As you might imagine, self-image is related to what you see when you look in a mirror—however, it goes much deeper than that. Self-image refers to how we see ourselves on a more global level, both internally and externally.

Random House Dictionary explained self-image as “the idea, conception, or mental image one has of oneself.”

The Mountain State Centers for Independent Living explains further:

“Self-image is how you perceive yourself. It is a number of self-impressions that have built up over time… These self-images can be very positive, giving a person confidence in their thoughts and actions, or negative, making a person doubtful of their capabilities and ideas.”

What you see when you look in the mirror and how you picture yourself in your head is your self-image.

As one of many “self” concepts, it’s closely related to a few others.

Self-Image vs. Self-Concept

Self-image and self–concept are strongly associated, but they’re not quite the same thing.

Self-concept is a more overarching construct than self-image; it involves how you see yourself, how you think about yourself, and how you feel about yourself. In a sense, self-image is one of the components that make up self-concept (McLeod, 2008).

Self-Image vs. Self-Esteem

Similarly, self-image has a lot to do with self–esteem. After all, how we see ourselves is a big contributing factor to how we feel about ourselves.

However, self-esteem goes deeper than self-image. Self-esteem is the overall sense of respect for ourselves and involves how favorably (or unfavorably) we feel about ourselves.

Having a negative self-image can certainly influence self-esteem, and having low self-esteem is likely to be accompanied by a negative self-image, but they are at least somewhat independent “self” aspects.

How Identity is Related

Identity is also a closely related concept but is also a larger and more comprehensive one than self-image. Identity is our overall idea of who we are. As self-concept and self-esteem expert Roy Baumeister puts it:

“The term ‘identity’ refers to the definitions that are created for and superimposed on the self” (1997, p. 681).

In other words, identity is the whole picture of who we believe we are—and who we tell ourselves and others that we are—while self-image is one piece of that picture.

Back to Table of Contents

Many people think marketing is a battle of products. In the long run, they always think, the best product will win.

Marketing people are preoccupied with doing research and “getting the facts.” They analyze the situation to make sure that truth is on their side. Then they sail confidently into the marketing arena, secure in the knowledge that they have the best product and ultimately the best product will win.

It’s an illusion. There is no objective reality. There are no facts, no best products. All that exists in the world of marketing are perceptions in the minds of the customer or prospect. The perception is the reality. Everything else is an illusion.

All truth is relative. Relative to your mind or the mind of another. When you say, “I’m right and the next person is wrong,” all you’re really saying is that you’re a better perceiver than someone else.

Most people think they are better perceivers than others. They have a sense of personal infallibility. Their perceptions are always more accurate than those of neighbors or friends. Truth and perception become fused in the mind, leaving no difference.

It’s not easy to see that this is so. To cope with the terrifying reality of being alone in the universe, people project themselves on the outside world. They “live” in the arena of books, movies, television, newspapers, magazines and the Internet. They “belong” to clubs, organizations and institutions. These outside representations of the world seem more real than the reality inside their own minds.

People cling firmly to the belief in such a reality, with the individual as one small speck on a global spaceship. Actually it’s the opposite. The only reality you can be sure about is in your own perceptions. If the universe exists, it exists inside your own mind and the minds of others. That’s the reality marketing programs must deal with. Most marketing mistakes stem from the assumption that you’re fighting a product battle rooted in reality.

Some marketing people see the natural laws of marketing as based on a flawed premise–the product is the hero of the marketing program and you’ll win or lose on the merits of the product. That’s why the natural, logical way to market a product is invariably wrong. Only by studying how perceptions are formed in the mind and focusing your marketing programs on those perceptions can you overcome your basically incorrect marketing instincts.

Each of us (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, prospect, customer) looks at the world through a pair of eyes. If there is objective truth out there, how would we know it? Who would measure it? Who would tell us? It could only be another person looking at the same scene through a different pair of eye-windows.

Truth is nothing more or less than the perception of one expert–someone who is perceived to be an expert in the mind of somebody else.

If truth is so illusive, why is there so much discussion in marketing about so-called facts, with so many marketing decisions based on factual comparisons? Why do so many marketing people assume that truth is on their side, that their job is to use truth as a weapon to correct the misperceptions that exist in the mind of the prospect?

Marketing people focus on facts because they believe in objective reality. It’s also easy for marketing people to assume that truth is on their side. If you think you need the best product to win a marketing battle, then it’s easy to believe you have the best product. All that’s required is a minor modification of your own perceptions.

Changing a customer’s mind is another matter since they are very difficult to change. With a modicum of experience in a product category, consumers assume they’re right. A perception that exists in the mind is often interpreted as a universal truth. People are seldom, if ever, wrong. At least in their own minds.

It’s easier to see the power of perception over product when the products are separated by some distance. The largest-selling Japanese imported cars in America, in order, are Toyota , Honda and Nissan . Most marketing people think the battle between these brands is based on quality, styling, horsepower and price. Not true. It’s what people think about a Toyota, Honda or Nissan that determines which brand will win. Marketing is a battle of perceptions.

