by Adam Perkins
In Chapter 5 – ‘Childhood Disadvantage and Employment-Resistance’ – we shall see that the disadvantage suffered by children of welfare claimants is not only a matter of financial irresponsibility but also a matter of parental style: despite having more free time, welfare claimants tend to speak to their children significantly less often than employed parents do. This finding suggests that the personality characteristics which make an individual an unsatisfactory employee also make them less likely to give their children the verbal and social investment that is required to develop a pro-employment personality profile. This finding is consistent with the notion that dysfunctional personality characteristics are transmitted from parents to offspring via an environmental route. However, the existence of individuals who grew up in privileged families with diligent, nurturing parents, yet nevertheless turned out to be adults with the employment-resistant personality profile, gives us a clue that the transmission of personality characteristics from parent to child cannot be explained by environmental factors alone.
In Chapter 6 – ‘Genetic Influences on Personality’ – we shall see evidence that the missing link in the transmission of personality characteristics from parent to child is genetic, as parents exert a genetic influence on the personality profiles of their offspring. Key evidence of this type is provided by experiments that show personality traits in populations of non-human animals can be significantly altered by selective breeding. These experiments point to a genetic basis for personality and are backed up by cross-breeding experiments which show that the offspring of two strains of animals with opposite behavioural tendencies will typically display behaviour that is intermediate between the two parental strains.
However, concerns exist that psychological models created using non-human animals (for example, rodents) are too simple to be valid in humans. The demonstration of a genetic influence on personality in non-human animals therefore does not necessarily apply to humans. Moreover, in practice, genetic effects will act in combination with environmental effects and so analysing genetic effects in isolation lacks realism. In Chapter 7 – ‘Personality as a Product of Nature and Nurture’ – we examine research aimed at comparing genetic and environmental influences on human personality and see evidence that the more closely related two people are, the more similar their personalities tend to be. This echoes the non-human experimental data on the genetic basis of personality and suggests that such data do, after all, have relevance to humans. However, we will also see that genetically identical individuals (monozygotic twins) do not have identical personality profiles, showing that both nature and nurture influence personality development.
Chapters 5–7 show that, because human personality is a product of nature and nurture (and their interplay), the children of employment-resistant welfare claimants are not only disadvantaged through a greater likelihood of being neglected, but also by a higher risk of inheriting the genes for the employment-resistant personality profile, compared to children born to adults with a pro-employment personality profile. Therefore, a welfare state which boosts the number of children born to claimants risks undermining human capital by causing an increased incidence of personality mis-development. More specifically, such a welfare state will cause proliferation of the employment-resistant personality profile via both environmental and genetic channels. I dub this idea the ‘welfare trait’ theory.
In Chapter 8 – ‘A Model of How the Welfare State Leads to Personality Mis-Development’ – I build on these foundations by using a statistical model to obtain a quantitative estimate of the scale of welfare-induced personality mis-development. This may seem to be an impossible task given the bewildering array of variables involved, but, due to what is known as the normal distribution, we can insert certain key numbers into this demographic model and obtain an estimate of the size of the transforming effect of a certain level of welfare generosity on personality, as well as its approximate monetary cost.
In Chapter 9 – ‘Further Evidence for Welfare-Induced Personality Mis-Development’ – I summarise evidence that is circumstantial but nevertheless consistent with the notion that the welfare state is changing the developmental trajectory of the personality profile of the population towards greater employment-resistance. For example, we shall see that the introduction of the welfare state amongst the nations of the Western world has been followed by a substantial decrease in work motivation and an upsurge in criminal violence. This rise in criminal violence that followed the introduction of the welfare state in the Western world could be coincidental, but it is what we would expect to see if the welfare trait theory is valid because criminal violence is associated with employment-resistant personality characteristics.
In Chapter 10 – ‘What Next?’ – I argue that to prevent the welfare state proliferating the employment-resistant personality profile, the generosity of benefits must be adjusted so that the average number of children in workless households falls to a level that is approximately equal to that in working households. But I also argue that the greatest obstacle to amending the welfare state so that it does not cause personality mis-development is not a lack of scientific knowledge: after all, much of the evidence upon which this book is based has been published for decades and the eminent biologist Richard Dawkins warned presciently in 1976 of the personality-related dangers of the welfare state. In my opinion, the greatest obstacle to correcting the welfare state is a lack of will amongst the governing elite in previous decades to face up to this issue. I conclude the book by tracing this lack of will to the tendency of the governing elite to live in geographically and intellectually sheltered enclaves that mean they are out of touch with life in ordinary neighbourhoods, where the ill effects of welfare-induced personality mis-development are most apparent.
