NAME: YASHIKA RAWAT

ROLL NO.: 1108

PID ASSIGNMENT

Ques1:Define personality.
Ans1 : The word personality itself stems from the Latin word persona, which refers to a
theatrical mask worn by performers in order to either project different roles or disguise their
identities.

At its most basic, personality is the characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and
behaviours that make a person unique. It is believed that personality arises from within the
individual and remains fairly consistent throughout life.

Personality is the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are
organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interactions with, and
adaptations to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environments.

According to Gordon Allport(1957) "Personality is the dynamic organization within the

individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his
environment"

Personality is the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are
organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interactions with, and
adaptations to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environments."

According to Walter Michelle personality consists of “the distinctive patterns of behaviour

(including thoughts and emotion ) that characterize each individuals adaptation to the
situation of his or her life”

A careful analysis of the above definitions will observe the followings:

1. Personality may be defined as the characteristic pattern of behaviour that determines

an individual’s adjustment to the environment or situation.

2. It describes how an individual affects others, how he understands himself and his
pattern of internal as well as external measurable traits.
 3. It is the dynamic organisation within an individual of those psychological systems
which determines his unique adjustment to the environment.

BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE TO UNDERSTAND PERSONALITY

The core assumption within the biological domain is that humans are, first and foremost,
collections of biological systems, and these systems provide the building blocks for
behaviour, thought, and emotion. As personality psychologists use the term, biological
approaches typically refers to three areas of research within this general domain: genetics,
psychophysiology, and evolution.

1. GENETICS AND PERSONALITY

The first area of research consists of the genetics of personality. Because of advances in
behavioural genetic research, a fair amount is known about the genetics of personality.
Twin studies are particularly informative for studying the role of genetic factors because they
compare the degree of personality resemblance between monozygotic twins, who have
identical genetic makeup, and dizygotic twins, who do not (Lykken, 2006; Rowe, 1999). On a
great many psychological characteristics, identical twins are more similar to each other than
are fraternal twins, suggesting a role for genetics. However, the issue is clouded by the
possibility that identical twins may also have more similar environments than fraternal twins
because others are inclined to treat them more similarly.
The ideal solution to this problem would be to compare personality traits in identical and
fraternal twins who were raised together and those who were separated early in life and raised
apart. If the identical twins who were reared in different families were as similar as those
reared together, a more powerful argument could be made for the role of genetic factors.
Moreover, this research design would allow us to divide the total variation among
individuals on each personality trait into three components:
(1) variation attributable to genetic factors;
(2) variation due to a shared family environment in those raised together; and
(3) variation attributable to other factors, including unique individual life experiences.
The relative influence of these sources of variation can be estimated by comparing
personality test correlations in identical and fraternal twins who were raised together or apart.
The most comprehensive study was conducted by Auke Tellegen and his colleagues at the
University of Minnesota. The four groups of twin pairs were administered measures of 14
different personality traits, and the personality variation attributable to genetic, familial
environment, and unique environment was calculated for each personality characteristic.
Genetic factors accounted for approximately 40 to 50 percent of the variance among people
in trait scores. In contrast, the degree of resemblance did not differ much whether the twin
pairs were reared together or apart, showing that general features of the family environment,
such as its emotional climate and degree of affluence, accounted for little variance in any of
the traits. The same result occurred in a recent study of self-esteem in Japanese twins
(Kamakura et al., 2007). However, this does not mean that experience is not important.
Rather than the family environment, it is the individual’s unique environmental experiences,
such as his or her school experiences and interactions with peers, that account for
considerable personality variance.
Even within the same family, therefore, individual children have different experiences while
growing up, and it is these unique experiences together with their genes, that help shape
personality development.

2. PERSONALITY AND THE NERVOUS SYSTEM

The second biological approach is best described as the psychophysiology of personality. Within this
domain, researchers summarize what is known about the basis of personality in terms of nervous
system functioning.

One logical place to look for biological underpinnings of personality is in individual

differences in brain functioning (Canli, 2006; Zuckerman, 2005). Two examples are Hans
Eysenck’s research and theorizing on extraversion and emotional stability and more recent
work on temperament.
Eysenck’s Extraversion-Stability Model
We’ve now seen that among trait theorists, there are “splitters,” such as Cattell, who posit a
large number of basic traits, and “lumpers,” such as the Big Five theorists, who favour a
smaller number. Hans J. Eysenck (1916–1997), one of Britain’s leading psychologists, was
the ultimate lumper. He maintained that normal personality can be understood in terms of
only two basic dimensions. These dimensions of Introversion ,Extraversion and Stability-
Instability (sometimes, as in the Big Five, called Neuroticism) blend together to form all of
the more specific traits. Eysenck’s two “super traits” are comparable to the Big Five traits of
Extraversion and Neuroticism. Eysenck’s Extraversion-Stability model. Note that the two
basic dimensions intersect at right angles, meaning that they are statistically independent, or
uncorrelated. The secondary traits reflect varying combinations, or mixtures, of the two
primary dimensions. Thus, we can see that the emotionally stable extravert is a carefree,
lively person who tends to be well adjusted and to seek out leadership roles. In contrast,
unstable extraverts tend to be touchy, aggressive, and restless. The stable introvert is calm,
reliable, and even-tempered, but the unstable introvert tends to be rigid, anxious, and moody.
Different combinations of the two basic personality dimensions can thus produce very diverse
personality patterns.

