This are is an
original student paper that has not been edited.
There may be
occasional errors, so check the resource pages to be sure of proper formatting,
APA style, etc.)
PS 321-01
Dr. Johnson
Even in our
pre-school years, my siblings and I had always been fiercely competitive. We
constantly compare test scores, grade point averages, athletic achievement, and
the amount of extra-curriculars we have been involved
in over the years. As my older brother and sister have graduated, it has become
harder to directly contrast our successes, and while blatant competition within
the three of us has relaxed in the past few years, our
attitudes toward life have remained competitive.
Depending
on the school of thought from which an individual
would approach my trait, explanations would vary widely. Alfred Adler, as a
Neo-Freudian would attribute far less active agency to me and tend to downplay
the effects of my environment, a contrast to later
theorists of the humanistic school of psychology. Gordon Allport attempted to
explain people in ways that would exemplify their individuality. One of his
most convincing and lasting arguments is that although one can share a trait
with another individual, the two would never exhibit the trait in the same
manner—a convincing combination of the idiographic and nomothetic approaches
(Allport, as cited in Monte & Sollod, 2003c).
Allport has
two important advantages to Adler and the rest of his predecessors. Not only
was he the first to study the development of normal personality, but he was
afforded that freedom by the Freudians and personality theorists that preceded
him. With this, Allport also had the astounding advantage of building on
already widely accepted theoretical personality constructs. The functionally
autonomous traits that will be discussed later were derived from the Freudian
system of instinct theory and the theorizing of William James and his idea of
the transitoriness of instincts (Allport, 1937).
Allport differs in that he does not consider the instinct to be the driving
force behind adult or mature personality or behavior, but rather the source of
it. Personality traits, therefore, are “contemporary systems” derived from
these “antecedent systems” (Allport, 1937).
Showing a
direct influence of Adler’s theorizing is Allport's
advocacy of an open system model of personality. He believed that people were
equally proactive and reactive, influenced not only by their past, but by their
present situation, and even possible futures. This approach also emphasizes
that people strive to be better than average, but that this tendency does not derive from a feeling of
inferiority or physical deficiency (Allport, as cited in Monte & Sollod, 2003c).
Central to
understanding Allport’s theory is
understanding his definition of personality traits. The terms trait and
habit may seem to be initially synonymous, but an important distinction and
relationship exist between the two. The main criterion for distinguishing
between the two is their relative expression and subsequent applicability (R.
A. Johnson, personal communication,
This
process of a behavior transforming from a habit into an independent trait is
what Allport described as functional autonomy. Unlike a habit, a trait is known
“not by its roots, but by its fruits” (Allport, 1927). Allport went even
further to distinguish between two types of functional autonomy. Perseverative
functional autonomy is based in some biological or neurological process. One
good example would be that of addiction: the habit of smoking may have begun as
a social behavior, but as individuals continue this behavior, their body
develops a biological dependency on the nicotine. They begin to smoke in
non-social situations, the biology behind addiction creating a perseverative
trait (Allport, as cited in Monte & Sollod,
2003c).
Obviously,
the trait of competitiveness would be poorly explained by the idea of
perseverative functional autonomy. A more likely alternative is propriate
functional autonomy. Taking into account Allport’s
idea of the proprium as the self, it follows that propriate functional autonomy
would be defined as those traits that motivate an individual to behave in ways
that are consistent with one’s sense of self (R. A. Johnson, personal
communication, October 13, 2003). The famous example that Allport used to
illustrate this type is that of an ex-sailor and the sea.
While the
sailor may have originally depended on the sea for his livelihood, he will
still be attracted to it and return to it later in his life, regardless of his
profession. Even though he may be an established white-collar businessman, this
attraction may become stronger as the motivation is further removed from its
original practical function (Allport, 1937).
Applying this reasoning to my own trait of competitiveness, one can
follow the progression of the characteristic from a simple habit to a pervasive
trait, and can observe its presence, regardless of motivation, or lack thereof,
from my immediate environment.
Allport, in
his 1937 publication, details several ways in which a behavior may develop from
a habit into an independent trait. My trait of competitiveness is easily
explained by several of these processes. His description of the circular reflex
describes the human tendency to repeat an action as long as it produces a
pleasurable outcome (this term is often used to describe the babbling of an
infant). So, as long as there is nothing in the environment that would make my
competitiveness maladaptive, I will continue the behavior, since it has
previously lead to success and, in turn, praise—the behavior is
self-perpetuating.
Yet another
concept easily applied to my situation is what Allport stated as the
relationship between ability and interest. The basic argument behind this idea
is the observation that people tend to like whatever it is that they are good
at (Allport, 1937). This does not necessarily mean that I am only competitive
about the activities at which I excel, but rather that I would tend to seek competition in the things at which
I excel. So, while I may still be competitive playing a pick-up game of
basketball, I am far more likely to challenge another person to a pursuit in
which I have more of a chance: soccer, academics, etc. (An even better example
would be the root of my interest in English—I never felt especially inclined
toward the subject until competing in high school).
