CHAPTER 14
ALLPORT: PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
LECTURE OUTLINE
I. Overview of Allport’s Psychology of the
Individual
Allport
built his theory of personality as a reaction against both psychoanalysis and
animal-based learning theory. He criticized these other theories as neglecting
the normal and psychologically healthy individual. However, Allport was eclectic in his approach and borrowed
ideas from both psychoanalysis and from learning theory. His major emphasis was
on the uniqueness of each individual.
Gordon
Allport was born in Indiana in 1897, the youngest son of a country doctor and a
former schoolteacher. In 1915, he followed his older brother Floyd (also a
famous psychologist) to Harvard, beginning a nearly continuous 50-year
association with that university. Allport’s undergraduate degree was in
philosophy and economics, but a fortuitous meeting with Sigmund Freud in Vienna
helped him decide to complete a Ph.D. in psychology. He then spent two years
studying under some of the great German psychologists, but returned to teach at
Harvard. After two years, he took a position at Dartmouth, but after four years
at Dartmouth, he returned to Harvard, where he remained until his death in
1967.
III. Allport’s Approach to Personality
Allport believed that
psychologically healthy humans are motivated by present, mostly conscious
drives and that they not only seek to reduce tensions but to establish new
tensions. He also believed that people are capable of proactive behavior. The concept of proaction suggests that people
can consciously behave in new and creative ways that foster their own change
and growth. Allport called his study of the individual morphogenic science and contrasted it with traditional nomothetic methods that study groups of
people.
IV. Personality Defined
Allport’s
precisely thought-out definition of personality, which remains frequently
quoted, states that “personality is the dynamic organization within the
individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic
behavior and thought” (Allport, 1961, p. 28).
V. Structure of Personality
According
to Allport, the basic units of personality are personal dispositions and the
proprium.
A. Personal
Dispositions
Allport
was careful to distinguish between common
traits, which permit inter-individual comparisons, and personal
dispositions, which are peculiar to the individual. He argued that one
individual’s personal disposition (e.g., aggressiveness) cannot be compared to
that of another individual.
1. Levels of
Personal Dispositions
Allport
recognized three overlapping levels of personal dispositions. The most general
are the cardinal dispositions, which are so obvious and dominating that
they cannot be hidden from others. Not everyone has a cardinal disposition, but
all people have 5 to 10 central
dispositions, or characteristics
around which their lives revolve. In addition, everyone has a great number of secondary dispositions, which are less
reliable and conspicuous than central dispositions.
2. Motivational
and Stylistic Dispositions
Allport further
divided personal dispositions into motivational and stylistic dispositions. Motivational dispositions are more
strongly felt and derive from basic needs and drives. They initiate action. Stylistic dispositions, which refer to
the manner in which an individual behaves, guide action.
B. Proprium
The
proprium refers to all those behaviors and characteristics that people regard
as warm and central in their lives. Propriate experiences and possessions are
opposed to those that lie on the periphery of personality. Allport preferred
the term proprium to self or ego because the latter terms could imply an object
or thing within a person that controls behavior, whereas proprium suggests the
core of
one’s personhood.
VI. Motivation
To
Allport, an adequate theory of motivation must consider the notion that motives
change as people mature and also that people are motivated by present drives
and wants.
A. Reactive and
Proactive Theories of Motivation
Allport
insisted that a useful theory of personality rests on the assumption that
people not only react to their environment but also shape their environment and
cause it to react to them. He criticized psychoanalysis and animal-based
learning theories as being reactive because they saw people as being motivated
by needs to reduce tension and to react to their environment. His proactive
approach emphasized that people consciously and purposefully act on their
environment
in a way that fosters growth toward psychological health.
B. Functional
Autonomy
Allport’s
most distinctive and controversial concept is his theory of functional
autonomy, which holds that some (but not all) human motives are functionally
independent from the original motive responsible for a particular behavior.
Motives that are not functionally autonomous include those that are responsible
for reflex actions, basic drives, and pathological behaviors.
1. Perseverative
Functional Autonomy
Allport
recognized two levels of functional autonomy. Perseverative
functional autonomy is the tendency
of certain basic behaviors to continue
in the absence of reinforcement. Addictive behaviors are examples of
perseverative functional autonomy.
2. Propriate
Functional Autonomy
The
other level is propriate functional autonomy, which refers to self-sustaining
motives that are related to the proprium. Examples of propriate functionally
autonomous behaviors include pursuing interests that one holds dear and
important.
