Normal Personality and Abnormal Personality

Normal Personality and Abnormal Personality
Personality traits are enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts. Only when personality traits are infl exible and maladaptive and cause signifi cant functional impairment or subjective distress, do they constitute Personality Disorders. (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 686)The personality types diagnosed as disorders were not derived from an empirically based taxonomy or comprehensive theory. Rather, they are the product of a consensus of opinion among the scientists and practitioners who made up the PDs work group authorized by the American Psychiatric Association to develop Axis II. The inclusion of normative, adaptive traits [in DSM-V ] will facilitate the provision of a more comprehensive (and accurate) description of each patient’s general personality structure; it will facilitate an integration of the diagnostic manual with basic science research on generalpersonality structure; and it will facilitate treatment decisions through the recognition of traits that contribute to an understanding of treatment responsivity.

History
Anthropologists and sociologists speculate that the behavioral consistencies we refer to as personality were recognized by the prehistoric peoples who formed the fi rst stable groups and societies. Philosophical accounts of individual differences in human character appeared over 2500 years ago (e.g., Thales, Empedocles, Plato), and by the time of Christ several writers from Greece (e.g., Heraclitus, Socrates, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen) had created sophisticated theories that explained normal and abnormal behaviors as a function of ethereal manipulation, social pressures, personal choices, and physical characteristics such as the quantity of fl uids or “humors” in the body. Although many of the observations made by these pioneers were eclipsed long ago, several important ideas remain current in the twenty-fi rst century; for example, the concepts of temperament, type, taxonomy, and continuity between normal and abnormal behaviors (Durant, 1939; Hergenhahn, 1992; Millon, 2004; Russell, 1945). Progress in understanding personality from a scientifi c perspective took a giant leap forward following Darwin’s (1859) discovery of the evolution of species. The process of natural selection provided an intriguing explanation for the development of complex behavior patterns as means for survival, adaptation, and procreation. Although Darwin did not elaborate on the origin of group and individual differences at the phenotypic (observed) level, his contemporaries and followers (e.g., Galton, Helmholtz, Wundt, James) helped create the fl edgling science of psychology from philosophy as the study of human behavior. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scientifi c and technological advances helped psychologists develop complex explanations for behavioral consistencies as stemming from a mixture of evolutionary, biological, social, and personal variables (Goodwin, 1998; Koch & Leary, 1992). Based on his training in neurology, clinical observations of neurotic patients, and appreciation of Darwinian theory, Sigmund Freud (1895/1966; 1915/1957) sought to develop a comprehensive model of normal and abnormal human behaviors based on neurological evolution. Although many aspects of Freud’s neurobiological model did not take hold among his contemporaries, his method of understanding behavior from a psychodynamic perspective did, and later spawned rival paradigms that viewed behavior as stemming from social, familial, interpersonal, cognitive, and learning factors (e.g., Freud, 1923/1961; Goodwin, 1998; Hergenhahn, 1992). Like Darwin, Freud gave us ideas that allowed people from many disciplines to discuss human behavior from a completely new viewpoint. Freud could explain normal as well as abnormal behavior, and he could treat people with a variety of ailments using his psychoanalytic methods. However, his ideas seemed to explain some behaviors better than others; he lacked a comprehensive taxonomy, and he discouraged experimental validation. The study of personality went in many directions after Freud. In America, the psychologists Gordon Allport (1937) and Henry Murray (1938) developed a scienceof personology that was independent of abnormal behavior. European psychologists continued to be infl uenced by psychodynamic thinkers like Fenichel (1945) and Reich (1949), but some rejected Freud and his followers in favor of the taxonomic, biological observations of those such as Kraepelin (1904), Bleuler (1924), Kretschmer (1925), and Jaspers (1948). The comprehensive models of normal and abnormal personality begun in the 1930s and 1940s by Cattell (1946) and Eysenck (1947) exemplify this latter group. The Second World War (WWII) shifted the heart of science to America as well as to theories that could explain behavior from sociocultural and interpersonal perspectives (e.g., Fromm, Horney, Sullivan). Another consequence of WWII was the proliferation of nonmedically trained mental health practitioners, particularly clinical psychologists, who helped shape the future of mental health theory and treatment. By the last quarter of the twentieth century, students of human behavior could pick from dozens of theories that explained various forms of normal and abnormal functioning from intrapsychic, biological, behavioral, interpersonal, phenomenological, and sociocultural perspectives (Hall & Lindzey, 1979; Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997). Too often these theories focused on specifi c phenomena or global aspects of functioning, normal or abnormal behavior, and either etiology or treatment of dysfunction. In many ways, the person got lost in an effort to explain behavioral details or outside shaping forces. The atheoretical, multiaxial DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) separated personality from other mental disorders and asked practitioners to consider the pathology they were treating from whatever vantage point they felt was appropriate, in the context of the whole person. Just as Darwin and Freud had galvanized the attention of scientists from many walks of life, and created a fl urry of new ideas and research, DSM-III radically changed the way behavioral scientists conducted themselves in the clinic and laboratory. Like deregulation in the modern economic marketplace, by cutting itself loose from the past DSM-III gave free reign to the scientifi c community to step in and fi ll the knowledge gaps created by the new system. This alone brought a stampade of new theorists and researchers into the area. But just as central is that by giving PDs their own axis, and asking clinicians to consider the stable trait characteristics of all their patients, personality was elevated to a level of importance it had never had before. A consequence of this is that many more patients were diagnosed with PDs (e.g., Loranger, 1990). With more PD patients to treat, better treatments were needed. More money poured into PD research, and of course, this attracted more people into the area. After DSM-III researchers began focusing on the interface between normal and abnormal behaviors. They started questioning the need for separate theories that addressed symptoms outside the scope of personality, or health beyond the scope of pathology, and helped people begin to see the similarities in theories hat previously seemed different. The hope of integrating ideas about the nature of human development, perso nality functioning, psychopathology, and treatment is again pushing through. People from different disciplines and schools of thought are now working toward a comprehensive, biopsychosocial understanding of normal and abnormal behaviors that can encompass, or be compatible with, the many perspectives that have shown promise in the past, including biological, psychodynamic, sociocultural, and interpersonal (Strack & Lorr, 1994a). In the fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst century the study of personality has moved beyond the confi nes of the DSM (Livesley, 2001a; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). As notedpreviously, the DSM model does not offer an empirically based taxonomy, and it has kept its categorical distinction between normality and pathology in the face of scientifi c evidence that argues against this. But just as contemporary personologists have moved away from atheoretical, dualistic conceptions of human behavior, they no longer expect a single model of behavior to encompass the vast array of human features, both normal and abnormal. There is greater tolerance for, and interest in, dimensional conceptualizations of personality and psychopathology that have empirical backing, as well as models that predict and demonstrate discontinuity in some behaviors and disorders (e.g., schizotypy; Lenzenweger & Korfi ne, 1992).

