What do you think?
Rate this book
Psychobiology of Personality
Personality can be defined along a small number of well established dimensions, at least half of which are determined by hereditary factors. Heredity acts on behaviour through its influence on variations in the structure and function of neural and biochemical systems. This book explores the biological basis of individual differences in personality from genes to the structure, chemistry, and function of the brain and peripheral nervous system. In addition to basic dimensions of normal personality, the book examines the biology of several types of psychopathology. The concluding chapter provides a psychobiological model for personality. This thorough analysis of the pathway from gene to personality trait will be of interest not only to biologists, but also to psychologists and psychiatrists.
- GenresPsychology
498 pages, Hardcover
First published May 31, 1991
2 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 24, 2017
The book is a heavily documented summary of the biological basis for individual personality types (Zuckerman basically equates temperament and personality). The author estimates that 40 to 60% of personality traits come from heredity. Such in-born traits are not at all evident at birth (a misconception, he says), but emerge later, in childhood or even as adults.
In response to potential critics, Zuckerman is cautious about not formulating (quoting from Crick) ‘“an oversimplistic model for personality for the sake of elegance.”’ He comments that “such a model is bound to be inaccurate in many major respects.” But then he adds that “it is a characteristic of the human brain (mind) to seek cognitive closure with whatever information is available at a given time.” Working from well-established research findings, Zuckerman thus proposes “A psychobiological model for personality” with the following “super-trait” categories: extroversion; impulse/unsocialized/sensation seeking; aggression-hostility; and emotionality. For each of these, which have (sub) traits, he traces their origins to their biological sources: cognitive-behavioral, emotions, psychophysiology, and neuro-transmitters/enzymes/hormones.
Zuckerman’s model categories (i.e., the super-traits), are cumbersome and perhaps reflect more the biological evidence that is available than what speaks out there in real life.* While Zuckerman describes the what and how of psychobiology research, he does not look at this through the "why" lens of evolutionary psychology. For example, highly social types, social conformists and extroverts, may have evolved because of the role of group (tribal) membership for individual survival. Nurturer personalities may have evolved, similarly, because of the survival benefits various forms of nurturing provided. Those who are less social, more individualistic, overly fearful, or those who are overly egoistic (aggression-hostility), could also be tied to one or more of the Zuckerman categories, and there is some suggestions that also show the potential survival benefits of impulsive, unsocialized, sensation seeking behavior. More broadly, these might be seen as sub-trait categories that can be combined into broader, super-trait categories, along the lines of ‘other-regarding,’ which lodges survival benefits in group membership that brings with it a full-suite of social emotions, and ‘self-regarding,’ which lodges survival benefit from egoistic behavior that comes at the expense of others and the group. This would reflect the broad personality (other-regarding, self-regarding) seen throughout history and contemporary life. Given Darwinian variation and Zuckerman’s argument about biologically-based differences in personality types, a continuum of subtypes would then fall between these two poles.
As a final point, “emotionality” (one of Zuckerman’s categories) perhaps reflects the Western bias against emotions, when it could be argued from an evolutionary perspective that “emotion” underlies all facets of behavior – extraversion, sociability, impulsiveness/sensation seeking, aggression-hostility. Even reason-based choices have emotion at work, e.g., one who opts for long-term, valued objectives to overrule short-term urges. Otherwise, without a value- and emotion-laden basis, why would reason care?
*Another problem with his model, or especially the prior models that he draws from, is that they seem to posit a highly-charged value position of what a “normal” well-adjusted human being ought to be. Thus, one is sociable, agreeable, cooperative, conscientious, scrupulous, poised, intellectual, refined, imaginative and so forth, and those who are anxious, shy, emotional, or aggressive, cold, anti-social deviate from what is normal (good). While there are clearly neurotic and sociopathic individuals with problematic issues, there’s a lot of value judgement packed into these personality categories that Zuckerman works from. For example, an introvert would be abnormal, as would those more prone to display or be honest about emotions, those who suffer some from a lack of confidence or, for that matter, a person wanting to live a “simple” life in middle America.
In response to potential critics, Zuckerman is cautious about not formulating (quoting from Crick) ‘“an oversimplistic model for personality for the sake of elegance.”’ He comments that “such a model is bound to be inaccurate in many major respects.” But then he adds that “it is a characteristic of the human brain (mind) to seek cognitive closure with whatever information is available at a given time.” Working from well-established research findings, Zuckerman thus proposes “A psychobiological model for personality” with the following “super-trait” categories: extroversion; impulse/unsocialized/sensation seeking; aggression-hostility; and emotionality. For each of these, which have (sub) traits, he traces their origins to their biological sources: cognitive-behavioral, emotions, psychophysiology, and neuro-transmitters/enzymes/hormones.
Zuckerman’s model categories (i.e., the super-traits), are cumbersome and perhaps reflect more the biological evidence that is available than what speaks out there in real life.* While Zuckerman describes the what and how of psychobiology research, he does not look at this through the "why" lens of evolutionary psychology. For example, highly social types, social conformists and extroverts, may have evolved because of the role of group (tribal) membership for individual survival. Nurturer personalities may have evolved, similarly, because of the survival benefits various forms of nurturing provided. Those who are less social, more individualistic, overly fearful, or those who are overly egoistic (aggression-hostility), could also be tied to one or more of the Zuckerman categories, and there is some suggestions that also show the potential survival benefits of impulsive, unsocialized, sensation seeking behavior. More broadly, these might be seen as sub-trait categories that can be combined into broader, super-trait categories, along the lines of ‘other-regarding,’ which lodges survival benefits in group membership that brings with it a full-suite of social emotions, and ‘self-regarding,’ which lodges survival benefit from egoistic behavior that comes at the expense of others and the group. This would reflect the broad personality (other-regarding, self-regarding) seen throughout history and contemporary life. Given Darwinian variation and Zuckerman’s argument about biologically-based differences in personality types, a continuum of subtypes would then fall between these two poles.
As a final point, “emotionality” (one of Zuckerman’s categories) perhaps reflects the Western bias against emotions, when it could be argued from an evolutionary perspective that “emotion” underlies all facets of behavior – extraversion, sociability, impulsiveness/sensation seeking, aggression-hostility. Even reason-based choices have emotion at work, e.g., one who opts for long-term, valued objectives to overrule short-term urges. Otherwise, without a value- and emotion-laden basis, why would reason care?
*Another problem with his model, or especially the prior models that he draws from, is that they seem to posit a highly-charged value position of what a “normal” well-adjusted human being ought to be. Thus, one is sociable, agreeable, cooperative, conscientious, scrupulous, poised, intellectual, refined, imaginative and so forth, and those who are anxious, shy, emotional, or aggressive, cold, anti-social deviate from what is normal (good). While there are clearly neurotic and sociopathic individuals with problematic issues, there’s a lot of value judgement packed into these personality categories that Zuckerman works from. For example, an introvert would be abnormal, as would those more prone to display or be honest about emotions, those who suffer some from a lack of confidence or, for that matter, a person wanting to live a “simple” life in middle America.
Displaying 1 of 1 review