MODULE 2

The nature of personality and to show the role of culture and social experience in the
formation of personality along with the problem of personality disorganisation. Since
socialization plays the most important part in the development of personality and we have
discussed it already, the present discussion, therefore, can only be brief.

I. The Meaning of Personality:

The term ‘personality’ is derived from the Latin word ‘persona’ which means a mask.
According to K. Young, “Personality is a …. patterned body of habits, traits, attitudes and
ideas of an individual, as these are organised externally into roles and statuses, and as they
relate internally to motivation, goals, and various aspects of selfhood.” G. W. Allport defined
it as “a person’s pattern of habits, attitudes, and traits which determine his adjustment to his
environment.”

According to Robert E. Park and Earnest W. Burgess, personality is “the sum and
organisation of those traits which determine the role of the individual in the group.” Herbert
A. Bloch defined it as “the characteristic organisation of the individual’s habits, attitudes,
values, emotional characteristics……. which imparts consistency to the behaviour of the
individual.” According to Arnold W. Green, “personality is the sum of a person’s values (the
objects of his striving, such as ideas, prestige, power and sex) plus his non- physical traits
(his habitual ways of acting and reacting).” According to Linton, personality embraces the
total “organised aggregate of psychological processes and status pertaining to the individual.”

Personality, as we understand it, says MacIver, “is all that an individual is and has
experienced so far as this “all” can be comprehended as unity.” According to Lundberg and
others, “The term personality refers to the habits, attitudes, and other social traits that are
characteristic of a given individual’s behaviour.” By personality Ogburn means “the
integration of the socio psychological behaviour of the human being, represented by habits of
action and feeling, attitudes and opinions.” Davis regards personality “a psychic phenomenon
which is neither organic nor social but an emergent from a combination of the two.”

On the basis of these definitions it may be said there are two main approaches to the
study of personality:

(1) The psychological, and

(2) The sociological.

Although there is also a third approach, the biological approach, but the biological definition
of personality which comprehends only the bio-physical characteristics of the individual
organism is inadequate.
The psychological approach considers personally as a certain style peculiar to the individual.
This style is determined by the characteristic organisation of mental trends, complexes,
emotions and sentiments.

The psychological approach enables us to understand the phenomena of personally

disorganisation and the role of wishes, of mental conflict, and of repression and sublimation
in the growth of personality. The sociological approach considers personality in terms of the
status of the individual in the group, in terms of his own conception of his role in the group of
which he is a member. What others think of us plays a large part in the formation of our
personality.

Thus personality is the sum of the ideas, attitudes and values of a person which determine his
role in society and form an integral part of his character. Personality is acquired by tie
individual as a result of his participation in group life. As a member of the group he learns
certain behaviour systems and symbolic skills which determine his ideas, attitudes and social
values.

These ideas, attitudes and values which an individual holds, comprise his personality. The
personality of an individual denotes an adult’s inner construction of the outer world. It is the
result of the inter-action processes by which standards of ethical judgment, belief and conduct
are established in social groups and communities.

To sum up we would say that:

(i) Personality is not related to bodily structure alone. It includes both structure and dynamics

(ii) Personality is an indivisible unit.

(iii) Personality is neither good nor bad.

(iv) Personality is not a mysterious phenomenon.

(v) Every personality is unique.

(vi) Personality refers to persistent qualities of the individual. It expresses consistency and
regularly.

(vii) Personality is acquired.

(viii) Personality is influenced by social interaction. It is defined in terms of behaviour.

The Types of Personality:

Some attempts have been made to classify personalities into types.

In the 5th century B. C., the Greek physician Hippocrates divided human beings into four
types: the sanguine, the melancholic, the choleric, and the phlegmatic. The Swiss
psychoanalyst, Carl Gustac Jung, distinguished between two main types, the introvert and the
extrovert. The introvert is preoccupied with his own self; the extrovert with things outside
self.

