Visit https://ebookfinal.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebook

Handbook of Research Methods in Personality

Psychology 1st Edition Richard W. Robins

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-research-
methods-in-personality-psychology-1st-edition-richard-
w-robins/

Explore and download more ebook at ebookfinal.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality

Psychology 2nd Edition Harry Reis

https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-research-methods-in-
social-and-personality-psychology-2nd-edition-harry-reis/

ebookfinal.com

Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology

Blackwell Handbooks of Research Methods in Psychology 1st
Edition Michael Roberts
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-research-methods-in-
clinical-psychology-blackwell-handbooks-of-research-methods-in-
psychology-1st-edition-michael-roberts/
ebookfinal.com

Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology

Stephen F. Davis

https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-research-methods-in-
experimental-psychology-stephen-f-davis/

ebookfinal.com

Cross Cultural Research Methods in Psychology 1st Edition

David Matsumoto

https://ebookfinal.com/download/cross-cultural-research-methods-in-
psychology-1st-edition-david-matsumoto/

ebookfinal.com
Research in psychology methods and design 7th Edition
Edition Goodwin

https://ebookfinal.com/download/research-in-psychology-methods-and-
design-7th-edition-edition-goodwin/

ebookfinal.com

Handbook of Child Psychology Social Emotional and

Personality Development 6th Edition William Damon

https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-child-psychology-social-
emotional-and-personality-development-6th-edition-william-damon/

ebookfinal.com

Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 5th Edition

Hugh Coolican

https://ebookfinal.com/download/research-methods-and-statistics-in-
psychology-5th-edition-hugh-coolican/

ebookfinal.com

Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology 6th Edition

Hugh Coolican

https://ebookfinal.com/download/research-methods-and-statistics-in-
psychology-6th-edition-hugh-coolican/

ebookfinal.com

Research Methods in Health Promotion 1st Edition Richard

A. Crosby

https://ebookfinal.com/download/research-methods-in-health-
promotion-1st-edition-richard-a-crosby/

ebookfinal.com
Handbook of Research Methods in Personality
Psychology 1st Edition Richard W. Robins Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): Richard W. Robins, R. Chris Fraley, Robert F. Krueger
ISBN(s): 9781593857349, 1593857349
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 4.90 MB
Year: 2007
Language: english
HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH METHODS
IN PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY
 Handbook of
Research Methods
in Personality Psychology

edited by
Richard W. Robins
R. Chris Fraley
Robert F. Krueger

THE GUILFORD PRESS

New York London
© 2007 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012
www.guilford.com

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook of research methods in personality psychology / edited by Richard W. Robins,
R. Chris Fraley, Robert F. Krueger.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-10: 1-59385-111-1 ISBN-13: 978-1-59385-111-8 (hardcover)
1. Personality—Research—Methodology. I. Robins, Richard W. II. Fraley, R.
Chris. III. Krueger, Robert F.
BF698.4.H28 2007
155.2072—dc22
2006035429
 About the Editors

Richard W. Robins, PhD, is Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis.

His research focuses on personality, emotion, and the self. Dr. Robins is coeditor of two forth-
coming books, Handbook of Personality and The Self-Conscious Emotions, and served as
Associate Editor of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. He was awarded the
American Psychological Association’s Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Con-
tribution to Psychology and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s Theoretical
Innovation Prize.

R. Chris Fraley, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at

Urbana–Champaign. His research focuses on adult attachment dynamics, personality pro-
cesses and development, and research methods. Dr. Fraley serves as Associate Editor of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin. He received the American Psychological Associa-
tion’s Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology.

Robert F. Krueger, PhD, is McKnight Presidential Fellow and Associate Professor in the De-
partment of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. His major interests lie at the intersec-
tion of research on personality, psychopathology, disorders of personality, behavior genetics,
and quantitative methods. Dr. Krueger was the recipient of the Early Career Award from the
International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, the American Psychological As-
sociation’s Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology, and
the American Psychological Foundation Theodore Millon Award for midcareer contributions
to personality psychology.

v
 Contributors

Leona S. Aiken, PhD, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Andrew T. Ainsworth, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles,
California
Michael C. Ashton, PhD, Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines,
Ontario, Canada
Rachel Bachner-Melman, MA, Scheinfeld Center of Human Genetics for the Social Sciences
and Department of Psychology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Lisa Feldman Barrett, PhD, Department of Psychology, Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts
Jennifer S. Beer, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California
Verónica Benet-Martínez, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside,
California
Tim Bogg, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Champaign, Illinois
William F. Chaplin, PhD, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Rand D. Conger, PhD, Department of Human and Community Development, University of
California, Davis, California
Tamlin S. Conner, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychiatric Institute, University
of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut
Kenneth H. Craik, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley,
California
Phebe Cramer, PhD, Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown,
Massachusetts
Lisa M. Diamond, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah

vi
 Contributors vii

Audrey S. Dickey, BA, Department of Pharmacology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
M. Brent Donnellan, PhD, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan
Richard P. Ebstein, PhD, Scheinfeld Center of Human Genetics for the Social Sciences and
Department of Psychology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Alan C. Elms, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California
William Fleeson, PhD, Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina
R. Chris Fraley, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Champaign, Illinois
David C. Funder, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside,
California
R. Michael Furr, PhD, Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina
Samuel D. Gosling, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
Texas
James W. Grice, PhD, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
Oklahoma
Inga Gritsenko, MS, Scheinfeld Center of Human Genetics for the Social Sciences and
Department of Psychology, Hebrew University and Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital,
Jerusalem, Israel
Rick H. Hoyle, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina
Salomon Israel, MS, Department of Psychology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Oliver P. John, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California
Robert F. Krueger, PhD, Department of Psychology and Institute of Child Development,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Nathan R. Kuncel, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–
Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
Kibeom Lee, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Michael V. Lombardo, BA, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis,
California
Michael J. Marks, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–
Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
Dan P. McAdams, PhD, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Robert R. McCrae, PhD, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health,
Baltimore, Maryland
Julien Morizot, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada
Daniel K. Mroczek, PhD, Department of Child Development and Family Studies, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Lubov Nemanov, MD, Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
John B. Nezlek, PhD, Department of Psychology, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg,
Virginia
Kimberly D. Otter-Henderson, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Daniel J. Ozer, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, California
viii Contributors

Jennifer L. Pals, PhD, Foley Center for the Study of Lives, School of Education and Social
Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Joyce S. Pang, PhD, Department of Psychology, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Delroy L. Paulhus, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Steven P. Reise, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles,
California
William Revelle, PhD, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Brent W. Roberts, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–
Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
Richard W. Robins, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis,
California
Michael D. Robinson, PhD, Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo,
North Dakota
Steven J. Schapiro, PhD, Department of Veterinary Sciences, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center,
University of Texas, Houston, Texas
Oliver C. Schultheiss, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan
Jeffrey W. Sherman, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis,
California
Yuichi Shoda, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Leonard J. Simms, PhD, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York
Dean Keith Simonton, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis,
California
Anna V. Song, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, California
Christopher J. Soto, AB, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley,
California
Jennifer L. Tackett, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada
Aaron B. Taylor, MA, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Howard Tennen, PhD, Department of Community Medicine, University of Connecticut Health
Center, Farmington, Connecticut
Jessica L. Tracy, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada
Michele M. Tugade, PhD, Department of Psychology, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New
York
Simine Vazire, PhD, Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis,
Missouri
Wolfgang Viechtbauer, PhD, Department of Methodology and Statistics, University of
Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
David Watson, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Alexander Weiss, PhD, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore,
Maryland
Stephen G. West, PhD, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Barbara A. Woike, PhD, Department of Psychology, Barnard College, Columbia University,
New York, New York
Wei Wu, MA, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
 Preface

O ne of the hallmarks of the field of personality psychology is the breadth and sophistica-
tion of its methods. Thumbing through a typical issue of a personality journal, one encoun-
ters a rich array of research designs, assessment procedures, and statistical techniques.
Indeed, there is no standard personality study—instead, one finds longitudinal studies of per-
sonality development, experimental studies of motivational processes, twin and molecular
genetic studies, and narrative studies of individual life stories. Just as personality psycholo-
gists appreciate the complexity of human nature and individual variability, so too do we
appreciate the diverse ways in which that complexity can be assessed, quantified, and
examined. It is this diversity that first attracted us to the field.
However, as aspiring personality psychologists, we quickly realized that there was no single
source to which we could turn for guidance in how to design and implement a personality
study. Instead, we learned about personality methods through a hodgepodge of articles, con-
ference presentations, workshops, and seminars, as well as through direct mentoring from
our seemingly all-knowing advisors. An earlier generation of researchers learned the ins and
outs of personality methods from Wiggins’s (1973) classic work, Personality and Prediction:
Principles of Personality Assessment, but this book is long outdated and was never intended
to be comprehensive.
The idea for the Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology came from the
recognition that one of the most noteworthy strengths of the field—the diversity of its re-
search methods—was not represented in a single volume that could serve as a guide for re-
searchers interested in conducting personality research. Our goal was simple: To create a
“one-stop” source that describes, in a straightforward and practical manner, all of the re-
sources in the methodological toolkit of the personality psychologist. This volume includes
overviews of classic topics, such as how to construct a personality scale, as well as more re-
cent innovations, such as neuroimaging and molecular genetic techniques. Each chapter pro-
vides a general introduction to a particular method and then explains, in a step-by-step man-

ix
x Preface

ner, how the method can be used to address common research questions in the study of
personality.
The book is divided into three sections, which collectively serve to guide the reader through
all phases of conducting a personality study. The first section covers the various research de-
signs used in the field, and helps readers determine the optimal type of study for addressing
their particular research questions. The second section focuses on methods for assessing or
measuring personality; chapters cover all of the most common methods used by personality
researchers, as well as more recent but as yet less widely used methods. The third section cov-
ers the variety of procedures personality researchers use to analyze and interpret personality
data; the chapters in this section help readers determine what to do with their data after they
have conducted a personality study. This section also includes several chapters that address
some methodological debates and challenges that are relevant to researchers in personality
psychology and related fields.
Each chapter (1) provides an overview of a particular research design, assessment method,
or statistical/data-analytic procedure; (2) summarizes the uses and applications of the
method; (3) describes in detail (but with as little esoteric language as possible) the step-by-
step procedure one would follow to implement the method in a study; (4) provides concrete
examples of how the method has been used in personality research; and (5) discusses the prac-
tical and theoretical complexities that arise in using the method. The overarching goal of each
chapter is to provide enough background so that readers will understand the method well
enough to apply it thoughtfully and correctly in a specific research context.
The contributors are an elite group of researchers who are known as much for their sub-
stantive contributions to the field as for their innovative and sophisticated approaches to re-
search. They understand the kinds of challenges that real-world researchers face in their on-
going research endeavors, and consequently the chapters do not get bogged down in technical
details, but instead focus on the practical and theoretical complexities that arise in actually
using each method.
Collectively, the chapters in this volume reflect the diversity that characterizes personality
psychology, while at the same time revealing a field that is united by a common set of method-
ological themes, issues, and approaches, including an emphasis on multimethod assessment
and the search for convergence across methods; the integration of laboratory and real-world
studies; the study of diverse populations in naturalistic contexts; an emphasis on individual
differences as well as general processes; and an attempt to understand personality at the level
of intrapsychic processes and as it unfolds over time and across life contexts.
We thank Seymour Weingarten, editor-in-chief of The Guilford Press, for his encourage-
ment and guidance throughout the project, and for his long-standing support of personality
psychology. We also thank Carolyn Graham, Laura Specht Patchkofsky, and the other mem-
bers of the Guilford staff who efficiently and effectively created a final product of which we
and the contributors feel quite proud.
We hope that this volume will become an indispensable reference for students, researchers,
and teachers interested in personality research. The task of assembling a large and diverse set
of chapters for a volume of this nature can sometimes seem like a bit of a chore, but not so in
this case. Since the inception of the project, we quickly realized that the contributors were just
as enthusiastic as we were about the importance of creating a volume that captures the meth-
odological breadth and sophistication of the field. We have been happy to serve as agents of a
research community eager to share its accumulated knowledge and expertise. We learned a
great deal from reading the chapters contained in this volume, and we trust that others will as
well.

Reference

Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
 Contents

I . D E S I G N I N G A P E R S O N A L I T Y S T U DY

1. The Role of Theory in Personality Research 3

Dan P. McAdams and Jennifer L. Pals
2. Designing and Implementing Longitudinal Studies 21
M. Brent Donnellan and Rand D. Conger
3. Experimental Approaches to the Study of Personality 37
William Revelle
4. Behavior Genetic Designs 62
Robert F. Krueger and Jennifer L. Tackett
5. Idiographic Personality: The Theory and Practice of Experience Sampling 79
Tamlin S. Conner, Lisa Feldman Barrett, Michele M. Tugade,
and Howard Tennen
6. Psychobiography and Case Study Methods 97
Alan C. Elms
7. Mining Archival Data 114
Phebe Cramer

xi
xii Contents

8. Using the Internet for Personality Research: What Can Be Done, 130
How to Do It, and Some Concerns
R. Chris Fraley
9. The Null Hypothesis Significance-Testing Debate and Its Implications 149
for Personality Research
R. Chris Fraley and Michael J. Marks
10. Cross-Cultural Personality Research: Conceptual and Methodological Issues 170
Verónica Benet-Martínez
11. Measuring Personality in Nonhuman Animals 190
Simine Vazire, Samuel D. Gosling, Audrey S. Dickey, and Steven J. Schapiro

I I . M E T H O D S F O R AS S E S S I N G P E R S O N A L I T Y
AT D I F F E R E N T L E V E L S O F A N A LYS I S

12. Taxonomies, Trends, and Integrations 209

Kenneth H. Craik
13. The Self-Report Method 224
Delroy L. Paulhus and Simine Vazire
14. The Construct Validation Approach to Personality Scale Construction 240
Leonard J. Simms and David Watson
15. Observer Ratings of Personality 259
Robert R. McCrae and Alexander Weiss
16. Behavioral Observation 273
R. Michael Furr and David C. Funder
17. Content Coding of Open-Ended Responses 292
Barbara A. Woike
18. Personality Assessment at a Distance 308
Anna V. Song and Dean Keith Simonton
19. Measuring Implicit Motives 322
Oliver C. Schultheiss and Joyce S. Pang
20. Lives Lived in Milliseconds: Using Cognitive Methods in Personality Research 345
Michael D. Robinson
21. Patient and Neuroimaging Methodologies 360
Jennifer S. Beer and Michael V. Lombardo
22. Physiological Measures 370
Lisa M. Diamond and Kimberly D. Otter-Henderson
23. The Human Genome Project and Personality: What We Can Learn 389
about Our Inner and Outer Selves through Our Genes
Richard P. Ebstein, Rachel Bachner-Melman, Salomon Israel, Lubov Nemanov,
and Inga Gritsenko
 Contents xiii

I I I . A N A LYZ I N G A N D I N T E R P R E T I N G
P E R S O N A L I T Y DATA

24. Toward Modern Psychometrics: Application of Item Response Theory Models 407
in Personality Research
Julien Morizot, Andrew T. Ainsworth, and Steven P. Reise
25. Factor Analysis in Personality Research 424
Kibeom Lee and Michael C. Ashton
26. Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Personality Research 444
Rick H. Hoyle
27. The Importance of Being Valid: Reliability and the Process 461
of Construct Validation
Oliver P. John and Christopher J. Soto
28. Evaluating Effect Size in Personality Research 495
Daniel J. Ozer
29. Multilevel Modeling in Personality Research 502
John B. Nezlek
30. Studying Personality Processes: Explaining Change 523
in Between-Persons Longitudinal and Within-Person Multilevel Models
William Fleeson
31. The Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Personality Research 543
Daniel K. Mroczek
32. Person-Centered Structural Analyses 557
James W. Grice
33. Multiple Regression: Applications of the Basics and Beyond 573
in Personality Research
Stephen G. West, Leona S. Aiken, Wei Wu, and Aaron B. Taylor
34. Moderator and Mediator Models in Personality Research: A Basic Introduction 602
William F. Chaplin
35. Computational Modeling of Personality as a Dynamical System 633
Yuichi Shoda
36. Meta-Analysis in Personality Psychology: A Primer 652
Brent W. Roberts, Nathan R. Kuncel, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, and Tim Bogg
37. What Kinds of Methods Do Personality Psychologists Use?: A Survey of 673
Journal Editors and Editorial Board Members
Richard W. Robins, Jessica L. Tracy, and Jeffrey W. Sherman

Author Index 679

Subject Index 701

HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH METHODS
IN PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY
 P A RT I

Designing a Personality Study

 CHAPTER 1

The Role of Theory

in Personality Research

Dan P. McAdams
Jennifer L. Pals

T heory is at the heart of science. A common tions, and on and on. Ideally, the process is
misconception has it that scientists mainly open and progressive. The most secure theory
gather objective facts about the world. The can, in principle, be shot down in a hurry when
truth of the matter, though, is that scientists new and repeated observations show it to be
traffic in theory, and shamelessly so. They for- flawed. Over the long haul, the ongoing dialec-
mulate theories to describe and explain their tic between observation and theory should lead
interactions with the world, be those interac- to greater understanding, or what is often
tions the observations of cancer cells or inter- called “scientific progress.”
views of people with schizophrenia. Over and The general process described above, how-
over, scientists critically evaluate theories, ever, plays itself out differently in different sci-
eventually refining their conceptions to better entific fields. Physicists, for example, display
reflect what they see, and sometimes throwing different practices and adhere to different sci-
out their theories altogether when the data sug- entific conventions than biologists. What
gest that they are downright wrong. In the passes for theory in cultural anthropology may
broadest terms, scientific theories deeply influ- strike an organic chemist as odd. The purpose
ence how scientists approach their observa- of this chapter is to consider some of the com-
tions (data), and their observations (data) ulti- mon and peculiar ways in which scientific the-
mately come to influence the nature of the ory relates to research in the particular sub-
theories that scientists construct. It is an intri- discipline of personality psychology. Like all
cate dialectic: Observations lead to theories, scientists, personality psychologists have tradi-
which lead to new observations, which change tionally sought to develop the best possible the-
theories, which result in yet newer observa- ories for making sense of their observations.