Japanese automobile manufacturers sell the same cars in the U.S. as they do in Japan. The same quality, the same styling, the same horsepower and roughly the same prices hold true for Japan as they do for the U.S but in Japan, Honda is nowhere near the leader. There, Honda is in third place, behind Toyota and Nissan. Toyota sells more than four times as many automobiles in Japan as Honda does.

So what’s the difference between Honda in Japan and Honda in the U.S.? The products are the same, but the perceptions in customers’ minds are different.

If you told friends in New York you bought a Honda, they might ask you, “What kind of car did you get? A Civic, an Accord?” If you told friends in Tokyo you bought a Honda, they might ask you, “What kind of motorcycle did you buy?” In Japan, Honda got into customers’ minds as a manufacturer of motorcycles, and apparently most people don’t want to buy a car from a motorcycle company.

How about an opposite situation? Would Harley-Davidson be successful if it launched a Harley-Davidson automobile? You might think it would depend on the car. Quality, styling, horsepower, pricing. You might even believe the Harley-Davidson reputation for quality would be a plus. We think not. Its perception as a motorcycle company would undermine a Harley-Davidson car–no matter how good the product (that’s the Law of Line Extension).

What makes the battle even more difficult is that customers frequently make buying decisions based on second-hand perceptions. Instead of using their own perceptions, they base their buying decisions on someone else’s perception. This is the “everybody knows” principle.

Everybody knows Japanese make higher-quality cars than Americans. So people make buying decisions based on the fact that everybody knows the Japanese make higher-quality cars. When you ask shoppers whether they have had any personal experience with a product, most often they say they haven’t. More often than not, their own experience is twisted to conform to their perceptions.

If you have had a bad experience with a Japanese car, you’ve just been unlucky, because everybody knows the Japanese make high-quality cars. Conversely, if you have had a good experience with an American car, you’ve just been lucky, because everybody knows that American cars are not as well made.

Marketing is not a battle of products. Its a battle of perceptions. Unfortunately, Mr. Nardelli never quite understood this law.

• Perception refers to the set of processes we use to make sense of the different stimuli we’re presented with. Our perceptions are based on how we interpret different sensations.
• The perceptual process begins with receiving stimuli from the environment and ends with our interpretation of those stimuli. This process is typically unconscious and happens hundreds of thousands of times a day.
• When we attend to or select one specific thing in our environment, it becomes the attended stimulus.
• Organization of stimuli happens by way of neural processes; this starts with our sensory receptors (touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing), and is transmitted to our brains, where we organize the information we receive.
• After we receive and organize stimuli, we can interpret those stimuli, which simply means that we take the information and turn it into something that we can categorize.

Perception refers to the set of processes we use to make sense of all the stimuli you  encounter every second, from the glow of the computer screen in front of you to the smell of the room to the itch on your ankle. Our perceptions are based on how we interpret all these different sensations, which are sensory impressions we get from the stimuli in the world around us. Perception enables us to navigate the world and to make decisions about everything, from which T-shirt to wear or how fast to run away from a bear.

Close your eyes. What do you remember about the room you are in? The color of the walls, the angle of the shadows? Whether or not we know it, we selectively attend to different things in our environment. Our brains simply don’t have the capacity to attend to every single detail in the world around us. Optical illusions highlight this tendency. Have you ever looked at an optical illusion and seen one thing, while a friend sees something completely different? Our brains engage in a three-step process when presented with stimuli: selection, organization, and interpretation.

For example, think of Rubin’s Vase, a well-known optical illusion depicted below. First we select the item to attend to and block out most of everything else. It’s our brain’s way of focusing on the task at hand to give it our attention. In this case, we have chosen to attend to the image. Then, we organize the elements in our brain. Some individuals organize the dark parts of the image as the foreground and the light parts as the background, while others have the opposite interpretation.

The Perception Process

The perceptual process is a sequence of steps that begins with stimuli in the environment and ends with our interpretation of those stimuli. This process is typically unconscious and happens hundreds of thousands of times a day. An unconscious process is simply one that happens without awareness or intention. When you open your eyes, you do not need to tell your brain to interpret the light falling onto your retinas from the object in front of you as “computer” because this has happened unconsciously. When you step out into a chilly night, your brain does not need to be told “cold” because the stimuli trigger the processes and categories automatically.

Selection

The world around us is filled with an infinite number of stimuli that we might attend to, but our brains do not have the resources to pay attention to everything. Thus, the first step of perception is the (usually unconscious, but sometimes intentional) decision of what to attend to. Depending on the environment, and depending on us as individuals, we might focus on a familiar stimulus or something new. When we attend to one specific thing in our environment—whether it is a smell, a feeling, a sound, or something else entirely—it becomes the attended stimulus.

Organization

Once we have chosen to attend to a stimulus in the environment (consciously or unconsciously, though usually the latter), the choice sets off a series of reactions in our brain. This neural process starts with the activation of our sensory receptors (touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing). The receptors transduce the input energy into neural activity, which is transmitted to our brains, where we construct a mental representation of the stimulus (or, in most cases, the multiple related stimuli) called a percept. An ambiguous stimulus may be translated into multiple percepts, experienced randomly, one at a time, in what is called “multistable perception.”

