|Neurobiology||Matthews||Corr I 417
Neurobiology/personality psychology/MatthewsVsNeurobiology/Matthews: biological theories are vulnerable to two types of difficulty. 1) Although they identify important moderator factors including arousal and motivation, predictions of the theories have often been disconfirmed (Matthews and Gilliland 1999)(1).
2) It is questionable whether, in principle, biological theories are even capable of explaining the variation of personality effects with information-processing demands – (cognitive patternings). (The issue, of course, is the extent to which the cognitive can be reduced to the physical.)
Personality effects that are not mediated by symbolic processes including language may be most readily described in terms of neurological functioning. Examples are individual differences in conditioning and in the startle reflex (Corr 2002)(2).
1. Matthews, G. and Gilliland, K. 1999. The personality theories of H. J. Eysenck and J. A. Gray: a comparative review, Personality and Individual Differences 26: 583–626
2. Corr, P. J. 2002. J. A. Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory: tests of the joint subsystems hypothesis of anxiety and impulsivity, Personality and Individual Differences 33: 511–32
Gerald Matthews, „ Personality and performance: cognitive processes and models“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press
Philip J. Corr
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018