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY
Although initiated in the 1940s, the movement to internationalize counseling psychology in the United States only began to pick up steam over the past decade. Many messages have been sent articulating the utility of cross-cultural competence, but it has taken some time for these messages to take root. Since 2000, there has been an accelerated interest in international perspectives in U.S. counseling psychology journals, a supportive infrastructure in U.S. professional associations, growing interest in training international students, and increased cross-national communication and collaborations. Moreover, counseling and counseling psychology professions are vigorously growing around the world, with a multiplicity of professional identities, training and credentialing standards, and professional service delivery models in evidence to address a broad range of societal needs.
Overcoming Ethnocentrism
Several authors have suggested that the biggest challenges for U.S. psychologists, including counseling psychologists, is overcoming ethnocentrism (e.g., Cheung, 2000; Gerstein, 2005; Heppner, 2006;Leong & Blustein, 2000; Marsella, 1998; McWhirter, 2000; Norsworthy, 2005; Pedersen & Leong, 1997; Segal, Lonner & Berry, 1998). During the 1980s, some counseling psychologists questioned the value of such international experiences. McWhirter (2000) wrote that “my professional colleagues were supportive and happy for me, but many could not understand why a counseling psychologist would want to take his family to Turkey for anything other than a brief tourist trip, and some even questioned that” .It was not uncommon for the motivations of counseling psychologists interested in international topics to be questioned, with the presumption that they are “only looking for an excuse for foreign travel” (McWhirter, 2000, p. 118). Undoubtedly, such attitudes and beliefs among U.S. counseling psychologist affected the development of the international movement in the counseling profession in the past. When we are unaware of cultural issues, it is difficult to know what we do not know; this lack of awareness significantly restricts understanding, sensitivity, and appropriate responses. Based on the U.S. multicultural literature, exposure may be an important first step in breaking down ethnocentric walls. Qualitative and single-subject methods in conjunction with quantitative designs may be useful for scholars who choose to examine ethnocentrism and ways to reduce its limiting influences (see Morrow, Rakhsha, & Castaneda, 2001, regarding qualitative research designs that can be applied to studying cross-cultural ethnocentrism).

Enhancing Cross-Cultural Competence
Historical analysis of the past 60 years suggests that the U.S. counseling psychology profession has evolved from the notion of “helping” our international colleagues and moved toward building mutually beneficial, egalitarian cross-national collaborative relationships. However, building such relationships is often a complicated and challenging process that is not well understood. As Heppner (2006) noted, “it is all too easy to offend our international colleagues, and at the same time, all too easy for us to become anxious or feel offended as well” (p. 169). Such feelings often inhibit further development of cross-national collaborative relationships. Thus, a key issue for the future of the profession is enhancing cross-cultural competence (Heppner, 2006). Anumber of scholars have written about various aspects of cross-cultural competence (e.g., Heppner, 2006; Leong & Ponterotto, 2003). Marsella and Pedersen (2004) provided a wide array of suggestions for internationalizing the counseling psychology curriculum. At this point, a major challenge for U.S. counseling psychologists is not only overcoming our ethnocentrism, but also deconstructing and thereby understanding the ambiguous construct of cross-cultural competence. Cross-cultural competence is so basic and fundamental to the internationalization movement, but also so ambiguous and overwhelming at the same time. The challenge is not only to define and assess cross-cultural competence (i.e., attitudes, knowledge, awareness, and skills), but also to learnhowto promote it in the next generation of counseling psychologists. Given the dearth of information on this topic, qualitative methodologies and singlesubject methodology may prove useful in promoting model building.

