BEHAVIOR COMPLEXITY AND PREDICTABILITY
IN THE PERSONALITY SYSTEM
MIHAI GOLU
Right now, the idea that achieving a genuine knowing of human personality
as integral unitary system calls upon the shifting from registering and describing
the external phenomenological aspects to revealing and analyzing its internal
structure is accepted unanimously. However, as soon as one goes to this level,
one must face the complexity attribute at its highest expression. This attribute
becomes visible since the first definitions that refer to internal organization, be
they linear-summative (“Personality is the total sum of all innate biological
dispositions, impulses, tendencies, desires and instincts of the individual, as well
as of the dispositions and tendencies acquired by experience”, M. Prince, 1924, p.
532) or integralist (“Personality is the entire mental organization of the human
being in any stage of its development”, H.C. Warren and L. Carmichael, 1930, p.
333).
The complexity attribute is caught even clearer in the definition formulated
by G. Allport: “Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of
those psychophysical systems that determine his thinking and characteristic
behavior” (G. Allport, 1937, translation into Romanian, 1981, p. 40).
However, emphasizing the complexity of personality in its true meaning
became possible only in the second half of the 20th century, by generalizing the
systemic, cybernetic and synergetic methodology in the entire scientific
knowledge.
In the light of this paradigm, personality must be included in the class of
systems having the highest complexity degree, these being the hypercomplex
systems.
The complexity of the personality system is expressed in three main plans:
structural, functional and differential.
In the structural plan, it is found in the heterogeneity and high volume
(number) of elements, processes and states making it up, impossible to notice
1
and controlled directly. They are grouped and integrated, plurimodal, on a
horizontal, as well as hierarchical, multi-level, on a vertical in the three main
subsystems: biological (physical), psychological and socio-cultural. (“Personality is
a bio-psycho-socio-cultural system”). The three subsystems must not be
considered within a simple juxtaposing relation (exterior nearing), but in an
intertwining and mutual conditioning relation, intimate and lawful, and their
internal building and that within the supraordinate system are made according to
the “structure laws” or “adequate shape” laws imposed genetically and socio-
culturally. At the level of each subsystem, specific laws act (biological – in the
somatic biological subsystem, psychological – in the psychical subsystem, socio-
cultural – in the socio-cultural subsystem).
In a functional plan, the complexity of the personality system can be found
in the following main aspects: a) evolving dynamic character of all the three
component subsystems, during the individual life occurring new elements,
contents and connections (the anti-entropic or negentropic side of dynamic) and
disappearing existing elements, contents and connections (the entropic, involving
side of dynamics); b) existence of a broad range of necessity states (reasons)
having individual or super-individual signification – group, social – that create the
premises of an almost infinite action and behavior diversity and whose succession
cannot be anticipated in full and monitored directly by the researcher; c) the
multi-mediate character of the connection between “ins” and “outs” that makes
for the answers to external stimuli that the researcher can control to not be
forecasted with certainty, but just approximated probabilistically; d) existence of
an infinite combination ability of the brain, as central mechanism of a functional
integration of the personality system, of which a high number of freedom degrees
in setting out connections and the final internal gear of a certain state and
situation behavior derives; e) existence of some superior self-adjustment form,
never encountered in other systems, resulting from specific functions and
interaction between the two forms of consciousness – self consciousness and
consciousness of objective works. They are anticipating, planning, teleonomy
(operation and activity guided by purposes), self-determination, decision making,
idealization, devalorization, dedublation, stimulation and the entire range of ego
2
defense mechanisms so much valued and researched by the psychoanalytical
school.
The complexity of personality system in a functional plan can be revealed
and materialized by “state profiles” and “phase portraits”.
The “state profile” (Po) is a integrant result of the values of “measuring” the
main functions and particular psycho-physical capacities at a certain time (ti).
Thus, it is acquired by a transversal investigation.
Table 1
Additional state profile of personality
Specific dimensions of the system
Time
A1 A2 A3 …. An - = Σ (Ai) / N
X
t1 a1 a2 a3 an
The “phase portrait” (ΔP) is expressed by a weighed mean of the
differences between values of measuring the main psychophysical functions and
capacities in the succession of several times (t1, t2, t3,……tn).
3
Table 2
Phase portrait of personality
Specific
dimensions of
the system
Time
A1 A2 A3 …
.
