Chapter 2
Lesson 4: Becoming Aware of and Evaluating Preconceptions
In this lesson, we will examine the second question asked in Lesson 3: why do different
personality psychologists tend to focus on very different causes of personality? In other
words, why are there so many "dueling" personality theories?
Psychologists tend to approach the development of theories by assuming a particular
stance on the causes of behavior and mental events. That is, psychologists tend to adopt a
particular "theoretical approach." A theoretical approach is a set of assumptions and
concepts that serve as the starting point for the development of theories. For
example, the psychoanalytic approach assumes that 'adult personality is determined by
experiences that occurred during early childhood'. In addition, the psychoanalytic
approach uses various concepts such as "anxiety," "repression," and the "unconscious."
When developing a theory, psychoanalytic theorists make use of these assumptions and
concepts. For instance, Freud's theory of phobic disorder states that the irrational fear of
an object is due to the fact that the object symbolically represents a repressed conflict that
would cause severe anxiety if one became aware of it. The conflict itself probably
resulted from childhood experiences. By avoiding the object representing the
unconscious conflict, one is able to prevent the conflict from becoming conscious.
In general, a theoretical approach is made up of a set of "preconceptions" (a
preconception is a prior belief that influences one's understanding of a situation).
With respect to personality, preconceptions affect how we perceive, think about, and
interpret people's behavior, including our own. For example, you might have a
preconception that personality is mostly the result of biological heredity. You might
conclude from this preconception that life experiences are very limited in their ability to
change one's innately determined personality. As this example suggests, the most
important preconceptions within the theoretical approaches of personality psychology
involve the kinds of causes thought to be central to the development of personality. Some
theoretical approaches, such as Freudian psychoanalysis, focus on distal factors
(childhood experiences). Other theoretical approaches, such as the biological approach of
Hans Eysenck, focus on more proximal factors (current physiological states affecting
arousal levels).
Personality psychologists must determine if their preconceptions are justified. They do
this by performing empirical research to test their theories. If a theory--which itself is
derived from a particular theoretical approach--is supported by evidence, then the
theoretical approach used to construct the theory is also supported. Your textbook will
consider such research in future chapters.
Becoming Aware of Your Preconceptions
We all are amateur personality psychologists during our everyday lives: we constantly
develop theories about the causes of personality--both our own as well as the
personalities of others. And, just as with theories constructed by professional personality
psychologists, our everyday theories are derived from our reconceptions--preconceptions
that we need to examine and evaluate.
For example, let's say that you wish to answer the following question: "Why do I feel so
sad today?" You will begin to consider several possibilities. Perhaps you have a
preconception that 'recent negative experiences cause sad moods'. This preconception
will lead you to look for any such experiences over the last couple of days. You
remember that, yesterday, you had an argument with a family member. You wonder if
this is causing your current sad mood. But you think to yourself, "No, I really wasn't that
upset about it; and anyways we made up quickly." So you keep searching. Perhaps you
begin to think that nothing really negative has happened to you recently. At this point,
you may become frustrated and scold yourself: "I don't have any reason to be sad, so I
should just snap out of it!"
In this example, you are the victim of an important difficulty with preconceptions: when
confronted with a problem, preconceptions limit the range of possible solutions that
are considered. Although time constraints always require that we limit the range of
possible solutions, our preconceptions sometimes leave us with an overly restricted range
of possibilities. There are other possible causes of sadness that are not being examined
here. Some psychologists believe, for example, that hormonal changes in a person's body
can cause feelings of sadness. For instance, in the winter months, there is an increase in
the production of a hormone called melatonin. Some biological researchers claim that this
causes predisposed people to develop the mood disorder called "seasonal affective
disorder." As another instance, decreases in levels of testosterone may cause men to
become depressed and irritable (a problem that some have referred to as "irritable male
syndrome"). Thus, if we want to find the best explanation for a person's depressed mood,
we need to consider a range of possible causes. If our preconceptions do not allow for
this, it is likely that we will develop incorrect explanations.
There is a second reason why we need to become aware of and evaluate our
preconceptions: preconceptions influence how closely we examine claims. We tend not
to examine closely a claim (a claim is a statement made about reality) that agrees with
our preconceptions. It is as if we are thinking: "well of course, I already knew that!"
Thus, we tend to overlook any problems with claims that agree with our preconceptions.
On the other hand, we tend to examine closely a claim that disagrees with our
preconceptions: we try to discover problems in the evidence that will allow us to reject
the claim. The psychologist, Thomas Gilovich (1991), put the difficulty this way:
When examining evidence relevant to a given belief, people are inclined to see what they
expect to see, and conclude what they expect to conclude. Information that is consistent
with our pre-existing beliefs is often accepted at face value, whereas evidence that
contradicts them is critically scrutinized and discounted. Our beliefs may thus be less
responsive than they should to the implications of new information.