Interpretation

After we have attended to a stimulus, and our brains have received and organized the information, we interpret it in a way that makes sense using our existing information about the world. Interpretation simply means that we take the information that we have sensed and organized and turn it into something that we can categorize. For instance, in the Rubin’s Vase illusion mentioned earlier, some individuals will interpret the sensory information as “vase,” while some will interpret it as “faces.” This happens unconsciously thousands of times a day. By putting different stimuli into categories, we can better understand and react to the world around us.

Selection

Selection, the first stage of perception, is the process through which we attend to some stimuli in our environment and not others.

Key Points

• Selection is the process by which we attend to some stimuli in our environment and not others.
• Selection is often influenced by our personal motives, incentives, impulses, or drives to act a certain way.
• Perceptual expectancy is a predisposition to perceive things in a certain way. It explains why we are more likely to selectively attend to some stimuli and not others.
• Selection is often influenced by intense stimuli, such as bright lights and colors, loud sounds, strong odors, spicy flavors, or painful contact. Evolutionary psychologists believe this is because it aids in survival.

Most of us are presented with millions of sensory stimuli a day. How do we know what to attend to and what to ignore? What tells us that it’s okay not to notice each and every leaf on each and every tree that we pass, but important to attend to the dip in the sidewalk in front of us? Though perception is different for each person, we each attend to the stimuli that are meaningful in our individual worlds. Selection is the process by which we attend to some stimuli in our environment and not others. Because we cannot possibly attend to all of the stimuli we are presented with, our brains have an amazing unconscious capacity to pick and choose what’s important and what’s not.

The Influence of Motives

Motivation has an enormous impact on the perceptions people form about the world. A simple example comes from a short-term drive, like hunger: the smell of cooking food will catch the attention of a person who hasn’t eaten for several hours, while a person who is full might not attend to that detail. Long-term motivations also influence what stimuli we attend to. For example, an art historian who has spent many years looking at visual art might be more likely to pay attention to the detailed carvings on the outside of a building; an architect might be more likely to notice the structure of the columns supporting the building.

Perceptual expectancy, also called perceptual set, is a predisposition to perceive things in a certain way based on expectations and assumptions about the world. A simple demonstration of perceptual expectancy involves very brief presentations of non-words such as “sael.” Subjects who were told to expect words about animals read it as “seal,” but others who were expecting boat-related words read it as “sail.”

Emotional drives can also influence the selective attention humans pay to stimuli. Some examples of this phenomenon are:

• Selective retention: recalling only what reinforces your beliefs, values, and expectations. For example, if you are a fan of a particular basketball team, you are more likely to remember statistics about that team than other teams that you don’t care about.
• Selective perception: the tendency to perceive what you want to. To continue the basketball team example, you might be more likely to perceive a referee who makes a call against your favorite team as being wrong because you want to believe that your team is perfect.
• Selective exposure: you select what you want to expose yourself to based on your beliefs, values, and expectations. For example, you might associate more with people who are also fans of your favorite basketball team, thus limiting your exposure to other stimuli. This is commonly seen in individuals who associate with a political party or religion: they tend to spend time with others who reinforce their beliefs.

The Cocktail Party Effect

Selective attention shows up across all ages. Babies begin to turn their heads toward a sound that is familiar to them, such as their parents’ voices. This shows that infants selectively attend to specific stimuli in their environment. Their accuracy in noticing these physical differences amid background noise improves over time.

Some examples of messages that catch people’s attention include personal names and taboo words. The ability to selectively attend to one’s own name has been found in infants as young as 5 months of age and appears to be fully developed by 13 months. This is known as the ” cocktail party effect.” (This term can also be used generally to describe the ability of people to attend to one conversation while tuning out others.)

Cocktail Party Effect: One will selectively attend to their name being spoken in a crowded room, even if they were not listening for it to begin with.

The Influence of Stimulus Intensity

A stimulus that is particularly intense, like a bright light or bright color, a loud sound, a strong odor, a spicy taste, or a painful contact, is most likely to catch your attention. Evolutionary psychologists theorize that we selectively attend to these kinds of stimuli for survival purposes. Humans who could attend closely to these stimuli were more likely to survive than their counterparts, since some intense stimuli (like pain, powerful smells, or loud noises) can indicate danger. More than half the brain is devoted to processing sensory information, and the brain itself consumes roughly one-fourth of one’s metabolic resources, so the senses must provide exceptional benefits to fitness.

Organization

Organization is the stage in the perception process in which we mentally arrange stimuli into meaningful and comprehensible patterns.

• Organization, the second stage of the perceptual process, is how we mentally arrange information into meaningful and digestible patterns.
• The Gestalt laws of grouping are a set of principles in psychology that explain how humans naturally perceive stimuli as organized patterns and objects.
• The human brain has a special module specifically for recognizing and organizing people: the fusiform face area (FFA).
• While our tendency to group stimuli together helps us to organize our sensations quickly and efficiently, it can also lead to misguided perceptions.
• Perceptual schemas help us organize impressions of people based on appearance, social roles, interaction, or other traits, while stereotypes help us systematize information so the information is easier to identify, recall, predict, and react to.