In these two types there is a third type—the ambiverts who are neither the one nor the other
but vacillate between the two. The majority of people are ambiverts. According to Ernest
Kretchmer the German psychiatrist, the extrovert personality is a stout person while the
introvert one is a tall and slender person. The first type of persons he called “pykrnic” the
second type he called “leptosome” W.I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki distinguished among
the Bohemian, the Philistine, and the Creative.

II. Determinants of Personality:

Personality is a result of the combination of four factors, i.e., physical environment, heredity,
culture, and particular experiences. Here we discuss each factor determining personality
separately.

Personality and Environment:

Above we described the influence of physical environment on culture and pointed out that
geographical environment sometimes determines cultural variability. That the Eskimos have
a culture different from that of the Indians is due to the fact that the former have a geography
different from the latter.

Man comes to form ideas and attitudes according to the physical environment he lives in.

To the extent that the physical environment determines cultural development and to the
extent, that culture in turn determines personality, a relationship between personality and
environment becomes clear. Some two thousand years ago, Aristotle claimed that people
living in Northern Europe were owing to a cold climate, full of spirit but lacking in
intelligence and skill. The natives of Asia, on the other hand, are intelligent and inventive but
lack in spirit, and are, therefore, slaves.

Montesquieu, in the eighteenth century, claimed that the bravery of those blessed by a cold
climate enables them to maintain their liberties. Great heat enervates courage while cold
causes a certain vigour of body and mind. At high temperatures, it is said there is
disinclination to work and so civilizations have grown up where the temperatures have been
average near or below the optimum.

The people of mountains as well as deserts are usually bold, hard and powerful. Huntington’s
discussion of the effects of physical environment on man’s attitudes and mental make-up is
very exhaustive. However, as told previously, the physical conditions are more permissive
and limiting factors than causative factors. They set the limits within which personality can
develop.
Thus, climate and topography determine to a great extent the physical and mental traits of a
people, but it cannot be said that they alone determine human behaviour. Most kinds of
personality are found in every kind of culture. The fact remains that civilizations have
appeared in regions of widely different climate and topography. Christianity knows no
climate belts.

Peoples are monogamous in high altitudes and flat lands, under tropical temperate and arctic
conditions. Men’s attitudes and ideas change even when no conceivable geographic change
has occurred. Proponents of geographic determinism oversimplify the human personality and
so their interpretations are to be accepted only after close scrutiny.

Heredity and Personality:

Heredity is another factor determining human personality. Some of the similarities in man’s
personality are said to be due to his common heredity. Every human group inherits the same
general set of biological needs and capacities. These common needs and capacities explain
some of our similarities in personality. Man originates from the union of male and female
germ cells into a single cell which is formed at the moment of conception.

He tends to resemble his parents in physical appearance and intelligence. The nervous
system, the organic drives and the duchess glands have a great bearing upon personality.
They determine whether an individual will be vigorous or feeble, energetic or lethargic, idiot
of intelligent, coward or courageous.

A man with a good physical structure and health generally possess an attractive personality.
A man of poor health, pigmy size and ugly physical features develops inferiority complex.
The growth of his personality is checked. Rejected and hated by the society he may turn out
to be a thief, dacoit, or drunkard. It is also probable that he may become a leader, or a genius
like Socrates and Napoleon. Likewise the nervous system and glandular system may affect
the personality of an individual.

The nervous system affects the intelligence and talent of the individual. The hormones affect
the growth of personality. Too many or too less of hormones are harmful. Some men are
over-patient, overzealous, overactive and overexcited while others are lazy, inactive, and
weak. The reason may be secretion of more hormones in the first case and less hormones in
the latter case. For a normal personality there should be a balanced secretion of hormones.

Heredity may affect personality in another way, i.e., indirectly. If boys in a society prefers
slim girls as their companion, such girls will receive greater attention of the society providing
them thereby more opportunities to develop their personality. According to Allport, Gordon,
W. no feature of personality is devoid of hereditary influence.

