Personality - Personality, character

Japanese: 人格 - じんかく（英語表記）personality，character

A translation of personality. Personality refers to an integrated system aimed at elucidating the whole human being, focusing on the adaptation and individual differences of real living humans. It is used almost synonymously with the translation of character, but the relationship between the original word and the translation has the following history.

[Personality, Character, and Personality] Most academic terms in Japan are translations of Western terms, and psychological terms are no exception. It is well known that the word "psychology" itself is derived from a word coined by Nishi Amane. In the case of natural sciences, even if we start from everyday phenomena, the subject gradually becomes more abstract, and the terminology itself turns into a kind of artificial word that depends on the definition, so there are few problems if the translation is appropriate. However, in the fields of humanities and social sciences, we cannot stray too far from everyday phenomena. Many primary terms are created by refining the meaning of everyday words. In psychology, this also applies to perception, memory, and thinking. As research progresses, for example, memory moves away from its meaning of the retention and reproduction of past experiences, which is understood in everyday life, and is given a more strict definition. In such cases, it is analogous to the progress of natural sciences, and the translation problems are reduced. However, descriptions and concepts of human nature can take different configurations depending on the social and cultural background. According to the weak linguistic relativity hypothesis, phenomena that are important in a culture are expressed by a single, basic vocabulary, but in other cultures, corresponding primary vocabulary cannot necessarily be found. For example, emotion has been translated as 'jyō', but from the etymology it refers to outward expressive behavior and the accompanying intense emotions, in contrast to moderately suppressed emotions such as those expressed in the shitamachi (downtown) atmosphere. Jyō was almost a mistranslation, and although it was accepted for a short time, it was soon replaced by the neologism 'jyōdō'. In Japanese culture, where it has been emphasized not to express joy, anger, sadness, and happiness, it is only natural that there is a lack of primary vocabulary that corresponds to emotion. There are similarities with personality and character, and the issue of priority of translations makes it even more complicated.

Character was introduced first and is usually translated as character, but its etymology comes from the Greek words for sculpture and chisel. The reason this word also means "letters" comes from the practice of carving letters into clay tablets in the past. What they have in common is the meaning of being deeply carved, but this meaning is weak in the Japanese word character. Man of character is translated as a person of character, which does not correspond to character. Personality was once translated as personality. Its etymology comes from the Latin word persona, a mask used in pantomimes, and it is used to mean a person who is the subject of conversation, and the nuance of being easily removable also comes from its etymology. In Europe, it has a strong theological nuance. Neither of these is implied in the Japanese word character. The current situation seems to be that gradually, personality is being used as it is in the original word.

As we have seen above, it would be closer to the original meaning to use "personality" as the translation of "character" and "jinkaku" as the translation of "character." However, since "jinkaku" was first used as the translation of "character," it is understood that when "personality" was later introduced, "jinkaku" had to be used instead.

[Constitutional character theory] In human society, relationships with others are always essential, so interest in individuality and personality began to emerge early. Already in Greek times, Theophrastos attempted to concisely describe human individuality in his book Differencias Mentales, and this trend was continued in the writings of moralists such as La Bruyère and J. de. Meanwhile, in the world of medicine, the relationship between pathology and individual differences was explored, and Hippocrates and Galen distinguished between four types of personality: chorelic, melancholic, sanguine, and phlegmatic. This theory states that human body humors are composed of the four components mentioned above, and that the relative dominance of these components determines the body type, emotional tendencies, and types of lesions. Bile-hearted people are emotionally intense and easily angered, black-hearted people are prone to depression, sanguine people are cheerful and easily excited and easily cooled down, and phlegmatic people are passive and prone to lethargy. This characteristic pattern of emotion and reaction is called temperament. Sanguine people are said to have obese bodies and are prone to cerebral hemorrhage, and Hippocrates is said to have attempted a bloodletting therapy. Sanguine remains a common word today, demonstrating the accuracy of Hippocrates' intuitive insight. Since then, the idea that constitution (often translated as constitution, but the original word means basic structure, so it is better to use body type) and temperament are two sides of the same coin and based on genetic mechanisms, and that temperament forms the basis of character, has become a tradition in European characterology. This approach often reduces personality to a small number of independent basic types, in which case it is called typology.

