Freud was influenced by the work of the French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–1893),

who had been interviewing patients (almost all women) who were experiencing what was at the
time known as hysteria. Although it is no longer used to describe a psychological disorder,
hysteria at the time referred to a set of personality and physical symptoms that included chronic
pain, fainting, seizures, and paralysis.

Charcot could find no biological reason for the symptoms. For instance, some women
experienced a loss of feeling in their hands and yet not in their arms, and this seemed impossible
given that the nerves in the arms are the same that are in the hands. Charcot was experimenting
with the use of hypnosis, and he and Freud found that under hypnosis many of the hysterical
patients reported having experienced a traumatic sexual experience, such as sexual abuse, as
children (Dolnick, 1998). [2]

Freud and Charcot also found that during hypnosis the remembering of the trauma was often
accompanied by an outpouring of emotion, known ascatharsis, and that following the catharsis
the patient’s symptoms were frequently reduced in severity. These observations led Freud and
Charcot to conclude that these disorders were caused by psychological rather than physiological
factors.

Freud used the observations that he and Charcot had made to develop his theory regarding the
sources of personality and behavior, and his insights are central to the fundamental themes of
psychology. In terms of free will, Freud did not believe that we were able to control our own
behaviors. Rather, he believed that all behaviors are predetermined by motivations that lie
outside our awareness, in the unconscious. These forces show themselves in our dreams, in
neurotic symptoms such as obsessions, while we are under hypnosis, and in Freudian “slips of
the tongue” in which people reveal their unconscious desires in language. Freud argued that we
rarely understand why we do what we do, although we can make up explanations for our
behaviors after the fact. For Freud the mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of
the unconscious being much larger, but also out of sight, in comparison to the consciousness of
which we are aware (Figure 11.8 "Mind as Iceberg").

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

561
Figure 11.8 Mind as Iceberg

In Sigmund Freud’s conceptualization of personality, the most important motivations are unconscious, just as the

major part of an iceberg is under water.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

562
Id, Ego, and Superego

Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, andsuperego, and that
the interactions and conflicts among the components create personality (Freud,
1923/1943). [3] According to Freudian theory, the id is the component of personality that forms
the basis of our most primitive impulses. The id is entirely unconscious, and it drives our most
important motivations, including the sexual drive (libido) and the aggressive or destructive drive
(Thanatos). According to Freud, the id is driven by the pleasure principle—the desire for
immediate gratification of our sexual and aggressive urges. The id is why we smoke cigarettes,
drink alcohol, view pornography, tell mean jokes about people, and engage in other fun or
harmful behaviors, often at the cost of doing more productive activities.

In stark contrast to the id, the superego represents our sense of morality and oughts. The
superego tell us all the things that we shouldn’t do, or the duties and obligations of society. The
superego strives for perfection, and when we fail to live up to its demands we feel guilty.

In contrast to the id, which is about the pleasure principle, the function of theego is based on
the reality principle—the idea that we must delay gratification of our basic motivations until the
appropriate time with the appropriate outlet. The ego is the largely conscious controller or
decision-maker of personality. The ego serves as the intermediary between the desires of the id
and the constraints of society contained in the superego (Figure 11.9 "Ego, Id, and Superego in
Interaction"). We may wish to scream, yell, or hit, and yet our ego normally tells us to wait,
reflect, and choose a more appropriate response.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

563
Figure 11.9 Ego, Id, and Superego in Interaction

Freud believed that psychological disorders, and particularly the experience of anxiety, occur
when there is conflict or imbalance among the motivations of the id, ego, and superego. When
the ego finds that the id is pressing too hard for immediate pleasure, it attempts to correct for this
problem, often through the use of defense mechanisms—unconscious psychological strategies
used to cope with anxiety and to maintain a positive self-image. Freud believed that the defense
mechanisms were essential for effective coping with everyday life, but that any of them could be
overused (Table 11.4 "The Major Freudian Defense Mechanisms").

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

564
Table 11.4 The Major Freudian Defense Mechanisms
Defense
mechanism Definition Possible behavioral example

Diverting threatening impulses away from the A student who is angry at her professor for a low
source of the anxiety and toward a more grade lashes out at her roommate, who is a safer
Displacement acceptable source target of her anger.

Disguising threatening impulses by attributing A man with powerful unconscious sexual desires for
Projection them to others women claims that women use him as a sex object.

Generating self-justifying explanations for our A drama student convinces herself that getting the
Rationalization negative behaviors part in the play wasn’t that important after all.

Reaction Making unacceptable motivations appear as Jane is sexually attracted to friend Jake, but she
formation their exact opposite claims in public that she intensely dislikes him.

Retreating to an earlier, more childlike, and A college student who is worried about an important
Regression safer stage of development test begins to suck on his finger.

Repression (or Pushing anxiety-arousing thoughts into the A person who witnesses his parents having sex is
denial) unconscious later unable to remember anything about the event.

A person participates in sports to sublimate

Channeling unacceptable sexual or aggressive aggressive drives. A person creates music or art to
Sublimation desires into acceptable activities sublimate sexual drives.

The most controversial, and least scientifically valid, part of Freudian theory is its explanations
of personality development. Freud argued that personality is developed through a series
of psychosexual stages, each focusing on pleasure from a different part of the body (Table 11.5
"Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development"). Freud believed that sexuality begins in infancy,
and that the appropriate resolution of each stage has implications for later personality
development.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

565
Table 11.5 Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development
Stage Approximate ages Description

Oral Birth to 18 months Pleasure comes from the mouth in the form of sucking, biting, and chewing.

18 months to 3
Anal years Pleasure comes from bowel and bladder elimination and the constraints of toilet training.

Pleasure comes from the genitals, and the conflict is with sexual desires for the opposite-
Phallic 3 years to 6 years sex parent.

Latency 6 years to puberty Sexual feelings are less important.

Genital Puberty and older If prior stages have been properly reached, mature sexual orientation develops.

In the first of Freud’s proposed stages of psychosexual development, which begins at birth and
lasts until about 18 months of age, the focus is on the mouth. During this oral stage, the infant
obtains sexual pleasure by sucking and drinking. Infants who receive either too little or too much
gratification becomefixated or “locked” in the oral stage, and are likely to regress to these points
of fixation under stress, even as adults. According to Freud, a child who receives too little oral
gratification (e.g., who was underfed or neglected) will becomeorally dependent as an adult and
be likely to manipulate others to fulfill his or her needs rather than becoming independent. On
the other hand, the child who was overfed or overly gratified will resist growing up and try to
return to the prior state of dependency by acting helpless, demanding satisfaction from others,
and acting in a needy way.

The anal stage, lasting from about 18 months to 3 years of age is when children first experience
psychological conflict. During this stage children desire to experience pleasure through bowel
movements, but they are also being toilet trained to delay this gratification. Freud believed that if
this toilet training was either too harsh or too lenient, children would become fixated in the anal
stage and become likely to regress to this stage under stress as adults. If the child received too
little anal gratification (i.e., if the parents had been very harsh about toilet training), the adult
personality will be anal retentive—stingy, with a compulsive seeking of order and tidiness. On
the other hand, if the parents had been too lenient, the anal expulsive personality results,
characterized by a lack of self-control and a tendency toward messiness and carelessness.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

566
The phallic stage, which lasts from age 3 to age 6 is when the penis (for boys) and clitoris (for
girls) become the primary erogenous zone for sexual pleasure. During this stage, Freud believed
that children develop a powerful but unconscious attraction for the opposite-sex parent, as well
as a desire to eliminate the same-sex parent as a rival. Freud based his theory of sexual
development in boys (the “Oedipus complex”) on the Greek mythological character Oedipus,
who unknowingly killed his father and married his mother, and then put his own eyes out when
he learned what he had done. Freud argued that boys will normally eventually abandon their love
of the mother, and instead identify with the father, also taking on the father’s personality
characteristics, but that boys who do not successfully resolve the Oedipus complex will
experience psychological problems later in life. Although it was not as important in Freud’s
theorizing, in girls the phallic stage is often termed the “Electra complex,” after the Greek
character who avenged her father’s murder by killing her mother. Freud believed that girls
frequently experiencedpenis envy, the sense of deprivation supposedly experienced by girls
because they do not have a penis.

