AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Personality is an important aspect of human beings, as it influences a range of behavioural and social outcomes (Bouchard & McGue, 2003). However, there remains much debate over whether personality is determined by biological or environmental factors, which can be conceived as the person-situation personality debate. This essay will outline the main arguments for each side of the debate, explain what each side suggests about equality, free will, self-determination, and individual responsibility, and finish off with reasons why I adopt an interactionist perspective and how this can be a resolution to the debate.  

Firstly, before describing the person-situation personality debate, it is important to define a key concept- personality. Personality has many definitions as different psychologists employ slightly different meanings of the concept. However, there is a common sense of what personality means. Cervone and Pervin (2010) claim most personality psychologists refer to personality as “psychological qualities that contribute to an individual’s enduring and distinctive patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving” (p. 8). Therefore, this definition of personality will be used for this essay.

Personality is important as it influences a range of behavioural and social outcomes, which has been documented in many studies. For example, studies have found conscientiousness enhances academic performance and reduces the risk of dying early by 30% (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Rogers, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). Therefore, personality has some predictive value in terms of people’s life outcomes (Bouchard & McGue, 2003). However, there remains controversy over what determines personality, which is driven by the person-situation debate. Although this essay is about the person-situation debate, it is very similar to the nature-nurture debate of personality. The nature debate is similar to the person debate as it focuses on biological influences on personality (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). Although the situation and nurture arguments are also similar, the nurture debate has a wider scope. The nurture debate suggests upbringing and social environments determine personality, whereas the situation debate suggests the context of different situations determines personality (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). Nonetheless, due to the similarities in the arguments, this essay will adopt a broader approach to the person-situation debate and include upbringing and social environmental factors within the situation debate. 

Firstly, the person debate claims personality is determined by personality traits, which are intrinsic biological dispositions that develop independently of environmental influences. That is, biological factors influence personality (McCrae et al., 2000). In fact, several studies have shown biological influences on personality, especially genetic influences. One example is the Minnesota study, which measured personalities of over a hundred twins from all around the world (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990). On multiple measures of personality, the twins were fairly similar, with a correlation of around 0.45 to 0.50 (Bouchard et al., 1990). Furthermore, twins reared apart were no less similar than twins raised together (Bouchard, 1990). Therefore, this study suggests genetic factors may be more important than the environment in determining personality.

Other studies have also highlighted the influence of genetics on personality. A study by Riemann and colleagues (2006) used self-report and peer-report questionnaires to measure the personalities of twins. The results showed all big five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) to be fairly similar between the twins, with identical twins having a higher correlation than that of non-identical twins (Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 2006). Furthermore the study estimated a heritability estimate of 0.42 to 0.52 based on self-report data and 0.57 to 0.81 based on peer-report data (Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 2006). Therefore, this study supports the contribution of genetic factors in the development of personality.

More recently, molecular genetic studies have attempted to identify specific genes that may be related to certain personality traits. A study by Schmidt and colleagues (2002) used maternal reports and observed behaviours during peer-play situations amongst four your olds to look at the relationship between the dopamine D4 receptor gene and aggressive behaviours. The results showed children with long repeat alleles for the gene had significantly higher maternal reports of aggressive behaviour, although no association was found with observed behavioural measures (possibly because peer-play only has a short duration period) (Schmidt, Fox,  Rubin, Hu, & Hamer, 2002). Therefore, this study suggests the gene for dopamine D4 receptor may have some role in aggressive behaviours of children in normal development, which supports the person debate.

Contrastingly, the situation debate argues it is the context of the environment that determines personality, as it moulds identities, skills, attitudes, and values, which are the concrete expressions of personality (McCrae et al., 2000). As with the person debate, there is also evidence supporting the situation debate. This is demonstrated by a study which showed Hong Kong-born Chinese scored significantly lower than Canadian-born Chinese in a range of personality factors, including facets of extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, and openness (McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998). Since both groups were Chinese, the researchers suggest the effects were due to acculturation to Canadian culture, as Canadian culture tends to promote pro-social attitudes and behaviours whereas Hong Kong culture tends to restrict imagination, liberal values, and optimism (McCrae et al., 1998). Therefore, this study suggests environmental forces, such as culture, have significant impacts on personality.

