Typology of Individuality: Problems and Solutions

The existence of personality types is one of the most extremely controversial issues. In contrast to the ideology of the “Big Five” or biological approach, we presume that the typology of individuality cannot be reduced to temperament types or personality ones, since reflects the effect of the interaction of multi-level properties of a person. This study focuses on the empirical identification of types of individuality and the description of their behavioral manifestations. One thousand and one hundred volunteers aged 19–35 (73% female), took part in the present study. We used a set of methods for assessing the multi-level properties of individuality: Temperament, Fundamental Personality Dimensions (PEN), Character, Motivation, Cognitive Styles, Intelligence, Hardiness, Spiritual Personality Traits, Meaning in Life, Axiological Orientation, and Ways of Coping. Principal Component Analysis (Varimax rotation) allowed us to reduce 81 variables into four main components, which were called Wisdom, Emotionality, Activity, and Sociability. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis allowed us to identify four groups of respondents who differ in the manifestations of the above-described integrative variables. We called these complexes of individuality traits as “Ordinary Man”, “Spiritual Man”, “Man of Mood” and “Man of Action”. The significance of differences between groups was confirmed based on multivariate ANOVA.

Introduction

Individuality research has a long history. There are two well-known opposed strategies for exploring individuality. The first strategy (probabilistic) is based on the uniqueness of each person [1, 2]. The second (essential) comes from Plato’s philosophy in explaining individual differences, emphasizing the priority of qualitative differences over quantitative ones, through typology. It is important that these types be obtained empirically and reflected the nature of different levels of individuality, that is, they would be an external and internal manifestation of the generalization of multi-level properties of individuality.

Individuality is often understood as a manifestation of the biological properties in man, for instance, Hippocrates and Galen, K.-G. Jung, E. Kretschmer and W. Sheldon, D.W. Keirsey, I.P. Pavlov and others. Indeed, the typology of temperament is well developed. However, there is another interpretation: individuality as a set of biological and social qualities of a person [3, 4]. In this case, personality traits and higher social manifestations of a person also relate to individuality. This approach is widespread in Russian psychology, but has recently been reflected in world science when discussing the personality [5, 6].

V.S. Merlin emphasized, “Man possesses the properties of all stages of the development of matter, ranging from chemical level to socio-historical one. In each of these properties there is, along with something common and typical for groups of people, something individual and unique” [7] (p. 58). Individuality consists of a number of levels reflecting the features of the development of matter: biochemical, somatic (the general constitution of the organism), neurodynamic (nervous system), psychodynamic (temperament), personal, socio-psychological, socio-historical ones. Between these levels, there are complex interactions that allow you to adapt successfully to a changing environment. Each level is formed and functionates according to its own laws, the relations between the properties of one level are rigidly determined, and between levels, they are plastic and changeable. The rigidity of ties, on the one hand, and plasticity, on the other, allow the body to adapt adequately to the situation and at the same time be generally stable and relatively constant in its behavioral manifestations.

V.M. Rusalov noted that the complex multi-level structure of individuality is a manifestation of the interactions of genetic and environmental factors mediated by activity of a man. Neurophysiological foundation of human mind and behavior are the temperament. Each property of individuality is formed under the influence of society as an amplification (continuation) of temperament properties or as their compensation [4].

One of the closest to the above-described understanding of individuality is the lexical personality models (for example, the Big Five Model, the Big Seven Model, Hexaco Model). The Big Five model coved five main domains of human personality such as neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. However, G. Bedny, W. Karwowski, characterizing the “Big Five” obtained by factor analysis, note “factor analysis is a fundamentally atheoretical approach to personality that conflates motivation, attitude, temperament, and values. Moreover, the mathematics of factor analysis precludes identification of qualitative differences in personality types, the effects of complex moderator relationships among the variables, nonlinear relationships among variables and factors or consideration of unusual or unique standings on the measured variables” [8] (p. 457). Agreeing with this opinion, we stress that the Big Five, based on the human manifestations reflected in the language, erases the differences between temperament and personality, mixing the qualitative differences between these levels of individuality.

