6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

Personality
Personality is defined as the characteristic set of behaviors, cognitions, and emotional patterns that evolve from
biological and environmental factors.[1] While there is no generally agreed upon definition of personality, most theories
focus on motivation and psychological interactions with one's environment.[2] Trait-based personality theories, such as
those defined by Raymond Cattell define personality as the traits that predict a person's behavior. On the other hand,
more behaviorally based approaches define personality through learning and habits. Nevertheless, most theories view
personality as relatively stable.[1]

The study of the psychology of personality, called personality psychology, attempts to explain the tendencies that underlie
differences in behavior. Many approaches have been taken on to study personality, including biological, cognitive, learning
and trait based theories, as well as psychodynamic, and humanistic approaches. Personality psychology is divided among
the first theorists, with a few influential theories being posited by Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Gordon Allport, Hans
Eysenck, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers.

Contents
Measuring
Five-factor model
Developmental biological model
Environmental influences
Cross-cultural studies
Historical development of concept
Temperament and philosophy
Mental make-up
Empiricists and rationalists
Biology
Personology
Psychiatry
See also
References
Further reading

Measuring
Personality can be determined through a variety of tests. Due to the fact that personality is a complex idea, the dimensions
of personality and scales of personality tests vary and often are poorly defined. Two main tools to measure personality are
objective tests and projective measures. Examples of such tests are the: Big Five Inventory (BFI), Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), Rorschach Inkblot test, Neurotic Personality Questionnaire KON-2006,[3] or Eysenck's
Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R). All of these tests are beneficial because they have both reliability and validity, two
factors that make a test accurate. "Each item should be influenced to a degree by the underlying trait construct, giving rise
to a pattern of positive intercorrelations so long as all items are oriented (worded) in the same direction."[4] A recent, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 1/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

not well-known, measuring tool that psychologists use is the 16 PF. It measures personality based on Cattell's 16 factor
theory of personality. Psychologists also use it as a clinical measuring tool to diagnose psychiatric disorders and help with
prognosis and therapy planning.[5] The Big Five Inventory is the most used measuring tool because it has criterion that
expands across different factors in personality, allowing psychologists to have the most accurate information they can
garner.

Five-factor model
Personality is often broken into statistically-identified factors called the Big Five, which are openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (or emotional stability). These components are generally
stable over time, and about half of the variance appears to be attributable to a person's genetics rather than the effects of
one's environment.[6][7]

Some research has investigated whether the relationship between happiness and extraversion seen in adults can also be
seen in children. The implications of these findings can help identify children that are more likely to experience episodes
of depression and develop types of treatment that such children are likely to respond to. In both children and adults,
research shows that genetics, as opposed to environmental factors, exert a greater influence on happiness levels.
Personality is not stable over the course of a lifetime, but it changes much more quickly during childhood, so personality
constructs in children are referred to as temperament. Temperament is regarded as the precursor to personality.[8]
Whereas McCrae and Costa's Big Five model assesses personality traits in adults, the EAS (emotionality, activity, and
sociability) model is used to assess temperament in children. This model measures levels of emotionality, activity,
sociability, and shyness in children. The personality theorists consider temperament EAS model similar to the Big Five
model in adults; however, this might be due to a conflation of concepts of personality and temperament as described
above. Findings show that high degrees of sociability and low degrees of shyness are equivalent to adult extraversion, and
correlate with higher levels of life satisfaction in children.

