40
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
On the Nature of Human Nature: Comparing Formal
and Informal Theories of Personality
Kandice R. Collins & Kenneth M. Cramer
University of Windsor
The present study assessed university students’ views on
human nature according to a standard set of theoretical
dimensions, namely free will vs. determinism, causality
vs. teleology, uniqueness vs. similarity, conscious vs.
unconscious, pessimism vs. optimism, and biological vs.
social influences. Based on the responses from
618 introductory and personality psychology students,
results showed that the typical student theory of human
nature (a) endorsed free will and goodness in others,
(b) advocated the uniqueness of individuals, and
(c) recognized the influence of causality, unconscious
forces, and social relationships on personality. Cluster
analysis uncovered two main clusters of theories,
partitioned according to their endorsement of social
influence and unconscious determinism. The student theory
was most similar to the theories of Erikson, Horney, and
Dollard and Miller. These findings are comparable to
those obtained using Finnish students. Limitations are
outlined, and suggestions for future research are given.
Both psychologists and philosophers
have long debated the nature of human
nature, from the ancient Greek and Eastern
philosophers to modern Western thinkers.
Literary masterpieces portray the human
condition in unique ways, as seen in works of
Beckett, Dostoevsky, Dumas, and Kafka.
Indeed, various professions and institutions
(e.g., law enforcement, psychotherapy,
religion, and corporate negotiations) rest on
understanding another’s unique philosophy.
Students of psychology are most
comprehensively exposed to views of human
nature by examining formal personality
theories. Although the abundance and variety
of personality theories may seem daunting,
researchers in other fields and subfields of
psychology have successfully organized,
synthesized, and condensed volumes of
theoretical knowledge using classification
taxonomies (e.g., DSM-IV and the Big Five
Factor Model, Costa & McCrae, 1985). As a
means to a similar end, personality
researchers have pursued one of two
empirical streams: (1) Theoretical
researchers propose a more manageable set
of theoretical families by analyzing
comparative ratings along several theoretical
dimensions, whereas (2) individualist
researchers assess the implicit theories that
individuals apply to people and situations
encountered in everyday life. After outlining
the relevant findings from both perspectives,
the present paper shows that an investigation
which unites these perspectives will help
provide a taxonomy of personality theory.
Theoretical Analysis of Human Nature
A review of several personality
textbooks reveals that authors have divided
theorists (either historically or intuitively) into
several distinguished theoretical camps:
Freudian and NeoFreudian, Trait, Cognitive,
41
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
Social Learning and Behaviourist, Biological,
and Humanist and Existential (cf. Burger,
2003; Engler, 2003; Hergenhahn, Olson, &
Cramer, 2003; McAdams, 2001; Monte &
Sollod, 2003). For instance, trait theorists
conceptualize the person as a conscious
individual whose behaviour is largely
determined by genetic factors, whereas
humanist theorists conceptualize the person
as a conscious individual with fewer genetic
and deterministic influences. However, it is
not uncommon for text authors to quantify the
theoretical differences along various
dimensions (Feist & Feist, 2002; Hall,
Lindzey, & Campbell, 1998; Hjelle & Ziegler,
1976). For example, whereas Freud and
Jung receive high ratings for their emphasis
of unconscious influences, Maslow and
Rogers do not; whereas Cattell and Eysenck
receive high ratings for their emphasis of
genetic influences, Bandura and Skinner do
not.
Through data reduction techniques
like factor and cluster analysis, researchers
have classified as many as fifteen personality
theorists into five or six theoretical families,
whereby family membership is based on
consistencies along various dimensions of
human nature (Schuh, 1960; Taft, 1966). For
example, Evans and Smith (1972) identified
the following five clusters: (1) Self-analysis
emphasis (Binswanger & Boss, Rogers,
Goldstein, Angyal, Allport, Miller & Dollard,
Cattell), (2) Psychoanalytic emphasis
(Fromm, Horney, Adler, Freud), (3) Biological
emphasis (Sheldon, Murray, Lewin, Freud),
(4) Learning emphasis (Binswanger & Boss,
Skinner, Miller & Dollard, Murray, Allport),
and finally (5) unlabelled because it was not
readily interpretable (Sullivan, Jung, Freud).
