personality
Perosnality traits: some more evolutionary perspectives
Jan 7th
My last post was about the David Buss chapter in The Handbook of Personality Psychology book by Hogan et al; this post is about the Arnold Buss chapter in the same book.
In this chapter, Buss considers Humans as a primate and lists down 7 personality traits that are found in most primates especially the great apes. These are:
The seven traits listed below have already been mentioned in previous sections. They may be divided into two groups.
The first involves activation, which is defined as involving various kinds of arousal (here defined broadly):
1. Activity, the total energy output as observed in rate of movements and their vigor
2. Fearfulness, wariness, running away, cowering, and the concomitant physiological arousal
3. Impulsivity, acting suddenly and on the spur of the moment; the opposite is the tendency to inhibit behavior
The second set of personality traits are all social:
4. Sociability, preferring being with others (though primates are a highly social group, there are still individual differences in sociability within each species)
5. Nurturance, helping others, especially those who need help, even at a cost to the helper (altruism)
6. Aggressiveness, attacking or threatening others
7. Dominance, seeking and maintaining superior status over others versus the opposite pole, submissiveness
I would like to group them slightly differently ( and in accordance with my eight stage theories) and also introduce another trait that of suspiciousness when we consider humans as other primates have a rudimentary ToM ability.
- Fearfulness mapped to Neurtoticsm.
- Impulsivity mapped to Conscnetiousness
- Sociability mapped to Extraversion
- Nurturance mapped to Agreeableness
- Dominance mapped to Rebelliousness/ Conformity
- Suspiciousness mapped to Trust/Defensiveness
- Activity mapped to Activity
- Agressivenss mapped to Masculinity/Feminity
He also lays down the framework for how such traits may become evident ; he works within attachment theory paradigm and highlights research on primate attachment studies to lay down the foundation for why such traits may develop in an individual.
The period of attachment in primates has been divided into three phases (H. F. Harlow, Harlow, & Hansen, 1963). At first the mother is solicitous and completely accepting of the infant, and she is a haven of safety and nurturance.
The infant’s feeling of security depends in large part on the mother. If she is sufficiently protective and available, the infant will be secure enough to venture out in the wider environment. Primate infants appear to be motivated by two opposing tendencies: the need to seek novelty and stimulation versus the need for security and protection (Mason, 1970). An insecure infant remains close to the mother, too scared to explore the environment. A secure infant tends to be low in fear and can venture away from the mother so long as she is in sight.
In the second phase of attachment, the mother withdraws affection, diminishing attention to the infant, and starts to punish the infant. The latter may react with withdrawal, anger, resistance, or negativism. These first signs of independence are typically met by even more irritabihty and punishment by the mother.
In the third phase, the mother is often occupied with the birth of the next offspring and therefore is even more rejecting of her older child. The presence of this new infant is likely to elicit jealously and temper tantrums by the displaced sibling. If the mother can spare some attention and affection for her older sibling, the latter’s jealousy and annoyance should gradually wane.
The events of the attachment period may be expected to affect personality traits. The mother’s behavior should be regarded as only one determinant, albeit an important one, of her youngster’s personality. If she is not sufficiently protective and a haven of security, her infant may become fearful and inhibited. If she fails to provide enough attention and social stimulation, her infant may become withdrawn and less sociable. And if she cannot share at least some affect with her older offspring after the birth of a new one, the older one may become intensely jealous. In brief, the events of attachment are assumed to affect the personality traits of fearfulness, impulsivity (the opposite of inhibition), sociability, and the anger component of aggressiveness (jealousy).
To me this seems to be valid developmental trajectory of the traits: A non-protecting mother leading to Fearfulness (N); not providing a safe haven leading to lack Impulsivity or Inhibition (C); not providing enough attention leading to less sociability (E); not providing social stimulation and care leading to lack of Nurturnace in child (A) (which Buss doesn’t touch upon) and finally not sharing affect leading to Jealousy/ Dominance problems within siblings(Rebelliousness/Conformity).
Before we accept this attachment theory in its entirety it is apt to pause and remeber that many times the behaviour of mother is driven by infant behaviour and that mother and chil may share the sam temperamental quality due to genes and not due to nurturing and this however reflects in a pattern of traits in child and parenting practice in parent.