An Sequential
state
profiles:
Po
to a1, 1 a2, 1 a3,1 …
.
an, 1 Poto= Σ
(Ai) / N
t1 a1, 2 a2, 2 a3,2 …
.
an, 2 Pot1= Σ
(Ai) / N
t2 a1, 3 a2, 3 a3,3 …
.
an, 3 Pot2= Σ
(Ai) / N
t3 a1, 4 a2, 4 a3,4 …
.
an, 4 Pot3= Σ
(Ai) / N
: : : : : : :
tn an, n an, n an, n …
.
an, n Potn= Σ
(An) / N
Sequential
phase portraits
ΔP
ΔP1 = Σ an
n / n
ΔP2 = Σ an
n / n
ΔP3 = Σ an
n / n
ΔPn= Σ an
n / n
Global
phase
portrait:
ΔP = Σ
(ΔPn) / n
Thus, there will be a “particular phase portrait” that shows the variations of
a single function or capacity and a “global phase portrait” that shows the
variations at the level of the integral system. Because personality is an evolving
dynamic system, the “phase portrait” shows three vital aspects of the functional
trajectory, which are an ascending direction, when the value of the “state profile”
at time t2 has a higher quality significance to the value of state profile at the t1
previous time; a stability direction, when the variations of the “state profiles”
4
oscillate up or down, around an optimum “point”; a descending direction, when
the value of the present “state profile” has a lower quality significance to the
value of the previous “state profile”. As can be seen, the “phase portrait” is
acquired only by a longitudinal investigation.
Of those mentioned above, there could be reached the conclusion that a
satisfactory approaching to the true complexity of personality becomes possible
only by combining the transversal strategy with the longitudinal ones, upon
observing the framework of researching the representativeness and relevance
criteria.
In a differential plan, the complexity attribute is shown in the large range of
inter-individual differentiations and manners of combining the action from the
three law categories: general, group and individual. At the time of approaching
this aspect, in the history of psychology the famous opposition between
nomotological orientation and idiographic orientation occurred: the first rejected
the differences and rendered absolute the communalities, the second, au
contraire, rejected communalities and rendered absolute the differences, the
individual and the specificity. Proceeding as such, both orientations moved farther
from the real complexity of personality and mutilated it, instead of getting closer
to it. The solution to this opposition has been proposed by J. T. Lamiel (1981)
under the form of the idiothetic model that implies the consideration of both
general and individual, taken together.
From a methodological point of view, the complexity in a differential plan
imposes approaching the personality simultaneously at the three levels: general,
according to the assertion “in certain respects, all men are alike”, group,
according to the assertion “in certain respects, some men are alike”, and
individual, according to the assertion “in certain respects, no man is identical to
the others”.
Because the hypercomplexity of internal organization of the personality
system generates also a hypercomplexity in its behavior image, it becomes
obvious that predicting the development of the latter, in the succession of times
and situations, is a very difficult task.
5
How did psychological knowledge attempt to handle it? Beginning with the
same principle consideration that, in order to forecast a behavior one must know
its causes or determining factors, at the time of formulating the solution,
researchers took two sides: the side that related the producing of behavior only
with the internal organization of personality (orientation that we can call
internalist) and side of those that related the producing of behavior only with
influence of external factors, “circumstances” (an orientation one might call
externalist).
The internalist orientation was materialized in several variants,
psychoanalytical theories, ego theory (C. Rogers), theory of personal constructs
(G. Kelly, 1955), theory of traits and factorial (G. Allport, 1937; B. Cattell, 1946; H.
Eysenck, 1969; Costa and McCrae, 1992, etc.). Among all these theories, the one
most centered on acquiring valid behavior predictability and that created a set of
instruments for the more rigorous assessment, of psychometrical type, is without
a doubt the theory of traits and factorial.
The basic idea in that theory is that a behavior can be explained and
predicted by a trait or a factor. From a psychological point of view, the difference
between “trait” and “factor” is the length of the generative and support range:
the trait generates and supports a relatively low number of behaviors of the same
type (homogenous), while the factor generates and supports a higher number of
behaviors of different types (heterogeneous). There results that a factor can
subsume several traits. Going from the traits method to the factorial method
relies mainly on economic reasons (for simplifying the processing and calculus)
than quality or epistemological reasons.
The traits and the factors are defined as internal psycho-physical
“microstructures” sufficiently consistent and lasting in time, that can account for
a certain range of behaviors, no matter the variation of actual particular
situations. (An argument for this is the different behavior of several persons as
against the same circumstance.) In a linguistic plan, the traits and factors are
attributes or adjectives by which the persons describe one another: “calm”,
“earnest”, “conscious”, “sociable”, “sentimental”, “cold”, “prudent”, “impetuous”,
“greedy”, “generous”, etc. More, the empirical basis derives also of this.