Cultural Sensitivity versus Imposed Etics in Theory Development

A number of cross-cultural psychologists have warned of the dangers associated with the monopoly and hegemony of Western models of science (e.g., Gerstein, 2005; Leong, 2002; Marsella, 1998, 2006; Norsworthy, 2005). An important challenge is to recognize that our theoretical models may work in the United States but not necessarily in other countries. Cross-cultural psychologists have labeled this ethnocentric tendency in scienceimapsosed etics—the assumption that the theories and models that apply to a person’s cultural group are universal and can be easily applied to other cultural groups. There are several approaches to including a cultural context in psychological theories (Heine et al., 2004; Leong, 2002). The first is thueniversalismapproach where culture is considered to bean unimportant and nuisance variable that needs little or no attention. The cultural variable is essentially ignored. This universalism approach serves as the foundation for “imposed etics.” The second is theculture assimilationapproach wherein cultural differences are recognized but minimized based on the “melting pot” assumption that other racial or cultural groups will assimilate to mainstreamAmerican culture (Western European culture). To the extent that these groups assimilate, mainstream psychological theories and models will work equally well with them. In the international realm, this implies that Western models can be transported to other cultures and that globalization will make it relatively easy for these models to be assimilated into other countries. Leong and colleagues (Leong & Lee, 2006; Leong & Serafica, 2001; Leong & Tang, 2002) have proposed another approach, the cultural accommodation model (CAM). This model aims to identify the missing cultural elements in the Western models from a cross-cultural perspective and potential culture-specific variables that can be used to address these cultural lacunae in Western models. This model involves three steps: (1) identifying the cultural gaps or blind spots of existingWestern theories and models that restrict their cultural validity, (2) selecting current culturally specific concepts and models from cross-cultural and ethnic minority psychology to fill in the cultural gaps and modify or accommodate the theory to these cultural groups, and (3) testing the culturally accommodated theory to determine if it has incremental validity beyond the culturally unaccommodated theory. Most important, the CAM model strongly suggested that psychologists as scientists should test the theory or model with demonstrated incremental validity provided by the culture-specific variables (Quintana, Troyano, & Taylor, 2001). Asignificant amount of cross-cultural research is aimed at evaluating the cultural validity ofWestern models when applied to other cultures. In some instances, the Western models of psychology will be found to be culturally valid and more than adequate when directly applied to cultural groups in other countries or regions. In other instances, some of the cultural validity studies will find problems and inadequacies in Western models. It is important to note that although a Western model, or a modified Western model using the CAM or any other approach, might be able to predict or explain a particular phenomenon (e.g., psychological adjustment) in another culture outside the United States, it may not necessarily depict the most important constructs to explain a particular phenomenon in that culture. Although Western-based instruments have been appropriately translated, back-translated, and predict intended outcomes in other cultures, the cultural assumptions inherent in those inventories may not necessarily include the most important psychological constructs pertaining to that phenomenon in a non-Western culture. For example, U.S.-based applied problem solving and coping inventories have been utilized in many cultures around the world. But Heppner et al. (2006) found very different coping factors when Asian values and customs were utilized to create items; these East Asian coping factors depicted other psychological constructs that do not appear in U.S. models. In short, the underlying cultural assumptionsbionththeWestern models as well as the target culture must be adequately addressed in applying any psychological models from one culture to another. Thus, another approach is to first identify constructs and build theoretical models based on the cultural assumptions and customs of that particular culture, and then examine howWestern-based constructs (and their underlying values) that have been particularly useful in the United States might add to a particular cultural model. This approach is more in line with the development of indigenous models to explain psychological phenomena in a particular culture and similar to the derived etic method in cross-cultural psychology research (Berry, 1989 ). In short, identifying the match underlying the assumptions/cultural values of both cultures is a critical step to becoming culturally sensitive in cross-cultural theory development. Just as we cannot assume that a Western theory of counseling is automatically going to work for other cultural groups, we cannot assume that certain culture-specific variables being added in any approach are automatically going to improve the cultural validity of the theory in question Gerstein, & Canel, in press). It is quite conceivable that different versions of a culturally sensitive model will have to be tested before the best set of variables can be found. The major foci andchallenge for counseling psychology cross-cultural research is to develop knowledge bases and to interpret what we have observed in a culturally sensitive and appropriate way.