Finally Buss goes on to show how some of the traits in other primates are not well developed as compared to humans and are at the level of human infants and thus cannot lead to much insight about human personality. One exapmle is that of self-awareness; though primates and human infants may have a mirror-test self-awareness, it is limited.
Adult humans are capable of mirror-image recognition, which is absent in infants and develops slowly during the second year of life as part of more general trends in cognitive development. By the age of 2 years most infants possess this capacity (Amsterdam, 1972; Schulman & Kaplowitz, 1977). Does this mean that children of 2 years have a self-concept and the same kind of self-awareness as older children and adults? There are five cognitive attributes present in older children that are absent in 2-year-olds, which suggests that the answer is no.
The first is self-esteem. The basis for later self-esteem may be laid down in 2- year-olds, but children of this age do not show behavior that allows us to infer the general self-evaluation called self-esteem. This diffuse feeling of self-worth develops gradually and can be measured perhaps by the age of 4 years. Nor are infants clearly aware of the difference between their private feelings and public behavior.
It is still too early for the sense of covertness and an awareness that private thoughts and feelings cannot be observed. Infants and primates lack the sense of covertness that can be inferred in children of 4 years. Infants are still egocentric and do not know that others view the world from different perspectives. Even children of several years of age are Umited in social perspective-taking. In one study children were asked to select gifts for their parents, teacher, brother, sister, and self (Flavell, 1968). Most 3-year-olds selected the same gifts for others as for themselves. Some 4-year-olds selected gifts appropriate for others, half the 5-year-olds did, and all the 6-year-olds did. Social perspective-taking evidently emerges during the fifth year of life. Linked to perspective-taking is the abihty to view oneself as a social object. Such public self-awareness, as seen in the reaction of embarrassment, does not occur until the fifth year of life (Buss, Iscoe, & Buss, 1979).
The last facet of the advanced self to develop is identity. It may be a personal identity, the sense of being different from everyone else in appearance, behavior, character, or personal history, or it may be social identity, knowing oneself to be a member of a nation, religion, race, vocation, or any other group that offers a sense of belonging to something larger than oneself. And most of us have a sense of continuity, identifying ourselves as the same person across decades of time or across diverse social roles.
Thus five aspects of the self are absent in 2-year-old human children: selfesteem, a sense of covertness, perspective-taking, public self-awareness, and identity. These may be regarded as evidence for an advanced or cognitive self, which is conspicuously absent in human infants and the great apes. They do appear to have a primitive, sensory self—an awareness of where the body ends and not-me begins, and mirror-image recognition (Buss, 1980). But they lack the advanced cognitive self that is implicit in constructs such as self-concept, self-esteem, selfconsciousness, and identity, constructs easily applied to older human children and adults.
To me this beautifullay sums-up what we can and cannot derive from studies of primates and other mammals about human personality.
References: Buss, H. Arnold. (1997). Evolutionary perspectives on personality traits. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 345-366). New York: Academic Press..
More From TheMouseTrap
- Allport’s eight stages of self (proprium) development
- Personality traits: evolutionary perspectives
- Major conscious and unconcoscious processes in the brain
TheMouseTrap Recommends
- Addiction brain effects : Opiate addiction – Heroin, oxycontin and more (adijaffe)
- Why machines will overtake humans (suniljoseph)
Personality traits: evolutionary perspectives
Jan 6th
I have been reading and enjoying The Handbook of Personality Psychology by Hogan et al, and found the chapter written by David Buss particularly useful.
Here I would like to expand on the idea and while buss explicitly does not want to indulge in a discussion of a few psychological tendencies and associated behavioral class acts; I would like to walk exactly that particular path.
First to recap,
Humans, like other organisms, can be viewed as organized structures that exist in their present form because of a long history of natural selection, operating over millions of years. Each one of us owes our existence to a long and unbroken line of ancestors who successfully solved problems posed by survival and reproduction in our evolutionary past. Therefore, human structures, as well as human psychological mechanisms, at some fundamental level of description, can be analyzed in terms of the problems they solve.