However, heredity does not mould human personality alone and unaided. “For the present,
we can only assume that there are -genes for normal personality traits just as there are genes
for other aspects of human make-up and functioning.
Where in members of the same family, in a similar environment, we can see great differences
in personality, we may ascribe these in part at least to differences in gene contributions.

We can also guess that some of the family similarities in personality are genetically
influenced. But we are still a long way from identifying specific ‘personality’ genes, gauging
their effects or hazarding predictions as to what the personality of a given child will be on the
basis of what we know about its parents.” However, according to a news report (Times of
India, Jan. 3, 1996) the scientists have identified a gene which influences impulsiveness,
excitability and extravagance.

In short, heredity can never be considered as charting a fixed and definite course of anyone’s
personality. At the best, what anyone inherits are the potentialities for a wide range of
personalities, the precise form into which a personality will “jell” being determined by
circumstances. Ogburn and Nimkoff write, “It would be an error to hold, as’ endocrine
enthusiasts do, that the glands determine the whole personality, include rich things, as one’s
opinions, one’s habits, and one’s skills.” t is possible to over-activate or under-activate some
of these kinds by injecting certain kinds of hormones and thereby affect human personality.
In other words, it may be said that the available evidence does not support the dogmatic view
that personality is biologically transmitted.

Of course, there are some traits which seem to be more directly affected by heredity than
others. Manual skills, intelligence and sensory discriminations are some of the abilities which
appear more highly developed in some family lines than others. But other traits such as one’s
beliefs, loyalties, prejudices and manners are for the most part the result of training and
experience.

Heredity only furnishes the materials out of which experience will mould the personality.
Experience determines the way these materials will be used. An individual may be energetic
because of his heredity, but whether he is active on his own belief or on behalf of others is a
matter of his training.

Whether he exerts himself in making money or in scholarly activity is also dependent upon
his bringing. If personality is a direct consequence of heredity tendencies or traits then all the
sons and daughters of the same parents brought up in the same environment should have
identical personalities or at least personalities that are very much alike.

But investigation shows that even at the tender age of three or four years they show quite
distinct personalities. The new born human being is, to use the phrase of Koenig, Hopper and
Gross, a “candidate for personality.” It is, therefore, clear that an individual’s heredity alone
would not enable us to predict his traits and values.

Personality and Culture:

There can be little doubt that culture largely determines the types of personality that will
predominate in the particular group. According to some thinkers, personality is the subjective
aspect of culture. They regard personality and culture as two sides of the same coin.
Spiro has observed, ‘The development of personality and the acquisition of culture are not
different processes, but one and the same learning process.” Personality is an individual
aspect of culture, while culture is a collective aspect of personality.” Each culture produces
its special type or types of personality.

In 1937 the anthropologist Ralph Linton and the psychoanalyst Abram Kardinar began a
series of joint explorations of the relationship between culture and personality by subjecting
to minute study reports of several primitive societies and one modern American village. Their
studies have demonstrated that each culture tends to create and is supported by a “basic
personality type.” A given cultural environment sets its participant members off from other
human beings operating under different cultural environments.

According to Frank, ‘culture is a coercive influence dominating the individual and moulding
his personality by virtue of the ideas, conceptions and beliefs which had brought to bear on
him through communal life.” The culture provides the raw material of which the individual
makes his life. The traditions, customs, mores, religion, institutions, moral and social
standards of a group affect the personality of the group members. From the moment of birth,
the child is treated in ways which shape his personality. Every culture exerts a series of
general influences upon the individuals who grow up under it.

Personality and Particular Experiences:

Personality is also determined by another factor, namely, the particular and unique
experiences. There are two types of experiences one, those that stem from continuous
association with one’s group, second, those that arise suddenly and are not likely to recur.
The type of people who meet the child daily has a major influence on his personality. The
personality of parents does more to affect a child’s personality.