Supporting and Extending Indigenous Psychologies
Related to the need to avoid imposed etics, there has been a movement in cross-cultural psychology that calls for the support oifndigenous psychologieass a countervailing force to the wholesale exportation ofWestern models of psychology to other parts of the world (Kim & Berry, 1993).Aquote from Durgan and Sinha (1993) in a chapter on indigenous psychology in India captures the essence of the problem quite well: When modern scientific psychology, based on the empirical, mechanistic, and materialistic orientations of the West, was imported into India as part of the general transfer of knowledge, it came in as a ready made intellectual package in the first decade of the cent.u.r.yI.nfact, this transfer in a way constituted an element of the political domination of theWest over the third world countries in the general process of modernization and Westernization . . . . Research conducted was by and large repetitive and replicative in character, the object being to supplement studies done in the West . . . . Thus, the discipline remained at best a pale copy of Western psychology, rightly designated as a Euro-American product with very little concern with social reality as it prevailed in India.
With the increasing internationalization of U.S. counseling psychology, it is incumbent on us not only to examine the cultural relevance of our models of counseling in other countries but also to support the identification, development, and evaluation of indigenous models of helping as potentially equally valid ways of healing. Indeed, many of these indigenous models predateWestern models of counseling and psychotherapy. We also have much to gain by testing the generalizability of the knowledge and theories developed in other countries to U.S. populations. Our international colleagues have developed tremendous knowledge bases through their research and practice spanning hundreds and thousands of years. Ponterotto (Chapter 8, this volume) addresses the potential utility for U.S. counseling psychologists to apply knowledge on thmeulticultural personalitythat has been developed in the Netherlands. Moreover, the culturally related knowledge from other countries has the potential to help us conceptualize novel intervention strategies to address old problems. For example, the collectivistic-based school counseling program (Chao, Wang, & Yang, 2006) in Taiwan has tremendous potential for U.S. school counselors. Our challenge is to identify relevant knowledge bases developed in other countries and test their applicability to solving problems in the United States.
Promoting the Integration of Multicultural and Cross-Cultural Foci

American counseling psychologists need to promote the integration and coexistence of multicultural and cross-cultural foci. In the past, there has been some tension between psychologists engaged in the U.S. multicultural movement and those engaged in cross-national activities. Sometimes the tension seems to result from the belief that a focus on cross-cultural issues will diminish or detract from a focus on multicultural issues, or vice versa. Henderson, Spigner-Littles, and Milhouse (2006) cited the necessity of understanding both indigenous and foreign cultures, “if practitioners are to understand traditional African Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and Mexican Americans, they must first understand traditional African, Chinese, Japanese, and Mexican cultures” (p. vii). A common goal of both foci is to promote the understanding of the role of culture in human behavior, and the absolute necessity of utilizing a cultural context in all aspects of our work as counseling psychologists. An increased sensitivity to the role of culture in understanding human behavior makes us better counseling psychologists. It is incumbent on scholars to demonstrate how multicultural and cross-cultural foci can build on and enrich one another in the service of common goals.Challenge 6: Promoting Cross-National Research Collaborations Time and space have shrunk, making communication and travel across national borders commonplace. At this time, U.S. counseling psychologists often travel to different countries; learn from others’models, worldviews, and experiences; and work collaboratively with international colleagues. It is more than abundantly clear that human beings’ emotions, cognitive functions, motivations, reasoning, problem solving, and many other psychological constructs are learned, displayed, and interpreted in cultural contexts. Cross-cultural research has the potential to greatly enhance the knowledge bases in our specialty. Moreover, as responsible and culturally sensitive researchers, we need to obtain data from more international samples to expand knowledge bases.
It has been almost 30 years since the first call for diverse methodologies (Gelso, 1979), which has had a significant impact on counseling psychology (Heppner, Wampold, & Kivlighan, 2008). We envision another methodological revolution, one that will spark a fundamental change in the way we structure research questions and ideas, as well as conduct and evaluate research. Future researchers will constantly consult and collaborate with their international colleagues to exchange the latest research findings, formulate their research ideas in multinational research teams, collect data from many different countries, and discuss their results across various cultural contexts. Their papers will be reviewed by U.S. and international editors and reviewers. The challenge for the counseling profession is how to promote and conduct meaningful cross-national research and create cross-cultural knowledge bases in counseling psychology. Two strategies to promote cross-cultural knowledge are by composing cross-national research teams and by conducting research on immigrant or international populations in the United States. The different cultural assumptions among members of international research teams can create obstacles and challenges. International research collaboration involves time, energy, and a good deal of relationship development. Research team members with different cultural perspectives may require more cross-cultural problem solving.As with domestic research teams, it is essential to start with networking and relationship building to get to know potential research collaborators. There is a need for more information about what factors promote successful cross-national research. Onestrategy is to identify “best practices” by studying cross-national research teams that have been more and less effective. Another strategy is to study “best practices” in training the next generation of crossnational researchers in our graduate programs. It might also be useful to study successful cross-national researchers to identify effective coping strategies, communication styles, and personality variables.We need to know much more about the factors that promote successful cross-national research teams.
Promoting Culturally Valid Practice around the Globe
Counseling practitioners worldwide often find inspiring new ideas from their foreign peers. Tai Chi and meditation are accepted as being therapeutic by a larger audience in the United States more now than 10 years ago. There is currently an active exchange of practical experiences with cohorts from different countries. There is a growing interest by U.S. researchers in the mental health and career needs in several Asian countries, most notably China. There is also interest in exporting U.S. counseling knowledge, philosophy, and techniques to China. However, we are responsible for ensuring that our knowledge, philosophy, and techniques are culturally relevant in different environments. Practice developments in counseling can greatly facilitate understanding of how culture affects the counseling process and outcomes across different cultures. A major challenge is not only to internationalize U.S. counseling practice, but also to validate, present, and publish research on the utility of cross-cultural practice.