The latency stage is a period of relative calm that lasts from about 6 years to 12 years. During
this time, Freud believed that sexual impulses were repressed, leading boys and girls to have
little or no interest in members of the opposite sex.

The fifth and last stage, the genital stage, begins about 12 years of age and lasts into adulthood.
According to Freud, sexual impulses return during this time frame, and if development has
proceeded normally to this point, the child is able to move into the development of mature
romantic relationships. But if earlier problems have not been appropriately resolved, difficulties
with establishing intimate love attachments are likely.

Freud’s Followers: The Neo-Freudians

Freudian theory was so popular that it led to a number of followers, including many of Freud’s
own students, who developed, modified, and expanded his theories. Taken together, these
approaches are known as neo-Freudian theories. The neo-Freudian theories are theories based
on Freudian principles that emphasize the role of the unconscious and early experience in
shaping personality but place less evidence on sexuality as the primary motivating force in

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

567
personality and are more optimistic concerning the prospects for personality growth and change
in personality in adults.

Alfred Adler (1870–1937) was a follower of Freud who developed his own interpretation of
Freudian theory. Adler proposed that the primary motivation in human personality was not sex or
aggression, but rather the striving for superiority. According to Adler, we desire to be better than
others and we accomplish this goal by creating a unique and valuable life. We may attempt to
satisfy our need for superiority through our school or professional accomplishments, or by our
enjoyment of music, athletics, or other activities that seem important to us.

Adler believed that psychological disorders begin in early childhood. He argued that children
who are either overly nurtured or overly neglected by their parents are later likely to develop
an inferiority complex—a psychological state in which people feel that they are not living up to
expectations, leading them to have low self-esteem, with a tendency to try to overcompensate for
the negative feelings. People with an inferiority complex often attempt to demonstrate their
superiority to others at all costs, even if it means humiliating, dominating, or alienating them.
According to Adler, most psychological disorders result from misguided attempts to compensate
for the inferiority complex in order meet the goal of superiority.

Carl Jung (1875–1961) was another student of Freud who developed his own theories about
personality. Jung agreed with Freud about the power of the unconscious but felt that Freud
overemphasized the importance of sexuality. Jung argued that in addition to the personal
unconscious, there was also acollective unconscious, or a collection of shared ancestral
memories. Jung believed that the collective unconscious contains a variety of archetypes, or
cross-culturally universal symbols, which explain the similarities among people in their
emotional reactions to many stimuli. Important archetypes include the mother, the goddess, the
hero, and the mandala or circle, which Jung believed symbolized a desire for wholeness or unity.
For Jung, the underlying motivation that guides successful personality is self-realization, or
learning about and developing the self to the fullest possible extent.

Karen Horney (the last syllable of her last name rhymes with “eye”; 1855–1952), was a German
physician who applied Freudian theories to create a personality theory that she thought was more

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

568
balanced between men and women. Horney believed that parts of Freudian theory, and
particularly the ideas of the Oedipus complex and penis envy, were biased against women.
Horney argued that women’s sense of inferiority was not due to their lack of a penis but rather to
their dependency on men, an approach that the culture made it difficult for them to break from.
For Horney, the underlying motivation that guides personality development is the desire
for security, the ability to develop appropriate and supportive relationships with others.

Another important neo-Freudian was Erich Fromm (1900–1980). Fromm’s focus was on the
negative impact of technology, arguing that the increases in its use have led people to feel
increasingly isolated from others. Fromm believed that the independence that technology brings
us also creates the need “escape from freedom,” that is, to become closer to others.

Research Focus: How the Fear of Death Causes Aggressive Behavior

Fromm believed that the primary human motivation was to escape the fear of death, and contemporary research has

shown how our concerns about dying can influence our behavior. In this research, people have been made to confront

their death by writing about it or otherwise being reminded of it, and effects on their behavior are then observed. In
[4]
one relevant study, McGregor et al. (1998) demonstrated that people who are provoked may be particularly

aggressive after they have been reminded of the possibility of their own death. The participants in the study had been

selected, on the basis of prior reporting, to have either politically liberal or politically conservative views. When they

arrived at the lab they were asked to write a short paragraph describing their opinion of politics in the United States.

In addition, half of the participants (the mortality salient condition) were asked to “briefly describe the emotions that

the thought of your own death arouses in you” and to “jot down as specifically as you can, what you think will happen

to you as you physically die, and once you are physically dead.” Participants in the exam control condition also

thought about a negative event, but not one associated with a fear of death. They were instructed to “please briefly

describe the emotions that the thought of your next important exam arouses in you” and to “jot down as specifically as

you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically take your next exam, and once you are physically taking

your next exam.”

Then the participants read the essay that had supposedly just been written by another person. (The other person did

not exist, but the participants didn’t know this until the end of the experiment.) The essay that they read had been

prepared by the experimenters to be very negative toward politically liberal views or to be very negative toward

politically conservative views. Thus one-half of the participants were provoked by the other person by reading a

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

569
statement that strongly conflicted with their own political beliefs, whereas the other half read an essay in which the

other person’s views supported their own (liberal or conservative) beliefs.

At this point the participants moved on to what they thought was a completely separate study in which they were to be

tasting and giving their impression of some foods. Furthermore, they were told that it was necessary for the

participants in the research to administer the food samples to each other. At this point, the participants found out that

the food they were going to be sampling was spicy hot sauce and that they were going to be administering the sauce to

the very person whose essay they had just read. In addition, the participants read some information about the other

person that indicated that he very much disliked eating spicy food. Participants were given a taste of the hot sauce (it

was really hot!) and then instructed to place a quantity of it into a cup for the other person to sample. Furthermore,

they were told that the other person would have to eat all the sauce.

As you can see in Figure 11.10 "Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation", McGregor et al.

found that the participants who had not been reminded of their own death, even if they had been insulted by the

partner, did not retaliate by giving him a lot of hot sauce to eat. On the other hand, the participants who were both

provoked by the other person and who had also been reminded of their own death administered significantly more

hot sauce than did the participants in the other three conditions. McGregor et al. (1998) argued that thinking about

one’s own death creates a strong concern with maintaining one’s one cherished worldviews (in this case our political

beliefs). When we are concerned about dying we become more motivated to defend these important beliefs from the

challenges made by others, in this case by aggressing through the hot sauce.

Figure 11.10Aggression as a Function of Mortality Salience and Provocation

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

570
Participants who had been provoked by a stranger who disagreed with them on important opinions, and who had

also been reminded of their own death, administered significantly more unpleasant hot sauce to the partner than

did the participants in the other three conditions.

Source: Adapted from McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon,

L.,…Pyszczynski, T. (1998). Terror management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience motivates

aggression against worldview-threatening others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 590–605.

Strengths and Limitations of Freudian and Neo-Freudian Approaches

Freud has probably exerted a greater impact on the public’s understanding of personality than
any other thinker, and he has also in large part defined the field of psychology. Although
Freudian psychologists no longer talk about oral, anal, or genital “fixations,” they do continue to
believe that our childhood experiences and unconscious motivations shape our personalities and
our attachments with others, and they still make use of psychodynamic concepts when they
conduct psychological therapy.