3. Criterion for
Functional Autonomy
Present
motives are functionally autonomous to the extent that they seek new goals.
That is, functionally autonomous behaviors will continue even after the
motivation behind those behaviors change.
4. Processes That
Are Not Functionally Autonomous
Allport
listed eight processes that are not functionally autonomous: (1) biological
drives, (2) motives directly linked to the reduction of basic drives, (3)
reflexes,
(4) constitutional equipment, (5) habits in the process of being formed,
(6) patterns of behavior that require primary reinforcement, (7) sublimations
that are linked to unpleasant childhood experiences, and (8) certain neurotic
or pathological symptoms.
C. Conscious and
Unconscious Motivation
Although
Allport emphasized conscious motivation more than any other personality
theorist, he did not completely overlook the possible influence of unconscious
motives. Pathological behaviors are often motivated by
unconscious drives, but healthy individuals are ordinarily consciously in
control of their behavior.
VII. The Psychologically Healthy Personality
Years
before Maslow identified the characteristics of the self-actualized person,
Allport listed his criteria for psychological health. To Allport, the
psychologically healthy person would possess six characteristics: (1) an
extension of the sense of self, (2) warm relationships with others, (3)
emotional security or self-acceptance, (4) a realistic view of the world, (5)
insight and humor, and (6) a unifying philosophy of life.
VIII. The Study of the Individual
Allport
strongly felt that psychology should develop and use research methods that
study the individual rather than groups.
A. Morphogenic Science
Traditional
psychology relies on nomothetic science, which seeks general laws from a study
of groups of people, but Allport used morphogenic
procedures that study patterns of traits within the single case. Allport
accepted self-reports, such as diaries, at face value.
B. The Diaries of
Marion Taylor
During
the late 1930’s, Allport and his wife became acquainted with personal
documents, including diaries, of a woman they called Marion Taylor. Although
the Allports analyzed much of this information, they never published an account
of Marion Taylor’s story.
A short
time later, the Allports analyzed and published a series of letters they had
received from an older women named Jenny. These letters constitute Allport’s
best-known example of morphogenic science in that they reveal one person’s
pattern of behavior. Two of Allport’s students, Alfred Baldwin and Jeffrey
Paige, used a personal structure analysis and factor analysis, respectively,
whereas Allport used a commonsense approach to discern Jenny’s personality
structure as revealed by her letters. All three approaches yielded similar
results, suggesting that morphogenic studies may be reliable.
IX. Related Research
Allport believed that a
deep religious commitment was a mark of a mature person, but he also saw that
many regular churchgoers did not have a mature religious orientation and were
capable of deep racial and social prejudice. In other words, he saw a
curvilinear relationship between
church attendance and prejudice.
This insight led Allport to
develop and use the Religious Orientation Scale to assess both an intrinsic orientation and an extrinsic orientation toward religion.
Allport and Ross (1967) found that people with an extrinsic orientation toward
religion tend to be quite prejudiced, whereas those with an intrinsic
orientation tend to be low on racial and social prejudice. A review of later
studies (Trimble, 1997) found that prejudice is positively related to an
extrinsic religious orientation but unrelated to an intrinsic religious
orientation.
B. Religious
Orientation and Psychological Health
Research by Ralph Hood
(1970) and others (Hansen, Vandenberg, & Patterson, 1995; Kosek, 1999;
Maltby, 1999) has found that people who score high on the Intrinsic scale of
the ROS tend to have overall better personal functioning than those who score
high on the Extrinsic scale. In general, these studies have found that some
highly religious people have strong psychological health, whereas others suffer
from a variety of psychological disorders. The principal difference between the
two groups is one of intrinsic or extrinsic religious orientation; that is,
people with an intrinsic orientation tend to be psychologically healthy, but
those with an extrinsic orientation suffer from poor psychological health.
X. Critique of Allport
Allport
wrote eloquently about personality, but his views were based more on
philosophical speculation and common sense than on scientific studies. As a
consequence, his theory is quite narrow, being limited mostly to a model of
human motivation. Thus, it rates low on its ability to organize psychological
data and to submit itself to falsification. It rates high on parsimony and
internal consistency and about average on its ability to generate research and
to help the practitioner.
XI. Concept of Humanity
Allport
saw people as thinking, proactive, purposeful beings who are generally aware of
what they are doing and why. On the six dimensions for a concept of humanity,
Allport rates higher than any other theorist on conscious influences and on the
uniqueness of the individual. He rates high on free choice, optimism, and
teleology, and about average on social influences.