Typology, the orthodox form of personality research in Europe, has produced many variations, but the pinnacle of this is the triclassification theory proposed by German psychiatrist E. Kretschmer. Based on his many years of clinical experience with psychiatric illness, Kretschmer discovered a close relationship between the three major endogenous psychiatric disorders and somatic types. He said that schizophrenia (known as schizophrenia at the time) corresponds to the elongated leptosome type, manic-depressive illness (cyclopsychiasis) corresponds to the obese pyknic type, and epilepsy corresponds to the muscular (militant) athletic type. He called the respective premorbid temperaments schizoid and manic-depressive (cyclo) cycloid, and furthermore, as general temperaments share a continuity (affinity) with these, he named them schizothymia, manic-depressive (cyclo) cyclothymia, and viscous, respectively. He proposed that schizoids fluctuate between the extremes of emotionality and coldness, manic-depressives between cheerfulness and sadness, and obsessives between obsessives and explosives. He also conducted pathographic research into the relationship between genius and constitution, pointing out that the type of genius changes from an elongated type inclined towards abstract and theoretical thinking to an obese type preferring concrete thinking as positivism spread. Kretschmer and his students collected a large number of cases of psychiatric illness and attempted to demonstrate the relationship between illness type and constitution, but although a rough correlation was found, it was far from complete. Eysenck, HJ, responded by conducting a large-scale factor analytic study and found three factors - psychopathy, neuroticism, and introversion/extroversion - and criticized Kretschmer's types as being secondary, resulting from a combination of these factors. On the other hand, WH Sheldon of the United States was also initially critical of Kretschmer and attempted to formulate an alternative system by conducting statistical analysis of a large amount of data. As a result, the three types he discovered - endomorphy (viscerotonia), mesomorphy (somatotonia), and ectomorphy (cerebrotonia) - are similar to Kretschmer's obese, muscular, and elongated types, respectively.

The twin pillars of typology alongside Kretschmer's constitutional personality theory are Jung, CG's introvert type and extrovert type. Introversion means that mental energy is directed toward one's inner world, while extroversion means that it is directed toward the outer world. Jung also divided mental functions into four categories: sensing, intuition, feeling, and thinking, and categorized people according to which one is dominant. Combining the two dimensions results in a complex typology of eight types, such as sensing introversion/extroversion, intuitive introversion/extroversion, etc. However, often only the contrast between introversion and extroversion is discussed.

The idea of typology has spread to other fields, and at one time criminologist Lombroso, C., believed that the type of criminal was determined by innate abilities and could be identified from appearance. Spranger, E. established six types based on value orientations in politics, economy, theory, aesthetics, society, and religion, while Laswell, H. divided political people into three types: administrators, agitators, and theorists. In his experimental neurosis research on dogs, Pavlov, IP, influenced later researchers such as Eysenck by stating that dogs with weak nervous systems and those with poor inhibitions are more likely to develop neuroses. It also had an impact on cognitive research, pioneering the field of research known as cognitive style.

[Psychological thought in continental Europe and Anglo-America] Constitutional personality theory and typology had long been the mainstream in personality research, but around the turn of the 20th century they faced a wave of change. Psychoanalysis by Freud, S., focuses on dynamic analysis, namely the emergence and transformation of motivations and needs, and is at odds with typology, which holds that behavioral tendencies are innately determined. Psychoanalysis was transplanted to America, and eventually gave rise to dynamic psychology, which focuses on the study of motivation. Behaviorism, which arose in America, advocated extreme environmentalism, and was in direct conflict with constitutional personality theory, which holds that genetics is the primary cause.

