all port

Allport’s theory of traits

1

Allport’s Theory of Traits

– A Critical Review of the Theory and Two Studies

Louise Barkhuus

ID: 4187741

Concordia University

PSYC 326/4

Patricia Csank

Date: April 19, 1999


2

Abstract

This paper reviews Gordon Allport’s theory of traits as well as two of his

studies, “Personality Traits”, 1921 and “Letters from Jenny”, 1966. His

theory, which is based more on his view of human nature than on research,

distinguishes between common traits and individual traits, with emphasis on

the individual traits. The two studies illustrate how Allport applies the theory

in his research. Finally the paper concludes that although Allport’s trait

theory only capture parts of the concept of personality, credit should be

given due to the fact that the theory is an early attempt to describe and

measure personality.


3

Allport’s Theory of Traits – A Critical Review of the Theory and Two Studies

Gordon W. Allport (1897–1967) was the first psychologists who gave thorough thought to the

concepts of traits. He developed his own trait theory and he continued to view the trait as the most

appropriate way of describing and studying personality. He is, by many, actually considered to be the

first psychologist dealing with personality at all and was the first to offer a class in this field at Harvard

University in 1924 (Schultz, 1976; Pervin & John, 1997). Throughout his life, Allport continued to

develop and work with his trait theory and he inspired many other psychologists who also adopted this

approach to personality or developed their own trait theory (e.g. Eysenck, McClelland).

The aim of this paper is to review Allport’s trait theory as described in his own published

material supplemented by comments from other scholars. The paper’s focus is on the theory of traits

and Allport’s view of personality. Although much literature has been published on the concept of

personality traits, seen from other perspectives, this will not be dealt with. Allport’s other aspects of

personality psychology will only be mentioned briefly or in connection to his trait theory.

Allport’s View of Personality

In order to understand Allport’s theory of traits, it is important to know how he approached

psychology and in particular the issue of personality. In many ways, his views were opposite from the

ones of the psychoanalysts but they were also very different from the behaviourists.

Allport viewed psychology as the study of the healthy person. He believed, in contrast to for

example the psychoanalysts, that studying the healthy personality is much different and incompatible

with that of the pathological personality (Schultz, 1976). Another basic approach he takes, is that of the

individual human as unique. Each person is different from the other and should therefore be studied

accordingly. Individuals can still be compared but Allport’s understanding of psychology goes beyond

just comparison. He emphasises this individuality in virtually all aspects of his psychology, another


4

contrast to the view of the psychoanalysts as well as other psychologists, who put emphasis on

similarities within people (Chaplin & Krawiec, 1968).

Another radical view of Allport is one regarding the dynamics within the individual. He

referred to this as functional autonomy. This aspect of his psychology is probably where Allport differs

most from other psychologists of his time, especially psycho-analysts like Freud and Jung but also

behaviourists like Skinner (Chaplin & Krawiec, 1968). Allport believes that motivation occurs

independent of past experiences. It is the present motives such as interests, attitudes and life style that

govern a person’s behaviour. He stresses the close relationship between motives and cognitive

processes and argues that all motives are a combination of these. This way the individual’s “cognitive

style” is affected by the individual's self-perception and only indirectly affected by his/her past. We

shall later see how the trait theory relates to this concept of motivational autonomy.

Keeping these basic approaches in mind, Allport’s theory of traits seems a natural part of his

description of personality. We shall now see how he explained traits as the core of personality.

Allport’s Theory of Traits

Allport defines a trait as “a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the

individual), with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide

consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behaviour” (Allport, 1937, p.295).

First one notices that Allport describes a trait as a neuropsychic system. He firmly believes that

traits are real and exist within the person. Allport does not mean that a trait is what we today would call

genetic, although he does regard some traits as “hereditary” (Pervin & John, 1997). He means that the

traits make behaviour consistent and that a trait is still there even if there is no one around to see it. In

his book “Personality – A psychological interpretation” from 1937, Allport uses the example of

Robinson Crusoe and asks the provocative question: “Did Robinson Crusoe lack traits before the

advent of Friday?” (Allport, 1937, p. 289). Still traits can be evoked by a certain social situation. This

issue will also be dealt with when discussing the inter-dependence of traits.

Second, traits guide the person’s behaviour, and also in this way make the behaviour


5

consistent. This factor is especially related to the traits’ connection to habit, an issue Allport considers

later.