3
4 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

And like all scientists, personality psychologists chologists do. What makes the work of person-
have developed a wide array of methods for ality psychologists different from what other
observation and analysis to test hypotheses psychologists do? A survey of conceptual
drawn from those theories. Nonetheless, the trends in the history of personality psychology
particular ways in which they have done these suggests that the field has traditionally distin-
things and the problems they have historically guished itself from other branches of psychol-
faced are especially characteristic of the field ogy with respect to three different emphases:
they have pursued (Caprara & Cervone, 2000; individual differences, motivation, and holism
Wiggins, 2003). Put differently, when it comes (McAdams, 1997).
to the role of theory in research, personality First and probably most important, person-
psychology has its unique virtues and chal- ality psychologists have always prioritized indi-
lenges. vidual differences between people. Whether
In what follows, we first identify the charac- considering Freud’s oral and anal types,
teristic features of personality psychology and Eysenck’s traits of extraversion and neuroti-
consider the kinds of theories the field has his- cism, or the self-report scales that make up the
torically offered. We next argue that a main California Psychological Inventory (CPI;
function of these personality theories is to pro- Gough, 1987), variability in human responding
pose scientific constructs that help to describe has traditionally captured the imagination of
and explain psychological individuality. Ac- personality psychologists. To paraphrase a ca-
cordingly, the validation of constructs is a cen- nonical passage in the history of personality
tral task for personality research. The many psychology, every person is (1) like all other
different constructs that personality psycholo- persons, (2) like some other persons, and (3)
gists have examined may be grouped into three like no other person (Kluckhohn & Murray,
broad levels or domains—(1) dispositional 1953, p. 53). If the first panel in this famous
traits, (2) characteristic adaptations, and (3) in- triptych applies to common features of human
tegrative life stories. In three successive sections nature, numbers 2 and 3 speak to what makes
of the chapter, we focus on one particular con- people different from each other—in particular
struct from each of these three levels. We exam- those dimensions that make for recurrent and
ine the original theory behind the construct, the consistent differences between people. Begin-
development of research methods to operation- ning with Bernreuter’s (1931) multitrait inven-
alize the construct, and important theoretical tory, personality psychologists have designed
and empirical issues that have arisen as the hundreds of paper-and-pencil measures to as-
construct has evolved over time. We end the sess individual differences on such dimensions
chapter by considering the ways in which dif- as dominance, self-sufficiency, sociability, and
ferent theoretical constructs and the research neuroticism. The conceptual emphasis on in-
programs they inspire each approach the study herent variations among persons and the devel-
of psychological individuality in a different opment of instruments to assess these consis-
way, asking different questions and finding an- tent variations have traditionally rendered the
swers in different kinds of causal arguments. correlational method an especially suitable re-
Although some might look with dismay upon search strategy for studies focused on individ-
the theoretical and empirical diversity in per- ual differences. In the correlational method,
sonality psychology today, we see it as a sign of presumably stable and consistent individual
a vibrant and dynamic science. differences in basic dimensions of personality
can be related to corresponding variations in
important behavioral outcomes.
Personality Psychology A second traditional emphasis is motivation.
and Personality Theory More than most other fields in the social sci-
ences, personality psychology concerns itself
What is personality psychology? In the field’s with the internal engines of human behavior
first authoritative textbook, Allport (1937) and experience. This orientation is evident even
considered 49 different definitions of the term in textbooks written before Allport (1937): “It
personality before he settled on one he liked. is surely in the springs of human action, if any-
Since then, many other definitions have been where, where the key to the problem of person-
offered. Rather than propose our own, we pre- ality is to be found” (Garnett, 1928, p. 14).
fer to consider what it is that personality psy- From Freud’s drives to Murray’s needs to Rog-
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 5

ers’s self-actualizing tendencies, most influen- selves find or construct wholeness, how their
tial personality theories have tried to identify very lives suggest some degree of unity, pur-
the internal factors that energize and give direc- pose, and integration. Stern (1924) argued that
tion to human behavior. Motivational ap- a person is a multiform dynamic unity. Murray
proaches focus on the dynamics of action, the (1938) believed that many lives exhibit a unity
forces that move people to do what they do— thema. More recently, Deci and Ryan (1991)
be those forces biological drives, evolved brain have described organismic needs for autonomy,
modules, cognitive schemas, or emotional competence, and relatedness—each of which
scripts. Personality psychologists interested in serves an integrative function while expressing
human motivation have often shown a research an authentic wholeness of self. These concep-
preference for the experimental method. Moti- tual commitments to holism and integration
vational states may be readily aroused or acti- have opened the methodological door to case
vated under controlled laboratory conditions, studies of individual lives (Runyan, 1982).
and their effects on important dependent mea- Correlational and experimental studies typify
sures may be observed (see, e.g., Atkinson & nomothetic research in personality psychol-
Birch, 1978). Of course, experiments have been ogy—that is, research examining propositions
used in all branches of empirical psychology, that apply to persons at large, or to some iden-
and personality psychologists of many differ- tifiable group of persons. In contrast, case stud-
ent stripes have employed the experimental ies typify idiographic research—the study of
method. But controlled laboratory experiments one particular person. It is only through the in-
have traditionally been a favorite methodologi- tensive examination of the single case, some
cal choice for personality researchers who ex- have argued, that the holistic and integrative
amine the internal forces responsible for ener- nature of personality can be fully seen and ap-
gizing and directing human behavior. preciated (Nasby & Read, 1997; Schultz,
Third, personality psychologists have long 2005).
claimed that, unlike most other kinds of psy- As summarized in Table 1.1, personality psy-
chologists, they focus their attention on the chologists develop theories and conduct re-
whole person. The conceptual implications of search on individual differences, human moti-
this claim are at least twofold. First, personal- vation, and the whole person. Personality
ity psychologists have long sought to encom- psychologists study those broad and socially
pass a broad range of factors operating at consequential features of a person’s psychologi-
many different levels in an effort to do justice cal makeup that account for his or her individ-
to the complexity of the single individual’s life. uality. In that human beings are goal-directed
Second, many personality theories have shown organisms, furthermore, it is impossible to ar-
a fondness for integrative concepts, terms like ticulate such an accounting without paying
Allport’s proprium and Erikson’s ego identity, careful attention to motivation. In a nutshell,
designed to explain how whole persons them- personality psychologists focus their attention

TABLE 1.1. Three Traditional Emphases in Personality Theory and Research

Method
Emphasis Questions Traditional concepts preferred
Individual How are persons different from Temperament, traits, types Correlational
differences each other? What is the structure of studies
human individuality?

Motivation Why do persons do what they do? Instincts, needs, values, goals, Laboratory
What do persons want? What conflicts, complexes, defenses, self- experiments
energizes and directs the person’s actualizing tendencies
behavior? What are the dynamics of
human action?

Holism How do we understand the whole Ego, self, proprium, style of life, Case studies
person? What does a person’s life unity thema, identity, life structure
mean? What integrates a life?
6 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

on the agential (goal-directed) individuality of motivation, which ultimately came to influence

whole persons. They seek ultimately to make research on personal strivings, goals, and pro-
sense of individual persons as integrated and jects (see, e.g., Emmons, 1986; Little, 1999).
intentional agents living in a complex social The theories developed by personality psy-
world (Caprara & Cervone, 2000). Accord- chologists in the past 30 years are more focused
ingly, personality theories address intriguing on circumscribed domains of human individu-
questions about the most socially consequen- ality and much more closely tied to systematic
tial features of psychological individuality, empirical observation than were most of the
questions like these: What makes individual classic grand theories. Among the many exam-
persons different from each other? Why does ples of influential midlevel theories in personal-
this particular person do what he does (as op- ity psychology today are attachment theory
posed to doing something else), or live the way (Bowlby, 1969; Fraley, 2002), socioanalytic
she lives (as opposed to living some other theory (Hogan, 1982), self-determination the-
way)? Psychologically speaking, what is this in- ory (Deci & Ryan, 1991), various theories of
dividual person—and any individual person— self-regulation (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1981),
fundamentally about? cognitive-affective systems theory (Mischel &
In the first half of the 20th century, personal- Shoda, 1995), Loevinger’s (1976) theory of ego
ity psychologists formulated a large number of development, Block’s (1981) theory of ego con-
grand theories designed to describe and explain trol and resiliency, Tomkins’s (1979) script the-
the agential individuality of whole persons ory, the life story model of identity (McAdams,
(Hall & Lindzey, 1957). Freud, Jung, Adler, 1985, 2001), and (despite its name) the Big
Allport, Murray, Angyal, Goldstein, Murphy, Five trait taxonomy (Goldberg, 1993; McCrae
Horney, Fromm, Erikson, Sullivan, Rogers, & Costa, 1997). Although many of these theo-
Maslow, Kelly, and a few others drew widely ries offer relatively broad perspectives on hu-
from case studies, clinical experience, philoso- man individuality, they tend not make the
phy and literature, common sense, and their sweeping and untestable claims that were so
own personal stories to develop all-purpose common in the grand personality theories from
personality theories. More influenced by the the first half of the 20th century. Some contem-
conventions of laboratory science, Miller and porary observers lament the field’s inability to
Dollard, Rotter, Cattell, and Eysenck devel- merge these many new theories into one
oped grand theories whose inspirations came megatheory of everything. Yet many scholars
largely from existing research findings and/or have argued that science is often best served by
the general tenets of midcentury behaviorism. a proliferation of many different theories, some
Following World War II, personality re- competing with others, operating at different
searchers began to encounter important limita- levels of analysis and seeking to explain some-
tions in the grand theories developed only a what different aspects of reality (Lakatos,
few years before. For one, many of the state- 1970; Leary, 2005).
ments articulated by Freud, Jung, and a num-
ber of other theorists proved too general or too
ambiguous for empirical tests. How do you Formulating Constructs
measure Freud’s Oedipus complex? How do
you evaluate the Jungian claim that all persons A central function of personality theories is to
share a collective unconscious? In other propose measurable features of individual vari-
instances, researchers found ways to test ation. These features are often called constructs
specific hypotheses derived from these theo- (Wiggins, 1973), and the effort expended in de-
ries, and the hypotheses received little support veloping appropriate measures for these fea-
(Mendelsohn, 1993; Robins, Gosling, & Craik, tures and exploring the meanings of these mea-
1999). Nonetheless, the grand theories helped sures in research is essentially the process of
to generate and sustain distinctive research construct validation (Cronbach & Meehl,
programs, identified with particular personal- 1955; Loevinger, 1957; Ozer, 1999). Con-
ity researchers, their students, and their labora- structs are convenient fictions that help us to
tories. For example, Murray’s (1938) personol- describe and explain what cannot be directly
ogical theory gave birth to McClelland’s (1961) assessed. Nobody has ever seen, heard,
and Winter’s (1973) more focused research smelled, touched, or tasted the constructs of
programs for studying achievement and power extraversion or the need for achievement. In-
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 7

stead, influential communities of like-minded further articulated. The construct becomes em-
behavioral scientists have essentially agreed to bedded in what Cronbach and Meehl (1955)
talk about psychological individuality in terms called a nomological network of research find-
of constructs such as extraversion and the need ings. The overall usefulness and validity of the
for achievement. Even though constructs are construct itself, therefore, is a function of the
socially consensual fictions, some constructs richness and extensiveness of the nomological
turn out to be extraordinarily useful in describ- network. The nomological network tells the
ing and explaining reality. And some do not. scientific community “what we now know”
Rorer (1990) articulates a widely shared under- about the construct, with the caveat that
standing of personality constructs: knowledge in science (and especially in person-
ality psychology) is always provisional. In prin-
I believe that one can reasonably argue for an on- ciple, each new study on the construct makes a
tological realism while holding a pragmatic small contribution to what we know, offers a
constructivist epistemology. Given this view, con- further extension of or connection within the
structs are admittedly constructed, but reality,
nomological network. In this way, the nomo-
which we cannot know directly, places limits on
the extent to which different constructions will logical network (what we know) is always de-
work. Those that work, we keep. With respect to veloping.
psychological constructs in particular, there are There currently exists no broad theory or
probably many that will work to varying degrees. conceptual system that elegantly integrates all
(p. 713) of the useful and valid personality constructs
formulated by personality theorists and re-
Research suggests that many personality searchers. But most of the constructs can be
constructs do work to varying degrees, and provisionally arranged according to three
some better than others. Those that appear to broad conceptual domains or levels (Hooker &
work best are usually the ones that have gener- McAdams, 2003; McAdams, 1995, 2006a;
ated the greatest amount of research activity. McAdams & Pals, 2006; Sheldon, 2004). As
As more and more empirical studies are con- shown in Table 1.2, level 1 encompasses
ducted on a given construct, the corpus of sci- dispositional traits, such as those organized
entific findings builds up and the scientific within the popular Big Five framework.
community’s understanding of the construct is Dispositional traits account for broad individ-

TABLE 1.2. Three Levels of Personality Constructs

Level Definition Examples
Dispositional Broad dimensions of psychological The Big Five
traits individuality that describe assumedly internal, Cattell’s (1943) 15 personality traits
stable, and global individual differences in Gough’s (1987) folk concepts (the CPI)
behavior, thought, and feeling. Traits account Ego resiliency and ego control
for consistency in individual functioning
across different situations and over time.

Characteristic More particular features of psychological Motives, goals, and projects

adaptations individuality that describe personal Values and beliefs
adaptations to motivational, social-cognitive, Cognitive schemas and styles
and developmental challenges and tasks. Ego and psychosocial stages
Characteristic adaptations are usually Relational modes and styles
contextualized in time, place, situation, Identity statuses
or social role. Coping strategies, defense mechanisms

Life stories Internalized and evolving narratives of the self Self-defining memories
that people construct to integrate the past, Nuclear scripts
present, and future and provide life with Recurrent life narrative themes: agency
some sense of unity, purpose, and meaning. and communion
Life stories address the problems of identity The redemptive self
and integration in personality—problems
especially characteristic of modern adulthood.
8 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

ual differences in behavioral trends across situ- sion–introversion dimension in one way or
ations and over time. Typically assessed via another, and Jung popularized the distinction
self-report questionnaires, traits sketch an out- between extraverted and introverted types in
line of psychological individuality. Level 2 his clinical writings. The one personality psy-
brings together a wide assortment of character- chologist, however, who is most responsible for
istic adaptations, such as motives, goals, inter- turning extraversion into a valid scientific con-
ests, values, strategies, and developmental struct is Hans J. Eysenck (1947, 1967, 1973).
tasks. Contextualized in time, place, or social Eysenck began with a clear and simple theory
role, characteristic adaptations address what of extraversion drawn from folk wisdom and the
people want in life and how they go about get- results of a small body of previous research. He
ting what they want, and avoiding what they conceived of the trait as a general, bipolar, and
do not want, during particular developmental linear continuum on which each person may be
periods, in particular situations and contexts, positioned, with the end points saved for those
and with respect to particular social roles. relatively pure or extreme types—the most
Characteristic adaptations fill in many of the extraverted or most introverted people of all.
details of psychological individuality. Level 3 How might this individual difference be mea-
encompasses the individual’s integrative life sured? Eysenck followed what may be called a
story. The life story consists of the person’s in- commonsense theory of trait manifestation. Ac-
ternalized and evolving self-narrative(s), serv- cording to this well-accepted view, people know
ing to reconstruct the past and imagine the fu- themselves well enough to produce accurate self-
ture in such a way as to provide life with reports regarding the ways in which they are
meaning, unity, and purpose. Life stories speak similar to and different from other people. There
directly to what a whole life, situated in time is nothing deep, dark, or disguised about extra-
and society, means and how the person believes version, Eysenck reasoned. Its manifestations
that meaning has changed over time. should be readily observed in social behavior.
Personality constructs at each of the three Therefore, individual differences in extraversion
levels in Table 1.2 have attracted active and should emerge clearly when people are asked to
vigorous research programs in personality psy- observe themselves.
chology over the past few decades. In what fol- Hogan (1976, 1987) distinguishes between
lows, we examine how one particular construct personality from the standpoint of the observer
at each of these three levels has been formu- (Personalichkeit) and personality from the
lated, measured, and validated, with an empha- standpoint of the actor (Personalitiät). Dispo-
sis on the research methods employed. sitional traits, like extraversion, are framed
mainly in terms of the former, as dimensions of
a person’s social reputation in the eyes of others
Dispositional Traits: (observers). In self-report questionnaires, like
The Case of Extraversion those Eysenck developed to assess extraver-
sion, individuals implicitly adopt the stand-
The most extensively validated construct in all point of observer vis-à-vis their own individu-
of personality psychology is probably extraver- ality. Their target of observation is the self.
sion. The classic example of a broad dispo- They evaluate each item with reference to the
sitional trait, extraversion refers to how outgo- target, implicitly comparing themselves to oth-
ing, sociable, spontaneous, and energetic a ers they know (or imagine) in order to come up
person generally is, with individuals low on with an accurate response. The test asks, “Do
extraversion (that is, high on introversion) seen you enjoy yourself at lively parties?” Making a
as generally withdrawn, retiring, quiet, and de- quick self-observation, I say, “Well, sometimes
liberate. Folk conceptions of extraversion can but not usually, not as much as many people I
be traced back at least as far as Galen’s (200 know.” I answer “no.” The test demands,
C.E.) ancient typology of the four tempera- “Rate yourself on a 1–7 scale with respect to
ments (sanguine and choleric individuals were how energetic you are.” I think: “More than
relatively extraverted; phlegmatic and melan- most people I know (and observe), certainly
cholic persons were relatively introverted). In more than most people my age, though not as
modern times, such pioneers in psychological energetic as my wife.” I answer “6.”
science as Wundt, Pavlov, Heymans, Spearman, Critics of trait theory love to poke fun at the
Guilford, and Cattell all studied the extraver- items on trait inventories. For those dichoto-
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 9

