BEHAVIOR COMPLEXITY AND PREDICTABILITY

IN THE PERSONALITY SYSTEM

MIHAI GOLU

Right now, the idea that achieving a genuine knowing of human personality

as integral unitary system calls upon the shifting from registering and describing

the external phenomenological aspects to revealing and analyzing its internal

structure is accepted unanimously. However, as soon as one goes to this level,

one must face the complexity attribute at its highest expression. This attribute

becomes visible since the first definitions that refer to internal organization, be

they linear-summative (“Personality is the total sum of all innate biological

dispositions, impulses, tendencies, desires and instincts of the individual, as well

as of the dispositions and tendencies acquired by experience”, M. Prince, 1924, p.

532) or integralist (“Personality is the entire mental organization of the human

being in any stage of its development”, H.C. Warren and L. Carmichael, 1930, p.

333).

The complexity attribute is caught even clearer in the definition formulated

by G. Allport: “Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of

those psychophysical systems that determine his thinking and characteristic

behavior” (G. Allport, 1937, translation into Romanian, 1981, p. 40).

However, emphasizing the complexity of personality in its true meaning

became possible only in the second half of the 20th century, by generalizing the

systemic, cybernetic and synergetic methodology in the entire scientific

knowledge.

In the light of this paradigm, personality must be included in the class of

systems having the highest complexity degree, these being the hypercomplex

systems.

The complexity of the personality system is expressed in three main plans:

structural, functional and differential.

In the structural plan, it is found in the heterogeneity and high volume

(number) of elements, processes and states making it up, impossible to notice

1

and controlled directly. They are grouped and integrated, plurimodal, on a

horizontal, as well as hierarchical, multi-level, on a vertical in the three main

subsystems: biological (physical), psychological and socio-cultural. (“Personality is

a bio-psycho-socio-cultural system”). The three subsystems must not be

considered within a simple juxtaposing relation (exterior nearing), but in an

intertwining and mutual conditioning relation, intimate and lawful, and their

internal building and that within the supraordinate system are made according to

the “structure laws” or “adequate shape” laws imposed genetically and socio-

culturally. At the level of each subsystem, specific laws act (biological – in the

somatic biological subsystem, psychological – in the psychical subsystem, socio-

cultural – in the socio-cultural subsystem).

In a functional plan, the complexity of the personality system can be found

in the following main aspects: a) evolving dynamic character of all the three

component subsystems, during the individual life occurring new elements,

contents and connections (the anti-entropic or negentropic side of dynamic) and

disappearing existing elements, contents and connections (the entropic, involving

side of dynamics); b) existence of a broad range of necessity states (reasons)

having individual or super-individual signification – group, social – that create the

premises of an almost infinite action and behavior diversity and whose succession

cannot be anticipated in full and monitored directly by the researcher; c) the

multi-mediate character of the connection between “ins” and “outs” that makes

for the answers to external stimuli that the researcher can control to not be

forecasted with certainty, but just approximated probabilistically; d) existence of

an infinite combination ability of the brain, as central mechanism of a functional

integration of the personality system, of which a high number of freedom degrees

in setting out connections and the final internal gear of a certain state and

situation behavior derives; e) existence of some superior self-adjustment form,

never encountered in other systems, resulting from specific functions and

interaction between the two forms of consciousness – self consciousness and

consciousness of objective works. They are anticipating, planning, teleonomy

(operation and activity guided by purposes), self-determination, decision making,

idealization, devalorization, dedublation, stimulation and the entire range of ego

2

defense mechanisms so much valued and researched by the psychoanalytical

school.

The complexity of personality system in a functional plan can be revealed

and materialized by “state profiles” and “phase portraits”.

The “state profile” (Po) is a integrant result of the values of “measuring” the

main functions and particular psycho-physical capacities at a certain time (ti).

Thus, it is acquired by a transversal investigation.

Table 1

Additional state profile of personality

Specific dimensions of the system

Time

A1 A2 A3 …. An - = Σ (Ai) / N

X

t1 a1 a2 a3 an

The “phase portrait” (ΔP) is expressed by a weighed mean of the

differences between values of measuring the main psychophysical functions and

capacities in the succession of several times (t1, t2, t3,……tn).

3

Table 2

Phase portrait of personality

Specific

dimensions of

the system

Time

A1 A2 A3 …

.