Enhancing and Promoting International Education

There are a number of unaddressed questions about the type of training that is best for international students. Most if not all of theAPA-accredited doctoral programs train students in U.S.-based assessmentmodels, counseling theories, and intervention strategies. Although the multicultural movement has broadened the U.S. training model overall, it remains aWestern model based onWestern values. Some colleagues maintain that international students enrolled in U.S. training programs should be able to counsel effectively in the United States and, indeed, some international graduates do seek employment in the United States. But should the mission of our training programs be bound to U.S. culture alone, or should it include the ability to work in other cultures? Should we have additional or different training goals for students intending to return to their home countries? Are these students expected to attain the same level of skill using Western counseling methods as U.S. students? Should an Asian international student who plans to return to his or her country also learn how to confront a client in ways that include relevant Asian values (e.g., interpersonal harmony)? One challenge facing the counseling profession pertains to the training goals for international students who plan to return to their home countries, or who have different worldviews and interpersonal styles that fit an individualistic culture more or less well. A related challenge pertains to understanding how international students can promote the understanding of cultural differences and sensitivity in our training programs. A recent study found that 90% of counselor educators sampled agreed that the cross-cultural perspectives of international counseling students had positively enriched their program, and 83% agreed that working with international counseling students had positively affected them personally and professionally (Ng, 2006).We believe that we could learn much more from the international students currently enrolled on our campuses . Sometimes the learning in our training programs is perceived as primarily a unidirectional process (from instructor to student) as opposed to a bidirectional process where international students and U.S. students and faculty learn about cross-cultural issues from their interactions and discussions throughout the educational process. Moreover, having good relationships between domestic and international students today means networking with international leaders tomorrow. Promoting meaningful linkages between our domestic and international students may contribute to the internationalization of our profession. Thus, a related challenge for U.S. training programs is to identify ways to benefit maximally from the diverse cross-cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills that currently exist in many counselor training programs. Finally, there is much to gain from U.S. graduate students studying abroad (e.g., see Alexander et al., 2005). There are many ways for students to learn from our international colleagues, such as workshops, brief 2-week immersions, semester- or year-long study abroad experiences, and dual-degree programs. Similar to the reports from Fulbright scholars, students report that their cross-cultural learning experiences are not only stimulating, but also sometimes transforming (e.g., Friedlander et al., 2002). But why are so few counseling psychology graduate students studying abroad? (J. Ponterotto, personal communication, February 22, 2007). Our challenge is to internationalize the training curriculum by developing effective cross-cultural learning opportunities for U.S. students in counseling psychology.

Collaboration among Counseling Organizations
In analyzing the recent history of U.S. counseling psychology, Heppner et al. (2000) concluded, “the profession has now evolved beyond any one organization. Collaboration among Division 17, CCPTP [Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs], ACCTA [Association of Counseling Center Training Agencies], and other groups has been and will continue to be critically important in the future” . Yet collaboration only among U.S.-based counseling organizations will not be sufficient in the future. Rather, it will be increasingly important to collaborate across counseling organizations around the globe—“there are common elements in the development of counseling psychology across national boundaries, and the voices of counseling psychology leaders from one country can support and lend credence in another country” (Heppner, 2006,). We have much to share and learn from each other’s experiences. The challenge is how to overcome cross-cultural obstacles to promote collaboration among counseling organizations around the world. It is incumbent on counseling leaders to understandthe many benefits of such collaboration and to build the necessary organizational structures to promote global alliances.

Information-processing types

Information-processing types
It is rather generally assumed that information processing is a major basis for most behaviours which humans demonstrate in daily life conditions. Individual differences in the ways people process information are major candidates for defining personality. However, what type of model is best suited to accommodate individual differences based on information processing? Our contribution to answering that question is based on the results of our studies. The physiological measures scrutinized here have found an almost natural fit in three independent dimensions. Formally speaking, those dimensions come up to all requirements that are usually imposed on personality traits. earlier studies of the energetic dimensions have invariably revealed a great deal of consistency across time and across situations. Furthermore energetics have revealed a great deal of genetic influence. Accordingly, if one intends to study personality at the energetics level, information-processing traits are the obvious choice. However, if one is interested in overt behaviour the picture changes drastically. As regards overt behaviour the energetic dimensions interact. This implies that a given score on one dimension may underlie behaviours that are qualitatively different depending on the individual’s scores on the other dimensions. Accordingly, rather than three different trait dimensions regarding overt behaviour we must think in terms of eight different types. Personality can be defined as the intra-individual organization of information-processing dimensions. Personality types are persons with similar intra-individual organizations of the information-processing dimensions. If our information-processing variables occupy the central position we think they do, persons of the same type may be expected to behave in similar ways. Information processing is directly connected with the presence or absence of control in a variety of situations. I expect information processing to become manifest in the behaviours that people show in daily life. In domains of a recurrent nature they will
obtain the character of ‘styles’. Examples are the styles that people demonstrate in major professional activities like teaching, sports, arts, selling and managing. For a long time, psychologists have successfully explored and mapped styles in those areas. However, why and how they are connected with personality has never been sufficiently explained. Our informationprocessing approach may provide a new framework here. An assumption to be tested first is that information processing provides a basis for job control in a more general sense.
Direct evidence bearing on this question has been obtained in a recent study of job control (Riteco, 1998). Riteco asked 180 workers at a Dutch university to indicate how far they were able to control a number of key situations in teaching and research. He also asked them to indicate to what extent they pursued the different delta goals in their work.preference for each of the delta goals is connected with job control. This finding suggests that in the same university jobs different delta goals may be emphasized all having a positive effect on control in key situations. This is tantamount to saying that it may be useful to distinguish among different occupational styles. The information-processing types proposed here may provide an explanation. To study the capacity of the information-processing types to explain occupational styles we addressed the domains of teaching, designing and leadership. For teaching we re-analysed the data of a now classical study of teaching styles (Hettema, 1972). In that study lessons given by 100 high school teachers in the areas of English and mathematics were observed. Detailed observation of teacher behaviour included technical acts, like explaining, asking questions, giving feedback, using the blackboard, but also social behaviours likecracking jokes, addressing pupils, giving support, maintaining order, gesticulating, punishing, etc. Based on long-term behaviour observation, we found clear differences in the ways teachers dealt with subject matter, with classroom activities and with student social behaviour. Teacher behaviour could be classified as reflecting one of six different styles. The styles were labelled the normative, structuring, accepting, stimulating, directive and supportive style of teaching. For the different styles we identified the dominant delta goal present in the behaviours defining the style and found some clear relationships with delta social control, control, proximity, knowledge, agency and support .