mous response formats wherein one is asked to in experiments and correlational studies. The
answer either “yes” or “no” to each item, crit- results of these studies come to comprise the
ics argue that an accurate answer would most nomological network for the construct. Con-
surely be something like “sometimes” or “it de- struct validation largely depends on the extent
pends” or even “what a dumb question this to which studies are able to document empiri-
is!” However, most people have little trouble cal association between the construct and ex-
responding. In taking the commonsense role of ternal criteria (Loevinger, 1957; Wiggins,
self-observer, they realize that each item is ask- 1973). Ozer (1999) spells out the logic of this
ing about a simplified generality, a broad trend step:
(Funder, 1995). They realize it is okay to ignore
the specifics (“it depends on who is at the Construct validity arguments must have a hard
party”) and the exceptions (“I really did enjoy criterion core. Although there will rarely, if ever,
myself one time at a lively party”). They know be a single unequivocal external criterion for test
validation purposes, there will nearly always exist
that they could rate other people they know on
a set of external variables, be they behavioral out-
these same kinds of items, so why not rate the comes, group memberships, age changes, or as-
self? After all, the logic goes, the most accurate sessment results using quite different sources of
observer of the self is probably the self, given data (e.g., relation of a self-report scale to ob-
all the opportunities the self has had to observe server ratings), that collectively constitute a set of
what it usually does, how it usually thinks, appropriate criteria. (p. 681)
what it usually feels.
Working from the premise that people are Beginning with Eysenck, researchers have
able to report accurately on their own traits, published hundreds of studies documenting as-
Eysenck followed well-accepted psychometric sociations between extraversion and a wide
conventions in designing and validating trait range of cognitive, emotional, and social vari-
questionnaires. The first step is to generate ables. For example, extraverts talk more and
items that cover the substantive content of the sooner in a variety of social interactions than
trait domain (Jackson, 1971; Loevinger, 1957). do introverts; they engage in more eye contact;
Each item on the trait scale covers a small piece they enjoy larger friendship networks and more
of what theory suggests is the content domain social support; they seek out social activities
for the trait. When they are taken together, for leisure time pursuits; they do more gam-
however, the items converge on the construct bling; they engage in more sexual activity; and
from a multitude of angles. The many items are they are more likely to reside in households
then administered to large samples of respon- with other people rather than to be living
dents. Responses are factor analyzed and sub- alone. In the occupational realm, extraverts are
jected to other statistical procedures in order to more drawn to and tend to excel in jobs that in-
refine the scale and determine its structural fea- volve dealing directly with other people, such
tures. In the process, some items are dropped as sales, marketing, personnel work, and teach-
and new ones added. In Eysenck’s case, the re- ing. By contrast, individuals scoring lower in
sults of these procedures showed that scales extraversion (toward the introversion pole)
measuring extraversion yielded two related fac- tend to prefer jobs and professions in which
tors: sociability and impulsivity. Eysenck came they are more likely to work alone or in which
to view these as the two faces of extaversion. social interaction is less sustained and intense,
Factor analyses of larger item pools led sharing interests with artists, mathematicians,
Eysenck to conclude further that extraversion engineers, researchers, and the like.
and neuroticism are two broad and indepen- A significant body of research has found that
dent dimensions of personality, a conclusion extraversion is positively associated with re-
that was originally suggested by Spearman ports of feeling good about life. In other words,
(1927). In recent years, the Big Five trait taxon- extraverts report greater levels of positive emo-
omy has appropriated versions of these as the tion in everyday life than do introverts. This is
first two dimensions in its five-factor scheme. most strongly shown when extraversion scale
Once items have been generated and the scores are correlated with reports of mood and
structural features of the scale identified, re- affect aggregated across situations and over
searchers then look for evidence of the scale’s time (see, e.g., Emmons & Diener, 1986).
predictive power. Drawing from theory, re- Extraversion is consistently and positively as-
searchers deduce hypotheses and then test them sociated with measures of subjective well-
10 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

being. Typically, subjective well-being includes quired more stimulus trials or more potent
assessments of both positive and negative af- stimuli to make classical conditioning happen.
fect. Extraversion tends to predict positive In their cases, lower drive levels retarded the
emotions, but tends to be unrelated to negative acquisition of S–R connections. In addition,
emotions. (In contrast, the trait of neuroticism they could tolerate greater levels of stimula-
tends to predict individual differences in nega- tion increase before they reached the point
tive emotional states, but not positive emo- of transmarginal inhibition. Correspondingly,
tions.) The empirical associations between Eysenck figured that extraverts experienced
extraversion and positive emotionality have less resting-state arousal and therefore required
proven to be so strong and consistent that some stronger stimulation for conditioning. Labora-
researchers now argue that extraversion is not tory experiments involving the classical condi-
so much about social interaction but is funda- tioning of eyeblink responses in introverts and
mentally instead a tendency to experience posi- extraverts provided some initial support for
tive affect, or a tendency to approach situations Eysenck’s view.
that offer opportunities for experiencing posi- Eysenck eventually expanded his conception
tive affect (Watson & Clark, 1997). Although of extraversion to suggest a cortical explana-
other researchers take issue with this line of tion for differences in arousal levels between
reasoning, it is clear that the meaning of extra- introverts and extraverts. He suggested that the
version as a personality construct has changed brain’s ascending reticular activating system
since the time when Eysenck began his work. (ARAS)—a network of nerve fibers ascending
Over the past 50 years, the notion of impulsivi- from the spinal cord to the thalamus and as-
ty has migrated to the periphery of the broad sumed to govern attention and general arousal
extraversion construct (indeed, some concep- levels—is responsible for the differences. For
tions see impulsivity to be part of [low] consci- introverts, the ARAS is dispositionally set at a
entiousness) whereas positive affectivity and relatively high level. More aroused to begin
energy level have tended to move more to the with, introverts are more sensitive to any kind
center. This kind of development is a common of stimulation. They can tolerate only relatively
pattern in personality psychology, suggesting small increases in arousal (think: relatively lit-
that as new findings come in, the theory behind tle social stimulation) before they reach an op-
a construct may change. Over time, a construct timal level of arousal. Once they reach that
comes to be defined and understood primarily level, they are likely to engage in withdrawal
in terms of the evolving nomological network behaviors to reduce arousal. In contrast, the
within which it is embedded. extravert is endowed with an ARAS that is
Beginning with Eysenck, research on extra- dispositionally set at a relatively low level. Less
version was strongly influenced by the behav- aroused to begin with, the extravert needs con-
iorist theories of learning and conditioning so siderably more stimulation than does the intro-
popular among empirical psychologists in the vert in order to reach a level of optimal arousal.
1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Eysenck believed The extravert is stimulus hungry—on the look-
that Pavlov’s description of the weak nervous out for opportunities for social stimulation.
system in dogs characterized the nature of the Eysenck’s theory of cortical arousal pro-
central nervous system for individuals low in duced many interesting hypotheses, which led
extraversion (introverts). Dogs with weak ner- to hundreds of experiments. Among the most
vous systems experienced a higher state of rest- famous were studies done with what Eysenck
ing arousal, rendering them more readily called the lemon drop test. Based on the general
conditionable in Pavlov’s classical conditioning hypothesis that introverts should react more
experiments. Midcentury behaviorists, such as strongly to small increments in stimulation as
Hull (1943), argued that higher arousal, or compared with extraverts, Eysenck predicted
drive, enhanced the acquisition of stimulus– that drops of lemon juice on the tongue should
response (S–R) associations. Such dogs, fur- elicit greater salivation (a stronger response)
thermore, could tolerate only modest increases for introverts than extraverts. Amazingly,
in stimulus arousal before S–R connections be- Eysenck (1973) obtained a correlation of –.71
gan to break down and they began to withdraw between amount of salivation produced and
from the stimulation (what Pavlov called the self-report extraversion scores in one study (N
threshold of transmarginal inhibition). Dogs = 100). The finding has been replicated in sub-
with strong nervous systems, by contrast, re- sequent studies, though with less statistical
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 11

magnitude. Other studies with different condi- strong research tradition in personality psy-
tions and stimuli provide some support for the chology dedicated to exploring the cortical
overall idea that introverts are more physiolog- underpinnings of basic personality traits. As
ically reactive to stimulation at low-to- findings accrued over many years, the meaning
moderate levels of arousal. Support has also of extraversion changed substantially and in
been garnered for the general prediction that ways that Eysenck may not have predicted. The
extraverts seek out higher levels of stimulation history of the construct, therefore, shows how
as compared with introverts. However, studies a strong initial theory can shape research meth-
have not provided support for the basic idea odology and design, but also how the findings
that introverts and extraverts differ in resting- of research often feed back to reshape the the-
state arousal to begin with. Furthermore, many ory, which in turn stimulates new research.
researchers today are skeptical about the via-
bility of the concept of general cortical arousal,
pointing out that while one region of the brain Characteristic Adaptations:
may appear underaroused, other regions may Loevinger’s Stages
be highly aroused at the same time (Geen, of Ego Development
1997).
As researchers have developed more sophis- There exists a large and varied collection of
ticated methodologies for studying brain activ- personality constructs whose theoretical under-
ity, recent efforts to articulate a brain-based ex- pinnings resist their being viewed as broad, sta-
planation for extraversion have shifted from ble, linear, decontextualized, and noncontin-
Eysenck’s arousal theory to the conception of a gent dimensions of human individuality
behavioral approach system (BAS). As a func- accounting for cross-situational consistencies
tional system of the brain, the BAS is hypothe- in behavior, feeling, and thought. Following
sized to govern positive approach behaviors in Costa and McCrae (1994), we use the term
response to incentives. Important components characteristic adaptations for these important
of the BAS may be dopamine pathways and motivational, social-cognitive, and develop-
electrical activity in the left anterior portion of mental concepts.
the brain. A small but growing body of re- The key factor that keeps us from categoriz-
search evidence links dopaminergic activity ing a number of concepts in personality psy-
(Depue, Luciana, Arbisi, Collins, & Leon, chology as dispositional traits is context. Con-
1994) and frontal-left brain activity (Davidson, text may refer to situation, domain, or role. For
1992; Sutton & Davidson, 1997) to positive af- example, personality psychologists often pro-
fect and approach behavior in some animals pose constructs that are meant to apply only to
and humans. It has been proposed that individ- particular settings in a person’s life, rather than
uals with a relatively strong BAS, being more to broad consistencies across many settings
sensitive and responsive to positive incentives (Cervone & Shoda, 1999; Mischel & Shoda,
for reward, may be more likely to be highly 1995). A person may be dominant only in the
extraverted (and/or highly impulsive). Scien- presence of family members or when interact-
tists have yet to flesh out an articulated picture ing with children, or anxious only in the pres-
of the BAS or to offer compelling evidence link- ence of people who remind him of his father or
ing the BAS to extraversion directly. Nonethe- in the presence of snakes (Thorne, 1989).
less, this line of investigation may offer promis- Characteristic adaptations may spell out a pat-
ing leads for future research on the biological tern of consistent individuality that manifests
origins of extraversion. itself only within a particular social role—the
In sum, Eysenck formulated a clear descrip- authoritarian father, the bleeding-heart liberal
tive theory of extraversion and developed mea- (MacDermid, Franz, & De Reus, 1998). Many
sures of the construct based on a commonsense other characteristic adaptations are contex-
conception of trait assessment. Strongly influ- tualized in time. Motivational concepts like
enced by one brand of midcentury behavior- goals (Roberts & Robins, 2000), strivings
ism, Eysenck eventually expanded his theory of (Emmons, 1986), and personal projects (Little,
extraversion to encompass psychophysio- 1999) are contextualized in time, for they all
logical features. This second theoretical move spell out how a person is currently orienting his
led to hundreds of studies conducted by many or her life for the future. A developmental task
different scientists and helped to establish a or stage—for example, Marcia’s (1980) iden-
12 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

tity status—qualifies in the same way. A young ences she observed. “My conception of ego de-
adult may be in the moratorium status during a velopment did not precede its measurement by
particular period in his or her life. During that the SCT; rather, the stages of ego development
time period, identity moratorium is a key as- that developed from our many studies with the
pect of his or her personality makeup. A decade SCT embody and shaped my conception of ego
later, however, the developmental issues of development” (Loevinger, 1998, p. 353). Put
identity may no longer be relevant for constru- differently, whereas Eysenck began with theory
ing the same person’s psychological individual- and moved to method, Loevinger began mainly
ity. with method (and some general observations
One of the most influential developmental about change) and eventually moved to theory.
constructs in personality psychology is Jane Only after administering the SCT to many sub-
Loevinger’s (1976, 1979, 1983, 1987) ego de- jects in a number of different studies did she
velopment. Drawing from theoretical tradi- eventually come to see what the method was
tions in cognitive-developmental psychology indeed measuring.
(see, e.g., Kohlberg, 1969) and interpersonal Although Loevinger’s concept of the ego is
psychodynamic psychology (Sullivan, 1953), broad, like a dispositional trait, it is specifically
Loevinger conceived of ego development as the contextualized in time. Over time, Loevinger
sequence of changes that plays itself out in the argues, people move through a series of quali-
way people make sense of themselves and the tatively distinct stages of meaning making.
world over the human life course. The ego is Young children see the world from a very ego-
one’s overall interpretive frame and existential centric point of view. Their framework is
stance vis-à-vis the world at any given point in driven by impulses, the exigencies of the here
developmental time (Westenberg, Blasi, & and now, and such superficial concerns as
Cohn, 1998). The interpretive frame encom- physical appearance. As they grow up, how-
passes many content domains. Loevinger ever, they become better able to adopt the per-
(1976, p. 26) wrote that “what changes during spectives of others and, eventually, of society as
the course of ego development is a complexly a whole. In these middle stages of ego develop-
interwoven fabric of impulse control, charac- ment, therefore, people’s ways of making
ter, interpersonal relations, and cognitive com- meaning are highly sociocentric and conven-
plexity, among other things.” tional; their views conform to and are defined
Loevinger’s full conception of ego develop- by social convention and consensus. Later
ment came many years after she began research (higher) stages (which many people do not
on the construct. Equipped with only vague ex- reach) show a kind of return to the self, but
pectations regarding how people’s sense of now from a more principled and autonomous
themselves and the world might change over perspective. Meaning making becomes espe-
time, Loevinger looked for a research method cially complex and involves efforts to balance
that might tap directly into sense making. She conflicting perspectives in light of deeply held
rejected the kind of self-report questionnaires convictions about self and world (see Hy &
used by Eysenck and other trait researchers in Loevinger, 1996).
favor of a sentence completion test (SCT). On Results from the SCT show that children
the SCT, a person actively constructs meanings tend to score lower than adolescents on ego de-
in response to sentence stems. The researcher’s velopment, and adolescents lower than adults.
challenge is to interpret the constructions in a But among adults, one may still find the full
psychologically useful way. Eysenck and range of stage scores represented. Therefore,
Loevinger, therefore, followed very different re- the construct and the measure ultimately yield
search paths. Whereas Eysenck began with a a developmental typology in adulthood. Stage
clear conception of a stable personality feature, scores are estimates of where on the ego devel-
Loevinger began with general observations of opmental road an adult may be located at a
developmental change. Whereas Eysenck wrote particular time in the adult’s life, with each
self-report test items to cover the content do- stage suggesting a distinct type of interpretive
main of the feature, Loevinger created oppor- frame or approach for making sense of self and
tunities for individuals to express different world.
frames for making meaning (through the SCT) Loevinger’s theory of ego development and
so that she could ultimately derive a conception the corresponding SCT method of measure-
of the construct in the developmental differ- ment have stimulated a substantial body of per-
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 13

