Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M.

Hernández

THEORY OF PERSONALITY: AN INTERACTIVE BEHAVIORAL APPROACH1.

Authors: J.Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

Dto. Psicología Biologica y Salud

C/Pavlov, 6. 28049 Madrid.
[email protected]

INDEX
1. Definition.
2. Introduction
2.1.1. Personality Psychology and personality of individuals.
2.1.2. The development of individual personality.
2.1.3. The human being, a system that learns and updates its experience: The evolutionary development of the person.
2.1.4. The different types of learning as systems to adding the personal and social experience.
2.1.5. Response trends and rules as systems to synthesizing and updating of experience.
3. The personality assessment as a predictive tool.
3.1.1. Motivation, Aptitudes and Personality.
3.1.2. The basic elements of the test and self-reports.
4. The behavioural perspective of personality structure.
4.1.1. Organizing personality by type of context.
4.1.2. Organizing personality by types of learning.

Abstract

The present article shows the behavioral perspective of the personality. The authors have tried to formalize a theory of personality
from the interactionist perspective. We have summarized the works of European and American authors of the last 50 years
committed to measuring personality in an objective manner.
Starting from the pioneering works of Cattell in which he laid the foundations of the objective measure of personality, the
psychologists of interactionist behavioral orientation, have proposed to measure personality and motivation in the same way as
aptitudes. A personality theory is presented that establishes that the different learning processes in situations of open contingencies
incorporate consistent response tendencies of individuals.
We consider that the personality is the synthesis, in each moment, of the tendencies of response that have been consolidated
throughout the development. We think that personality does not refer to the descriptions of people about themselves. Individuals
often reflect on their own experience and deduce rules that govern, to a large extent, their behavior. Both the response tendencies
(interactive styles) and the rules that govern the behavior in a specific situation and moment, constitute the personality of the
individuals.
In this article, the a of individuals uthors present a general theory of behavior from the interactionist perspective. Subsequently, they
present the objective measurement procedures and propose a new theory of personality. This proposal allows to combine the
experimental and correlational perspective of the personality.
Resumen
El presente articulo muestra la perspectiva conductual de la personalidad. Los autores han intentado formalizar una teoría de la
personalidad desde la perspectiva interaccionista. Hemos resumido los trabajos de autores europeos y americanos de los últimos
50 años empeñados en medir la personalidad de manera objetiva.
Partiendo de los trabajos pioneros de Cattell en los que sentó las bases de la medida objetiva de la personalidad, los psicologos
de orientación conductual interaccionista, han propuesto medir la personalidad y la motivación del mismo modo que las aptitudes.
Se presenta una teoría de la personalidad que establece que los diferentes procesos de aprendizaje en situaciones de
contingencias abiertas incorporan tendencias de respuesta consistentes de los individuos.
Consideramos que la personalidad es la sintesis, en cada momento, de las tendencias de respuesta que se han consolidado a lo
largo del desarrollo. Pensamos que la personalidad no se refiere a las descripciones de las personas sobre si mismas. Los
individuos reflexionan frecuentemente sobre su propia experiencia y deducen reglas que gobiernan, en buena medida,su
comportamiento. Tanto las tendencias de respuesta (estilos interactivos) como las reglas que gobiernan la conducta en una
situación y momento especifico, consituyen la personalidad de los individuos.
En este articulo los autores exponen una teoría general del comportamiento desde la perspectiva interaccionista. Posteriomente,
presentan los procedimientos de medida objetivos y, proponen una nueva teoria de la personalidad. Esta propuesta permite aunar
la perspectiva experimental y correlacional de la personalidad.

1
This text complements the T-data entry of the Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford, eds.). Springer.

1
 Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

1. Definition. context at a given moment are of such importance, that are

Behavioral personality psychology studies the idiosyncratic what really determines the behaviour of an individual.
behavioral tendencies of individuals in specific open The original approach of the behaviourist perspective states
contingencies contexts that generate individual differences. that behaviour is a function of the context contingencies
The open contingencies contexts, as opposed to closed and individual´s behaviour variability in a specific context is
contingencies, allow associating different response due, exclusively, to procedural error control. However, in
patterns with the desired consequence. The behavioral laboratory, researchers frequently found individuals
tendencies of each individual are relatively consistent and behaviour differences that could not be explained by

OPEN CONTINGENCIES PROGRAMMED IN an experimental CONTEXT

 Scheduled contingencies: if subject does R1 or R2, or R3 -> 5s later, consequence A (reward)

occurs.
 The context displays at least 10 different possible responses (R1 to R10).
 After n trials each participant responses consistently as follows:
 Peter: R6, R1 -> A. John: R4, R3 -> A. James: R7, R2 -> A , Joseph: R2.
This type of context induces:

 Consistent behavior on each individual after successive attempts, because the

context reinforced its specific response sequence.
 Each person would behave differently in the same context.
 Individuals could learn any idiosyncratic response sequence in a context of open
contingencies.
 The behavior (response sequence) of each individual will always be reinforced, even
if the behavior of each individual is different.

