Theories of Personality Development: Nature, Nurture & Maturation

Introduction

Personality traits change with time. It is well accepted that these changes are lifelong — there is no single moment at which personality remains entirely static. However, the sources of these changes are not fully understood. There are multiple theories that attempt to explain this. Some argue that personality changes are caused by the environment, others contend that they are caused by social roles (often influenced by age), while still others posit that personality changes are driven by biological aging (Kandler, 2012). Most psychologists and researchers study personality by first describing and measuring certain behavioral differences and then hypothesizing how those differences occur. Most approach personality as a unified whole rather than a collection of loosely related behavioral tendencies. According to Xavier (1996), personality is the sum of one's observable behavior, feelings, and thinking patterns.

At the core of research on personality and personality development is the understanding that individuals differ systematically from one another across a number of characteristics. These characteristics may fall within the domain of observable behavior, feelings, or thinking patterns. Many psychologists agree that these characteristics are often stable for a period but change with time or with situation (Bencsik, Machova, & Hevesi, 2016). This paper examines the foundations of personality — the earliest influences that shape initial traits — as well as the development of personality over the lifespan.

Foundations of Personality

Several theories and hypotheses have been proposed to explain how personality traits initially develop. This section discusses some of the most influential among them.

Nature refers to things that are innate or genetic. In the context of personality development, it denotes natural or genetically inherited traits. Nurture, on the other hand, refers to changes influenced by experience and the external environment (Nature vs. Nurture in Behavioral Determination, 2017). It is clear — and largely undebatable — that humans inherit physical characteristics from their parents. However, the inheritance of behavior is not always accounted for by genetics alone. Some behaviors are clearly different from those exhibited by the parent, which leads to the conclusion that humans acquire some of their behavioral characteristics from personal experiences and surroundings. Most researchers therefore agree that human behavior is generally a product of both nature and nurture (Bryner, 2006).

Geneticists and other scientists have demonstrated repeatedly that physical traits such as hair color, skin color, and eye color are a direct result of genetic inheritance. Other researchers have extended genetic studies further and concluded that behavioral traits such as intelligence, kindness, and aggression are also genetically influenced — that is, determined by nature (Nature vs. Nurture in Behavioral Determination, 2017).

Although the evidence for nature-influenced personality traits exists, it is not as extensive as the evidence supporting nurtured personality traits. Widespread research in psychology and related fields has demonstrated that the environment is chiefly responsible for acquired behavioral traits. Among the more notable studies are those by Watson and Pavlov, who made significant contributions to operant conditioning and classical conditioning theories — frameworks that seek to explain how personality traits form through environmental nurturing. It is also widely accepted that the environment may assist in expressing genetically acquired traits that would otherwise remain dormant. Thus, many psychologists have concluded that both nature and nurture play important roles in the formation of behavior, and that nurture provides the conditions through which nature-influenced traits are expressed. In sum, most personality traits are shaped by nurture while some are determined by nature (Nature vs. Nurture in Behavioral Determination, 2017).

According to Freud, unconscious forces influence the development of personality. He argues that to fully comprehend personality, one must first understand what is meant by the term unconscious — the component of personality that one is unaware of but that nonetheless plays a role in determining behavior. Carl Jung held similar views. His personality development theory is founded on the assumption that the psyche has levels: the conscious level and the unconscious level. According to Jung, the unconscious level has two further layers — the collective (historical or ancestral) unconscious and the personal (experiential) unconscious (Xavier, 1996).

The unconscious is defined as the level of the mind that brings completeness to personality. It encompasses psychic elements not governed by the ego, including previously forgotten conscious thoughts and images as well as psychic processes that have never reached the conscious level of the brain. Some of these elements can surface to consciousness, but not all. Jung used the term personal unconscious to refer to unique individual experiences that are subliminally perceived, forgotten, or repressed. When these experiences cluster around particular themes of feeling, behavior, or thought, they are referred to as complexes — and complexes exert a significant influence on personality (Xavier, 1996).

Unlike the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious is not determined by personal experiences. Rather, it is inherited from one's ancestral past as a psychic potential and actively influences actions, feelings, and thought processes. Xavier (1996) explains that humans enter the world predisposed to react or act in certain ways when their surroundings trigger those predispositions. In this way, the collective unconscious also shapes the development of personality.

Self-concept is fundamentally determined by social surroundings (Gore & Cross, 2005). It has been described as the element that binds together our experiences, making them coherent in the mind. Self-concept is thought to be rooted in cognitive structures and semantic memory, and to be composed of several hierarchically organized dimensions stored in memory. These dimensions — including social, experiential, and schematic dimensions — work together to produce a singular view of self.

The self is a collection of lower-order self-aspects including abilities, beliefs, surroundings, identities, social roles, relationships, traits, and experiences. These lower-level self-aspects can be organized into higher-level self-domains, such as the relational self. Lower-level self-aspects do change, and those changes influence higher-order self-domains, which in turn alter the overall self-concept (Gore & Cross, 2005).