An Sequential

state

profiles:

Po

to a1, 1 a2, 1 a3,1 …

.

an, 1 Poto= Σ

(Ai) / N

t1 a1, 2 a2, 2 a3,2 …

.

an, 2 Pot1= Σ

(Ai) / N

t2 a1, 3 a2, 3 a3,3 …

.

an, 3 Pot2= Σ

(Ai) / N

t3 a1, 4 a2, 4 a3,4 …

.

an, 4 Pot3= Σ

(Ai) / N

: : : : : : :

tn an, n an, n an, n …

.

an, n Potn= Σ

(An) / N

Sequential

phase portraits

ΔP

ΔP1 = Σ an

n / n

ΔP2 = Σ an

n / n

ΔP3 = Σ an

n / n

ΔPn= Σ an

n / n

Global

phase

portrait:

ΔP = Σ

(ΔPn) / n

Thus, there will be a “particular phase portrait” that shows the variations of

a single function or capacity and a “global phase portrait” that shows the

variations at the level of the integral system. Because personality is an evolving

dynamic system, the “phase portrait” shows three vital aspects of the functional

trajectory, which are an ascending direction, when the value of the “state profile”

at time t2 has a higher quality significance to the value of state profile at the t1

previous time; a stability direction, when the variations of the “state profiles”

4

oscillate up or down, around an optimum “point”; a descending direction, when

the value of the present “state profile” has a lower quality significance to the

value of the previous “state profile”. As can be seen, the “phase portrait” is

acquired only by a longitudinal investigation.

Of those mentioned above, there could be reached the conclusion that a

satisfactory approaching to the true complexity of personality becomes possible

only by combining the transversal strategy with the longitudinal ones, upon

observing the framework of researching the representativeness and relevance

criteria.

In a differential plan, the complexity attribute is shown in the large range of

inter-individual differentiations and manners of combining the action from the

three law categories: general, group and individual. At the time of approaching

this aspect, in the history of psychology the famous opposition between

nomotological orientation and idiographic orientation occurred: the first rejected

the differences and rendered absolute the communalities, the second, au

contraire, rejected communalities and rendered absolute the differences, the

individual and the specificity. Proceeding as such, both orientations moved farther

from the real complexity of personality and mutilated it, instead of getting closer

to it. The solution to this opposition has been proposed by J. T. Lamiel (1981)

under the form of the idiothetic model that implies the consideration of both

general and individual, taken together.

From a methodological point of view, the complexity in a differential plan

imposes approaching the personality simultaneously at the three levels: general,

according to the assertion “in certain respects, all men are alike”, group,

according to the assertion “in certain respects, some men are alike”, and

individual, according to the assertion “in certain respects, no man is identical to

the others”.

Because the hypercomplexity of internal organization of the personality

system generates also a hypercomplexity in its behavior image, it becomes

obvious that predicting the development of the latter, in the succession of times

and situations, is a very difficult task.

5

How did psychological knowledge attempt to handle it? Beginning with the

same principle consideration that, in order to forecast a behavior one must know

its causes or determining factors, at the time of formulating the solution,

researchers took two sides: the side that related the producing of behavior only

with the internal organization of personality (orientation that we can call

internalist) and side of those that related the producing of behavior only with

influence of external factors, “circumstances” (an orientation one might call

externalist).

The internalist orientation was materialized in several variants,

psychoanalytical theories, ego theory (C. Rogers), theory of personal constructs

(G. Kelly, 1955), theory of traits and factorial (G. Allport, 1937; B. Cattell, 1946; H.

Eysenck, 1969; Costa and McCrae, 1992, etc.). Among all these theories, the one

most centered on acquiring valid behavior predictability and that created a set of

instruments for the more rigorous assessment, of psychometrical type, is without

a doubt the theory of traits and factorial.

The basic idea in that theory is that a behavior can be explained and

predicted by a trait or a factor. From a psychological point of view, the difference

between “trait” and “factor” is the length of the generative and support range:

the trait generates and supports a relatively low number of behaviors of the same

type (homogenous), while the factor generates and supports a higher number of

behaviors of different types (heterogeneous). There results that a factor can

subsume several traits. Going from the traits method to the factorial method

relies mainly on economic reasons (for simplifying the processing and calculus)

than quality or epistemological reasons.

The traits and the factors are defined as internal psycho-physical

“microstructures” sufficiently consistent and lasting in time, that can account for

a certain range of behaviors, no matter the variation of actual particular

situations. (An argument for this is the different behavior of several persons as

against the same circumstance.) In a linguistic plan, the traits and factors are

attributes or adjectives by which the persons describe one another: “calm”,

“earnest”, “conscious”, “sociable”, “sentimental”, “cold”, “prudent”, “impetuous”,

“greedy”, “generous”, etc. More, the empirical basis derives also of this.