Figure 1.

stable behaviors consolidated throughout the development procedural variations or control errors. For instance, in
of each individual. extinction operant situations, many cases of individual
2. Introduction. differences have not found experimental control errors
(Odum, Ward, Barnes & Burke, 2006). Neuringer and his
2.1. Psychology of Personality and personality of group (Neuringer and Jensen, 2010) have reviewed a large
individuals. number of controlled operant contexts that generate
Contingencies operating on the context changes the greater variability in individual´s responses and,
behaviour frequency on successive trials. Individual´s surprisingly, individuals shown a certain degree of
Personality refers the specific behaviour showed in a consistency in their behaviour. (See Figure 1)
context that contingencies operating are not perceptible or These authors have also achieved a large response
detectable. Therefore, the particular behaviour in such variability in laboratory animals by reinforcement.
situations can only depend on the person's variables. Such Santacreu (2013) has explored how certain contexts induce
specific contexts shows important differences in individual behaviour differences at the same time as these
individual´s behaviour (the value of SD is large with respect context or tasks induce behaviour consistency in each
to the mean). Thus, the Personality Psychology studies the individual. This type of context has been called by Harzem
behaviour in a type of contexts in which each individual (1984) "open contingencies contexts".
behave in a different manner but their behaviour is probably Therefore, in open contingencies contexs, individuals fail to
consistent and stable. know the contingencies strictly programmed by the
Personality psychologists propose that, individuals show experimenter. However, individuals, in such contexts,
their own personality, when their behaviours are consistent always achieve the reinforcing consequences, but do not
and stable in many important adaptive contexts. For know what is the necessary and sufficient behavior to
example, an individual shows a risky personality if, in a risk achieve the reward. There are numerous natural settings
and controlled context, he systematically chooses the where individuals do not know why but know how to get the
option that is less probable but leads to a greater reward or desired results, despite their long experience in these
a minor loss. A risk and controlled context could be a task in contexts and their success to achieve the desired results. In
which there are at least two response options with a the aforementioned contexts, individuals systematically
different probability of success and the same expected repeat the sequence of behaviors that were rewarded in
value. Other context variables determine the choice. For previous trials.
instance, knowing, the number of times an individual could Thus, the Behavioural Theory of Personality proposes to
choose, the amount obtained in previous elections, the time study the personality of individuals, in open contingencies
available to decide or what the other participants contexts. To do this, we must define the context of open
choose.On the contrary, a real uncontrolled situation, such contingencies represented by the personality variable that
as crossing a street, is not a good test to measure the risk we intend to study. That is, a context that initially shows the
tendency. In the moment of crossing a street, the same rewards expected for each of the different response
contingencies of the situation are the variables that best options, regardless of whether all the people reach to know,
explain the behaviour: A person does not cross the street if if they achieve the expected reward.
he sees a vehicle coming at high speed, regardless of his
personality (of his tendency to take risks). Thus, in most 2.1.1. The development of individual personality.
situations of daily life, the contingencies that operate in the

2
Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

All behaviorists assume that behaviour is a function of the development. Each individual incorporates all the
context contingencies and that behaviour in that context is experience of his life sequentially, so the earliest
reversible. Most behavioural psychologists also share the experiences influence the later ones (Wachs, & Gruen,
ideas that: a) the behaviour is the interaction between the (2012) In addition, the person reflect over their own
person and the context and b) the individual behaviour in a experiences and reorganizes them synthesizing them to be
specific time and situation depends, in part, on their able to act in other situations in future moments. Thus,
previous history. Staddon & Cerutti, (2003) point out that individuals show their own synthesis through the
behaviour is generally reversible by changing context behavioural trends for each specific context. Moreover,
contingencies but people are not reversible. The effect of without this synthesis, it would be difficult for anyone to
learning remains even when other subsequent learning react and behave, in different contexts in an adaptively and
invalidates previously learned. The majority of behavioural effective way.We postulate that If anyone frequently solves

EXPERIENCE
Individual
Interacts
EE Context

Synthesizing
Updating
Reflecting

Causal Attributions Consistent and

Rules to act idiosyncratic trends

Figure 2: The synthesis and organization of person´s learning.