Gerlach, B. Farb, W. Revelle and L. Amaral, combining an alternative computational approach to clustering with available large data sets comprising the responses of hundreds of thousands of users of web-based questionnaires (International Personality Item Pool implementation of the NEO-PI-R8), found reliable evidence of the existence of at least four different personality types. Comparing more than 1.5 million participants, researchers stated that, “although the presented empirical evidence for the identified types is unambiguous, we still lack a theoretical understanding” [9] (p. 740).

We believe that the theoretical and empirical development of a typology should answer the question about the mechanisms of type formation. In contrast to the ideology of the “Big Five”, our appeal to the typology of individuality is due to the fact that individuality is determined from three sides: from biology, from the environment and from the activity of man himself [10]. Therefore, the typology of individuality cannot be reduced to temperament types or personality types, since reflects the effect of the interaction of factors, multi-level properties of individuality.

This study focuses on the empirical identification of types of individuality and the description of their behavioral manifestations.

Method

2.1. Procedure

The collection of empirical data has been organized in accordance with generally accepted ethical standards. Participants were 1100 volunteers aged 19–35 (M = 23,74; SD = 5,39; 73% female). They filled out test notebooks in a large auditorium after classes. Testing was anonymous. Researchers helped participants if the questions arose. The average test time was 120 minutes.

2.2. Participants

The focus was on the widest possible audience to reflect more fully the population. Young people from different cities of Russia (Kostroma, Moscow, Perm, and Taganrog) and different specialties (teachers, engineers, customs officers, salespeople, physicians, designers, journalists, psychologists, managers, historians, linguists, programmers, etc.) took part in the study.

2.3. Measures

We used a set of methods for assessing the multi-level properties of individuality:

Temperament Properties (Ergonicity, Tempo, Plasticity, Emotionality, and Activity in Motor, Intellectual or Social spheres; General Activity and Adaptability) were measured with the help of shortened version of the Structure Temperament Questionnaire (STQ-S) [11]. Cronbach’s Alpha for all the scales ranged from 0.55 to 0.84.

The Fundamental Personality Dimensions (Psychoticism/Soft-heartedness,   Extraversion/Introversion, Neuroticism/Emotional stability) were evaluated with the help of Russian modified, validated, and shortened version of Eysenck PEN-questionnaire [12]. Cronbach’s Alpha varied from 0.72 to 0.87 for the scales.

Character Traits scored with shortened version of the questionnaire that covered Hyperthymicity, Stuckness, Emotivity, Pedanticity, Anxiety, Cyclothymicity, Demonstrativeness, Excitability, Dystimicity, and Exalitveness [4]. Cronbach’s Alpha varied around 0.6 – 0.91 for different scales.

Achievement Motivation, Accessibility Motivation, and Value Motivation were estimated with the help of Motivation Questionnaire [4]. The checking reliability revealed the high level of internal consistency of the scales: Cronbach’s Alpha varied around 0.6 – 0.9.

The Cognitive Styles (Field Dependence/Field Independence, Narrow/Wide Range of Equivalence, Flexibility/Rigidity of Cognitive Control, Impulsivity/Reflectivity, Concrete/Abstract Conceptualization, Tolerance/Intolerance of Unrealistic Experience) were estimated with the help of the Cognitive Personality Styles Questionnaire (CPS-Q) [13]. Cronbach’s Alpha for the scales was more than 0.60.

Intelligence (IQ level) was evaluated based on the indicators of speed and precision of solving simple logical problems (LOGOP) [14]. The checking reliability revealed the high level of internal consistency of the scale. Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.90.

Hardiness was measured with the help of Russian adapted version of the Hardiness Survey [15] in adaptation by D.A. Leontiev, E.I. Rasskazova [16]. Cronbach’s Alpha for the scales Commitment, Control, and Challenge was respectively 0.65, 0.79, and 0.79.