But “survival” and “reproduction” are broad categories, each subsuming a large and complex array of subproblems. To the extent that the evolutionary psychologist can identify the nature of the specific problems that humans have evolved to solve, she or he has some advantage over the nonevolutionary psychologist in discovering the nature of human nature.
Buss then goes on and breaks the survival and reproduction into many component and also adds genetic investment to the mix. I parse the same data in my own way and generate the hypothesis that the most important concern of any living organism, and especially humans are survival, genetic investment and reproduction.
Survival behavioral tendency can be further split in three parts: one pure survival as in escape from predators or death; I’ll refer to this as Foes! the second concerns growth or acquiring resources necessary for thriving and I;ll call this Food. The third maintaining one’d edge in avoiding foes and finding Food by building alliances with con specifics. I’ll call this Friends. Thus survival is characterized by the three F’s of Foes, Food and Friends!
Genetic investment can be split into two K’s that of Kids and Kins. The first tendency that of Kids is concerned with issues of parental investment and care of offsprings.the second that of Kin is concerned with how to help other genetic related individuals at minimal cost to self such that maximum fitness ensues.
Reproduction can be split into three parts that of mate selection, that of mate attraction and that of mate retention. I’ll call these the three S’s of reproduction(Sex is *NOT* one of them!). The first task is to Select the right mate; the second task is , that once you have zeroed in on a suitable mating partner, you have to court and attract the partner, I call this function Seduce; the final task, especially in long-term pair bonded species like Humans is to guard or retain the mate, I call this Securing the mate.
What I propose is that given these Eight tasks ( 3 survival, 2 investment and 3 reproductive tasks ) that each species has to solve, each specie would evolve some mechanism to solve these problems that are species-typical; however there would be individual variation to the extent that the extent to which an individual organism is driven by that particular conscious motivation/ behavioral tendency and gets into environments and situations that trigger that particular task would determine the psychological mechanism that drives that individual.
To make things more clear , what I am proposing is that there are bound to be individual differences in the relative importance of these psychological mechanisms for an individual- thus a human may be primarily driven by mate selection concerns at a particular age- while another may be forever primarily concerned with safety, security etc- and this would be the first factor that would lead to individual variation in personality. Moreover, I am proposing something radical, that depending on the environment, there may be two extreme types of responding to each of these tasks- and the second most important variation that we get from person to person – is in whether one habitually and instinctively (genetically determined) responds in one way or the other as one faces the task and whether or not one factors the environment and context in which the task demand is made or whether ones behavioural tendency is fixed and inflexible.
To take by way of an example, lets us focus on the Kids part of genetic investment. It has been well documented that their are two types of parental strategies r-type and K-type; now a species may have predominantly K-type investment strategy, but within the species individual organisms would differ in their reproductive strategy around the mean in K-type and r-type directions. thus, Humans exhibit predominantly K-strategy, but Africans show more r-type and Asians more K-type. It is equally well documented that these r-type and K-type strategies are actually responses to the external environment (food abundant, predictable , stable environment etc) and thus, though a species has a set point, there is enough individual variation such that in changing environemnetal conditions at least one sub type is able to thrive and survive and reproduce and invest!
To take another example from Buss, Absence of father leads to short term mating strategy in daughters (amongst other things like premature puberty etc) and this environmental facyor may be the most important environment variable as related to Securing task of retaining the mate; if one sees the father as absent from home, one may think its wise to go for a short term mating strategy as the culture is one that encourages low stability of pair bonds; this might be a justifiably welcome strategy; on the other hand it might be genetically the case that someones set point is set towards short-term relationships.
I will now claim that the eight personality traits I had outlined earlier are directly related to these eight evolutionary task (see here for another slightly different list of the eight tasks ) that one faces- and more so are mapped one-on-one with the same ordered mapping!
Thus,
- Foes (survival 1) : A behavioral tendency to be on the lookout for foes / troubles leading to Neuroticism trait. The extremes of courage/calmness and fear/anxiety are driven by what type of environment one lives in - whether it is full of dangerous objects or not so! One prediction is that those high in N should have more Phobias and vice versa.
- Food (survival 2):A behavioral tendency to acquire resources leading to Conscentiousness. The extremes of ambition/ covetousness and laziness/ easy-going are driven by whether the environment is abundant in resources or lacking thereof! One prediction is that those high in C should be more readily diagnosed with OCD and vice versa.
