8.2 Personality and Identity

Many psychological perspectives try to explain personality, including behaviorist, humanist, and socio-cultural perspectives. This module will focus solely on the trait theory of personality and how combinations of traits create unique personality profiles. This module will also review how personality traits are identified and measured across cultures.

You have probably noticed that some people are very social and outgoing, while others are quiet and reserved. Some people seem to worry a lot, while others never seem to get anxious. Whenever we use words like social, outgoing, reserved, or anxious to describe people around us, we refer to someone’s personality. Personality is one of the things that makes us unique from one another. Our personalities are thought to be long-term, stable, and not easily changed (Caspi et al., 2005), leading some psychologists to argue that personality is heritable and biological.

Personality is not the same as character, which refers to qualities a culture considers good and bad. Temperament, as we learned earlier, is hereditary and includes sensitivity, moods, irritability, and distractibility. In this way, temperament can be seen as part of our personality and supports biological and universal aspects of personality. Once we understand someone’s personality, we can predict how that person will behave in various situations. Think about what it takes to be successful in college. You might say that intelligence is a factor in college success, and you would be correct, but personality researchers have also found that traits like conscientiousness play an essential role in college success. Highly conscientious individuals study hard, finish their work on time, and are less distracted by nonessential activities that take time away from schoolwork. Over the long term, this consistent behavior pattern can add to meaningful differences in academic and professional development. Personality traits are not just a helpful way to describe people; they help psychologists predict if someone will be a good worker, how long they will live, and the types of jobs and activities they will enjoy.

Trait Theory

Personality traits reflect people’s characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Trait theory in psychology rests on the idea that people differ based on the strength and intensity of basic trait dimensions. Three criteria characterize personality traits:

1. Consistency
   Individuals must be somewhat consistent across situations in their behaviors related to the trait. For example, if they are talkative at home, they tend to be chatty at work.
2. Stability
   A trait must also be somewhat stable over time, as demonstrated by behaviors related to the trait. For example, at age 30, if someone is talkative, they will also tend to be talkative at age 40.
3. Individual Differences
   People differ from one another in their behaviors related to the trait. Using speech is not a personality trait, and neither is walking on two feet—virtually all individuals do these activities, and there are almost no individual differences. However, people differ in how frequently they talk and how active they are; thus, personality traits such as talkativeness and activity level exist.

A big challenge of the trait approach was discovering the major traits in which all people differ. For decades, scientists generated hundreds of new traits, so it wasn’t easy to keep track and make sense of them. For instance, one psychologist might focus on individual differences in “friendliness,” whereas another might focus on the highly related concept of “sociability.” Scientists began seeking ways to reduce the number of traits in some systematic way and to discover the basic traits that describe most of the differences between people.

Early trait theorists Allport and Odbert identified about 18,000 words in the English language that could describe people (Allport & Odbert, 1936). The list was later reduced to 4,500 by Allport, but even this was far too many traits. To make the list of traits more manageable, Raymond Cattell (1946, 1957) narrowed the list to 16 factors and developed a personality assessment called the 16PF. Later, psychologists Hans and Sybil Eysenck focused on temperament (Eysenck, 1990, 1992; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963) and hypothesized two specific personality dimensions: extroversion/introversion and neuroticism/stability.

Five-Factor Model

The Big Five Personality Traits (YouTube)

While Cattell’s 16 factors may be too broad, the 2-factor system proposed by Eysenck has been criticized for being too narrow. Another personality theory, the Five-Factor Model (FFM) or the Big 5, effectively hits a middle ground. Research showed that many of the personality descriptors found in the dictionary do indeed overlap. In other words, many words we use to describe people are synonyms. Thus, if we want to know what a person is like, we do not necessarily need to ask how sociable they are, how friendly they are, and how gregarious they are. Instead, because sociable people tend to be friendly and gregarious, we can summarize this personality dimension with a single term. Someone sociable, friendly, and gregarious would typically be described as an “Extrovert.” Once we know she is an extrovert, we can assume she is sociable, friendly, and gregarious.