The two streams coexisted without intersecting, but it is said that researchers from both schools finally recognized their differences at the 14th International Congress of Psychology after the flames of World War II had subsided. Allport, GW (1957), who is familiar with the psychological ideas of the European continent and Anglo-American (British and American) psychology, pointed out about six contrasts between the two schools of psychology. The first difference is in the philosophical assumptions. In continental Europe, the tradition of rationalism and a prioriism is deeply rooted, and psychological characteristics such as reason are considered to be innate, whereas in Anglo-American psychology, on the other hand, empiricism, which considers the mind to be a blank slate, is the principle. The second difference is the relationship between the whole and the parts. In continental Europe, the whole is superior to the parts, and the uniqueness and unity of the human being as a whole is considered self-evident. In terms of research methods, emphasis is placed on the understanding psychology method of intuitively grasping the whole as it is, but in American psychology, the superiority and analysis of elements are deeply rooted, as is typical of behaviorism, and a scientific method of analysis and synthesis is adopted. The third contrast is in fundamental values, where fatalism and pessimism are deeply rooted in continental Europe, while reformism and optimism are dominant in America. The fourth is the issue of the positioning of social interaction. In America, interpersonal relationships and social interactions are considered to be essential dimensions of environmental adaptation, while in continental Europe, important characteristics are considered to be inherent in the individual and not influenced by external factors. The fifth is that American psychologists pay more attention to brain or neuropsychological models. The sixth is a difference in methodology, where continental Europe prioritizes the use of analytical methods, whereas Anglo-American psychology favors mechanization of natural science and empirical methods and devices, quantification, and analysis using mathematical models. This contrast shows that constitutional personality theory and typology are excellent in accordance with European psychological thought, but conversely, they invite dissatisfaction and criticism in American psychology. It was inevitable that unique personality research would emerge in America, and the term "personality" can be seen as a symbol of that uniqueness.

[Definitions of character and personality] Based on the above comparison, Allport states that character is evaluated personality, while personality is character without value judgment. The main difference between the two is whether or not ethical evaluation such as good and bad is placed first among individual differences. McKinnon, J., defines character as the ethical and moral aspects of personality first, and the active aspects second. The active conation is now almost an obsolete term, but it refers to goal behavior as a synthesis of will and impulse, and means the activation of emotional functions. In Europe, ability psychology gained an orthodox position and became a tradition in the 18th century, but its influence is weak in America. Since the will has traditionally been positioned as the bearer of the ethical function, the active refers to the concrete process of manifestation of the ethical function, and the second definition is not far from the first definition. Ethics is at the heart of human nature, and the prototype of the European concept of character can be seen, which emphasizes the innate, deep, unchanging, and inherent characteristics that derive from it.

At the other extreme is American sociologist Parsons, T., who states that "traits that appear in social situations are variants of role behavior and do not need to be attributed to individuals; personality is a system of internalized behavior." This reveals the American idea of a value-free perspective and the primary role of social factors. However, this makes it difficult to explain the consistency and uniqueness of individual behavior, and Sullivan, H.S., borrowing the hypothesis from psychoanalysis that behaviors in the early stages of development tend to persist, has come up with the most American definition of personality as "a relatively enduring pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations that shape human life." Allport's (1937) famous definition is "a dynamic organization within a particular individual that includes the psychosomatic systems that determine that individual's unique adaptation to the environment" (later changing this to "their characteristic behaviors and thoughts" to avoid the passive nuance of "the individual's unique adaptation to the environment"). As he boasted, this definition represents a good compromise between the psychological ideas of both continents, and is still widely used today.

Subsequently, as American psychology came to dominate the world, empirical, value-free and environmentalist personality research became mainstream, and European personality theory went into decline. As a result, the term "personality" became dominant in continental Europe, and "character" came to be interpreted as a term that indicates a certain area of research within that. However, this does not mean that the problems presented by European personality theory have disappeared. Given the current situation in which the definition of personality is extremely diverse, a theory that leads to a higher level of integration of the two ideas presented by Allport is needed.