Nevertheless, Freud’s theories, as well as those of the neo-Freudians, have in many cases failed
to pass the test of empiricism, and as a result they are less influential now than they have been in
the past (Crews, 1998). [5] The problems are first, that it has proved to be difficult to rigorously
test Freudian theory because the predictions that it makes (particularly those regarding defense
mechanisms) are often vague and unfalsifiable, and second, that the aspects of the theory that can
be tested often have not received much empirical support.

As examples, although Freud claimed that children exposed to overly harsh toilet training would
become fixated in the anal stage and thus be prone to excessive neatness, stinginess, and
stubbornness in adulthood, research has found few reliable associations between toilet training
practices and adult personality (Fisher & Greenberg, 1996). [6] And since the time of Freud, the
need to repress sexual desires would seem to have become much less necessary as societies have
tolerated a wider variety of sexual practices. And yet the psychological disorders that Freud
thought we caused by this repression have not decreased.

There is also little scientific support for most of the Freudian defense mechanisms. For example,
studies have failed to yield evidence for the existence of repression. People who are exposed to

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

571
traumatic experiences in war have been found to remember their traumas only too well
(Kihlstrom, 1997). [7] Although we may attempt to push information that is anxiety-arousing into
our unconscious, this often has the ironic effect of making us think about the information even
more strongly than if we hadn’t tried to repress it (Newman, Duff, & Baumeister, 1997). [8] It is
true that children remember little of their childhood experiences, but this seems to be true of both
negative as well as positive experiences, is true for animals as well, and probably is better
explained in terms of the brain’s inability to form long-term memories than in terms of
repression. On the other hand, Freud’s important idea that expressing or talking through one’s
difficulties can be psychologically helpful has been supported in current research (Baddeley &
Pennebaker, 2009) [9] and has become a mainstay of psychological therapy.

A particular problem for testing Freudian theories is that almost anything that conflicts with a
prediction based in Freudian theory can be explained away in terms of the use of a defense
mechanism. A man who expresses a lot of anger toward his father may be seen via Freudian
theory to be experiencing the Oedipus complex, which includes conflict with the father. But a
man who expresses no anger at all toward the father also may be seen as experiencing the
Oedipus complex by repressing the anger. Because Freud hypothesized that either was possible,
but did not specify when repression would or would not occur, the theory is difficult to falsify.

In terms of the important role of the unconscious, Freud seems to have been at least in part
correct. More and more research demonstrates that a large part of everyday behavior is driven by
processes that are outside our conscious awareness (Kihlstrom, 1987). [10] And yet, although our
unconscious motivations influence every aspect of our learning and behavior Freud probably
overestimated the extent to which these unconscious motivations are primarily sexual and
aggressive.

Taken together, it is fair to say that Freudian theory, like most psychological theories, was not
entirely correct and that it has had to be modified over time as the results of new studies have
become available. But the fundamental ideas about personality that Freud proposed, as well as
the use of talk therapy as an essential component of therapy, are nevertheless still a major part of
psychology and are used by clinical psychologists every day.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

572
Focusing on the Self: Humanism and Self-Actualization

Psychoanalytic models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and 1960s by the
theories of humanistic psychologists. In contrast to the proponents of psychoanalysis, humanists
embraced the notion of free will. Arguing that people are free to choose their own lives and make
their own decisions, humanistic psychologists focused on the underlying motivations that they
believed drove personality, focusing on the nature of the self-concept,the set of beliefs about who
we are, and self-esteem, our positive feelings about the self.

One of the most important humanists, Abraham Maslow (1908–1970), conceptualized

personality in terms of a pyramid-shaped hierarchy of motives(Figure 11.11 "Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs"). At the base of the pyramid are the lowest-level motivations, including
hunger and thirst, and safety and belongingness. Maslow argued that only when people are able
to meet the lower-level needs are they able to move on to achieve the higher-level needs of self-
esteem, and eventually self-actualization, which is the motivation to develop our innate potential
to the fullest possible extent.

Maslow studied how successful people, including Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Martin
Luther King Jr., Helen Keller, and Mahatma Gandhi had been able to lead such successful and
productive lives. Maslow (1970) [11] believed that self-actualized people are creative,
spontaneous, and loving of themselves and others. They tend to have a few deep friendships
rather than many superficial ones, and are generally private. He felt that these individuals do not
need to conform to the opinions of others because they are very confident and thus free to
express unpopular opinions. Self-actualized people are also likely to have peak experiences, or
transcendent moments of tranquility accompanied by a strong sense of connection with others.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

573
Figure 11.11 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow conceptualized personality in terms of a hierarchy of needs. The highest of these motivations is

self-actualization.

Perhaps the best-known humanistic theorist is Carl Rogers (1902–1987). Rogers was positive
about human nature, viewing people as primarily moral and helpful to others, and believed that
we can achieve our full potential for emotional fulfillment if the self-concept is characterized
byunconditional positive regard—a set of behaviors including being genuine, open to
experience, transparent, able to listen to others, and self-disclosing and empathic. When we treat
ourselves or others with unconditional positive regard, we express understanding and support,
even while we may acknowledge failings. Unconditional positive regard allows us to admit our
fears and failures, to drop our pretenses, and yet at the same time to feel completely accepted for
what we are. The principle of unconditional positive regard has become a foundation of
psychological therapy; therapists who use it in their practice are more effective than those who
do not (Prochaska & Norcross, 2007; Yalom, 1995). [12]

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

574
Although there are critiques of the humanistic psychologists (e.g., that Maslow focused on
historically productive rather than destructive personalities in his research and thus drew overly
optimistic conclusions about the capacity of people to do good), the ideas of humanism are so
powerful and optimistic that they have continued to influence both everyday experiences as well
as psychology. Today the positive psychology movement argues for many of these ideas, and
research has documented the extent to which thinking positively and openly has important
positive consequences for our relationships, our life satisfaction, and our psychological and
physical health (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). [13]

Research Focus: Self-Discrepancies, Anxiety, and Depression

[14]
Tory Higgins and his colleagues (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Strauman & Higgins, 1988) have

studied how different aspects of the self-concept relate to personality characteristics. These researchers focused on

the types of emotional distress that we might experience as a result of how we are currently evaluating our self-

concept. Higgins proposes that the emotions we experience are determined both by our perceptions of how well our

own behaviors meet up to the standards and goals we have provided ourselves (our internal standards) and by our

perceptions of how others think about us (our external standards). Furthermore, Higgins argues that different types

of self-discrepancies lead to different types of negative emotions.

[15]
In one of Higgins’s experiments (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman., 1986), participants were first asked to

describe themselves using a self-report measure. The participants listed 10 thoughts that they thought described the

kind of person they actually are; this is the actual self-concept. Then, participants also listed 10 thoughts that they

thought described the type of person they would “ideally like to be” (the ideal self-concept) as well as 10 thoughts

describing the way that someone else—for instance, a parent—thinks they “ought to be” (the ought self-concept).

Higgins then divided his participants into two groups. Those with low self-concept discrepancies were those who

listed similar traits on all three lists. Their ideal, ought, and actual self-concepts were all pretty similar and so they

were not considered to be vulnerable to threats to their self-concept. The other half of the participants, those

with high self-concept discrepancies, were those for whom the traits listed on the ideal and ought lists were very

different from those listed on the actual self list. These participants were expected to be vulnerable to threats to the

self-concept.

Then, at a later research session, Higgins first asked people to express their current emotions, including those related

to sadness and anxiety. After obtaining this baseline measure Higgins activated either ideal or ought discrepancies for

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

575
the participants. Participants in the ideal self-discrepancy priming condition were asked to think about and discuss

their own and their parents’ hopes and goals for them. Participants in the ought self-priming condition listed their

own and their parents’ beliefs concerning their duty and obligations. Then all participants again indicated their

current emotions.