6

Obviously, the personal traits or qualities that acquire the rank of “assets” or

“factors” are extracted from behavior, by the method of observation and by

psychometrical methods (most frequently, self-presentation and self-assessment

questionnaires). The operation of extracting some assets from the individual

behaviors is named attribution. Which are the rules and conditions that guide this

operation and to what part of internal organization of personality it refers? There

will be found that, first, attribution refers to those characteristics of the behavior

that have been valued and classified from a social and cultural point of view,

which raises the matter of value concordance degree of the same traits in

different cultures. Secondly, there must be accepted the fact that attributing traits

relies on comparing an individual to others. We do not have an absolute standard

for any quality variable and the judgment “person x is greedy” must be reported

to other persons or to a “norm” for greediness set out by previous assessments

for the persons in the social and cultural context given. Thirdly, there must be

emphasized that the assets and qualities that attributing a trait evokes are

sufficiently different in order to allow their distinction of other qualities.

The theory concerned implies the supposition that the assets attributed to a

person are genuinely those of that person and they have been observed on

several occasions and not in just one instance. Thus, it is assumed that, varying

the circumstances, the trait is maintained constant and it will produce behaviors

matching its nature.

Thus, the predictability of behavior relies on consistency and constancy of

traits or factors. The measuring-assessing and formulating the prediction are

guided by a series of logical principles that concern co-variation, stability,

hierarchization and genetic basis (biological or socio-cultural) of the traits. In the

light of these principles, the trait becomes a collection of behaviors that tend to

co-vary (to be correlated) in a relatively constant manner, along the time, on

groups of individuals and in different situations, in which an individual differs of

others. The manner for building traits inside an individual gives structure to his

personality.

As a result, at nomotological level the structure is derived from correlating

the traits to a high sample of individuals. The correlation degree of traits is

7

different. Some correlate strongly, others correlate moderately and others

correlate weakly or not at all. The groups or patterns of traits that can be

correlated and of those that cannot be correlated allow the setting of major

dimensions of personality. For increasing the validity of behavior predictability, it

is recommended that subjects be compared according to the terms of these

structural dimensions rather than according to the terms of a single trait at a

given time.

It is said that “traits” or “factors” have a provoking or dispositional influence

on behavior. For example, the behavior of a person of asking for help or

encouragement from outside is expression of his disposition or need for

dependence. Thus occurs, naturally, the risk of entering a Catch 22 because the

trait observed is explained by itself (a person that behaves dependently because

he is dependent). Surpassing the Catch 22 can be achieved in a certain measure

by proving experimentally the fact that individuals with certain disposition

tendencies or traits behave in a predictable manner.

However, there are serious doubts and reserves in connection to the

predictive validity of traits. The studies performed emphasized at least two vital

aspects for this: the first that the predictive value of a trait cannot be set out only

according to a single behavior, but only by totalizing several behaviors in different

circumstances, and the second, that the situation when the behavior manifests

must be relevant for that trait.

Let’s take, for example, the “nevrosism” trait or factor (N) within the

Eysenck model. If we want to use the adequate scale of EPQ for forecasting the

behavior of a subject, it does not suffice to observe that subject in one

circumstance, but in several. The condition becomes imperative if the initial

circumstance is not relevant.

For example, in order to prove the hypothesis that in subjects with high

scores of N factor a stronger anxiety occurs at a stressful time, one must study

the anxiety while faced with an important event (a test, for example) and not with

an amusing event (going to the cinema or a walk in the park). More, the behavior

of those subjects should be monitored before several such important events in

order to diminish to a minimum the variation caused by errors and variables that

8

cannot be controlled (prior experience connected to given events, health,

disposition at a certain time, etc.).

Even when assessing the personality is made with the help of experts, it is

necessary to repeat the observations on the behavior in order to reveal its

constancy and the predictive validity of the traits.

D. S. Moskowitz (1988) proved that in connection to the “good will” and

“poise” traits that the value of correlation coefficients and, at the same time, the

predictive validity, increased from 0.37 and 0.06 for the estimations made in one

circumstance, to 0.68 and 0.44 (p ≤ 0.01), if the estimations made in six

circumstances are summed up.