Common and Individual Traits

The theory is however, more than a definition. When elaborating on his definition, Allport

explains how every person’s traits are unique to the individual. He gives the example of aggressiveness.

Two people can both possess this trait but because of their “different developmental history and the

never-repeated external influences that determine each personality” (Allport, 1937, p. 297), their style

and range of aggressiveness will always be different. Allport then continues to distinguish between

common and individual traits.

Common traits are traits that are shared among many persons within a culture. They are

measurable on a scale; meaning person A can have more of one trait than person B (Cartwright, 1974).

Although Allport does not consider the common traits as “true” traits, it is important to be able to

measure traits and compare individuals, and Allport therefore prefers to keep the common trait as an

important factor of personality.

Individual traits, which he later in his career also refers to as personal dispositions, are traits

unique to the individual in the sense that each trait only describes few people. Allport uses the example

of paranoia. Only a few individuals can be said to possess this trait but in the few that do, the trait may

be “the very core of their personality” (Allport, 1937, p. 302). Individual traits are difficult to measure

because they are often rare, but Allport defends the concept of personal dispositions as one way of

studying the uniqueness of the person. Since he does not believe psychology is just about comparing

individuals, Allport still sees this kind of trait as one that can be studied and analysed. In one sense,

Allport argues, referring to the example of aggressiveness above, all traits are individual. But in order to

be able to measure and compare, the common trait is useful and it is therefore necessary to consider

this as well.


6

Trait as Habit and as Attitude

In order to describe the concept of trait, Allport compares it to the concepts of habit and

attitude. A habit can function as a trait but a trait is not always a habit. He also explains how a habit can

become a trait later in life using the example of the young child brushing his teeth. At first it seems like

a habit, but later, as the habit persists, the child can be said to possess personal cleanliness as a trait.

Allport explains that a trait is a “fusion of habit and endowment rather than a colligation or

chain of habits alone” (Allport 1937, p. 293). The transformation of habit to trait is simply when the

motivation shifts from simple conditioned responses to a sheer liking of the activity as motivation.

Then “the trait has become autonomous” (Allport, 1937, p. 293).

A trait can also function as an attitude. Just like an attitude can guide behaviour, so can a trait.

Allport argues that the two concepts are very similar but that they differ in three ways. First, an attitude

always refers to something either material or conceptual and is therefore more specific than traits.

Second, traits are often more general attitudes towards many similar things. Where traits are a more

widely extended attitude, an attitude can still be situational. Third, attitudes are usually favourable or

unfavourable towards something, a characteristic that a trait not necessarily possesses. Allport stresses

that it is important to distinguish the two concepts and keep them separate even when the two are

overlapping.

Cardinal, Central and Secondary traits

Allport reasoned that some traits have less significance to a person than others do. He

therefore divided traits into three levels. He referred to them as cardinal, central and secondary traits.

A cardinal trait is one so pervasive that most of the person’s behaviour and activities can be

traced to this particular trait. Only few people possess a cardinal trait but for the ones who do, this trait

may be the ruling of their personality.

Central traits are easily detected characteristics within a person, traits that all people have a

certain number of, five to ten on average according to Allport (Schultz, 1976). These traits are the ones

to measure and compare and he emphasises the central traits throughout his theory.


7

Last, Allport mentions the secondary traits. These are less important, more difficult to detect

traits, “aroused by a narrower range of equivalent stimuli and they issue into a narrower range of

equivalent responses” (Allport, 1937, p. 338). Moreover, other people may not notice secondary traits

unless they are very close acquaintances.

Inter-dependence of Traits

Although Allport strives to name all the traits, he does not believe they exist independent of

each other within the person. He regards them as highly inter-connected and often related. No trait

works alone and which one is “triggered” depends highly on the situation. Allport also argues that

guilt-behaviour and feelings of ambivalence might sometimes be due to two contradictory traits. He

uses the argument of everybody having these feelings as support for the fact that one trait may be

dominant in one situation and another in another situation (Allport, 1937).

In order for the individual to connect the traits and make them work together, Allport talks

about the concept of the proprium. This is the integrating mind that other psychologists refer to as for

example the “self”, “ego” and “style of life” (Chaplin & Krawiec, 1968). This is where the person’s

motives, experiences and traits work together and create his/her sense of identity. This is also why

some traits are referred to as propriate traits. These are the traits that the individual considers important

to his/her own sense of identity (Allport, 1955).