sonality research over the past three decades. greater tolerance for change and ambiguity,
Testing straightforward predictions about links and an appreciation for life’s challenges as op-
between ego stages and discrete behaviors, portunities for growth (King & Raspin, 2004;
however, can be tricky. Unlike extraversion, Pals & John, 1998).
ego development is not a linear continuum Given that ego development taps into how
with a clearly defined low end. Among well- people think about and make sense of things,
educated adults, for example, “low” ego devel- one would expect the construct to overlap with
opment may be the conformist stage, or even the general idea of intelligence. Studies have
one stage above that. Among junior high stu- shown low but (often) significantly positive
dents, however, the conformist stage may rep- correlations (between +.15 and +.30) between
resent a relatively high level of ego develop- IQ and ego scores on the SCT. The potential
ment. Relatedly, many predictions about ego overlap between ego stage and intelligence
development are curvilinear. In examining the raises the important issue of discriminant valid-
entire range of stages, for example, obedience ity in personality research (Campbell & Fiske,
to authority would be expected to be low at 1959). A measure should measure what it says
both the very low and very high stages of ego it measures, and not anything else. If IQ and
development and to peak in the middle. Among ego scores are highly correlated, then one won-
midlife women, John, Pals, and Westenberg ders if in fact the SCT is but an alternative mea-
(1998) found that those scoring at the lowest sure of intelligence. The problem is a thorny
stages of ego development tended to present a one for ego development research, because the
conflicted personality prototype, those at the SCT is a verbal measure and more than a modi-
middle levels were rated as especially tradi- cum of verbal intelligence seems to be required
tional, and those scoring in the highest region to produce sentences that are complex enough
of the scheme manifested what the researchers to score for higher stages of ego development.
called an individuated pattern of personality. The current view has it that ego development
The construct of ego development has measures may indeed tap partly into a general
proven especially congenial for researchers factor of intelligence, but the overlap seems
more interested in patterns of thought and in- modest and the problem is probably endemic
terpretation than in discrete behaviors per se. to any personality measure that relies so
For example, studies have documented positive heavily on verbal construction.
associations between ego development and
stages of moral reasoning (Lee & Snarey,
1988), but research on how ego development Life Stories: The Redemptive Self
predicts prosocial, moral, or altruistic behav-
iors is sparse. McAdams, Booth, and Selvik Narrative theories of personality first made
(1981) found that among religious college stu- their appearance in the late 1980s. Although a
dents, those who reported they had never gone few of the classic theories (e.g., Adler, 1927;
through a period of strong religious doubt and Murray, 1938) intimated that human lives
those who described such a period but who seem to take a storylike shape, it was not until
suggested they had gotten “back on track” Tomkins (1979; Carlson, 1981) articulated his
tended to score in the conformist range of ego script theory and McAdams (1985) proposed a
development. By contrast, those scoring at life-story model of identity that personality
higher levels of ego development tended to say psychologists began to take seriously the idea
that they were currently experiencing a period that the stories people tell about their lives are
of religious questioning or that they had once not simply reflections of personality trends but
done so and now saw questioning as integral to are instead features of personality itself. Re-
a lifelong journey of faith. Helson and Roberts jecting approaches to personality that empha-
(1994) showed that women high in ego level size drives, motives, and even traits, Tomkins
were open to thinking about difficult life expe- argued that from birth onward human be-
riences in new ways; apparently, high ego levels ings unconsciously arrange their lives into
lead people to construct new schemas in the affectively charged scenes and organizing
face of challenging life experiences. Studies like scripts, which themselves become the struc-
these suggest that among young and middle- tural features of psychological individuality.
aged adults, higher stages of ego development McAdams (1985) asserted that the develop-
predict a more complex understanding of life, a ment of what Erikson (1963) called ego iden-
14 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

tity is largely a matter of constructing and in- lenge for researchers is to develop reliable cod-
ternalizing an integrative self-narrative to ing systems for analyzing the structural and
provide life with some sense of unity, purpose, content features of the narrative responses.
and meaning. According to McAdams, people One method used in a number of studies is
living in modern societies begin to arrange their McAdams’s (1985) life story interview. The life
lives into self-defining life stories—complete story interview is a 2-hour procedure wherein
with settings, scenes, characters, plots, and an individual provides a narrative account of
themes—in the emerging adulthood years (see his or her life—past, present, and imagined fu-
also Hermans, 1996; Singer & Salovey, 1993). ture—by responding to a series of open-ended
Life narrative constructs provide a stark con- questions. The procedure begins by asking the
ceptual counterpoint to dispositional traits respondent to divide his or her life into chap-
(McAdams & Pals, 2006). The contrast mir- ters and provide a brief plot outline for each.
rors the distinction in cognitive psychology be- Next, the interview asks for detailed accounts
tween episodic and semantic memory. Life sto- of eight key scenes in the story, including a high
ries are framed in episodic terms. They package point, low point, and turning point scene. The
information about the self within an episodic interview protocol goes on to cover main char-
frame, specifying when and where something acters in the story, conflicts and challenges in
happened (setting), who was involved (charac- the plot, imagined future chapters, and the ba-
ters), how the action unfolded over time (plot), sic values and beliefs on which the story’s plot
and what the significance of the episode might is developed.
be (meaning). Life stories largely consist of the Let us briefly consider one particular re-
self-defining episodes of a person’s life—both search program on life stories, a line of study
those from the past and those imagined for the that led to McAdams’s (2006b) conception of
future—and their arrangement into a broader the redemptive self. The program began with
narrative structure that provides what the nar- this question: What kinds of life stories do es-
rator him- or herself believes to be a convincing pecially caring and productive adults in their
explanation for how he or she came to be and midlife years construct? The researchers used
where his or life may be going in the future. self-report measures of generativity—an adult’s
Life stories are expected to change markedly concern for and commitment to promoting the
over the life course. In contrast, dispositional well-being of future generations—to identify
traits like extraversion and conscientiousness especially generative and less generative midlife
are framed as semantic categories of the self, adults, who then participated in individual life
and their framing emphasizes stability over story interviews.
time. An extravert sees him- or herself as gener- The researchers then examined carefully the
ally outgoing, lively, and spontaneous. In the interview transcripts produced by a small num-
same semantic sense in which I “know” my ber of highly generative adults and a matched
phone number or the number of elements in the subsample of less generative adults. They com-
periodic table (not needing to recall the epi- pared and contrasted the two groups of stories
sodes from my past in which I learned this in- in an attempt to discern the main thematic dif-
formation), I may also “know” that I am lively ferences between them. The researchers were
and outgoing and respond accordingly on a guided, in part, by the theoretical literature on
self-report trait questionnaire. Some cognitive generativity available at the time and by their
scientists have argued that episodic and seman- own hunches regarding what kinds of life sto-
tic information about the self are processed in ries these two groups might produce. Mainly,
very different ways and with respect to differ- though, they were guided by the rich narrative
ent systems in the brain (see Klein, Loftus, & data. The researchers followed guidelines for
Kihlstrom, 1996). It should not be surprising, what qualitative sociologists call grounded the-
then, if dispositional constructs (level 1 in per- ory methodology, which basically involves con-
sonality) and narrative constructs (level 3) do structing thematic categories to characterize
not map neatly onto each other. groups and then refining those categories
Life narrative constructs are typically as- through successive readings of new data and
sessed through interviews or open-ended ques- repeated efforts to compare and contrast
tionnaires wherein respondents are given an (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). After many meetings
opportunity to describe key scenes, characters, and discussions, the researchers settled on a
and plots in the stories of their lives. The chal- small set of themes that seemed to differentiate
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 15

between the two groups. They designed coding (2) constructing a narrative ending or meaning
systems to operationalize these themes, and for the scene that affirms personal growth or
they trained new coders to achieve high levels greater integration of the self (Pals, 2006). The
of intercoder reliability. most redemptive narrative accounts in life
The project then moved to a hypothesis- plumb the depths of human experience before
testing phase. Blind to identifying information they eventually affirm growth and hope for the
for the respondents, the new coders analyzed a future.
new sample of 70 life story interviews, 40 told McAdams and Bowman (2001) conducted a
by adults high in generativity and 30 told by second intensive study of life stories told by
adults scoring low in generativity. Some coding highly generative adults. In this study the re-
adjustments needed to be made along the way searchers sampled about 260 community
as some of the original categories proved diffi- adults, ranging in age from 35 to 65 years, ap-
cult to apply to the new data. Once all of the proximately half of whom were African Ameri-
coding was completed, the researchers em- can and half White. Coding of 74 life story in-
ployed standard statistical procedures to evalu- terviews chosen from the larger sample, half
ate the extent to which the two groups showed from adults scoring high in generativity and
statistically significant differences on the the- half from adults scoring low, replicated and ex-
matic categories hypothesized to differentiate tended the findings from McAdams and col-
between the two groups. Some of the categories leagues (1997). Again, redemption sequences
did show the predicted differences, and some differentiated between the two groups. In addi-
did not. The most interesting and robust cate- tion, a set of related narrative features again
gory was what the researchers called a redemp- emerged as significant differences between the
tion sequence (McAdams, Diamond, de St. stories told by highly generative and less gener-
Aubin, & Mansfield, 1997). In a redemption ative adults. These features included (1) early
sequence, a bad or affectively negative (sad, hu- memories of enjoying a special advantage in
miliating, fearful, shameful, guilt-provoking) life, (2) early memories of witnessing the suffer-
scene gives way to a positive outcome or inter- ing or oppression of others, (3) moral stead-
pretation. The negative scene is saved, sal- fastness and clarity stemming from ideological
vaged, or redeemed by a positive turn of events commitments made in adolescence, and (4)
or by the narrator’s conclusion that some re- prosocial life goals for the future.
demptive meaning eventually emerged. Highly Along with the redemption theme, this suite
generative adults told life stories containing of four narrative features converges on a gen-
significantly more redemption sequences as eral life story prototype, called the redemptive
compared with the life stories told by less gen- self, that is especially characteristic of the nar-
erative adults. rative identities constructed by highly genera-
Subsequent studies have shown that the re- tive adults, both Black and White, male and fe-
demptive pattern in life narratives can be reli- male. According to McAdams (2006b), the
ably observed and scored in written accounts redemptive self is an especially well-designed
of self-defining memories, including those narrative identity for supporting a generative
provided by college students (McAdams, approach to life in midlife. The redemptive self
Reynolds, Lewis, Patten, & Bowman, 2001). functions to affirm hope and commitment in
Redemptive imagery in life narratives is posi- the face of the many difficulties and challenges
tively associated with self-report measures of generativity poses for midlife adults. For exam-
subjective mental health for both college stu- ple, believing one enjoyed an early advantage
dents and midlife adults. A related line of re- in childhood while others suffered may moti-
search has examined how individuals who have vate a person to give back to others for the
faced difficult life experiences construct stories good fortune he or she has enjoyed. Expecting
to suggest they learned lessons, gained insights, that bad things will ultimately be redeemed
or experienced positive psychological growth may help highly generative adults make the
as a result (Bauer & McAdams, 2004; King, daunting investments of time, energy, and
Scollon, Ramsey, & Williams, 2000; Pals, money that are often required to make a long-
2006; Thorne & McLean, 2003). These studies term, positive contribution to family or com-
underscore the importance of (1) acknowledg- munity. Holding to firm beliefs and values con-
ing and fully expressing strong negative emo- solidated in adolescence may help keep away
tions with respect to a negative life scene and those nagging doubts and uncertainties that
16 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

might compromise one’s best generative efforts is a field wherein many different theories, with
in the midlife years. their corresponding constructs and preferred
Most recently, McAdams (2006b) has rein- methods, continue to develop, interact, and
terpreted the redemptive self in cultural terms, sometimes compete. Whereas some research
arguing that this particular life narrative proto- programs focus exclusively on a single con-
type has a distinctively American flavor. In struct, many others attempt to relate different
American cultural history and in contemporary constructs to each other, to examine patterns of
popular culture, the most powerful stories of constructs in individual lives, and/or to chart
redemption employ the discourses of Christian the development of patterns over time. Even
atonement (from sin to salvation), political though no single grand theory exists to synthe-
emancipation (from slavery to freedom), up- size these many different strands of inquiry, the
ward social mobility (from rags to riches), life- field of personality psychology continues to
long recovery (from illness/addiction to grow and flourish. We believe the field is best
health), and individual self-development (from seen today as a broad and diverse set of some-
immaturity to the full actualization of the inner what overlapping programs of inquiry, each at-
self). Drawing from a rich storehouse of cul- tracting a corresponding community of scien-
tural scripts, the redemptive self is a character- tists who combine theory and research in a
istically American kind of life story, well de- characteristic way (Wiggins, 2003). Different
signed to support a generative life for midlife programs and their intellectual communities
American adults. Caring and productive have different strengths to offer. No program
midlife adults living in very different cultural or community can do it all, so the judicious sci-
contexts are likely to construct different kinds entist or student is well-advised to sample
of narratives to make sense of their lives and broadly, to acquaint him- or herself with a wide
support their generative strivings. McAdams range of theories and research traditions.
suggests that culture is most closely implicated One of the reasons that different programs
in personality at the level of life narrative. of theory and research have different strengths
More so than may be the case with dispo- to offer is that each asks somewhat different
sitional traits and characteristic adaptations, questions and sets forth somewhat different
life narrative studies push the personality psy- forms of scientific argument. One of the main
chologist to consider the many complex ways functions of any program of research and the-
in which psychological individuality is inti- ory in personality psychology is to suggest
mately tied with society, history, and culture. what kinds of causal arguments will be con-
vincing to a particular scientific/scholarly com-
munity. Different theoretical traditions favor
Conclusion: When Theories particular kinds of causal explanations that
(and Their Constructs) Compete just seem “right” to those scientists who con-
sider themselves part of, or at least strongly in-
We have argued that an important function of fluenced by, the tradition. For example, propo-
personality theory is to propose constructs to nents of social learning theories and related
account for socially consequential aspects of situationist approaches (e.g., Mischel & Shoda,
psychological individuality. Most constructs 1995) have never been impressed with the evi-
proposed by personality theories may be lo- dence for cross-situational consistency in
cated in one of three different conceptual levels behavior linked to broad personality traits.
or domains: dispositional traits, characteristic Their disdain for trait theories has relatively lit-
adaptations, and integrative life stories. We tle to do with empirical findings but instead re-
have examined the ways in which theory flects their commitment to arguments that priv-
informs research and research informs theory ilege proximal determinants of particular
with respect to representative constructs from behaviors displayed in particular social situa-
each of these three levels. Research programs tions—arguments about process and context—
examining extraversion, ego development, and rather than arguments about what general
the redemptive self, respectively, illustrate forms behavioral continuities take from one
many of the challenges and opportunities that situation to the next. (But see Fleeson’s, 2004,
personality psychologists have traditionally en- effort to reconcile trait and situationist ap-
countered and continue to encounter today. proaches.) From the standpoint of situationist
At the present time, personality psychology approaches, conceptions of personality that
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 17

privilege broad trait continuities are asking the As a developmental construct, Loevinger’s
wrong questions and posing the wrong causal ego stages chart a kind of efficient-cause se-
arguments. Of course, proponents of trait theo- quence for the life course. People’s overall per-
ries, who aim to describe and explain the basic spectives for making sense of themselves and
tendencies that broadly differentiate people the world develop according to a predictable
from each other, are quick to return the favor sequence. In addition, the particular stage one
(McCrae & Costa, 1997). They find little of in- finds oneself in at any given point in the life
terest in questions asked by social learning the- course provides the basic form or structure,
ories and related approaches, and they find Loevinger argues, for psychological individual-
their causal arguments unconvincing and even ity at that stage. Loevinger’s research program,
irrelevant. therefore, seems to privilege efficient-cause and
Going back to Aristotle, Rychlak (1981) as- formal-cause arguments. Scientists attracted to
serts that the different causal arguments to be her program find especially appealing ques-
found in personality psychology may be classi- tions like these: What is the sequence of stages
fied into four groups: (1) material-cause argu- through which people develop over time? How
ments, which explain a phenomenon in terms do people get to a particular developmental
of what substances make it up; (2) efficient- level? At any given stage in life, what form does
cause arguments, which explain a phenomenon a person’s understanding of self and world as-
in terms of the events that lead up to it; (3) for- sume?
mal-cause arguments, which specify the design Life narrative approaches seem to privilege
or form of a phenomenon; and (4) final-cause formal-cause and final-cause explanations. Be-
arguments, which focus on the function or ulti- ginning in the emerging adulthood years,
mate reason for a phenomenon. Most theories McAdams argues, people put their lives to-
and their corresponding programs of construct gether into narrative forms. An especially com-
validation research address all four of Aris- pelling form, and one that seems to support a
totle’s explanations in one way or another. highly caring and productive life at midlife in
Nonetheless, each approach seems to privilege contemporary American society, is the redemp-
one or two of the four, attracting scientists who tive self. In a final-cause sense, life stories are
find those corresponding kinds of arguments to constructed for the sake of personal integra-
be especially convincing. tion. People find unity, purpose, and meaning
The different preferences are quite apparent in life through the psychosocial construction of
in the three programs of research reviewed in life narrative. Furthermore, certain life stories
this paper. One of the reasons the construct of function to support certain kinds of lives. Sci-
extraversion has enjoyed so much research at- entists attracted to life narrative research may
tention in the past 50 years is that, beginning find questions like these to be especially inter-
with Eysenck, scientists have proposed and esting: What do people think their lives mean?
tested intriguing arguments about material What kinds of narrative forms do people artic-
cause. Whether considering Eysenck’s early hy- ulate in making sense of their lives? Do some
potheses regarding arousal and the ARAS or life stories work better than others?
more recent formulations that foreground a Personality psychologists pursue a great
behavioral approach system in the brain, a many questions in their efforts to account for
strong research tradition in personality psy- the psychological individuality of persons. The
chology has focused on the psychobiological different accounts they ultimately offer privi-
underpinnings of extraversion. For scientists lege certain kinds of arguments over others.
attracted to this tradition, the most interesting One might imagine an ultimate, fully satisfying
theoretical questions are about brain circuitry, accounting of the individual person as provid-
neurotransmitters, and the patterns of cortical ing compelling arguments regarding material-
activity that essentially make up the basic ma- cause, efficient-cause, formal-cause, and final-
terial stuff of extraversion. Of course, the brain cause explanations. To understand a person’s
is surely involved in ego development, redemp- individuality is ultimately to identify the essen-
tive life narratives, and any other well- tial substances of which that individuality is
validated personality construct one may name. made, to chart the developmental sequences
But the research programs that have developed that account for how that individuality has
with respect to these constructs have had little come to be, to formulate a compelling picture
to say about material-cause issues. of the design of that individuality, and to ex-
18 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

plain fully the ends or functions for which that sic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal
particular form of individuality exists. What is and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.
the person made up of? How did the person Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Beyond traits in the
study of personality coherence. Current Directions in
come to be? What is the person’s design or
Psychological Science, 8, 27–32.
form? What purpose does that design fulfill? If
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plas-
we knew the full and unequivocal answers to ter? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In
these questions, we would no longer need T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can per-
personality psychology, its theories, its con- sonality change? (pp. 21–40). Washington, DC:
structs, and its research. But we will likely American Psychological Association Press.
never know all we need to know. Or if we ever Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct valid-
do, that day is surely far in the future. In the ity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52,
meantime, we have personality theory and re- 281–302.
search. Davidson, R. J. (1992). Emotion and affective style:
Hemispheric substrates. Psychological Science, 3,
39–43.
Recommended Readings Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational ap-
proach to self: Integration in personality. In R.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Dienstbier & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Nebraska Sympo-
Fundamental principles for an integrative science of sium on Motivation: 1990 (pp. 237–288). Lincoln:
personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217. University of Nebraska Press.
Ozer, D. J. (1999). Four principles of personality assess- Depue, R. A., Luciana, M., Arbisi, P., Collins, P., &
ment. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Hand- Leon, A. (1994). Dopamine and the structure of per-
book of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., sonality: Relationships of agonist-induced dopamine
pp. 671–686). New York: Guilford Press. activity to positive emotionality. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 67, 485–498.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach
References to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.
Adler, A. (1927). The practice and theory of individual Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1986). Influence of
psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace World. impulsivity and sociability on subjective well-being.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological in- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
terpretation. New York: Henry Holt. 1211–1215.
Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1978). An introduction to Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.).
motivation (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand. New York: Norton.
Bauer, J. J., & McAdams, D. P. (2004). Personal growth Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. Lon-
in adults’ stories of life transitions. Journal of Person- don: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ality, 72, 573–602. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personal-
Bernreuter, R. G. (1931). The personality inventory. ity. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1973). Eysenck on extraversion. New
Block, J. (1981). Some enduring and consequential York: Wiley.
structures of personality. In A. I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the
A. M. Barclay, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), Further explo- person–situation debate. Current Directions in Psy-
rations in personality (pp. 27–43). New York: Wiley. chological Science, 13, 83–87.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment and stability from in-
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent fancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic
and discriminant validation by the multitrait– modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81– and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123–151.
105. Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality
Caprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: De- judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Re-
terminants, dynamics, and potentials. New York: view, 102, 652–670.
Cambridge University Press. Garnett, A. C. (1928). Instinct and personality. New
Carlson, R. (1981). Studies in script theory: I. Adult York: Dodd, Mead.
analogs to a childhood nuclear scene. Journal of Per- Geen, R. C. (1997). Psychophysiological approaches to
sonality and Social Psychology, 40, 501–510. personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. Briggs
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). A control systems (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology
approach to behavioral self-regulation. In L. Wheeler (pp. 387–414). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
& P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 107–140). Beverly Hills, CA: grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Sage. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic
Cattel, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Ba- personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
 The Role of Theory in Personality Research 19

Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inven- Leary, M. R. (2005). The scientific study of personality.
tory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. In V. J. Derlega, B. A. Winstead, & W. H. Jones (Eds.),
Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957). Theories of personal- Personality: Contemporary theory and research (pp.
ity. New York: Wiley. 2–26). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Helson, R., & Roberts, B. W. (1994). Ego development Lee, L., & Snarey, J. (1988). The relationship between
and personality change in adulthood. Journal of Per- ego and moral development: A theoretical review and
sonality and Social Psychology, 66, 911–920. empirical analysis. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power
Hermans, H. J. M. (1996). Voicing the self: From infor- (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches
mation processing to dialogical interchange. Psycho- (pp. 151–178). New York: Springer-Verlag.
logical Bulletin, 119, 31–50. Little, B. R. (1999). Personality and motivation: Per-
Hogan, R. (1976). Personality theory: The persono- sonal action and the conative evolution. In L. A.
logical tradition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 501–524). New
In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motiva- York: Guilford Press.
tion: 1981 (pp. 55–89). Lincoln: University of Ne- Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of
braska Press. psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–
Hogan, R. (1987). Personality psychology: Back to ba- 694.
sics. In J. Aronoff, A. I. Rabin, & R. A. Zucker Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco:
(Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 79–104). Jossey-Bass.
New York: Springer. Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct validity of the sentence-
Hooker, K. S., & McAdams, D. P. (2003). Personality completion test of ego development. Applied Psycho-
reconsidered: A new agenda for aging research. Jour- logical Measurement, 3, 281–311.
nal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B, Loevinger, J. (1983). On ego development and the struc-
296–304. ture of personality. Developmental Review, 3, 339–
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: 350.
Appleton Century Crofts. Loevinger, J. (1987). Paradigms of personality. New
Hy, L. X., & Loevinger, J. (1996). Measuring ego devel- York: Freeman.
opment (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Loevinger, J. (1998). Completing a life sentence. In P. M.
Jackson, D. N. (1971). The dynamics of structured per- Westenberg, A. Blasi, & L. D. Cohn (Eds.), Personal-
sonality tests. Psychological Review, 78, 229–248. ity development: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical
John, O. P., Pals, J. L., & Westenberg, P. M. (1998). Per- investigations of Loevinger’s conception of ego devel-
sonality prototypes and ego development: Conceptual opment (pp. 347–354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
similarities and relations in adult women. Journal of MacDermid, S. M., Franz, C. E., & De Reus, L. A.
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1093–1108. (1998). Generativity: At the crossroads of social roles
King, L. A., & Raspin, C. (2004). Lost and found possi- and personality. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin
ble selves, subjective well-being, and ego develop- (Eds.), Generativity and adult development (pp. 181–
ment in divorced women. Journal of Personality, 72, 226). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-
603–632. sociation Press.
King, L. A., Scollon, C. K., Ramsey, C., & Williams, T. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J.
(2000). Stories of life transition: Subjective well-be- Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology
ing and ego development in parents of children with (pp. 159–187). New York: Wiley.
Down syndrome. Journal of Research in Personality, McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life
34, 509–536. story: Personological inquiries into identity. Home-
Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). Self- wood, IL: Dorsey Press.
knowledge of an amnesic patient: Toward a neuro- McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we
psychology of personality and social psychology. know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365–396.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, McAdams, D. P. (1997). A conceptual history of person-
250–260. ality psychology. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.
Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H. A. (1953). Personality for- Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology
mation: The determinants. In C. Kluckhohn, H. A. (pp. 3–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Murray, & D. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in nature, McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories.
society, and culture (pp. 53–67). New York: Knopf. Review of General Psychology, 5, 100–122.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive- McAdams, D. P. (2006a). The person: A new introduc-
developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. tion to personality psychology (4th ed.). New York:
Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and Wiley.
research (pp. 347–480). Skokie, IL: Rand McNally. McAdams, D. P. (2006b). The redemptive self: Stories
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of Americans live by. New York: Oxford University Press.
scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. McAdams, D. P., Booth, L., & Selvik, R. (1981). Reli-
Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowl- gious identity among students at a private college:
edge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- Social motives, ego stage, and development. Merrill-
versity Press. Palmer Quarterly, 27, 219–239.
20 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

McAdams, D. P., & Bowman, P. J. (2001). Narrating Robins, R. W., Gosling, S. D., & Craik, K. H. (1999).
life’s turning points: Redemption and contamination. An empirical analysis of trends in psychology. Ameri-
In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich can Psychologist, 54, 117–128.
(Eds.), Turns in the road: Narrative studies of lives in Rorer, L. G. (1990). Personality assessment: A concep-
transition (pp. 3–34). Washington, DC: American tual survey. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of per-
Psychological Association Press. sonality: Theory and research (pp. 693–720). New
McAdams, D. P., Diamond, A., de St. Aubin, E., & York: Guilford Press.
Mansfield, E. (1997). Stories of commitment: The Runyan, W. M. (1982). Life histories and psychobio-
psychosocial construction of generative lives. Journal graphy: Explorations in theory and method. New
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 678–694. York: Oxford University Press.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Rychlak, J. F. (1981). Introduction to personality and
Fundamental principles for an integrative science of psychotherapy: A theory-construction approach.
personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
McAdams, D. P., Reynolds, J., Lewis, M., Patten, A., & Schultz, W. T. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of psychobio-
Bowman, P. J. (2001). When bad things turn good graphy. New York: Oxford University Press.
and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption Sheldon, K. (2004). Optimal human being: An integrat-
and contamination in life narrative, and their relation ed, multilevel perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in Singer, J. A., & Salovey, P. (1993). The remembered self:
college students. Personality and Social Psychology Emotion and memory in personality. New York: Free
Bulletin, 27, 208–230. Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London:
York: Van Nostrand. Macmillan.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality Stern, W. (1924). Die menschliche Personalichkeit.
trait structure as a human universal. American Psy- Leipzig: J. A. Barth.
chologist, 52, 509–516. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psy-
Mendelsohn, G. (1993). It’s time to put theories of per- chiatry. New York: Norton.
sonality in their place, or, Allport and Stagner got it Sutton, S. K., & Davidson, R. J. (1997). Prefrontal brain
right, why can’t we? In K. H. Craik, R. Hogan, & R. asymmetry: A biological substrate of the behavioral
N. Wolfe (Eds.), Fifty years of personality psychology approach and behavioral inhibition systems. Psycho-
(pp. 103–115). New York: Plenum Press. logical Science, 8, 204–210.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective Thorne, A. (1989). Conditional patterns, transference,
systems theory of personality: Reconceptualizing sit- and the coherence of personality across time. In D.
uations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology:
personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 149–
246–268. 159). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New Thorne, A., & McLean, K. C. (2003). Telling traumatic
York: Oxford University Press. events in adolescence: A study of master narrative
Nasby, W., & Read, N. (1997). The life voyage of a solo positioning. In R. Fivush & C. Haden (Eds.), Auto-
circumnavigator. Journal of Personality, 65(3). biographical memory and the construction of a nar-
Ozer, D. J. (1999). Four principles of personality assess- rative self (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ment. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook Tomkins, S. S. (1979). Script theory. In H. E. Howe &
of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. R. A. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on
671–686). New York: Guilford Press. Motivation: 1978 (pp. 201–236). Lincoln: University
Pals, J. L. (2006). Constructing the “springboard ef- of Nebraska Press.
fect”: Causal connections, self-making, and growth Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its
within the life story. In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, &
& A. Lieblich (Eds.), Identity and story. Washington, S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology
DC: American Psychological Association Press. (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pals, J. L., & John, O. P. (1998). How are dimensions of Westenberg, P. M., Blasi, A., & Cohn, L. D. (Eds.).
adult personality related to ego development? An ap- (1998). Personality development: Theoretical, empir-
plication of the typological approach. In P. M. ical, and clinical investigations of Loevinger’s con-
Westenberg, A. Blasi, & L. D. Cohn (Eds.), Personal- ception of ego development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ity development: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Princi-
investigations of Loevinger’s conception of ego devel- ples of personality assessment. Reading, MA:
opment (pp. 113–131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Addison-Wesley.
Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad disposi- Wiggins, J. S. (2003). Paradigms of personality assess-
tions, broad aspirations: The intersection of person- ment. New York: Guilford Press.
ality traits and major life goals. Personality and So- Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York:
cial Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1284–1296. Free Press.
 CHAPTER 2

Designing and Implementing

Longitudinal Studies

M. Brent Donnellan
Rand D. Conger

Drawing good conclusions from bad data is discuss procedures that have worked well and
a lot like reassembling Humpty Dumpty after confess to errors that have been made so that
his big fall—largely impossible. Thus, research- other researchers might learn from both. We
ers strive to design and implement studies that hope that the final product will be a useful
have the potential to yield high-quality data. In guide for designing and implementing longitu-
those areas of psychology where laboratory ex- dinal studies in a fashion that increases the
perimentation is not the method of first resort probability that future studies will yield high-
for logistical or ethical reasons, longitudinal quality data.
studies are often recommended. Indeed, we be- At the outset, it is worth noting that there is
lieve that it is imperative to observe what hap- an interesting asymmetry in the methodologi-
pens as time passes and lives unfold. However, cal literature surrounding longitudinal studies.
there are many challenges that face the re- On one hand there are numerous resources that
searcher who decides to use this method. In describe how to appropriately analyze data
short, it is difficult to maintain the rigor, rele- from longitudinal research (e.g., Collins &
vance, and vitality of a study that may take Sayer, 2001; Ferrer & McArdle, 2003;
years to produce even partial answers to once Mroczek, Chapter 31, this volume; Nagin,
burning questions. 2005; Raudenbush, 2001; Singer & Willett,
Accordingly, the goal of this chapter is to 2003), yet on the other hand there are fewer re-
provide personality researchers with some of sources offering guidance on designing and
the insights that we have gained for ensuring running longitudinal studies (Taris, 2000; but
data quality through the conduct of a nearly see Cauce, Ryan, & Grove, 1998; Friedman
20-year study of individual development. We & Haywood, 1994; Hartmann, 2005;

21
22 DESIGNING A PERSONALITY STUDY

Stouthamer-Loeber, van Kammen, & Loeber, region of the country. This kind of discovery
1992). This deficit in information may contrib- would not have been possible without longitu-
ute to a situation in which the intense planning dinal inquiry. Indeed, cross-sectional studies
and management required for collecting the cannot begin to disentangle consequences from
raw material for these sophisticated analyses is causes, and potentially life-altering events are
overlooked. Thus, our overarching purpose is rarely created in the laboratory of the social
to add to the limited literature that provides psychologist.
practical advice for conducting longitudinal re- To be sure, Block (1993) contends that longi-
search. tudinal studies are necessary to answer the
This chapter is organized into three major “big” questions that come to mind when most
sections. First, we outline and discuss four criti- people (i.e., nonacademics) think about psy-
cal design decisions that should be addressed chology. These are the questions that spark hu-
when planning to study lives over time. Second, man curiosity, such as whether childhood char-
we offer practical advice for running these acteristics influence adult personality, whether
kinds of studies. Finally, we describe some tech- personality is fixed by age 30, or whether hap-
niques for reducing attrition, one of the most piness is something that changes in response to
pernicious threats to the health of a longitudi- life events. For instance, consider just three
nal investigation. An integral part of each of controversial issues in personality psychology
these sections is a recounting of experiences that are also of public interest.
from our own longitudinal research to illus-
trate the points we wish to make. We draw on 1. Are adult life experiences related to changes
the Family Transitions Project, a prospective in personality traits (e.g., McCrae & Costa,
study of more than 500 participants and their 2003; Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001; Roberts,
families (see Conger & Conger, 2002), as a case Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003)?
study that helps to illustrate both the successes 2. How stable are individual differences in at-
that accrue when appropriate procedures are tachment security across the lifespan (e.g.,
followed and the problems that occur when Fraley & Brumbaugh, 2004)?
they are not. Prior to addressing these issues, 3. Does low self-esteem have real-world con-
we briefly consider why researchers should sequences (e.g., Baumeister, Campbell,
ever bother conducting longitudinal research in Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Trzesniewski et al.,
the first place. 2006)?

It is difficult to see how these theoretically

Why Bother Studying Personality and practically important issues could be ade-
the Long Way? quately addressed without longitudinal re-
search. Therefore, we believe that longitudinal
This question seems reasonable, given the cost designs are essential for answering fundamen-
and time commitment associated with a longi- tal questions in personality psychology. How-
tudinal study, particularly one that lasts several ever, before attempting to use this type of costly
years. Despite these difficulties, our view is that and time-consuming research strategy, a re-
longitudinal designs are better able to capture searcher needs to carefully consider several is-
the dynamic aspects of human lives as com- sues involved in the design, implementation,
pared with alternative approaches such as and maintenance of such an effort.
cross-sectional studies or laboratory experi-
ments. For instance, long-term research in the
natural environment has the capacity to evalu- Initial Design Decisions:
ate the influence of major events, such as the Answering Four Basic Questions
birth of child or the loss of a job, on trajectories
of individual development. Consider that Before outlining the most pressing questions
Costello, Compton, Keeler, and Angold (2003) that face investigators who are conceptualizing
found remarkable, positive changes in the per- and designing a longitudinal study (see also
sonal dispositions of children when their fami- Taris, 2000), we think it is useful to provide
lies experienced significant increases in eco- our broad perspective on conducting longitudi-
nomic well-being as a result of the introduction nal research. First, we propose that longitudi-
of a new industry in an economically depressed nal designs need to be driven by conceptual and
 Designing and Implementing Longitudinal Studies 23