- Friends (survival 3):A behavioral tendency to form alliances leading to Extraversion. The extremes of sociability and seclusion dependent on some environmental factor (like how important is community interference in day to day activity) . Might be related to mean group size (150 in humans)
- Kids (investment 1) A behavioral tendency to invest in ones offsprings leading to Agreeablness. the extremes of care/ empathy vis-a-vis apathy/ psychopathy may be driven by the same concerns that decides whether to go for r-strategy or K-strategy.
- Kins (investment 2) : A behavioral tendency to help one kins leading to Conformity / Rebelliousness: Here it is instructive to note that older siblings are generally conformists while younger siblings are rebellious – thus age-order and environmental variable may decide whether one would be conformist or rebellious and this somehow affects your behavior towards sibling and his/her reproductive fitness. Also, irrespective of your birth order in the family (kin) , due to variation, some may be genetically predisposed to be conformists and other rebellious!
- Selecting (reproduction 1) : A behavioral tendency to judge others intentions etc accurately and thus determine who is a suitable candidate for mating/trusting leading to Trust/Defensiveness. The extremes of trust and suspicion may be adaptive in environments differing with respect to levels of promiscuity; in a highly promiscuous and cheating/ cuckolding environment it may pay to be suspicious.
- Seducing (reproduction 2): This behavioral tendency of intra sexual competition can be broken into three components: i) Testing against own sex con specifics(building better muscles for men) ii) Embodying preferences of opposite sex (Chauvinism in case of Males) and the third I havent been able to figure yet!! The extremes of too much effort/activity in seducing as against the extreme of being dull/boring and uninterested in other sex leads to the dimension of Activity.
- Securing (reproduction 3) : A behavioral tendency towards sociosexuality;At one end of this dimension are individuals who are “restricted” in sociosexuality—they require more time, attachment, and commitment prior to entering a sexual relationship. At the other end are those who are “unrestricted” in sociosexuality—they require less time, attachment, and commitment prior to sexual intercourse. These extremes may lead to the trait of Masculinity- Feminity in how one guards and forms a pair bond.
I would thus end my argument; to me the eight stage process is compelling- I am sure with each passing day there are more converts to that developmental and evolutionary eight stage theory.
References: Buss, D. M. (1997). Evolutionary foundations of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 317-344). New York: Academic Press..
More From TheMouseTrap
- Emotions and personality
- Perosnality traits: some more evolutionary perspectives
- Personality and Motivation
TheMouseTrap Recommends
- To Fight or to Fold (suniljoseph)
- Why machines will overtake humans (suniljoseph)
Novelty Seeking and Reward Dependence: the dopamine white matter connection.
Dec 9th
I had earlier wrote extensively on Cloninger’s personality temperaments and proposed that dopamine lies behind the trait Novelty Seeking; while norepiniphrine lies behind Reward Dependence trait. New research , as reported in Nature Neuroscience makes me rethink some of that simplistic schema.
As per Cohen et al, they have found a double dissociation between white matter connectivity between dopamine and sub-cortical and cortical regions and found that these white matter connectivities differentially predict and correlate with traits novelty seeking and reward dependence. Let me quote from the article:
Myriad cognitive, emotional and motor functions of the brain rely on the integrity of the striatum and on interactions between the striatum and other cortical and subcortical networks1, 2, 3. Lesion work in animals supports the idea that fronto-striatal connectivity is crucial for aspects of behavioral adaptation and learning. In these cases, it is clear that anatomy constrains function. Here, we investigated whether anatomical connectivity underlies more global aspects of behavioral and cognitive organization: human personality. We found that the strength of connectivity between two different striatum-related networks predicted individual differences in self-reported personality traits in humans.
Then they go on to show which two networks they studied and found the dissociation in.
In humans, novelty seeking is characterized by impulsivity, exploratory drive and excitability, and has been proposed to be driven by individual differences in dopamine system sensitivity. In rats, both striatal dopamine and hippocampus inputs modulate novelty seeking, linking these structures into a network for novelty detection. The hippocampus may support novelty seeking in part by signaling when sensory input differs from memory-driven expectations (that is, a sensory prediction error), whereas the amygdala may support novelty seeking by modulating hippocampal and striatal activity in novel environments or during emotional memory encoding. Our findings provide additional support for this novelty-loop theory by demonstrating that the hippocampus– and amygdala–ventral striatal pathways are related to stable individual differences in novelty seeking personality.