Another interesting finding has been the link found between acting extraverted and positive affect. Extraverted behaviors
include acting talkative, assertive, adventurous, and outgoing. For the purposes of this study, positive affect is defined as
experiences of happy and enjoyable emotions.[9] This study investigated the effects of acting in a way that is counter to a
person's dispositional nature. In other words, the study focused on the benefits and drawbacks of introverts (people who
are shy, socially inhibited and non-aggressive) acting extraverted, and of extraverts acting introverted. After acting
extraverted, introverts' experience of positive affect increased[9] whereas extraverts seemed to experience lower levels of
positive affect and suffered from the phenomenon of ego depletion. Ego depletion, or cognitive fatigue, is the use of one's
energy to overtly act in a way that is contrary to one's inner disposition. When people act in a contrary fashion, they divert
most, if not all, (cognitive) energy toward regulating this foreign style of behavior and attitudes. Because all available
energy is being used to maintain this contrary behavior, the result is an inability to use any energy to make important or
difficult decisions, plan for the future, control or regulate emotions, or perform effectively on other cognitive tasks.[9]

One question that has been posed is why extraverts tend to be happier than introverts. The two types of explanations
attempt to account for this difference are instrumental theories and temperamental theories.[6] The instrumental theory
suggests that extraverts end up making choices that place them in more positive situations and they also react more
strongly than introverts to positive situations. The temperamental theory suggests that extraverts have a disposition that
generally leads them to experience a higher degree of positive affect. In their study of extraversion, Lucas and Baird[6]
found no statistically significant support for the instrumental theory but did, however, find that extraverts generally
experience a higher level of positive affect.

Research has been done to uncover some of the mediators that are responsible for the correlation between extraversion
and happiness. Self-esteem and self-efficacy are two such mediators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 2/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

Self-efficacy is one's belief about abilities to perform up to personal standards, the ability to produce desired results, and
the feeling of having some ability to make important life decisions.[10] Self-efficacy has been found to be related to the
personality traits of extraversion and subjective well-being.[10]

Self-efficacy, however, only partially mediates the relationship between extraversion (and neuroticism) and subjective
happiness.[10] This implies that there are most likely other factors that mediate the relationship between subjective
happiness and personality traits. Self-esteem may be another similar factor. Individuals with a greater degree of
confidence about themselves and their abilities seem to have both higher degrees of subjective well-being and higher levels
of extraversion.[11]

Other research has examined the phenomenon of mood maintenance as another possible mediator. Mood maintenance is
the ability to maintain one's average level of happiness in the face of an ambiguous situation – meaning a situation that
has the potential to engender either positive or negative emotions in different individuals. It has been found to be a
stronger force in extraverts.[12] This means that the happiness levels of extraverted individuals are less susceptible to the
influence of external events. This finding implies that extraverts' positive moods last longer than those of introverts.[12]

Developmental biological model

Modern conceptions of personality, such as the Temperament and Character Inventory have suggested four basic
temperaments that are thought to reflect basic and automatic responses to danger and reward that rely on associative
learning. The four temperaments, harm avoidance, reward dependence, novelty seeking and persistence are somewhat
analogous to ancient conceptions of melancholic, sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic personality types, although the
temperaments reflect dimensions rather than distance categories. While factor based approaches to personality have
yielded models that account for significant variance, the developmental biological model has been argued to better reflect
underlying biological processes. Distinct genetic, neurochemical and neuroanatomical correlates responsible for each
temperamental trait have been observed, unlike with five factor models.

The harm avoidance trait has been associated with increased reactivity in insular and amygdala salience networks, as well
as reduced 5-HT2 receptor binding peripherally, and reduced GABA concentrations. Novelty seeking has been associated
with reduced activity in insular salience networks increased striatal connectivity. Novelty seeking correlates with
dopamine synthesis capacity in the striatum, and reduced auto receptor availability in the midbrain. Reward dependence
has been linked with the oxytocin system, with increased concentration of plasma oxytocin being observed, as well as
increased volume in oxytocin related regions of the hypothalamus. Persistence has been associated with increased striatal-
mPFC connectivity, increased activation of ventral striatal-orbitofrontal-anterior cingulate circuits, as well as increased
salivary amylase levels indicative of increased noradrenergic tone.[13]

Environmental influences
It has been shown that personality traits are more malleable by environmental influences than researchers originally
believed.[7][14] Personality differences predict the occurrence of life experiences.[14]