After the brain has decided which of the millions of stimuli it will attend to, it needs to organize the information that it has taken in. Organization is the process by which we mentally arrange the information we’ve just attended to in order to make sense of it; we turn it into meaningful and digestible patterns. Below is a discussion of some of the different ways we organize stimuli.

Gestalt Laws of Grouping

The Gestalt laws of grouping is a set of principles in psychology first proposed by Gestalt psychologists to explain how humans naturally perceive stimuli as organized patterns and objects. Gestalt psychology tries to understand the laws of our ability to acquire and maintain meaningful perceptions in an apparently chaotic world. The central principle of gestalt psychology is that the mind forms a global whole with self-organizing tendencies. The gestalt effect is the capability of our brain to generate whole forms, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of global figures, instead of just collections of simpler and unrelated elements. Essentially, gestalt psychology says that our brain groups elements together whenever possible instead of keeping them as separate elements.

A few of these laws of grouping include the laws of proximity, similarity, and closure and the figure-ground law.

The Law of Proximity

This law posits that when we perceive a collection of objects we will perceptually group together objects that are physically close to each other. This allows for the grouping together of elements into larger sets, and reduces the need to process a larger number of smaller stimuli. For this reason, people tend to see clusters of dots on a page instead of a large number of individual dots. The brain groups together the elements instead of processing a large number of smaller stimuli, allowing us to understand and conceptualize information more quickly.

The Law of Similarity

This law states that people will perceive similar elements will be perceptually grouped together. This allows us to distinguish between adjacent and overlapping objects based on their visual texture and resemblance.

The Figure-Ground Law

A visual field can be separated into two distinct regions: the figures (prominent objects) and the ground (the objects that recede into the background. Many optical illusions play on this perceptual tendency.

The figure-ground law: In the Kanizsa triangle illusion, the figure-ground law causes most people to perceive a white triangle in the foreground, which makes the black shapes recede into the background.

The Law of Closure

The law of closure explains that our perception will complete incomplete objects, such as the lines of the IBM logo.

Organizing People

Human and animal brains are structured in a modular way, with different areas processing different kinds of sensory information. A special part of our brain known as the fusi form face area (FFA) is dedicated to the recognition and organization of people. This module developed in response to our need as humans to recognize and organize people into different categories to help us survive.

Perceptual Schemas

We develop perceptual schemas in order to organize impressions of people based on their appearance, social roles, interaction, or other traits; these schemas then influence how we perceive other things in the world. These schemas are heuristics, or shortcuts that save time and effort on computation. For example, you might have a perceptual schema that the building where you go to class is symmetrical on the outside (sometimes called the “symmetry heuristic,” or the tendency to remember things as being more symmetrical than they are). Even if it isn’t, making that assumption saved your mind some time. This is the blessing and curse of schemas and heuristics: they are useful for making sense of a complex world, but they can be inaccurate.

Stereotypes

We also develop stereotypes to help us make sense of the world. Stereotypes are categories of objects or people that help to simplify and systematize information so the information is easier to be identified, recalled, predicted, and reacted to. Between stereotypes, objects or people are as different from each other as possible. Within stereotypes, objects or people are as similar to each other as possible.

While our tendency to group stimuli together helps us to organize our sensations quickly and efficiently, it can also lead to misguided perceptions. Stereotypes become dangerous when they no longer reflect reality, or when they attribute certain characteristics to entire groups. They can contribute to bias, discriminatory behavior, and oppression.

Interpretation

Interpretation, the final stage of perception, is the subjective process through which we represent and understand stimuli.

• Interpretation is the process through which we represent and understand stimuli. Once information is organized into categories, we superimpose it onto our lives to give them meaning.
• Interpretation of stimuli is subjective, which means that individuals can come to different conclusions about the exact same stimuli.
• Subjective interpretation of stimuli is affected by individual values, needs, beliefs, experiences, expectations, self-concept, and other personal factors.

In the interpretation stage of perception, we attach meaning to stimuli. Each stimulus or group of stimuli can be interpreted in many different ways. Interpretation refers to the process by which we represent and understand stimuli that affect us. Our interpretations are subjective and based on personal factors. It is in this final stage of the perception process that individuals most directly display their subjective views of the world around them.

Factors that Influence Interpretation

Cultural values, needs, beliefs, experiences, expectations, involvement, self-concept, and other personal influences all have tremendous bearing on how we interpret stimuli in our environment.

Experiences

Prior experience plays a major role in the way a person interprets stimuli. For example, an individual who has experienced abuse might see someone raise their hand and flinch, expecting to be hit. That is their interpretation of the stimulus (a raised hand). Someone who has not experienced abuse but has played sports, however, might see this stimulus as a signal for a high five. Different individuals react differently to the same stimuli, depending on their prior experience of that stimulus.