How does Allport Identify the Traits?

Allport believes that traits can be found and measured by both experimentation and

observation. Talking about experimentation, he says that “whenever diverse tasks set in the laboratory

are responded to in uniform ways, whenever many stimuli and many responses are found to be

equivalent, a trait is safely inferred” (Allport, 1937, p. 315). According to observation, Allport is of the

opinion that a certain accumulation of observation also gives a good inference of a trait, for example in

regards to children. Another way to discover traits is the statistically based test. Allport argues that if

certain behaviour or responses are positively correlated with another behaviour or response, the test


8

can be said to have internal validity. And if these behavioural tendencies can be grouped into traits, the

person responding accordingly, can be said to possess one or more of these common traits.

Allport’s Research

Allport’s theory of traits is not based on empirical research per se. Reviewing his writings it

seems more likely that the theory is based on a believe regarding human nature. When arguing for the

trait as the most valid concept for the description of personality, Allport continuously reasons that we

in our everyday lives use characteristics/traits to describe other people. This factor is often neglected in

scientific research and in his opinion does not get the attention and credit that it deserves within

psychology (Allport, 1937).

Allport did conduct research in order to put names and concepts to all these traits. It was his

firm belief that even if an individual possesses a trait that is indescribable, it does not mean that the

trait is not there. It simply means that language is lacking the proper term. Allport then collected,

together with Odbert, a complete list of 17,953 terms that could each describe a trait. Allport admits

that naming traits is a very complex task that requires a serious approach. However, naming traits is

one thing, identifying them is another.

Allport published little research to support his theory. Most of his research utilised his approach

and the rest of his published literature discussed or defended his theory (as well as his other approaches

and concepts of personality). However, his first publication is interesting for more than one reason.

Written together with Allport’s older brother Floyd Allport, who was a social psychologist, it accounts

for Allport’s initial thoughts regarding traits. It also measures 55 college students on a number of

central traits. The two authors conclude, on the basis of this investigation, that these traits are indeed

measurable in most, if not all, individuals. Last the paper is a historical document because it is the first

publication that considers traits to be a considerate part of personality (Pervin & John, 1997). It should

be noted that Allport re-evaluated his theory all through his life and the theory described previously,

was not published before 1937.


9

Personality Traits, 1921

Allport and Allport’s aim is first of all to study and describe personality. The paper conducts a

mini-study where a number of male students rate each other and themselves. The authors then

compare these ratings to see if a consistency actually exists. They claim that the criterion of personality

is to be found in social interaction, an important viewpoint to remember when they later use three

close associates’ ratings as the measure of the individuals “true” personality (as opposed to the

individual’s self-rating). According to Allport and Allport, many aspects of personality do not surface

before the person interacts with others.

Allport and Allport were not careless researchers. They point out that the small number of

three associates does make measuring and interpretation limited.

Method

The authors supplied 55 male college students with three Personality Rating Scales that they

were to pass on to three associates with the request to rate the student. Furthermore, the students were

given a questionnaire with the purpose of measuring “self explained behaviour” in regards to the same

characteristics to which the associates were to respond. Allport and Allport point out the importance

of developing a “behaviouristic” questionnaire, asking for behaviour in different situations, as opposed

to an introspective questionnaire requiring a general self-rating. They argue that asking an individual if

he/she is honest, thoughtful etc. can invoke carelessness, rationalisation and defence reactions (Allport

& Allport, 1921).

The concepts/traits that Allport and Allport include in the study had already been used in the

Harvard Psychological Laboratory as working basis. They consist of four themes: Intelligence,

Temperament, Self-Expression and Sociality, where all have five or less items of measurement.

What is interesting in terms of the method is the way Allport and Allport consider the three

associates’ ratings as the true measure of traits. When discussing the individual’s questionnaire, Allport

and Allport state that this can simply “be made of service in supplementing the evidence from the tests

and ratings ... a human touch which adds colour and meaning to the quantitative analysis of the various


10

traits” (Allport & Allport, 1921, p. 11). When measuring the individuals the associates’ ratings are

considered to be the true; when the results of the individual’s questionnaire reflects the one of the

associates’ ratings, Allport and Allport claim to have found a good measuring scale and test.