Later research (Campbell, 1980)
specified six families by primarily grouping
theorists into pairs: (1) Early development
(Freud and Erikson); (2) emphasis on the
unique organism (Murray, Rogers,
Goldstein); (3) de-emphasis of the
psychological environment (Skinner and
Cattell), (4) de-emphasis of personality
structure (Miller & Dollard and Binswanger &
Boss), (5) self-concept or ideal-self (Horney
and Angyal); and (6) uniqueness of individual
focus (Allport, Eastern Psychology, Sheldon).
Indeed, the derivative clusters depend largely
on which theorists are evaluated, and the
specific dimensions used in the theoretical
evaluations.
Assessing Individual Philosophies of Human
Nature
The assessment of individuals’
unique personality theories is quite diverse,
and includes (a) examining implicit
personality theories, (b) predicting behaviour
using one’s personal philosophy, and
(c) constructing questionnaires to assess
individual differences in perspectives of
human nature. Implicit personality theories
represent assumptions or naive belief
systems about the associations among
personality traits (Cheng & Hau, 2002; Chiu,
Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Dweck, Hong, & Chiu,
1993; Erdley, Cain, Loomis, Dumas-Hines, &
Dweck, 1997; Erdley & Dweck, 1993;
Leyens, 1991; Reeder, 1993; Schneider,
1973; Sedikides & Anderson, 1994; Silvera,
Moe, & Iverson, 2000). Our implicit
personality theories, while unscientific, are
defined in terms of the categories used to
describe people, the content and
organization of these categories, and
explanations for why people behave as they
do (e.g., causal explanations and
attributions). These theories are considered
implicit because most people cannot
organize them as part of a formal theory of
personality.
Various dimensions of personal
ideologies have been used to predict
behaviour, including optimism (Scheier &
Carver, 1985, 1992), pessimism (Peterson,
Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988), sex differences
in personality (Buss, 1991, 1994),
goal-directed behaviour (Snyder, 1995), and
genetic vs. environmental influences on
personality (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue,
Segal, & Tellegen, 1990; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985; Loehlin, 1992; Plomin, 1994).
For instance, Martin, Blair, Nevels, and Brant
(1987) reported a nonsignificant relation
between one’s philosophy of human nature
and self-esteem. Furnham, Johnson, and
Rawles (1985) demonstrated a strong
relation between voting patterns and
personal philosophy, whereby conservative
voters tended to believe in genetic
42
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
determinism for psychological problems.
Furthermore, de St. Aubin (1996) showed
that individuals with highly humanistic
personal ideologies (a) placed more
emphasis on imagination, beauty, and
broad-mindedness, (b) placed less emphasis
on cleanliness and politeness, and
(c) believed human nature is characterized
by trustworthiness, altruism, complexity, and
a politically liberal orientation.
Wrightsman (1992) has designed a
useful inventory to assess one’s philosophy
of human nature. The individual endorses 84
items on 6-point Likert scales from which six
subscales are derived: trustworthiness,
altruism, independence, strength of will and
rationality, and both complexity and variability
of human nature. The overall scale shows
high retest reliability ( = .90) and appropriate
convergent and divergent validities. Although
the scale has seen moderate use (de St.
Aubin, 1996; Therdon & Strydom, 1996;
Tobacyk & Milford, 1988; Weller & Benozio,
1987), the component subscales are not
readily comparable to formal personality
theories (e.g., Freud, Rogers, and Skinner).
Kalliopuska (1985) offers a solution to
this problem by designing a questionnaire
based on the same dimensions used by
Hjelle and Ziegler (1976) to evaluate ten
formal personality theories. Seventy-seven
Finnish students enrolled in personality
psychology endorsed their personal views of
human nature according to eight dimensions:
freedom vs. determinism, rationality vs.
irrationality, constitutionalism vs.
environmentalism, holism vs. elementalism,
subjectivity vs. objectivity, proactivity vs.
reactivity, homeostasis vs. heterostasis, and
knowability vs. unknowability. Results
showed neither sex nor age differences.
Although there was relative independence
among dimensions because of curvilinear
distributions, there was a positive correlation
between reactivity and both proactivity and
subjectivity after accounting for inflated Type
I error from multiple testing. On average,
students viewed human nature as an
holistically organized system largely beyond
the reach of scientific investigation. Whereas
outside environmental factors play a greater
role than genetics, people make their own
decisions by internal freedom, and there is
an inherent need to grow and develop, test
barriers, search for satisfaction, and attempt
self-actualization. Although Kalliopuska notes
that students’ views of human nature overlap
with parts of several theories (e.g., Allport,
Erikson, Freud, Kelly, Maslow, Murray), no
empirical analyses were offered to actively
align participants’ implicit theories with their
formal theoretical neighbors.