Of those mentioned above, several principle considerations having a

theoretical and practical value can be extracted, such as:

1. descriptive and explicative models relying on traits do not reflect loyally

the structural and functional complexity of the personality system, but it just

approximates it vaguely;

2. between traits and behaviors there is no 1:1 ratio or unambiguous –

causal ration, but just a statistical and probabilistic conditioning relation;

3. activating a trait cannot be considered absolutely independent of

circumstances and the influence of other traits;

4. the prediction possibility of behaviors on the basis of assessing the traits

is limited and variable; it increased as the number of assessments in different

circumstances and times grows and it diminishes under the significance threshold

if a single assessment occurs (in one situation and in one time). (This is very

important to be considered in the psycho-diagnosis practice.).

5. the generality of traits differ according to their genetic basis: it is greater

in those determined biologically (the temperamental ones, for example) and

smaller in those determined socio-culturally (mentality and character related).

The externalist or positivist orientation, criticizing the subjectivism and

arbitrary of the internalist orientation approach, believes the behavior and

personality in its whole as product of circumstances. It originates in behaviorism

and empiricism, replacing the stimulus notion with that of circumstance, to which

it grants more complex valences and significations (G. Mean, 1934; B. Skinner,

9

1965; W. Mischel, 1968; Funder and Ozer, 1983; L. Pervin, 2002). Thus, the

circumstance is defined as the actual framework included as space and time and

dynamically, fluent, in which the individuals are included and enter in contact,

with their different psychophysical particulars. As objective “entity”, the situation

is part of the external world, of the general existential environment of the man. It

includes the objective conditions and physical and / or social phenomena within

which the individual is determined to behave and to act. For the behavioral

definition of the personality, the social circumstances are vital. They include an

axiological normative component, which is the hierarchy of some value systems

and some models or ranks on whose position the statuses and roles interact.

Personality is construed as exclusive product of circumstances and, as

consequence, the behavior, according to the general law of adaptation, must be

adequate or congruent to the situation. Because behaviors are “generated” and

“structured” according to the traits and significance of circumstances, it means

that identifying and assessing the latter allows a better prediction and a better

control of the first. A trait, no matter how general or ample, as such the

extraversion and introversion, does not become obvious and manifests only within

some situation related behaviors.

The specificity of behaviors by which the traits are revealed is the reflection

of specificity. Thus, in order to predict behaviors, an inventory and hierarchization

of external situations, physical and social, must be drafted, according to the

criterion of significance and relevance. Significance is given by the so-called

strengthening valences (positive or negative) that influence directly the necessity

states of the person, and relevance is given by the matching degree between

strengthening valences included in the situation and the nature of the necessity

state activated at a certain time. (For example, if in a circumstance there are food

and water products, but the “thirst state” is activated in the person facing that

situation, relevant for provoking the behavior will become the “water stimulus”).

Thus, there results that a situation includes at least four types of “stimuli”

delimited by reporting to actual behaviors, these being:

a) significant and relevant stimuli that activate effectively the behavior;

10

b) significant but non relevant stimuli, to which specific behaviors

correspond, but that do not act at that time;

c) mediator stimuli that can facilitate or hinder the development and

finalizing of the behavior activated;

d) neutral indifferent stimuli that are not involved directly in beginning and

developing actually the specific adaptative behaviors.

Unlike the internalist idea, that connects the complexity attribute to the

internal organization (structure) of personality, the situationist orientation

emphasizes this attribute on the account of diversity and volume of external

circumstances. It is based on the black box principle and method: personality per

se is believed a “black box” that has an “inside” inaccessible to direct observation

and investigation, thus that one can forget about it and focus on registering and

analyzing the behaviors in circumstances. Only like this, one could supply

plausible scientific assumptions on the content and on what happens inside the

“black box”, transforming it gradually on a “white box”. The specificity of this

approach is illustrated mainly by the positivist definitions of personality:

“Personality is the most adequate conceptualizing of a person’s behavior in all its

details that the scientist can give at a certain time” (McClelland, 1951, p. 69).

The spirit of situationist approach has surpassed the borders of personality

psychology, expanding strongly to the special psychology, to socio-psychology

(accent on the socialization factor and inculturation), and to the organizational

psychology. As a result, the “contextual typology” appeared that is made up of

defining and characterizing the man by comparison to the situation complexes:

“organization man”, “industrial man”, “economic man”, “political man”, “educator

man”, etc. Accent shifts from defining the personality by “what it is” to defining it

by “what it does”, this meaning by the roles individuals play in certain

circumstances.