Eysenck (1967) was one of the first modern theorists to suggest a biological basis for major
personality traits. He linked Introversion-Extraversion and Stability-Instability to differences
in individuals’ normal patterns of arousal within the brain. He started with the notion that
there is an optimal, or preferred, level of biological arousal in the brain. Eysenck believed
that extreme introverts are chronically over aroused; their brains are too electrically active, so
they try to minimize stimulation and reduce arousal to get down to their optimal arousal level,
or comfort zone. In contrast, the brains of extreme extraverts are chronically under aroused,
so they need powerful or frequent stimulation to achieve an optimal level of cortical arousal
and excitation.
The extravert thus seeks social contact and physical arousal, likes parties, takes chances, is
assertive, and suffers boredom easily. Whereas Introversion-Extraversion reflects a person’s
customary level of arousal, Stability ,Instability represents the suddenness with which shifts
in arousal occur. Unstable people have hair-trigger nervous systems that show large and
sudden shifts in arousal, whereas stable people show smaller and more gradual shifts
(Pickering & Gray, 1999). Eysenck also called this stability dimension Neuroticism because
he found that people with extremely unstable nervous systems are more likely to experience
emotional problems that require clinical attention. Eysenck proposed that the arousal patterns
that underlie Introversion-Extraversion and Stability-Instability have genetic bases. A
growing body of evidence from twin studies supports his view. Identical twins are much
more alike on these traits than are fraternal twins, and about half of the variance among
people can be attributed to hereditary factors (Loehlin et al., 1988; Plomin, 1997).
Eysenck believed that although personality is strongly influenced by life experiences, the
ways people respond to those experiences may be at least partly programmed by biological
factors. Contemporary research using brain imaging continues to find brain activation
patterns related to Extraversion and Stability. These studies show that the neural bases of
these factors go beyond general arousal, involving specific brain structures (Canli, 2004).

3. TEMPERAMENT: BUILDING BLOCKS OF PERSONALITY

Temperament refers to individual differences in emotional and behavioural styles that appear
so early in life that they are assumed to have a biological basis. Such temperamental factors
as emotionality, activity level, sociability, and impulsivity are visible even in infancy (Buss &
Plomin, 1975, 1984). Temperamental factors are not assumed to be personality traits in their
own right, but they are viewed as biological building blocks that influence the subsequent
development of personality. The fact that these temperamental factors are more highly
correlated in identical than in fraternal twins suggests a genetic link (Buss & Plomin, 1984).
Recent research has focused on biological differences in inhibited and uninhibited people.
First identified by Jerome Kagan (1999) on the basis of behavioural observations and
biological functioning, inhibited infants and children are shy, restrained in their behaviour,
and react to unfamiliar people and situations with distress and avoidance. In contrast,
uninhibited children respond positively to new situations and people and seem to enjoy
novelty. About 20 percent of infants are inhibited, and about 40 percent are uninhibited.
Kagan (1999) found that these temperamental patterns can be identified in the first 4 months
of life and that they persist into later childhood in many (but not all) children. These two
groups of children also differ physiologically, with the inhibited children showing higher
levels of physiological arousal and stress-hormone secretion in response to unfamiliar
situations and people. Recent research sheds light on brain regions that contribute to inhibited
and uninhibited tendencies. One important region is the amygdala, the structure in the limbic
system that organizes fear responses. Kagan suggested that the amygdala was involved in the
physiological over reactivity he measured in inhibited children. In a more recent study, fMRI
brain recordings were taken in young adults who had been categorized as either highly
inhibited or as uninhibited when they were 2 years old (Schwartz et al., 2003). Of interest
was how their amygdala would react to pictures of familiar and unfamiliar human faces.
Those adults who had been uninhibited as children showed relatively low amygdala reactivity
to both familiar and novel faces, whereas the formerly inhibited participants showed
particularly high reactivity to the novel faces.
This study thereby demonstrated a negative response to novel stimuli in inhibited people that
extended from childhood to adulthood, as well as a possible biological basis for this
tendency. We should note that temperament is not destiny. Although biological factors are
clearly involved, the environment also can bring about some degree of change in
temperamental characteristics. We should remember that temperamentally based behaviour
patterns help create environments that can perpetuate the behaviour patterns. For example,
people are unlikely to gravitate toward shy, inhibited individuals, thereby depriving them of
positive experiences that might counteract their shyness. Likewise, temperamental traits may
need particular kinds of environments to express themselves. Elaine Aron and co-workers
(2005) found that adult shyness occurred most predictably when the underlying
temperamental characteristic was paired with an adverse childhood environment. Although
the link between child temperament and adult personality is far from perfect, there is little
doubt that temperament is one building block in personality development.

EVALUATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH

Biological research, spurred by technical advances in measuring nervous system activity and
in evaluating genetic influences, is forging new frontiers in personality science. As we learn
more about how biological functions are affected by developmental experiences and how
they interact with situational factors, new insights about personality development will be
achieved.
Behaviour genetics research on personality is moving in some exciting new directions. In the
past, twin studies of personality typically have examined degrees of similarity on self-report
measures of personality traits. Yet, as we have emphasized, personality characteristics act in
combination with situational factors. In a landmark study in Germany, Peter Borkenau and
coworkers (2006) studied the role of genes and environment on person-by-situation
interaction patterns. The behaviours of 168 identical and 132 fraternal twins were carefully
observed and coded as each person reacted to 15 different situations, some involving social
encounters and others requiring problem solving. By comparing the degree of similarity in
person-by-situation behavioural profiles across the 15 situations in the two types of twin
pairs, the researchers established that about 25% of the variation in behavioural profiles could
be attributed to genetic factors. As in previous studies, shared environment effects were
negligible. This study shows that genetic factors not only influence what people say about
their personality, but how they adjust their behaviour to different situations.