Present Study
The present study offers a confluence
of the theoretical and individualist streams in
the empirical study of human nature.
Whereas researchers have condensed the
quantifications of formal theories into smaller
sets of families (Evans & Smith, 1972;
Campbell, 1980), and whereas researchers
have assessed individuals’ implicit
personality theories (Cheng & Hau, 2002; de
St. Aubin, 1996; Kalliopuska, 1985; Scheier
& Carver, 1992; Silvera et al., 2000;
Wrightsman, 1992), no study has yet tested
these two approaches simultaneously. This
would permit the consideration of several
important questions. For example, what is
the common theory of personality, and where
is it located within the comprehensive map of
formal personality theory? Does this theory
vary according to the individual’s sex or age?
What is the fewest yet most comprehensive
number of families into which formal
personality theories can be clustered? Is the
individual theory anti-Freudian,
pro-Skinnerian, or moderately both?
Although Wrightsman (1992) designed a
scale to assess human nature, it is not
readily amenable to comparison; and
whereas Kalliopuska (1985) assessed
students’ theories of personality based on
Hjelle and Ziegler’s (1976) dimensions, no
empirical comparison was made. The
present study similarly designs a
questionnaire consisting of six dimensions
used by Feist and Feist (2002) to evaluate
19 formal personality theories, a relatively
more comprehensive collection of
perspectives. Using cluster analysis, a more
comprehensive map of personality theory
can be constructed which empirically assigns
theories (including the typical individual
43
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
theory) to a manageable set of theoretical
families.
Method
Participants
Six hundred and eighteen student
volunteers (214 male, 401 female, and 3
unspecified) from three psychology
undergraduate classes at a large Canadian
university gave informed consent to
participate for partial course credit.
Participant age ranged from 17 to 48 years,
with a mean of 20.3 years and a standard
deviation of 4.2; a median split produced 342
participants (55%) aged 17 to 19 years and
275 participant (45%) aged 20 years or more.
Academic major also varied within the
sample: 30 students (5%) in fine arts,
70 (11%) in humanities, 159 (26%) in
sciences, 162 (26%) in social sciences, 184
(30%) in other majors, and 13 (2%)
unspecified. Finally, there were 345 (56%)
students in their first year of university, 152
(25%) in their second, 72 (12%) in their third,
38 (6%) in their fourth, and 11 (2%)
unspecified.
Materials and Procedure
With respect to formal theories, Feist
and Feist (2002) provide dimensional ratings
of the following 19 theorists: Adler, Allport,
Bandura, Cattell & Eysenck, Dollard & Miller,
Erikson, Freud, Fromm, Horney, Jung, Kelly,
Klein, Maslow, May, Mischel, Rogers, Rotter,
Skinner, and Sullivan. For each theorist, a
5-point Likert scale assessed the degree of
endorsement for one of the two poles in the
following six dimensions: Causality vs.
Teleology (i.e., is behaviour best explained
by past experiences or future goals and
purposes), Pessimism vs. Optimism, Free
Will vs. Determinism, Social vs. Biological,
Unconscious vs. Conscious, and Uniqueness
vs. Similarity (i.e., is the more salient aspect
of a person his or her individuality or
common characteristics). With respect to
participants’ implicit theory, the same six
dimensional qualities were translated into
single-item questions, again using a 5-point
scale (see Appendix; we recognize that our
instrument is not standardized, and internal
consistencies cannot be established in
single-item measures. However, we opted for
this format on the basis of the face validity of
the items, and the speed at which
participants could endorse items).
Participants completed the 6-item
questionnaire on the first day of the fall
semester, and were then debriefed as to the
purpose and expected results.
Results
One respondent was excluded from
analysis due to incomplete data (N = 617).
For each of the six theoretical dimensions,
means, standard deviations, and
interdimensional correlations were derived
for the total sample (see Table 1).