Spiritual Personality Traits were estimated with the help of the Spiritual Personality Inventory [17]. Cronbach’s Alpha for the scales (Spiritual Virtues, Positive Outlook on Life, Spiritual Discipline, Goodness, Spiritual Service, and Moral Rectitude) ranged from 0.52 to 0.72.

Meaning in Life was evaluated with the help of Russian modified, validated version of Purpose-in-Life Test [18] by D.A. Leontiev [19]. Cronbach’s Alpha for scales Purpose in Life, Life Process, Life Performance, Locus of Control “I”, and Locus of Control “Life” was respectively 0.82; 0.77, 0.73, 0.63, and 0.67.

Axiological Orientation, namely, the orientation of a person towards such values as Collectivity, Spiritual Satisfaction, Creativity, Life, Achievement, Tradition, Material Well-being, Individuality, Profession, Education, Family, Social Life, and Leisure were studied using the of the Axiological Orientation Survey [20]. Cronbach’s Alpha varied from 0.58 to 0.82 for the scales.

Ways of Coping such as Seeking Social Support, Focus on Solving Problems, Working Hard and Achieve, Worry, Invest in Close Friends, Seek to Belong, Wishful thinking, Not Coping, Tension Reduction, Social Action, Ignore the Problem, Self-Blame, Keep to Self, Seek Spiritual Support, Focusing on the Positive, Seek Professional Help, Physical Recreation were estimated based on Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) [21]. WCQ was validated for Russians by T.L. Kryukova [22]. Cronbach’s Alpha varied around 0.43 – 0,82 for different scales.

Thus, the total list for statistical treatments included 94 indexes, of which 81 indicators were primary, non-aggregated variables. We used primary variables in the statistical processing.

2.4. Statistical Methods

We used Stat Soft Statistica v.10 and the R programming language environment (NbClust package) for statistical processing of the data.  Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used (Varimax rotation) to reduce the dimension of the primary variables. The number of factors was determined by the Scree plot. Hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s method, Euclidean distances) was carried out based on the reduced variables. We revealed the number of clusters using the NbClust package, which allowed us to determine the optimal number of clusters based on an analysis of 30 criteria. Comparison of mean values of primary variables in the identified groups was carried out using ANOVA (Scheffe post hoc test).

The results of analyzes with an excessively large amount of information were presented in the Supplementary materials.

Results

3.1. Factor structure of Individuality 

Theoretically, we assumed that there could be no less than three Factors with certain common mental mechanisms of behavior regulation or types of generality of individuality properties, which probably based on (a) Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism or (b) such temperament traits as Motor Activity, Intellectual Activity, and Social Activity.

Descriptive Statistics (KMO = 0.912; Bartlett sphericity values = 49126.538; df = 3240; p < 0.001) showed that we have sufficient grounds for applying Factor Analysis.

Principal component analysis allowed us to reduce 81 variables into four main components (Figure 1.), cumulatively explaining 38.4% of the variance of the primary scales. Percentage of explained variance for each factor was 11.8, 10.9, 9.6, and 6.4, respectively.

Figure 1. Cattell’s scree test.

The first significant factor covered Psychoticism (-0.499);

• • Purpose in Life (0.424), Locus of Control “I” (0.436), Locus of Control “Life” (0.417), Life Process (0.411), and Life Performance (0.408);
  • Values of Achievement (0,829), Spiritual Satisfaction (0.824), Life (0.794), Collectivity (0.733), Individuality (0,684), Creativity (0.653), Material Well-being (0.646), and Tradition (0.616);
  • Spiritual Virtues (0.550), Moral Rectitude (0.521), Spiritual Service (0.472), and Positive Outlook on Life (0.446);
  • Working Hard and Achieve (0.591), Focus on Solving Problems (0.589).

This Factor appears to reflect such integrative dimension as Wisdom of man.