High reward dependence is characterized by several cognitive, emotional and social facets, including enhanced learning from reward signals, persistence in repeating actions associated with rewards, high sociability and reliance on social approval. These functions recruit the striatum, including dorsal regions. Indeed, the tracts predicting reward dependence were not confined to one particular subregion of the striatum, but were instead observed in striatal areas in which there were strong inputs from these seed regions . This suggests that the white-matter circuits subserving reward dependence are distributed throughout multiple cortico-striatal loops. These loops have been linked to processes ranging from reward learning to cognitive control to action selection.
From the above it is clear that the striatal dopamine system is implicated in both Novelty seeking and Reward dependence. While the implicit, first-line, sub-cortical ‘emotional’ and unconscious processes sub served by hippocampus and amygdala may be the white tract inputs to the striatum that result in Novelty seeking behavior; the explicit, second-order, cortical, ‘cognitive’ and conscious processes sub served by frontal cortex may be the white matter inputs to the striatum that result in reward dependence behavior.
This indicates that the stage theories are true!! If one considers the sub-cortical responses to be immature and the cortical responses to be more mature than moving from novelty seeking focus to reward dependence focus is a move up the stages. What I propose is that each stage marks a movement from sub-cortical input reliance to cortical input reliance and also involves novel mechanisms and systems.
Thus, as per my theory, in the first stage of personality development, or for the trait Harm Avoidance, the white matter connections implicated should be between sub-cortical regions and raphe nucleus ( the serotonin system).
In stage 2, or for trait Novelty seeking, the white matter tracts involved should be between cortical regions and Raphe nucleus (serotonin system). Also as the earlier serotonin system comes moer and more unedr cortical control, the second system based on dopamine becomes active but is under sub-cortical control. Thus, white matter tracts involving sub-cortical regions and striatum/ VTA should also be involved.
In stage 3, or for trait Reward Dependence, the white matter tracts should be between cortical regions and striatum/ VTA as the earlier dopamine system predominance us reigned in and a new system based on nor-epinepherine replaces it. This nor-epinepherine will be under sub-cortical control and white matter tracts from sub-coritcal regions to locus ceruleus should also be involved.
And this same scheme should go on for fourth (epinepherine), fifth (histamine/ melatonin), sixth, seventh and eighth stages/ personality traits.
All these are testable hypothesis and can be easily verifed. If verified, they can shed immense light on how perosnality develops and what do temperaments/ character strengths really mean.
Hat tip: Neurological correlates
Michael X Cohen, Jan-Christoph Schoene-Bake, Christian E Elger, Bernd Weber (2008). Connectivity-based segregation of the human striatum predicts personality characteristics Nature Neuroscience DOI: 10.1038/nn.2228
More From TheMouseTrap
- Obesity and the dopamine connection
- Obesity: The Dopamine Connection
- Parapsychology: The alien hand syndrome, Ardhnarishwar and the epileptic (dis)connection
TheMouseTrap Recommends
- The brain-addiction connection : Neurons and neurotransmitters (adijaffe)
- The Fight of Heart and Mind (suniljoseph)
Goals of Psychology and major persoanlity theory groupings
Nov 7th
I recently came across the All Psych website which I found to be a very good resource for anyone interested in Psychology. I was reading the Personality synopsis section and was struck by the goals of psychology delineated there :
Psychology is the study of thoughts, emotions, and behavior, and their interaction with each other and the world. There are five basic goals of psychology:
1. Describe – The first goal is to observe behavior and describe, often in minute detail, what was observed as objectively as possible
2. Explain – While descriptions come from observable data, psychologists must go beyond what is obvious and explain their observations. In other words, why did the subject do what he or she did?
3. Predict – Once we know what happens, and why it happens, we can begin to speculate what will happen in the future. There’s an old saying, which very often holds true: “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
4. Control – Once we know what happens, why it happens and what is likely to happen in the future, we can excerpt control over it. In other words, if we know you choose abusive partners because your father was abusive, we can assume you will choose another abusive partner, and can therefore intervene to change this negative behavior.