If the parents are kind, tolerant of boyish pranks, interested in athletics and anxious to
encourage their child’s separate interests the child will have a different experience and there
shall be different influence on his personality than the one when the parents are unkind, quick
tempered and arbitrary. In the home is fashioned the style of personality that will by and large
characterise the individual throughout his life.

Social rituals,’ ranging from table manners to getting along with others, are consciously
inculcated in the child by parents. The child picks up the language of his parents. Problems of
psychological and emotional adjustments arise and are solved appropriately by each child in
terms of the cultural values and standards of the family. The family set up tends to bring the
child into contact with his play-mates and teachers. What his play-game members are, and his
school teachers are will also determine his personality development.

Group influences are relatively greater in early childhood. This is the period when the
relationships of the child with his mother, father and siblings affect profoundly the
organisation of his drives and emotions, the deeper and unconscious aspects of his
personality.
A certain degree of maturation is needed before the child can understand the adult norms. The
basic personality structure that is formed during this period is difficult to change. Whether a
person becomes a leader, a coward, an imitator? whether he feels inferior or superior,
whether he becomes altruistic or egoistic depends upon the kind of interaction he has with
others. Group interaction moulds his personality.

Away from the group he may become insane or develop queer attitudes. As a child grows he
develops wish for response and wish for recognition. To his organic needs are added what are
called ‘sociogenic’ needs which are highly important motivating forces in personality. How
the idea of self develops in the child is an important study. The self does not exist at birth but
begins to arise as the child learns something of the world of sensation about him.

He comes to learn of what belongs to him and takes pride in his possessions. He learns that
parts of his body belong to him. He becomes acquainted with his name and paternity and
comes to distinguish himself from others. The praise and blame he receives from others
account in large measure for his conduct. The development of self leads to the growth of
conscience and ego.

Our view of self conception is usually based on the opinion of others about us. It does not.
however, mean that we value all opinions about our conduct equally. We attach importance
only to the opinions of those whom we consider for one reason or the other significant than
others.

Our parents are usually most significant than others since they are the ones who are
intimately related to us and have greatest power than others over us especially during the
early years of life. In short, our early experiences are very important in the formation of our
personality. It is in early life that the foundations of personality are laid.

Why are the children brought up in the same family differ from one another in their
personality, even though they have had the same experiences? The point is that they have not
had the same experiences. Some experiences are similar while others are different. Each child
enters a different family unit.

One is the first born, he is the only child until the arrival of the second. The parents do not
treat all their children exactly alike. The children enter different play groups, have different
teachers and meet different incidents. They do not share all incidents and experiences. Each
person’s experience is unique as no body else perfectly duplicates it. Thus, each child has
unique experiences exactly duplicated by no one and, therefore, grows a different personality.

Sometimes a sudden experience leaves an abiding influence upon the personality of an

individual. Thus a small child may get frightened at the view of a bloody accident, and even
after the accident he may be obsessed of the horror of fear. Sometimes a girl’s experience
with a rapist may condemn her to a life of sexual maladjustment.
A book may not uneaten challenge a man to renounce the world and seek God. If a man
meets an accident which cripples or weakens him, he may come to entertain the feelings of
inadequacy. Lord Buddha is said to have been led to renunciation by the sight of a funeral
procession. In this way experiences also determine one’s personality.

However, it may be noted that one’s own personality that one has acquired at any moment
will in part determine how the experiences influence his pre-acquired personality. Thus a
child who is robust, outgoing, athletic would find his parents in the first case a model for
behaviour, a model that would deepen the already apparent personality traits. But if the child
is shy, retiring and bookish he may find such parents’ personality distasteful and intensify the
opposed personality trends already apparent.

It may also be referred that personality is a matter of social situations. It has been shown by
social researchers that a person may show honesty in one situation and not in another. The
same is true for other personality traits also. Personality traits tend to be specific responses to
particular situations rather than general behaviour patterns. It is a dynamic unity with a
creative potential.