[Concept of personality] If the concept of human nature depends on social structure and the terms used to express it are subject to the constraints of linguistic relativity, it is only natural that Japanese terms such as character and personality do not correspond one-to-one to Western concepts. Following Allport, some differences can be found between Eastern (Japanese) and Western psychological thought. For example, regarding the relationship between nature and humans, the Eastern world generally considers humans to be part of the natural world, while the Western world considers humans to be privileged beings created in the likeness of God, and the theory that intelligence and morality are innate characteristics of humans and that they are inherited is deeply rooted. The idea of ability psychology is also weak in the East, and instead of the Western world, which considers intelligence to be the highest function, the East places more importance on emotional functions. Contrary to the Western clinical psychology idea of strengthening the ego function, emphasis is placed on suppressing the ego and setting aside selfish desires. The contrast between collectivism and individualism has become well-known in recent years, but even in the Oriental world, especially in Japan, cooperation and consideration for others are prioritized over self-assertion and logical persuasion, and interpersonal intelligence is emphasized, as symbolized by the word "Yamato." Considering this social and cultural background, the concept of personality does not necessarily correspond to character. Therefore, in this book, as a rule, "personality" is used as is as a psychological term, with "character" being used in Japanese, and "character" being used for character in European personality studies. Although character corresponds to personality in the sense of a value-free exploration of individuality, it has nothing to do with situationism. →Emotions →Temperament →Constructivism →History of Psychology →Personality Psychology →Personality Development →Cognitive Style →Typology [Fujinaga Tamotsu]

Latest Sources Psychology Encyclopedia Latest Psychology Encyclopedia About Information

Japanese:

パーソナリティの訳語。パーソナリティとは，現実の生きた人間の適応と個人差を対象として，人間全体の解明に向けた統合的システムを指す。キャラクターcharacterの訳語としての性格とほぼ同義に用いられるが，原語と訳語の関係については，以下に述べるような経緯がある。

【人格と性格とパーソナリティ】　日本の学術用語の大半は西欧語の翻訳であり，心理学用語も例外ではない。「心理学」そのものが，西周の造語に由来することはよく知られている。自然科学の場合は，日常現象から出発しても対象はしだいに抽象化の次元を高め，術語自体が定義に依存する一種の人工語に転化していくから，適切な訳語であれば問題は少ない。しかし，人文・社会科学の分野では日常現象から遠く離れることはできない。一次的術語の多くは，日常語の語義を洗練することによって作られる。心理学の場合も知覚・記憶・思考などはこれに当たり，研究の進展につれて，たとえば記憶は日常素朴に理解されている過去経験の保持と再現という語義から離れ，より厳密な定義を与えられるに至る。このような場合，自然科学の進展と類比され，翻訳上の問題は縮小する。しかし，人間性についての記述や概念は社会的・文化的背景により異なる構成を取りうる。弱い言語相対仮説weak linguistic relativity hypothesisによると，当該文化において重視される現象は単一かつ基礎的な語彙によって表現されるが，他文化においては必ずしも対応する一次的語彙を見いだすことができない。例として，emotionは情緒と訳されたこともあったが，語源から見ても外に向かう表出行動とそれに伴う激しい感情を指し，下町情緒と表現されるような適度に抑制された感情とは対照的である。情緒は誤訳に近く，短期間通用したがすぐに情動という造語に置き換えられた。喜怒哀楽を表わさないことが重視されてきた日本文化において，emotionに対応する一次的語彙が欠けているのは当然ともいえる。personalityやcharacterにも似た点があり，訳語の先取権の問題も絡まってさらに複雑になっている。

　characterは先に導入され，普通は性格という訳語が当てられてきたが，その語源はギリシア語の彫刻や鑿にある。この語がまた「文字」を意味するのは，往時粘土板に文字を彫り込んだことに由来する。共通するのは深く彫り込まれたという意味であるが，日本語の性格にはそうした意味は薄い。man of characterは人格者と訳されていて，性格とは対応しない。personalityは，かつて人格と訳されてきた。その語源はラテン語の無言劇の仮面ペルソナpersonaにあり，話題の人という意味に使われ，着脱自由というニュアンスをもつのも語源に由来する。また，ヨーロッパでは神学的ニュアンスが強い。いずれも日本語の人格には含意されない。しだいに，むしろ原語のままパーソナリティが使われるようになっているのが現状であろう。

