Hollanders Structure Of Personality

This essay sample on Hollanders Structure Of Personality provides all necessary basic information on this matter, including the most common “for and against” arguments. Below are the introduction, body and conclusion parts of this essay.

Sport psychologists have been interested in whether athletic success in an individual can be predicted by measuring personality for a number of years. During the 1960’s and 70’s there was a wealth of research being undertaken with regards to this subject. This essay shall attempt to understand the development and structure of personality, then take a look at different methods of personality assessment and finally try to understand the extent to which athletic success can be predicted by personality.

Firstly, it is required that we should try to understand what personality is before trying to understand whether athletic success can be predicted by measuring it. Actually defining personality can be very difficult as it is so broad. In 1971, Edwin Hollander described personality as a structure with a core, middle and an outer layer that is affected by the social environment around it.

This can be seen in figure 1 below.

The core (or centre of one’s personality) is protected from the social environment and so is usually unchanging. This core can be described as a persons morals or basic beliefs. The middle section is the way in which we usually respond to different situations, these responses give suggestions about the person’s core, as it is what usually happens. The outer layer is the part that relies on the circumstances we are in.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified

Proficient in: Organizational Structure

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

As the environments we find ourselves in are constantly changing then this is the most changeable part of our personality; therefore it may bear little resemblance to our central core (Horn, 1992).

Structures Of Personality

Hollander (1971) then went on to define personality as ‘the sum total of the individual’s characteristics which make him unique’. This view looks at one aspect of personality that most psychologists would agree with, that it is unique to the individual. However there are those psychologists who see personality as a set of traits possessed by an individual and therefore enable this individual to act in a certain, consistent and predictable way (trait theorists).

On the other hand there are those who believe that a persons behaviour is determined by the situation they find themselves in, therefore we would need to understand the situation before trying to predict the behaviour (state theorists). There are also those who believe that personality is a combination of both these two approaches and so depends on the persons core and also on the situation (interactional approach) (Woods, 1998). Firstly the trait theory implies that personality can be described as different traits belonging to individuals.

These traits are frequently visible in an individuals behaviour so therefore knowing these traits can help to predict a persons behaviour. The most famous patrons of this theory are Eysenck and Cattell. Cattell identified 35 different traits that he believed described personality. Eysenck concentrated on related traits and grouped them together in two ways. He called these, two dimensions of personality and suggested that they had a biological basis. These dimensional traits were split into neuroticism-stability and intraversion-extraversion (Woods, 1998).

The state approach or situational approach contends that personality is not a stable core but that it is built up out of our influences and experiences in society. Walter Mischel (1968) has done some research on personality and has found that individuals’ behaviour cannot be predicted through knowledge of their core traits. He believes that it is the environment or situation that can influence or dictate a persons behaviour. The basis for this argument is that we learn and so develop our personality through modelling and reinforcement.

The third approach, interactional, takes into account a lot more than just situations or the core personality traits. This approach anticipates that when situational factors are strong then they are more likely to affect an individuals behaviour than any personal factors will. Likewise, when situational factors are not strong then personality is more likely to play an important role in influencing a persons behaviour. There are various methods of personality assessment such as rating scales, unstructured projective tests and questionnaires.

A lot of these, however do not specifically concentrate on measuring personality traits in athletes and are more often used in clinical psychology (Cox, 2002). Firstly, rating scales require the use of a judge who observes an individual in a particular situation. The judge would use a checklist in order to record information relevant to assess the person’s personality. These results can be quite reliable providing the judge has been well trained. There are essentially two ways in which the judge can assess personality using rating scales, these are during an interview, or with the observation of performance.

Projective procedures may also be used to identify traits and reveal information about underlying motives in an individual. This procedure allows the subject to reveal their inner feelings through unstructured tasks. The main assumption when conducting these tasks is that if the individual being questioned does not think that there are any right or wrong answers then they are more likely to answer them truthfully and openly. Among these tests are the Rorschach Test, and the Thematic Apperception Test. There are other tests within this method of testing, however these are the most commonly used projective tests.

Within the group of questionnaire tests there are two which have been used by sports psychologists in sports related research with athletes, these are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Cattell’s Sixteen Factor Personality Inventory (Cattell 16 PF). The MMPI uses a series of true-false questions in order to measure certain personality traits and conditions such as depression. The 16 PF measures 16 factors (traits), and how much of each, that Cattell though were descriptive of personality (Horn, 1992).

Other methods of measuring personality include, the Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style and the Profile of Mood States, however these tests do not directly relate to sport or physical activity and are more general, covering attentional styles and moods (Weinberg & Gould, 1995). There are, however, sport related personality / psychological inventories such as the Athletic Motivation Inventory (AMI), the Winning Profile Athletic Instrument (WPAI) and the Troutwine Athletic Profile (TAP) (Cox, 2002).

Other examples include, the Sport Competition Anxiety Test that measures competitive trait anxiety, the competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 to measure precompetitive state anxiety and finally, the Trait-State Confidence Inventory to measure sport confidence (Weinberg & Gould, 1995). So, using these methods of personality assessment is it possible to predict athletic success in individuals? Cox (2002, p163), states that “no scientific study to date has shown a strong statistical relationship between personality variables and athletic ability. Weinberg & Gould (1995) suggest that it would be misleading and unethical to make predictions about an individuals behaviour based on these tests. Even valid tests may still have misleading errors when looking at results. These could be caused by individuals not understanding questions properly or perhaps the subject wants to appear calm and cool before a match to impress the coach and so in her precompetitive anxiety test she may answer the questions in a more desirable way (Weinberg & Gould, 1995).

Morgan (1980) published an article explaining that many sports psychologists are in debate over the credibility of personality research. Some believe that positive and accurate predictions can be made about sport performance from the personality tests. Believers of this view are said to be credulous, and may well use this information to predict athletic ability. On the other side of the argument are those who tend to be sceptical, brushing aside the idea that athletic ability can be predicted by personality tests (Morris & Summers, 1995).

Horn (1992) explains that there are no consistent findings in the research conducted on personality to show that athletes possess a general personality and that this differs from that of non-athletes. However, Vealey (1986) notes that personality differences between successful athletes and less successful athletes have been found in mood states, cognition’s and coping abilities, as opposed to more enduring personality traits (Morris & Summers, 1995).

In conclusion, it can be seen that the structure of personality is so broad that it can be difficult to define but that there are theories that have been agreed upon by numerous psychologists and sports psychologists alike. There are also a wide variety of methods of personality assessment that can be used in sports related settings and also in sport specific settings. Finally, these tests cannot discover champions, however it is possible to use them as a tool in which to help the athlete become more successful, by finding weaknesses and working on them in practice.