As you can see in Figure 11.12 "Results From Higgins, Bond, Klein, and Strauman, 1986", for low self-concept

discrepancy participants, thinking about their ideal or ought selves did not much change their emotions. For high

self-concept discrepancy participants, however, priming the ideal self-concept increased their sadness and dejection,

whereas priming the ought self-concept increased their anxiety and agitation. These results are consistent with the

idea that discrepancies between the ideal and the actual self lead us to experience sadness, dissatisfaction, and other

depression-related emotions, whereas discrepancies between the actual and ought self are more likely to lead to fear,

worry, tension, and other anxiety-related emotions.

Figure 11.12Results From Higgins, Bond, Klein, and Strauman, 1986

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

576
Higgins and his colleagues documented the impact of self-concept discrepancies on emotion. For participants with

low self-concept discrepancies (right bars), seeing words that related to the self had little influence on emotions. For

those with high self-concept discrepancies (left bars), priming the ideal self increased dejection whereas priming the

ought self increased agitation.

Source: Adapted from Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and

emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 5–15.

One of the critical aspects of Higgins’s approach is that, as is our personality, our feelings are also influenced both by

our own behavior and by our expectations of how other people view us. This makes it clear that even though you

might not care that much about achieving in school, your failure to do well may still produce negative emotions

because you realize that your parents do think it is important.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• One of the most important psychological approaches to understanding personality is based on the psychodynamic

approach to personality developed by Sigmund Freud.

• For Freud the mind was like an iceberg, with the many motivations of the unconscious being much larger, but also out

of sight, in comparison to the consciousness of which we are aware.

• Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and superego, and that the interactions and

conflicts among the components create personality.

• Freud proposed that we use defense mechanisms to cope with anxiety and to maintain a positive self-image.

• Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages, each focusing on pleasure from a

different part of the body.

• The neo-Freudian theorists, including Adler, Jung, Horney, and Fromm, emphasized the role of the unconscious and

early experience in shaping personality, but placed less evidence on sexuality as the primary motivating force in

personality.

• Psychoanalytic and behavioral models of personality were complemented during the 1950s and 1960s by the theories

of humanistic psychologists, including Maslow and Rogers.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

577
 EXERCISES AND CRITICAL THINKING

1. Based on your understanding of psychodynamic theories, how would you analyze your own personality? Are there

aspects of the theory that might help you explain your own strengths and weaknesses?

2. Based on your understanding of humanistic theories, how would you try to change your behavior to better meet the

underlying motivations of security, acceptance, and self-realization?

3. Consider your own self-concept discrepancies. Do you have an actual-ideal or actual-ought discrepancy? Which one is

more important for you, and why?

[1] Roudinesco, E. (2003). Why psychoanalysis? New York, NY: Columbia University Press; Taylor, E. (2009). The mystery of

personality: A history of psychodynamic theories. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

[2] Dolnick, E. (1998). Madness on the couch: Blaming the victim in the heyday of psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster.

[3] Freud, S. (1923/1949). The ego and the id. London, England: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923)

[4] McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon, L.,…Pyszczynski, T. (1998). Terror

management and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening

others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 590–605.

[5] Crews, F. C. (1998). Unauthorized Freud: Doubters confront a legend. New York, NY: Viking Press.

[6] Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. P. (1996). Freud scientifically reappraised: Testing the theories and therapy. Oxford, England: John

Wiley & Sons.

[7] Kihlstrom, J. F. (1997). Memory, abuse, and science. American Psychologist, 52(9), 994–995.

[8] Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection: Thought suppression, accessibility,

and biased person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 980–1001.

[9] Baddeley, J. L., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Expressive writing. In W. T. O’Donohue & J. E. Fisher (Eds.), General principles

and empirically supported techniques of cognitive behavior therapy (pp. 295–299). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

[10] Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445–1452.

[11] Maslow, Abraham (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper.

[12] Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2007). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:

Brooks/Cole; Yalom, I. (1995). Introduction. In C. Rogers, A way of being. (1980). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

[13] Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

578
[14] Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude,

accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 5–15; Strauman, T. J.,

& Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional

distress. Journal of Personality, 56(4), 685–707.

[15] Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude,

accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 5–15.

11.3 Is Personality More Nature or More Nurture? Behavioral and

Molecular Genetics
LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Explain how genes transmit personality from one generation to the next.

2. Outline the methods of behavioral genetics studies and the conclusions that we can draw from them about the

determinants of personality.

3. Explain how molecular genetics research helps us understand the role of genetics in personality.

One question that is exceedingly important for the study of personality concerns the extent to
which it is the result of nature or nurture. If nature is more important, then our personalities will
form early in our lives and will be difficult to change later. If nurture is more important,
however, then our experiences are likely to be particularly important, and we may be able to
flexibly alter our personalities over time. In this section we will see that the personality traits of
humans and animals are determined in large part by their genetic makeup, and thus it is no
surprise that identical twins Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein turned out to be very similar even
though they had been raised separately. But we will also see that genetics does not determine
everything.

In the nucleus of each cell in your body are 23 pairs of chromosomes. One of each pair comes
from your father, and the other comes from your mother. The chromosomes are made up of
strands of the molecule DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and the DNA is grouped into segments
known as genes. A gene is the basic biological unit that transmits characteristics from one
generation to the next. Human cells have about 25,000 genes.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

579
The genes of different members of the same species are almost identical. The DNA in your
genes, for instance, is about 99.9% the same as the DNA in my genes and in the DNA of every
other human being. These common genetic structures lead members of the same species to be
born with a variety of behaviors that come naturally to them and that define the characteristics of
the species. These abilities and characteristics are known as instincts—complex inborn patterns
of behaviors that help ensure survival and reproduction(Tinbergen, 1951). [1] Different animals
have different instincts. Birds naturally build nests, dogs are naturally loyal to their human
caretakers, and humans instinctively learn to walk and to speak and understand language.

But the strength of different traits and behaviors also varies within species. Rabbits are naturally
fearful, but some are more fearful than others; some dogs are more loyal than others to their
caretakers; and some humans learn to speak and write better than others do. These differences
are determined in part by the small amount (in humans, the 0.1%) of the differences in genes
among the members of the species.

Personality is not determined by any single gene, but rather by the actions of many genes
working together. There is no “IQ gene” that determines intelligence and there is no “good
marriage partner gene” that makes a person a particularly good marriage bet. Furthermore, even
working together, genes are not so powerful that they can control or create our personality. Some
genes tend to increase a given characteristic and others work to decrease that same
characteristic—the complex relationship among the various genes, as well as a variety of random
factors, produces the final outcome. Furthermore, genetic factors always work with
environmental factors to create personality. Having a given pattern of genes doesn’t necessarily
mean that a particular trait will develop, because some traits might occur only in some
environments. For example, a person may have a genetic variant that is known to increase his or
her risk for developing emphysema from smoking. But if that person never smokes, then
emphysema most likely will not develop.

Studying Personality Using Behavioral Genetics

Perhaps the most direct way to study the role of genetics in personality is to selectively breed
animals for the trait of interest. In this approach the scientist chooses the animals that most

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

580
strongly express the personality characteristics of interest and breeds these animals with each
other. If the selective breeding creates offspring with even stronger traits, then we can assume
that the trait has genetic origins. In this manner, scientists have studied the role of genetics in
how worms respond to stimuli, how fish develop courtship rituals, how rats differ in play, and
how pigs differ in their responses to stress.