Allport and Allport’s results

One of the main purposes with the study is, according to Allport and Allport, to develop a

measurement scale of personality. The authors partly use tests already developed by other psychologists

(e.g. W. F. Dearborn's Group Test of Intelligence) and partly tests developed exclusively for the

present study. Besides noting that the items measured have also been used in the Harvard

Psychological Laboratory, Allport and Allport do not argue for the items chosen, except claiming that

they seem to be fairly exclusive of one another. These are the categories and items Allport and Allport

measure:

I. Intelligence

II. Temperament

1. Emotional Breadth

2. Emotional Strength

III. Self Expression (Strength)

3. Extro–Introvertion

4. Ascendance–Submission

5. Expansion–Reclusion

6. Compensation

7. Insight and Self-Evaluation

IV. Socialty

8. Social Participation


11 9. Self-seeking and Aggressive self-seeking

10. Susceptibility to social stimuli

Allport and Allport mention that measuring human nature requires interpretation and argue that

correlation between the three associates’ ratings should therefore not be expected to be to high.

Even a .30 or .40 should be considered with optimism.

After describing the test and mentioning that any correlation below .25 has resulted in dismissal

of the individual’s score for that trait, Allport and Allport take a closer look at some of the

personalities. This approach reflects Gordon Allport’s view of personality at an early stage; “Each one

is a unique mixture of varying degrees of divers traits” (Allport & Allport, 1921, p. 23). They draw out

extreme personalities, for example ones with highly contradictory traits. An example of such a

personality is the introverted social type. Evaluating this individual, Allport and Allport conclude that

there is evidence of almost a pathological character within this person.

Allport and Allport conclude by stating that characteristics of Intelligence and Temperament

are most likely to be inborn, where Self-expression and Socialty are probably acquired upon social

surroundings, but still on the basis of hereditary structure. Finally they state the importance of isolating

these fundamental traits in order to refine the ratings of individuals as well as developing the tests.

A Case Study

Another of Allport’s studies, contrasting the previous, is a case study from 19661. It analyses a

series of letters written by Jenny Masterson from 1926-1937. The interpretation shows Allport’s

developing view of personality (evidently affected by his 30 years of professorship at Harvard

University). This is evident in the way that he evaluates and interprets the letters from different

viewpoints. He includes Freudian, Jungian as well as Adlerian analysis in his publication as well as his

1This is actually one of Allport’s last publications. It should be noted that it is purely coincidental that the two reviewed

publications are Allport’s first and last.


12

own trait theory approach. The study is different in nature from the previous mentioned study, it is

therefore not possible to compare the two. However, it is an example of how Allport believes in every

human as unique and that the essence of this is the important part of personality, hence the part to

study. In 1941, Allport published a book defending the use of personal documents within psychology.

He believes that these documents possess a great value to psychology and that these sources are often

overlooked. Twenty-four years later he then shows how personal documents can be applied to several

theories. Here, for apparent reasons, the trait theory will be the only interpretation evaluated.

Letters from Jenny, 1966

Jenny Masterson lived from 1868 to 1937. She wrote, through the last eleven years of her life,

over 300 letters to two friends, a married couple named Isabel and Glenn, whom she knew through

her son Ross. These letters are the personal documents that Allport uses for his analysis.

In order to maintain quantitative validity, Allport asks thirty-six people to characterise Jenny in

terms of her traits. They used a total of 198 trait names that Allport classifies into eight clusters. He

points out that although some disagreement concerning the classification exists, the main clusters were

not difficult to identify:

Quarrelsome-suspicious

Self-centred

Independent-autonomous

Dramatic-intense

Aesthetic-artistic

Aggressive

Cynical-morbid

Sentimental

Allport finds many of his original statements and considerations of traits to be supported. First, the

traits do not seem to exist independently of each other. In the documents it is evident that for example

Jenny’s aggressiveness is closely related to her quarrelsomeness and her sentimentality is linked to her


13

artistic nature (Allport, 1965). Second, although some of the traits mentioned and classified within the

cluster are contradictions (e.g. witty versus humorless, voluble versus reclusive), Allport argues that this

only supports the already noticed factor that people often experience ambiguous feelings and that this

often stems from the possession of two opposite traits. Moreover, traits are often situational; one trait

can surface in one situation and its counterpart in another situation.