One study that has shown how the home environment, specifically the types of parents a person has, can affect and shape
their personality. Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiment showcased how babies reacted to having their mother
leave them alone in a room with a stranger. The different styles of attachment, labelled by Ainsworth, were Secure,
Ambivalent, avoidant, and disorganized. Children who were securely attached tend to be more trusting, sociable, and are
confident in their day-to-day life. Children who were disorganized were reported to have higher levels of anxiety, anger,
and risk-taking behavior.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 3/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

Judith Rich Harris's group socialization theory postulates that an individual's peer groups, rather than parental figures,
are the primary influence of personality and behavior in adulthood. Intra- and intergroup processes, not dyadic
relationships such as parent-child relationships, are responsible for the transmission of culture and for environmental
modification of children's personality characteristics. Thus, this theory points at the peer group representing the
environmental influence on a child's personality rather than the parental style or home environment.[16]

Tessuya Kawamoto's Personality Change from Life Experiences: Moderation Effect of Attachment Security talked about
laboratory tests. The study mainly focused on the effects of life experiences on change in personality on and life
experiences. The assessments suggested that "the accumulation of small daily experiences may work for the personality
development of university students and that environmental influences may vary by individual susceptibility to
experiences, like attachment security".[17]

Cross-cultural studies
There has been some recent debate over the subject of studying personality in a different culture. Some people think that
personality comes entirely from culture and therefore there can be no meaningful study in cross-culture study. On the
other hand, others believe that some elements are shared by all cultures and an effort is being made to demonstrate the
cross-cultural applicability of "the Big Five".[18]

Cross-cultural assessment depends on the universality of personality traits, which is whether there are common traits
among humans regardless of culture or other factors. If there is a common foundation of personality, then it can be
studied on the basis of human traits rather than within certain cultures. This can be measured by comparing whether
assessment tools are measuring similar constructs across countries or cultures. Two approaches to researching personality
are looking at emic and etic traits. Emic traits are constructs unique to each culture, which are determined by local
customs, thoughts, beliefs, and characteristics. Etic traits are considered universal constructs, which establish traits that
are evident across cultures that represent a biological bases of human personality.[19] If personality traits are unique to
individual culture, then different traits should be apparent in different cultures. However, the idea that personality traits
are universal across cultures is supported by establishing the Five Factor Model of personality across multiple translations
of the NEO-PI-R, which is one of the most widely used personality measures.[20] When administering the NEO-PI-R to
7,134 people across six languages, the results show a similar pattern of the same five underlying constructs that are found
in the American factor structure.[20]

Similar results were found using the Big Five Inventory (BFI), as it was administered in 56 nations across 28 languages.
The five factors continued to be supported both conceptually and statistically across major regions of the world, suggesting
that these underlying factors are common across cultures.[21] There are some differences across culture but they may be a
consequence of using a lexical approach to study personality structures, as language has limitations in translation and
different cultures have unique words to describe emotion or situations.[20] For example, the term "feeling blue" is used to
describe sadness in more Westernized cultures, but does not translate to other languages. Differences across cultures
could be due to real cultural differences, but they could also be consequences of poor translations, biased sampling, or
differences in response styles across cultures.[21] Examining personality questionnaires developed within a culture can
also be useful evidence for the universality of traits across cultures, as the same underlying factors can still be found.[22]
Results from several European and Asian studies have found overlapping dimensions with the Five Factor Model as well
as additional culture-unique dimensions.[22] Finding similar factors across cultures provides support for the universality
of personality trait structure, but more research is necessary to gain stronger support.[20]

Historical development of concept

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 4/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