theoretical concerns and not simply by the de- TABLE 2.1. Summary of Recommendations
sire to apply a “hot” methodological technique Regarding Initial Design Decisions
to repeated measures data (e.g., Hartmann,
Question 1: Decide what to measure and how
2005). There are too many decisions that can- to measure it
not be made without theoretical guidance. Sec-
1. Assess important constructs.
ond, longitudinal studies should be designed 2. Anticipate statistical analyses.
with more than a single mode of data analysis 3. Use well-validated and reliable instruments.
in mind. Accordingly, we urge researchers to 4. Pilot test all measures.
think about collecting the most flexible kinds 5. Use the exact same measure at every wave.
of data they can. Often this will involve a much
closer scrutiny of measures than is involved in Question 2: Decide on the number and timing
of assessments.
cross-sectional research. For instance, in deal-
ing with correlations, the actual metrics of 1. Strive for three or more waves of data
scales are often given little attention. As long as collection.
2. Let conceptual issues dictate the timing of
there is variability in measures of X and Y, then assessments.
the analyses can often proceed. However, the
metric used to measure variables matters a Question 3: Decide on sources of data.
great deal for many of the types of analyses 1. Strive for multiple informant studies.
central to longitudinal studies, such as mean-
level comparisons over time. Indeed, the most Question 4: Decide on a sample and sample size
flexible longitudinal measures need to do more 1. Engage in the thought experiment of defining
than just capture individual differences at one the population of interest and select an
point in time; they need to be suitable for cap- appropriate sampling strategy.
turing individual differences in change over 2. Determine an adequate sample size that takes
time and perhaps intraindividual differences in into account the reality of attrition.
change over time. This need places much more
stringent requirements on the types of mea-
sures selected for longitudinal studies.
Finally, the overarching theme of this chap- Question 1: Decide What to Measure
ter is that longitudinal studies require careful and How to Measure It
planning, deliberation, and management.
Quite frankly, there are individual differences Specific answers to the “what” question will
in the ability to carry out longitudinal studies, naturally depend on the particulars of a given
inasmuch as this kind of research typically re- project. At the most fundamental level, an-
quires a great deal of foresight, patience, dili- swers to this question depend on the theoretical
gence, leadership, and the ability to work well and conceptual concerns of the longitudinal in-
with others under stressful conditions. Indeed, vestigation. However, when a long-term study
most major longitudinal studies require the is launched, investigators must be both focused
work of fairly large teams of researchers who and yet relatively open in their conceptualiza-
are supported by federal grants. Working to- tion of needed areas of assessment. The reason
gether to pursue the research agenda and to for this approach rests on the fact that the theo-
maintain public investments in an ongoing retical reasoning of the moment may not prove
study become central aspects of the scientific to be the most fruitful; therefore, the researcher
enterprise. In short, personality traits matter in needs to consider potentially worthwhile alter-
conducting this kind of research, and not ev- natives to his or her preferred theoretical
eryone has the personality profile that fits well framework. This strategy reduces dogmatism
with these requirements. Investigators contem- and creates the possibility of maximal scientific
plating this kind of research should first ask payoff for the time and resources invested. Sim-
themselves if they are suited for the task. A lit- ply put, given the inevitable lag between the
tle self-insight will go a long way in channeling time the research begins and the time when re-
personal resources to the most productive re- sults are ready for publication, the best advice
search pursuits. With this background in mind, is to focus on a range of constructs of relatively
we turn to the four questions that need to be wide interest to the field. It would be very un-
addressed in designing a prospective, longitudi- fortunate to invest the effort required to design
nal study of personality (see Table 2.1). and implement a longitudinal study that, in the
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
kell rendszerünk típusát megadnia, ahogy az emberi test az a típus,
amelyre a házépítést szabják. Az emberi természet alapsajátsága az
alkalmazkodás. Arany-középszer vagyunk, röpködő állandóság,
kiegyenlítődő vagy szakaszosan visszatérő hibák, tengerre épült
ház. A bölcs szkeptikus közelebbről akarja látni a játékot és a
főjátékosokat, azt, hogy mi a java a földgolyónak; a művészetet, s
természetet, a helyeket és eseményeket, de különösen az
embereket. Mindazt, ami kíváló az emberiségben – a bájos alakot,
az acélos kart, a rábeszélő ajkakat, a leleményes agyvelőt, a
játékban ügyeset s győzőt – mindezt szemügyre akarja venni s
ítélete alá akarja vonni.
A színjátékba bebocsáttatás föltételei: legyen szilárd és értelmes,
a magunkéra támaszkodó életpályánk; annyink, hogy
életszükségleteinket kielégíthessük; annak a bizonysága, hogy
megvan bennünk a vérmérséklet, erő és kíválóság, amely honfitársai
s kortársai közt hitelt bíró követőket ad nekünk. Mert az élet titkainak
csak a hasonló és rokonszenvező leli meg a nyitját. Az emberek
nem bízzák magukat tacskókra, pojácákra, pedánsokra, hanem
csakis magukhoz hasonlókra. Bizonyos kölcsönös korlátozás, a két
véglet közti helytfoglalás, pozitivítás révén erős és rátermett ember,
aki sem nem csíp, mint a só, se nem túlédes, mint a cukor, hanem
eléggé rokon a világgal, hogy igazságot szolgáltasson Londonnak
vagy Párisnak, egyúttal erős és eredeti gondolkozó, akit nem
képesztenek el a városok, hanem aki tud velök élni: íme, ilyen ember
alkalmas a gondolkozás e területének elfoglalására.
Ezek a tulajdonságok találkoznak Montaigne jellemében.
Minthogy azonban én talán túlságos személyes vonzalmat érzek
Montaigne iránt, azért az önzők e fejedelmének védőpajzsa alatt
legyen szabad egy két szóval védekeznem, miért választottam
éppen őt a szkepticizmus képviselőjének, s legyen szabad röviden
kifejtenem, mint fakadt s mint növekedett szeretetem e csodálatos
pajtás iránt.
Apám könyvtárában megvolt Montaigne essayinek egyetlen
kötete Cotton fordításában. Soká por lepte, míg egy szép nap,
amidőn a kollégiumból kikerülvén, elolvastam, s megszereztem a
többi kötetét is. Ma is emlékszem, mily gyönyörrel és ámulattal töltött
el. Úgy éreztem, mintha én magam írtam volna valamely előbbi
életemben, olyan bensőséggel fejezte ki tulajdon gondolatomat és
tapasztalatomat. Párisban létem alatt azután, 1833-ban, a Père la
Chaise temetőben történetesen odakerültem az 1830-ban, 68 éves
korában elhúnyt Auguste Collignon sírja elé, aki sírfelirata szerint:
«az igaz életnek szentelte magát és erényét Montaigne essay-n
formálta». Néhány évvel utóbb megismerkedtem a kitűnő John
Sterling költővel s leveleiből értesültem, hogy ő, Montaigne kedvéért
elzarándokolt périgordi kastélyába, amely még ma is áll Castellune
közelében és 250 év múltán lemásolta a mondásokat, miket maga
Montaigne írt könyvtára falára. Majd örömmel hallottam, hogy
William Shakespeare egyik újonnan fölfedezett kezeírását
Montaigne-nek Floriótól készült másolatában találták meg. Ez az
egyetlen könyv, amelyről biztosan tudjuk, hogy megvolt a költő
könyvtárában. S különös, hogy Florio másodpéldányáról, amelyet a
British Museum a Shakespeare-autogramm kímélése céljából
vásárolt meg, kiderítették, hogy előlapján Ben Jonson27) neve írása
van. Leigh Hunt jelenti Lord Byron-ről, hogy Montaigne volt az
egyetlen régi író, akit bevallott kielégüléssel olvasott. Egyéb oly
összetalálkozások, miknek fölemlítését nem tartom szükségesnek,
szintén hozzájárultak, hogy az öreg gascogne-i mindig új és
halhatatlan legyen szememben.
1571-ben, atyja halála után, Montaigne, aki akkor 38 éves volt,
visszavonult a bordeaux-i törvényszék gyakorlatától és birtokán
telepedett meg. Ámbár szerette a mulatságot és időnkint az udvarnál
is megfordult, tudós hajlamai most egyre nőttek, s megszerette a
falusi nemes szabályos korlátok közt lefolyó és független életét.
Komolyan belemerült a gazdálkodásba, s földjeinek hozadékát
nagyra emelte. Egyenes és tisztességes ember létére, aki egyaránt
írtózott attól, hogy csaljon, mint hogy megcsalassék, környékén nagy
becsületre tett szert. A liga polgárháborúi közepette, amelyek
minden házat várrá alakítottak át, Montaigne tárva tartotta kapuit és
házát védelem nélkül hagyta. Szabadon járt be hozzá minden
pártbeli, mert bátorságát és tisztességét egyaránt becsülték. A
szomszéd főurak és köznemesek hozzáadták ékszereiket és értékes
írásaikat megőrzés végett. Gibbon szerint ezekben a vakbuzgó
időkben csak két szabadabban gondolkozó ember akadt
Franciaországban: IV. Henrik és Montaigne.
Montaigne a legőszintébb és legbecsületesebb író. Gall
szabadsága olykor bizony vaskos, de minden kifogást eleve
lefegyverez saját nyílt bevallásaival. Az ő korában a könyveket
csupán a férfi nem számára írták és többnyire latinul, úgyhogy ez a
humoristát följogosította bizonyos szabadszájúságra, amelyet a mi,
egyaránt mind a két nemhez forduló irodalmunk nem enged meg.
Mindazonáltal lehet, hogy bibliai nyíltsága igen merész
rakoncátlansággal párosulva lapjait elzárja sok érzékenylelkű olvasó
előtt; de ezek megbotránkozása csak felszínes. Ő fitogtatja hibáit,
nagyra van velök; senki sem gondolhat ő róla több rosszat, mint ő
maga teszi. Ő majd minden bűnt magára ró s ha történetesen van
benne valami erény az – úgymond – bizonyosan csak úgy belélopta
magát. Nézete szerint nincs ember, aki meg nem érdemelné, hogy
ötször-hatszor fölakasztották légyen, s ő magára nézve sem igényel
kivételt. «Öt vagy hat épp oly nevetséges történetkét lehet én rólam
is elbeszélni, akárcsak bármely más élő emberről.» De mindezen,
valóban fölösleges őszintesége mellett is minden olvasójában a
tántoríthatatlan becsületesség benyomását kelti.
«Ha a legszigorúbban és bensőségesen gyóntatom meg magam,
úgy találom, hogy legjobb erényemben is van egy csöppje a bűnnek,
s attól tartok, hogy Plato legtisztább erényében is – én az ilyen
erénynek éppoly őszinte híve vagyok, mint bárki más – ha egészen
rátartotta volna a fülét, kihallotta volna a belevegyült emberi elemnek
vásott hangját, de olyan bágyadtan és távol, hogy egyedül csak ő
vehette volna észre.»
Ingerültség és utálkozás jelentkezik benne mindennemű
szenvelgés és nyegleség ellen. Oly soká élt udvari életet, hogy
alaposan megcsömörlött a külszíntől s inkább megenged magának
egy kis káromkodást és esküdözést. Szívesen beszél hajósokkal és
cigányokkal, fölhasználja a tolvajnyelv és utcai rigmusok kifejezéseit.
Oly soká volt szobákban, hogy belebetegedett: kivágyódik a szabad
levegőre és ha golyóbisok esnek is az égből. Túlsok taláros férfiút
látott: most inkább lát emberevő vadembert s a mesterkélt élet olyan
idegessé tette, hogy úgy tartja: mentől barbárabb az ember, annál
jobb. Szeret nyeregben ülni, s másra bízza, hogy másutt theológiát,
nyelvtudományt vagy metafizikát olvasson. Bármit tála elénk, annak
földes íze s eleven élete van; édes, csípő vagy szúró. Nem habozik
olvasóit betegsége stációival mulattatni; olaszországi naplója tele
van ezzel. Az egyensúly álláspontjára helyezkedett. Neve fölé
mérleget rajzolt ezzel az aláírással: «Que sçai-je?» Ha a címlap
melletti képét nézem, mintha hallanám: «Ám játszd az öreg
abszolutot; ha úgy tetszik, gúnyolódhatsz és túlozhatsz, – én az
igazság embere vagyok s Európa minden állama, egyháza,
jövedelme és személyes hírneve kedvéért sem megyek túl a száraz
ténynél, ahogy én látom; inkább dadogok, fecsegek arról, amit
biztosan tudok: házamról s pajtáimról, apámról, feleségemről s
árendásaimról; öreg kopasz fejemről; késemről s villámról; arról,
hogy mit eszem s mit szeretek inni s száz más éppolyan nevetséges
semmiségről, – azután pedig finom varjúpennával finom mesét írok.
Szeretem a szürke napokat, az őszt és téliidőt. Szürke és őszies
vagyok magam is s legjobbnak tartom a pongyolát és kitaposott
cipőket, amik nem nyomják a lábamat, az öreg barátokat, akik nem
feszélyeznek, s az egyszerű tárgyakat, amelyek nem erőltetik meg
és nem szivattyúzzák ki az agyamvelejét. Földi életünk úgyis elég
kockázatos és esendő. Egyetlen órában sem lehetünk biztosak
életünk s vagyonunk felől, s vajjon nem ránt-e balsorsunk valami
szánalmas vagy nevetséges helyzetbe. Minek fujjam föl magam s
játsszam a filozófust, ahelyett, hogy minden erőmmel egyensúlyba
hozzam ezt a táncoló léggömböt? Így legalább biztos korlátok közt
élek, megőrzöm cselekvőképességemet, s becsülettel juthatok
révbe. S ha az efajta életben van valami bohókás, az nem az én
hibám, hanem a Végzeté és Természeté.»
Essay-i ennélfogva mulatságos magánbeszéd mindenféle
véletlen tárgyról, ami éppen eszébe ötlik, s mindent ceremónia
nélkül, azonban férfiasan tárgyal. Lehet, voltak mélyebben szántó
elmék; de azt bízvást el lehet mondani, hogy nem volt még ember,
aki gondolatokban ennyire gazdag lett volna. Ő sohasem lapos,
sohasem alakoskodó, s meg van benne az a nagy tehetség, hogy
leköti figyelmünket mindaz iránt, ami őt leköti.
A férfi őszintesége és velős ereje átmegy mondásaiba is. Nem
ismerek könyvet, amelyen ily kevéssé érzik az irodalom. Ez a
beszélgetés nyelve, könyvbe plántálva. Mesd meg ezeket a
szavakat s vérezni fognak: mert eleven véredényekből állnak.
Ugyanazt a gyönyört érezzük nála, mint mikor munkások
beszélgetését hallgatjuk s valamely rendkívüli körülmény pillanatnyi
fontosságot ad párbeszédjüknek. Kovácsok és fuvarosok nem sokat
illegetik a nyelvüket: golyózáporként hull a szavuk. A Cambridge-i
tudós ember szokta magát folyton javítgatni, minden félmondat után
újrakezdegeti a mondókáját, a szókkal játszadozik, azokat túlontúl
csiszolgatja, miközben elugrik a tárgytól. Montaigne világosan
beszél, ismeri a világot, a könyveket, önmagát és az alapfokot
használja; sohasem rikácsol, tiltakozik, könyörög; nincs benne
semmi gyöngeség, görcsös rángatózás, túlzófok; nem akar kiugrani
a bőréből; nem akar bohócot játszani, helyet, időt semmivé tenni. Ő
erős és szilárd; élvezi a nap minden pillanatát; szereti a bajt is, mert
az érezteti vele énjét és igazolja a dolgok létét, mintahogy
megcsípjük magunkat, hogy meggyőződjünk arról, ébren vagyunk-e.
Síkságon halad, ritkán hág magasra, vagy bocsátkozik mélységbe;
szereti lába alatt a szilárd talajt és köveket. Írásaiban nem lobog
lelkesedés, sem nagyravágyás: ő mindig elégedett, magáttisztelő, a
középszer barátja. Egyetlen kivétel: Sokrates iránti szeretete. Ha ő
róla beszél: arca kipirúl és stílusa szenvedélyessé válik.
Montaigne torokbajban halt meg. 1592-ben, 60 éves korában;
halála előtt szobájában misét mondatott. 33 éves korában nősült.
«De» – mondja – «ha a magam akaratát követem, nem vettem volna
el magát a Bölcseséget sem, még ha ő akart volna is hozzám jönni.
De nagyon bajos a házasodást elkerülni, s a közszokás és élet
megköveteli. Legtöbb cselekedetünket a példa vezérli, nem saját
választásunk.» Halála óráján ugyancsak a közszokásnak áldozott.
«Que sçais-je?» (Mit tudom én?)
Montaigne könyvét az egész világ elismerte azzal, hogy minden
nyelvre lefordították. Európában 75 kiadásban terjedt el s ugyancsak
válogatott körökben: udvari emberek, katonák, fejedelmek, világfiak,
elmés és fenkölt gondolkozók közt.
Mondhatjuk-e, hogy Montaigne bölcsen beszélt, helyesen s tartós
érvénnyel fejezte ki az életben való viselkedésről szóló emberi
nézetet?
Mi természettől fogva hívők vagyunk. Csak az igazság, vagyis az
ok és okozat közötti összefüggés érdekel. Meg vagyunk győződve,
hogy fonál fűz össze minden dolgot; az egész világ rá van fűzve,
mint kaláris szeme s ember, esemény, élet csupán e fonal
segítségével jut el hozzánk; jönnek-mennek egymásután, csupán
azért, hogy ennek a vonalnak irányát és folytonosságát
megismerjük. Az olyan könyv, vagy állítás, amely azt akarná
kimutatni, hogy itt nincs irányvonal, hanem csak vakeset és khaosz
van, véletlen szerencsétlenség, ok és következés nélküli szerencse,
bolondból lett hős, hősből lett bolond: bizony leverne; mert akár
látjuk, akár nem: hiszünk a kötelék létében. A tehetség hamisíthatja
ezeket a kapcsokat, de a lángész megtalálja az igaziakat. Figyelünk
a tudós szavára, mert előre sejtjük a tőle fölfedett természeti
jelenségek következéseit. Szeretjük mindazt, ami állít, erősít,
összeköt, fenntart, s nem szeretjük, ami szétszór és lerombol.
Megjelenik valaki, aki mindenki szemében konzervatív és
konstruktív: az ő jelenléte jól berendezett társadalmat, földmívelést,
ipart és kereskedelmet, széleskörű intézményeket és kormányt
föltételez. S ha ezek még nem voltak meg, életrekelnek az ő
erőfeszítése által. Ennélfogva fölvidítja és megvigasztalja az
embereket, akik mindezt hamar kiérzik belőle. A tiltakozók és
lázadozók kígyót-békát kiáltanak a fennálló álladalomra, de nem
tárják elénk a maguk ház- vagy államtervét. Ennélfogva bármily
szerény és kevéssé virágzó is a város, az állam, az élet, amelyet
ama tanácsadónk vizsgál, az emberek mégis ahhoz a
konzervatívhoz ragaszkodnak és elfordulnak az újítótól valamíg csak
fejszével és feszítővassal jő.
Ámbár így természettől fogva konzervatívok és az okság hívei
vagyunk s elvetjük a keserű, komor hitetlenséget, a Montaigne-
képviselte szkeptikusoknak is igazuk van s élete bizonyos korában
minden ember közéjük tartozik. Minden felsőbbrendű lélek átmegy
az egyensúlyozás e területén, jobbanmondva, akarja tudni, mint
használja föl a Természet fékeit és súlyait, mint természetes
ellenszereket a vakon hívők és bakfejűek túlzásai és alakiságai
ellen.
A szkepticizmus annak a magatartása, aki vizsgálat tárgyává
teszi azoknak a sajátságoknak viszonyát, amelyeket a társadalom
imád, de amelyeket ő csak irányzatuknál és szellemüknél fogva
tisztel. Ő a templom tornácában áll. A társadalom nem szereti, ha a
fennálló rendet a kétségnek csak fuvalma is éri. Ám a szokások