psychologists (including Skinner) have recognized the a task in a meticulous and adaptive The differences between
importance of the history of learning in the present people at present are a consequence of their successive and
behaviour. However, in most of their studies the present previous experiences. Therefore, behavioral differences are
experience has had greater relevance than the behavioural a function of, a) the different contexts in which each person
tendencies originated from the history of the individual has lived; b) the sequence with which everyone has faced
(Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Morse & Kelleher, 1977). the different contexts and, consequently, c) the moment,
Behaviourist authors studied the process of learning, and the way and depth with which people have reflected,
explained how change individual behaviour. However, some reorganized and synthesized their previous experience in
authors, from the behavioural tradition, such as Bandura order to update the data and respond to a new situation
and Staats, introduce the concept of behaviour tendencies (Santacreu et al, 2002).
as an essential element in the equation. We refer to the The previous experience and their synthetic organization of
model of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1977) or to the learned determine the probability of person´s behaviours.
concept of the basic behavioral repertoire (BBR) (Staats, As mentioned, each individual organizes their experience by
1975, 1996). reflecting on it, reducing contradictions as much as possible,
Psychologists considered that individuals develop their and synthesizing all experience in a) behavioral tendencies
personality from the embryonic phase until adulthood. The that allow rapid response in a specific situation and b)
behavioural theory of personality highlights the role of coherent rules that could verbally expressed and could
learning and, therefore, considers that children interact governed their behaviour (see Figure 2).
with their environment, throughout their development. Behavioral tendencies allow people to respond as quickly as
Children are learning and frequently are revising their the situation demands, according to their motivations in a
experience, integrating and synthesizing what is learned. context or task. The rules also allow each person the rules
This integration and synthesis of personal experience allows allow to analyze, reflect and decide coherently what to do
individual to modulate the probability of their behaviours in when the person has enough time for it, On the other hand,
any subsequent experience. The individual generates the rules allow explaining to other people, the reasons that
response trends that allow them to respond quickly and justify their performance (Santacreu et al., 2002). In a way,
efficiently in similar contexts. the information provided by self-reports on personality
traits, constitute a verbal synthesis of the experience of
2.1.2. The human being, a system that learns and updates
each individual. Sometimes, the examinee answers in self-
its experience: The evolutionary development of the
reports are an evaluation of themselves with respect to a
person.
personality dimension. For example when they say: I am a
From a psychological perspective, a person is, at a given
very honest person or I am extremely risky in gambling (see
moment, the synthesis of his epigenetic and ontogenetic
Figure 3).

3
Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

2.1.3. The different types of learning as systems to adding global magnitude of the expected value and loss or profit
the personal and social experience. contexts variables, influence the decision.
Each individual updates his experience, in any interaction Therefore, to study the personality, it would be necessary to
with the context, through different types of learning. We identify equivalent contexts in which individuals respond in
considered different types of learning, non-associative, a consistent and stable manner. The set of contexts that
perceptive, associative, by observation of others, through synthesizes a certain number of personality dimensions has
verbal instructions of others. Individuals learns by not been described exhaustively so far (Santacreu, 2013).
interaction with different contexts in which the individual is This may be due to the specificity of the contexts usual for
alone or with other people who collaborate, teach or each individual and the large number of the potentially
compete for scarce resources or in situations, where there relevant contexts to assess any behavioural tendency.
are people who can control the contingencies of the context However, in the field of education and in the field of human
in different degrees. The different learnings and the resources, psychologists have been able to define numerous
previous knowledge of each individual, determine the potentially relevant contexts for the prediction of
subsequent effect of the new interaction in each context. educational or business success.
The people life experience and the consequent learning, let
them accumulating knowledge about the world around 2.1.4. Response trends and rules as systems to synthesizing
them, about the behaviour of others and about their own and updating of experience.

How to explain the idiosyncratic and consistent behavior of individuals?

People interact with their environment ...

Step 1: Each person interacts in different environments.
Step 2: Everyone learns and reorganizes their own experience frequently
Step 3: Each one reflects, and summarizes his own experience reducing contradictions.
Individuals generate
a. Behavioral tendencies allow individual to response quickly.
b. Coherent rules that could verbally expressed and governed their behaviors.

Figure 3: Developing Individuals Personality

behaviour. That knowledge affect how they respond in The study of personality let us to predict behaviour in future
present and future situations (Bandura, 1977; Beck, 1967). new situations. Surely, people behave according to what
Psychologists have organized the personality of the they have learned in a context, generalizing and transferring
individual as a large number of variables grouped into what they have learned to similar contexts. However, all
factors. The most modern version of this proposal is based people do not behave in the same way in a particular context
on the lexical approach (McCrae and Costa, 1990). To assess and, therefore, they did not learned the same relations. As
personality dimensions, psychologists have used mentioned previously, some contexts induce variability in
questionnaires with questions about the participants' individual’s behaviour. It means that, each one performed
habitual behavior, beliefs and expectations. The objective the task behaving in his or her personal manner and gets
of this approach is to describe the personality structure, their desired benefits of the context. The contexts that
classify an individual according to their normative reference allow wide behaviour individuals variability are those that
group in each of the dimensions of the personality and relationship between a certain behaviour and the expected
predict their future behavior. The procedure consists of consequence must be greater than zero but less than one.
analyzing the answers to different questionnaires, trying to Therefore, different people who perform different
know the rules that govern their behavior. This personality behaviors, achieve, in this context, a similar success rate.
approach tries to find out what is the verbal synthesis that The contexts in which more than one response is related to
each person makes of his or her own experience. the desired consequence induce response variability among
However, until now, there is hardly any models of how individuals but consistency in their own behaviour
tendencies of response are structured conforming (Santacreu, 2013). We recommended that kind of contexts
individuals personality. Behavioral models of personality to study personality. Contexts in which we can predict the
come from the initial formulations of Kantor's interactionist behaviour of an individual as a function of their idiosyncratic
psychology (Kantor (1959). The subsequent personality response tendencies, that is, their personality.
approaches of Harzem (1984), Ribes (1990, Ribes and The behavioral theory of personality has proposed that the
Sánchez, 1992) Hernández, Santacreu and Rubio (1999) and particular response trends of an individual are conformed
Santacreu (2013) try to identify the consistent and stable because the context contingencies reinforce the behavior
behaviour of individuals (response tendencies) in different that constitute their idiosyncratic response. But the really
and functionally equivalent situations. They assume that, in important thing is that, in a large part of the contexts in
any functionally equivalent context, each individual would which we live, each individual can perform a different
take the same option. For instance, each individual would behavior that, finally, is reinforced because it is associated
take the same level of risk in all equivalent risk contexts, in with the preset consequence in that context. As a result, in
which there were response options of different probability a context in which the consequence is pre-established, each
and equal expected values. As Kahneman showed, the individual performs those types of responses that have been
personally reinforced in the past and, therefore, reduces the