Although selective breeding studies can be informative, they are clearly not useful for studying
humans. For this psychologists rely onbehavioral genetics—a variety of research techniques that
scientists use to learn about the genetic and environmental influences on human behavior by
comparing the traits of biologically and nonbiologically related family members (Baker,
2010). [2] Behavioral genetics is based on the results of family studies, twin studies, and adoptive
studies.

A family study starts with one person who has a trait of interest—for instance, a developmental
disorder such as autism—and examines the individual’s family tree to determine the extent to
which other members of the family also have the trait. The presence of the trait in first-degree
relatives (parents, siblings, and children) is compared to the prevalence of the trait in second-
degree relatives (aunts, uncles, grandchildren, grandparents, and nephews or nieces) and in more
distant family members. The scientists then analyze the patterns of the trait in the family
members to see the extent to which it is shared by closer and more distant relatives.

Although family studies can reveal whether a trait runs in a family, it cannot explain why. In
a twin study, researchers study the personality characteristics of twins. Twin studies rely on the
fact that identical (or monozygotic) twins have essentially the same set of genes, while fraternal
(or dizygotic) twins have, on average, a half-identical set. The idea is that if the twins are raised
in the same household, then the twins will be influenced by their environments to an equal
degree, and this influence will be pretty much equal for identical and fraternal twins. In other
words, if environmental factors are the same, then the only factor that can make identical twins
more similar than fraternal twins is their greater genetic similarity.

In a twin study, the data from many pairs of twins are collected and the rates of similarity for
identical and fraternal pairs are compared. A correlation coefficient is calculated that assesses

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

581
the extent to which the trait for one twin is associated with the trait in the other twin. Twin
studies divide the influence of nature and nurture into three parts:

Heritability (i.e., genetic influence) is indicated when the correlation coefficient for identical
twins exceeds that for fraternal twins, indicating that shared DNA is an important determinant of
personality.

Shared environment determinants are indicated when the correlation coefficients for identical
and fraternal twins are greater than zero and also very similar. These correlations indicate that
both twins are having experiences in the family that make them alike.

Nonshared environment is indicated when identical twins do not have similar traits. These
influences refer to experiences that are not accounted for either by heritability or by shared
environmental factors. Nonshared environmental factors are the experiences that make
individuals within the same family less alike. If a parent treats one child more affectionately than
another, and as a consequence this child ends up with higher self-esteem, the parenting in this
case is a nonshared environmental factor.

In the typical twin study, all three sources of influence are operating simultaneously, and it is
possible to determine the relative importance of each type.

An adoption study compares biologically related people, including twins, who have been reared
either separately or apart. Evidence for genetic influence on a trait is found when children who
have been adopted show traits that are more similar to those of their biological parents than to
those of their adoptive parents. Evidence for environmental influence is found when the adoptee
is more like his or her adoptive parents than the biological parents.

The results of family, twin, and adoption studies are combined to get a better idea of the
influence of genetics and environment on traits of interest. Table 11.6 "Data From Twin and
Adoption Studies on the Heritability of Various Characteristics" presents data on the correlations
and heritability estimates for a variety of traits based on the results of behavioral genetics studies
(Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990). [3]

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

582
Table 11.6 Data From Twin and Adoption Studies on the Heritability of Various Characteristics
Correlation between Correlation between
children raised together children raised apart Estimated percent of total due to

Shared Nonshared
Identical Fraternal Identical Fraternal Heritability environment environment
twins twins twins twins (%) (%) (%)

Age of
puberty 45 5 50

Aggression 0.43 0.14 0.46 0.06

Alzheimer
disease 0.54 0.16

Fingerprint
patterns 0.96 0.47 0.96 0.47 100 0 0

General
cognitive
ability 56 0 44

Likelihood of
divorce 0.52 0.22

Sexual
orientation 0.52 0.22 18–39 0–17 61–66

Big Five
dimensions 40–50

This table presents some of the observed correlations and heritability estimates for various characteristics.

Sources: Långström, N., Rahman, Q., Carlström, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and environmental effects on

same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, doi:10.1007/s10508-

008-9386-1; Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc; McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1992). Genetic influence on risk of divorce. Psychological Science,

3(6), 368–373; Plomin, R., Fulker, D. W., Corley, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1997). Nature, nurture, and cognitive

development from 1 to 16 years: A parent-offspring adoption study. Psychological Science, 8(6), 442–447; Tellegen,

A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarity in twins reared

apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1031–1039.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

583
If you look in the second column of Table 11.6 "Data From Twin and Adoption Studies on the
Heritability of Various Characteristics", you will see the observed correlations for the traits
between identical twins who have been raised together in the same house by the same parents.
This column represents the pure effects of genetics, in the sense that environmental differences
have been controlled to be a small as possible. You can see that these correlations are higher for
some traits than for others. Fingerprint patterns are very highly determined by our genetics (r =
.96), whereas the Big Five trait dimensions have a heritability of 40–50%.

You can also see from the table that, overall, there is more influence of nature than of parents.
Identical twins, even when they are raised in separate households by different parents (column
4), turn out to be quite similar in personality, and are more similar than fraternal twins who are
raised in separate households (column 5). These results show that genetics has a strong influence
on personality, and helps explain why Elyse and Paula were so similar when they finally met.

Despite the overall role of genetics, you can see in Table 11.6 "Data From Twin and Adoption
Studies on the Heritability of Various Characteristics" that the correlations between identical
twins (column 2) and heritability estimates for most traits (column 6) are substantially less than
1.00, showing that the environment also plays an important role in personality (Turkheimer &
Waldron, 2000). [4] For instance, for sexual orientation the estimates of heritability vary from
18% to 39% of the total across studies, suggesting that 61% to 82% of the total influence is due
to environment.

You might at first think that parents would have a strong influence on the personalities of their
children, but this would be incorrect. As you can see by looking in column 7 of Table 11.6 "Data
From Twin and Adoption Studies on the Heritability of Various Characteristics", research finds
that the influence of shared environment (i.e., the effects of parents or other caretakers) plays
little or no role in adult personality (Harris, 2006). [5] Shared environment does influence the
personality and behavior of young children, but this influence decreases rapidly as the child
grows older. By the time we reach adulthood, the impact of shared environment on our
personalities is weak at best (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). [6] What this means is that, although
parents must provide a nourishing and stimulating environment for children, no matter how hard

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

584
they try they are not likely to be able to turn their children into geniuses or into professional
athletes, nor will they be able to turn them into criminals.

If parents are not providing the environmental influences on the child, then what is? The last
column in Table 11.6 "Data From Twin and Adoption Studies on the Heritability of Various
Characteristics", the influence of nonshared environment, represents whatever is “left over” after
removing the effects of genetics and parents. You can see that these factors—the largely
unknown things that happen to us that make us different from other people—often have the
largest influence on personality.

Studying Personality Using Molecular Genetics

In addition to the use of behavioral genetics, our understanding of the role of biology in
personality recently has been dramatically increased through the use of molecular genetics,
which is the study of which genes are associated with which personality traits (Goldsmith et al.,
2003 Strachan & Read, 1999). [7]These advances have occured as a result of new knowledge
about the structure of human DNA made possible through the Human Genome Project and
related work that has identified the genes in the human body (Human Genome Project,
2010). [8] Molecular genetics researchers have also developed new techniques that allow them to
find the locations of genes within chromosomes and to identify the effects those genes have
when activated or deactivated.

