Trait Theory of Personality

The Trait Theory of Personality suggests that individual personalities are composed of broad dispositions. The primary focus of the trait theory of personality is to identify and measure individual personality characteristics. A trait is thought of a stable characteristic that causes individuals to behave in a certain manner.

Cardinal Traits are traits that hold significant dominance over a person's personality, to the point that the individual becomes known for these traits. They are rare and develop later in life, and take over the individual's personality. Central Traits are general characteristics that form the base of one's personality. Although they are not as dominant as Cardinal Traits, they are a mayor characteristic for a person. They are the characteristics you might use to describe an individual with, such as intelligent, frank, serious or honest. Secondary Traits are related to the attitudes and preferences of an individual. They usually appear in certain situations and under specific circumstances. The differences between these traits implies how much power a trait holds over an individual. The most common criticisms to the trait theory are that we cannot use it to predict one's future behavior, and its role holds no explanation of a personality's development, and does not consider the change of negative aspects of a trait. Hence, without understanding how a trait develops, we cannot possibly know how to change it, and change our behavior.

On the other hand we have the Five Factor Model of Personality. It claims that much of what we need to know about an individual's personality can be captured by their standing on the five measurable personality factors or traits. The five factors of this model are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Openness to experience is considered in the means of intuitive and curious vs. consistent and cautious. Typically individuals that score low on the scale are considered  to be down to earth and practical. They hold traditional beliefs and are sometimes described as "plain and straight forward". On the other hand, high scorers are considered to be imaginative and creative, open to experience and sensitive to beauty.

Conscientiousness is considered to hold efficient and organized vs. easygoing and careless. Low scorers are said to be easygoing, unreliable and sloppy. They are described as spontaneous and care free. High scorers are considered organized, tidy and striving. They are self disciplined, dutiful and aim for achievement. Extroversion is the scale between people who are outgoing and energetic, compared to those who are solitary and reserved. People that score low on this scale are reserved, serious and passive. They are often described as "low-key" and deliberate. On the other end, high scorers are usually outgoing, active and sociable. They are engaged in the external world and enthusiastic. Agreeableness considers the tendency to be compassionate and cooperative. Low scorers are hostile, selfish and cold. They are considered to hold self interest over getting along with others, and are less likely to extend themselves to other people. Individuals with high scores are said to be kind, trusting, warm and altruistic. They value getting along with others and hold an optimistic view on human nature. The last trait is neuroticism, which measures how likely you are to experience negative emotions. People who score low  are relaxed and even tempered. They are said to be less likely to get upset, calm and emotionally stable. High scorers are considered emotional, moody and impulsive. They are more susceptible to stress, and their negative mood lasts for a longer time. This scale represents two extremes, and most people fall somewhere in between the two polar ends of each dimension.  Two strengths of McCrae and Costa's five factor model of personality is their objectivity and easy use and understanding. McCrae and his colleagues have also found that the big five traits are remarkably universal. One study that looked at people from more then fifty different cultures found that the theories dimensions could be accurately used to describe the participant's personality. Another food trail of the big five is that it provides an easy continuum with a great deal of information with regards to one's personality, interactions, and beliefs about their self as well as the world.

Stereotyping

The "stereotype threat" is a negative stereotype, and its effects on performance. This is an example of the performance impairment that results when individuals asked to carry out an task are made aware of a negative stereotype held against them regarding their group's ability to preform well in that task. It is scary how even with the slightest manipulation we can find proof for this theory. For example, if you simply tell female participants, before they take a math test, that males usually do better in math, then this will lead to deterioration of female performance in the test. Or if you make older participants aware of their age, they will perform significantly worse on their memory tests, then members of the same age who haven't been reminded of this internal stereotype. Any strong stereotype category that a person belongs to, such as sex, age, or race is susceptible to negative, but also positive stereotype influence. It was shown that positive stereotype reinforcement may be just as powerful as any negative threat. If you invoke a positive stereotype, such as college students are good at math, or older people have more experience, the targeted groups mentioned above can actually better scores then they normally would.  Researchers have determined that stereotypes can have an huge impact on those that they target. It is not anymore about the feeling, not just harmless words. The power of a stereotype is so strong that it can overwhelm many of our traits,  which then results in the saying: you're only as good as you expect to be.

Social Identity Theory

The videos we watched in class showed how in 1968, Jane Elliott, a teacher in a small, all-white Iowa town, divided her third-grade class into blue-eyed and brown-eyed groups and gave them a daring lesson in discrimination. Most of the children in the Class Divided exercise have been friends, playing around on the playground and getting along well.  The children accepted the views that their teacher gave them, that blue eyed people were superior then brown eyed people. This way, groups of power differences were created, and the class was split in half. Within minutes, the blue eyed kids started to work with this new fact, and discriminate. The children started calling the out-group "brown eyes" as an insult. They were teasing them, separating from them, and suggesting that if the brown eyed people get out of hand, to use a ruler to tame them. The effect was real. During recces, one of the brown eyed children felt so much hurt, and so put down by being in the worse group, that he hit one of his classmates - a kid he was probably a best friend with the day before. This exercise teaches us many lessons. It shows how hurtful, and real life prejudice and discrimination are, but it also shows many interesting psychological aspects of our behavior. The social identity theory as well as minimal group paradigm help explain what actually happened. The children were very easily convinced of their status. Their in-group - "we"- and their out-group - "them"- were clearly stated, and reacted upon. The blue eyed kids were the in-group, believing that they are similar to each-other, but that the out-group, the brown are kids, are all the same, and completely different form them. After all, they were told that blue eyed people were smarter, and better. After a while, the kids were pointing out these differences too. This resulted from their social comparison, and resulted in the outbursts that were clearly their way of showing positive distinctiveness. They pointed out the inter-group differentiation, and after a while, would clearly in-group favoritism. Everything the brown eyes did was because they were "stupid", and the brown eyes weren't fighting at all, they accepted their group and role. 

*This takes you through only one of the days of the experiment, the day when blue eyed people were on the top.