Values and Culture

Culture provides structure, guidelines, expectations, and rules to help people understand and interpret behaviors. Ethnographic studies suggest there are cultural differences in social understanding, interpretation, and response to behavior and emotion. Cultural scripts dictate how positive and negative stimuli should be interpreted. For example, ethnographic accounts suggest that American mothers generally think that it is important to focus on their children’s successes while Chinese mothers tend to think it is more important to provide discipline for their children. Therefore, a Chinese mother might interpret a good grade on her child’s test (stimulus) as her child having guessed on most of the questions (interpretation) and therefore as worthy of discipline, while an American mother will interpret her child as being very smart and worthy of praise. Another example is that Eastern cultures typically perceive successes as being arrived at by a group effort, while Western cultures like to attribute successes to individuals.

Expectation and Desire

An individual’s hopes and expectations about a stimulus can affect their interpretation of it. In one experiment, students were allocated to pleasant or unpleasant tasks by a computer. They were told that either a number or a letter would flash on the screen to say whether they were going to taste orange juice or an unpleasant-tasting health drink. In fact, an ambiguous figure (stimulus) was flashed on screen, which could either be read as the letter B or the number 13 (interpretation). When the letters were associated with the pleasant task, subjects were more likely to perceive a letter B, and when letters were associated with the unpleasant task they tended to perceive a number 13. The individuals’ desire to avoid the unpleasant drink led them to interpret a stimulus in a particular way.

Similarly, a classic psychological experiment showed slower reaction times and less accurate answers when a deck of playing cards reversed the color of the suit symbol for some cards (e.g. red spades and black hearts). Peoples’ expectations about the stimulus (“if it’s red, it must be diamonds or hearts”) affected their ability to accurately interpret it.

Self-concept

This term describes the collection of beliefs people have about themselves, including elements such as intelligence, gender roles, sexuality, racial identity, and many others. If I believe myself to be an attractive person, I might interpret stares from strangers (stimulus) as admiration (interpretation). However, if I believe that I am unattractive, I might interpret those same stares as negative judgments.

Perceptual Constancy

Perceptual constancy perceives objects as having constant shape, size, and color regardless of changes in perspective, distance, and lighting.

• Perceptual constancy refers to perceiving familiar objects as having standard shape, size, color, and location regardless of changes in the angle of perspective, distance, and lighting.
• Size constancy is when people’s perception of a particular object’s size does not change regardless of changes in distance from the object, even though distance affects the size of the object as it is projected onto the retina.
• Shape constancy is when people’s perception of the shape of an object does not change regardless of changes to the object’s orientation.
• Distance constancy refers to the relationship between apparent distance and physical distance: it can cause us to perceive things as closer or farther away than they actually are.
• Color constancy is a feature of the human color perception system that ensures that the color of an object is perceived as similar even under varying conditions.
• Auditory constancy is a phenomenon in music, allowing us to perceive the same instrument over differing pitches, volumes, and timbres, as well as in speech perception, when we perceive the same words regardless of who is speaking them.

Have you ever noticed how snow looks just as “white” in the middle of the night under dim moonlight as it does during the day under the bright sun? When you walk away from an object, have you noticed how the object gets smaller in your visual field, yet you know that it actually has not changed in size? Thanks to perceptual constancy, we have stable perceptions of an object’s qualities even under changing circumstances.

Perceptual constancy is the tendency to see familiar objects as having standard shape, size, color, or location, regardless of changes in the angle of perspective, distance, or lighting. The impression tends to conform to the object as it is assumed to be, rather than to the actual stimulus presented to the eye. Perceptual constancy is responsible for the ability to identify objects under various conditions by taking these conditions into account during mental reconstitution of the image.

Even though the retinal image of a receding automobile shrinks in size, a person with normal experience perceives the size of the object to remain constant. One of the most impressive features of perception is the tendency of objects to appear stable despite their continually changing features: we have stable perceptions despite unstable stimuli. Such matches between the object as it is perceived and the object as it is understood to actually exist are called perceptual constancies.

Visual Perceptual Constancies

There are much common visual and perceptual constancy that we experience during the perception process.

Size Constancy

Within a certain range, people’s perception of a particular object’s size will not change, regardless of changes in distance or size change on the retina. The perception of the image is still based upon the actual size of the perceptual characteristics. The visual perception of size constancy has given rise to many optical illusions.

The Ponzo illusion: This famous optical illusion uses size constancy to trick us into thinking the top yellow line is longer than the bottom; they are actually the exact same length.

Shape Constancy

Regardless of changes to an object’s orientation, the shape of the object as it is perceived is constant. Or, perhaps more accurately, the actual shape of the object is sensed by the eye as changing but then perceived by the brain as the same. This happens when we watch a door open: the actual image on our retinas is different each time the door swings in either direction, but we perceive it as being the same door made of the same shapes.

Shape constancy: This form of perceptual constancy allows us to perceive that the door is made of the same shapes despite different images being delivered to our retina.