One approach that can be used in animals, usually in laboratory mice, is the knockout study. In
this approach the researchers use specialized techniques to remove or modify the influence of a
gene in a line of “knockout” mice (Crusio, Goldowitz, Holmes, & Wolfer, 2009). [9] The
researchers harvest embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos and then modify the DNA of the
cells. The DNA is created such that the action of certain genes will be eliminated or “knocked
out.” The cells are then injected into the embryos of other mice that are implanted into the
uteruses of living female mice. When these animals are born, they are studied to see whether
their behavior differs from a control group of normal animals. Research has found that removing
or changing genes in mice can affect their anxiety, aggression, learning, and socialization
patterns.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

585
In humans, a molecular genetics study normally begins with the collection of a DNA sample
from the participants in the study, usually by taking some cells from the inner surface of the
cheek. In the lab, the DNA is extracted from the sampled cells and is combined with a solution
containing a marker for the particular genes of interest as well as a fluorescent dye. If the gene is
present in the DNA of the individual, then the solution will bind to that gene and activate the
dye. The more the gene is expressed, the stronger the reaction.

In one common approach, DNA is collected from people who have a particular personality
characteristic and also from people who do not. The DNA of the two groups is compared to see
which genes differ between them. These studies are now able to compare thousands of genes at
the same time. Research using molecular genetics has found genes associated with a variety of
personality traits including novelty-seeking (Ekelund, Lichtermann, Järvelin, & Peltonen,
1999), [10] attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Waldman & Gizer, 2006), [11] and smoking
behavior (Thorgeirsson et al., 2008). [12]

Reviewing the Literature: Is Our Genetics Our Destiny?

Over the past two decades scientists have made substantial progress in understanding the
important role of genetics in behavior. Behavioral genetics studies have found that, for most
traits, genetics is more important than parental influence. And molecular genetics studies have
begun to pinpoint the particular genes that are causing these differences. The results of these
studies might lead you to believe that your destiny is determined by your genes, but this would
be a mistaken assumption.

For one, the results of all research must be interpreted carefully. Over time we will learn even
more about the role of genetics, and our conclusions about its influence will likely change.
Current research in the area of behavioral genetics is often criticized for making assumptions
about how researchers categorize identical and fraternal twins, about whether twins are in fact
treated in the same way by their parents, about whether twins are representative of children more
generally, and about many other issues. Although these critiques may not change the overall
conclusions, it must be kept in mind that these findings are relatively new and will certainly be
updated with time (Plomin, 2000). [13]

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

586
Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that although genetics is important, and although we are
learning more every day about its role in many personality variables, genetics does not determine
everything. In fact, the major influence on personality is nonshared environmental influences,
which include all the things that occur to us that make us unique individuals. These differences
include variability in brain structure, nutrition, education, upbringing, and even interactions
among the genes themselves.

The genetic differences that exist at birth may be either amplified or diminished over time
through environmental factors. The brains and bodies of identical twins are not exactly the same,
and they become even more different as they grow up. As a result, even genetically identical
twins have distinct personalities, resulting in large part from environmental effects.

Because these nonshared environmental differences are nonsystematic and largely accidental or
random, it will be difficult to ever determine exactly what will happen to a child as he or she
grows up. Although we do inherit our genes, we do not inherit personality in any fixed sense.
The effect of our genes on our behavior is entirely dependent upon the context of our life as it
unfolds day to day. Based on your genes, no one can say what kind of human being you will turn
out to be or what you will do in life.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Genes are the basic biological units that transmit characteristics from one generation to the next.

• Personality is not determined by any single gene, but rather by the actions of many genes working together.

• Behavioral genetics refers to a variety of research techniques that scientists use to learn about the genetic and

environmental influences on human behavior.

• Behavioral genetics is based on the results of family studies, twin studies, and adoptive studies.

• Overall, genetics has more influence than do parents on shaping our personality.

• Molecular genetics is the study of which genes are associated with which personality traits.

• The largely unknown environmental influences, known as the nonshared environmental effects, have the largest

impact on personality. Because these differences are nonsystematic and largely accidental or random, we do not

inherit our personality in any fixed sense.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

587
 EXERCISES AND CRITICAL THINKING

1. Think about the twins you know. Do they seem to be very similar to each other, or does it seem that their differences

outweigh their similarities?

2. Describe the implications of the effects of genetics on personality, overall. What does it mean to say that genetics

“determines” or “does not determine” our personality?

[1] Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct (1st ed.). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

[2] Baker, C. (2004). Behavioral genetics: An introduction to how genes and environments interact through development to

shape differences in mood, personality, and intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/spp/bgenes/Intro.pdf

[3] Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The

Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250(4978), 223–228. Retrieved

fromhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/250/4978/223

[4] Turkheimer, E., & Waldron, M. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological, and quantitative

review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 78–108.

[5] Harris, J. R. (2006). No two alike: Human nature and human individuality. New York, NY: Norton.

[6] Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A

quantitative review of longitudinal studies.Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25.

[7] Goldsmith, H., Gernsbacher, M. A., Crabbe, J., Dawson, G., Gottesman, I. I., Hewitt, J.,…Swanson, J. (2003). Research

psychologists’ roles in the genetic revolution. American Psychologist, 58(4), 318–319; Strachan, T., & Read, A. P. (1999). Human

molecular genetics(2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hmg&part=A2858

[8] Human Genome Project. (2010). Information. Retrieved

fromhttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

[9] Crusio, W. E., Goldowitz, D., Holmes, A., & Wolfer, D. (2009). Standards for the publication of mouse mutant studies. Genes,

Brain & Behavior, 8(1), 1–4.

[10] Ekelund, J., Lichtermann, D., Järvelin, M. R., & Peltonen, L. (1999). Association between novelty seeking and the type 4

dopamine receptor gene in a large Finnish cohort sample.American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1453–1455.

[11] Waldman, I. D., & Gizer, I. R. (2006). The genetics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Clinical Psychology Review,

26(4), 396–432.

[12] Thorgeirsson, T. E., Geller, F., Sulem, P., Rafnar, T., Wiste, A., Magnusson, K. P.,…Stefansson, K. (2008). A variant associated

with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease. Nature, 452(7187), 638–641.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

588
[13] Plomin, R. (2000). Behavioural genetics in the 21st century. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(1), 30–34.

11.4 Chapter Summary

Personality is defined as an individual’s consistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving.
Early theories of personality, including phrenology and somatology, are now discredited, but
there is at least some research evidence for physiognomy—the idea that it is possible to assess
personality from facial characteristics.

Personalities are characterized in terms of traits, which are relatively enduring characteristics that
influence our behavior across many situations. Psychologists have investigated hundreds of traits
using the self-report approach.

The utility of self-report measures of personality depends on their reliability and construct
validity. Some popular measures of personality, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI), do not have reliability or construct validity and therefore are not useful measures of
personality.

The trait approach to personality was pioneered by early psychologists, including Allport,
Cattell, and Eysenck, and their research helped produce the Five-Factor (Big Five) Model of
Personality. The Big Five dimensions are cross-culturally valid and accurately predict behavior.
The Big Five factors are also increasingly being used to help researchers understand the
dimensions of psychological disorders.

A difficulty of the trait approach to personality is that there is often only a low correlation
between the traits that a person expresses in one situation and those that he or she expresses in
other situations. However, psychologists have also found that personality predicts behavior better
when the behaviors are averaged across different situations.

People may believe in the existence of traits because they use their schemas to judge other
people, leading them to believe that traits are more stable than they really are. An example is the
Barnum effect—the observation that people tend to believe in descriptions of their personality
that supposedly are descriptive of them but could in fact describe almost anyone.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

589
An important personality test is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) used
to detect personality and psychological disorders. Another approach to measuring personality is
to use projective measures, such as the Rorschach Inkblot Test and the Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT). The advantage of projective tests is that they are less direct, but empirical evidence
supporting their reliability and construct validity is mixed.