megvizsgálása, minden magasabbrendű lélek kikerülhetetlen
fejlődésfoka s egyszersmind annak a bizonysága, hogy fölismeri az
erőt, amely minden változás, hullámzás ellenére megmarad.
A felsőbbrendű lélek éppoly idegenül áll szemben a társadalom
bajaival, mint ezek javasolt ellenszereivel. A bölcs kételkedő rossz
polgár; nem konzervatív: látja a vagyon önzését és az intézmények
álmosságát. De semmiféle demokratikus párttal való
együttműködésre sem alkalmas, mert a pártok mindenkitől teljes
odaadást kívánnak és ő átlát a közkeletű demokrata-hazafiságon. Az
ő politikája olyan, mint a Sir Walter Raleighé a Lélek Izenete-ben
vagy a Krishnáé a Bhagavatban: «Nincs senki, aki méltó volna
szeretetemre, gyűlöletemre», mialatt ítélete alá von törvényt,
természetet, vallást, kereskedelmet, szokást. Bár reformista: azért
nem jobb tagja az emberbaráti egyesületeknek. Kiderül, hogy ő nem
előharcosa sem a dolgozó osztályoknak, sem a szegényeknek, sem
a raboknak, sem a rabszolgáknak. Meg van győződve, hogy
életünket ezen a földön nem lehet olyan egyszerűen magyarázni,
mint az iskolás könyvek teszik. Nem akar ezekkel a jóakaratú
dolgokkal szemben az ördög prókátorának pártjára állni, hogy
kikürtöljön minden kétséget és gúnyt, amely elsötétíti előtte a napot;
ámde így szól: mégis csak vannak kétségek.
Élek az alkalommal s Montaigne-ünk nevenapját, a Szent Mihály-
napot megülöm azzal, hogy előszámlálom és leírom ezeket a
kételyeket és tagadásokat. Ki akarom őket rángatni oduikból a nap
világosságára. Úgy kell velük tennünk, ahogy a rendőrség tesz
megrögzött csirkefogókkal: nyilvánosan kiállítjuk őket. Mindjárt nem
lesznek már olyan félelmetesek, mihelyt azonosítják és lajstromba
foglalják őket. De azért igazságosan akarok velük bánni. Nem
veszek elő afféle szónoki ellenvetéseket, amelyeket csak azért
állítanak föl, hogy cáfolattal azonnal leronthassák. A legerősebbeket
keresem ki, akár bírok velök, akár ők bírnak le engem.
Nem foglalkozom a materialisták szkepticizmusával. Tudom,
hogy a négylábúak filozófiája nem fog érvényesülni. Igazán nem
fontos, hogy denevérek és ökrök mit gondolnak. Ellenben az első
veszedelmes tünet, amelyre rámutatok, az értelem könnyelműsége,
mintha az igazi komolyságnak ártalmára volna a sok tudás. Tudni
annyit tesz, mint azt tudni, hogy nem tudhatunk. A jámbor imádkozik;
a lángész gúnyolódik. Mily tiszteletreméltó a komolyság minden
neme, de az értelem megöli. Még az én finomlelkű s csodálatos
barátom, San Carlo, egyike a legáthatóbb elméjű embereknek, is
úgy találja, hogy minden egyenes emelkedés, még ha szárnyaló
jámborságról van is szó, erre az ijesztő belátásra vezet, s híveit
árván küldi vissza. Az én bámulatos San Carlom úgy hitte, hogy a
törvényhozók és szentek meg vannak mérgezve. Üresnek találták a
bárkát; látták, de nem akarták megmondani, hanem közeledő
követőiket ezzel próbálták elriasztani: «Kedves társaink ott van
számotokra a cselekedet!» Ámbár ez a felfedezésem San Carlóban
úgy hatott rám, mint a júliusi fagy vagy menyasszonyomtól kapott
arculütés, ért még egy rosszabb, t. i.: a szentek csömöre. Látomásuk
alatt még mielőtt térdükről fölkeltek, így szóltak: «Úgy látjuk, hogy a
mi hódolatunk és boldogságunk részleges és csonka: a gyanusított
és lesajnált intellektushoz, az értelemhez, a Mephistopheleshez, a
tehetség gimnasztikájához kell fordulnunk!»
Ez azonban elsősorban mumus; s bár sok elegiának szolgáltatott
tárgyat a XIX. században, Byrontól, Goethetől s kevésbé híres
költőktől kezdve s nem is említve sok jeles magános megfigyelőt, –
megvallom, nem nagyon hat a képzeletemre; mert úgylátszik csak
bábuházak és fazekasboltok szétzúzására vonatkozik. A különböző
egyházak hullámzásai távolról sem érintik a hit egyetlen alapelvét
sem. Úgy tartom, hogy az értelem és az erkölcsi érzés harmóniában
van és hogy, ámbár a filozófia kipusztítja a mumusokat,
egyszersmind a bűn gátjait is szolgáltatja s a lélek sarkítását
eszközli. Úgy tartom, mentől bölcsebb valaki, annál
bámulatosabbnak találja a Természet és Erkölcs gazdaságos
berendezését és sokkal teljesebb bizalomra emelkedik.
Ime, a szeszély hatalma, amely semmibe sem veszi, amit nem ő
szőtt össze tényekből és hiedelmekből. Ime, a temperamentum
hatalma, amely nyilván módosítja a hajlamokat és érzéseket. A hitek
és hitetlenségek nyilván strukturális eredetűek és mihelyt ki-ki eléri
azt az egyensúlyt és kezdő sebességet, amely megengedi, hogy az
egész gépezet működni kezdjen, nem lesz szüksége szélső
példákra, hanem rohamosan megváltoztatja majd minden
életnézetét. Életünk márciusi idő, zord és derült ugyanabban az
órában. Keményen, elszántan, a Végzet vasláncában hivén indulunk
neki, s még ha életünk megmentéséről volna is szó, meg nem
fordulnánk: de, íme, egy könyv, egy mellszobor, vagy akár egy név
hangja cikázik át idegeinken, s mi egyszerre csak hiszünk a
szabadakaratban: gyűrűm Bölcs Salamon pecsétje legyen; a Végzet
csak félkegyelműeknek való: az elszánt lelkeknek minden
lehetséges! Új élmény új fordulatot ad gondolatainknak; a józanész
zsarnoksága ismét érvényesül s azt mondjuk: «Nos, a hadsereg
végre is a hírnév, jó modor és költészet kapuja s lám, egészben véve
az önzés vet legjobban, nyeseget legjobban, ő csinálja az emberből
a legjobb kereskedőt, s a legjobb polgárt.» Hát az embernek nézetei
a jóról és rosszról, a végzetről s az okságról csak megszakadt éjjeli
nyugalom vagy emésztési zavar következménye? Hite Istenben és a
Kötelességben nem mélyebb, mint a gyomor tanusága? S mi
biztosítja nézetei állandóságát? Nem szeretem a francia
gyorsaságot: minden héten új egyház és új állam. – Ez a második
tagadás; ám érjen, ami ér. Amennyiben a lelkiállapotok forgását
bizonyítja, úgy hiszem, tulajdon ellenszerét is maga találja meg,
különösen hosszabb korszakokat véve. Mi az államok értelme?
Vajjon a korok általános hangja tanuskodik-e valamely közös alapelv
mellett, avagy nem lehet érzelmi közösséget fölfedezni távoleső idők
és helyek közt? S ha az emberek önérdekének hatalmát mutatja, azt
is elfogadom, mint az isteni törvény részét s kénytelen vagyok
összeegyeztetni a vágyaimmal, amennyire csak tudom.
 Ezek a szavak: «Végzet», «Sors» az emberiség értelmét jelentik
minden korban, – azt, hogy a világ törvényei nem mindig kedveznek
nekünk, hanem sokszor sebeznek és széttörnek bennünket. A
Végzet, mint természet és hajlam fölénk nő, mint a fű. Az Időt
kaszával festjük, a Szerelmet és Szerencsét vaknak, a Végzetet
süketnek. Túlkevés bennünk az ellenálló erő e minket megemésztő
vadsággal szemben. Hogy tudnánk szembeszállni a kikerülhetetlen,
diadalmas, gonosz hatalmakkal? Mit tehetek a faj behatása ellen
tulajdon történetemben? Mit az átöröklés, a szervezetem hajlama, a
skrofulás, lymphatikus szervezet, a nemi tehetetlenség ellen? A zord
éghajlat ellen? A földieim barbársága ellen? Mindent lecáfolhatok,
tagadhatok, csak ezt az örök Hasat nem; annak táplálék kell és
sehogysem tehetem tiszteletreméltóvá.
Az igenlő ösztön főakadálya azonban egy – amely a többit mind
magábazárja: az illuzionisták tana. Kínos nézet van forgalomban,
amely szerint az élet minden főbb alakulata áltat bennünket s a
szabad cselekvőség csak üres szó. Megétettek s elkábítottak
bennünket levegővel, eledellel, asszonnyal, gyermekekkel,
tudománnyal, eseményekkel, s ezek éppúgy hagynak minket, ha
eltávoznak, mint aminőkül jöttükkor találtak. Ezt panaszolják a
mathematikáról; így tesz minden más tudomány, eset és cselekedet.
Látok egy embert, aki már minden tudományon átrágta magát s
ugyanolyan fajankó, mint volt s minden tudós, polgári, társadalmi
hivatalából kiütközi a gyermek. Mindazonáltal kénytelenek vagyunk
életünket nekik szentelni. Valóban kisértésbe jutunk nevelési
rendszerünk alapszabályául és elméletéül elfogadni, hogy Isten:
substancia és a módszere: illuzió. A keleti bölcsek hittek Yoganidra
istenségben, Visnu nagy, kápráztató energiájában, aki legfőbb
tudatlansággal az egész világot elámítja.
Vagy így állítsam föl a tételt? Az élet nagy döbbenete, hogy még
látszata sincs meg az életben az elmélet és gyakorlat
kiegyezésének. Az Értelmet ezt a fennen magasztalt realitást, a
Törvényt megragadjuk olykor-olykor, derűs és mély percekben, a
gondok, bajlódások zajos zűrzavarában, – miknek nincs közvetlen
közük hozzájuk; – megragadjuk, elveszítjük hónapokra, évekre,
megint megtaláljuk, s bizonyos időközben megint elveszítjük. Ha jól
összeszámláljuk, ötven év alatt van egy féltucat okos óránk. S mire
jó ez a sok gond és bajlódás? Módszert sem látunk a világon, csak a
nagynak és kicsinek párhuzamosságát, amelyek sohasem hatnak
egymásra s a legkisebb jelét sem mutatják, hogy egymás felé
hajolnának. Tapasztalat, vagyon, kormányzat, olvasmány, írás mit
sem használnak; mintha egy ember a szobába lép, nem látszik meg
rajta, vajjon yam-gyökérrel vagy bivalyhússal táplálkozott-e; csak
arra törekedett, hogy annyi csontot és izmot szerezzen, amennyire
csak szüksége volt, akár rizsből, akár habból. Olyan nagy az
aránytalanság a törvény égboltja s a véghezvitel hangyája közt, hogy
akár értékes ember valaki, akár ostoba, nem olyan nagy dolog,
ahogy mondani szoktuk. Hozzátegyem-e még, mint ennek a
varázslatnak szemfényvesztését, az elkülönülésnek megdöbbentő
törvényét, mely az együttműködést lehetetlenné teszi? Az ifjú lélek
mohón vágyódik társaság után. Ámde a kultúra és nagyság útja
magános elzárkozásra vezet. Gyakorta csalódott. Nem várhatta,
hogy eszméit rokonszenvesen fogadja a falusi nép, ámde ő
választékos és értelmes emberek közé vitte, de egyáltalában nem
talált barátságos arcokra, hanem csak félreértésre, visszatetszésre
és gúnyolódásra. A nagy emberek csodamód korszerűtlenek és
helyüket tévesztettek, a legnagyobb kíválóságuk lángra gyúlt
individualizmus, amely még jobban elszigeteli őket.
Ilyen és többféle betegsége van a gondolatnak, amiket rendes
tanítóink meg se kísérlenek távoztatni. Minthogy a jó természet az
erény felé hajlik, azt mondjuk-e: «Nincsenek kétségek!» – s kitartunk
a helyes úton! Vajjon az életet vitézül avagy gyáván kell-e élnünk? S
vajjon a kétségek megszüntetése nem lényeges kelléke-e minden
férfiasságnak? Miért oly hihetetlen, hogy egy jól megtermett, komoly
ember kevés élvezetet talál teában, értekezésekben,
katekizmusokban, s vaskosabb tanítás, emberek, munka,
kereskedelem, gazdaság, háború, éhség, bőség, szerelem, gyűlölet,
kétkedés, ijedtség kell neki, hogy a dolgok megvilágosodjanak
előtte? S vajjon nincs-e igaza, hogy azt követeli: ám győzzék meg őt
a maga útján? S ha meggyőzték, meg is érte a bajlódást.
A hit abban áll, hogy a lélek állításait elfogadjuk; a hitetlenség:
hogy tagadjuk azokat. Némely elme képtelen a szkepticizmusra. Ha
olykor-olykor kétkedést nyilvánítanak, ez inkább udvariasság vagy
alkalmazkodás a társadalmak rendes társalgásához.
Elkalandozhatnak a spekulatív bölcselkedés magasságaiba,
mélységeibe, mert bizton haza tudnak onnan térni. Ha egyszer
bebocsáttatást nyertek a Gondolat egeibe, nem bukhatnak többé
vissza az éjszakába, hanem végtelenül hivogatja őket a túlsó part.
Mindenütt mennyek, egek sokaságát látják s istenségek sokaságát
maguk körül. De vannak mások, akiknek szemében az ég ércből
való redőnek látszik, amely elzárja maga elől az alant levő földet. Ez
a temperamentumnak vagy a természetbe mélyebben, vagy
kevésbé mélyen való elmerülésnek kérdése. A legalsóbb
néposztályoknak a hit valamely visszfénye, vagy valami élősdi hit
kell; nem a valóságok látománya, hanem ösztönszerű bizakodásuk a
valóságok látnokaiban és hívőiben. A nagy hívők viselkedése,
gondolatai megdöbbentik őket s meggyőzik őket arról, hogy ezek
láttak valamit, ami ő előlük el van rejtve. Ám az ő érzékies
gondolkozásuk szeretné a hívőt utolsó álláspontjához szegezni,
holott az múlhatlanul tovább halad, egyre halad s most a hitetlen, a
hithez való buzgóságában, máglyára viszi a hívőt.
A nagy hívőket mindig hitetleneknek tartják s megférhetetlen,
fantaszta, atheista s számba nem jövő embereknek. A spiritualista
érzi a kénytelenséget, hogy hitét a kétségeknek egész sorával
fejezze ki. Kegyes lelkek eléjejárulnak terveikkel és kérik
közreműködését. Hogy habozhat? Merő illem- és udvariassági
szabály, hogy egyezzünk bele, amibe csak lehet és nyilatkozzunk
biztatóan s ne dermesztően és komoran. De ő kénytelen így
beszélni: «Óh, ezek a dolgok majd úgy következnek be, ahogyan be
kell következniök. Mit tehettek ez ellen? Ezek a részleges bajok és
bűnök csak hajtásai s gyümölcse annak a fának, amely szemünk
láttára nő. Hiába panaszkodunk a levélre vagy gyümölcsszemre;
vágd le s a fa megint éppoly rosszat fog teremni. Mélyebben kell az
orvoslást kezdened.» A köznapi jótékonykodás olyan tárgy, amelyről
ő nem tud tárgyalni. A nép kérdései nem az övéi; útjaik, módjaik nem
az övéi, s bármit sugall neki jó természete, kénytelen azt mondani,
hogy ő nem talál gyönyörűséget bennök.
 Még azokat a tanokat, amelyek drágák az ember
reménységének, így pl. amelyek az isteni gondviselésről s a lélek
halhatatlanságáról szólnak, még ezeket sem tudják embertársai úgy
fölállítani, hogy ő igent mondhasson reájuk. Ám ő merőben azért
tagad, mert többet hisz, s nem azért, mert kevesebbet. Tisztességből
tagad. Inkább veszi magára a tehetetlen szkepticizmus vádját,
semmint a hazugságét. Azt mondja: én hiszek a világegyetem
erkölcsi tervében, amely a lelkek üdvösségére van; ámde
dogmáitokat torzoknak látom, hogyan szerezhetnék nekik hitelt? Azt
mondja erre valaki: ez fagyos és hitetlen beszéd? A bölcs és
nemeslelkű nem mondja, sőt örülni fog messzelátó jóakaratának,
amely ellenfelének engedheti át a hagyomány és közös hit egész
területét, anélkül, hogy szemernyit veszítene erejéből. Ő minden
átmenet végét nézi. Fox György látta, hogy «a sötétség és halál
óceánja van előtte; mindazonáltal a fény és szeretet végtelen
óceánja hullámzott e sötétség fölött».
A végső megoldás, amelybe belevész a szkepticizmus, az
erkölcsi érzés, amely sohasem veszíti el felsőbbségét. Próbáljanak
ki bízvást minden útat és módot és mérlegeljék minden ellenvetés
súlyát: az erkölcsi érzés valamennyit egészen könnyen lebillenti. Ez
az a csöpp, mely egész tengert ellensúlyoz. Játszhatom a tarka-
barka tényekkel, s szemügyre vehetem azzal a felületességgel,
amelyet szkepticizmusnak nevezünk, de jól tudom, hogy mindjárt
abban a rendben fog előttem megjelenni, amely lehetetlenné teszi a
szkepticizmust. A gondolkozó embernek éreznie kell a gondolatot,
mely a világegyetem szülője: hogy a Természet tömegei folynak és
hullámzanak.
Ez a hit elősegíti az élet és tárgyai egész születését. A világ
telítve van az Istenséggel és a Törvénnyel. Megtűri épp úgy az
igazat, mint a nem igazat, az ostobákat és bolondokat, az őrültség
és csalás diadalát. Nyugodtan szemléli a szakadékot, amely az
ember nagyravágyása és megvalósító ereje, a hatalom kereslete és
kínálata közt tátong, s amely minden lélek tragédiája.
Charles Fourier azt hirdette, hogy «az ember vonzóereje
sorsához viszonylik», vagyis, hogy minden vágy megjövendöli
tulajdon kielégülését. Ámde minden tapasztalat ennek épp az
ellenkezőjét mutatja: az erő elégtelenségéről panaszkodik minden
ifjú és tüzes lélek, s az isteni gondviselést bizonyos
szűkmarkúsággal vádolja. Megmutatta az eget s a földet minden
gyermekének s beleoltotta a vágyat az «egész», az «egyetemes»
iránt; s ez a vágy dühödt és határtalan, olyan éhesség, mint a Téré,
amely mohón vágyódik, hogy égi testek töltsék be; olyan éhesség,
aminővel az ördögök ordítoznak prédájuk, a lelkek után. S
kielégítéséül – minden ember számára napi adagul rendeltetett egy
csöpp, az életerő egy harmatcsöppje; a Serleg olyan nagy, mint a
Tér és tartalma: az élet vizének egyetlen csöppje! Minden ember
olyan étvággyal ébred reggelente, hogy föl tudná falni az egész
naprendszert, mint egy kalácsot; féktelen tettvágy és szenvedély tölti
el; kezét szeretné rátenni a hajnalcsillagra, hogy kísérletet tegyen a
nehézkedéséről vagy vegyi összetételéről. Ám az első mozdulatra,
amellyel erejét ki akarná próbálni, – keze, lába, érzékei fölmondanák
a szolgálatot. Ime, a státusaitól elhagyott császár, aki magánosan
dudorászik, vagy csupa ilyen szerencsétlen flótás-császárok
tömegében: s a szirének még egyre ezt zengik: «az ember
vonzóereje sorsához viszonylik». Ez a hasadék ott tátong minden
házban, minden szűzi szívben, ifjúéban, leányéban, a szent repeső
lelkében: a szakadék az eszményi hatalom legnagyobb igérete és a
nyomorú tapasztalás, realitás között.
De segítségünkre jön az igazság terjedékeny, ruganyos, korlátok
közé nem szorítható természete. Az ember egyre szélesebb
általánosságok révén segít magán. Az élet tanításának gyakorlati
alkalmazása az általánosítás; hinni abban, amit az évek és századok
az órákkal szemben mondanak; ellenállni a részletek és
különlegességek bitorló hatalmának; beléhatolni egyetemes
értelmükbe. A dolgok látszólag ezt mondják, pedig éppen az
ellenkezőjét, azt mondják. A jelenség lehet erkölcstelen, s az
eredmény mégis erkölcsös. A dolgok látszólag lefelé irányulnak,
hogy igazolják a kishitűséget, előmozdítsák az aljasokat és leverjék
az igazak lelkét, s íme úgy a gazok, mint a vértanúk révén az igaz
ügy mozdíttatott elő. Bár minden politikai küzdelemben a hitványak
győznek, bár a társadalom, a látszat szerint arra van kárhoztatva,
hogy a bűnösök egyik csapata kezéből a bűnösök egy másik
csapata kezébe kerüljön, mihelyest a kormány változik, s a civilizáció
haladása főbenjáró bűnök láncolata: mégis mindez valahogyan a
végső céloknak is eleget tesz. Látunk erőszakos eseményeket,
amelyek a külszín szerint egész korszakok polgárosultságát
hátráltatják vagy visszavetik. Ám a világszellem kitűnő úszó, s dacol
a viharokkal, hullámokkal. Fügét mutat a törvényeknek, s a
történelem egész folyamán azt látjuk, hogy az Ég mintha szeretne
alacsony és szegényes eszközökkel élni. S éveken és évszázakon
át, gonosz tényezőkön, semmiségeken és atomokon át
ellenállhatatlanúl áramlik egy hatalmas és jótékony alapirányzat.
Hadd tanúlja meg az ember az állandót a változóban és
hullámzóban; tanúlja meg, hogy viselje el ama dolgok letüntét, miket
tisztelni megszokott volt, úgy, hogy ne veszítse el a tiszteletét;
tanulja meg, hogy nem azért van ezen a földön, hogy ő formáljon,
hanem, hogy ő formáltassék, s bár feneketlen mélység alatt újabb
feneketlen mélység tátong és vélemény félreszorít véleményt,
végezetre valamennyi benne foglaltatik az Örök Végső Okban:
«Bár süllyed a hajóm, csak más tengerre sülyed.»
 VI.

