How Psychology's Great Trait Debate Helped Shape the Big 5
A great debate between personality trait theorists and social psychologists began in 1968 following the publication of Personality and Assessment, Walter Mischel’s influential book in which he argued against conventional conceptions of personality. His conclusions cast doubt on trait theory by questioning traditional assumption that people are motivated by fixed characteristics that generalize across diverse situations. As a result, an entire generation of personality and social psychologists were taught that the trait approach was unsound.
The person-situation debate was a controversial period in psychology, but also a beneficial one because it helped to narrow down competing hypotheses and paved the way for a synthesis between traits and behavioral consistency. Across situations traits do not robustly predict behavior, but rather they are predictive of consistency for a wide range of actions over time. The mean level of a trait may be anchored within a person, but can vary around this mean depending on the situation. Some have also suggested that situational factors (e.g., social roles) produce situation-specific goals which, in turn, influence the development of personality traits.
Although a number of resolutions emerged from the often acrimonious debate, one of the most crucial ideas emphasized the interactionist nature of traits and situations. Such an approach allows psychologists to apply the strength of both personality and social psychological analysis. Interactionism recognizes that people often choose situations because of their personalities, people can change situations by their own actions, and situations can alter the expression of personality.
Interactions between person and situation can be interpreted throughout the classic Stanford Prison Experiment. Historically, the research has been held up as an illustration of how the situation can transcend personality traits when people quickly adapt to the randomly assigned roles of prisoner and guard in a simulated prison environment. More recently, however, it has been suggested that the appeal of a “prison life” study may be greater for people with certain personality characteristics.
As a result of the trait debate, and the fact that the study of stable characteristics entered into a lengthy and productive time period, there is now consensus that human personality comprises five major factors: Extroversion, Openness to Experience/Intellect, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism/Emotional Stability.
Extraversion: This trait describes energy, cheerfulness, and initiative. Individuals who score high show a tendency to seek social stimulation with others. Those who score low are often introverted, quiet, and submissive to authority.
Openness/Intellect: Individuals with high scores on Openness enjoy novelty and may exhibit creative tendencies. Conventional thinking, a well-defined sense of right and wrong, and a preference for routines characterizes people on the other end of the spectrum.
Agreeableness: This trait reflects compassionate and cooperative we are towards others. Adjectives like warm, friendly, and empathetic describe those who score high. On the other end of the agreeableness dimension are individuals who are antagonistic, suspicious, and egocentric.
Conscientiousness: This factor estimates self-discipline and organization. Those with high scores are trustworthy, dependable, and motivated. The low end of the scale indicates unreliable and easily distracted people.
Neuroticism/Emotional Stability: Neuroticism describes a bias towards unpleasant emotions like depression, anxiety, and anger. Emotional instability describes people who may be moody or take a long time to get back on an even keel after a slightly difficult situation. Emotional stability, on the other hand, describes calm, control, and satisfied individuals.