Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-tcprc Total loading time: 1.575 Render date: 2023-02-02T03:24:30.979Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue false

37 - The Evolution of Personality

from Part IX - Applying Evolutionary Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

Lance Workman
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia
Get access

Summary

Whereas personality psychologists are primarily interested in describing, categorizing, and explaining individual differences, evolutionary and experimental psychologists tend to explain behavior in terms of contextual environmental factors. This chapter first examines the long journey taken by personality psychologists to arrive at the agreed Five Factor model of personality. The argument has been that there are five unique, orthogonal, and distinguishable personality traits that are heritable and stable over time. These traits are found in all cultures and are the primary determinants of human behavior. While there are inevitably dissenting voices from this model, general agreement has meant that differential psychologists have been able to turn their attention from describing to explaining individual differences.

The chapter then looks at some attempts to explain the “advantages and disadvantages” of trait differences in adapting to – and thriving in – different environments. While there is a normal distribution of all traits, we talk of those types at the more extremes of the distributions. The spectrum hypothesis in personality has always identified abnormality in terms of extremes of normality. Thus, two to three standard deviations in any trait could be seen as abnormal, extreme, and unusual, but also in some circumstances as somewhat useful and adaptive

Third, this chapter looks at three overlapping, noncompeting but different evolutionary theoretical models that attempt to explain how, why, and when systematic individual differences arise. The fluctuating selection model focuses on variations in selection pressure, either over time or by geographical locations, and trade-offs as the causes of individual differences. The fitness indicator model suggests that, because it is difficult for everyone to have a perfectly healthy genome and development, and since different individuals have different mutation loads, which simultaneously affect the quality of their genes and their phenotypic fitness indicators, there must be natural variance in the levels of intelligence and personality. The random quantitative variations model suggests that it is possible for a trait to be both an evolved adaptation (exhibiting virtually no variation in the architecture of the evolved design in cross-species comparison) and to manifest individual differences in the quantitative performance among members of a single species.

The chapter concludes by looking at behavior genetics and evolutionary psychology in order to explain the role of genetics and parenting in the development of personality. It looks at the rule of thumb when it comes to the determinants of adult personality and other traits, which is 50–0–50; that is, roughly 50 percent of the variance in personality, behavior, and other traits is heritable (influenced by genes), roughly 0 percent is influenced by the shared environment (what happens within the family), and roughly 50 percent is influenced by the non-shared environment (what happens inside and outside the family that is not shared by siblings).

Overall, the rapprochement between personality and evolutionary psychology is welcomed and seen to benefit both branches of psychology.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian Twin Registry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 537545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., & Dolan, C. V. (2006). Why g is not an adaptation: A comment on Kanazawa (2004). Psychological Review, 111, 433437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and Action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Child abuse and other risks of not living with both parents. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 197210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). Aim and scope. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 667673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., Vásquez, G., et al. (2005). Evolutionary personality psychology. In Buss, D. M., ed., Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 851877.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Gladden, P. R., Vásquez, G., Wolf, P. S. A., & Jones, D. N. (2009). Evolutionary theories of personality. In Corr, P. J. & Matthews, G., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology: Part IV. Biological Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and Intelligence at Work. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2015). The stability and change of malaise scores over 27 years: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 3034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., & Heaven, P. (1999). Personality and Social Behaviour. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 2642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. R. (1998). The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2009). Is there a “party” in your genes? Political Research Quarterly, 62, 584600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hur, Y.-M. (2007). Stability of genetic influence on morningness–eveningness: A cross-sectional examination of South Korean twins from preadolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Sleep Research, 16, 1723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Jockin, V., McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1996). Personality and divorce: A genetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 288299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2004). General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation. Psychological Review, 111, 512523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanazawa, S. (2010). Evolutionary psychology and intelligence research. American Psychologist, 65, 279289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanazawa, S. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and individual differences. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., von Stumm, S., & Furnham, A., eds., The Handbook of Individual Differences. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley, pp. 353376.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2012). The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn’t Always the Smart One. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 8190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGue, M., & Lykken, D. T. (1992). Genetic influence on risk of divorce. Psychological Science, 3, 368373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. S., & Kanazawa, S. (2007). Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2000). The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2009). Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 10131022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, D. (2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 26, 363373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622631CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2012). Behavior Genetics, 6th ed. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Rowe, D. C. (1994). The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Segal, N. L. (2013). Personality similarity in unrelated look-alikes: Addressing a twin study challenge. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, N. L., Graham, J. L., & Ettinger, U. (2013). Unrelated look-alikes: Replicated study of personality similarity and qualitative findings on social relatedness. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 169174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settle, J. E., Dawes, C. T., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). The heritability of partisan attachment. Political Science Quarterly, 62, 601613.Google Scholar
Sosis, R. (2009). The adaptationist–byproduct debate on the evolution of religion: Five misunderstandings of the adaptationist program. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 9, 315352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 1767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×