6
Obviously, the personal traits or qualities that acquire the rank of “assets” or
“factors” are extracted from behavior, by the method of observation and by
psychometrical methods (most frequently, self-presentation and self-assessment
questionnaires). The operation of extracting some assets from the individual
behaviors is named attribution. Which are the rules and conditions that guide this
operation and to what part of internal organization of personality it refers? There
will be found that, first, attribution refers to those characteristics of the behavior
that have been valued and classified from a social and cultural point of view,
which raises the matter of value concordance degree of the same traits in
different cultures. Secondly, there must be accepted the fact that attributing traits
relies on comparing an individual to others. We do not have an absolute standard
for any quality variable and the judgment “person x is greedy” must be reported
to other persons or to a “norm” for greediness set out by previous assessments
for the persons in the social and cultural context given. Thirdly, there must be
emphasized that the assets and qualities that attributing a trait evokes are
sufficiently different in order to allow their distinction of other qualities.
The theory concerned implies the supposition that the assets attributed to a
person are genuinely those of that person and they have been observed on
several occasions and not in just one instance. Thus, it is assumed that, varying
the circumstances, the trait is maintained constant and it will produce behaviors
matching its nature.
Thus, the predictability of behavior relies on consistency and constancy of
traits or factors. The measuring-assessing and formulating the prediction are
guided by a series of logical principles that concern co-variation, stability,
hierarchization and genetic basis (biological or socio-cultural) of the traits. In the
light of these principles, the trait becomes a collection of behaviors that tend to
co-vary (to be correlated) in a relatively constant manner, along the time, on
groups of individuals and in different situations, in which an individual differs of
others. The manner for building traits inside an individual gives structure to his
personality.
As a result, at nomotological level the structure is derived from correlating
the traits to a high sample of individuals. The correlation degree of traits is
7
different. Some correlate strongly, others correlate moderately and others
correlate weakly or not at all. The groups or patterns of traits that can be
correlated and of those that cannot be correlated allow the setting of major
dimensions of personality. For increasing the validity of behavior predictability, it
is recommended that subjects be compared according to the terms of these
structural dimensions rather than according to the terms of a single trait at a
given time.
It is said that “traits” or “factors” have a provoking or dispositional influence
on behavior. For example, the behavior of a person of asking for help or
encouragement from outside is expression of his disposition or need for
dependence. Thus occurs, naturally, the risk of entering a Catch 22 because the
trait observed is explained by itself (a person that behaves dependently because
he is dependent). Surpassing the Catch 22 can be achieved in a certain measure
by proving experimentally the fact that individuals with certain disposition
tendencies or traits behave in a predictable manner.
However, there are serious doubts and reserves in connection to the
predictive validity of traits. The studies performed emphasized at least two vital
aspects for this: the first that the predictive value of a trait cannot be set out only
according to a single behavior, but only by totalizing several behaviors in different
circumstances, and the second, that the situation when the behavior manifests
must be relevant for that trait.
Let’s take, for example, the “nevrosism” trait or factor (N) within the
Eysenck model. If we want to use the adequate scale of EPQ for forecasting the
behavior of a subject, it does not suffice to observe that subject in one
circumstance, but in several. The condition becomes imperative if the initial
circumstance is not relevant.
For example, in order to prove the hypothesis that in subjects with high
scores of N factor a stronger anxiety occurs at a stressful time, one must study
the anxiety while faced with an important event (a test, for example) and not with
an amusing event (going to the cinema or a walk in the park). More, the behavior
of those subjects should be monitored before several such important events in
order to diminish to a minimum the variation caused by errors and variables that
8
cannot be controlled (prior experience connected to given events, health,
disposition at a certain time, etc.).
Even when assessing the personality is made with the help of experts, it is
necessary to repeat the observations on the behavior in order to reveal its
constancy and the predictive validity of the traits.
D. S. Moskowitz (1988) proved that in connection to the “good will” and
“poise” traits that the value of correlation coefficients and, at the same time, the
predictive validity, increased from 0.37 and 0.06 for the estimations made in one
circumstance, to 0.68 and 0.44 (p ≤ 0.01), if the estimations made in six
circumstances are summed up.