Heredity, physical environment, culture and particular experiences are thus the four factors
that explain personality—its formation, development and maintenance. Beyond the joint
influence of these factors, however, the relative contribution of each factor to personality
varies with the characteristic or personality process involved and, perhaps, with the individual
concerned.

Genetic or hereditary factors may be more critical for some personality characteristics, while
environmental factors, (cultural, financial), may be more important for others. Furthermore,
for any one characteristic, the relative contribution of one or another factor may vary from
person to person.

Also there is no way yet known to measure the effect of each factor or to state how the
factors combine to produce a given result. The behaviour of a juvenile delinquent is affected
by his heredity and by his home life. But how much is contributed by each factor, cannot be
measured in exact terms.

Theories of personality
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 from one another based on the
strength and intensity of basic trait dimensions. There are three criteria that characterize
personality traits: (1) consistency, (2) stability, and (3) individual differences.

• Individuals must be somewhat consistent across situations in their behaviors related to

the trait. For example, if they are talkative at home, they tend also to be talkative at
work.
 • A trait must also be somewhat stable over time as demonstrated behaviors related to
the trait. For example, at age 30 if someone is talkative they will also tend to be
talkative at age 40.
• People differ from one another on behaviors related to the trait. People differ on how
frequently they talk and so personality traits such as talkative exist.

Type theory of personality

Perhaps the earliest known theory of personality is that of the Greek physician Hippocrates
(c. 400 B.C.), who characterized human behavior in terms of four temperaments, each
associated with a different bodily fluid, or "humor." The sanguine, or optimistic, type was
associated with blood; the phlegmatic type (slow and lethargic) with phlegm; the melancholic
type (sad, depressed) with black bile; and the choleric (angry) type with yellow bile.
Individual personality was determined by the amount of each of the four humors.
Hippocrates' system remained influential in Western Europe throughout the medieval and
Renaissance periods. Abundant references to the four humors can be found in the plays of
Shakespeare, and the terms with which Hippocrates labeled the four personality types are still
in common use today. The theory of temperaments is among a variety of systems that deal
with human personality by dividing it into types. A widely popularized (but scientifically
dubious) modern typology of personality was developed in the 1940s by William Sheldon,
an American psychologist. Sheldon classified personality into three categories based on body
types: the endomorph (heavy and easy-going), mesomorph (muscular and aggressive), and
ectomorph (thin and intellectual or artistic).

Psychodynamic theory of personality

Twentieth-century views on personality have been heavily influenced by the psychodynamic

approach of Sigmund Freud. Freud proposed a three-part personality structure consisting of
the id (concerned with the gratification of basic instincts), the ego (which mediates between
the demands of the id and the constraints of society), and the superego (through which
parental and social values are internalized). In contrast to type or trait theories of personality,
the dynamic model proposed by Freud involved an ongoing element of conflict, and it was
these conflicts that Freud saw as the primary determinant of personality. His psychoanalytic
method was designed to help patients resolve their conflicts by exploring unconscious
thoughts, motivations, and conflicts through the use of free association and other techniques.
Another distinctive feature of Freudian psychoanalysis is its emphasis on the importance of
childhood experiences in personality formation. Other psychodynamic models were later
developed by colleagues and followers of Freud, including Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and
Otto Rank (1884-1939), as well as other neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen
Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan (1892-1949), and Erik Erikson.

Humanistic theory

The Humanistic Theory of Personality states that people are intrinsically good, with an innate
drive to make themselves better.
The Humanistic theory is built on the premise of a person’s self-concept, consisting of their
real self and their ideal self. People are motivated by a drive towards self-actualization,
which describes transforming your real self into your ideal self. This self-actualizing
tendency develops best in an unconditionally positive environment. Importantly, this theory
places extra emphasis on the idea of free will, with the ability to change one’s personality for
the better.