The Big Five comprises five major traits shown in the figure below. A way to remember these five is with the following acronym, OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism.

Scores on the Big Five traits are mostly independent. That means that a person’s standing on one trait tells very little about their standing on the other traits of the Big Five. For example, a person can be extremely high in Extroversion and be either high or low on Neuroticism. Similarly, a person can be low in Agreeableness and be either high or low in Conscientiousness. Thus, in the Five-Factor Model, you need five scores to describe most of an individual’s personality.

Other important traits are not included in comprehensive models like the Big Five. Although the five factors capture much of what is important about personality, researchers have suggested other traits that capture interesting aspects of our behavior. In the figure below, we present just a few, out of hundreds, of the different traits that theorists have studied.

Five-Factor Model and Cross-Cultural Research

Although the Big Five Personality Inventory is highly recognized in psychology as a measure of personality traits, it is another example of the over-representation of W.E.I.R.D. populations. In their study, “How Universal Is the Big Five? Testing the Five-Factor Model of Personality Variation Among Forager–Farmers in the Bolivian Amazon,” Gurven and colleagues (2013) point out that most studies of the Five-Factor Model have been restricted to literate, urban populations, which are uncharacteristic of the majority of human evolutionary history. In their research, they test the FFM on largely illiterate, indigenous societies using the emic and etic approaches (the insider and outsider approaches, respectively). They failed to find robust support for the FFM and proposed that personality variation displays two principal factors that may reflect socio-ecological characteristics common to small-scale societies.

Stackhouse et al. (2024) provide new evidence that supports the applicability of the Big Five Personality Inventory across diverse populations, including non-W.E.I.R.D. groups. The study uses data from 7,489 participants across 40 nations to explore the relationship between Big Five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural values. Findings suggest minimal between-country variation for both personality traits and cultural values, indicating that individual differences are more significant than national differences. It emphasizes the need for multilevel analysis to accurately capture the complexity of personality and cultural relationships, rather than relying solely on national-level data.

It is essential to consider cultural influences on personality. There is evidence that the strength of personality traits varies across cultures. Let’s look at some of the Big Five factors across cultures. For example, Asian cultures are more collectivist, and people in these cultures tend to be less extroverted. People in Central and South American cultures tend to score higher on openness to experience, whereas Europeans score higher on neuroticism (Benet-Martinez & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2003). There also seem to be regional personality differences within the United States. Researchers analyzed responses from over 1.5 million individuals in the United States. They found that there are three distinct regional personality clusters: Cluster 1, which is in the Upper Midwest and Deep South, is dominated by people who fall into the “friendly and conventional” personality; Cluster 2, which includes the West, is dominated by people who are more relaxed, emotionally stable, calm, and creative; and Cluster 3, which includes the Northeast, has more people who are stressed, irritable, and depressed. People who live in Clusters 2 and 3 are also generally more open (Rentfrow et al., 2013).

Selective migration explains the regional differences (Rentfrow et al., 2013). Selective migration is the concept that people move to places compatible with their personalities and needs. For example, a person high on the agreeable scale would likely want to live near family and friends, and would choose to settle or remain in such an area. In contrast, someone high on openness would prefer to settle in a place recognized as diverse and innovative (such as California).

Individualist vs. Collectivist Cultures

Individualist cultures and collectivist cultures emphasize different fundamental values. People who live in individualist cultures tend to believe that independence, competition, and personal achievement are essential. Individuals in Western nations such as the United States, England, and Australia score high on individualism (Oyserman et al., 2002). People in collectivist cultures value social harmony, respectfulness, and group needs over individual needs. Individuals who live in countries in Asia, Africa, and South America score high on collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995). These values influence personality. For example, Yang (2006) found that people in individualist cultures displayed more personally oriented personality traits, whereas people in collectivist cultures displayed more socially oriented personality traits.