However, before we launch into the empirical content of the book, I will finish this introductory chapter with a brief summary of some basic concepts in personality research, as well as some comments on the scientific method. This end piece is primarily for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with personality as a topic of scientific research, but also serves to put the theme of this book in its proper scientific context.
First, we need a definition of personality. Creating definitions of personality is a popular hobby for researchers, leading to a sometimes confusing plethora of terms and phrases. But what most of these definitions have in common is the notion that personality refers to patterns of emotion, thought and behaviour that represent stable and lasting differences between individuals. So if we have a colleague who is a worrier in job-related situations, they are also likely to be a worrier when it comes to their private life. Moreover, that person is likely to have been a worrier as a child and is also likely to be a worrier when they become a senior citizen. This definition of personality does not rule out dramatic changes in a person’s disposition following a traumatic experience, as in the old joke that a conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged. But it means that, on average, when we trace an individual’s habitual pattern of emotion, thought and behaviour over their lifetime, we are able to observe regularities; that is, their personality profile.
This leads us to a second key concept, which is that personality is measureable. This is essential, because in order to observe regularities in personality from year to year or to compare personality to applied criteria such as job performance, we must be able to measure it. This can be accomplished by observing behaviour during an experiment, or obtaining reports from people who know the individual (for example, parents, teachers or colleagues). But by far the most convenient and widely used means of measuring personality is the self-report questionnaire, in which the respondent is asked to say how well a series of items applies to them. These items usually consist of personality-related adjectives (for example, talkative) or phrases (for example, I like to attend lively parties) and the participant typically indicates how well the item applies to them using a numerical response scale (for example, 1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3
= somewhat, 4 = very much).
As a supplement for this book, I have created an online personality questionnaire that you can use to measure your own personality. The home page is www.measureyourpersonality.com and you can access the questionnaire by entering the study code 92556379. This questionnaire divides the domain of personality into five dimensions, which is the current industry standard model of personality, often known as the ‘Big Five’ (for example, Digman, 1990; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993). This does not mean that other models of personality are incorrect or that there are only five dimensions of personality – it simply means that for most practical purposes, five dimensions have been proven to provide a useful and valid approximation of human personality. The ‘Big Five’ dimensions of personality are extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to experience.
Extraversion reflects engagement with the external world, especially engagement with people. Individuals who score high on this trait (often labelled as extraverts) typically enjoy being with people, are usually full of energy and experience frequent positive emotions. They also tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals who are likely to say ‘Yes!’ or ‘Let’s go!’ to opportunities for excitement. In groups, they like to talk, assert themselves and draw attention to themselves and so excel in occupations that require frequent face-to-face interaction with the general public. Extraverts do however run the risk of appearing somewhat overpowering and even irritating owing to their talkative manner.
Individuals who score low in the lower range on extraversion (often labelled as introverts) typically have a rich internal life and need less stimulation form the external world than more extraverted individuals do. Introverts therefore tend to come across as quiet, low-key, deliberate and disengaged from the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not however be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert does and thus usually prefers to be alone or with one or two other people. The independence and reserve of the introvert should not be mistaken as unfriendliness or arrogance, as although the introvert does not usually seek out others, he or she will usually be quite pleasant when approached. Introverts excel in occupations that require lengthy periods of concentration with few other people around, such as radar operation or writing.
Conscientiousness reflects the extent to which we focus on detail and manage our affairs in a self-disciplined manner. Individuals scoring high on this trait come across as careful, cautious, planning, dutiful and detail-minded. They are typically focused on achievement and are capable of working consistently and patiently towards long-term goals. High scorers on conscientiousness do not tend to rush into decisions or actions. This steady, meticulous persona means that high scorers on conscientiousness tend to excel in occupations, such as the law or accountancy, which require considerable attention to detail and an ability to make sensible decisions that require a sober and prudent deliberation of all the facts of a matter.
Low scorers on conscientiousness are typically impulsive and tend to skip over detail, preferring instead to focus on the bigger picture. They also tend to make quick and seemingly intuitive decisions, even on big matters such as which job to take or which house to buy. When attempting to learn a new skill, low scorers on conscientiousness will tend not to apply themselves in a steady, efficient manner and thus will usually acquire only a shallow, superficial grasp of the matter at hand. They may therefore appear careless, but can also excel at adventurous/entrepreneurial occupations that require a vision of the big picture and an ability to seize short-lived ‘spur-of-the-moment’ opportunities.