4
Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

frequency of other alternative responses of which he has no similar behaviors) the behaviors performed by these
record of his effectiveness. How is it possible that, after individuals would be a function of contextual contingencies
extensive experience and numerous trials, different people or also of the competencies and aptitudes of each person.
behave differently in a context in which a specific On the other hand, in those contexts in which we observe
contingency relationship is predefined? individuals’ behavioural variability, the lack of consistency
To explain this contradictory and incoherent description, let and stability in the behaviour of an individual, indicates that
us suppose that we are in a context in which, after a certain this individual has not consolidated a response pattern. In
time, any response (even not responding) is reinforced. other words, an individual who does not show a response
Imagine a TV that automatically switches off when it pattern (consistent and stable) in a specific situation or test,
reaches a certain temperature, and reconnects when it cools is because he has no experience in that type of context or
to 0.5 ° C. The TV users of do not know why the device is that his idiosyncratic behavior in the test has not been able
turned off and try to solve the problem in various ways. to solve it. In this case, psychologists can not assess
Some people turn off the device and after a while they turn personality.
it on again, others hit it on its right side, others check the Recently, the behavioral theory of personality assumes
electric plug, some complain about the quality of the device. Cattell previous work about the evolutionary structure of
All these answers apparently solve the problem since, after the personality (Ortner & Proyer; 2015). Now, to assess the
a certain time; the device by itself turns on again. Finally, we personality by an objective test it is necessary to check three
can observe that all people consistently repeat the same points. First, the distribution of the test scores for the
patterns of behavior that they have done the first time. We examinees should be broad, that is, be quite different.
must consider that, probably, the contingencies of the Second, the participant must have enough motivation to
context have reinforced the idiosyncratic behavior of each face the resolution of the task, then if there are not answers
individual. For this reason, the next time the device shuts it is not possible to carry out the assessment. Third, the
down on its own, people will repeat their behavior. This person must be able to perform the behaviour relevant to
example reminds us of the research carried out by Staddon assess personality. Therefore, motivation, aptitudes and
& Simmelhag, (1971) analyzing the famous Skinner personality are three components of the person that
experiment on superstitious behavior. psychologists can not independently measure. Without a
The multiple versions of attribution theory highlight the certain level of motivation, it is not possible to assess the
differences between the relationships that actually operate aptitude or ability. In addition, without a high level in both
in a context or task and the people beliefs about the causes motivation and aptitude performing the task, it is not
that explain their own failure or success, solving the task. possible to assess personality (see Figure 4).
This theory emphasizes the importance that individuals
ascribing achievement in a task to themselves or,
conversely, to circumstances external to themselves. This
explanation refers to internal or external attribution
respectively (Heider, 1958; Rotter, 1966). The type of
individual’s attribution will allow us to understand and
predict their behaviour. Therefore, we conclude that in
those contexts in which different individuals achieve the
same success rate showing different behaviors, individual
response tendencies and idiosyncratic causal attributions
will be formed. These are the appropriate contexts for the
study the personality development.
People face situations daily in which they do not know the
relationships that operate in them, in which there are
several potentially successful alternatives, and individuals
must answered in a limited time. In these situations, each
individual has a way of responding that can be recognized
and described as personal and idiosyncratic and, therefore,
attributable to their personality. The urgency of the answer
and its temporal delimitation are undoubtedly variables
that help to synthesize behavioural trends and verbal rules 3.1.1. Motivation, Aptitudes and Personality.
that, finally, facilitate the individual's adaptation to their The motivation has been studied as the set of elements of a
environment. context by which the individual has preference at a given
time. The preference for some elements of the context
3. The personality assessment as a predictive tool.
brings the individual to increase those behaviors that
achieve the desired stimuli to the detriment of the less
To study the personality of each individual we could
desired ones. The most concise expression of this approach
measure, through a test, their behavioural tendencies or we
is the so-called Premack Principle (Knapp, 1976).
could also inquire, through a self-report, about the
Motivation, as a preference for certain contexts (sets of
statements or rules that describe their behaviour in one or
elements, people or relationships) increases with the
other situations. We frequently say that adults show
passage of time without rewarding activity until reaching a
personality because in a large number of contexts, each one
certain level and it is reduced, as the actions of the individual
of them shows idiosyncratic, consistent and stable
satisfy the preferred desires.
behaviours. If the behaviours observed do not meet these
Researchers described Motivation in terms of the state of
requirements, we affirm that such behaviours should not be
activation of organisms. In this sense, an indicator of this
explained by their personality.
motivation would be the overall response rate (number of
We have emphasized that to evaluate personality, contexts,
responses / time) so that the greater the activation (and,
tasks or tests must not show an explicit or known
therefore, the motivation), the greater the overall response
relationship between behaviours and consequence. In this
rate in that particular context. Both approaches (preference
way, we will observe the individual differences in the test.
for some elements of the context and response speed of the
Therefore, if in a context or test there are no individual
individual) are complementary visions from the perspective
differences in behavior (in this context, all people perform

