The motivational basis of personality & why threat is important

How do we describe what other people are like? What are the major characteristics that we can use to describe the personality of friends and strangers? As far as we know, these questions has been discussed since the emergence of ancient civilizations in Greece, India and China. In modern psychology, starting with Gordon Allport, a more or less sharp distinction has been made between values - that is motivational goals important for people in their lifes - and personality traits - described as behavioural consistency across situations. The study of values has flourished in social psychology and the study of personality traits has been a core area of research of personality psychology, with little discussion of the overlap or convergence between the two approaches.

Diana Boer and myself were intrigued to test the similarities of these two approaches. We were inspired by newly developed neural network models of personality that conceptualized personality as expressions of basic motivational goal systems. If personality traits are expressions of motivational goal systems, we should see some systematic relationships with values. Furthermore, we were aware of a number of studies that have found quite variable associations between values and personality traits in the Big Five tradition. If there is some systematic association, as we presumed, why should there be such variability in empirical studies?

We set out to address these two broad sets of questions in a paper that is appearing in the Journal of Personality.

We collected all the studies that have reported correlations between any set of Big Five instruments with the circular value theory described by Shalom Schwartz and conducted a meta-analysis to identify the overall patterns that might be obscured in individual studies. Let us first quickly review personality traits and values. 

Overview of Personality & Values

Here is a summary of the Big Five traits from Wikipedia:

Openness to experience: (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience. Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent, and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret the openness factor, which is sometimes called "intellect" rather than openness to experience.
Conscientiousness: (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). A tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior.
Extraversion: (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved). Energy, positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness.
Agreeableness: (friendly/compassionate vs. analytical/detached). A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one's trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well tempered or not.
Neuroticism: (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, "emotional stability".

Shalom Schwartz' theory of values differentiates at least 10 value types that can be organized into two major higher order dimensions. These two major dimensions are openness to change (individualistic) versus conservative (collectivistic) values on one hand and self-enhancing (dominance) versus self-transcendence (altruistic) values. Individual values can now be ordered in a circular structure along the two dimensions. Moving around the circle, Power (PO) captures the goals of striving towards social status and prestige, controlling or dominating over people and resources. Achievement (AC) emphasises personal success through socially approved standards of competence. Hedonism (HE) values focus on pleasure and sensuous gratification of the sense. Stimulation (ST) captures excitement, novelty and pursuing challenging goals in one’s life. Self-direction (SD) entails valuing independent thought and action. Universalism (UN) values refer to the motivation to understand, appreciate, tolerate and protect the welfare of all people and nature. Benevolence (BE) in contrast has a more narrow focus on preserving and enhancing the welfare of people close to oneself (family and close friends). Tradition (TR) values are focused on respecting, accepting and committing to the customs and ideas of the traditional culture and religion. Conformity (CO) refers to restraining actions or impulses that may upset or harm others and violate social expectations and norms. Finally, security (SE) emphasises values around safety, harmony and stability of society, social relationships and the self.

Values and Personality Traits are systematically linked

Our basic argument was that values as motivational goals and personality traits as behavioural consistencies should be systematically linked. Using a new method that we developed in a previous article that allows us to track the systematic relation of personality traits to the underlying structure of values (see our previous article), we were able to examine the overall relationship between the two constructs. 

Schematically, the overall association can be described like in this figure:

Agreeableness and Self-Transcendence (positively) versus Self-Enhancement (negatively) values are strongly and consistently related. Agreeable individuals are also very benevolent and they tend to care about others, close and distant alike. Similarly, Openness personality traits were strongly associated with Openness to Change (positively) versus Conservatism (negatively) values. Open individuals also strongly value stimulation and self-direction values. The correlations for these two traits with values were substantive and not significantly different from correlations between different personality instruments measuring the same trait. Hence, for these two personality traits, the relationship with values is strong and values and personality are highly convergent. 

Extraversion is somewhat more weakly related to Openness values, but also weakly to Self-Enhancement values (achievement and power values). Conscientiousness is related to Conservatism values, but also shows some correlations with Self-Enhancement values (in particular achievement values). These two personality traits correlated significantly weaker with values and there were sometimes notable secondary associations of traits with the other main axis of values. This suggests that these two traits are more complex in their basic motivational structure. 

Finally, Neuroticism is a stability oriented personality trait and no surprisingly shows some weak associations with values that ensure stability (Conservatism values). 