　以上見たように，personalityに性格，characterに人格を充てる方がより原義に近いが，性格が先にcharacterの訳語として用いられたため，personalityが後に導入されたとき人格を当てざるをえなかった事情が知られる。

【体質的性格学】　人間社会においてはつねに他者との関係が肝要であるから，個性や性格に関する関心は早くから芽生えていた。ギリシア時代すでにテオフラストスTheophrastosは，『人さまざま』により人間の個性について簡潔な描写を試み，この流れはラ・ブリュイエールLa Bruyère,J.deらモラリストの諸著作に受け継がれていった。一方，医学の世界でも病変と個人差との関連が探究され，ヒポクラテスHippocratesやガレノスGalenosによって胆汁質chorelic，黒胆汁質melancolic，多血質sanguine，粘液質phlegmaticの4類型が区別された。人間の体液は上述4種の成分から成り，その相対的優勢度により体型・感情傾向・病変のタイプなどが定まるとする説であり，胆汁質は激しい感情をもち怒りやすい，黒胆汁質は憂うつに陥りやすい，多血質は快活で熱しやすく冷めやすい，粘液質は消極的で無気力に傾きやすいとされた。このような感情と反応の特徴的様式を気質temperamentとよぶ。多血質は肥満型の体型をもち脳出血に罹患しやすいとされ，ヒポクラテスは放血療法を試みたといわれる。多血質は今日も日常語として生き残り，ヒポクラテスの直感的洞察力の的確さを示している。以降，体質constitution（体質と訳されることが多いが，原語は基本的構造を意味するから体型とする方がよい）と気質は表裏一体であって遺伝的機制に基づいており，気質は性格の基礎をなすという概念がヨーロッパの性格学characterologyの伝統となるに至った。この考え方は性格を少数の独立した基本類型に帰着させることが多い。この場合は類型学typologyとよばれる。

　ヨーロッパにおける性格研究正統派としての類型学は幾多の変種を生んだが，その頂点はドイツの精神医学者クレッチマーKretschmer,E.による三分類説である。クレッチマーは多年にわたる精神病の臨床経験から，三大内因性精神病と体型との間に密接な関連を見いだした。統合失調症（当時は精神分裂病）は細長型leptosome，躁うつ病（循環精神病）は肥満型pyknic，てんかんは筋骨（闘士）型athleticに対応するという。彼はそれぞれの病前気質を分裂病質schizoid，躁うつ（循環）病質cycloidとよび，さらに一般的気質もこれらと連続性（親近性）をもつとして，それぞれ分裂気質schizothymia，躁うつ（循環）気質cyclothymia，粘着気質viscousと名づけた。分裂気質は感情性と冷淡さ，躁うつ気質は陽気と悲哀，粘着気質は粘着と爆発のそれぞれ両極間を動揺するとした。天才と体質との関係についての病跡学研究をも行ない，抽象的・理論的思考に傾斜する細長型から実証主義の浸透につれて具体的思考を好む肥満型へと，天才のタイプが変動することを指摘している。クレッチマーと門下生たちは，多数の精神病事例を集め病型と体質との関連を実証しようとしたが，大まかな相関は認められるものの完全というにはほど遠い。アイゼンクEysenck,H.J.はこれに対して大規模な因子分析的研究を行ない，精神病質，神経症質，内向・外向の3因子を見いだし，クレッチマーの類型はこれら因子の複合からくる二次的なものと批判した。一方，アメリカのシェルドンSheldon,W.H.も初めクレッチマーに批判的であり，多数の資料の統計的分析を行なって代わる定式化を試みたが，結果として彼の見いだした内胚葉型endomorphy-内臓緊張気質viscerotonia，中胚葉型mesomorphy-身体緊張気質somatotonia，外胚葉型ectomorphy-頭脳緊張気質cerebrotoniaの3類型は，クレッチマーの肥満型，筋骨型，細長型にそれぞれ類似している。