5
Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

of the context or the individual. Both approaches consider instructions easy to understand. For example, to design

Figure 5: Roulette Test (Santacreu, Rubio & Hernández, 2006)

that a minimum level of activation of the individual is functionally similar tests to assess risk, the tasks should
essential to respond effectively. If, on the other hand, the allow the individual to choose between different probability
general response rate was very low and there was no options, referred to buying stocks, choosing between
activity, psychologists can not measure the behavior of the different job offers or betting on roulette. The behavioral
individual. For these reasons, we say that motivation induce psychology proposes to assess the individual’s personality
behaviour and allows the subject-context interaction. through objective tests in the same way in which the
Aptitudes refer to competences or skills learned throughout aptitudes are measured (see Figure 5).
the individual evolutionary process that allow universal and
rapid responses in a specific context. Examples of aptitudes In order to check the aptitude or ability of the examinee,
are calculating the speed of an object approaching, psychologists designed objective tests. Therefore, to know
deducting a solution, knowing the total expense of the if a person can do certain mathematical operations or travel
purchase or turning on the lamp in a room. Skills refer to the by bicycle, the examiner applies an appropriate test for it. In
learning of stable and equal to unity relationships between the first case, it includes solving mathematical operations
behavior and consequence (K = 1), which can be described and in the second, cycling in a trial circuit. A basic
verbally. During the process of aptitude learning, verbally mathematical operations test does not assure that in the
describing the rule, instruction or contingency relationship, next addition, the individual will make an error but it
facilitates learning. When the person reaches a high degree suggests the level of knowledge of maths and the
of competence, the response speed increases. Having probability that he will make an error. In a sense, the term
certain aptitudes enables interaction that would otherwise aptitude refers to the ability to carry out a task or the
be impossible. So for example, if an individual knows how to possibility of carrying it out successfully. Psychologists have
drive (he is able to drive a vehicle where he wants and knows developed numerous tests to measure each of the spatial,
the traffic rules) we can measure his tendency to violate reasoning and verbal aptitudes.
traffic regulations when driving in a city. On the other hand,
if he or she does not know the traffic rules, he/she could In the same way, to assess the personality from a behavioral
violate some rules due to ignorance, without intending to perspective, we must design contexts or tasks that allow
violate the norm. In summary, measuring transgressions of measuring the different personality dimensions. Thus, in
the traffic code could not be a good estimate of the each of these situations we can evaluate the behavioral
tendency to transgress in those people who do not know the tendencies of each of the individuals. Thus, for example, in
rules and do not have a driving license. In short, the a context of low reward rate, we can measure the degree of
aptitudes enable to asses personality (Hernández, persistence of individuals while, in a context with options of
Santacreu and Rubio, 1999). different probability and equal expected value, we can
measure the risk tendency of individuals.
3.1.2. The basic elements of the tests and self-reports. Cattell and Schuerger (1978) have described the main
The behavioral psychology of the personality, aims to procedures for assessing personality through objective
predict through a test, what will be the behavior trend of an tests. Recently, some authors, following the
individual in a set of functionally similar situations. As we recommendations of Cattell and his group, have designed
have previously suggested, in order to measuring the computerized personality tests according to the behavioral
personality through a test, the examinee should be approach. These authors have designed computer tests that
competent to face the task and be motivated to do it. represent assorted contexts and that allow the automatic
Therefore, it is convenient that the task is simple and the

6
 Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

recording of the evaluated behaviour (Rubio, Hernández, From the behavioral perspective, we propose to organize
Zaldívar, Márquez, & Santacreu, 2010; Proyer & Häusler, the personality structure from two different perspectives: in
2007; Ortner & Proyer, 2015). terms of the set of contexts that describe personality
dimensions (risk, persistence o time-management
Perform it on time

Figure 6: Time Management (Romero & Casadevante, 2017)