Table 1. Means (Standard Deviations), and
Interdimensional Correlations by Personality
Dimension
Dimensional Correlates
Dimension
Mean (SD) 2 3 4 5 6
1. Causality 3.61 (1.15) 100
2. Pessimism 2.49 (0.89) -07 100
3. Free Will 3.38 (1.01) -02 07 100
4. Social
3.93 (0.77) 12 00 -01 100
5. Unconsc. 3.36 (0.96) 07 13 -09 -05 100
6. Unique
3.41 (1.26) 00 02 -03 04 10 100
Note. N = 617; decimals have been removed.
The relatively small correlations among
dimensions was similarly observed by
Kalliopuska (1985) in a Finnish sample. A
nonparametic means analysis showed that
each dimensional mean was significantly
different from the midpoint, zs>5.00, ps<.001.
Specifically, the average implicit theory
among this sample of students emphasized
causality (not teleology), optimism (not
pessimism), free will (not determinism),
social (not biological) antecedents, and
unconscious (not conscious) influences, and
one’s uniqueness from (not similarity to)
others. Mann-Whitney nonnparametric tests
of group differences by age and sex showed
only that males’ average implicit theory
emphasized unconscious motives
significantly more than females’, z=2.78,
p=.005. Following a 10-week interval,
116 participants again completed the
questionnaire to derive retest reliability
estimates of the six dimensions (rs>.76).
The six dimensional ratings for each
of the 19 formal theories and mean scores in
students’ implicit theory were entered in a
cluster analysis (Everitt, 1993; Gordon,
44
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
Adler
Allport
Kelly
Rogers
Maslow
May
Bandura
Fromm
Mischel
Rotter
Cattell/Eysenck
Jung
Freud
Dollard/Miller
Skinner
Erikson
AVG.IMPLICIT
Horney
Klein
Sullivan
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Linkage Distance
Figure 1
Cluster analysis dendrogram based on
theorists and linkage distances (theories with
more similar dimensional profiles have earlier
linkage distances).
The first cluster (Cluster-A) combined
Maslow, May, Kelly, Rogers, Allport, Adler,
Rotter, Mischel, Fromm, and Bandura. This
cluster was further split into Subcluster-A1
(Maslow through Adler) and Subcluster-A2
(the remaining four theories). The second
cluster (Cluster-B) combined Jung, Cattell
and Eysenck, Freud, Dollard and Miller,
Skinner, Sullivan, Klein, Horney, Erikson, and
the implicit theory. This cluster was also split
into Subcluster-B1 (Jung, Freud, and Cattell
and Eysenck), and Subcluster-B2 (the
remaining seven theorists). Cluster
membership was plotted according to the two
dimensions that neatly divided the clusters:
Social Influence (along the x-axis) and
Unconscious Determinism (along the y-axis;
see Figure 2).
3
2
Unconscious Determinism
1987), which designates unique families or
clusters of theorists to maximize the similarity
of each member’s corresponding profile so
intercorrelations among cluster members is
high. Intertheory similarity can be quantified
using squared Euclidian distances,
graphically represented in a dendrogram with
theories on the side and linkage distances on
the bottom (see Figure 1). The more similar
the theories, the shorter the linkage distance.
For example, the theories of Mischel and
Rotter are quite similar and join quickly; only
later do they join those of Bandura and
Fromm, and far later do they join those of
Adler through May. Based on algorithms
outlined by Ward (1963) and the visual
inspection of the dendrogram, two main
clusters emerged, each further divided into
two subclusters.
Skinner
Klein
Erikson
Horney
IMPLICIT
Jung
Freud
Sullivan
Dollard/Miller
1
Bandura
0
Rotter
Fromm Mischel
-1
Rogers
-2 Cattell/Eysenck
Maslow May
Allport
-3
Adler
-4
Kelly
-5
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Social Influence
Figure 2
Cluster plot of of theories based on social
influence and unconscious determinism.
These four families can be better identified
and interpreted using the two summary
functions. To begin, members of Cluster-A
generally had moderate to high scores on
Social Influence. Within this family, members
of subcluster-A1 (e.g., conscious, free-will
theorists) had low scores on Unconscious
Determinism, whereas members of
subcluster-A2 (e.g., social learning theorists
or social determinists) had moderate scores
on Unconscious Determinism. Alternatively,
members of Cluster-B generally had higher
scores on Unconscious Determinism. Within
this family, members of subcluster-B1
(e.g., biological determinists) had low scores
on Social Influence, whereas members of
subcluster-B2 (e.g., NeoFreudians plus
Skinner) had moderate scores on Social
Influence, essentially balancing the impact of
social and biological antecedents.