　クレッチマーらの体質的性格学と並ぶ類型学の双璧は，ユングJung,C.G.の内向型introvert typeと外向型extrovert typeである。内向introversionとは精神的エネルギーが自己の内界に，外向extroversionは逆に外界に向かう態勢を意味する。ユングはまた，精神機能を感覚・直観・感情・思考の四つに分け，どれが優勢かによる類型化をも行なっているから，二つの次元の組み合わせによって感覚的内向・外向，直観的内向・外向などの八つのタイプという複雑な類型が生まれることになるが，内向・外向の対比だけが取り上げられることが多い。

　類型学の構想は他分野にも波及し，犯罪学者ロンブローゾLombroso,C.は，一時期犯罪者という類型は生得的に決定されていて容貌から判別できるとしていた。シュプランガーSpranger,E.は政治・経済・理論・審美・社会・宗教の価値志向の6類型を立て，ラスウェルLaswell,H.は政治的人間を行政家・扇動家・理論家の3類型に分けた。パブロフPavlov,I.P.はイヌの実験神経症研究において，神経系の弱い型や抑制の利かない型などが神経症に陥りやすいとして後のアイゼンクらに影響を与えた。認知研究にも影響を与え，認知スタイルという研究領域が開拓された。

【ヨーロッパ大陸とアングロ・アメリカの心理思想】　体質的性格学や類型学は長く性格研究の王道をなしてきたが，20世紀にかかるころから変革の波に遭う。フロイトFreud,S.による精神分析psychoanalysisは，動機や要求の生起と変容という力動的分析を主眼とし，行動傾向は生得的に決まっているとする類型学とは背反する。アメリカに移植された精神分析は，やがて動機の研究を主題とする動的心理学dynamic psychologyを生んだ。アメリカに興った行動主義behaviorismは極端な環境主義を唱え，遺伝を主因とする体質的性格学とは正面から対立する。

　二つの流れは交わることなしに並存していたが，第2次世界大戦の戦火が収まった第14回国際心理学会において双方の研究者はようやく互いの違いを確認したといわれる。ヨーロッパ大陸とアングロ・アメリカ（イギリス・アメリカ）の心理学思想に通じたオルポートAllport,G.W.（1957）は，双方の心理思想の間におよそ6項目の対比を指摘している。第1の差異は哲学的基礎仮定にあり，ヨーロッパ大陸では理性論・先験論の伝統が根強く，理性をはじめ心理的特性は生得とされるのに対して，アングロ・アメリカは逆に心は白紙とする経験論が原理をなしている。第2に全体と部分との関係があり，ヨーロッパ大陸では全体は部分に優越し人間の総体としての独自性と統一性は自明とされる。研究手法もあるがままの全体を直感的に把握する了解心理学的方法が重視されるが，アメリカ心理学では行動主義に典型的なように要素の優越と分析が根強く，分析と総合の科学主義的方法が取られる。第3の対比は基本的価値観にあり，ヨーロッパ大陸では宿命論やペシミズムが根強いが，アメリカでは改良主義とオプティミズムが支配的である。第4に社会的相互作用の位置づけの問題がある。アメリカでは対人関係や社会的相互交渉が環境適応への緊要な次元とみなされるのに対して，ヨーロッパ大陸では重要な特性は個人に内在し外から左右されないとする。第5に，アメリカの心理学者は脳または神経心理学的モデルにより多くの関心を注ぐ。第6は方法論の差であり，ヨーロッパ大陸では了解的方法が第一とされるのに対して，アングロ・アメリカ心理学では自然科学的・実証的方法と装置の機械化，数量化と数理モデルによる分析が好まれる。この対比によれば，体質的性格学や類型学は優れてヨーロッパ的心理思想に従い，逆にアメリカ心理学にとっては不満と批判をよぶことがわかる。アメリカには独自の性格研究が生まれる必然があり，personalityという用語はその独自性を示すシンボルだったと見ることができる。