A completely different area is architectural designing. Van Bakel (1995; Hettema and Van Bakel, 1997) studied information processing in reports of 52 experienced architects while designing new buildings. As a major tool he used an S-R inventory containing ten typical designing situations. In each situation the architects reported on the decisions they would make when confronted with such a task. Decisions could be based mainly on the building site S, the program or design brief P, or pre-existing conceptions C of what the building should look like. The results showed clear individual differences in information processing that were rather consistent across different designing tasks. The different ways of processing information could be allocated to six designing styles. The feasability style is dominated by making inventories to be aware of all the problems to be met, emphasizing delta knowledge. Typical for the pragmatic style are trial and error toimprove the existing conditions before designing starts: delta preparation. A primary concern in the convergent style is turn to the building site and study the natural environment as a major prerequisite. Delta proximity may be the underlying delta goal. In
the analogic style the design is derived analogically from forms existing before in the head of the architect. This rather conservative approach might reflect delta control. In the
iconic style a fixed mental image is adopted as a powerful guideline and all other data are
subordinate to that image. Delta agency might be the underlying goal. In the syntactic style geometrical proportions and modular grids are employed as shape decision rules. This type of designing provides the designer with authority for a great manydecisions that are otherwise left to his own judgement: delta social control. An area where styles have obtained special attention is leadership. In earlier work the main objective of leadership research was to provide means for selecting good managers. This approach put special emphasis on authoritarian versus democratic leadership, sometimes completed with laissez-faire. However, in recent work more refinement has been obtained. Thus, for instance, House and Mitchell (1974) made a distinction into six different styles: authoritarian, performance-oriented, participating, democratic, directive and supporting styles of leadership. In this model, rather than criteria used by selectors the goals of the leaders are emphasized. Democratic leaders are primarily interested in knowing what their co-workers want. Participating leaders want to work in close connection with the others. Performance-oriented leaders are interested in production or output, no matter how this is attained. Supporting leaders on the other hand, are especially concerned with underachievers, for whom they provide help whenever necessary. The main objective of directive leaders is to have others behave according to their own preferences. Finally, authoritarian leaders will impose norms, pass judgement and punish co-workers not living up to company standards. There are some clear relationships between the leader goals and the delta goals proposed here.Styles like these have been proposed without much theory guiding them. Particularly, the question why styles are so hard to be altered has always remainedenigmatic. Now it can be seen why and how persons functioning in the same environment emphasizing the same company goals use different stylistic means for goal attainment.
Clearly much work remains to be done in the area of occupational styles.The information-processing types may be crystallized in the delta goals emphasized. A further step would be to assess the dominant energetic patterns of those people confronted with films representing those settings.