With regard to students’ implicit
theory, results showed that on average,
students agreed with the viewpoints of other
members of subcluster-B2 (i.e., Dollard and
Miller, Klein, Erikson, Horney, Skinner, and
Sullivan). Looking at similarity across Social
Influence only, students agreed that people
are best conceptualized as the product of
both social and biological influences. Across
Unconscious Determinism only, students
agreed with Sullivan, Horney, Freud, and
45
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
Jung that people are largely unaware why
they are who they are.
Discussion
The present study had four main
goals: It (a) evaluated the typical implicit
personality theory among a Canadian sample
of university students, (b) assessed whether
the student theory varied according to sex or
age, (c) assessed the interrelation among
dimensions of personality, and (d) compared
the student theory to formal personality
theories. Results showed that the student
theory varied slightly depending upon its
derivation with either a means or cluster
analysis. Using a univariate means analysis,
students in the present study believed that
people in general are basically good, best
understood in terms of their uniqueness from
others, and have free will over their lives.
Additionally, people are largely influenced by
unconscious forces, and by both their past
experiences and social relationships. The
cluster analysis outlined a similar picture,
although the role of both free will and
personal uniqueness received less
emphasis.
Furthermore, whereas males more
strongly endorsed the influence of
unconscious forces, no other sex or age
differences were significant, suggesting
relatively universal implicit personality
theories within the sample. Yet because the
correlations among personality dimensions
were so small as to be considered
unimportant, it may be concluded that the
dimensions that comprise the student theory
are largely independent from one another.
This is a curious result, given that certain
relations were expected in the student theory
based on those found in formal theories. For
instance, theories that acknowledge the
influence of past experience (causality) tend
not to endorse free will. Whereas that relation
was highly significant among formal theories
(r = -.88), it was not significant in the student
theory (r = -.02). Perhaps if individuals are
presented with the ramifications of their
dimensional inconsistencies, they may
change their dimensional endoresements;
however, it may be precisely for these
reasons that individuals’ personality theories
remain chiefly implicit.
Finally, with the goal to locate the
student theory among the theoretical map of
formal personality theories, the cluster
analysis identified two main theoretical
divisions: The first division (consisting of
Cattell and Eysenck, Dollard and Miller,
Erikson, Freud, Horney, Jung, Klein, Skinner,
Sullivan, and the student theory) more
strongly emphasized determinism, causality,
and unconscious motives compared to
members of the other division (consisting of
Adler, Allport, Bandura, Fromm, Kelly,
Maslow, May, Mischel, Rogers, and Rotter).
The first division was partitioned into two
subdivisions, whereby members of the first
subdivision (consisting of Jung, Freud, and
Cattell and Eysenck) advocated a position
that was more pessimistic and endorsed
fewer social influences compared to the
position of the remaining theories (consisting
of Dollard and Miller, Erikson, Horney, Klein,
Skinner, Sullivan, and the student theory).
The second division was similarly partitioned
into two subdivisions, whereby members of
the first subdivision (consisting of Adler,
Allport, Kelly, Maslow, May, and Rogers)
advocated less social influence compared to
the remaining theories (consisting of
Bandura, Fromm, Mischel, and Rotter).
It is useful to juxtapose the present
findings with those of Kalliopuska (1985),
who assessed similar dimensions among
Finnish university students. In the latter
sample, students endorsed a view of human
nature consisting of subjectivity, holism,
proactivity, and unknowable influences. The
last three dimensions correspond roughly to
the dimensions of uniqueness, free will, and
unconscious motives, respectively. Like the
present study, there were no significant
differences according to age and sex.
Kalliopuska also draws several comparisons
between the Finnish students’ personality
theory and the formal theories of Allport,
Kelly, Freud, Adler, and Erikson, several of
whom were empirically grouped with the
personality theory of Canadian students.
Overall, the Canadian students agreed with
both Adler and Freud for their endorsement
of unconscious influences, and agreed with
Allport, Erikson, and Kelly for their
endorsement of social influences. However,
46
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
the student theory was closely related to
those of Erikson, Dollard and Miller, and
Horney, largely because these theories
advocated multifaceted conceptualizations of
personality. As Ryckman (2000, p. 212)
notes,
“Erikson’s work has also been
popular with students and other
members of the general public; it
increases their understanding of the
kinds of stresses they are likely to
experience at a given stage in their
lives, and provides recommendations
for relieving those stress so that
positive growth can be achieved.”
