Personality Theory for the Twenty-First Century 153behavioral development, but also sets new avenues of re-
search. To illustrate, it is important to know that children stand
unaided at the age of 6 months and walk at the age of 1 year.
But that type of knowledge needs to be joined with a behav-
ioral analysis of the behavior involved, how the behavior
is learned, and what the function of the behavior is in later
development.
Moreover, research needs to be conducted with respect to
how repertoires are learned in a cumulative-hierarchical
manner to constitute progressively more complex entities
that constitute personality. Language development, for exam-
ple, needs progressive study from the time when the reper-
toires are simple to the time when they are more complex,
both in their features that are general to most children as well
as in features personal to individuals. The manner in which
different repertoires in language provide the springboards for
later learning needs study. To illustrate, the verbal-motor
repertoire (by which the child follows directions) is elabo-
rated throughout childhood. How is that BBR basic in the
learning of elements in other language, sensorimotor, and
emotional repertoires? Such very essential subject matter is
not being studied today.
This is to say that the theory of personality as BBRs pro-
jects a new framework for research in developmental psychol-
ogy that will make developmental psychology fundamental
for the fields of personality and personality measurement (see
Staats, 1966).
Social Psychology
The basic principles of learning behavior and the human
learning principles pertain to single individuals. But much
learning of humans and much human behavior occur in social
interaction. While learning and behavior follow the basic
principles, principles of social interaction can be abstracted
that are useful in understanding personality formation and
function.
Take the child’s learning of the personality repertoires.
Very central elements are formed in the parent-child interac-
tions. And that process will be influenced greatly by the
BBRs the child learns to the parent (as a stimulus object), as
well as the reverse. To illustrate, the parent ordinarily pro-
vides for the child’s needs, which means the presentation of
positive emotional stimuli (food, warmth, caresses) paired
with the parent. The parent comes thereby to elicit a very pos-
itive emotional response (love) in the child. And that is im-
portant to the child’s further learning, for the more positive
emotion the parent elicits, the more effective the parent will
be in promoting the child’s learning. That follows from PB’s
social psychological principle that the stronger a person
elicits a positive emotional response in another individual the
more effective the person will be as a reinforcing and direc-
tive stimulus for the individual. That means that the parent
who is more loved will be more effective in rewarding the
child for a desired behavior or in admonishing the child for
an undesirable behavior. The more loved parent will also be a
stronger “incentive” for the child to follow in learning via im-
itation. Moreover, generalization will occur to other people
so the child has learned a general personality trait.
The point is that the PB framework calls for research that
concerns how social interaction principles (see Staats, 1996)
are involved in personality formation and function.Personality Tests and MeasurementThere is not room in this chapter to deal with the nature of the
field of psychological measurement as a science. However, it
shares the same weakness as the field of personality already
described and repairing those weaknesses calls for many stud-
ies of different types, including linking psychological mea-
surement to other fields of psychology, such as that of learning.
Traditional behaviorism never made sense of how the concepts
and methods of psychological testing are related to behavior-
ism concepts and methods (see Skinner, 1969, pp. 77–78). The
conceptual gap between the two sets of knowledge is just too
wide. To understand tests and test construction methods in be-
havioral terms, it is necessary to have the concepts and princi-
ples of a behavioral theory of personality, so the developments
made by PB are necessary for bridging the gap. PB introduces
the position that tests can provide information about behavior
and personality.
Let me begin by making a behavioral analysis of test
construction methods, in a manner that answers the question
of why psychological tests can predict later behavior. Tradi-
tionally, tests are thought to predict behavior because they
measure an unobservable process-entity of personality.
Rather, tests can predict behavior because that is what they
are constructed to do. That is, the test constructor first gathers
a group of items. But in test construction only those items that
do predict the behavior of interest are retained. Sometimes the
test constructor first selects items without any justifying ra-
tionale. Sometimes, however, the test constructor first selects
items that are believed to be measures of the personality trait.
But this selection difference does not matter, for in both cases
the test constructor discards and retains items on the basis of
which ones relate to (predict) the behavior of interest.
The next question is why items are related to behaviors.
Some, influenced by radical behaviorism, have assumed that
the test item and the predicted behavior are, and should be, the
same. However, in most cases that is not true. One real reason