Distance Constancy

This refers to the relationship between apparent distance and physical distance. An example of this illusion in daily life is the moon. When it is near the horizon, it is perceived as closer to Earth than when it is directly overhead.

Color Constancy

This is a feature of the human color perception system that ensures that the color of an object remains similar under varying conditions. Consider the shade illusion: our perception of how colors are affected by bright light versus shade causes us to perceive the two squares as different colors. In fact, they are the same exact shade of gray.

Checker-shadow illusion: Color constancy tricks our brains into seeing squares A and B as two different colors; however, they are the exact same shade of gray.

Auditory Perceptual Constancies

Our eyes aren’t the only sensory organs that “trick” us into perceptual constancy. Our ears do the job as well. In music, we can identify a guitar as a guitar throughout a song, even when its timbre, pitch, loudness, or environments change. In speech perception, vowels and consonants are perceived as constant even if they sound very different due to the speaker’s age, sex, or dialect. For example, the word “apple” sounds very different when a two year-old boy and a 30 year-old woman say it, because their voices are at different frequencies and their mouths form the word differently… but we perceive the sounds to be the same. This is thanks to auditory perceptual constancy!

Back to Table of Contents

What is this thing we call personality? Let’s consider the following definitions, what do they have in common?

“Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristics behavior and thought” (Allport, 1961, p. 28)

“The characteristics or bl end of characteristics that makes a person unique” (Weinberg & Gould, 1999).

Both definitions emphasize the uniqueness of the individual and consequently adopt an idiographic view.

The idiographic view assumes that each person has a unique psychological structure and that some traits are possessed by only one person; and that there are times when it is impossible to compare one person with others. It tends to use case studies for information gathering.

The homothetic view, on the other hand, emphasizes comparability among individuals. This viewpoint sees traits as having the same psychological meaning in everyone. This approach tends to use self-report personality questions, factor analysis, etc. People differ in their positions along a continuum in the same set of traits.

It’s important we also consider the influence and interaction of nature (biology, genetics, etc.) and nurture (the environment, upbringing) with respect to personality development.

Trait theories of personality imply personality is biologically based, whereas state theories such as Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory emphasize the role of nurture and environmental influence.

Sigmund Freud’s psychodynamic theory of personality assumes there is an interaction between nature (innate instincts) and nurture (parental influences).

Freud’s Theory

Personality involves several factors:

– Instinctual drives –sex, food, aggression

– Unconscious processes

– Early childhood influences (re: psychosexual stages) – especially the parents

Personality development depends on the interplay of instinct and environment during the first five years of life. Parental behavior is crucial to normal and abnormal development. Personality and mental health problems in adulthood can usually be traced back to the first five years.

Psychosexual Development

People – including children – are basically hedonistic – they are driven to seek pleasure by gratifying the Id’s desires (Freud, 1920). Sources of pleasure are determined by the location of the libido (life-force).

As a child moves through different developmental stages, the location of the libido, and hence sources of pleasure, change (Freud, 1905).

Environmental and parental experiences during childhood influence an individual’s personality during adulthood.

For example, during the first two years of life, the infant who is neglected (insufficiently fed) or who is over-protected (over-fed) might become an orally-fixated person (Freud, 1905).

Tripartite Theory of Personality

Freud (1923) saw the personality structured into three parts (i.e., tripartite), the id, ego, and superego (also known as the psyche), all developing at different stages in our lives.

These are systems, not parts of the brain, or in any way physical.

The ID is the primitive and instinctive component of personality. It consists of all the inherited (i.e., biological) components of personality, including the sex (life) instinct – Eros (which contains the libido), and aggressive (death) instinct – Thanatos.

It operates on the pleasure principle (Freud, 1920) which is the idea that every wishful impulse should be satisfied immediately, regardless of the consequences.

The ego develops in order to mediate between the unrealistic ID and the external real world (like a referee). It is the decision-making component of personality

The ego operates according to the reality principle, working our realistic ways of satisfying the ID’s demands, often compromising or postponing satisfaction to avoid negative consequences of society. The ego considers social realities and norms, etiquette and rules in deciding how to behave.

The superego incorporates the values and morals of society which are learned from one’s parents and others. It is similar to a conscience, which can punish the ego through causing feelings of guilt.

Trait Approach to Personality

This approach assumes behavior is determined by relatively stable traits which are the fundamental units of one’s personality.

Traits predispose one to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation. This means that traits should remain consistent across situations and over time, but may vary between individuals. It is presumed that individuals differ in their traits due to genetic differences.

These theories are sometimes referred to psychometric theories, because of their emphasis on measuring personality by using psychometric tests. Trait scores are continuous (quantitative) variables. A person is given numeric score to indicate how much of a trait they possess.

Eysenck’s Personality Theory

Eysenck (1952, 1967, and 1982) proposed a theory of personality based on biological factors, arguing that individuals inherit a type of nervous system that affects their ability to learn and adapt to the environment.

During 1940s Eysenck was working at the Maudsley psychiatric hospital in London. His job was to make an initial assessment of each patient before their mental disorder was diagnosed by a psychiatrist.