So, if preconceptions can lead to such difficulties, shouldn't we just get rid of them?
Shouldn't we view the world with eyes that are uncontaminated by prior beliefs?
Shouldn't we wake up each morning believing that nothing in particular is true? What if
everything has changed completely since last night? Wouldn't the preconceptions that we
had then lead us into error now? This doesn't sound very likely; and, in fact, we need our
preconceptions if we are going to function at all in the world. But we have to be willing
to examine our preconceptions so that we can discover if and when they lead us into
error. In other words, we need to adopt preconceptions that reflect reality as much as is
possible.
Critical Thinking Questions
Question 4-1
Of the different approaches to personality discussed in Chapter 2, which one made the
most sense to you? What do you think this says regarding your preconceptions about
personality?
Suggested Answer
Question 4-2
In order to examine your preconceptions about personality more carefully, state whether
you "agree" or "disagree" with each of the following statements:















One of the biggest problems in people's lives involves doing things just to please
others.
Biological heredity is an important cause of personality.
Emotions are something that just happen to you.
I am free to be whatever I want to be.
What I have learned in my past can be changed.
I usually know why I act the way that I do.
Sometimes, because of the situation we are in, we simply can't help but act in
certain ways.
A person can have motivations that contradict one another--a fact that may cause
the person to act in confusing or unusual ways.
Our personalities are influenced to some extent by the evolutionary history of our
species.
Other people are very important influences on the way that I act.
Sometimes I just can't help behaving in certain ways because of particularly
influential events that I experienced in my past.
For the most part, I am the author of my own life.
High self-esteem is essential if one hopes to be successful in life.
How I think about a situation is the most important determinant of how I will act
in it.
I choose whether or not to feel angry when someone makes an insensitive remark
to me.







I often am not sure why I do the things that I do.
I know that I can do anything if I just believe in myself.
Personality becomes fixed in childhood and usually changes very little after that.
It is essential that we continue to "grow" personally throughout our lives.
Men and women tend to have very different personalities.
We are typically unaware of the most important causes of our personality because
they are unconscious.
One of the most important goals in life is to achieve a sense of personal
fulfillment.
Examine your responses to these questions. Do any of your answers contradict other
answers? Examine any contradictions and see if you can resolve them. Do your
responses, when looked at as a whole, suggest that you favor a particular theoretical
approach? Is this the same approach that you chose in Question 4-1?
Suggested Answer
Question 4-3
In Question 4-2, look at your response to the statement, "high self-esteem is essential if
one hopes to be successful in life." It was stated in this lesson that it is important to test
your preconceptions in order to see if they are accurate. How might you test your
preconception regarding this particular statement?
Suggested Answer
Question 4-4
With respect to the causes of human behavior, a well known psychologist once stated that
science:
has probably never demanded a more sweeping change in a traditional way of thinking
about a subject.... In the traditional [nonscientific] picture a person perceives the world
around him, selects features to be perceived, discriminates among them, judges them
good or bad, changes them to make them better (or, if he is careless, worse), and may be
held responsible for its consequences. In the scientific picture a person is a member of a
species shaped by [factors that affect] survival, displaying behavioral processes which
bring him under the control of the environment in which he lives, and largely under the
control of a social environment which he and millions of others like him have constructed
and maintained during the evolution of a culture. The direction of the controlling relation
[proposed in the nonscientific view] is reversed [in the scientific view]: a person does not
act upon the world, the world acts upon him. (Skinner, 1971, pp. 201-02; italics added)
The author also made the following argument:
We can follow the path taken by physics and biology by turning directly to the relation
between behavior and the environment and neglecting supposed mediating states of mind.
Physics did not advance by looking more closely at the jubilance of a falling body, or
biology by looking at the nature of vital spirits, and we do not need to discover what
personalities, states of mind, feelings, traits of characters, plans, purposes, intentions, or
the other perquisites of autonomous man really are in order to get on with a scientific
analysis of behavior. (Skinner, 1971, pp. 12-13)
(a) Describe the preconceptions about personality that are evident in these two passages.
Suggested Answer
(b) Do you agree or disagree with these preconceptions? Why or why not?
Suggested Answer
Bibliography and References
Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in
everyday life. New York: The Free Press.
Nowak, R. (2002, February 27). Hormone swings affect men too, suggests research. New
Scientist.com. Retrieved March 27, 2002, from
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991980
O'Neil, J. (2001, December 25). Mental Health Sad?: Maybe It's Hormones on Overtime.
New York Times.com. Retrieved February 2, 2002, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/health/psychology/25MENT.html
Ricker, J. P. (2002). An introduction to the science of psychology. Boston: Pearson
Custom Publishing.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam/Vintage.
Smith, R. A. (2002). Challenging your preconceptions: Thinking critically about
psychology (2nd ed.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.