Key Points

• Humanistic Theory of Personality

o Humans are inherently good and want to get better
▪ Personality is chosen consciously with free will
▪ One of few personality theories that is not deterministic
▪ Motivated by actualizing tendency (towards self-actualization)
▪ Innate drive to improve your real self towards ideal self
▪ Incongruence: when one's real actions seemingly contradict
ideal self
▪ Thought to cause psychological distress
o Occurs best in a growth-promoting climate, requiring:
▪ Genuine character
▪ Unconditional positive regard from others

Learning theory, any of the proposals put forth to explain changes in behaviour produced by
practice, as opposed to other factors, e.g., physiological development.

A common goal in defining any psychological concept is a statement that corresponds to

common usage. Acceptance of that aim, however, entails some peril. It implicitly assumes
that common language categorizes in scientifically meaningful ways; that the word learning,
for example, corresponds to a definite psychological process. However, there appears to be
good reason to doubt the validity of this assumption. The phenomena of learning are so
varied and diverse that their inclusion in a single category may not be warranted.

The Power of Power Dressing

Power dressing is the unique style of an individual that shows their position and authority in
business or at work place. When people advice you to dress for the position you thrive for; they
say it rightly, as power dressing has a major impact on your career. Not only dressing, but your
style, confidence, your body language, and the way you carry yourself matters equally. Surely,
your clothing is not an indicator of your intelligence; but it does act as a confidence and morale
booster in the corporate world. When you have intelligence, intellectual and a leadership
capability; your dressing is the statement that puts across this message. The charm and suave
that oozes through power dressing is definite and extraordinary for people who want to make
a mark in this rat race of climbing the corporate ladder.
Power Dressing has its Own Powerful Impacts

1. Breaking Stereotypes

One of the traditional adages states that you need to dress to impress. Whereas, people all over
the globe are breaking this old impression to a new one which says – Dress to Express. You
don’t need to impress anyone through clothes; intelligence is enough for that. But to express
authority and commandment; well for that power dressing is a must. It also affects how you
feel about yourself, indirectly affecting your body language. When you feel confident in your
clothes; your approach automatically becomes confident.

2. A Perfect Recipe for Respect

What is one common thing among all the celebrities, political icons, business tycoons, and
iconic influencers? Their command, their authority, and of course their dressing; and
interestingly it is an inter-linked chain. Power dressing states authority, which in turn makes
you respect the person who is in command. When it is said that sharp and crisp dressing gives
you a morale boost; it also makes others see at you with a different perspective. You can
effectively cut your way out the fierce competition simply by your strong influence.

3. Never Under-estimate the Impact of First Impression

As a matter of fact, we have no control over first impressions. We are involuntarily driven by
our sub-conscious minds to notice minute details we may not be consciously aware about.
People do tend to make self-decisions regarding a person’s personality during first meetings
itself. Do you want to come off as an influencer or as just another normal worker? It all depends
upon your style, your dressing. The way you dress and present yourself to others; also speaks
volumes of your seriousness about work. Unless, you are an artist who does not need to make
an impact physically; or you are working in a creative bubble where creativity supersedes
everything else.

4. Suit Up

Gone are the days where formals and blazers were the donned by the male section of society.
Women power players make an equally powerful statement in the present corporate scenario;
with tailor-made and haute-couture suits, blazers, and formals. The corporate ladder has turned
into a runway for the female protagonists; who are giving leadership and authoritative goals,
and showing bold courage for work and career goals.

Make it Heard without Words

Your clothing elicits your personality without you having to use words for the same. When
working in the corporate world; go out confidently and come out as a strong competitor with
your actions itself. Remember to use well-fitted suits, blazers, formals, and co-ordinated
footwear (for both men and women); and also statement accessories along with subtle make-
up to increase your iconic image. But certainly don’t overdo anything; which can make you a
misfit at workplace.