We must also remember that people do not act consistently from one situation to the next, and situational forces and culture influence people. For example, individuals who score high on the Extroversion scale are likely to be outgoing and enjoy socializing, but where, when, and how they socialize will be influenced by culture (McCrae et al., 1998).

Other approaches

Much of this module has been dedicated to the etic approach for understanding personality, which posits that personality is innate, biological, and universal, but still acknowledges that culture plays an important role in shaping personality by way of geography (environment), resources, and social support. Three approaches can be used to study personality in a cultural context:

1. The cultural-comparative approach
2. The indigenous approach, and
3. The combined approach incorporates elements of both views.

Since ideas about personality have a Western basis, the cultural-comparative approach seeks to test Western ideas about personality in other cultures to determine whether they can be generalized and if they have cultural validity (Cheung van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). For example, recall from the previous section on the trait perspective that researchers used the cultural-comparative approach to test the universality of McCrae and Costa’s Five Factor Model. They found applicability in numerous cultures worldwide, with the Big Five traits being stable in many cultures (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 2005).

The indigenous approach came about in reaction to the dominance of Western approaches to the study of personality in non-Western settings (Cheung et al., 2011). Because Western-based personality assessments cannot fully capture the personality constructs of other cultures, the indigenous model has led to the development of personality assessment instruments based on constructs relevant to the culture being studied (Cheung et al., 2011).

The third approach to cross-cultural studies of personality is the combined approach, which serves as a bridge between Western and indigenous psychology to understand universal and cultural variations in personality (Cheung et al., 2011).

The article ‘Universal’ Personality Traits Don’t Necessarily Apply to Isolated Indigenous People is a required reading for this lesson to increase your understanding of personality research studies across cultures.

Identity and Culture

At the beginning of this lesson, we defined the self as our sense of personal identity and who we are as individuals. In cognitive psychology, “identity” refers to the capacity for self-reflection and the awareness of self (Leary & Tangney, 2003, p. 3). In the United States, it is common to link identity with a particular ethnic or racial group (e.g., Hispanic, African American, Asian American, Jewish American). Still, we should remember that these categories are products of immigration and history. The history is unique to the United States, so individuals from other cultures would not identify with the same cultural groups (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013).

We should also think of identity as dynamic and fluid. It can change depending on the context, the culture, and the situation. For example, if someone asks you where you are from, if you are in a foreign country, you might identify yourself as American. If you were born in another country but grew up in the United States, you might identify more with your country of birth. In a different situation, you might say you are from California or the state where you grew up.

Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of role-behavior. The notion of identity negotiation may arise from learning social roles through personal experience. Identity negotiation is a process in which a person negotiates with society regarding the meaning of their identity.

Psychologists commonly use “identity” to describe personal identity, or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique. Sociologists, however, often use the term to describe social identity, or the collection of group memberships that define the individual. However, these uses are not proprietary; each discipline may use either concept and combine both concepts when considering a person’s identity. Neuroscientists also draw upon these fields to study the neurobiological basis of personal and social identity.

Watch the video below to understand how one person describes his identity as a third-culture kid and how the concepts of identity we’ve covered so far apply.

Building Identity as a Third Culture Kid | Erik Vyhmeister | TEDxAndrewsUniversity (YouTube)

Many people gain a sense of positive self-esteem from their identity groups, which furthers a sense of community and belonging. Another issue that researchers have attempted to address is the question of why people engage in discrimination, i.e., why they tend to favor those they consider a part of their “in-group” over those considered to be outsiders. Both questions have been given extensive attention by researchers working in the social identity tradition. For example, in work relating to social identity theory, it has been shown that crafting cognitive distinctions between in- and out-groups can subtly affect people’s evaluations of others (Cote & Levine, 2002). This takes us to the next module in this lesson, covering attitudes and attributions, biases, and thinking errors.

Test your understanding