Of those mentioned above, several principle considerations having a
theoretical and practical value can be extracted, such as:
1. descriptive and explicative models relying on traits do not reflect loyally
the structural and functional complexity of the personality system, but it just
approximates it vaguely;
2. between traits and behaviors there is no 1:1 ratio or unambiguous –
causal ration, but just a statistical and probabilistic conditioning relation;
3. activating a trait cannot be considered absolutely independent of
circumstances and the influence of other traits;
4. the prediction possibility of behaviors on the basis of assessing the traits
is limited and variable; it increased as the number of assessments in different
circumstances and times grows and it diminishes under the significance threshold
if a single assessment occurs (in one situation and in one time). (This is very
important to be considered in the psycho-diagnosis practice.).
5. the generality of traits differ according to their genetic basis: it is greater
in those determined biologically (the temperamental ones, for example) and
smaller in those determined socio-culturally (mentality and character related).
The externalist or positivist orientation, criticizing the subjectivism and
arbitrary of the internalist orientation approach, believes the behavior and
personality in its whole as product of circumstances. It originates in behaviorism
and empiricism, replacing the stimulus notion with that of circumstance, to which
it grants more complex valences and significations (G. Mean, 1934; B. Skinner,
9
1965; W. Mischel, 1968; Funder and Ozer, 1983; L. Pervin, 2002). Thus, the
circumstance is defined as the actual framework included as space and time and
dynamically, fluent, in which the individuals are included and enter in contact,
with their different psychophysical particulars. As objective “entity”, the situation
is part of the external world, of the general existential environment of the man. It
includes the objective conditions and physical and / or social phenomena within
which the individual is determined to behave and to act. For the behavioral
definition of the personality, the social circumstances are vital. They include an
axiological normative component, which is the hierarchy of some value systems
and some models or ranks on whose position the statuses and roles interact.
Personality is construed as exclusive product of circumstances and, as
consequence, the behavior, according to the general law of adaptation, must be
adequate or congruent to the situation. Because behaviors are “generated” and
“structured” according to the traits and significance of circumstances, it means
that identifying and assessing the latter allows a better prediction and a better
control of the first. A trait, no matter how general or ample, as such the
extraversion and introversion, does not become obvious and manifests only within
some situation related behaviors.
The specificity of behaviors by which the traits are revealed is the reflection
of specificity. Thus, in order to predict behaviors, an inventory and hierarchization
of external situations, physical and social, must be drafted, according to the
criterion of significance and relevance. Significance is given by the so-called
strengthening valences (positive or negative) that influence directly the necessity
states of the person, and relevance is given by the matching degree between
strengthening valences included in the situation and the nature of the necessity
state activated at a certain time. (For example, if in a circumstance there are food
and water products, but the “thirst state” is activated in the person facing that
situation, relevant for provoking the behavior will become the “water stimulus”).
Thus, there results that a situation includes at least four types of “stimuli”
delimited by reporting to actual behaviors, these being:
a) significant and relevant stimuli that activate effectively the behavior;
10
b) significant but non relevant stimuli, to which specific behaviors
correspond, but that do not act at that time;
c) mediator stimuli that can facilitate or hinder the development and
finalizing of the behavior activated;
d) neutral indifferent stimuli that are not involved directly in beginning and
developing actually the specific adaptative behaviors.
Unlike the internalist idea, that connects the complexity attribute to the
internal organization (structure) of personality, the situationist orientation
emphasizes this attribute on the account of diversity and volume of external
circumstances. It is based on the black box principle and method: personality per
se is believed a “black box” that has an “inside” inaccessible to direct observation
and investigation, thus that one can forget about it and focus on registering and
analyzing the behaviors in circumstances. Only like this, one could supply
plausible scientific assumptions on the content and on what happens inside the
“black box”, transforming it gradually on a “white box”. The specificity of this
approach is illustrated mainly by the positivist definitions of personality:
“Personality is the most adequate conceptualizing of a person’s behavior in all its
details that the scientist can give at a certain time” (McClelland, 1951, p. 69).
The spirit of situationist approach has surpassed the borders of personality
psychology, expanding strongly to the special psychology, to socio-psychology
(accent on the socialization factor and inculturation), and to the organizational
psychology. As a result, the “contextual typology” appeared that is made up of
defining and characterizing the man by comparison to the situation complexes:
“organization man”, “industrial man”, “economic man”, “political man”, “educator
man”, etc. Accent shifts from defining the personality by “what it is” to defining it
by “what it does”, this meaning by the roles individuals play in certain
circumstances.