That Canadian and Finnish students
provided similar personality theories may
suggest the presence of cross-cultural
commonality in philosophical perspectives of
human nature (Cheng & Hau, 2002). As
Kalliopuska notes, people in a single culture
learn to make similar interpretations about
the meaning of behaviours and attitudes,
much like Kelly’s (1955) notion of
commonality in personal constructs.
However, cross-cultural similarities may be
limited geographically to relatively proximate
locations, whereby one might expect more
conspicuous differences between Western
and Eastern cultures. It would be useful to
locate the theoretical position of a specific
culture or population within the map of formal
personality theories.
Interpretation of the present findings
must be cautioned in light of the
methodological limitations. The present
sample consisted of university students -- a
sample of convenience who in many ways
are not representative of the population in
general. In addition, the cluster analysis
assigned equal weight to each of the six
dimensions. This may be reasonable as a
general assumption, but becomes
problematic on examination of individual
theories (i.e., a specific theorist may stress
one dimension of personality more than
others). For example, whereas Allport
envisioned the human being as basically
good and healthy, consciously motivated, but
especially emphasized the role of one’s
uniqueness from others. Finally, the creation
of a theoretical map of personality theorists
rests on the assumption that the dimensional
ratings for each theorist are accurate and
complete. Indeed, researchers may disagree
as to how certain theorists should be scored
on certain dimensions (e.g., Skinner’s
position on whether we understand the
reasons why we behave as we do).
The results from the present study
invite several future investigations. It may be
worthwhile for researchers to explore and
compare implicit beliefs about human nature
from different samples (e.g., students from
different universities, elementary school
children, and senior citizens). Researchers
may wish to test for differences among
members of distinct socioeconomic classes,
age groups, and cultures or subcultures.
Furthermore, it may be fruitful to explore the
relative weight of dimensions in students’
philosophies of human nature. By rank
ordering each dimension, one may derive a
relative weight to the importance of each
dimension. Finally, given that psychotherapy
involves the adoption of any of a number of
philosophical positions on human nature in
the solution of adjustment problems,
researchers may wish to determine the
extent to which one’s implicit theoretical
assumptions of personality predict how a
client responds either to a particular style of
therapy or method of personality
assessment, such as Freudian
free-association, Rogerian client-centered
therapy, or Kelly’s Role Construct Repertory
Test.
.
Author Note
The second author can be
contacted at kcramer@uwindsor.ca
References
Burger, J. M. (2003). Personality (6th ed.).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire:
Strategies of human mating. New
York: Basic Books.
Campbell, J. B. (1980). Multidimensional
analysis of personality theories.
Journal of Psychology, 104, 21-25.
Cheng, Z., & Hau, K. (2002). Do those who
believe intelligence to be
unchangeable also think that
personality is nonmalleable?
47
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
Unversality of implicit theories of
personal attributes. Acta
Psychologica Sinica, 34, 81-88.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997).
Lay dispositionism and implicit
theories of personality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 19-30.
de St. Aubin, E. (1996). Personal ideology
polarity: Its emotional foundation and
its manifestation in individual value
systems, religiosity, political
orientation, and assumptions
concerning human nature. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 152-165.
Dweck, C. S., Hong, Y. & Chiu, C. (1993).
Implicit theories: Individual
differences in the likelihood and
meaning of dispositional inference.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 644-656.
Engler, B. (2003). Personality theories: An
introduction (6th ed). New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Erdley, C., Cain, K., Loomis, C., DumasHines, F. & Dweck, C. S. (1997). The
relations among children's social
goals, implicit personality theories
and responses to social failure.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 263272.
Erdley, C. A. & Dweck, C. S. (1993).
Children's implicit personality theories
as predictors of their social
judgments. Child Development, 64,
863-878.
Evans, J. D., & Smith, H. W. (1972). A factoranalytic synthesis of personality
theories: Basic dimensions
reconsidered. Journal of Psychology,
82, 145-149.
Everitt, B. S. (1993). Cluster analysis (3rd
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2002). Theories of
personality (5th ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Furnham, A., Johnson, C., & Rawles, R.
(1985). The determinants of beliefs in
human nature. Personality and
Individual Differences, 6, 675-684.