In a predictive plan, the situationism operates with schemes such as “if…

then”: “if the x circumstance is given, then we could expect the occurrence of y

behavior”. The validity of prediction will depend, of course, on the powerful

character of the connection between circumstance and specific behavior it causes

and this powerful character will depend, on its turn, on the circumstance

11

frequency in the previous experience of subjects. A situation that by frequent

occurrences led to the automation of behavior, it will have a greater predictive

value than a new one. Nevertheless, here appears the great difficulty of the

situationist model in providing a platform sufficiently valid for forecasting

behaviors. First, it is difficult if not impossible to achieve a full inventory list of

situations and to identify in it the relevant specific situations of those irelevant

and unspecific. Secondly, and this is very important, personality is not an inert

system influenced absolutely by situations. He is an active teleonomic system

that searches for (chooses) the situations and that transforms or even creates

circumstances. As such, to consider that forecasting behaviors can be achieved

only according to the external situations is to simplify inadequately the

complexity o personality and to fall into mechanicist determinism.

To the degree one accepts that personality is a dynamic and open system,

the only paradigm that allows catching and revealing its complexity by behavior is

the interactionism.

The interactionist ideas on personality have been expressed a long time ago

in the works of Kantor and Lewin (cf. Ekehammar, 1974), and their contemporary

formulation, explicit and coherent, can be bound in Mischel (1973) and

Magnusson & Endler (1977).

There might be said that interactionism was born from the controversy

between internalism (traits model) and externalism (situations model). While this

controversy took place, it was reached the conclusion that for explaining and

forecasting the human behavior none of the two extreme orientations holds the

truth and that, in reality, the “person variables” and the “situation variables”

must be considered and, more, their interaction. Thus, the scheme that must be

the basis of empirical researches and of theoretical elaborations is (PxS) -> C, this

being the interaction between person (P) and situation (S) of which behavior (C)

derives. (From the current point of view, behavior, by its effects, introduces

modifications in the P state and in S state, changing thus the subsequent course

of the interaction.)

Grosso modo, in the behavior structure three types of “elements” are found:

“elements” connected mainly to the particulars of a person’s internal

12

organization; “elements” connected mainly to the characteristics of situation and

“elements” generated by the PxS interaction.

Does the interactionist model simplify or complicate the task of predicting

behaviors? Obviously, it complicates it because it requires:

a) determining and assessing the P variables;

b) determining and assessing the S variables;

c) identifying and revealing the content of the PxS interaction.

It made for between the desiderative theoretical and methodological side

and that of concrete applicative research to appear a great discrepancy. Speaking

about the present status quo, Ender and Parket (1992) stated that the influence of

interactionism was more rhetorical, it altered what people said about their

researches and not the manner in which they were made, the crisis in the area of

personality not being surpassed yet. Thus, it must be the focus of our concern.

Then, the studies performed in classes and laboratories, the use of questionnaires

and absence in practice of structural modeling techniques for developing and

solving processes and interactions are still predominant.

As the “technical” difficulties for investigating the PxS interaction are

surpassed, the prediction probability in the behavior area will increase also.

However, in the present phase this possibility remains limited because it

continues to be based unilaterally on traits (factors) or on situations.

The generally valid conclusion that must guide us in theory and in practice

is that the prediction possibility of the behavior of a system is inversely related to

its complexity. As regards the human personality that is characterized not by

some complexity, but, as it was proven, by hypercomplexity, the predictability in

the behavior area is the most difficult to achieve and it cannot exit the limits of

the “probable events field”. Its expression has the form “given the P personality

with A1, A2, A3,….An traits and X situations with the characteristics (traits) (X1,

X2, …Xn), following their interaction we can expect the Ci behavior with the p

probability”. Value of p, placed on a scale from 0 to 1, will be connected with

different degrees of certainty: more it gets closer to 1, more the “certainty” of

prediction will be bigger and vice versa. Naturally, on this scale, at p = 0.50, there

occurs the maximum point of uncertainty that means that, in 50% weight there

13

are factors (conditions) that act in our favorable direction and also in a 50%

weight there are factors (conditions) that act against it.

The issue that arises in connection to the predictability of human behaviors

is not only that of genuineness (exactness), but also that of duration of its validity.

From the beginning, there must be said that the second side (durability of

prediction, this meaning of visas that are formulated in the selection) is the most

fragile due to the impredictibile ascendance that variability, instability (attributes

of functional dynamics) can take on the constant, invariable item (attributes of

functional static).