5. Improve – Not only do psychologists attempt to control behavior, they want to do so in a positive manner, they want to improve a person’s life, not make it worse. This is not always the case, but it should always be the intention.
To me the five major goals of psychology follow the five general stages that I usually talk about: The first stage in my analysis of disparate phenomenons begins with it being descriptive and focused on clearly delineating the phenomenon under study and is generally biological. The second stage usually tries to find the impulses or reasons behind the phenomenon and is more related to explaining causes for the phenomenon and is generally related to motivation. The third stage is usually concerned with development of phenomenon such that we can get some basic predictive properties in the mundane real world and is generally related to outward behavior. The fourth stage is usually focussed on how the phenomenon can be kept in check and is generally related to social dimensions (conformity and peer pressures). The fifth stage is usually related to how the phenomenon sort of gets a unique personal flavor and is generally related to individualistic and individuation dimensions.
Now, as an example I will try to make a case that though all the major theoretical approaches in personality psychology make use of all the stages and have as their goal all the five goals as delineated above; some of them are more focussed on one particular goal/ stage and thus are characterized by that goal/ stage.
Let me briefly review the major theoretical approaches to personality psychology below in the light of this framework:
- Trait / Biological approaches to personality: I believe it is fair to group the biological and trait theories under the same group as the major feature of these theories is to outline the number of factors that can be used to describe a personality adequately. They are primarily descriptive in nature. One can argue that biological theories also explain the traits in terms of underlying biological markers; but that is juts begging the question one level down. Why does neurotransmitter system A over activation lead to this observable trait? They just describe the higher trait in terms of a lower biological phenomenon and are very good at descriptive level; but they lack explanatory powers.
- Psycho dynamic/ Psychoanalytical theories: These theories, the most famous being that of Freud, try to explain the personality and are totally obsessed in trying to find reasons for all and sundry observable phenomenon including accidental slips of tongues. these are very good at explanatory levels, but not very good at other levels like predicting personality from childhood experiences or even in adequately describing the personality structure. They are more focussed on dynamics and less on structure.
- Behavioristic/ behavior genetics theories: These theories , the most famous being Skinnerian theories are most concerned with predicting behavior based on past experiences/ learning. These are the S-R or CS-CR theories and operant theories; the primary motivation not being to either describe or to explain personality; but just to predict how a behavior can be predicted given a personality (previous behavioristic learning). Thus the primary focus on the ability to predict phenomenon and applications too limited to situations and traits that can lead to predictability.
- Social learning/ Cognitive theories: These theories like that of Bandura, Beck etc are more concerned with how personality can be ingrained or learned and controlled. Both Bandura’s bobo doll experiments as well as CBT point to the direction and focus of these approaches: what are the right conditions of personality formation and how that process can be controlled either by providing right role models/ environments conducive to social learning or by changing our cognitive schema. The action has moved away from describing or explaining or predicting to controlling how a good and socially acceptable personality can be formed/ learned.
- Existential – Phenomenological theories: These theories, like that of Maslow, are more concerned with how to improve one’s personality. The focus is on flows, self-actualization, self-transcendence or whatever. One has moved away from mere description, analysis, prediction or control to actually thinking about what is a good personality and how to attain it; hence the primary focus on finding meaning; finding full potential and on improvement and positive psychology
I am sure there are other approaches to personality that I have not covered here- like the evolutionary theories; but than what else are the next three stages for, if not to make room for more such approaches!!
Do let me know if you disagree that the major approaches to personality theory follow a patterns and sort of stages and are primarily concerned with one primary goal at the cost of the other.
More From TheMouseTrap
- Major conscious and unconcoscious processes in the brain
- Unification of psychology in either direction
- The green dot illusion and Opponent Process Theory
TheMouseTrap Recommends
- The Fight of Heart and Mind (suniljoseph)
- Currency Of Civilization (suniljoseph)
Allport’s eight stages of self (proprium) development
Sep 25th
While we are at the subject of personality, it would be instructive to note the contributions of Gordon Allport. He has had a seminal influence, introduced traits, but was simultaneously a believer in the uniqueness of an individual and wholeness of personality. His identified adjectives, amongst others, were subjected to factor analysis by Goldberg and that revealed the famous five (or the Big Five). However, one of the things that never caught up , was the term proprium he introduced for self. However some of his concepts for self have stood the test of time.