On the other hand, a person can describe verbally his situations) and in terms of the type of learning through
behavioural tendencies, especially if the person has which the individual has incorporated their experience and
reflected on their habitual and particular way of behaving. their specific behavioral tendencies (extintion, demored
In clinical contexts in which people want professional help, reinforcement).
the answers to an interview questions about how the person
usually behaves does not present great problems except the 4.1.1. Organizing personality by type of context.
difficulties of verbal communication. When psychologist If we organize the personality in the same way as the large
used self-reports for other purposes such as recruitment dimensions of the feature, depending on a set of contexts
processes, the individual’s responses are biased according (collaboration, risk, persistence, etc.) we could classify them
to socio-cultural values and, in addition, people can try to in static and dynamic contexts. In dynamic contexts, time is
hide the truth. Robie, Born, & Schmit, (2001).The trait a very relevant variable. We can also classify the contexts
psychology have repeatedly addressed procedures to into simple or complex depending on the number of stimuli,
resolve the validity problems of self-reports without much their characteristics and the possible relationships between
success in personality assessment. However, what people them.
say about their own behaviour through a questionnaire does In the static contexts, the items of the tests do not modify
not match with what they usually do, even when they do not the configuration of the stimuli during the task nor is there
pretend to lie. These controversies have recently promoted a bounded time interval to respond. On the other hand, in
the design of objective and computerized tests to assess dynamic contexts, time is crucial to respond because stimuli
personality. are present for a limited time or because they change their
characteristics of position, shape or colour along the trial.
4. The behavioural perspective of personality structure. Both static and dynamic contexts present simple stimuli
characterized by their morphology with different functions:
There is no agreement on how to proceed to define the Signal stimuli (discriminative), Noise stimuli (non-
structure of an individual's personality from the Behavioral discriminative), Stimuli consequent with the response
Personality Theory. The lexical approach initiated by Cattell (aversive or attractive). In addition, both simple and
and developed by trait theorists is not acceptable from a complex contexts can allow performing one of the possible
behavioral perspective. The lexical approach proposes to responses in each item or allow completing two or more
assess a large number of personality variables as descriptive response options. In the mentioned contexts there are no
characteristics of a person. These authors measure the other individuals performing the same activity as the
characteristics of people through self-reports, grouping the subject examined. The so-called complex contexts are
traits of people into five major factors or personality always of a dynamic nature in which there may be virtual
dimensions. The procedure then culminates in the so-called agents acting in the same context as the examinee. For the
"big five" universal factors. The theorists of the behavioral purposes of assessment, the performance of another
psychology do not assume this methodology since they person in the same task, may involve a bias in the natural
consider that the observed behavior is a person – context tendency of individual´s behavior with respect to the
interaction. They also consider that a self-report about the personality variable that we try to measure. The individual
own behavior is not appropriate to assess the objective examined could imitate, compete or collaborate in the
behavior. For this reason, they propose to design contexts, accomplishment of the task.
tasks or tests assessing objectively personality variables Assessing personality in a specific task, including more than
such as thoroughness, planning, persistence, collaboration one individual in it, is a threat to the internal validity of the
or risk test since, by definition, the behavior of the other person
would be uncontrollable. It is not the case of the virtual

7
Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

agents in complex contexts because they act according to habituate or sensitize to irrelevant stimuli. If our proposal
the contingencies that the researcher has previously were successful, we could classify individuals by the ease
programmed. In short, virtual subjects must be configured with which they habituate or sensitize to irrelevant stimuli
as one element more of the main task to preserve validity of and this would affect other more complex associative
measurement. learning processes.
In most of the tests developed to assess skills and In the same way, we propose to organize the personality
personality, researchers designed simple and static virtual around the associative learning: classic and operant
contexts, in which each individual performed the task in a conditioning. We study personality in these learning
computer. Examples of these are the test to assess risk contexts by their similarity to real-life situations. For
assumed by the Lejuez group (The Balloon Analogue Risk example, researchers have studied the variable persistence
Task, BART, Lejuez et al. 2002. See Figure 7) or those in operating contexts with multiple responses. In the
developed by the PsiĐ-UAM Group (The Dice Test, Arend et acquisition phase one of them (R2) was the reinforced
al. 2003; The Rullette Test, Rubio et al., 2010), The Cross- response while in the extinction phase none of the possible
Street Test, Santacreu et al., 2006). Another similar test to responses (R1, R2, R3 ...) were reinforced. Persistent and
assess stress resistance is the BAcQ (Kubinger, 2009). obstinate people in the phase of extinction, repeat
Psychologist have developed static complex tests to insistently the behaviors (R2) that were previously
measure cooperation in a context in which there is another reinforced in the acquisition phase. The measure of
virtual agent that performs its own task. The evaluated persistence obduracy is the number of responses (R2)
person can see the virtual agent and can try to collaborate reinforced in the acquisition phase that performed in the
with him. The Puzzle test, (Botella et al., 2011), is carried out extinction phase, to complete the task. A large number of
with another virtual mate and the Investiment test variants of conditioning processes that resemble real
(Santacreu, 2004) is carried out with five virtual mates. situations that psychologists consider interesting to study
as personality variables. Psychologists consider that
4.2. Organizing personality by types of learning. persistence is a dimension of personality in one end of which
Our second proposal is to organize the structure of the is obstinacy and in the other perseverance. The persistence
personality according to the different types of learning and in the end of perseverance is to search for and try new
the corresponding processes of acquisition and extinction of answers that achieve the expected consequence. They
each of them. The different types of learning, previously consider that the proportion of new responses, other than
mentioned, could help to define the personality structure those previously reinforced in the acquisition phase, is a
considering that the most elementary learning is the most good measure of perseverance.
impactful throughout the life history of the individual, Some authors (Kahneman and Tversky 1979, Schmeidler
influencing later learning and, therefore, shaping the 1989) propose to study personality in an operating context
personality of the individuals. as a decision-making task in which the individual chooses
From this perspective, the most basic personality variable between different options. In these tasks or tests, each
would be related to a type of basic perceptual learning as option is defined by the probability or temporal interval
Habituation-Sensitization process. Habituate means between responses and consequences and, later, by the
responding by increasing the latency and reducing the pleasant or aversive characteristics of the elements present
intensity of the response to initially novel stimuli. On the in the context. Therefore, we could classify the pleasant
contrary, sensitization consists in reducing latency and contexts in those in which individuals choose between
increasing the intensity of the response, to stimuli initially different options that differ in the delay with which each
considered irrelevant. This increase in response may persist individual obtains the consequence and those, in which the
throughout numerous presentations of the same stimulus. options differ in probability with each individual gets the

