad units of analysis available to examine personality processes. How to organize the conceptual units into a coherent framework, or even whether or not a coherent framework is even viable, is rarely addressed. Thus, to successfully organize knowledge into a cohesive framework would be a significant accomplishment.

Systems Framework and the Teaching of Personality

Mayer proposes that the systems framework may be a useful way of outlining textbooks, and, by implication, effective for pedagogy. A commonly heard com- plaint from students is that while they are learning much about specific processes, about bits and pieces of behavior, the person is missing. They are left with detailed knowledge about how people process information, feel, learn, develop, and interact with others, yet are left wondering, where is the person in all of this? In viewing personality as an integrative system, the systems approach can facilitate connections with other courses in the psychology curriculum. Mayer describes how his conception of systems can resolve problems that plagued earlier system conceptions of personality, such as distinguishing personality from general psychology. One advantage is that a systems approach provides a framework for incorporating new results and findings toward the goal of developing a coherent and integrated account of personality functioning. Individual topics and variables are placed within a broader context. A systems approach can also help identify omissions and gaps in current knowledge and provide guidelines for research and theory to fill in those missing parts.

148



Documents

Personality System Concepts and Their Implications