There are behaviorist, social-cognitive, psychodynamic, and humanist theories of personality.

The psychodynamic approach to understanding personality, begun by Sigmund Freud, is based

on the idea that all behaviors are predetermined by motivations that lie outside our awareness, in
the unconscious. Freud proposed that the mind is divided into three components: id, ego, and
superego, and that the interactions and conflicts among the components create personality. Freud
also believed that psychological disorders, and particularly the experience of anxiety, occur when
there is conflict or imbalance among the motivations of the id, ego, and superego and that people
use defense mechanisms to cope with this anxiety.

Freud argued that personality is developed through a series of psychosexual stages, each
focusing on pleasure from a different part of the body, and that the appropriate resolution of each
stage has implications for later personality development.

Freud has probably exerted a greater impact on the public’s understanding of personality than
any other thinker, but his theories have in many cases failed to pass the test of empiricism.

Freudian theory led to a number of followers known as the neo-Freudians, including Adler, Jung,
Horney, and Fromm.

Humanistic theories of personality focus on the underlying motivations that they believed drive
personality, focusing on the nature of the self-concept and the development of self-esteem. The
idea of unconditional positive regard championed by Carl Rogers has led in part to the positive
psychology movement, and it is a basis for almost all contemporary psychological therapy.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

590
Personality traits of humans and animals are determined in large part by their genetic makeup.
Personality is not determined by any single gene, but rather by the actions of many genes
working together.

The role of nature and nurture in personality is studied by means of behavioral genetics studies
including family studies, twin studies, and adoption studies. These studies partition variability in
personality into the influence of genetics (known as heritability), shared environment, and
nonshared environment. Although these studies find that many personality traits are highly
heritable, genetics does not determine everything. The major influence on personality is
nonshared environmental influences.

In addition to the use of behavioral genetics, our understanding of the role of biology in
personality recently has been dramatically increased through the use of molecular genetics, the
study of which genes are associated with which personality traits in animals and humans.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

591
 Chapter 12
Defining Psychological Disorders
When Minor Body Imperfections Lead to Suicide
“I think we probably noticed in his early teens that he became very conscious about aspects of his appearance…he

began to brood over it quite a lot,” said Maria as she called in to the talk radio program to describe her son Robert.

Maria described how Robert had begun to worry about his weight. A friend had commented that he had a “fat”

stomach, and Robert began to cut down on eating. Then he began to worry that he wasn’t growing enough and

devised an elaborate series of stretching techniques to help him get taller.

Robert scrutinized his face and body in the mirror for hours, finding a variety of imagined defects. He believed that

his nose was crooked, and he was particularly concerned about a lump that he saw on it: “A small lump,” said his

mother. “I should say it wasn’t very significant, but it was significant to him.”

Robert insisted that all his misery stemmed from this lump on his nose, that everybody noticed it. In his sophomore

year of high school, he had cosmetic surgery to remove it.

Around this time, Robert had his first panic attack and began to worry that everybody could notice him sweating and

blushing in public. He asked his parents for a $10,000 loan, which he said was for overseas study. He used the money

for a procedure designed to reduce sweating and blushing. Then, dissatisfied with the results, he had the procedure

reversed.

Robert was diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder. His mother told the radio host,

At the time we were really happy because we thought that finally we actually knew what we were trying to

fight and to be quite honest, I must admit I thought well it sounds pretty trivial.…

…Things seemed to go quite well and he got a new girlfriend and he was getting excellent marks in his

clinical work in hospital and he promised us that he wasn't going to have any more surgery.

However, a lighthearted comment from a friend about a noticeable vein in his forehead prompted a relapse. Robert

had surgery to tie off the vein. When that didn’t solve all his problems as he had hoped, he attempted to have the

procedure reversed but learned that it would require complicated microsurgery. He then used injections on himself to

try opening the vein again, but he could never completely reverse the first surgery.
[1]
Robert committed suicide shortly afterward, in 2001 (Mitchell, 2002).

[1] Mitchell, N. (Producer). (2002, April 28). Body dysmorphic disorder and cosmetic “surgery of the psyche.” All in the mind.
ABC Radio National. Retrieved fromhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2003/746058.htm

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

592
12.1 Psychological Disorder: What Makes a Behavior “Abnormal”?
LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Define “psychological disorder” and summarize the general causes of disorder.

2. Explain why it is so difficult to define disorder, and how the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (DSM) is used to make diagnoses.

3. Describe the stigma of psychological disorders and their impact on those who suffer from them.

The focus of the next two chapters is to many people the heart of psychology. This emphasis
on abnormal psychology—the application of psychological science to understanding and
treating mental disorders—is appropriate, as more psychologists are involved in the diagnosis
and treatment of psychological disorder than in any other endeavor, and these are probably the
most important tasks psychologists face. About 1 in every 4 Americans (or over 78 million
people) are affected by a psychological disorder during any one year (Kessler, Chiu, Demler, &
Walters, 2005), [1] and at least a half billion people are affected worldwide. The impact of mental
illness is particularly strong on people who are poorer, of lower socioeconomic class, and from
disadvantaged ethnic groups.

People with psychological disorders are also stigmatized by the people around them, resulting in
shame and embarrassment, as well as prejudice and discrimination against them. Thus the
understanding and treatment of psychological disorder has broad implications for the everyday
life of many people. Table 12.1 "One-Year Prevalence Rates for Psychological Disorders in the
United States, 2001–2003" shows the prevalence (i.e., the frequency of occurrence of a given
condition in a population at a given time) of some of the major psychological disorders in the
United States.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

593
Table 12.1 One-Year Prevalence Rates for Psychological Disorders in the United States, 2001–2003
Disease Percentage affected Number affected

Any mental disorder 26.2 81,744,000

Any anxiety disorder 18.1 56,472,000

Specific phobia 8.7 27,144,000

Social phobia 6.8 21,216,000

Agoraphobia 0.8 2,496,000

Generalized anxiety disorder 3.1 9,672,000

Panic disorder 2.7 8,424,000

Obsessive-compulsive disorder 1.0 3,120,000

Posttraumatic stress disorder 3.5 10,920,000

Any mood disorder 9.5 29,640,000

Major depressive disorder 6.7 20,904,000

Bipolar disorder 2.6 8,112,000

Schizophrenia 1.0 3,120,000

Personality disorders

Antisocial personality disorder 1.5 4,680,000

Borderline personality disorder 1.5 4,680,000

Anorexia nervosa 0.1 312,000

Any substance abuse disorder 3.8 11,856,000

Alcohol use disorder 4.4 13,728,000

Drug use disorder 1.8 5,616,000

All cancers* 5.4 16,848,000

Diabetes* 10.7 33,348,000

* These nonpsychological conditions are included for comparison.

Sources: Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-

month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6),

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

594
617–627; Narrow, W. E., Rae, D. S., Robins, L. N., & Regier, D. A. (2002). Revised prevalence based estimates of

mental disorders in the United States: Using a clinical significance criterion to reconcile 2 surveys’ estimates.Archives

of General Psychiatry, 59(2), 115–123.

In this chapter our focus is on the disorders themselves. We will review the major psychological
disorders and consider their causes and their impact on the people who suffer from them. Then
in Chapter 13 "Treating Psychological Disorders", we will turn to consider the treatment of these
disorders through psychotherapy and drug therapy.