So how
exactly did my trait of competitiveness gain functional autonomy? As I stated
previously, one of my earliest memories was of taking a standardized test to
determine if I was qualified for entrance into HAPP. I felt the need to compete
with my siblings in order to live up to the expectations of my parents and
standards set by my older brother and sister. As I grew older, there was less
to directly compete over—I was the only soccer-player, the only to major in
psychology or English, and now the only one in my undergraduate studies. My
parents did used to compare grades and test scores among the three of us (not
very damaging, considering our level of performance was practically identical),
but now laugh at my incessant comparisons of Augustana grade point averages. My
parents are no longer a driving force behind my competitiveness, but rather a
slight hindrance. This habit of comparison they instilled in me developed into
an independent trait of competitiveness, reaching even further than test scores
or other academic endeavors.
Allport
also explained, in part, how a trait helps to establish a permanent
personality. Using the example of an academic, he explained that his goal will
never be satisfied—his intellect will never be perfected and his problems never
completely solved (Allport, 1937). Likewise, my personality would prove
enduring in that I will never excel in everything I attempt, fueling my
competitive drive.
Allport went even further in his study of traits, making a classification system explaining the properties of cardinal, central, and secondary traits (Allport, as cited in Monte & Sollod, 2003c). Considering how few of individuals there are in the world possessing cardinal traits and the pervasiveness of their application, my competitiveness would not fit into this category. My trait would best be explained as a central trait—included in a list of 10 words to describe my personality. It would be more influential than a secondary trait, applicable in a large number and variety of situations.
And,
fitting with Allport’s idea of the healthy
personality, I, along with the rest of the class, would fit into his last
stage: self-as-knower. By late adolescence and adulthood, individuals should
have the power to make value judgements about
themselves, and have an advanced awareness of who they are.
Like
Adler, Allport also has his critics. Robert Holt accused Allport of developing
a “romantic personology,” that the study of uniqueness is inherently
unscientific. He likened Allport to an artist concerned more with understanding
the idiosyncrasies of an individual, rather than a scientist interested in
prediction and control (as cited in Monte & Sollod,
2003c). Allport attempted to clarify and revise with the explanation that
functional autonomy is an attempt to describe a general law that provides for
the development of a unique personality. In contrast to my earlier criticism of
Adler, Allport’s theory does seem to have an element
of prediction built into it. In fact, his theories have even led to the
development of tests to discern the leadership abilities and future success of
executives (Allport, 1940).
As
for the relative ability of Alder and Allport to describe my trait, I would
have to judge that Allport’s theory is more
convincing. The main problem with Adler’s theory is that the foundation is
fallible. I suffered from no real organ inferiority, especially in the
sensitive period that Adler specified. Considering that I had to re-interpret
the basic premise of his theory in a way he probably would not have agreed with
uncovers a major flaw in his theorizing—a weakness not easily found in Allport’s trait theory.
Allport
picked up Adler’s slack, not only wanting to understand the development of
personality, but also to predict. His theory is not based on something so
easily disconfirmed as biology, and lends itself more openly to interpretation.
This seeming strength may once again be Allport’s
weakness. His theory is more easily stretched to account for any trait,
lessening its ability to predict.
Overall,
I find Allport’s theory more convincing, if not only
for its solid foundation, then his knowledge of previous theorists’ faults and
his own attempts to account for them in his theory. He was more self-aware and
acknowledging of his weaknesses than Adler was. And considering I, like most
people, was not “blessed” with inferior organs, one would have to stretch
Adler’s theory more than he would have approved of. Both attribute a certain
level of active human agency and room for individuality in expression, but
Allport attributes a higher level of each, fitting with modern perceptions of
personality and development.
References
Adler, A.
(1930). Individual psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.) & S. Langer (Trans.), Psychologies of 1930 (pp. 395-405).
Adler, A.
(1933). Mind and body. In What life
should mean to you. Unwin Books, 1932. Retrieved
on
Adler, A.
(1946). How the child selects his symptoms. Individual
Psychology Bulletin, 5, 67-78. Retrieved on
Allport, G.
(1927). Concepts of trait and personality. Psychological
Bulletin, 24, 284-293. Retrieved on
Allport, G.
(1937). The functional autonomy of motives. American
Journal of Psychology, 50, 141-156. Retrieved on
Allport, G.
(1940). The psychologist’s frame of reference. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 1-28. Retrieved on
Monte, C. F., & Sollod, R. N. (2003a). Alfred
Adler/Individual psychology. In Beneath
the mask: Introduction to theories of personality (7th ed.,
pp.158-189).
Monte, C. F., & Sollod, R. N. (2003c). Gordon W.
Allport/Humanistic trait and self theory. In Beneath the mask: Introduction to theories of personality (7th
ed., pp. 394-419).
Monte, C. F., & Sollod, R. N. (2003b). Karen
Horney/Psychoanalytic social psychology. In Beneath
the mask: Introduction to theories of personality (7th ed., pp.
369-393).