Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:03:20.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A general quantitative theory of personality development: Fundamentals of a self-organizing psychobiological complex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2009

N. M. Švrakić ,
Dragan M. Švrakić  and
C. Robert Cloninger
N. M. Švrakić
Affiliation:
Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University School of Medicine
Dragan M. Švrakić
Affiliation:
Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University School of Medicine
C. Robert Cloninger*
Affiliation:
Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University School of Medicine
*
C. Robert Cloninger, Center for Psychobiology of Personality, Washington University School of Medicine, 4940 Children's Place, St. Louis, MO 63110.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A general theory of personality and its development is described in terms of four quantitative dimensions of temperament and three quantitative dimensions of character. The four temperament dimensions (harm avoidance, novelty seeking, reward dependence, and persistence) are moderately heritable, moderately stable throughout life, and invariant despite sociocultural influences. The three character dimensions (self-directedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence) mature in a stepwise manner from early childhood throughout adulthood. Transitions between levels of maturity are nonlinear functions of temperament, specific genetic influences, social learning, and random life events. Personality development is quantitatively formulated in terms of nonlinear dynamics of a complex adaptive system. The psychosocial interpretation of personality as a fitness-optimizing process is described and illustrated in terms of available data about the development of different personality configurations. Several quantitative predictions of this theory of personality development are tested, including the sequence of emergence of the different character dimensions, individual differences in the development of stable temperament configurations, and the effects of sociocultural influences. The theoretical predictions agree with available empirical data and suggest many hypotheses for future developmental research, including etiological, dynamic, and therapeutic studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 8 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Regulatory Process , Winter 1996 , pp. 247 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Block, J., & Haan, N. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley: Bancroft Books.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 1–10.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Tucker, D. (1994). Development and self-regulatory structures of the mind. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 533–549.Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants: A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry. 44, 573–588.Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R. (1994a). The genetic structure of personality and learning: A phylogenetic model. Clinical Genetics, 46, 124–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloninger, C. R. (1994b). Temperament and personality. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4, 266–273.Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R., & Gilligan, S. B. (1987). Neurogenetic mechanisms of learning: A phylogenetic perspective. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 21, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Švrakić, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory: A guide to its development and use. St. Louis: Washington University Center for Psychobiology of Personality.Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R., Švrakić, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.Google Scholar
Corr, P. J., Pickering, A. D., & Gray, J. A. (1995). Personality and reinforcement in associative and instrumental learning. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and self-organization of personality. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 653–676.Google Scholar
Dumont, J., & Robertson, R. M. (1986). Neuronal circuits: An evolutionary perspective. Science, 233, 849–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elkind, D. (1980). Developmental structuralism of Jean Piaget. In Kaplan, H. I., Freedman, A. M., & Saddock, B. J. (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry (3rd ed., pp. 371–378). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Willkins.Google Scholar
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton Publishing.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (1986). How development works. In Levin, I. (Ed.), Stage and structure: Reopening the debate (pp. 284–306). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldmsith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., Hinde, R. A., & McCall, R. B. (1987). What is temperament? Four Approaches. Child Development, 58, 505–529.Google Scholar
Grossberg, S. (1987). The adaptive brain (Vol. I and II). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Haan, N., Millsap, R., & Hartka, E. (1986). As time goes by: Change and stability in personality over 50 years. Psychology of Aging, 1, 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, A. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Martin, N. G. (1994). Testing a model for the genetic structure of personality: A comparison of the personality systems of Cloninger and Eysenck. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 762–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, J. (1981). The second year: The emergence of self-awareness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1974). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view (Gregor, M. J., Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. (original work published 1798)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A., & Levin, S. (1987). Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 128, 11–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kegan, R. (1985). The loss of Pete's dragon: Development of the self in the years five to seven. In Leahy, R. L. (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 179–204). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children's orientations toward a moral order, I: Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita Humana, 6, 11–33.Google Scholar
Kolb, B., Wilson, B., & Taylor, L. (1992). Developmental changes in the recognition and comprehension of facial expression: Implications for frontal lobe function. Brain and Cognition, 20, 74–84.Google Scholar
Lande, R. (1985). Expected time for random genetic drift of a population between stable phenotypic states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 82, 7641–7645.Google Scholar
Levin, I. (1986). Stage and structure: Reopening the debate. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J., & Knoll, E. (1983). Personality: Stages, traits, and the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development. (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (1981). Genes, mind, and culture: The coevolutionary process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Newman, C. M., Cohen, J. E., & Kipnis, C. (1985). Neo-darwinian evolution implies punctuated equilibria. Nature, 315, 400–401.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1975). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Sherry, D. F., & Schacter, D. L. (1987). The evolution of multiple memory systems. Psychological Review, 94, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigvardsson, S., Bohman, M., & Cloninger, C. R. (1987). Structure and stability of childhood personality: Prediction of later social adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28, 929–946.Google Scholar
Stallings, M. C., Hewitt, J. K., Cloninger, C. R., Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (in press). Genetic and environmental structure of the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: Three or four factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
Švrakić, D. M., Whitehead, C., Przybeck, T. R., & Cloninger, C. R. (1993). Differential diagnosis of personality disorders by the seven-factor model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 991–999.Google Scholar
Thelen, E. (1995). Motor development—A new synthesis. American Psychologist, 50, 79–95.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H. (1956). Learning and instinct in animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Turiel, E., & Davidson, P. (1986). Heterogeneity, inconsistency, and asynchrony in the development of cognitive structures. In Levin, I. (Ed.), Stage and structure: Reopening the debate (pp. 106–143). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1967). Evolution and the genetics of populations: Vol. 1. Genetic and Biometric Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar