The term ‘personality’ is a derivation of the Greek word ‘persona’, which means mask or the outward appearance of an individual. However, the term, does not suggest the passivity or inertia, of its source word. Rather it refers to an alive, interacting system of an individual’s enduring persistent response patterns across a variety of situations. Structurally, it is comprised of traits and dispositional tendencies.
All that which constitutes the structure of personality exists in an inter related manner. The human body can be considered both as an organization of part and as processes that relates those parts one to another. The structural aspect refers to the question of ‘what’ and the process part refers to the question of ‘how’ and ‘why’. The former implies the genetic endowment of an individual. It represents the building block of personality. The latter implies the role of the environment, both internal and external the biological, psychological, social motives and the broader socio cultural elements (Allport, 1955); (Cattell, 1956). The term refers to those characteristics which distinguish a man from the rest. The individual sets of characteristics which account for the identity of an individual are relatively stable and somewhat unchanging aspects of the person’s functioning. However there is a fluid, changing aspect to a person’s functioning. This refers to the dynamic, motivational aspect of human behaviour (Allport, 1955); (Cattell 1956, 1963); (Eysenck, 1982); (Jung, 1939); (Bandura, 1977); (Horney, 1937); (Maslow, 1954). Personality, therefore, expresses pattern, organization and integration. Human behaviour is not made up of isolated, encapsulated responses, rather, it is the result of a system which makes the diverse units operate in harmony toward a common goal. Unlike the members of other species, human organism is less dependent on primary sources of motivation and because of his unique ability for conceptual thinking and language has a lengthened perspective of the past and the future. He can both be the experiencer as well as the reflector. Again, in case of, human behavour there is no strict one-to-one relationship between stimulus and response as in the case of other species. Rather, human behaviour is complex because of individual perspective and also because behaviour is always in relation to stimulus and circumstances. Finally, we are not always aware of or in control of the factors determining our behavour. Whether such unaccountable acts are significant or minor, frequent or rare, they occur and seek accountability. It follows from the above account that the concept of personality revolves around the total being of man. It includes the structural organizational and the teleological aspects. Being the core of human existence, it becomes imperative to comprehend the concept in all its inclusiveness. such comprehensive insight would enables one to understand as to what constitutes human nature, how does an individual react as an integrated whole and why does he behave the way he does.
Jung (1939) viewed personality as the supreme realization of the innate idiosyncrasy of a living being. It is an act of courage flung in the face of life, the affirmation of all that constitutes the individual, the most successful adaptation to the universal conditions of existence coupled with the greatest possible freedom of self determination. In the view of Murphy (1947), “Personality is structured organism within environment field, each aspect of which stands in dynamic relation to each other aspect. There is organization within the organism and organization within the environment, but it is cross organization of the two that is investigated in personality research.” Stranger (1948) defined it as an inner system of beliefs expectancies, desires and values.
Personality is made of many components, some of which are objective observable and measurable while others are subjective and therefore less easily studied and measurable. The objective characteristics of personality are physical characteristics, such as body size and physique and factors in the mechanics and chemistry of his body which influences the speed and strength of his movements aptitude and talents. The subjective components of personality include aspirations, feelings, ideas and attitudes regarding self, conviction, commitments and purpose that give deduction to the individual’s way of thinking feeling and acting (Jersild, 1954).
Some definitions look at personality of an individual, giving weightage to his unique qualities and characteristics. According to Vernon (1957), “we mean it simply, what sort of man is so and so, what he is like? While a man’s intelligence, his bodily strength and skills are certainly his personality, yet the term refers chiefly to his emotional and social qualities together, with his drives sentiments, interests and aptitudes.
According to Hall & Lindzey (1964), “personality consists concretely of a set of values or descriptive terms which are used to describe the individual being studied according to the variables of dimensions which occupy a central position within the particular theory described.”