Emotion-volition interactions

Emotion-volition interactions
A central contention of this chapter is that part of the individual differences observed in social information-processing elements are due to inheritable differences in informationprocessing energetics. Our first hypothesis states that all three energetic dimensions are involved. However, rather than a linear additive model we expected the dimensions to interact as regards the different elements of social information processing. Second hypothesis states that specific patterns of emotional and volitional information processingunderlie goals and beliefs. For instance, in primary control delta goals are central elements. People with a tendency to react with a specific energetic pattern are expected to pursue the corresponding delta goal rather than people with a tendency to react with other energetic patterns. For primary control the hypotheses were tested in a recent study in which 87 female twins were observed in eight different situations (Hettema and Lensvelt- Mulders, in preparation). The situations were presented in two different modes: films and verbal descriptions. During the films physiological reactions on seven variables were registered continuously and cast into dimension scores using the procedures given before. Each S obtained scores on each dimension in each situation. Delta goals were measured with an SR questionnaire in which brief descriptions of the situations were followed by 28 action descriptions. The actions were prototypical actions each representing one of the delta goals of social control, control, proximity, knowledge, agency, or preparation. The actions were obtained from four domains—the mental, social, physical and instrumental domains. In each situation offered the Ss indicated in how far they would consider acting like described. Delta goal scores were averages across domains. Our first analysis was directed at identifying the basic model underlying the relations. Two models were considered: the linear additive model and the interactive model. To test the models we obtained average dimension scores and average delta goal scores across the eight situations. First for the prediction of each delta goal the linear model was tested using multiple regression analysis as a tool. The resulting multiple Rs ranged from 0.08 for delta preparation to 0.15 for delta social control. Subsequently, we tested the interaction model by inserting two-way and three-way interaction terms in the regression model. The multiple Rs increased to values ranging from 0.20 for delta preparation to 0.26 for delta social control. In addition, for each analysis the regression coefficients for interactions were compared with those for the main effects. For the main effects the median (absolute) coefficient was 0.15, for first order interactions 0.21, and for second order interactions we found 0.38. We concluded that underlying delta goals are interactive energetic patterns rather than global differences in overall activity. The patterns were conceived as information-processing types emphasizing either controlled or automatic processing in each dimension. With dichotomies on the three dimensions there are eight different patterns Inspection of the regression coefficients led to hypotheses about the precise form of the patterns involved in each delta goal. The hypotheses were tested on relatively independent data using differences in situations rather than persons as a tool. First of all, we divided our sample into two equivalent subsamples of twin halves. For each subsample in each situation two scores were obtained: the number of patterns predicted to underlie a delta goal and the average delta goal preference score.Clearly, there are also differences in the specific systems emphasized. For instance controlled effort, sometimes connected with general intelligence, is related with delta knowledge, delta preparation, delta control and delta agency, but not with delta proximity or delta social control. As a whole these results are promising, although it should be kept in mind that the correlations reflect differences among situations, not individual differences.

Secondary control
A major difference between primary and secondary control is that primary control is proactive whereas secondary control is reactive. Primary control includes actions to maintain or increase control. For primary control no specific eliciting situation is required. Secondary control on the other hand includes reactions elicited by an uncontrollable situation. The prototype of uncontrollable situations are stress situations. Thus our central hypothesis regarding secondary control states that part of individual differences observed in coping reactions to stressful situations are due to inheritable differences in reactivity on the three energetic dimensions. Secondary control in general and coping in particular serves to give meaning to otherwise uncontrollable events. However, individuals show vast differences in the ways they provide meaning to the situation prevailing. Connected with those differences are the beliefs of individuals. In our view, beliefs are based on specific forms of processing emotional and volitional information. People with a tendency to react with those forms are expected to use the corresponding coping style rather than people tending to react with other forms. This hypothesis was tested in a recent study (Hettema and Geenen, in preparation) in which 43 male Ss were observed while being confronted with an accident presented on film. This particular film was chosen because, as earlier research had shown, watchingother people suffering is a potent stressor. The film contains a quiet household situation interrupted with an accident in which a person is hurt. The film was presented five consecutive times and physiological reactions were monitored continuously. All Ss completed a coping inventory based on the work of Folkman and Lazarus. The results indicated that when the actual stressor was met there was an increase in automatic reactivity in all systems reflecting emotion. As a reaction there was an increase of controlled activity in all systems reflecting volition. During the replications, previous to meeting the stressor all systems gave an increase of volitional activity interpreted as coping. Correlations were computed between energetic dimension scores in those phases and coping style.
The amount of stress experienced in a given situation is not necessarily equal for different persons. Our approach assumes differences in experience to occur as a function of the ways in which the information is processed. While the same situation is more stressful for some Ss than for others, coping behaviour will be more pronounced for those Ss. Therefore, clearly, this study needs replication with other stressors. Nevertheless we did find correlations between informationprocessing dimensions and some of the coping styles. These outcomes suggest that, like delta goals, coping styles may be characterized by specific patterns of information processing. Restricting ourselves to the significant correlations found the data suggest that two styles—planful/rational and daydreams/fantasies are predominantly volitional. Two other styles-self-blame and distancing—are mixed types involving emotion as well as volition.

Behaviour genetics

Behaviour genetics
To my knowledge and surprise, our attempts to find direct behaviour genetics data on information processing were not successful. True, behaviour genetics has studied variables like mental abilities and personality traits, and interpreted the outcomes to reflect inheritable differences in information processing. However, in those studies no direct processing indices were collected. The recent work of Lensvelt-Mulders (2000; Lensvelt-Mulders and Hettema, 2001) has changed this picture. Using the experimental design explained earlier she studied the reactions of 100 MZ and DZ twins to eight films and analysed scores on the three dimensions identified earlier with quantitative genetic analysis. As a result heritability estimates (h2) revealed values of 0.79 for arousal, 0.81 for effort and 0.82 for activation. Interestingly, the heritability estimates (h2) for the single variables were much lower ranging from 0.28 for GSL to 0.42 for SBP. Heritability estimates for the three dimensions are among the highest ever found for personality measures of individual differences. The heritability of information-processing energetics appears to be firmly established.