The modern sense of individual personality is a result of the shifts in culture originating in the Renaissance, an essential
element in modernity. In contrast, the Medieval European's sense of self was linked to a network of social roles: "the
household, the kinship network, the guild, the corporation – these were the building blocks of personhood". Stephen
Greenblatt observes, in recounting the recovery (1417) and career of Lucretius' poem De rerum natura: "at the core of the
poem lay key principles of a modern understanding of the world."[23] "Dependent on the family, the individual alone was
nothing," Jacques Gélis observes.[24] "The characteristic mark of the modern man has two parts: one internal, the other
external; one dealing with his environment, the other with his attitudes, values, and feelings." [25] Rather than being
linked to a network of social roles, the modern man is largely influenced by the environmental factors such as:
"urbanization, education, mass communication, industrialization, and politicization." [25]

Temperament and philosophy

William James (1842–1910) argued that temperament explains a great deal
of the controversies in the history of philosophy by arguing that it is a very
influential premise in the arguments of philosophers. Despite seeking only
impersonal reasons for their conclusions, James argued, the temperament of
philosophers influenced their philosophy. Temperament thus conceived is
tantamount to a bias. Such bias, James explained, was a consequence of the
trust philosophers place in their own temperament. James thought the
significance of his observation lay on the premise that in philosophy an
objective measure of success is whether a philosophy is peculiar to its
philosopher or not, and whether a philosopher is dissatisfied with any other
way of seeing things or not.[26]

Mental make-up
James argued that temperament may be the basis of several divisions in
academia, but focused on philosophy in his 1907 lectures on Pragmatism. In William James (1842–1910)
fact, James' lecture of 1907 fashioned a sort of trait theory of the empiricist and
rationalist camps of philosophy. As in most modern trait theories, the traits of
each camp are described by James as distinct and opposite, and may be possessed in different proportions on a
continuum, and thus characterize the personality of philosophers of each camp. The "mental make-up" (i.e. personality) of
rationalist philosophers is described as "tender-minded" and "going by "principles," and that of empiricist philosophers is
described as "tough-minded" and "going by "facts." James distinguishes each not only in terms of the philosophical claims
they made in 1907, but by arguing that such claims are made primarily on the basis of temperament. Furthermore, such
categorization was only incidental to James' purpose of explaining his pragmatist philosophy, and is not exhaustive.[26]

Empiricists and rationalists

According to James, the temperament of rationalist philosophers differed fundamentally from the temperament of
empiricist philosophers of his day. The tendency of rationalist philosophers toward refinement and superficiality never
satisfied an empiricist temper of mind. Rationalism leads to the creation of closed systems, and such optimism is
considered shallow by the fact-loving mind, for whom perfection is far off.[27] Rationalism is regarded as pretension, and a
temperament most inclined to abstraction.[28] The temperament of rationalists, according to James, led to sticking with
logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 5/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

Empiricists, on the other hand, stick with the external senses rather than logic.
British empiricist John Locke's (1632–1704) explanation of personal identity
provides an example of what James referred to. Locke explains the identity of a
person, i.e. personality, on the basis of a precise definition of identity, by which
the meaning of identity differs according to what it is being applied to. The
identity of a person, is quite distinct from the identity of a man, woman, or
substance according to Locke. Locke concludes that consciousness is
personality because it "always accompanies thinking, it is that which makes
every one to be what he calls self,"[29] and remains constant in different places
at different times. Thus his explanation of personal identity is in terms of
experience as James indeed maintained is the case for most empiricists.

Rationalists conceived of the identity of persons differently than empiricists

such as Locke who distinguished identity of substance, person, and life.
According to Locke, Rene Descartes (1596–1650) agreed only insofar as he did
not argue that one immaterial spirit is the basis of the person "for fear of John Locke (1632–1704)

making brutes thinking things too."[30] According to James, Locke tolerated

arguments that a soul was behind the consciousness of any person. However,
Locke's successor David Hume (1711–1776), and empirical psychologists after
him denied the soul except for being a term to describe the cohesion of inner
lives.[26] However, some research suggests Hume excluded personal identity
from his opus An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding because he
thought his argument was sufficient but not compelling.[31] Descartes himself
distinguished active and passive faculties of mind, each contributing to
thinking and consciousness in different ways. The passive faculty, Descartes
argued, simply receives, whereas the active faculty produces and forms ideas,
but does not presuppose thought, and thus cannot be within the thinking
thing. The active faculty mustn't be within self because ideas are produced
without any awareness of them, and are sometimes produced against one's
will.[32]