An important definition of personality is given by Allport (1966), “personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psycho-physical systems that determine his unique adjustment in the environment.” “Dynamic organization” emphases the fact that personality is constantly developing and changing, although at the same time there is an organization or system that binds together and relates the various components of personality. The item “psycho-physical” reminds that personality is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical”. The organization entails the operation of both body and mind, fused into a personal unity. The word ‘determines’ makes clear that personality is made up of determining tendencies that play an active role in individual’s behaviour. ‘Personality is something and does something’. It is what lies behind specific act and within the individual. This definition reflects that man’s personality is organized which is constantly evolving and changing. Man is both brain and body with the help of which he does something which makes him different from others. Therefore, every human being is unique in time, place, person, adjustment and qualities. Personality is the mode of survival.
James & Maslow (1968) opined that it is better to consider the individual aspects of a person’s make up as bricks and personality as the whole house built of bricks, but held together with sun total of characteristics of the person to other, it refers to a unitary mode of response to life situations.
Cattell (1970) defined personality as that, which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. The goal of psychological research in personality is, thus to establish laws about what different people will do in all kinds of social and general environmental situations. Personality is first place concerned, with all the behaviour of the individual, both overt and under the skin. It is concerned with a range of behaviour extending from the individual’s political and teaching views to the way he digests the food.
Good (1973) defined that omnibus definitions state that personality as the total psychological and social reactions of an individual, the synthesis of his subjective, emotional and mental life, his behaviour and his reactions to the environment the unique or individual traits of a person are connected to a lesser degree by personality than the term character.
Maddi (1976) defined personality as the stable set of characteristics and tendencies that determine those commonalities and differences in the psychological behaviour (thoughts, feelings and action) of people that have continuity in time and that may or may not be easily understood in terms of social and biological pressures of the immediate situation alone.” These characteristics and tendencies (inherited as well as acquired) although stable to a large extent are subject to change and modification according to the needs of the time and the environmental situation for making one adjusted to one’s self as well as to the environment. The causes of such modification and changes are not necessarily linked with present physical, biological and social situations and may be connected with the earlier child hood experiences, genetic code and many other unknown factors. Thus what a person presents in his totality is his personality.
According to Encyclopedic Dictionary Psychology (1992), personality is one’s character, the set of behavioural traits usually associated with a given individuals, the conscious self, social mask, the total impact that one has on other people.
According to International Webster’s dictionary (1996),
Personality is the quality as state of being person or of being a person not a thing or abstraction that which makes a being a person, persona existence or identity.
That which contributes distinctions of person, distinctive personal existence or identity.
Distinction or excellence of personal and social traits, magnetic personal quality, also a person having such distinctive traits.
According to Collins English Dictionary (2000) Personality is
The sum total of all the behavioural and mental characteristics by means of which an individual is recognized as being unique.
The distinctive character of a person that makes him socially attractive.
According to Webster’s collegiate dictionary (2001) Personality is
Quality or state of being a person
The complex of characteristics that distinguish individual or a nation or group, especially the totality of individual, behavioural and emotional characteristics.
Distinction or excellence of personal and social traits.
Ryckman (2004) defines personality as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, motivations and behaviours in various situations.
In Browse Dictionary (2004), “Personality has been defined as: Behaviour-response patterns that character the individuals. Different approaches have been made to define personality but there is no agreement on a single definition of personality. One basic fact is that there is one characteristic feature in all the above definitions and theories of personality; that personality is the individual’s unique pattern of traits. The personality determines the pattern that distinguishes man as an individual. It also accounts for his unique and relatively consistent ways of interacting with his environment.”
1.2.1 Eysenck’s Theory of Personality
Eysenck (1957) made an attempt through the factorial approach to make personality broad based. Eysenck (1960), referred to dimension as a continuum for a type which in turn is defined, “as a group of correlated traits in the greater inclusiveness of the concept”. The basic conceptual unit is the trait that is a broad disposition to behave in a particular way Traits are only pre-dispositions to respond in predictable manner in given situations. They are stimulus specific. The concept of trait is of particular relevance to personality psychology because a trait is a characteristic of a person which distinguishes him from the rest. Traits refer to reasonably stable and enduring attributes of an individual. Allport’s concept of cardinal traits may be linked to Eysenck’s type concept and Cattell’s source traits. There three concepts may be likened to a dimension expressive of an association among behaviours that vary together to form a unitary, independent platform of personality. Similarly a parallel may be drawn among. Allport’s cardinal traits, Eysenck’s traits and Cattell’s surface traits. Central to these new points is the idea that a cluster of inter-related factors or traits, constitute the basic temperament of an individual.