Operationalization and measurement

Operationalization and measurement
Biological models of information processing have been studied almost invariably in laboratory settings. A major aim of our research has been to study information processing in daily life situations. The situations were derived from an extensive taxonomy of situations developed by Van Heck (1989), in which over 200 situations have been defined meticulously in terms of cues and features. For the experimental study of information processing 25 situations were selected and cast in films (Hettema et al., 1989; Hettema, 1994). During the films seven psychophysiological reactions presumably relevant for the Pribram-McGuinness model were measured continuously. Reactions included heart interbeat intervals (HIV), pulse transit time (PTT), T-wave amplitude (TWA), galvanic skin response level (GSL), finger temperature (FTT), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and
systolic blood pressure (SBP). The pattern of physiological reactions was taken to reflect information processing at each moment in time. This claim was tested in different studies
(Hettema et al., 2000). Our analyses included several thousands of reaction patterns. First, after proper standardization correcting for time trends as well as for base levels, on
the basis of covariations among the measures we derived three dimensions, interpreted as
arousal, activation and effort. Subsequently, the specific characteristics of each dimension were tested. As expected, the arousal dimension was particularly sensitive to novelty induced with films mismatching existing expectancies. The activation dimension was sensitive to evaluative aspects, i.e. good versus bad. Evaluations were induced with positive versus negative explanations of the films’ content prior to exposition. The effortdimension reflected involvement versus detachment on the side of our subjects, induced through instructions emphasizing involvement versus detachment. Finally, in a separate study we found evidence on the nature of each dimension to reflect controlled versus automatic processing. We concluded that our three dimensions represented arousal, activation and effort as proposed by Pribram and McGuinness (1975, 1992).
Individual differences
A major problem yet to be solved is individual differences in information-processing energetics. Since the Pribram-McGuinness model was neither intended nor ever used to study individual differences this was a major question to be answered. We were especially interested in the consistency of individual reactions across different situations. To that effect for each dimension we analysed the reactions of our Ss during seven different films and tested for consistency across situations. Intraclass correlations were 0.80 for arousal, 0.84 for effort, and 0.84 for activation indicating high levels of consistency across situations (Hettema et al., 2000). These results suggest that in each dimension the ordering of subjects remains about the same no matter the situation in which testing is done. It should be stressed here that situations have sizable overall effects upon reactivity as well so that reactions actually observed within the same subject tend to show variation across situations as well.

THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO INFORMATION PROCESSING

THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO INFORMATION PROCESSING
Thus far the emphasis was on social information-processing models. The focus of this chapter is the identification and testing of biological systems on which social information processing is based. As Zuckerman (1993) argued, most previous attempts to identify biological structures underlying personality have been of the top-down type. In a topdown approach research starts with some personality trait. Subsequent research is aimed at the identification of neurological, biochemical and physiological processes underlying them. Finally, behaviour genetic studies are used to identify the contribution of genetics to the trait. Our approach has been different using a bottom-up rather than a top-down strategy. First, on theoretical grounds we identified biological systems presumably underlying social information processing. Subsequently, we addressed the behaviour genetics of information processing using the MZ-DZ design to test the genetical basis of the physiological systems involved. Finally, we studied the connections between the biological systems and some major elements derived from the social cognitive tradition of information processing.

Models Choosen
Several biological models of information processing have been proposed. Those models have a common focus emphasizing formal aspects rather than cognitive contents of information processing. A major class of formal models are energetic models. Those models are based on the idea that the processing of information requires energetic resources, mental or attentional capacity. Most current energetic models are multiple resource models according to which the human processing system is composed of several relatively independent resources. Relatively early in the study of information-processing energetics the attention was confined to the output regulating activation system (Duffy, 1957). Later on, research of the orienting reflex emphasized the input regulating arousal system (Sokolow, 1960). Finally, studies of the coordination between input and output drew the attention to a third system: effort (Kahneman, 1973). Accordingly, in several current models three kinds of processing systems are proposed. Examples are Pribramand cGuinness (1975, 1992), Wickens (1984) and Gray (1991). The model used in this study is based on one of them: the Pribram and McGuinness (1975, 1992) model of attentional control. In this model one control system is connected with arousal regulating input processes. The arousal system is particularly sensitive to novelty. With increasing novelty arousal tends to become more controlled, with increasing familiarity arousal becomes more automatic. A second system regulates the preparation of actions through activation. Controlled activation underlies tonic readiness, i.e. maintaining a set to continue ongoing behaviour. A third system co-ordinates the arousal and activation systems through effort. A major activity of the effort system is to uncouple output processes from input processes. The arousal, activation and effort systems are independent processing systems. They may act serially or in parallel and there is no fixed order in their functioning. Each system may be represented as a bipolar dimension ranging from controlled processing to automatic processing (Hettema et al., 2000). The dimensions should not be taken to represent merely affectively neutral processing systems underlying intellectual task performance. Instead, intimate connections are assumed of the processing systems with emotion, motivation and volition (McGuinness and Pribram, 1980; Hettema, 1991). Recent developments in the study of emotions and volition suggest that the distinction between automatic and controlled processing may be connected (Kuhl, 1994; Ledoux, 1996). Summarizing then, the Pribram-McGuinness model proposes different processing
systems for input, output and input-output co-ordination. Each system has the capacity to
process information in a more automatic or more controlled way, suggesting that emotional and volitional processing may be involved in each.