The second factor included both fundamental personality dimension Neuroticism (0.734) and temperament property such as Emotionality in Social (0.575), Intellectual (0.510), and Motor (0.404) Spheres;

• • Cyclothymicity (0.638), Exalitvenesswere (0.599), Dystimicity (0.529), Stuckness (0.522), Emotivity (0.482), and Anxiety (0.472);
  • Field dependence (0.459), Concrete Conceptualization (0.411), and Rigidity of Cognitive Control (0.410);
  • Control (-0.667), Commitment (-0.643), and Challenge (-0.569);
  • Life Performance (-0.524), Life Process (-0.517), Purpose in Life (-0.447), Locus of Control “Life” (-0.446), and Locus of Control “I”(-0.441);
  • Not Coping (0.603), Self-Blame (0.559), Wishful thinking (0.522), Tension Reduction (0.504), and Worry (0.461).

Apparently, the second factors covered different aspect manifestations of the mood. We named this factor as an Integrative Emotionality dimension.

The third factor contained personality dimension Extraversion (0.481) and temperament property such as Ergonicity in Intellectual (0.579) sphere, Tempo in Intellectual (0.601) and Motor (0.416) spheres, Plasticity in Intellectual (0.508) and Social (0.422) spheres;

• • Hyperthymicity (0,526) and Demonstrativeness (0.434);
  • Achievement motivation (0.717) and Accessibility motivation (0.485);
  • Abstract Conceptualization (0.662), Field independence (0.647), Flexibility of Cognitive Control (0.612), Tolerance of Unrealistic Experience (0.526), Reflectivity (0.504), Wide Range of Equivalence (0.460), and Impulsivity (0.433);
  • Control (0.438).

Obviously, the third factor united the various attributes of productive activity. We called this combination of variables as an Activity Power dimension.

The fourth factor covered personality dimension Extraversion (0.655) and temperament property such as Ergonicity (0.664), Plasticity (0.522), and Tempo (0.508) in Social sphere;

• Hyperthymicity (0.507) and Demonstrativeness (0.499);
• Invest in Close Friends (0.664), Seek to Belong (0.561), Seeking Social Support (0.424), and Social Action (0.407).

Evidently, the fourth factor reflected the different aspects of the need for social contacts. We named this combination of variables as the Integrative dimension of Sociability.

3.2. Types of Individuality

Hierarchical cluster analysis allowed us to identify four groups of respondents who differ in the manifestations of the above-described integrative variables: Wisdom, Emotionality, Activity, and Sociability. The choice of four clusters for further analysis was due studying the indices that determine the optimal number of groups in cluster analysis. The method was implemented in the NbClust package for R (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Results of the hierarchical cluster analysis: (a) Dendrogram; (b) Determination of the optimal number of clusters.

The significance of differences of indicators between the respondents of the four
groups was confirmed based on multivariate ANOVA (Table 1).

Discussion

The existence of personality types is one of the most extremely controversial issues. It is now widely believed that there are about five major personality domains that describe the psychological profile of a man [24]. However, M. Gerlach, B. Farb, W. Revelle, and L. Amaral based on a robust data-driven approach revealed four personality types across four large data sets [9]. Despite the fact that different methods were used, the data obtained in the present paper to a certain extent confirmed the existence of four personality types. We called these complexes of individuality traits as “Ordinary Man”, “Spiritual Man”, “Man of Mood” and “Man of Action”.

We think that each complex is likely to have its own behavioral manifestations:
• “Ordinary man” is psychotic, emotionally unstable, with a low level of meaningfulness of life, spirituality, family and profession values, low intelligence. He does not aspire to anything (low rates of achievement motivation and choice of professional activity), but has a high need for communication (communicative activity) and heightened sensitivity to any critical remarks. He is field-dependent, intolerant and rigid. In difficult life situations, he resorted to coping “social activities”, “Ignore the Problem”, and “Seek Professional Help”

“Spiritual Man” is distinguished by a high level of hardiness, meaningfulness of life, spiritual abilities. Facing a difficult life situation, he is focused on problem solving and productive work. “Spiritual Man” is an introvert, distinguished by high intelligence, and emotional stability. He is kind-hearted. He relies on his inner experience and easily withstands the influence of other people (field independence). He is able to “grasp” the essence of the problem or phenomenon (abstract conceptualization). Such a person is open to new experience (tolerance) and easily switches from one cognitive function to another (flexibility of cognitive control).