Another study by Twenge and colleagues (2008) supports the role of environmental factors in influencing personality. The study found a 30% increase in levels of narcissism amongst American college students between 1979 and 2006 (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). Since genetic factors are unlikely to have changed over this short inter-generational period, the researchers suggest the increase in narcissism may be related to an increase in the importance of individualism in American culture (Twenge et al., 2008). Therefore, there is clear evidence for the situation debate too.

Having outlined the key arguments for each side of the person-situation debate, it is now important to assess what each side suggests about important concepts of human nature: equality, free will, self-determination, and individual responsibility. The first concept of equality refers to the extent to which people are equal. According to the person debate, there is no equality between individuals, as people are born with different biological factors and therefore, different personalities. Consequently, people’s outcomes will be different, even given the best situations (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). A study by Werner (1995) provides some support to this position, which followed children from birth through to the age of 32 to measure the effects of a variety of risk factors on a child’s resilience. Of those children who experienced four or more risk factors by two years of age, two thirds developed a variety of problems, including behavioural problems. However, the remaining one third developed into well-adjusted adults who were caring and competent (Werner, 1995). Although many factors may have contributed to the favourable outcomes of these children, one important factor is temperament, which is “biologically based emotional and behavioural tendencies” of an individual (Cervone & Pervin, 2010, p. 552). The study suggests these children had good coping abilities because their temperaments elicited positive responses from those in their life, such as parents and teachers (Werner, 1995). Furthermore, the study suggests these dispositions may have influenced them to select or create environments that reinforced and rewarded their competencies (Werner, 1995). Therefore, although environmental factors may be important, this study suggesst inherent differences between individuals, such as temperament, influences individual outcomes (Werner, 1995).

However, the situation debate gives a completely different argument of equality. This side of the debate argues everyone is born equal and it is the social environment that affects people’s personalities and their life outcomes (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). This can be reflected in a study by Canvin and colleagues (2009), which suggested the development of resilience is influenced by the social, cultural, and political contexts that individuals are exposed to. Among individuals who had developed a sense of resilience, many recalled it was the opportunities available to them that helped them to become well-adjusted, such as family and community support, activities that enhanced self-esteem, and so on (Canvin, Marttila, Burstrom, & Whitehead, 2009). Therefore, this study suggests resilience is not a trait that people are born with. Rather, resilience is developed in response to an individual’s social environment (Canvin et al., 2009). Therefore, it is the different situations that people are exposed to which influences personalities.

Another key concept is free will, which refers the extent to which people can control their own actions (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). With respect to this concept, both the person and situation debate tend to agree, but for different reasons. The person debate argues people lack free will because their personality and behaviours are determined by biological factors beyond their control (Friedman and Schustack, 2009). This argument gains support through a variety of genetic disorders that affect personality. For example, a defect on chromosome fifteen results in a genetic disorder known as Angelman syndrome, which causes people to have a happy and gleeful disposition (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). Another example is William’s syndrome, which results from the absence of around two dozen genes found on chromosome seven and causes people to be very sociable (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). Therefore, genetic cases such as these illustrate genetic factors alone can control personality (Friedman & Schustack, 2009).

The situation debate also supports a lack of free will amongst individuals, as it argues environmental factors influence personality beyond an individual’s control (Friedman & Schustack, 2009).  This is supported in a study by DeRosier and colleagues (1994), which showed aggression is not necessarily caused by characteristics of the individual, but the social context, because aggression is an interpersonal act and should arise in a context where there is at least one other individual. The study observed aggressive behaviours of young boys in the context of experimental play situations to study the relationship between the social-psychological context and aggressive behaviour. The results showed aggressive behaviour was more common in contexts characterised by high levels of aversive behaviour, activity, competition, and low levels of group cohesion (DeRosier, Cillessen, Coie, & Dodge, 1994). Therefore, this finding suggests the context of the situation can influence behaviour beyond an individual’s control.  

Another key concept is self-determination, which focuses on what drives an individual’s actions. According to the person debate, individual actions are driven by intrinsically meaningful goals, such as inherent needs to act in autonomous and self-determined ways (Cervone & Pervin, 2010). This is supported by research showing that people have greater persistence and effort when pursuing goals that are intrinsically meaningful, such as those set by themselves, rather than goals that are externally driven (Koestner, Lekes, Powers, & Chicoine, 2002). Therefore, this supports the importance of intrinsic goals with regards to self-determination.