Statistical technique of factor-analysis was used and certain factors, called traits, are arrived at. Traits are named in terms of the characteristics that seems common to the items or behaviour that have been found to be related to one another. Underlying the factors or traits are the basic dimension termed as types. Type, therefore is a continuum with a low and high end, people falling along various points between the two extremes (Eysenck, 1977). Eysenck (1967) formulated three basic dimensions: Introversion-Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism. These dimensions represent important organization of individual differences in behavioural functioning that is rooted in inherited differences in biological functioning. These four dimensions were derived from hypothetico-deductive techniques and elaborative factor analysis (Eysenck, 1956; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963).
In the words of Eyrenck (1982) there is middle ground between treating all humans as if they were exactly alike, and treating them as if they were all entirely different from each other. This intermediate position is the adoption of some type of typological approach, the delineation of certain important dimension of personality along which individuals can be ranged (extraversion-introversion would be an example of such a dimension). The personality theory developed and modified by Eysenck over the years (1947, 1952, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1981 and 1985) after wading through various cross-currents of criticism (Fould, 1961, Hamilton, 1959) pasits four independence major dimensions of personality, viz, extraversion/introversion (E/I) neuroticism (N), psychoticism(P).
Eysenck (1957, 1959) deduced the concept of Extraversion/Introversion from the nosological categories based on Janet’s & Jung’s (1923) views and supported by Hilderbrand’s study (1958) and on the causative side, from Parlov’s (1927, 1941) excitation and inhibition balance in the central nervous system (CNS) and Hull’s (1943) reactive inhibition. Eysenck (1955) took a step forward to extend Pavlov’s and Hull’s concept to Jungian typology of extraversion- introversion. He related it to the predisposition of introverts to psychasthenia and extroverts to hysteria. Individuals in whom ‘Reactive Inhibition’ is generated quickly and dissipate slowly are thereby predisposed to develop extraverted patterns of behaviour and to develop hysterical disorders in case of breakdown. Conversely, the individuals in whom ‘Reactive inhibition’ is generated slowly and is dissipated quickly are thereby predisposed to introverted patterns of behaviour and to develop dysthymic disorders in case of breakdown.
According to Eysenck (1956) “The typical Extravert is sociable likes to go to parties, has many friends, enjoys having people to talk to and dislikes reading or studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes risks, often sticks his neck out acts on the spur of moment, and is generally very impulsive individual. He is fond of practical jokes, always has a ready answer and generally likes changes. They are very carefree, easygoing, very optimistic and likes to “laugh and be marry”. According to Eysenck (1964), “the typical extravert is social individual. They need to have people to share their feelings are unable to keep under tight control.” On the other hand, the typical Introvert is quiet, retiring sort of a person, introspective, fond of books rather than people. He generally remains reserved and distant themselves except their intimate friends. He tends to plan ahead for every task. They always looks before he leaps and distrusts the impulse of the moment. He does not like excitement. They take every matter of day life with proper seriousness and live a well ordered mode of life. He keeps his feelings under close control. They seldom behave in an aggressive manner and do not loose his temper easily. He is reliable somewhat pessimistic and give great value to ethical standards (Eysenck & Eysenck 1968).
According to Eysenck & Eysenck (1968) Extraversion referred to the outgoing, uninhibited, impulsive and social inclinations of person. They prefers to keep moving in life and doing innovative things. He tends to be aggressive in some situations and loses his temper quickly. This disposition is rooted in the physical base of cortical causal and inhibition. The Extravert has higher threshold of cortical arousal, builds up reactive inhibition faster and dissipates it slowly. The introvert on the other hand is quick on cortical arousal, builds up reactive inhibition slowly and dissipates it faster. The predisposition is conducive to rapid socialization, a process of learning, in case of introverts as compared to that of extraverts and hence the better development of conscience in case of introverts (Mohan, 1981).