This post is about the development stages by which the self or unifying personal meaning construct of a person develops. Like most of the other developmental stage theories (like Loevinger’s ego development theory) this too follows a eight stage unfolding of self.
- The Sense of Bodily Self, which is a sense of one’s own body, including bodily sensations, attests to one’s existence and therefore remains a lifelong anchor for self-awareness.
- The Sense of Self-identity , which is the second aspect of the proprium is self-identity. This is most evident when the child, through acquiring language, recognizes himself as a distinct and constant point of reference.
- The Sense of Self-Esteem or Pride, which is an individual’s evaluation of himself and the urge to want to do everything for oneself and take all of the credit.
- The Sense of Self-Extension, occurs during the third year of life, which states that even though some things are not inside my physical body they are still very much a part of one’s life.
- The Self-Image, or how others view “me” is another aspect of selfhood that emerges during childhood.
- The Sense of Self as a Rational-Coper occurs between the ages of six and twelve in which the child begins to realize fully that he ahs the rational capacity to find solutions to life’s problems, so that they can cope effectively with reality demands.
- Propriate Striving, which Allport believed to be the core problem for the adolescent. It is the selection of the occupation or other life goal, the adolescent knows that their future must follow a plan, and in this sense makes them lose their childhood.
- Self as a Knower:The knower (thinking agent) “rides” on top of them. The thinker is different from his or her thoughts, is Allport’s stand, contrary to William James, who ridiculously maintains that “The thoughts themselves are the thinker”
Note that this concept of self is more in cognitive terms while Loevinger’s is more in psychoanalytical terms.
Another alternative description of the same stages is present here:
Sense of body develops in the first two years of life. We have one, we feel its closeness, its warmth. It has boundaries that pain and injury, touch and movement, make us aware of. Allport had a favorite demonstration of this aspect of self: Imagine spitting saliva into a cup — and then drinking it down! What’s the problem? It’s the same stuff you swallow all day long! But, of course, it has gone out from your bodily self and become, thereby, foreign to you.Self-identity also develops in the first two years. There comes a point were we recognize ourselves as continuing, as having a past, present, and future. We see ourselves as individual entities, separate and different from others. We even have a name! Will you be the same person when you wake up tomorrow? Of course — we take that continuity for granted.
Self-esteem develops between two and four years old. There also comes a time when we recognize that we have value, to others and to ourselves. This is especially tied to a continuing development of our competencies. This, for Allport, is what the “anal” stage is really all about!
Self-extension develops between four and six. Certain things, people, and events around us also come to be thought of as central and warm, essential to my existence. “My” is very close to “me!” Some people define themselves in terms of their parents, spouse, or children, their clan, gang, community, college, or nation. Some find their identity in activities: I’m a psychologist, a student, a bricklayer. Some find identity in a place: my house, my hometown. When my child does something wrong, why do I feel guilty? If someone scratches my car, why do I feel like they just punches me?
Self-image also develops between four and six. This is the “looking-glass self,” the me as others see me. This is the impression I make on others, my “look,” my social esteem or status, including my sexual identity. It is the beginning of what conscience, ideal self, and persona.
Rational coping is learned predominantly in the years from six till twelve. The child begins to develop his or her abilities to deal with life’s problems rationally and effectively. This is analogous to Erikson’s “industry.”
Propriate striving doesn’t usually begin till after twelve years old. This is my self as goals, ideal, plans, vocations, callings, a sense of direction, a sense of purpose. The culmination of propriate striving, according to Allport, is the ability to say that I am the proprietor of my life — i.e. the owner and operator!
I can easily relate these to the general eight stage framework:, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the readers!!
More From TheMouseTrap
- Cognitive Development: The different perceptual systems while undertaking point-of-view tasks
- Goals of Psychology and major persoanlity theory groupings
- The importance of being Earnest
TheMouseTrap Recommends
- The Fight of Heart and Mind (suniljoseph)
- Currency Of Civilization (suniljoseph)
Recent Comments