• “Man of Mood” is an introverted, emotionally unstable, and anxious, with mood swings for no apparent reason, focused on the dark and sad sides of his own life. He is characterized by low activity, hardiness, spirituality and meaningfulness of life. He does not strive for achievements, but the subjective significance of professional activity, family values, material well-being and spiritual satisfaction are important for him. He is field-dependent and resorts to coping “Self-blame” and “Keep to Self”.
• “Man of Action” is extraverted, sociable, initiative, possessing an even mood and able to get along well with other people. He has a high achievement motivation and availability of professional activities motivation, a high level of meaningfulness of life, spiritual capacity and hardiness. He has a wide repertoire of coping (excluding “Keep to Self”). He is tolerant, has a high sensitivity to detail.

Statistically the “Big Five” and “multi-level individuality” studies using PCA (EFA) seem similar; they methodologically differ greatly in their understanding of the qualitative differences in the multi-level properties of individuality.

We do not know yet about the mechanisms of type formation, and how they form complexes with these or other personality traits. If we try to examine the types through the prism of adaptation to enviroment, quite possibly, we can reveal that the “cores” of the types, which perform the function of regulating behavior, will be located at different levels of the individuality. Probably, the second type has a strong value-and-meaningful regulation. Undoubtedly, all these problems need further research.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study need to be recognized. First, the results obtained cannot be extrapolated to a population that falls outside the specified age range. Second, the study involved mostly Russian-speaking students, so it cannot be argued that the identified features are inherent in the population as a whole. In this regard, it would be interesting to study the stability of the identified types in different ages and through different cultures.