In a predictive plan, the situationism operates with schemes such as “if…
then”: “if the x circumstance is given, then we could expect the occurrence of y
behavior”. The validity of prediction will depend, of course, on the powerful
character of the connection between circumstance and specific behavior it causes
and this powerful character will depend, on its turn, on the circumstance
11
frequency in the previous experience of subjects. A situation that by frequent
occurrences led to the automation of behavior, it will have a greater predictive
value than a new one. Nevertheless, here appears the great difficulty of the
situationist model in providing a platform sufficiently valid for forecasting
behaviors. First, it is difficult if not impossible to achieve a full inventory list of
situations and to identify in it the relevant specific situations of those irelevant
and unspecific. Secondly, and this is very important, personality is not an inert
system influenced absolutely by situations. He is an active teleonomic system
that searches for (chooses) the situations and that transforms or even creates
circumstances. As such, to consider that forecasting behaviors can be achieved
only according to the external situations is to simplify inadequately the
complexity o personality and to fall into mechanicist determinism.
To the degree one accepts that personality is a dynamic and open system,
the only paradigm that allows catching and revealing its complexity by behavior is
the interactionism.
The interactionist ideas on personality have been expressed a long time ago
in the works of Kantor and Lewin (cf. Ekehammar, 1974), and their contemporary
formulation, explicit and coherent, can be bound in Mischel (1973) and
Magnusson & Endler (1977).
There might be said that interactionism was born from the controversy
between internalism (traits model) and externalism (situations model). While this
controversy took place, it was reached the conclusion that for explaining and
forecasting the human behavior none of the two extreme orientations holds the
truth and that, in reality, the “person variables” and the “situation variables”
must be considered and, more, their interaction. Thus, the scheme that must be
the basis of empirical researches and of theoretical elaborations is (PxS) -> C, this
being the interaction between person (P) and situation (S) of which behavior (C)
derives. (From the current point of view, behavior, by its effects, introduces
modifications in the P state and in S state, changing thus the subsequent course
of the interaction.)
Grosso modo, in the behavior structure three types of “elements” are found:
“elements” connected mainly to the particulars of a person’s internal
12
organization; “elements” connected mainly to the characteristics of situation and
“elements” generated by the PxS interaction.
Does the interactionist model simplify or complicate the task of predicting
behaviors? Obviously, it complicates it because it requires:
a) determining and assessing the P variables;
b) determining and assessing the S variables;
c) identifying and revealing the content of the PxS interaction.
It made for between the desiderative theoretical and methodological side
and that of concrete applicative research to appear a great discrepancy. Speaking
about the present status quo, Ender and Parket (1992) stated that the influence of
interactionism was more rhetorical, it altered what people said about their
researches and not the manner in which they were made, the crisis in the area of
personality not being surpassed yet. Thus, it must be the focus of our concern.
Then, the studies performed in classes and laboratories, the use of questionnaires
and absence in practice of structural modeling techniques for developing and
solving processes and interactions are still predominant.
As the “technical” difficulties for investigating the PxS interaction are
surpassed, the prediction probability in the behavior area will increase also.
However, in the present phase this possibility remains limited because it
continues to be based unilaterally on traits (factors) or on situations.
The generally valid conclusion that must guide us in theory and in practice
is that the prediction possibility of the behavior of a system is inversely related to
its complexity. As regards the human personality that is characterized not by
some complexity, but, as it was proven, by hypercomplexity, the predictability in
the behavior area is the most difficult to achieve and it cannot exit the limits of
the “probable events field”. Its expression has the form “given the P personality
with A1, A2, A3,….An traits and X situations with the characteristics (traits) (X1,
X2, …Xn), following their interaction we can expect the Ci behavior with the p
probability”. Value of p, placed on a scale from 0 to 1, will be connected with
different degrees of certainty: more it gets closer to 1, more the “certainty” of
prediction will be bigger and vice versa. Naturally, on this scale, at p = 0.50, there
occurs the maximum point of uncertainty that means that, in 50% weight there
13
are factors (conditions) that act in our favorable direction and also in a 50%
weight there are factors (conditions) that act against it.
The issue that arises in connection to the predictability of human behaviors
is not only that of genuineness (exactness), but also that of duration of its validity.
From the beginning, there must be said that the second side (durability of
prediction, this meaning of visas that are formulated in the selection) is the most
fragile due to the impredictibile ascendance that variability, instability (attributes
of functional dynamics) can take on the constant, invariable item (attributes of
functional static).