Rationalist philosopher Benedictus Spinoza (1632–1677) argued that ideas are

the first element constituting the human mind, but existed only for actually
existing things.[33] In other words, ideas of non-existent things are without
meaning for Spinoza, because an idea of a non-existent thing cannot exist. Benedictus Spinoza (1632–1677)
Further, Spinoza's rationalism argued that the mind does not know itself,
except insofar as it perceives the "ideas of the modifications of body," in
describing its external perceptions, or perceptions from without. On the contrary, from within, Spinoza argued,
perceptions connect various ideas clearly and distinctly.[34] The mind is not the free cause of its actions for Spinoza.[35]
Spinoza equates the will with the understanding, and explains the common distinction of these things as being two
different things as error which results from the individual's misunderstanding of the nature of thinking.[36]

Biology
The biological basis of personality is the theory that anatomical structures located in the brain contribute to personality
traits. This stems from neuropsychology, which studies how the structure of the brain relates to various psychological
processes and behaviors. For instance, in human beings, the frontal lobes are responsible for foresight and anticipation,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 6/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

and the occipital lobes are responsible for processing visual information. In addition, certain physiological functions such
as hormone secretion also affect personality. For example, the hormone testosterone is important for sociability,
affectivity, aggressiveness, and sexuality.[37] Additionally, studies show that the expression of a personality trait depends
on the volume of the brain cortex it is associated with.[38]

There is also a confusion among some psychologists who conflate personality with temperament. Temperament traits that
are based on weak neurochemical imbalances within neurotransmitter systems are much more stable, consistent in
behavior and show up in early childhood; they can't be changed easily but can be compensated for in behavior. In contrast
to that, personality traits and features are the product of the socio-cultural development of humans and can be learned
and/or changed.

Personology
Personology confers a multidimensional, complex, and comprehensive approach to personality. According to Henry A.
Murray, personology is "The branch of psychology which concerns itself with the study of human lives and the factors that
influence their course which investigates individual differences and types of personality… the science of men, taken as
gross units… encompassing “psychoanalysis” (Freud), “analytical psychology” (Jung), “individual psychology” (Adler) and
other terms that stand for methods of inquiry or doctrines rather than realms of knowledge."[39] From a holistic
perspective, personology studies personality as a whole, as a system, but in the same time through all its components,
levels and spheres.[40][41]

Psychiatry
Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of mental disorders.[42][43] High
neuroticism is an independent prospective predictor for the development of the common mental disorders. Interest in the
history of psychiatry continues to grow, with an increasing emphasis on topics of current interest such as the history of
psychopharmacology, electroconvulsive therapy, and the interplay between psychiatry and society.[44]

See also
Cult of personality, political institution in which a leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image
Differential psychology
Human variability
Offender profiling
Personality and Individual Differences, a scientific journal published bi-monthly by Elsevier
Personality crisis (disambiguation)
Personality rights, consisting of the right to individual publicity and privacy
Personality style
Personality disorder
Personality computing

References
1. Corr, Philip J.; Matthews, Gerald (2009). The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (1. publ. ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86218-9.
2. Sadock, Benjamin; Sadock, Virginia; Ruiz, Pedro (2017). Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of
Psychiatry. Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4511-0047-1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 7/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