Allport admits that his trait classification of Jenny is inconclusive. He refrains from

characterising the traits as other than central. Although it would be reasonable to characterise some as

secondary, especially because the material is so detailed and the number of found traits is so high,

Allport does not stay with his original structure. Studying the letters of Jenny one could also question if

Jenny does not possess the cardinal trait of paranoia or self-pity, at least in her later years.

At this point of his career, Allport had disregarded the sharp distinction between individual

traits and common traits. The common trait is no longer considered a true trait, it is merely a

measurable version of an individual trait (Cartwright, 1974). He does therefore not mention the

concept of common traits. Instead of analysing according to his “original” theory, Allport continues his

interpretation by offering a content analysis. The reason for mentioning this analysis is because it is

closely related to the trait approach.

Allport uses the computations of Jenny’s letters made by Jeffrey Paige for his thesis (not yet

published in 1966). Paige utilises a very modern, at least by 1966 standard, method where a computer

(IBM 1401-7094) computes the first 56 letters into a quantitative analysis. The procedure allows the

computer to count the occurrence of words, phrases or sentences expressed in regard to a certain

subject or emotion. The method requires that these trait categories have been identified and grouped

first, but otherwise the computer makes the analysis.

One amusing detail to notice is how impressed Allport is with this new method of analysis.

Although it certainly requires more effort than “manual” content analysis, or possibly even manual

counting of the occurrence of the categories, Allport talks impressed about this method: “The method

allows not only for a wide base of categories, but also permits the coder to indicate when each tag

word [the words associated with each category] represents the subject, verb, or object in a sentence”


14

(Allport, 1965, p. 200). Surely the computation makes it easy to count and compute the range of the

occurrences but the efforts needed to accomplish this task are not small. They include typing all the

letters into the computer, identifying the categories and then attaching possible words and phrases to

each group.

The results of Allport’s computer assisted content analysis, resemble the ones from the original

trait analysis very closely. On the left the traits of the content analysis is listen and on the right are the

corresponding categories from the original analysis listed. The listed traits of the computer analysis are

in decreasing order of frequency.

Allport compares the list to the original list of eight clusters and concludes that almost all traits

of the one list overlap with traits from the other list. There are few exceptions. The original analysis for

example does not find the trait of sexuality according to Allport. One thing he seems to have

overlooked though, is the fact that the trait analysis finds the trait of incestuous and categorise it as

“unclassified” traits along with 13 others. The sexuality trait is, in the content analysis, derived from

Jenny’s description of romantic experiences with her son (e.g. rides by the moonlight, trips to the

country) and the two traits therefore seem to be same.

The trait analysis’ cynical-morbid and dramatic-intense categories are not found in the content

analysis. The last two categories clearly show the limitations of computational power. Cynicism is a

subtle trait that cannot be measured by counting the number of “cynical” words; neither can counting

Aggression

Possessiveness

Need for affiliation

Need for autonomy

Need for family acceptance

Sexuality

Sentience

Martyrdom

Aggressive Sentimental

Independent-autonomous

Quarrelsome-suspicious Sentimental

Aesthetic-artistic

Self-centred


15

the number of “dramatic” words capture dramatic-intense personality traits. The whole essence of the

material must be considered in order to identify these two concepts. Allport admits to this lack but

counter argues by referring to the number of words found, that can be labelled “overstating” (e.g.

never, always, impossible). These could be interpreted as evidence of a dramatic intense personality.

Another limitation of this method is one of rather humorous character. When searching to find

positive statements in the documents, Allport stumbles over a number of sarcastic statements and has

to conclude that this is another limit of the computer assisted analysis.

To conclude on Allport’s trait analysis of Letters from Jenny, assisted by a computer and

Jeffrey Paige, one has to keep in mind that at this point Allport’s trait theory had received much

criticism and even Allport had realised the potential of other approaches as supplementary analysis

(Allport, 1966). However, Allport’s interpretation clearly supports his argument for analysing the

individual person. This approach is very different from other trait approaches, and even other

personality approaches, but it identifies subtleties about human nature that a quantitative trait

questionnaire for example, would not discover. It also enlightens a very extreme personality which, by

this approach, can be analysed in depth as to see what lies beneath the discovered traits; that is where

they surface and in which situations. Unfortunately Allport does not dwell on this subject, in this case

his aim is merely to identify traits and describe Jenny’s personality utilising these.