Agreeableness reflects individual differences in cooperation and social harmony. Individuals in the high range on agreeableness value getting along with others and generally appear easy-going, fair-minded and nice. They are, therefore, considerate, friendly, generous, helpful and will make a special effort to avoid causing trouble or difficulties for other people. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent and trustworthy. Individuals with high levels of agreeableness are likely to excel in occupations that require a caring and friendly face, such as social work, but may also appear something of a ‘soft touch’ who can easily be exploited.
Individuals in the low range on agreeableness tend to put their own needs ahead of those of other people and generally come across as tough-minded, uncooperative and assertive. They tend to be quite sceptical about the motives of other people and so are not easily fooled. Low agreeableness will cause the individual to come across as a stubborn character and so is especially useful in occupations that require tough or objective decision-making such as soldiering, police work or science.
Neuroticism describes the likelihood of a person experiencing negative emotions in response to everyday situations. People who score low on this trait rarely experience negative emotion and tend to be calm almost all the time. Even when they experience a severely traumatic event, such as a bereavement, low scorers on neuroticism will return to a calm state sooner than most. Low scorers on neuroticism tend to excel in occupations such as medicine, police work or military aviation that require the individual frequently to deal with upsetting or scary situations but, as a corollary, can appear to be emotionally flat or detached in their personal relationships. Likewise, the serene mindset of a low scorer on neuroticism can hinder creativity. However, freedom from negative feelings does not mean that high scorers experience a lot of positive feelings, as the frequency of positive emotions is a component of the extraversion domain.
People who score high on neuroticism typically respond with strong negative emotions (for example, anxiety, fear and depression) to events that would not bother most people, especially when the event concerns their personal interests (for example, being criticised). This hyper-emotionality means that individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish one’s ability to think clearly under stress, make decisions when time-pressured and cope effectively with adversity – they may even lead to obsessive or perfectionist behaviour. High neuroticism has however been displayed by many famous geniuses, suggesting that a tendency to brood and to experience negative emotion may boost performance in occupations that reward single-minded obsession, creativity and perfectionism (for example, science, music composition, art, politics and film-making).
Openness to experience reflects an individual’s interest in imaginative or intellectual matters. People with high scores on openness to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be aware of their feelings and to think and act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. Scores on openness to experience are only modestly related to years of education and scores on standard intelligent tests. Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. Depending on the individual’s specific intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of mathematical, logical or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language, music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts.
People with low scores on openness to experience tend to be interested in practical and down-to-earth matters. They prefer the plain, straightforward and obvious over the complex, ambiguous and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavours as foolish or of no practical use. Low scorers on openness to experience prefer familiarity over novelty; they tend to be resistant to change and rather set in their ways. Openness is often presented as healthier or more mature by psychologists, who are often themselves open to experience. However, open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different environments. The intellectual style of the open person may serve a professor well, but research has show
n that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in police work, sales and a number of service occupations.
Personality researchers often also study intelligence (indeed it might be argued that intelligence is just another dimension of personality), so at this point, it is worth briefly mentioning my views. I consider intelligence to represent problem-solving ability and to be functionally different from personality. One analogy I use to help my students understand this functional difference is to compare a person to a car: that person’s level of intelligence represents the horsepower of the car’s engine whereas their personality represents the steering system of the car, determining the goals at which they direct the problem-solving power of their intelligence. This is a well-established idea. For example, in 1739, the Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote in his famous book A Treatise of Human Nature that ‘Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them’ (p. 416). Thus, if an individual combines high levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness with a high level of intelligence, it is plausible that their personality will cause them to use their intelligence altruistically, to benefit society, for example by becoming a doctor. In contrast, a similarly intelligent individual but with the employment-resistant personality profile (that is, relatively low levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness) is likely to use their intelligence in a less constructive way and may even become a menace to society (for example, a criminal mastermind).
These points merely provide a snapshot of the personality research literature but I hope it will be sufficient to provide readers who are not personality specialists with enough understanding of the topic to make an informed judgement about the validity of the welfare trait theory. Continuing with the theme of demystification, we will end this introductory chapter with some comments on the scientific method.