Eysenck (1965) in his book entitled, ‘Facts and Fictions’ in psychology, differentiated extraverts and introverts on the basis of their attitudes in the social and political fields, (Eysenck, 1965) stated that extraverted people tend to have tough minded attitudes, introverted people tend to more towards tender minded attitudes. Introverts are conservative, and tend towards religious attitudes and beliefs whereas the extraverts well tend to show such attitudes as behaving in the death penalty and in the flogging of criminal on the radical side, introverts tend towards pacific and quakes-type ideals, whereas the extraverts tend towards belief in companionate marriages, easier divorce laws. At the extreme, conservative extroverts tend to hold fascist beliefs and radical extraverts, communist beliefs.
Eysenck (1967, 1970, & 1980) put forward a more explicit physiological theory to explain the differences in extraversion introversion dimension. He maintained that Ascending Reticular Activating System (ARAS) is the structure in the nervous system that forms the basis for individual differences in extraversion/introversion. This formation is responsible for maintaining the cerebral cortex in the state of arousal in response to external stimulation. Eysenck postulated that this state of arousal is mediated by low thresholds for incoming sensory stimulation in introverts while in extraverts is mediated by high thresholds for incoming sensory stimulation. Hull (1975) & Strelan (1980) found support for Eysenck’s theory linking differences in extraversion/introversion to differences in cortical arousal.
Another important feature of Eysenck’s new physiological theory was the linking of physiological differences between introverts and extraverts to a distinction used by Russian researchers (Sokolov, 1963; Teplov, 1963) of the organism with strong and weak nervous system (Gray, 1964). Organisms with weak nervous system assumed to respond at lower level of stimulation and are assumed to respond with greater intensity to stimuli as compared to organisms with ‘strong’ nervous system. The weak nervous system as a result of its extreme reactivity is more subject to transmarginal inhibition implies that when the levels of excitation are reached, which are above some optimal value, inhibition occurs which decreases such excitation. Eysenck & Eysenck (1967) used “lemon test” (related to Gustatory Senation) to distinguish between an introvert and an extravert. Eysenck (1967) proposed that introverts are more subject to transmarginal inhibition than extraverts. Eysenck’s theory thus assumes some upper level of arousal which is reached at a lower level of stimulus intensity by introverts than by extraverts and once this level is reached, new inhibition processes occur which reduce excitation. Consequently, it is possible that at high levels of stimulus intensity, veridical arousal should be lower for introverts than that for extraverts on the basis of EEG studies, Eysenck concluded that introverts typically have low alpha amplitude and high alpha frequency. These are EEG characteristics for high and low arousal group, respectively (Eysenck, 1970).
According to Eysenck (1953), neuroticism (N) refers to the, “Emotional liability or over responsiveness of a person and likelihood of breakdown under stress.” Neuroticism is based on neurophysiologic model and has been elaborated from the drive theory of Hull. The neuroticism is considered as the general factor in motivation or striving (Hull & Lindzey, 1962). A neurotic person is quick on autonomic arousal, is high on drive too and is over responsive on the descriptive side a neurotic individual shows “instability, depressive method, weak dependent attitude , narrow interests and symptoms of nervous breakdown (Eysenck, 1957).
Eysenck (1963) is of the view that “differences between people in emotionality or neuroticism are mediated by inherited differences in the liability and excitability of the autonomic nervous system. Some people are constitutionally pre-disposed to react strongly with their sympathetic nervous system towards incoming stimuli of various kinds whereas other people are predisposed to react much less strongly.” Thus neuroticism, which is conceived as a predisposition to strong autonomic activation, also produces higher cortical arousal (Mchausglin & Eysenck, 1967). According to Davis & Tune (1970) arousal is a state of the individual which can affect his behaivour. From the angle of neuroticism arousal has motivation potential equivalent to drive (Mohan, 1976). Eysenck (1965) argues that “under certain conditions, neurotics will condition better than non-neurotics. Where anxiety is a relative drive, it should multiply with habit to produce better conditioning.”