However, there is also support for the situation debate of self-determination, which suggests individual actions are driven by extrinsic forces. A study by Iyengar and Lepper (1999) compared motivation between Anglo-American and Asian-American children and found greater motivation by extrinsic goals, such as those set for them by peers or trusted people of authority, amongst Asian-American children (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). Therefore, these results suggest extrinsic goals are also important to self-determination.  

The final concept is individual responsibility, which relates to whether individuals should be held responsible for their actions. Since both the person and situation debate suggests individuals have no free will, this implies individuals should not be held responsible for their own actions. Evidence of this can be found in positivist theories of criminology, which suggests individuals cannot be held responsible for their own actions, as all behaviour is determined by biological or social influences that are beyond the individual’s control (Young, 1981). Therefore, both the person and situation debate argue there is no individual responsibility.

In light of the evidence presented, I agree with both sides of the debate, as it is clear that both biological and environmental factors play a critical role in the development of personality. Therefore, I stand in the middle of the person-situation debate and prefer an interactionist position. In fact, plenty of research also supports an interactionist position by showing an interaction between genes and the environment. A study by Capsi and colleagues (2002) followed male children from birth to adulthood to test why maltreatment influenced some individuals to develop anti-social behaviours, but not others. The study found individuals with a genotype that coded for low levels of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) were more likely to develop anti-social problems in response to maltreatment than individuals with a genotype for high MAOA expression (Caspi et al., 2002). Therefore, these results suggest the development of anti-social behaviour is dependent on an individual’s genetic make-up and the exposure to adverse events.

Another study by Caspi and colleagues (2003) tested why stressful events influenced some individuals to develop depression, but not others. The study found a polymorphism of the serotonin transporter gene in the promoter region moderated the influence of stressful events on the development of depression. Individuals who carried at least one short allele for the gene had a greater response to stressful events, as they showed more depressive symptoms and had higher rates of diagnosed depression and suicidality compared to individuals who had two long alleles for the gene (Caspi et al., 2003). Therefore, these results suggest depression is dependent on both the genetic make-up of an individual and the exposure to stressful life events, which confirms an interactionist perspective.

Studies which show an interaction between genes and the environment encompass both the person and situation debate. In fact, most psychologists now realise that personality is contingent on the interaction between both biology and the environment (Friedman & Schustack, 2009). Thus, I believe the debate has been resolved to a large extent because the interactionist perspective acknowledges the strengths of both sides of the debate and discredits one major flaw- that the person-situation debates are dichotomous or mutually exclusive. However, although I agree with both sides of argument, there are some finer details I disagree with. For example, the notion that individuals lack free will denies any sense of freedom amongst individuals. This contradicts other theories of personality, such as social-cognitive theories, which highlight people’s ability to be active agents in their own lives (Cervone & Pervin, 2010).

Overall, the person-situation personality debate has been an area of much controversy in the history of personality psychology. While both sides appear to be polar opposites in most respects, such as the causes of personality and what this means for equality, free will, self-determination, and individual responsibility, evidence supports both sides of the argument. Therefore, adopting an interactionist position can resolve the main aspects of the person-situation debate, as it encompasses the main arguments of both sides. Nonetheless, although I believe an interactionist perspective has resolved much of the debate, there is still potential for further research to find out which genes are responsible for certain personality factors and how specific environmental factors can influence the expression of such genes. 

References

Bouchard Jr, 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. The Science of Mental Health: Personality and personality disorder, 139-144.

Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54(1), 4-45.

Canvin, K., Marttila, A., Burstrom, B., & Whitehead, M. (2009). Tales of the unexpected? Hidden resilience in poor households in Britain. Social Science & Medicine, 69(2), 238-245.

Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H. L., et al. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science Signaling, 301(5631), 386.

Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319-338.

DeRosier, M. E., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Group social context and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, 65(4), 1068-1079.

Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2009). Personality: Classic theories and modern research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.

Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231-244.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., et al. (2000). Nature Over Nurture: Temperament Personality, and Life Span Development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 173-186.

McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 1041-1055.

Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the self-and peer report NEO-FFI scales. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 449-475.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313.

Schmidt, L. A., Fox, N. A., Rubin, K. H., Hu, S., & Hamer, D. H. (2002). Molecular genetics of shyness and aggression in preschoolers. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(2), 227-238.

Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875-902.

Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 81-85.

Young, J. (1981). Thinking seriously about crime: Some models of criminology. Crime and Society: Readings in History and Theory, Routledge and Kegan Paul/Open University Press, London.