Click here now to

collect Earnings €

Click here to inflate

the balloon.
Profit for each additional pumping: 2€

Number of pumps in this trial: 9

Total earned so far: 12€

Number of inflated balloons so far: 3/20

Figure 7: Balloon Analogue Risk Test (BART) (Lejuez et al, 2002).

This learning process could be the most elementary and consequence. An example of the first type would be a
transversal personality variable of the person that affects all context that presents options with pleasant consequences
the others. This description recalls concepts such as of small magnitude in the short term in the face of
sensitivity to stress or impulsivity frequently used in consequences of greater magnitude but in the long term. An
psychological literature. If our proposal were correct, we example of the second type would be a context that
could classify individuals by the ease with which they presents options with pleasant consequences of small

8
Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

magnitude with high probability against consequences of verbal instructions of others, both in simple or complex
greater magnitude with less probability. Researchers call contexts). Structure the personality according to the type of
self-control contexts to the first case and risk contexts to the learning is a promising possibility. The underlying
second. assumption is that the most elementary learning is involved
The study of personality in operant contexts has proposed in higher order learning. This means that what individuals
other possibilities. To study tolerance to frustration in learned through the most elementary learning determines
operant learning contexts, researchers have configured the how to behave in complex situations in which different
task in a way that progressively decreases the response- types of learning are involved. According to this approach,
consequence contingency relationship. They are situations the structure of the personality is parallel to the complexity
in which progressively increases the difficulty to reach the of the types of learning and of the contexts in which it is
desired criterion or consequence. In these situations, the learned.
rate of reinforcement is decreasing and, in some individuals, Research strategies in the field of personality will try to
the response rate decreases while in others it increases. In prove that individual differences will be more general, the
short, the frustration increases because the task can not be more primitive and elementary is the type of learning and
solved with a different effect among the participants: some the context in which the individual learns. From our point of
of them increase their activity level (they increase the view the most important thing would be to obtain, various
response rate) and others reduce it and abandon the task objective measures of the personality involved in simple
(they reduce the response rate). Researchers considered learning that permeate the behavior of the individual in a
that individuals, who decrease the response rate or the general way. Our proposal is to build on firm foundations a
proportion of correct answers in these contexts, do not theory of personality using objective measures to validate
tolerate the frustration induced by the reduction of the it. Our immediate goal is to match the predictive capacity of
desired consequences. general skills in people's performance. To do this we have to
Human resources psychologists have studied trust and imitate the procedures for measuring aptitudes and achieve
collaboration as personality variables that predict job their characteristics in an orderly manner: simplicity,
performance. These personality variables can be studied in objectivity, precision, internal consistency and reliability
complex operating contexts, in which virtual individuals in (see Figure 8).
addition to the assess person carry out the task. However,

ORGANIZING THE STRUCTURE OF PERSONALITY.

 Psychologists assign to each dimension of personality the name of the context in which the
person interacts.
 The score in each context suggest the magnitude of the personality variable
Correspondence between the names of the context and the learning procedures.

LEARNING PROCEDURES
CONTEXT organization
organization
1. Concurrent exposure to two different
1. Self-Control delayed reinforcement.
2. Persistence 2. Extinction post acquisition.
3. Risk. 3. Concurrent exposure to two different
probability reinforcement schedule.
4. Frustration tolerance
4. Exposure to a reinforcement
probability decreasing

Figure 8: The Structure of Personality

the social contexts in which diverse individuals act that can

observe the behavior of the classmates suppose a higher
level of potential learning. In these contexts, all the
participants work on a task and achieve their own positive
or negative consequences, but if they observe the behavior
of the other participants and collaborate, each one of them
can obtain greater gains with less effort. If in these complex
observational social contexts the possibility of verbal
communication among the participants is included, the
level of complexity of the situation increases appreciably.
We believe that it is possible to design tests that could
potentially measure the personality objectively taking into
account the set of different types of learning (perceptive
non-associative, associative, by observation of others, by