An individual scoring high on neuroticism tends to be anxious, worrying over responsive and depressed. They react too strongly at all sorts of stimuli and find it difficult to put themselves back on an even peel after each emotionally arousing experience (Ibrahim, 1979). Their strong emotional reactions interfere with his proper adjustment, making him react in national ways (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978). Such individuals frequently complain of vague somatic upsets of minor kind, such as headaches, digestive troubles, insomnia, backaches etc. and also import many worries, anxieties and other disagreeable national feelings. This kind of people suffers more frequently from variety of “nervous disorders” called as neuroses, hence the name of the dimension. Such individuals are more susceptible to neurotic problems. Individuals with high scores on neuroticism cannot function adequately in work place, family and social sphere (Eysenck & Eysenck 1968, 1978)
As to the relationship of Neuroticism and Extraversion, Eysenck (1957) identified personality dimension of neuroticism with autonomic drive and extraversion with the fast accumulation and low dissipation of reactive inhibition. Accepting this theory it can be stated that good educational attainess should have high score on neuroticism and low on extroversion. Furneaux (1957) showed that student who do well at university score more high on neuroticism and low on extraversion. Introvert are more easily aroused by events and more easily learn social prohibitions than extraverts (Eysenck, 1956);(Sheldon,1976).In case of neuroticism individual high on this dimension, respond quickly to stree and show a slower decrease in the stree response once the danger has disappeared than is true for more stable individuals (Eysenck & Rachman,1965).
The mutual independence of neuroticism and extraversion has been reviewed and supported by Conigan (1960) in which she maintained that those analysis which produced, extraversion like factor, also yielded an independent factor associated with some aspect of adjustment, variously known as ego-strength, general adjustment, neuroticism anxiety etc.
The nature of this factor may be conveyed briefly by the traits characterizing it (i.e., having high loading on this factor) (1) Solitary; not caring for other people, (2) troublesome; not filling in (3) Cruel; inhuman, (4) lack of feeling, insensitive (5) sensation seeking; “arousal jag”, (6) hostile to others; aggressive, (7) linking for odd, unusual things, (8) disregard for danger, foolhardy, (9) making fool of others, upsetting them(Eysenck,1970).
Moreover, psychoticism would also be expected to affect the response to learning experiences as the other personality dimension of Eysenck. It has been reported that persons high on psychoticism respond less well to avoidance training (Feldman, 1976) which is an essential part of socialization process. From the content of psychoticism items, Feldman (1976) argues, that this would be true of avoidance training by induction which emphasizes the acquisition of an emphatic response to the distress of others. The social method of love, withdrawal might also be inappropriate for persons predisposed to high psychoticism scores because the withdrawal of a social reinforcer may be less disturbing for person high on psychicism than for a person low on psychoticism. Moreover, persons high on psychoticism respond more strongly to positive learning experience concerning offending attitudes and behaviour than persons low on psychoticism. In case of Psychoticism, too, a genetic association is suggested in particular, one linked with maleness “genetic factors contribute something two-thirds of the variance in major personality dimension.”
Eysenck & Eysenck (1978) found men scoring high on psychoticism than woman. Genetically psychoticism has high here disability which is purely additive. Environmental influences are not found to be playing major role in contributing towards individual differences in psychoticism.
1.2.5 Teacher & Personality
The school is a temple where knowledge and skills are taught. Students utilize those skills in giving shape to their future. A teacher is a person engaged in the interactive behaviour with number of students for effective learning. The increasing need for educational reform has driven researchers and educators to determine effective teaching strategies. As teachers and students are unique individuals with varied strengths and weaknesses (Rushton, Morgan & Richard, 2007) so, countries worldwide are in dire need of outstanding educators. Research indicates that teachers in European and Asian countries generally feel more respected and enjoy better compensation than those in America (OECD, 1995). In this regard Ruston, Morgan, &Richard (2007) raised question as to whether European and Asian countries exhibit personality tendencies differing from American teachers.