3. Aleksandrowicz JW, Klasa K, Sobański JA, Stolarska D (2009). "KON-2006 Neurotic Personality Questionnaire" (htt
p://www.archivespp.pl/uploads/images/2009_11_1/21_p_Archives_1_09.pdf) (PDF). Archives of Psychiatry and
Psychotherapy. 1: 21–22.
4. Hogan, Joyce; Ones, Deniz S. (1997), "Conscientiousness and Integrity at Work", Handbook of Personality
Psychology, Elsevier, pp. 849–870, doi:10.1016/b978-012134645-4/50033-0 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fb978-01213
4645-4%2F50033-0), ISBN 978-0-12-134645-4
5. Denis, McKim. Boundless dominion : providence, politics, and the early Canadian presbyterian worldview. Montreal.
ISBN 978-0-7735-5240-1. OCLC 1015239877 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1015239877).
6. Lucas & Baird 2004, pp. 473-485.
7. Briley, D.A., Tucker-Drob, E.M. (2014). "Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-
analysis" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263324524). Psychological Bulletin. 140 (5): 1303–1331.
doi:10.1037/a0037091 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0037091). PMC 4152379 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl
es/PMC4152379). PMID 24956122 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24956122).
8. Holder & Klassen 2010, pp. 419–439.
9. Zelenski, Santoro, & Whelan, pp. 290–303.
10. Strobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle, pp. 43–48.
11. Joshanloo & Afshari 2009, pp. 105–113.
12. Lischetzke & Eid 2006, pp. 1127–1162.
13. B, Sadock; V, Sadock; P, Ruiz (June 2017). "Personality Disorders". In Cloninger, R; Svrakic, D (eds.). Kaplan and
Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Wolter Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4511-0047-1.
14. Jeronimus, B.F., Riese, H., Sanderman, R., Ormel, J. (2014). "Mutual Reinforcement Between Neuroticism and Life
Experiences: A Five-Wave, 16-Year Study to Test Reciprocal Causation" (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/107/4/75
1). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107 (4): 751–764. doi:10.1037/a0037009 (https://doi.org/10.1037%
2Fa0037009). PMID 25111305 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25111305).
15. Kail, Robert; Barnfield, Anne (2014). Children and Their Development. Pearson. ISBN 978-0-205-99302-4.
16. Harris, Judith Rich (1995). "Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development".
Psychological Review. 102 (3): 458–489. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.458 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295x.1
02.3.458). ISSN 1939-1471 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1939-1471).
17. Kawamoto, Tetsuya. "Personality Change from Life Experiences: Moderation Effect of Attachment Security."
Japanese Psychological Research, vol. 58, no. 2, Apr. 2016, pp. 218–231. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/jpr.12110 (https://
doi.org/10.1111%2Fjpr.12110).
18. Funder, D.C., (2001). Personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001. 52:197–221.
19. McCrae, R.R., & Allik, I.U. (2002). The five-factor model of personality across cultures. Springer Science & Business
Media.
20. McCrae, R.R., & Costa Jr, P.T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5),
509.
21. Schmitt, D.P., Allik, J., McCrae, R.R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality
traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 38(2),
173–212.
22. Church, A.T. (2000). "Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait psychology". Journal of Personality,
68(4), 651–703.
23. Greenblatt, The Swerve: how the world became modern, 2011:3, 16.
24. Gélis, "The Child: from anonymity to individuality", in Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby, A History of Private Life III:
Passions of the Renaissance 1989:309.
25. Inkeles, Alex; Smith, David H. (1974). Becoming Modern. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674499348 (https://doi.org/10.4159%2Fharvard.9780674499348). ISBN 978-0-674-49934-
8.
26. James, William (1970). Pragmatism and Other Essays. New York: Washington Square Press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 8/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