Discussion

The two reviewed studies are very different and, as mentioned before, impossible to compare.

What is comparable however, is Allport’s approach to traits. It changed a great deal over the years but

kept its basic foundation such as the individual as unique. Whereas Allport started by developing

personality tests based on outsiders’ ratings of the individual, his later view is much more subjective.

The traits Jenny possesses do not only dependent on her social interaction with others, Allport regards

her intimate and personal letters as good descriptions of her personality as well. The latter approach

contrasts Allport’s initial claim that many traits do only surface with social interaction. An argument

could be that Jenny in her letters often describes social action and that letters in a way act as just another


16

form of inter-personal communication.

The Change of the Trait Theory

Allport’s theory should also be seen in the light of his time. Not much literature had been

published in regards to human personality and a trait theory seems as a reasonable place to start. As

Allport argues, characteristics are contributed to people every day and no real scientific thought had

been given to this before. Allport continuously warns against drawing quick conclusions on the

account of other people’s traits and with his theory, he strives to prevent this fallacy. It is Allport’s aim

to develop a broad acknowledged way of measurement and with its success he hopes to decrease the

likeliness of people judging upon stereotypical prejudice. This is a noble thought but somehow it gets

caught in subjectivity of the concepts. Many of the traits are difficult to measure due to their different

perceptions among people. This is also evident from later developed trait theories, where a much

smaller number of traits are attempted to measure (e.g. the trait theory of Eysenck).

Although Allport never completely abandoned his trait theory (he defended it as late as 1966,

one year before his death), his emphasis takes a turn with his book “Becoming” of 1955. His later view

of personality emphasises humans’ strive towards a higher level as the motives of human personality.

Other psychologists (e.g. Maslow and Adler) also describe this concept. Becoming, as Allport names the

concept, is the ultimate goal of human beings.

He continue to believe that the trait is the best way of describing personality throughout his

career, but admits in 1966 that some of his previous statements were rather bold. Much of his early

writings was however, written in “an age of psychological innocence” (Allport, 1966, p. 1), supporting

the argument that the concept of traits is a good place to start when describing personality. Finally he

states, what he also used as the argument of developing the trait test in 1921, that by identifying the

traits of an individual “we can succeed in knowing [personality]at least in partbeyond the level of

unaided common sense” (Allport, 1966, p. 9). Even in his last considerations this argument seemed to

be one of the driving motives for using traits to describe personality.


17

The Trait Theory’s Influence on Later Theories

Allport’s theory did not have great impact on later trait theorists beyond probably giving initial

inspiration. Eysenck and Cattell for example, hold considerably different theories, although still

employing the concept of traits (Pervin & John, 1997). Another critique of his theory is the already

noted fact that Allport did very little research in support for his theory. Even his first publication

measures traits without defining them in detail, one can just hope that others perceive the concepts the

same way as Allport. If not, his aim to assist in people’s “judgement” of others has failed. Although

this might seem as a rather harsh critique, it does make some of his work obsolete. Collecting 17,953

words for traits is only useful if people connect these words with the same behaviour, feelings and

expressions.

Finally one could ask if we actually do come closer to the essence of personality by describing

the individual in words. How about underlying emotions, motivations and changes, are they all just due

to the personal characteristics that we possess? Even though many other well supported theories of

explaining personality have been proposed, Allport continued to regard this as true. He believed that

by describing a person we could learn about him or her. For describing personality, traits may be very

useful, but when explaining a person’s behaviour and motivations, one should probably ask for a much

deeper theory.


18

References

Allport, F. H. & Allport, G. W. (1921). Personality traits: Their Classification and Measurement.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 16, 1–40.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality –A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt and

Company.

Allport, G. W. (1941). The use of personal documents in psychological science. New York: Social

Science Research Council.

Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming. Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Allport, G. W. (1965). Letters from Jenny. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1-10.

Cartwright, D. S. (1974). Introduction to personality. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing

Company.

Chaplin, J. P. & Krawiec, T. S. (1968). Systems and Theories of Psychology. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (1997). Personality – Theory and research. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Schultz, D. (1976). Theories of personality. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

all port

Documents