Teacher’s personality has a clear and measurable effect on the progress of pupils academically and socially. Personality factors may be defined as generalized traits of readiness to respond with a marked degree of consistency to a set of situations that are functionally equivalent for the respondent. Bernerd (1954) found that personality of teacher has direct and accumulative impact on the lives and learning habits of pupils. This has also been supported by Sorenson (1954) in his statement. The pupils look at the teachers many minutes each day. They are affected by his state of clothes, by the expression of his face and by his mannerism, pupils hear for hours each day the voice of their teachers.
A significant study here is that of Hait et al. (1960) who found that different personalities induce different reactions from different children. The self controlling teachers got the highest achievement out of all. The concept of personality has been recognized as central in educational research. It is considered as a unique pattern of traits which characterized the individual. Personality is a dynamic state in totality and it is continuously changes when interacting with environment. It is not fixed state. Personality of an individual may have impact on the symptoms of stress exhibited by that particular person. It may also have influence on the educational environment by way of providing more or less or reducing stress among teachers. The personality type of teacher may be indicators of the presentation of stress in variety of forms (Farber, 1983).
Attitude is a broad term covering almost all the important fields of human knowledge and is especially prominent in the field of education. It is a guiding force behind all human factors. Attitude is an internal state of a person that is focused on objects, events and people that can exist in the person’s psychological world.
Characteristics of Attitudes:
Attitudes have an object
Attitudes have direction
Attitudes have motivational and evaluative properties
Attitudes are learned
Attitudes are relatively stable
Allport (1935) defined attitude as a mental or neural state of readiness to respond, organized through experiences, exerting a directive and dynamic influence upon behaviour. He arrived at three essential features of attitude after finding common elements.
These are preparation or readiness for favourable or unfavourable responses.
These are organized through experience.
These are activated in the presence of all objects and situations with which attitude is related.
Newcomb (1948) defines attitude as not a response but more or less a persistent set to respond in a given way to an object or a situation. It is organized and consistent in manner of thinking feeling and reaction with regard to one’s environment. Good (1959) defines attitude as readiness to reaction towards or against some situation, person or thing in a particular manner e.g. love or hate.
Rokeach (1972) an attitude is an organization of several beliefs focused on a specific object or situation. Individuals respond in some preferential manner in particular situations. Some of these beliefs about an object or situation concern matters of fact and other concern matters of evaluation. An attitude is thus package of beliefs. It consists of interconnected assertions which effect that certain thinking patterns for specific object and situation.
Husen & Postlethwaite (1985) in the International Encyclopedia of Education calls attitude as positive or negative feelings that an individual holds about objects, persons or ideas. They are generally regarded as enduring though, modifiable by experience and as learned rather than innate.
According to International Webester Dictionary (1996), an attitude is Position of a person showing or meant to show a mental state emotions or wood.
The manner of acting, feeling or thinking that shows one’s disposition, opinion etc.
According to Collin’s English Dictionary (2000), an attitude is
The way a person news something or tends to behave towards it, often in an evaluative way
A theoretical pose created for effect, especially emotion.
A position of body indicting mood or emotions.
According to Webster’s collegiate Dictionary (2001), an attitude is:
The arrangement of parts a body or figure.
The position assumed for a specific purpose.
A mental position with regard to fact or state
An organism state readiness to respond in a characteristic way to a stimulus (as an object, concept or situation).
1.3.1 Nature of Attitudes
Attitudes posses a scientific status as hypothetical constructs. They are not direct subject of observation rather, emanate from inferences in terms of verbal statements of opinions, psychological changes or some event acts in relation to the objects under consideration (Eysenck, 1975). Attitudes are effectively toned ideas which predispose the organism to action with reference to specific objects (Allport, 1969).