【character とpersonalityの定義】　以上の対比を踏まえて，オルポートは，characterとは評価されたpersonalityであり，personalityは価値判断を除いたcharacterであるとする。両者の相違の中心は，善い-悪いなどの倫理的評価を個人差の第1におくか否かにある。マッキノンMcKinnon,J.は，characterの定義として第1にpersonalityの倫理的・道徳的側面を挙げ，第2に同じく動能的側面をいうとしている。動能conationは現在死語に近いが，意志と衝動の総合としての目標行動を指し，情意機能の発動を意味する。ヨーロッパでは，18世紀に能力心理学が正統の位置を獲得し伝統をなしてきたが，アメリカではその影響は薄い。意志は伝統的には倫理機能の担い手として位置づけられてきたから，動能は倫理機能の具体的発現過程を指し，第2の定義は第1の定義と遠いわけではない。倫理性は人間性の天賦の中心をなし，そこから派生する生得的・深層的・不変的・内在的などの諸特性を重視するヨーロッパ的性格概念の原型が見られる。

　これと対極をなすのは，アメリカの社会学者パーソンズParsons,T.で，「社会的状況において現われる特性とは役割行動の一変種であり，個人に帰属させる必要はない，personalityとは内在化された行為の体系である」としている。ここには，没価値的視点と社会的要因を一次的とするアメリカ思想が顕示されている。しかし，それでは個人の示す行動の一貫性や独自性を説明するのは困難であり，サリバンSullivan,H.S.は精神分析の説く発達初期の行動が永続しやすいという仮説を借りて，personalityを「人間生活を形作る反復生起する対人関係状況の比較的永続するパターン」とする最もアメリカ的な定義を下している。オルポート（1937）の定義は有名で，「特定個人の内部にあって，環境に対するその人固有の適応を決定する精神身体的諸システムをもつ力動的構成体」としている（のちに「環境に対するその人固有の適応」がもつ受動的ニュアンスを避けて「その特徴的な行動と思考」と改めている）。彼が自負するように，この定義は両大陸の心理学思想の良き折衷論に立ち，今もしきりに援用される。

　その後，アメリカ心理学が世界的優位を占めるに至ったため，実証的・没価値的また環境主義による性格研究が主流となり，ヨーロッパ的性格学は退潮した。これに伴い，ヨーロッパ大陸でもpersonalityという用語が優勢となり，characterはその一部の研究領域を示す用語という解釈が多くなった。しかし，ヨーロッパ的性格学の提示した問題が消滅したわけではない。パーソナリティの定義も多様を極める現状からは，オルポートの示した二つの思想をより高い統合へ導く理論が望まれる。

【人格の概念】　人間性に関する概念が社会的構成に依存し，それを表わす用語も言語相対性の制約を免れないとすれば，日本語の性格や人格が西欧的概念に一対一に対応しないのはむしろ当然である。オルポートに倣えば，東洋（日本）心理学思想と西欧のそれとの間にもいくつかの違いを見いだすことができる。たとえば，自然と人間との関係について，東洋世界では人間も自然界の一員とする観念が一般的だが，西欧的観念では人間のみが神に擬えて創られた特権的存在とされ，知能や道徳は人の天賦の特性という生得説や遺伝論が根強くなる。能力心理学的発想も東洋では薄く，知性を最上位機能とする西欧世界に対してむしろ情意機能に比重をかける。自我機能の強化という西欧臨床心理思想とは逆に，自我の抑制や私心を去ることが重視される。集団主義と個人主義の対比は近年有名になったが，東洋の世界でもとくに日本では「大和」の語に象徴されるように自己主張や論理的説得よりも協調と他者への配慮が優先され，対人的知能が重視される。こうした社会的・文化的背景を考え合わせると，人格という概念もcharacterとは必ずしも対応しない。したがって，本書では心理学用語としては，原則として「パーソナリティ」はそのままで使用し，日本語としては「性格」を当て，ヨーロッパ的性格学としてのcharacterには「人格」を当てた。性格も個性の没価値的探究という点ではpersonalityに対応するにしても状況主義とは無縁である。　→感情　→気質　→構成主義　→心理学史　→性格心理学　→性格発達　→認知スタイル　→類型学
〔藤永保〕

出典　最新心理学事典最新心理学事典について　情報

<<: New Musical Drama Theory - Shingakugekiron

>>: New music - Shingaku