Changes in self-concept do not necessarily imply changes in self-structure. Self-structure is defined as the degree to which self-aspects cognitively interact with or are compartmentalized from one another. Persons with well-integrated self-structures can draw upon several dimensions of their self when confronted with a unique set of circumstances. This contrasts with persons who have compartmentalized self-structures, who can only engage a single dimension of their personality in a given context (Gore & Cross, 2005).

Self-concept functions similarly to other cognitive abilities. Individuals develop their view of self in the same way they come to understand the meaning of objects or categories — by using cognitive schemas. The self-schema is significant because it assists in the processing of information related to social experiences. New environmental experiences encountered only occasionally are less likely to become ingrained in the brain than those that occur frequently; with repetition, an experience becomes part of self-concept because the human brain is wired to record and memorize consistencies (Gore & Cross, 2005).

Research on attitudes suggests that the more frequently a person engages in behavior that activates the core components of his or her attitude, the more cognitive attention and resources the brain will devote to that trigger. Strong attitudes require considerable conscious effort to change, while weak attitudes can shift with minimal stimuli. In short, the stronger the self-concept, the more difficult it is to alter; the weaker it is, the more easily it can change along with the resulting behavior (Gore & Cross, 2005).

In general, the human brain pays close attention to stimuli and messages in the environment that relate to the individual's identity. Any message touching on the self produces a spike in the brain's processing activity through self-reference. Because humans are creatures of habit, most people frequently find themselves in familiar surroundings rich in stimuli that the brain already recognizes as consistent with who the person is. Meanwhile, information deemed irrelevant to the self is largely discarded. As a result, most people express certain traits in certain environments because that is what the environment and previous experiences have reinforced — and since environments rarely change, those traits continue to be expressed until the individual is exposed to new settings with new stimuli (Gore & Cross, 2005).

Progression of Personality Development

Learning — in its many forms, including training, imitation, and conditioning — plays a significant role in personality development. Through repetition and the reward of satisfaction, individuals learn approved social roles, make social adjustments, form characteristic reactions to situations and people, and ultimately develop their views of self. This process often unfolds slowly, as the things one learns and the ways one responds become habitual and form integral parts of behavioral character. Social conditioning and environmental pressures also determine what behaviors are incorporated into accepted patterns. For example, if a girl is encouraged to be kind and gentle in certain situations and is rewarded — through praise or actual gifts — for doing so, she will learn to react that way habitually across all relevant situations.

On the other hand, if reacting kindly brings only social disapproval, she will adjust her behavior and experiment with other responses until she finds those that bring the reward her mind seeks. She will then repeat those behaviors until they become habitual. Recognizing that learning plays a significant role in personality progression is important for two reasons. First, it reveals that parents and teachers can help children develop certain personality traits through teaching, rewarding, and social modeling. Second, it shows that socially unacceptable behavioral traits and self-concepts can be changed through deliberate social adjustment (Unit 2: Determinants of Personality, n.d.).

Conclusion

The development of personality is influenced by a variety of factors including genetics, environment, learning, and socialization. Genetics shape physical characteristics and some personality traits such as intelligence. The environment plays an even larger role in personality development. Biblical literature is broadly consistent with several of the psychological theories and hypotheses that inform our understanding of personality. Much of the scriptural focus is on Christ and how a Christ-centered life can develop personality. The means through which Christian life fosters personality development largely parallel the processes proposed by psychologists — namely, obedience (learning) and the deliberate nurturing of a particular way of life.

Santrac, A. S. (2016). Towards the possible integration of psychology and Christian faith: Faculties of human personality and the Lordship of Christ. In die Skriflig, 50(1), 1–8.

Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J., Hennecke, M., Hutteman, R., Kandler, C., … & Zimmermann, J. (2014). What drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 216–230.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). Guilford Press.

Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Evaluating Five Factor Theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 166–184. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002

Kandler, C. (2012). Nature and nurture in personality development: The case of neuroticism and extraversion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 290–296.

Nature vs. Nurture in Behavioral Determination. (2017, November 13). Retrieved May 31, 2018.

Bryner, J. (2006). Nature vs. nurture: Mysteries of individuality unraveled. Live Science, 19.

Xavier, A. (1996). Integrated approach to personality theories.

Gore, J., & Cross, S. E. (2005). Determinants of self-concept change in new environments. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Bleidorn, W. (2015). What accounts for personality maturation in early adulthood? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 245–252.

Unit 2: Determinants of personality: Role of heredity and environment. (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2018, from egyankosh.ac.in.

Bencsik, A., Machova, R., & Hevesi, E. (2016). The relation between motivation and personality types. International Business Management, 10(3), 183–193.

Plaminek, J. (2010). Tajemstvi motivace [The secret of motivation]. GRADA Publishing.