Gordon, A. D. (1987). A review of
hierarchical classification. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, 150,
119-137.
Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., & Campbell, J. B.
(1998). Theories of personality. (4th
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hergenhahn, B. R., Olson, M. H., & Cramer,
K. M. (2003). An introduction to
theories of personality. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hjelle, L. A., & Ziegler, D. J. (1976).
Personality theories: Basic
assumptions, research, and
applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kalliopuska, M. (1985). Rationales for an
implicit personality theory.
Psychological Reports, 57, 10711076.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of
personal constructs: A theory of
psychology (2 vols.). New York:
Norton.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1995). Implicit theory of
personality as a theory of personality.
Psychological Inquiry, 6, 301-304.
Leyens, J. (1991). Prolegomena for the
concept of implicit theories of
personality. Current Psychology of
Cognition, 11, 131-136.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and
environment in personality
development. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The person: An
integrated introduction to personality
psychology (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL:
Harcourt.
Martin, J. D., Blair, G. E., Nevels, R. M., &
Brant, M. M. (1987). A study of the
relationship between a personal
philosophy of human nature (good or
evil) and self-esteem. Psychological
Reports, 61, 447-451.
Monte, C. F., & Sollod, R. N. (2003). Beneath
the mask: An introduction to theories
of personality (7th. ed.). Danvers, MA:
Wiley.
Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant,
G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory
style is a risk factor for physical
illness: A thirty-five-year longitudinal
48
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 23-27.
Plomin, R. (1994). Genetics and experience:
The interplay between nature and
nurture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Reeder, G. D. (1993). Trait-behavior relations
and dispositional inference.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 586-593.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories
to the construction of personal
histories. Psychological Review, 96,
341-357.
Ryckman, R. M. (2000). Theories of
personality (7th ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effect
of optimism on psychological and
physical well-being: Theoretical
overview and empirical update.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16,
201-228.
Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality
theory: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 79, 294-309.
Schuh, A. J. (1966). A synthesis of
personality theories by cluster
analysis. Journal of Psychology, 64,
69-71.
Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. E. (1998). Theories
of personality (6th ed). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Sedikides, C., & Anderson, C. A. (1994).
Causal perceptions of intertrait
relations: The glue that holds person
types together. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 294-302.
Silvera, D. H., Moe, S., & Iverson, P. (2000).
The association between implicit
theories of personality and the
attributional process. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 41, 107-111.
Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing,
measuring, and nurturing hope.
Journal of Counseling and
Development, 73, 355-360.
Taft, R. A. (1960). A statistical analysis of
personality theories. Acta
Psychologica, 17, 80-88.
Therdon, S. W., & Strydom, C. (1996).
Philosophy of human nature and
behavior in an industrial environment
in South Africa. Journal of Social
Psychology, 136, 539-540.
Tobacyk, J. J., & Milford, G. (1988). Beliefs
about complexity and variability of
human nature and paranormal
beliefs. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
66, 226.
Walsh, B. W., & Peterson, L. E. (1985).
Philosophical foundations of
psychological theories: The issue of
synthesis. Psychotherapy, 2, 145153.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to
optimize an objective function.
Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 58, 236-244.
Weller, L., & Motti, B. (1987). Homosexuals’
and lesbians’ philosophies of human
nature. Social Behavior and
Personality, 15, 221-224.
Wrightsman, L. S. (1992). Assumptions
about human nature: Implications for
researchers and practitioners.
London: Sage.
Appendix
Human Nature Questionnaire
Directions: For the six items below, answer each
honestly by selecting one of the five options
based on the scale provided. Do not think too
long on any one item; if in doubt, select the first
answer that comes to mind.
1. Is one’s personality better explained by
understanding one’s past experiences or
future goals?
Past Experiences | 1 2 3 4 5 | Future Goals
2. Are people basically good or evil?
Good | 1 2 3 4 5 | Evil
3. Is one’s personality more a function of one’s
personal choices or determined by factors
outside one’s control?
Personal Choices | 1 2 3 4 5 | Outside Factors
4. To what extent is one’s personality a function
of one’s social relationships?
Not at all | 1 2 3 4 5 | To a great extent
49
NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
5. To what extent do people know the reasons
why they are who they are?
Not at all | 1 2 3 4 5 | To a great extent
6. Which is more important: understanding what
makes us similar or what makes us
different?
Similar | 1 2 3 4 5 | Different