27. James, William (1970). Pragmatism and other essays. New York: Washington Square Press. p. 16.
28. James, William (1970). Pragmatism and other essays. New York: Washington Square Press. p. 32.
29. Locke, John (1974). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Toronto: Random House.
30. James, William (1970). Pragmatism and other essays. New York: Washington Square Press. p. 69.
31. Hume, David (1955). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. US: Liberal Arts Press Inc.
32. Descartes, Rene (1974). Meditations on the First Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books.
33. Spinoza, Benedictus (1974). The Ethics (The Rationalists ed.). New York: Anchor Books.
34. Spinoza, Benedictus (1974). The Ethics (The Rationalists ed.). New York: Random House. p. 241.
35. Spinoza, Benedictus (1974). The Ethics (The Rationalists ed.). New York: Random House. p. 253.
36. Spinoza, Benedictus (1974). The Ethics (The Rationalists ed.). New York: Random House. p. 256.
37. Funder, David (February 2001). "Personality". Annual Review of Psychology. 52 (1): 197–221.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.52.1.197). PMID 11148304 (https://w
ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148304).
38. DeYoung, Colin G. (June 2010). "Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structures and the Big
Five" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049165). Psychological Science. 21 (6): 820–828.
doi:10.1177/0956797610370159 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797610370159). PMC 3049165 (https://www.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049165). PMID 20435951 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20435951).
39. Explorations in personality. Murray, Henry A. (Henry Alexander), 1893–1988., Harvard University. Harvard
Psychological Clinic. (70th anniversary ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-804152-8.
OCLC 219738947 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/219738947).
40. Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Strack, S. (2005). Handbook of Personology and Psychopathology. Wiley
42. Jeronimus B.F.; Kotov, R.; Riese, H.; Ormel, J. (2016). "Neuroticism's prospective association with mental disorders
halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays
with time: a meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443 313 participants". Psychological Medicine.
46 (14): 2883–2906. doi:10.1017/S0033291716001653 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0033291716001653).
PMID 27523506 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27523506).
43. Ormel J.; Jeronimus, B.F.; Kotov, M.; Riese, H.; Bos, E.H.; Hankin, B. (2013). "Neuroticism and common mental
disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273581
3000664). Clinical Psychology Review. 33 (5): 686–697. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.c
pr.2013.04.003). PMC 4382368 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382368). PMID 23702592 (https://w
ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23702592).
44. Shorter, Edward (November 2008). "History of psychiatry" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714299).
Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 21 (6): 593–597. doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e32830aba12 (https://doi.org/10.1097%2Fyco.
0b013e32830aba12). ISSN 0951-7367 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0951-7367). PMC 3714299 (https://www.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714299). PMID 18852567 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18852567).

Further reading
Holder, M. D.; Klassen, A. (13 June 2009). "Temperament and Happiness in Children". Journal of Happiness Studies.
11 (4): 419–439. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9149-2 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10902-009-9149-2).
Joshanloo, M.; Afshari, S. (26 November 2009). "Big Five Personality Traits and Self-Esteem as Predictors of Life
Satisfaction in Iranian Muslim University Students". Journal of Happiness Studies. 12 (1): 105–113.
doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9177-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10902-009-9177-y).
Lischetzke, T.; Eid, M. (August 2006). "Why Extraverts Are Happier Than Introverts: The Role of Mood Regulation".
Journal of Personality. 74 (4): 1127–1162. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00405.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6
494.2006.00405.x). PMID 16787431 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16787431).
Lucas, R.; Baird, B. (2004). "Extraversion and Emotional Reactivity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86
(3): 473–485. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.473 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.86.3.473). PMID 15008650 (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15008650).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 9/10
6/15/2019 Personality - Wikipedia

Strobel, M.; Tumasjan, A.; Spörrle, M. (February 2011). "Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be happy: Self-efficacy
as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well-being". Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 52 (1):
43–48. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00826.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9450.2010.00826.x).
PMID 20497398 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497398).
Zelenski, J.; Santoro, M.; Whelan, D. (April 2012). "Would introverts be better off if they acted more like extraverts?
Exploring emotional and cognitive consequences of counterdispositional behavior". Emotion. 12 (2): 290–303.
doi:10.1037/a0025169 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0025169). PMID 21859197 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme
d/21859197).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personality&oldid=893156938"

This page was last edited on 19 April 2019, at 11:52 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality 10/10