This was a really re-assuring and strong pattern overall. By using a holistic approach to values and personality across a large number of studies, we were able to show the overall systematic relationships between these two constructs. 

Threat undermines the value-personality trait relationship

But moving to the second main question, how can we make sense of the variations in these correlations across different studies? 

Here we need to first briefly consider how values and personality traits might be causally related. First, values may provide the motivational structure for humans, that is then expressed in behaviour (personality traits). Assuming this logic, people who value conformity will follow rules and orders with great care. Values come first and actions follow. Second and alternatively, following classic self-perception theory, people might engage in behaviours in relatively consistent ways, which they then interpret in terms of overarching goals and re-interpret as their stable values. E.g., I am always conscientious and follow rules and orders in a consistent way, therefore, I am probably a person who values conformity and tradition.  Here, actions come first and values are inferred from these actions in a secondary step. 

We thought about what may weaken this link between values and traits. Environmental threats should play a major role in how values and personality traits are linked. In highly threatening environments, that is environments where there is poverty, lots of environmental threats such as cold winters and superhot summers, lots of diseases (you can easily get infected and die), little available food, lots of violence and no personal freedom, people are probably quite restricted in their choices and behaviours. Hence, their personal values may not be expressed in behaviours, because the environment determines their actions more than their personal orientations and motivations. Equally, since the environment strongly influences people's behaviour, individuals may not interpret their own behaviour as reflecting some underlying values because their behaviour is more strongly influenced by environmental pressures. Hence the overall link between values and personality traits should be lower, regardless of how values and personality are causally related. 

We tested this hypothesis using a good number of different indicators of threat. Amazingly, threat turned out to be a strong and consistent moderator for most of the value-personality associations. Hence, our analysis of environmental threat in a broad sense can explain why there was so much variability in the literature previously. 

Exploring Personality Systems

It also could explain why researchers have not integrated personality research with value research in a more systematic way. Given the substantive variability, researchers might have thought that the links are too weak and too inconsistent to be worth pursuing. However, we believe we have shown that by taking a broader picture, examining the value-personality link in a more systematic way and examining the conditions in which the links are stronger or weaker, we can move both value and personality research forward. 

In my view, values and personality traits are expressions of underlying motivational systems that are encoded in similar and overlapping language. It is more of an accident of history that these two systems have emerged in different research fields. I hope this study will help to bring the fields back together and allow a more sophisticated examination of how values and traits are both expression of human personality. 

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Extreme Rituals

These are my notes for the introduction of the recent Science Express Event on Extreme Rituals at Te Papa, sponsored by the Royal Society of New Zealand Wellington Branch and supported by the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Wellington.  Many thanks for all those who came and engaged in a really interesting and stimulating discussion. There will be a podcast available soon, till then here are my typed-up notes for the introductory presentation.

(Photo by Rochelle Stewart-Allen)

Collective Rituals

I am interested in collective rituals. Many of us here have been to support the All Blacks, Hurricanes or the Wellington Phoenix at Westpac Stadium;  have been to a concert, watched a theater play or have been dancing in one of the bars. Collective rituals are common. 

Why do humans do this? There are no obvious evolutionary functions to these gatherings. They do not help us to get food, ward off predators or to create more offspring (although there may be a bit of  'that' going on after a good night out or when the All Blacks smash the Wallabies ;) 

We could say these rituals just serve pure entertainment purposes and are a byproduct of our big social brains. Obviously it does not hurt to sit and watch grown-up guys chase after an odd-shaped ball or sit through a 1 hour lecture at Te Papa. 

Yet, there are collective rituals in many societies and cultures that are painful, uncomfortable or may even injure or harm participants. It is difficult to convey the suffering that some people inflict on themselves during some of these events  in a talk like this. People chose to walk over glowing hot coals of 600-700 degrees that burns paper within seconds. Others walk over burning hot asphalt for hours in the midday sun without drinking or seeking shade while balancing a hot pot of milk on your head; they hit their face or back with swords, chains or sharp objects till they bleed profusely. Can you imagine hobbling on knees large distance and then circle churches or temples on your knees, over a period that takes a few hours. Most of us would feel uncomfortable sitting on our knees after a few minutes. There are collective rituals where people drag heavy wooden carts hooked into their skin over a distance of 6 km, a feat that takes 5 or more hours. Would you want to pierce your tongue or face with a number of random objects, needles, skewers, metal rods, swords, guns, tree branches or giant beach umbrellas?