If one remains in the limits of the traits model, that is the basis of present-
day psychological examinations, for formulating predictions, respectively visas,
one must consider three vital elements, these being: a) stability and consistency
of traits depend on the nature of their determinism; the traits that are connected
mainly to heredity are more stable and more consistent than those determined
mainly by factors of the social and cultural environment; b) a trait is as more
stable and consistent as it is integrated deeper and more consolidated; c) the
general trails are more stable and more consistence than the particular-individual
ones. In principle, we can approve that the time validity of a behavioral prediction
is prorated with the stability and consistency of the traits assessed.
In order to determine within the psycho-diagnosis the stability and
consistency of traits, in a certain person, one must assess them on several
occasions, at different times and intervals of time. However, in the present day
practice the conclusion is reached according to a single assessment
(measurement) which must affect the genuineness and the sustainability of the
prognosis.
Nevertheless, there must be stated that, in conditioning the behavior are
involved not just stable (invariable) traits, but also invariable and oscillating traits.
As consequence, given an apparent global stable and consequent behavior image,
modifications and oscillations occur at unpredictable times. They can be divided
into two groups: modifications (oscillations) inscribed in a lawful tendency, that do
not deviate the person from the “tolerance” area (normality) and modifications
such as the “rare phenomena” (catastrophes) that remove the system from the
14
“normality” area, pushing it to irrational acts that can be self- or hetero-
destructive.
The possibility of occurrence of some behaviors out of the limits of controls
and objective determination creates, as regards each person, an uncertainty area,
with different intensity degrees. This situation has been materialized in a series of
expressions such as: “It cannot it, it’s not true. This is unlikely” (in connection to a
person believed previously to have a flawless behavior); “I can’t believe it, I’m
dazzled” (reaction to a negative action of a person believed previously to have a
flawless behavior); “Still, I’m surprised of what he did” (reaction to the action of a
person thought previously to be good); “I’m not at all surprised” (judgment for an
undesired action committed by a subject thought previously to be bad,
unfavorable). This classification is applied also to positive deeds committed by
persons thought previously to be negative.
As a conclusion, the complexity that characterizes the system of human
personality binds us to formulate, in a behavioral plan, predictions and, at the
same time, diagnosis and prognosis visas, in probabilistic and not categorical
terms, as it is done now.
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLPORT, G.W. (1981) - Structura şi dezvoltarea personalitaţii,
Editura Didactica şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti
CATTELL, R.B. (1946) - Description and measurement of Personality,
George Arap, London
COSTA, P.T.JP., - NEO PI-R Professional Mannual, Psychol. Assessement
MCCRAE, R.R. (1992) Resour, CAS, Odessa, Fe
EKEHAMMAR, B. (1974)- Interactionism in personality from a historical
perspective, Psychol. Bull. 81, pp. 1026-1048
ENDLER, N., - Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing
PARKER, J. (1992)crisis in the personality area, European Journal of
Personality, 6, pp. 177-198
EYSENCK, H.J. (1969) - Personality structure and measurement Routtledge and
Kegan Paul, London
FUNDER, D.C., - Behavior as a function of situation, Journal of
OZER, D.Y. (1983) Personality and Social Psychology, 44, pp. 107-112
KELLY, G.A. (1955) - The psychology of personal constructs, Norton,
New-York
MAGNUSSON, D., - Interactional Psychology: present status and future
ENDLER, N.S. (1977) prospects, in: D. Magnusson and N.S. Emdler (eds.),
Personality at the cross roads, Lawrence Erla baun
Associates, Hillsdale, Ny.
16
MCCLLELAND,D.(1951) - Personality, Sloane, New-York
MEAD, G.H. (1934) - Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago
MISCHEL, W. (1968) - Personality and Assessement, Wiley, New-York
MISCHEL, W. (1973) - Taward a cognitive, social learning reconceptualization
of personality, Psychological Review, 80, pp. 252-283
PERVIN, L.A. (2002) - Current contraversies and issues in personality, III-rd.
Ed. Guilford, New York
PRINCE, M. (1924) - The unconscious, 2-nd ed. rev. Macmilon, New-York
SKINNER, B.F. (1965) - Science of human behavior, Free Press, Glencoe, III
WARREN, H.C., - Elements of human psychology, Noughton
CARMICHAEL, L.(1930) Mifflin, Boston
XXX
17
Top Related