Defining Disorder

A psychological disorder is an ongoing dysfunctional pattern of thought, emotion, and behavior

that causes significant distress, and that is considered deviant in that person’s culture or
society (Butcher, Mineka, & Hooley, 2007).[2] Psychological disorders have much in common
with other medical disorders. They are out of the patient’s control, they may in some cases be
treated by drugs, and their treatment is often covered by medical insurance. Like medical
problems, psychological disorders have both biological (nature) as well as environmental
(nurture) influences. These causal influences are reflected in the bio-psycho-social model of
illness (Engel, 1977). [3]

The bio-psycho-social model of illness is a way of understanding disorder that assumes that
disorder is caused by biological, psychological, and social factors (Figure 12.1 "The Bio-
Psycho-Social Model"). The biological componentof the bio-psycho-social model refers to the
influences on disorder that come from the functioning of the individual’s body. Particularly
important are genetic characteristics that make some people more vulnerable to a disorder than
others and the influence of neurotransmitters. The psychological component of the bio-psycho-
social model refers to the influences that come from the individual, such as patterns of negative
thinking and stress responses. Thesocial component of the bio-psycho-social model refers to the
influences on disorder due to social and cultural factors such as socioeconomic status,
homelessness, abuse, and discrimination.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

595
Figure 12.1 The Bio-Psycho-Social Model

The bio-psycho-social model of disorder proposes that disorders are caused by biological, psychological, and social-

cultural factors.

To consider one example, the psychological disorder of schizophrenia has a biological cause
because it is known that there are patterns of genes that make a person vulnerable to the disorder
(Gejman, Sanders, & Duan, 2010). [4] But whether or not the person with a biological
vulnerability experiences the disorder depends in large part on psychological factors such as how
the individual responds to the stress he experiences, as well as social factors such as whether or
not he is exposed to stressful environments in adolescence and whether or not he has support
from people who care about him (Sawa & Snyder, 2002; Walker, Kestler, Bollini, & Hochman,
2004). [5] Similarly, mood and anxiety disorders are caused in part by genetic factors such as
hormones and neurotransmitters, in part by the individual’s particular thought patterns, and in
part by the ways that other people in the social environment treat the person with the disorder.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

596
We will use the bio-psycho-social model as a framework for considering the causes and
treatments of disorder.

Although they share many characteristics with them, psychological disorders are nevertheless
different from medical conditions in important ways. For one, diagnosis of psychological
disorders can be more difficult. Although a medical doctor can see cancer in the lungs using an
MRI scan or see blocked arteries in the heart using cardiac catheterization, there is no
corresponding test for psychological disorder. Current research is beginning to provide more
evidence about the role of brain structures in psychological disorder, but for now the brains of
people with severe mental disturbances often look identical to those of people without such
disturbances.

Because there are no clear biological diagnoses, psychological disorders are instead diagnosed
on the basis of clinical observations of the behaviors that the individual engages in. These
observations find that emotional states and behaviors operate on a continuum, ranging from more
“normal” and “accepted” to more “deviant,” “abnormal,” and “unaccepted.” The behaviors that
are associated with disorder are in many cases the same behaviors we that engage in our
“normal” everyday life. Washing one’s hands is a normal healthy activity, but it can be overdone
by those with an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). It is not unusual to worry about and try
to improve one’s body image, but Robert’s struggle with his personal appearance, as discussed at
the beginning of this chapter, was clearly unusual, unhealthy, and distressing to him.

Whether a given behavior is considered a psychological disorder is determined not only by

whether a behavior is unusual (e.g., whether it is “mild” anxiety versus “extreme” anxiety) but
also by whether a behavior is maladaptive—that is, the extent to which it causes distress (e.g.,
pain and suffering) and dysfunction (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
to the individual (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). [6] An intense fear of spiders, for
example, would not be considered a psychological disorder unless it has a significant negative
impact on the sufferer’s life, for instance by causing him or her to be unable to step outside the
house. The focus on distress and dysfunction means that behaviors that are simply unusual (such
as some political, religious, or sexual practices) are not classified as disorders.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

597
Put your psychology hat on for a moment and consider the behaviors of the people listed
in Table 12.2 "Diagnosing Disorder". For each, indicate whether you think the behavior is or is
not a psychological disorder. If you’re not sure, what other information would you need to know
to be more certain of your diagnosis?

Table 12.2 Diagnosing Disorder

Need more
Yes No information Description

Jackie frequently talks to herself while she is working out her math homework. Her
roommate sometimes hears her and wonders if she is OK.

Charlie believes that the noises made by cars and planes going by outside his house
have secret meanings. He is convinced that he was involved in the start of a nuclear
war and that the only way for him to survive is to find the answer to a difficult riddle.

Harriet gets very depressed during the winter months when the light is low. She
sometimes stays in her pajamas for the whole weekend, eating chocolate and
watching TV.

Frank seems to be afraid of a lot of things. He worries about driving on the highway
and about severe weather that may come through his neighborhood. But mostly he
fears mice, checking under his bed frequently to see if any are present.

A worshipper speaking in “tongues” at an Evangelical church views himself as

“filled” with the Holy Spirit and is considered blessed with the gift to speak the
“language of angels.”

A trained clinical psychologist would have checked off “need more information” for each of the
examples in Table 12.2 "Diagnosing Disorder" because although the behaviors may seem
unusual, there is no clear evidence that they are distressing or dysfunctional for the person.
Talking to ourselves out loud is unusual and can be a symptom of schizophrenia, but just because
we do it once in a while does not mean that there is anything wrong with us. It is natural to be
depressed, particularly in the long winter nights, but how severe should this depression be, and
how long should it last? If the negative feelings last for an extended time and begin to lead the
person to miss work or classes, then they may become symptoms of a mood disorder. It is
normal to worry about things, but when does worry turn into a debilitating anxiety disorder? And
what about thoughts that seem to be irrational, such as being able to “speak the language of

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

598
angels”? Are they indicators of a severe psychological disorder, or part of a normal religious
experience? Again, the answer lies in the extent to which they are (or are not) interfering with the
individual’s functioning in society.

Another difficulty in diagnosing psychological disorders is that they frequently occur together.
For instance, people diagnosed with anxiety disorders also often have mood disorders (Hunt,
Slade, & Andrews, 2004), [7] and people diagnosed with one personality disorder frequently
suffer from other personality disorders as well. Comorbidity occurs when people who suffer from
one disorder also suffer at the same time from other disorders. Because many psychological
disorders are comorbid, most severe mental disorders are concentrated in a small group of people
(about 6% of the population) who have more than three of them (Kessler, Chiu, Demler, &
Walters, 2005). [8]

Psychology in Everyday Life: Combating the Stigma of Abnormal Behavior

Every culture and society has its own views on what constitutes abnormal behavior and what causes it (Brothwell,
[9]
1981). The Old Testament Book of Samuel tells us that as a consequence of his sins, God sent King Saul an evil spirit

to torment him (1 Samuel 16:14). Ancient Hindu tradition attributed psychological disorder to sorcery and witchcraft.

During the Middle Ages it was believed that mental illness occurred when the body was infected by evil spirits,

particularly the devil. Remedies included whipping, bloodletting, purges, and trepanation (cutting a hole in the skull)

to release the demons.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

599
Figure 12.3

Trepanation (drilling holes in the skull) has been used since prehistoric times in attempts to cure epilepsy,

schizophrenia, and other psychological disorders.

Source: Courtesy of Peter Treveris,http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Treveris_-_

engraving_of_Trepanation_for_Handywarke_of_surgeri_1525.png.

Until the 18th century, the most common treatment for the mentally ill was to incarcerate them in
asylums or “madhouses.” During the 18th century, however, some reformers began to oppose
this brutal treatment of the mentally ill, arguing that mental illness was a medical problem that
had nothing to do with evil spirits or demons. In France, one of the key reformers was Philippe
Pinel (1745–1826), who believed that mental illness was caused by a combination of physical
and psychological stressors, exacerbated by inhumane conditions. Pinel advocated the

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org

600