References

1. Ananiev, B.G. Man as a subject of knowledge; Peter: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2001. (In Russian). Anan’yev, B.G. Chelovek kak predmet poznaniya; Piter: Sankt-Peterburg, Rossiya, 2001.
2. Moon, J.H.; Sung, Y. Individuality within the group: Testing the optimal distinctiveness principle through brand consumption. Social Behavior and Personality 2015, 43, 15-26. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.1.15
3. Merlin, V.S. Essay on integral study of individuality; Pedagogy: Moscow, Russia, 1986. (In Russian).  Merlin, V.S. Ocherk integral’nogo issledovaniya individual’nosti. Pedagogika: Moskva, Rossiya, 1986.
4. Rusalov, V.M. Temperament in the structure of human individuality: Differential psychophysiological and psychological research; Institute of Psychology RAS: Moscow, Russia, 2012. (In Russian). Rusalov, V.M. Temperament v strukture individual’nosti cheloveka: Differentsial’no-psikhofiziologicheskiye i psikhologicheskiye issledovaniya; Institut psikhologii RAN: Moskva, Rossiya, 2012.
5. McAdams, D.P.; Pals, J.L. A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist 2006, 61(3), 204–217.
6. McCrae, R.R.; Costa Jr.P.T. The five-factor theory of personality. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3rd ed.; John, O.P., Robins, R.W., Pervin, L.A., Eds; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008;  pp. 159-181.
7. Merlin, V.S. Problems of integral research of individuality of a person. Psychological Journal 1980, 1, 58-71. (In Russian). Merlin, V.S. Problemy integral’nogo issledovaniya individual’nosti cheloveka. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal 1980, 1, 58-71.
8. Bedny, G.; Karwowski, W. A Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to Human Performance and Work Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007.
9. Gerlach, M.; Farb, B.; Revelle, W.; Amaral, L.N. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature Human Behaviour 2018, 2, 735–742. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0419-z
10. Volochkov, A.A. Psychology of the activity of the subject of being: an integrative approach; PGPU: Perm, Russia, 2007. (In Russian). Volochkov, A.A. Psikhologiya aktivnosti sub”yekta bytiya: integrativnyy podkhod; PGPU: Perm’, Rossiya, 2007.
11. Rusalov, V.M.; Trofimova, I.N. The structure of temperament and its measurement; Psychological Services Press: Toronto, Canada, 2007.
12. Slobodskaya, H.R.; Knyazev, G.G.; Safronova, M.V. Short form of Eysenck personality questionnaire and its use for assessing the risk of substance abuse. Psychological Journal, 2006. No 3. P. 94–105. (In Russian). (Slobodskaya, G. R., Knyazev, G. G., Safronova, M. V. (2006). Kratkaya forma lichnostnogo oprosnika Ayzenka (LOA – K) i yeye ispol’zovaniye dlya otsenki riska upotrebleniya psikhoaktivnykh veshchestv. Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal, 3, 94–105).
13. Volkova, E.V., Rusalov, V.M. Cognitive styles and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016, 99, 266–271.
14. Volkova, E.V.; Rusalov, V.M.; Dudnikova T.A. Cognitive styles in the structure of the individuality in early adulthood. In Fundamental and applied research of modern psychology: results and development prospects. Eds. A.L. Zhuravlev, V.A. Koltsova. Publishing House of the “Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences”:  Moscow, Russia, 2017. P. 1137-1144. (In Russian).
15. Maddi, S.R.; Khoshaba, D.M. Personal Views Survey III-R: Test development and internet instruction manual. Hardiness Institute:  Newport Beach, CA, 2001.
16. Leontyev, D.A.; Rasskazova, E.I. Hardiness Survey. Meaning: Moscow, Russia, 2006. (In Russian).
17. Husain, A.; Anas, M. Spiritual Personality Inventory – reviced. India, 2017.
18. Crumbaugh, J.C.; Maholick, L.T. Manual of instructions for the Purpose-in-Life Test. Psychometric Affiliates: Munster, Indiana, 1969.
19. Leontyev, D.A. The test of the meaning of life orientations, 2nd ed. Meaning: Moscow, Russia, 2000. (In Russian).
20. Kaptsov, A.V. Psychological axiometry of the individual and group. SamLuxPrint: Samara, Russia, 2011. (In Russian).
21. Folkman, S.; Lazarus R.S. Manual for the ways of coping questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1988.
22. Kryukova, T.L. Methods for learning coping behavior: three coping scales. Kostroma State University: Kostroma, 2010. (In Russian). Kryukova T.L. Metody izucheniya sovladayushchego povedeniya: tri koping-shkaly. Kostroma: Kostromskoy gos. universitet im. N.A.Nekrasova, 2010.
23. Gerlach, M.; Farb, B.; Revelle, W.; Amaral, L.N. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature Human Behaviour 2018, 2, 735–742. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0419-z
24. Widiger, T. A. The Oxford Handbook of the Five Factor Model of Personality. Oxford Univ. Press: Oxford, 2015).

Supplemental material

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at Table: The results of the analysis of principal components and multy-leveled the properties individuality.

Table S1. The Results of a Principal Component Analysis of the Multi-Level Properties of Individuality

Note. N = 1,061. Table entries are loadings on varimax-rotated principal components. Absolute loadings of .30 or stronger are bolded.

Table S2. Mean for 4 selected groups (T-scores)

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.V. and A.K.; Methodology, E.V. and A.K.; Software, A.K.; Validation, A.K.; Formal Analysis, A.K.; Investigation, E.V. and A.K.; Resources, E.V.; Data Curation, A.K.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, E.V. and A.K.; Writing-Review & Editing, E.V.; Visualization, A.K.; Supervision, E.V.; Project Administration, E.V.; Funding Acquisition, E.V.

Funding: The study was supported by RSF grant (project № 18-18-00386), Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences.

Acknowledgments: The authors express gratitude to I.A. Kibalchenko, S.A. Khazova, T.A. Dudnikova, and N.E. Volkova for helping in gathering the data.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.