Personality Psychology: Current Status and Prospects For the Future

• Authors: Pervin Lawrence A.
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The author wants to consider the current status and future of the field of personality psychology, often basing his observations on his own research and theoretical interests. He begins by summarizing what he has to say in terms of three points of emphasis: First, the field of personality can be viewed in terms of three disciplines - trait, social cognitive, and psychodynamic - each associated with its own empirical procedures and observations. That is, each is associated with its own form of personality data but all represent relevant data. Second, there is a need in the field for a dynamic systems perspective, one that emphasizes the interplay among the parts of the personality system in the course of the person's ongoing transactions with the physical and interpersonal environment. Third, in the future personality psychologists increasingly will have to integrate findings from biopsychology and neuroscience into their theories and research questions. This raises the question of how they can create bridges across levels of analysis and avoid the problem of reductionism. In other words, there is the issue of how personality psychologists will address the mind-body problem.

Keywords

EN

COGNITION; CONFLICT; GOALS; MOTIVES; PERSONALITY THEORY; SYSTEMS; TRAITS

Discipline

• PSYCHOLOGY: PSYCHOLOGY

• Publisher: Committee for Psychological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Polish Psychological Bulletin
• Year: 2008
• Volume: 39
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 171-177
• Physical description: source-id: PPB_39_4\UU3H174046327L57.xml
• Document type: ARTICLE

Contributors

author

Pervin Lawrence A.

• Lawrence A. Pervin, Rutgers University (for postal address contact the journal editor

References

• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.Annual Review of psychology, 52, 1-26.
• Benjamin, L. T.Jr., & Jones, M. R. (1978). From motivational theory to social cognitive development: Twenty-five years of the Nebraska Symposium.Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 26, ix-xix.
• Bergman, Magnusson, & El-Khouri (2003)
• Bindra, D., & Scheier, I. H. (1954). The relation between psychometric and experimental research in psychology.American Psychologist, 9, 69-71.
• Boring, E. G. (1950).A history of experimental psychology.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Cacioppo, J. T. (1999). The case for sociall psychology in the era of molecular biology.Keynote address at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Preconference, June 3, 1999. Denver, CO.
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Bernstein, G. G. (1992). Social psychological contributions to the decade of the brain: The doctrine of multilevel analysis.American Psychologist, 47, 1019-1028.
• Cervone, D. (1997). Social-cognitive mechanisms and personality coherence: Self-knowledge, situational beliefs, and cross-situational coherence in perceived self-efficacy.Psychological science, 8, 43-50.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
• Damasio, A. R. (1994).Descartes' error.New York: Avon.
• Dashiell, J. F. (1939). Some rapprochements in contemporary psychology.Psychological Bulletin, 36, 1-24.
• Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950).Personality and psychotherapy.New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Eysenck, H. J. (1970).The structure of human personality.London: Methuen.
• Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality.Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197-221.
• Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001)l. AmfMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment.Science, 293, 2105-2107.
• Hogan, R. (1982). On adding apples and oranges in personality psychology.Contemporary Psychology, 27, 851-852.
• Jones, M. (1962). Introduction. In M. Jones (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, (vol. 10).Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Kimble, G. A. (1984). Psychology's two cultures.American Psychologist, 39, 833-839.
• Lewontin, R. (2001).It ain't necessarily so: The dream of the human genome and other illusions.New York: New York Review of Books.
• Luhrman, M. T. (2000).Of two minds: The growing disorder in American psychiatry.New York: Knopf.
• Magnusson, D. (1999). Holistic interactionism: A perspective for research on personality development. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research(pp.219-247). New York: Guilford.
• Magnusson, D. (2000). The individual as the organizing principle in psychological inquiry: A holistic approach. In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L-G Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.),Developmental science and the holistic approach(pp.33-48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Markus, H. R. (2004). A social psychological model of behavior.Dialogue, 19, 1-4.
• Meehl, P. E. (1954).Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Miller, G. A. (1996). How we think about cognition, emotion, and biology in psychopathology.Psychophysiology, 33, 615-628.
• Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personalityi: The cognitive-affective personality system. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),Handbook of Personality: Theory and research(pp.197-218). New York: Guilford.
• Murray, H. A. (1938).Explorations in personality.New York: Oxford University Press.
• Pervin, L. A. (1970).Personality: Theory and research.New York: Wiley.
• Pervin, L. A. (1976). A free-response description approach to the analysis of person-situation interaction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 465-474.
• Pervin, L. A. (1983). The stasis and flow of behavior: Toward a theory of goals. In M. M. Page (Ed.),Personality: Current theory and research(pp.1-53). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Pervin, L. A. (1991). Goals, plans, and problems in the self-regulation of behavior: The question of volition. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.),Advances in motivation and achievement(pp.1-20). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Pervin, L. A. (2000). The four Cs of personality: Context, consistency, conflict, and coherence. In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L-G. Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.),Developmental science and the holistic approach(pp.251-264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Pervin, L. A. (2001). A dynamic systems approach to personality.European Psychologist, 6, 172-176.
• Pervin, L. A. (2002).Currrent controversies and issues in personality.New York: Wiley.
• Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intra-individual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 674-687.
• Weiner, J. (1999).Time, love, memory.New York: Knopf.
• Wilson, E. O. (1998).Consilience.New York: Knopf.

Identifiers

CEJSH db identifier

09PLAAAA071022

DOI

10.2478/v10059-008-0024-5