Why do people do these things? The British anthropologist Harvey Whitehouse has argued that these more extreme rituals are the historically more ancient types of rituals. But what is the evolutionary purpose and why have such rituals survived over the millennia till today?

These are difficult questions to answer. There is much speculation and many attempts to explain such events by observers and social scientist.  But it is important to test these ideas more rigorously. I have joined forces with a dream-team of scientists to tackle these big questions in the field. 

Separating Collective from Individual Benefits

These rituals may have benefits for both individuals and communities and it is important to separate these effects.

There have been speculations going back more than one century all the way to Darwin and Durkheim that extreme ritual may act as a social bonding devise at the community level. Extreme rituals are thought to increase prosociality and cooperation in the community. They signal commitment to the group:  behaviour speaks louder than words. Groups with strong rituals are more likely to survive. Colleagues and friends such as Joseph Bulbulia, Bill Irons, Richard Sosis and Joe Henrich have written extensively on these theories. How can we test these mechanisms in modern societies?

Extreme Ritual: Studying Social Bonding Effects in Mauritius 

In one study with Dimitris Xygalatas, Joseph Bulbulia and other colleagues, we decided to study an extreme ritual in the small island of Mauritius. Our aim was to study the social aspects of extreme ritual by studying groups of individuals that differ in their involvement in the ritual (see this blog by Matthew Rossano on the larger context). We measured their behavioural responses – how much money are they giving to the community depending on the ritual they participate in. We used a considerable sum of money to ensure that we can tap into real prosocial motivations, where helping the in-group really hurts your own pocket. We studied individuals who participated in a low ordeal ritual, people who watched the high ordeal ritual and those individuals who engaged in what objectively appeared to be rather painful acts (such as piercing themselves with needles, skewers and rods, carrying wooden shrines on their head or pulling them through the streets by attaching hooks to their skin). Supporting the prosocial theories of extreme rituals, those in the high ordeal ritual gave more money to their temple. More importantly, the perception of pain helped us to explain the pattern  – the more pain you perceive, the more prosocial and charitable you become! It is the amount of perceived pain that binds the group together!!!!!

Extreme Ritual: What might be the motivation for the individuals? 

But what is in it for the individuals that perform these rather extreme actions? Why should I care that my group is tighter and more cooperative if it means that I have to hurt myself?

Let's examine one potential mechanism: By committing acts in a ritual that is important and central to the community, I can increase my status and prestige in the community. It signals my commitment to the group and therefore increases my social standing within the group. I become a fully fledged member and can benefit from the support and help of other group members in the future.

To test this social status mechanism I went to Thailand to study another extreme ritual. I again compared groups of individuals – high ordeal devotees who pierced themselves with all sorts of things, assistants who supported the high-ordeal performers and spectators trying to get the blessing of the high ordeal devotees. In order to measure the motivations of individuals, I measured their values (as motivational goals) in life. High ordeal devotees were much more oriented towards getting ahead in life – they are motivated to perform these actions to achieve some level of status and power in the group. In short, for individuals performing these actions is one possible mechanism to move up the social ladder. Often the more disadvantaged and marginalized group members engage in the more audacious acts. Bringing it back to our society, you may just  want to look at who are the boldest and best sports players in a lot of contexts. Often it is minorities that use sports (soccer, rugby, athletics, etc.) as a mechanism to achieve status in a society that values these sports.

Although these rituals may seem bizarre or extreme from an outsiders perspective, they involve universal human characteristics. It is a human universal: we want to be included in our groups. At the same time, we needed strong groups to survive in history. Bringing these threads together, it becomes clear why extreme rituals are appealing to individuals and why these rituals have survived for so long in our history. After all, these extreme rituals are just another expression of our shared humanity.

I hope I have convinced you that it is possible to scientifically study extreme rituals to address interesting questions about us humans. It is amazing to me that despite the popularity and widespread participation in quite extreme collective rituals the world over, we know very little about what is happening to individuals and communities involved in these rituals. I look forward to hearing your comments and reactions and an interesting discussion.

******end of my typed out introductory notes*******

Closing thoughts: Damn, it was a really interesting and fascinating discussion that we had at Te Papa. Many thanks again to everyone for asking questions and sharing their thoughts and experiences. Let's continue the discussion and even more importantly, let's do empirical work on this fascinating aspect of human experience.