Individual differences and Personal Construct Theory: Whose ideas are they anyway?

The problem with profiling and categorising traits is that people have different frameworks of meaning

The simplest and most common way of describing a person is to identify patterns of behaviour and to label them with trait names (happy, moody, helpful etc).? But who states what constitutes a trait?? Whose definition is ‘happy’ or ‘helpful’?? There are some who may say that this process of categorising people is simply a case of naming but not explaining!? A mood can be characteristic of a person over time and friendliness can be a temporary disposition instead of an enduring trait.? We tend to try to fit people into categories according to our cultural norms and ideas but are our perceptions and consequent categorisations really about the other person or are they centred round our own personal schemas?

This article will outline personality theories and discuss individual differences in relation to the trait theories of Eysenck (1960, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007) and Mischel (1968, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007).? It will then go on to explain personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007) and how it contributes to our understanding of individual difference in personality.? It will conclude that personal construction theory tells us very little about ‘on the surface’ individual differences.? It is however a very useful tool for understanding each individual’s views and feelings about the world and other people according to their own social schemas and this in turn can produce ideas for further research.

What is personality?

The term personality can be a difficult idea to pin down.? What is it?? Is personality a culturally led behaviour or is it a biological, and therefore innate, psychological process that is fixed?? Studies have shown that it is a mixture of many different processes that overlap to form the basis of personality.? The study of personality started in three separate but related strands; clinical, psychometric and experimental psychology and the aim of the study was to highlight individual differences in behaviour.? Interestingly most theories emerged from clinical practice – from a ‘real world’ setting involving people’s emotions and feelings but the need for quantitative scientific answers brought about the use of psychometric testing which became widely used to infer the social norm that one and all are compelled to work from.? Scales of individual difference were created in order to satisfy the lust for quantitative measurements.

So why is individual difference important?? To aid in understanding individual difference it helps if one is familiar with trait theory.? A trait is defined as any relatively enduring way in which one individual differs from another (Butt, 2004, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007, p.190).? Trait theories are based around ideas – they are opinions that are built upon and they are guided by common sense.? Classification is an absolutely fundamental part of the scientific study of traits but there are conflicting views as to whether they are fixed categorical entities (as proposed by Immanuel Kant, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007, p.193) or dimensional and therefore not fixed (Wundt, Jung and Kretschner, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007, p.193-194).? The idea of dimensional would mean that an individual has the scope to move along a dimension line fluidly depending on the social context.? Evidence for this idea also comes from Thurstone (1929, cited in, Richards, 2002) who through interpretation of experimental findings argued that abilities are highly specific.? He used poetry as an example – ‘learning poetry off by heart in one language left the ability to do so in another unimproved’.? This however does not sit comfortably with some trait theories such as Eysenck’s.? His argument is that the dimension of extraversion and neuroticism are based in biology. ?Interestingly Eysenck contradicts his own ideas (Eysenck, 1952, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007. p.194) by stating that the results from experimental methods have, in every instance, supported the doctrine of continuity and failed to support the doctrine of categorisation.

Trait theory receives considerable backing because it is used so commonly in everyday life and therefore has utility and credibility.? And as an aside probably because of the obsession within scientific circles for the need to categorise and label everything into quantifiable figures in order to give ‘real’ answers.? This is not to say that traits don’t exist of course but merely that they are not as confined or fixed as some believe.? Mischel (1968, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007) argued that traits are not consistent but that they are situation-specific and fluid.

Traits rarely operate in isolation; many traits have been clustered together using factor analysis which builds on an experimental and statistical basis, a quantitative system of personality description – for example, Cattell’s (1965, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007) 16PF inventory and later the big five of Costa and McCrea (1992, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007).? However, this economy of description (clustering together of traits deemed to be similar) diminishes the focus on the individual which is directly opposed to the early intentions of personality research.? There were clear objections to factor analysis in its infancy, it was criticised because it lacked consistency – different practitioners achieved different results.? In more recent times however there is overriding agreement of the theory in the academic world.

Traits and Behaviour

Many scientists see traits as determining behaviour but others argue that traits do not explain behaviour they simply state what it is doing!? Categorising into trait groupings is subjective – this was clearly highlighted by Richards (2002) who used an example from two different psychologists who were describing the ‘authoritarian personality’.? One stated that authoritarians were rigid and closed minded, intolerant of ambiguity, happiest in hierarchical organisations, held obedience to authority in high esteem and disliked modern art.? The other psychologist had a reversed view in that he saw authoritarians as strong willed, disciplined and had unmuddled ideas.? Therefore individual differences lie not in those being categorised into personality labels but in those doing the categorising.? This idea was taken up by Mischel (1968, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007. p.197) who used the term ‘reading in’ when describing how people use their own personal constructs and schemas to rate others.? Concepts and ideas of others are culturally biased and our assumptions predispose us to certain explanations.? The main point that Mischel’s social learning theory highlighted was that the traits might reflect the personal constructs and prejudices of the people doing the rating and not those being rated.??? As Markus (1977, cited in, Butt, 2004) showed – people readily process and access information that is consistent with their self-schema.?