If one remains in the limits of the traits model, that is the basis of present-

day psychological examinations, for formulating predictions, respectively visas,

one must consider three vital elements, these being: a) stability and consistency

of traits depend on the nature of their determinism; the traits that are connected

mainly to heredity are more stable and more consistent than those determined

mainly by factors of the social and cultural environment; b) a trait is as more

stable and consistent as it is integrated deeper and more consolidated; c) the

general trails are more stable and more consistence than the particular-individual

ones. In principle, we can approve that the time validity of a behavioral prediction

is prorated with the stability and consistency of the traits assessed.

In order to determine within the psycho-diagnosis the stability and

consistency of traits, in a certain person, one must assess them on several

occasions, at different times and intervals of time. However, in the present day

practice the conclusion is reached according to a single assessment

(measurement) which must affect the genuineness and the sustainability of the

prognosis.

Nevertheless, there must be stated that, in conditioning the behavior are

involved not just stable (invariable) traits, but also invariable and oscillating traits.

As consequence, given an apparent global stable and consequent behavior image,

modifications and oscillations occur at unpredictable times. They can be divided

into two groups: modifications (oscillations) inscribed in a lawful tendency, that do

not deviate the person from the “tolerance” area (normality) and modifications

such as the “rare phenomena” (catastrophes) that remove the system from the

14

“normality” area, pushing it to irrational acts that can be self- or hetero-

destructive.

The possibility of occurrence of some behaviors out of the limits of controls

and objective determination creates, as regards each person, an uncertainty area,

with different intensity degrees. This situation has been materialized in a series of

expressions such as: “It cannot it, it’s not true. This is unlikely” (in connection to a

person believed previously to have a flawless behavior); “I can’t believe it, I’m

dazzled” (reaction to a negative action of a person believed previously to have a

flawless behavior); “Still, I’m surprised of what he did” (reaction to the action of a

person thought previously to be good); “I’m not at all surprised” (judgment for an

undesired action committed by a subject thought previously to be bad,

unfavorable). This classification is applied also to positive deeds committed by

persons thought previously to be negative.

As a conclusion, the complexity that characterizes the system of human

personality binds us to formulate, in a behavioral plan, predictions and, at the

same time, diagnosis and prognosis visas, in probabilistic and not categorical

terms, as it is done now.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALLPORT, G.W. (1981) - Structura şi dezvoltarea personalitaţii,

Editura Didactica şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti

CATTELL, R.B. (1946) - Description and measurement of Personality,

George Arap, London

COSTA, P.T.JP., - NEO PI-R Professional Mannual, Psychol. Assessement

MCCRAE, R.R. (1992) Resour, CAS, Odessa, Fe

EKEHAMMAR, B. (1974)- Interactionism in personality from a historical

perspective, Psychol. Bull. 81, pp. 1026-1048

ENDLER, N., - Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing

PARKER, J. (1992)crisis in the personality area, European Journal of

Personality, 6, pp. 177-198

EYSENCK, H.J. (1969) - Personality structure and measurement Routtledge and

Kegan Paul, London

FUNDER, D.C., - Behavior as a function of situation, Journal of

OZER, D.Y. (1983) Personality and Social Psychology, 44, pp. 107-112

KELLY, G.A. (1955) - The psychology of personal constructs, Norton,

New-York

MAGNUSSON, D., - Interactional Psychology: present status and future

ENDLER, N.S. (1977) prospects, in: D. Magnusson and N.S. Emdler (eds.),

Personality at the cross roads, Lawrence Erla baun

Associates, Hillsdale, Ny.

16

MCCLLELAND,D.(1951) - Personality, Sloane, New-York

MEAD, G.H. (1934) - Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press,

Chicago

MISCHEL, W. (1968) - Personality and Assessement, Wiley, New-York

MISCHEL, W. (1973) - Taward a cognitive, social learning reconceptualization

of personality, Psychological Review, 80, pp. 252-283

PERVIN, L.A. (2002) - Current contraversies and issues in personality, III-rd.

Ed. Guilford, New York

PRINCE, M. (1924) - The unconscious, 2-nd ed. rev. Macmilon, New-York

SKINNER, B.F. (1965) - Science of human behavior, Free Press, Glencoe, III

WARREN, H.C., - Elements of human psychology, Noughton

CARMICHAEL, L.(1930) Mifflin, Boston

XXX

17