9
Theory of Personality. J. Santacreu & J.M. Hernández

References Ribes, E., Contreras, S., Martínez, C., Doval, E., & Viladrich, C.
(2005). Individual consistencies across time and tasks: A replication
Arend, I., Botella, J., Contreras, M. J., Hernández, J. M., & of interactive styles. The Psychological Record, 55, 619-631.
Santacreu, J. (2003). A betting dice test to study the interactive style Robie, C., Born, M.P., & Schmit, M.J. (2001). Personal and
of risk-taking behaviour. The Psychological Record, 53 (2), 217. situational determinants of personality responses: A partial
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of reanalysis and reinterpretation of the Schmit et al. (1995) data.
behavioral change. Psychological review, 84 (2), 191-215. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 101–117.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and Romero, M. & Casadevante, C. (2017). Time management test
theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row. Design. Madrid: Psychology, UAM.
Botella, J., García Leal, Ó., Moreno, L., Pei-Chun, S., & Santacreu, Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
J. (2011). Un estudio experimental de la conducta de cooperación external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs:
en una situación natural. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la General and applied, 80, num. 609.
Conducta, 31 (2), 261-281. Rubio, V.J., Hernández, J.M., Zaldívar, F., Márquez, M.O. &
Boyle, G.J. & Barton, K. (2008). Contribution of Cattellian Santacreu, J. (2010). Can we predict risk-taking behaviour? Two
Personality Instruments. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews & D.H. behavioural tests for predicting guessing tendencies in a multiple-
Saklofske (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and choice test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 87-
Assessment. Vol 2. Personality Measurement and Testing (Vol.2, 94.
pp. 160-178). Los Angeles, CA.: Sage. Santacreu, J. (2004). Investment Test. M003400, España. Priority
Cattell, R.B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Date 05/4/2004.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Santacreu, J (2013) Behavioral variability and consistency:
Cattell, R.B. & Schuerger, J.M. (1978). Personality theory in action. Experimental bases for a psychological theory of personality.
Handbook for the Objective-Analytic (O-A) Test Kit. Champaigne, Psychological writings/Escritos de Psicología (6 (1), 20-27.
IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Santacreu, J. Hernández, J.M., Adarraga, P & Márquez, M.O.
Cattell, R.B. & Warburton, F.W. (1967). Objective Personality and (2002). La personalidad en el marco de una teoría del
Motivation Tests: A Theoretical Introduction and Practical comportamiento humano. Repositorio Psicología-UAM.
Compendium. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Santacreu, J., Rubio, V.J & Hernández, J. M. (2006). The objective
Cronbach, L.J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New assessment of personality: Cattell’s T-data revisited and more.
York, NY: Harper & Row. Psychological Science, 48, 53-68.
Ferster, C.B. & Skinner, B.F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective Probability and Expected Utility
Nueva York: Appleton Century Crofts. without Additivity. Econometrica, 57, 571-587
Harzem, P. (1984). Experimental analysis of individual differences Schuerger, J.M. (2008). The Objective-Analytic Test Battery. In G.J.
and personality. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 42, Boyle, G. Matthews & D.H. Saklofske (eds.), The SAGE Handbook
385-395. of Personality Theory and Assessment. Vol 2. Personality
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of interpersonal relations. New Measurement and Testing (pp. 529-546). Los Angeles, CA.: Sage.
York: Wiley. http://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/psimasd/dadosen/pr05nv1
Hernández, J. M., Santacreu, J., & Rubio, V. J. (1999). Evaluación 0.htm
de la personalidad: una alternativa teórico-metodológica. Escritos Staddon, J. E. R. & Cerutti, D. T. (2003) Operant conditioning.
de Psicología, (3), 20-28. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 115–144.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Staddon J E R & Simmelhag V L. (1971) The “superstition”
Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. experiment: a reexamination of its implications for the principles of
Kantor, J.R. (1959). Interbehavioral Psychology. Chicago: Principia adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3-43.
Press. Staats, A.W. (1975). Social Behaviorism. Homewood, IL, Dorsey
Knapp, T. J. (1976). The Premack principle in human experimental Press.
and applied settings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14 (2), 133- Staats, A.W. (1996). Behavior and Personality. Psychological
147. Behaviorism. New York: Springer.
Kubinger, K.D. (2009). The technique of objective personality-tests Wachs, T. D., & Gruen, G. E. (2012). Early experience and human
sensu R.B. Cattell nowadays: The Viennese pool of computerized development. Springer Science & Business Media.
tests aimed at experiment-based assessment of behaviour. Acta
Psychologica Sinica, 41, 1024-1036.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey,
S. E., Stuart, G. L. & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a
behavioural measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task
(BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8 (2), 75.
McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New
York: Guilford.
Morse, W.H. & Kelleher, R.T. (1977). Determinants of reinforcement
and punishment. In W.K. Honig & J.E.R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook
of operant behaviour (pp. 174-200). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Neuriger, A. & Jensen, G. (2010). Operant variability and voluntary
action. Psychological Review, 117, 972-993.
Odum, A.L., Ward, R.D., Barnes, C.A. & Burke, K.A. (2006). The
effects of delayed reinforcement on variability and repetition of
response sequences. Journal of Experimental and Analysis
Behavior. 86 (2):159-179.
Ortner, T.M. & Proyer, R.T. (2015). Objective Personality Tests. In
T.M. Ortner & F.J.R. Van de Vijver (Eds.), Behaviour-based
assessment in psychology (pp. 133-149). Göttingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Proyer, R.T. & Häusler, J. (2007). Assessing behaviour in
standardized settings: The role of objective personality tests.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 537-546.
Ribes, E. (1990). Problemas conceptuales en el análisis del
comportamiento humano. México: Trillas.
Ribes, E. & Sánchez, S. (1992). Individual behaviour consistencies
as interactive styles: their relation to personality. The Psychological
Record, 42, 369-387.

10