Through this position, he compiled a battery of questions about behavior, which he later applied to 700 soldiers who were being treated for neurotic disorders at the hospital (Eysenck (1947).

He found that the soldiers’ answers seemed to link naturally with one another, suggesting that there were a number of different personality traits which were being revealed by the soldier’s answers. He called these first-order personality traits

He used a technique called factor analysis. This technique reduces behavior to a number of factors which can be grouped together under separate headings, called dimensions.

Eysenck (1947) found that their behavior could be represented by two dimensions: Introversion / Extroversion (E); Neuroticism / Stability (N). Eysenck called these second-order personality traits.

Each aspect of personality (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) can be traced back to a different biological cause. Personality is dependent on the balance between excitation and inhibition process of the autonomic nervous system (ANS).

Extraversion/Introversion

Extraverts are sociable and crave excitement and change, and thus can become bored easily. They tend to be carefree, optimistic and impulsive. They are more likely to take risks and be thrill seekers. Eysenck argues that this is because they inherit an under aroused nervous system and so seek stimulation to restore the level of optimum stimulation.

Introverts on the other hand lie at the other end of this scale, being quiet and reserved. They are already over-aroused and shun sensation and stimulation. Introverts are reserved, plan their actions and control their emotions. They tend to be serious, reliable and pessimistic.

Neuroticism/stability

A person’s level of neuroticism is determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system. A stable person’s nervous system will generally be less reactive to stressful situations, remaining calm and level headed.

Someone high in neuroticism on the other hand will be much more unstable, and prone to overreacting to stimuli and may be quick to worry, anger or fear. They are overly emotional and find it difficult to calm down once upset. Neurotic individuals have an ANS that responds quickly to stress.

Psychoticism/normality

Eysenck (1966) later added a third trait / dimension – Psychoticism e.g. lacking in empathy, cruel, a loner, aggressive and troublesome. This has been related to high levels of testosterone. The higher the testosterone, the higher the level of psychoticism, with low levels related to more normal balanced behaviour.

According to Eysenck, the two dimensions of neuroticism (stable vs. unstable) and introversion-extroversion combine to form a variety of personality characteristics.

Critical Evaluation

Twin studies can be used to see if personality is genetic. However, the findings are conflicting and non-conclusive.

Shields (1976) found that monozygotic (identical) twins were significantly more alike on the Introvert – Extrovert (E) and Psychoticism (P) dimensions than dizygotic (non-identical) twins.

Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn (1988) found that only 50% of the variations of scores on personality dimensions are due to inherited traits. This suggests that social factors are also important.

One good element of Eysenck’s theory is that it takes into account both nature and nurture. Eysenck’s theory argues strongly that biological predispositions towards certain personality traits combined with conditioning and socialisation during childhood in order to create our personality. This interactionist approach may therefore be much more valid than either a biological or environmental theory alone. It also links nicely with the diathesis stress model of behaviour which argues for a biological predisposition combining with a environmental trigger for a particular behaviour.

Cattell’s 16PF Trait Theory

Cattell (1965) disagreed with Eysenck’s view that personality can be understood by looking at only two or three dimensions of behavior.

Instead, he argued that that is was necessary to look at a much larger number of traits in order to get a complete picture of someone’s personality.

Whereas Eysenck based his theory based on the responses of hospitalized servicemen, Cattell collected data from a range of people through three different sources of data.

• L-data – this is life record data such as school grades, absence from work, etc.
• Q-data – this was a questionnaire designed to rate an individual’s personality (known as the 16PF).
• T-data – this is data from objective tests designed to ‘tap’ into a personality construct.

Cattell analyzed the T-data and Q-data using a mathematical technique called factor analysis to look at which types of behavior tended to be grouped together in the same people. He identified 16 personality traits / factors common to all people.

Cattell made a distinction between source and surface traits. Surface traits are very obvious and can be easily identified by other people, whereas source traits are less visible to other people and appear to underlie several different aspects of behavior.

Cattell regarded source traits are more important in describing personality than surface traits.

Cattell produced a personality test similar to the EPI that measured each of the sixteen traits. The 16PF (16 Personality Factors Test) has 160 questions in total, ten questions relating to each.

Allport’s Trait Theory

Allport’s theory of personality emphasizes the uniqueness of the individual and the internal cognitive and motivational processes that influence behavior. For example, intelligence, temperament, habits, skills, attitudes, and traits.

Allport (1937) believes that personality is biologically determined at birth, and shaped by a person’s environmental experience.

Authoritarian Personality

Adorno et al. (1950) proposed that prejudice is the results of an individual’s personality type. They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).

Adorno argued that deep-seated personality traits predisposed some individuals to be highly sensitive to totalitarian and antidemocratic ideas and therefore were prone to be highly prejudicial.

The evidence they gave to support this conclusion included:

• Case studies, e.g., Nazis
• Psychometric testing (use of the F-scale)
• Clinical interviews revealed situational aspects of their childhood, such as the fact that they had been brought up by very strict parents or guardians, which were found of participants who scored highly on the F-scale not always found in the backgrounds of low scorers.

Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:

• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient to people with high status
• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs
• Conventional, upholding traditional values

Adorno concluded that people with authoritarian personalities were more likely to categorize people into “us” and “them” groups, seeing their own group as superior.

Therefore, the study indicated that individuals with a very strict upbringing by critical and harsh parents were most likely to develop an authoritarian personality.

Adorno believed that this was because the individual in question was not able to express hostility towards their parents (for being strict and critical).  Consequently, the person would then displace this aggression / hostility onto safer targets, namely those who are weaker, such as ethnic minorities.

Adorno et al. felt that authoritarian traits, as identified by the F-Scale, predispose some individuals towards ‘fascistic’ characteristics such as:

• Ethnocentrism, i.e., the tendency to favor one’s own ethnic group:
• Obsession with rank and status
• Respect for and submissiveness to authority figures
• Preoccupation with power and toughness.

In other words, according to Adorno, the Eichmanns of this world are there because they have authoritarian personalities and therefore are predisposed cruelty, as a result of their upbringing.

There is evidence that the authoritarian personality exists. This might help to explain why some people are more resistant to changing their prejudiced views.

Critical Evaluation

There are many weaknesses in Adorno’s explanation of prejudice:

• Harsh parenting style does not always produce prejudice children / individuals
• Some prejudice people do not conform to the authoritarian personality type.
• Doesn’t explain why people are prejudiced against certain groups and not others.

Furthermore, the authoritarian explanation of prejudice does not explain how whole social groups (e.g., the Nazis) can be prejudiced. This would mean that all members of a group (e.g., Nazis) would have an authoritarian personality, which is quite unlikely.

Cultural or social norms would seem to offer a better explanation of prejudice and conflict than personality variables. Adorno has also been criticized for his limited sample.

Also, Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) found that lower educational level was probably a better explanation of high F-scale scores than an authoritarian.

Back to Table of Contents

 1.2 Personality Analysis

Personality analysis is… well, it can mean different things to different people. To a novice, it would mean assessing and evaluating a person’s core qualities and characteristics, such as determination, reliability, organization, or gentleness. But there are more to it. It goes further than assessing core qualities and characteristics. It means understanding their childhood past and its impact, subconscious and unconscious ideals, dominant love language, dominant sense (such as sight or hearing), dominant brain system(s), their temper, etc. 

1.3 Personality Identity

Personal identity is the concept you develop about yourself that evolves over the course of your life. This may include aspects of your life that you have no control over, such as where you grew up or the color of your skin, as well as choices you make in life, such as how you spend your time and what you believe. You demonstrate portions of your personal identity outwardly through what you wear and how you interact with other people. You may also keep some elements of your personal identity to yourself, even when these parts of yourself are very important.

Have you ever struggled with the question, ‘Who am I?’ or thought about who you might become in the future? These questions have been thought about and discussed throughout history, in particular by philosophers who have immersed themselves in the search for knowledge about the nature of being human. Such questions as, ‘What does it mean to be a person?’ and ‘Do I matter?’ have engaged key thinkers and created conversations that we still grapple with in our society. Most people feel they want to endure in some way, both in their lives and beyond death. The philosophy of personal identity aims to address these matters of existence and how we even know we exist through time.

The Philosophy of Personal Identity

How do you know you are the same person you were as a child? Is it because you remember yourself growing within the same body you have now? Or is it because you perceive that you have the same mind? What criteria can be used to confirm you are, in fact, a ‘person’?

When you ask yourself how you know you are the same person you were as a baby, this is a question of persistence. In this context, persistence means our existence across time and how we can prove it. In other words, we perceive that our self ‘persists’ through our life as the same human being, but how do we know for sure? The philosophers Plato and René Descartes, as well as many religions, have proposed that we persist because we have a soul, a timeless essence that continues in some form even after the death of our living, breathing human body.

Descartes, in particular, aimed to provide a scientifically-oriented argument for this enduring inner self. He used rational arguments and examples to demonstrate that the mind and body are distinct. He promoted the view that the mind can exist and persist without the body. This distinction between a person’s mind and body is known as mind-body dualism and has been an influential and powerful theory in our society.

Even today, you may often hear the phrase, ‘body and soul’. This way of thinking has evolved from the ideas of religious traditions as well as philosophical ways of viewing our personal identity.

Development of Personal Identity

Personal identity develops over time and can evolve, sometimes drastically, depending on what directions we take in our life. For instance, a person who at 25 identifies himself as part of a particular political party, of a particular faith, and who sees himself as upper-middle class, might discover that at 65, he’s a very different person. Perhaps he’s no longer interested in politics, he’s changed his religion, and he’s living on less money than when he was 25. Any variation is possible during a person’s life span.

Children developing their sense of self may experiment with different ways of expressing personal identity. This can include various ways of dressing or wearing their hair, and it will also include a variety of ways of behaving and thinking. They might find that some ways of expressing themselves work well and feel right, while others do not last. Throughout life, we have a sense of who we are that continually changes.

Back to Table of Contents