SHAKESPEARE; VAGY: A KÖLTŐ.

A nagy embereket inkább szellemük kiterjedése tünteti ki,

semmint eredetiségük. Ha fürkésszük az eredetiséget, amely abban
áll, hogy valaki a pók módjára beleiből szövi ki a hálóját; vagy hogy
maga talál agyagot s csinál téglát belőle a házépítésre: ebben az
értelemben egyik nagy ember sem eredeti. S az értékes eredetiség
nem is más emberektől való különbözésben áll. A hőst a lovagok és
események sűrű tömege nyomja s meglátván, mire szorul az
emberiség s osztozva vágyában, éles szemét és karja erejét adja
oda, hogy a kívánt pontra segítse. A legnagyobb lángelme a
legnagyobb adósa másoknak. A költő nem gyöngefejű ember, aki
átabotába beszél s minthogy össze-vissza beszél mindent, végül
mégis csak mond valami jót is, hanem korával és hazájával
szorosan egyesült szív. Alkotásában nincs semmi bogaras és
fantasztikus, hanem szelíd és szomorú komolyság, súlyos
meggyőződéssel terhes s abba az irányba kicsúcsosodott, amely
ismeretes kora bármely embere vagy osztálya előtt.
Életünk géniusza féltékeny az egyéniségekre s nem akar
semmiféle egyéni nagyot, hacsak nem az általános, a köz útján. Így
a lángelmének nincs szabad választása. A nagy ember nem ébred
egy szép reggel ezzel: «Csak úgy buzog bennem az élet; tengerre
szállok hát s fölfedezem a délsarki szárazföldet; ma megtalálom a
kör négyszögesítését; fölkavarom a botanikát és új táplálékot
fedezek föl az emberiségnek; új építőművészet motoszkál a
fejemben; új mozgató erőt látok» stb. – nem, hanem eszmék és
események folyamában találja s belülről hajtatva érzi magát
kortársai eszméitől és szükségleteitől. Oda áll az útra, ahová minden
ember szeme néz s minden ujj mutatja az irányt, amelyben mennie
kell. Az Egyház szertartások és pompa közepette nevelte föl őt s ő
muzsikájának sugallatát követve fölépíti a székesegyházat, amelyre
az Egyháznak himnuszai és körmenetei számára szüksége van.
Amaz a háború dühöngése közt él: az neveli föl trombitaszóval,
barakkokban s íme: ő reformálja a hadviselés szabályait. Ismét egy
másik két vidéket lát, amelyek afelől tapogatóznak, hogy a szenet, a
lisztet, a halat a termelés helyéről mint vigyék a fogyasztás helyére s
íme, rájön a vasút eszméjére. Minden mester összegyűjtve találja az
anyagát s hatalmát az a rokonszenv és szeretet adja, amellyel népe
és a megmunkálandó anyag iránt viseltetik. Mily gazdaságosság ez
az erő fölhasználásában s mily kárpótlás az élet rövidségéért.
Mindent kezébe kap; a világ vitte őt ennyire előre az útján. Az emberi
faj járt el előtte, lehordta a halmokat, betöltötte a szakadékokat s
áthidalta a folyóvizeket. Emberek, nemzetek, költők, mívesek, nők:
mind érette dolgoztak s ő belelép munkáik folyamába. Ellenben ha
olyan teret választ, amely a fejlődés irányvonalán kívül esik, kívül
esik a nemzeti érzés és történelem körén, mindent önmagának kell
megtennie: s erőit kimeríti az első előkészületekben. Az ember
hajlandó volna azt állítani: a nagy lángész hatalma egyáltalában nem
az eredetiségben áll, hanem a befogadóképességben, abban, hogy
hagyja, hogy a világ mindent megtegyen érette s az idő szelleme gát
nélkül hassa át a lelkét.
Shakespeare fiatalsága olyan korszakba esett, amidőn az angol
nép mohón kívánta a színjáték mulatságát. Az udvar hamar
zokonvette a politikai célzásokat s megpróbálta elnyomni. A
puritánok növekvő és erélyes pártja és az anglikán egyház vakbuzgó
hívei is el akarták nyomni. Ám a nép kívánta. Korcsmai udvarok,
tetőtlen házak, rögtönzött bekerített helyek a falusi vásárokon kész
játszóhelyekül szolgáltak a vándorszínészeknek. A nép megízlelte
ezt az új élvezetet s valamint mi manapság hiába próbálnók
elnyomni az ujságokat – s még a legerősebb párt is hiába próbálná –
éppoly kevéssé tudta akkor király, főpap, puritán, egyenkint és
egyesülve elnyomni azt a szervet, amely egyben volt ballada,
elbeszélés, hírlap, választógyűlés, olvasmány, Paprika Jancsi és
könyvtár. Sőt valószínű, hogy király, főpap, puritán mind megtalálták
benne a magukét. Minden ok arra vezetett, hogy nemzeti érdekű ügy
lett belőle, amely ugyan nem volt oly tekintélyes, mintha valamely
nagy tudósnak eszébe jutott volna, hogy az angol történelemben
helyet szenteljen neki, de amely mindazonáltal nem vesztett
jelentőségéből azzal, hogy olcsó és igénytelen volt, akárcsak egy
pék boltja. Életerejének legjobb bizonysága az a sereg író, aki ezen
a téren gombamódra ütötte föl a fejét: Kyd, Marlowe, Greene, Ben
Jonson, Chapman, Dekker, Webster, Heywood, Middleton, Peele,
Ford, Massinger, Beaumont és Fletcher.
A színpadnak dolgozó költőre főfontosságú, hogy a színpad
révén megnyerje a közönséget. Nem vesztegeti idejét henye
kísérletezéssel. A közönség szeme, füle, várakozása elő van
készítve. Shakespeare esetében még többről is van szó. Amidőn ő
Stratfordból Londonba jött, egész sereg régi és új szerzőktől való
színdarab volt meg kéziratban s került sorra színre. Itt van Trója
története, amelyet a hallgatóság szívesen hallgat meg valamely
részében akár minden héten; Julius Cæsar halálát és Plutarchos
más történetét sohasem unja meg, egy polcra való angol história a
Brut- és Arthur-krónikáktól kezdve a Henrik királyokig, amelyre
mohón fülel, egy sor szomorújáték, vidám olasz mesék, spanyol
kalandok, miket minden londoni inas ismer. Ezt az egész tömeget
több, kevesebb ügyességgel dolgozták föl a színdarabok s a súgó
tartja kezében a szennyes, elrongyolt kéziratokat. Ma már meg nem
lehet mondani, ki volt az eredeti szerzőjük. Oly hosszú ideig voltak
már a színház birtokában s oly sok felbukkanó lángész bővítette és
módosította azokat, amidőn hol beletett egy beszédet, egy egész
jelenetet, egy dalt, hogy senki sem emelhetett írói tulajdonjogot ezzel
a sokszerzőjű művel szemben. Szerencsére ezt senki nem is akarta.
Ilyen irányban nem voltak még vágyaik. Akkoriban kevés volt az
olvasó, ellenben sok volt a néző és hallgató. Ennélfogva jó helyen
feküdtek ott azok a darabok, ahol éppen voltak. – Shakespeare,
csakúgy mint társai a sok régi darabot olyan tőkeként becsülte,
amivel szabadon lehet kísérletezni. Ha már akkor is körülvette volna
a drámát a «prestige» kerítése, amely a mai tragédiát körülveszi,
semmit sem vittek volna véghez. Az eleven Anglia durva meleg vére
keringett a színdarabokban is, mint az utcai balladákban s megadta
a szükséges testet a légzés és fenséges képzelet számára. A
költőnek szüksége van a népies hagyomány anyagára s amely
egyben kellőkép korlátozza is művészetét. A néphez fűzi, alapot ad
épületének s amidőn annyi kész dolgot ad a kezébe, szabadságot,
időt ad neki, hogy teljes erejével működtethesse képzelete merész
játékát. Röviden kifejezve: a poéta a hagyomány legendájának
annyit köszönhet, amennyit a szobrászat köszönhet a templomnak.
Az egyptomi és görög képfaragás az építészet alárendeltségéből
fejlődött nagyra. A templom falának szolgált díszéül: eleinte csak
nyers relief a lába zatba vésve, azután a dombormű merészebb lett
s egy-egy fej vagy kar emelkedett ki a falból, azonban a csoportok
még egyszer beilleszkedtek az épületbe, amely egyúttal az alakokat
tartó keretül is szolgált; s ha végül el is érték a stílus és kidolgozás
legnagyobb szabadságát, az építészet uralkodó géniusza mégis
bizonyos nyugalmat és tartózkodást követelt meg a szobortól.
Mihelyt azonban a szobor kezdett egészen különválni a templomtól
és palotától, a szobrászművészet hanyatlásnak indult: szeszély,
különködés és fitogtatás szorította ki a régi mérsékletet. Ugyanolyan
ellensúlyozót, aminőt a szobrász az építészetben talált, talált a költő
veszedelmesen izgékony tehetsége a fölhalmozott, régi drámai
anyagban, amelyhez a nép már hozzá volt szokva s amelynek
megvolt olyan kitünősége, hogy egyes lángelme – lett légyen az
bármily rendkívüli – sehogysem alkothatta volna meg.
Shakespeare nyilván igen sokkal tartozik ide is, oda is s kész volt
mindent fölhasználni, ami kezeügyébe akadt. Eredetiségének
mértékeül szolgálhat Malone fáradságos kutatása «VI. Henrik» I., II.
és III. részére vonatkozólag. Eszerint 6043 sorból 1771-et valamely
Shakespeare előtti író írt, 2373-at Shakespeare írt, de elődei
előmunkálatai alapján s csak 1899 sor egészen az ő műve. S a
Malone kutatása alig hagy meg egyetlen drámát is föltétlen eredeti
Shakespeare-műnek. S «VIII. Henrik»-ben magam is előtörni látom
az eredeti törzset, amelyre a Shakespeare finomabb invenciója
rétegeződött. Az első darabot valamely kiválóbb gondolkozó elme
írta, de ennek a szerzőnek rossz füle volt a ritmus iránt.
Megismerem a kezevonását és kadenciáját. Ime: Wolsey monológja
s a következő jelenete Cromwell-lel; itt a Shakespeare métruma
helyét – amelynek az a titka, hogy a gondolat teremti meg magának
a ritmust, úgy hogy, ha értelmesen olvassuk a szöveget, akkor
legjobban eltaláljuk ritmusát is – olyan sorok foglalják el, amelyek
adott ritmusra vannak megírva, úgy hogy a versek szószéki
szónoklatra emlékeztetnek. Ám a darab minden hosszadalmassága
ellenére is tartalmaz olyan vonásokat, amelyek kétségtelenül
Shakespeare kezétől erednek és némely helye, mint pl. a koronázás
elbeszélése olyan, mintha valóságos autogramm volna. Ami
különös, az Erzsébet királynőhöz szóló hódolat rossz ritmusban van
tartva.
Shakespeare jól tudta, hogy a hagyomány jobb mesét szolgáltat,
mint a kitalálás. Ha ezzel veszt is írói hírneve, viszont így nagyban
szaporította művészete forrásait s az ő napjaiban még nem keresték
úgy az eredetiséget, mint manapság. A milliókhoz szóló irodalomnak
még nem volt se híre, se hamva. Az általános olvasás, az olcsó sajtó
ismeretlen fogalmak voltak. A kezdetleges irodalmi közönség
korszakában föllépő nagy költő a saját fénykörébe szív föl minden,
bárhonnan sugárzó fényességet. Magasztos hivatása, hogy az
értelem minden drágakövét az érzés minden virágát a nép közé
vigye s eközben emlékezetét éppoly értékesnek tekinti, mint kitaláló
tehetségét. Ennélfogva vajmi keveset törődik azzal, honnan
származnak a gondolatai, vajjon valamely fordított műből,
hagyományból, távoli országokban való utazások leírásaiból avagy
ihletéből; mert bármily forrásból fakadtak, egyformán kedvesek a
kritikátlan hallgatóságnak.
Sőt egészen közel, otthon is vesz föl kölcsönt Más ember is
mond éppoly bölcs dolgokat, mint ő; csakhogy az közben egy csomó
bolond dolgot is mond s nem is tudja, mikor is mondott bölcset.
Ellenben a költő ismeri a valódi drágakő tüzét és bárhol találja,
magas helyére emeli. Ez – talán – a Homeros szerencsés helyzete;
ez a Chaucer-é és Szádi-é. Ők érezték, hogy minden elmésség az ő
elmésségük s ők éppúgy könyvtárosok és historiográfusok, mint
költők. Minden igényes poéta örököse s egyúttal szétárasztója volt a
világ száz elbeszélésének.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com