Research has shown that people do change over time (Kelly, 1955, Salmon, 1994, both cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007) and it is this evidence which counter acts the deterministic, biological view of traits and personality.? Mischel did not completely disregard individual behaviour as insignificant but argued that it cannot be captured by trait theory.?

Fundamental attribution error

Further evidence to support Mischel can be found in experimental work on the fundamental attribution error (Ross and Nisbett, 1991; Van Boven et al, 1999, cited in, Butt, 2004) – observers often make dispositional rather than situational attributions when assessing the causes of another’s behaviour.? We still tend to attribute the cause of other people’s behaviour more to personal characteristics and less to the situation.? (This is a western cultural idea and is not as prominent in non- western cultures).? It is not the case that people alone are responsible for their behaviours and one should bear this individual-society dualism in mind when tackling the issues surrounding research into personality, behaviour and individual difference.? So, coming back to the earlier point about factor analysis – it is an extremely useful tool but may also be flawed in that it is guided by amongst other things, the fundamental attribution error, which in turn is driven by prejudice and culturally shared schemas.

This highlights the problem with many quantitative studies – they don’t study people, they only study statistics!? And quite possibly, some statistics produce a social climate that would not have existed if the study had not taken place.? If one thinks about adverts and how they convince people that they need a certain product – would we think about that product if it was never brought to our attention through advertising?? Likewise cultural norms and shared ideologies and schemas can be created by statistical studies that actually say very little about the individual and therefore are irrelevant to actual ‘real time’ individual difference (psychometric tests are a good example of this).

In essence the problem with categorising traits is that people have different frameworks of meaning.? In effect there is a mix of social, cultural and internal guidance for our own constructed cognitive schemas and it is this fact that lays the foundations for Kelly’s personal construction theory.?

Based in the phenomenological tradition and used for clinical change Kelly’s personal construct theory defines personality in terms of the idiosyncratic frame of reference of each individual.? It attempts to graft new ideas onto old schemas to introduce change.? The important thing with this concept is that it is a process not a product and relies heavily on reflection from the individual – personal construct theory brings identity into the study of personality.? This theory differs from that of earlier trait theories in that it focuses on how things (particularly other people) appear different to each individual, it is a fluid process that continually changes according to individual theories about the world and themselves.? It does not compare one with another like trait theory but is concerned with how the individual makes sense of their own world, how one interprets the world and then acts accordingly.

By constructing ideas ourselves we come to own those ideas and internalise them within our socio cultural parameters – this has implications for learning as it means that the learners can assimilate knowledge on their own terms by articulating their feelings (see Salmon, 1994, cited in, Langdridge and Taylor, 2007).? One could argue that the Salmon line creates similar problems to that of trait theory in that it is still a subjective process – where does one place them self on the continuum in relation to where others place them?? A degree of compromise is needed in this process. ?If this compromise is not on an even keel then power relations become unbalanced (school is a good example).? In this case personal construction can lead to inequalities as knowledge is never neutral – it carries the interests and concerns of the individual and on a wider scale, the socio cultural group.

The original aim of the study of personality theory was to map individual differences in terms of dimensions; some of which have an underlying biological basis.? Theories such as Eysenck’s believed that individual differences were due to biological reasons which then manifest themselves in behaviour.? With the emergence of Kelly’s personal construct theory these early (rather restricted) findings have been expanded in order to allow more importance to be placed on the individual’s self construct surrounding the thoughts and feelings of life as it is lived.? This makes the whole process infinitely more fluid and realistic.? Personal construct theory is not so concerned with individual differences and placing someone on a continuum but more in understanding different world views.

In conclusion, trait theory is a socially and culturally shared idea built up of self-concepts and personal constructs which does not attempt to capture the richness of each individual.? It is scientific and not interested in the individual person per se.? Critics of trait theory say that it only provides a description of the behaviour not the cause or root of it and that it is greatly influenced by the people doing the rating.

Personal construction theory tells us very little about ‘on the surface’ individual differences.? It is not a scientific tool but is a very useful way of understanding each individual’s views and feelings about the world and other people according to their own social schemas and this in turn can produce ideas for further quantitative and qualitative research.? It fully understands that Individual construction is forged out of social construction.

One should certainly not put all their eggs in one basket and rely solely on statistical or qualitative data to inform the masses – whose statistics and ideas are they any way??