Gordon Allport commented on the virtually impossibility of defining personality in precise terms. After reviewing definitions offered by theologians, philosophers, lawyers, poets, sociologists and psychologists, Allport theorized his own version in his first book.For him, personality was “What a man really is.” But this definition was still too brief and vague; he gave a more precise one: “Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought” (Allport 1961, p.
28).Allport referred to personality as a dynamic organization because he believed that personality cannot usefully be regarded as a collection of fragmented components acting independently of one another. Allport saw personality as unified, as constantly evolving and changing, and as caused by forces within the person.Although situational influences have an effect, it is the individual’s own perception of these influences that determines his or her behavior.
In Allport’s view, even behavior that seems to be controlled by external forces is really controlled by internal forces.For example, “if a child is a hellion at home, and an angel outside, he obviously has two contradictory tendencies in his nature or perhaps a deeper genotype that would explain the opposing phenotypes” (Allport, 1968, p.46).Someone might predict that the child would behave differently depending on which situation is introduced to the child. Allport contended that the differences in behavior are caused by opposing tendencies or traits in the person’s nature such as by learned predispositions to act differently in two different situations.
Allport mirrored Freud when he suggested that a unifying genotype actually may be responsible for the two phenotypes. For example, behaving like the devil at home and an angel away from home. The underlying tendency or genotype might be expedience, or the tendency to perform behaviors advantageous to one self.Behaving like the devil at home might maximize parental attention, where behaving like an angel outside might win the approval of teachers.
So although situations play a role in behavior, Allport’s primary focus is on traits and other internal characteristics as determinants of behavior. He refers to these internal factors as psychophysical systems; this term demonstrates that personality consists of both mind and body elements organized into a complex unity.Allport’s definition of personality refers to the individual’s characteristic, or unique behavior and thought. Allport asserted that all the traits we apparently share with others are at best idiosyncratic.He also knows that this aspect of the definition is very broad, but he wanted to take into account the fact that we not only adjust to our environment by behaving in certain ways, but we also reflect on it and by doing so we ensure survival and growth (Schultz & Schultz, 2005). Allport’s view of personality points out the uniqueness of the individual and the internal cognitive and motivational processes that influence behavior.
These internal processes and structures include the person’s physique, intelligence, temperament, reflexes, drives, habits, skills, beliefs, intentions, attitudes, values and traits.Allport see personality as jointly determined by biology and the environment. The physique and intelligence level of the individual are largely inherited and set limits on the person’s ability to adapt to his or her environment.Temperament, too, is inherited. It is the emotional facet of personality and is defined as “the characteristic phenomena of a individual’s emotional nature, including his susceptibility to emotional stimulation, his customary strength and speed of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all the peculiarities of fluctuation and intensity in mood” (Allport, 1961, p.
34).These inherited structures and processes are shaped by the person’s environmental experiences, such as a child with an excitable and active nature may have it altered by a family environment where his parents are extraordinarily harsh and controlling (Schultz & Schultz, 2005).
