Predicting Behavior

Research has found circumstances under which people’s behavior can be
predicted from knowledge of their underlying personality characteristics. If
one classifies personality characteristics and behaviors at a very general
level, combining observations and predicting to a group of behaviors, prediction
improves. For example, predictions would be more accurate if several
measures of a person’s conscientiousness were combined, and then
used to predict an overall level of conscientious behavior in a variety of situations,
than if one measured conscientiousness with a single scale and then
attempted to predict behavior in one specific situation. Prediction on the
basis of personality traits also improves when the situations in which one
seeks to predict behaviors allow for individual variation, as opposed to being
highly constrained by social norms. Five basic personality traits often
emerge in investigations: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotional stability, and culture (high scores on culture reflect characteristics
such as intelligence and refinement). Some researchers view these trait
terms as accurately describing consistent personality differences among
people, while others view them as reflecting the “eye of the beholder” more
than the core of personality.
Ultimately, people’s personality traits and situations interact to produce
behavior. Situations may often determine behavior, but people choose to
place themselves in specific situations that elicit their traits. A child with a
predisposition to aggression may provoke others and thus set the stage for
the expression of aggression; one who is highly sociable may seek out others
in cooperative situations. The relation between personality and behavior is
very complex, and it is difficult to describe fully using standard research
methods.
Research is highly unlikely to answer philosophical questions concerning
human nature; however, considering people from the different points
of view offered by various theories can be an enriching experience in itself.
For example, a Freudian perspective on former United States president
Lyndon Johnson might see his leadership during the Vietnam War as
guided by aggressive instincts or even sublimated sexual instincts. On the
other hand, a humanist might look at Johnson’s presidency and find his
decisions to be guided by the need for self-fulfillment, perhaps citing his
vision of himself as the leader of the “Great Society” as an example of selfactualization.
Social learning theorists would view Johnson’s actions as president
as determined by the rewards, punishments, and observational learning
of his personal learning history, including growing up relatively poor in
Texas and accruing power and respect during his years in the U.S. Senate, as
well as by the reinforcements and punishments Johnson perceived to be
available in the situations in which he found himself during his presidency.
In the final analysis, none of these interpretations could be shown to be blatantly
false or absolutely true. Historians, biographers, and others might
find each to be an enriching viewpoint from which to consider this complex
individual.