21.5 Chapter Conclusion
David Colameco, M.Ed.
Summary
As a welder your school’s welding program usually starts with you welding low-carbon steels, such as ASTM A-36, because it is used throughout the structural welding industry and it is also relatively easy to weld. Low-carbon steels were part of the ferrous grouping of metals. Within this ferrous grouping of metals in Chapter 20, we discussed stainless steel as requiring cleanliness, proper application of shielding gasses, and the strict adherence to the WPS and manufacturer recommendations.
Non-ferrous metals discussed in this chapter take the need for cleanliness and welding procedures to a whole other level of importance. Non-ferrous metals are more rare, making welding opportunities rare. Most welding on non-ferrous metals is performed using automated processes. This doesn’t mean that manual welding opportunities are not available. Companies in Washington State employ welders to weld on these metals which makes it important to introduce you to them.
Review Questions
- What is a casting?
- Auditions for a movie’s actors.
- A metal fabrication formed by pouring liquid metal into a mold.
- A metal fabrication formed by rolling hot metal at the foundry.
- Protective insulation applied to a pressure vessel to prevent corrosion.
- What is weldability?
- The name of the welding test employers give to measure your ability to weld.
- The relative measure of ease that a metal can be welded.
- The measure of a welder’s greatness.
- Weldability is not used in welding.
- What does the term in-service refer to?
- The location that a weldment is installed.
- The amount of volunteer time a welder devotes to their community.
- The operating environment a weldment will experience such as temperatures and pressures.
- In-service is not a term used for weldments.
- Which welding process benefits greatly from an inverter power supply?
- SMAW.
- GMAW.
- GTAW.
- FCAW.
- Which reactive metal causes severe lung disease if its metal dust is breathed in?
- Beryllium.
- Titanium.
- Zirconium.
- None of the Above.
- What is a protective oxidation layer?
- Oxidation is detrimental, a protective oxidation layer is a myth.
- A flaky rust coating that continually reforms as flakes fall off.
- A loosely bonded oxide layer that serves as a barrier to further deeper oxidation.
- A well bonded oxide layer that serves as a barrier to further deeper oxidation.
- What makes aluminum different from welding low carbon steel? Select all that apply.
- The oxide layer starts to form almost immediately and must be removed prior to welding.
- The base metal does not give off visible light when heated, i.e. “glow”.
- Abrasive tools must only be used with aluminum to prevent contamination with other metals.
- The thermal conductivity is different leading to more distortion.
- What properties of non-ferrous metals make them attractive to traditional ferrous metals? Select all that apply.
- Improved thermal properties.
- Improved strength-to-weight ratios.
- Increased strength.
- Improved corrosion resistance.
- What industries are reactive metals primarily used in. Select all that apply.
- Aerospace.
- Ballistic armor plating.
- Nuclear.
- Reactive metals are not used in industry.
- Which welding processes have been used to weld aluminum up until WWII? Select all that apply.
- Oxy-fuel welding.
- SAW.
- GMAW.
- GTAW.
- Why is SMAW not an approved AWS process for structural aluminum welding? Select all that apply.
- SMAW of aluminum is approved by AWS in D1.2 Structural Aluminum.
- SMAW of aluminum is prone to porosity.
- SMAW of aluminum is prone to flux entrapment that causes internal corrosion.
- It will be approved if more welders use SMAW, popularity wins the day.
- Why is oxyfuel welding not widely used for welding aluminum? Select all that apply.
- The HAZ is larger than arc welding processes leading to lower strength in the weldments.
- The flux used absorbs water which leads to corrosion if not completely removed.
- Oxyfuel welding of aluminum is a widely used process.
- None of the above.
- What is unique about the 1000 series of aluminum alloys?
- The alloy number can be converted to the density of the alloy.
- The alloys are at least 99% pure aluminum with the last two digits in the alloy number representing the hundredths of purity (i.e. 1035 is 99.35% pure aluminum).
- The alloy number can be converted to the reflectivity of the alloy.
- Nothing is unique about the 1000 series of aluminum alloys.
- Which industries are known for using aluminum? Select all that apply.
- Automotive and trucking industries.
- Aerospace.
- Maritime.
- None of the above.
- Which welding process is used with aluminum in the automotive industry but is not usually taught in an introductory welding program.
- GTAW.
- GMAW.
- FSW.
- FCAW.
- What steps are important when welding cast aluminum? Select all that apply.
- Cleanliness of the part.
- Maintaining preheat and interpass temperatures.
- Identifying crack lengths and end drilling them to prevent further spread.
- None of the above.
- If a casting needs to be slow cooled how can you slow its rate of cooling? Select all that apply.
- Bury the weldment in sand.
- Place the weldment back in an oven that is turned off to use the oven’s insulation to slow the cooling rate.
- Use welding blankets.
- None of the above.
- Which welding processes are automated for critical welds? Select all that apply.
- SMAW.
- GTAW.
- GMAW.
- FCAW.
- What piece of equipment is used when shielding gas coverage on a weldment is difficult.
- Additional Preheat.
- Welding chamber or welding glove box.
- Additional cleaning.
- None of the above.
- What in service condition are bicycle frames and vehicles exposed to that helps cracks spread more quickly?
- Paint.
- Vibration.
- Sunlight.
- None of the above.


Chapter 1: Introduction to Personality
Part 2: Methods of Studying Personality
In all types of research, we need to consider two closely related concepts: hypothesis vs. theory. A hypothesis can loosely be defined as an educated guess about some relationship or circumstance that we have observed, and the purpose of the hypothesis is to explain what we have experienced and to provide a starting point for further research. When a set of observations seem to come together, especially as the result of testing our hypotheses, we might then propose a theory to bring those observations together. However, a theory is not necessarily our endpoint, since the theory itself may generate new hypotheses and more research. In this way, all scientific endeavors continue to develop, expand, clarify, change, whatever the case may be, over time. As a result, we have many different personality theories, since different theorists have viewed the human condition differently, and they have also used different techniques to study personality.
A variety of methods have been used to study personality. Much of the early research was based on clinical observations, which were not done according to strict experimental methods. Today, ethical restrictions on the types of research we can conduct with people limit our ability to re-evaluate many of those classic studies. So we are left with a field that is rich in theory, but somewhat poor in the validation of those theories. Of course some personality theorists have approached personality in a more scientific manner, or at least they have tried, but that has limited the questions they have been able to ask. Since a detailed analysis of experimental psychology and research design is beyond the scope of this book, we will only cover this topic briefly (though it may come up again within individual chapters).
Case Studies
Many of the best-known personality theorists relied on case studies to develop their theories. Indeed, it was after seeing a number of patients with seemingly impossible neurological complaints that Freud began to seek an explanation of psychological disorders. Basically, the case study approach relies on a detailed analysis of interesting and unique individuals. Because these individuals are unique, the primary criticism of the case study approach is that its results may not generalize to other people. Of greater concern is the possibility that early theorists chose to report only those cases that seemed to support their theories, or perhaps they only recognized those elements of a patient’s personality that fit their theory? Another problem, as mentioned above, is that two different theorists might view the same cases in very different ways. For example, since Carl Rogers worked initially with children, he found it difficult to accept Freud’s suggestions that even children were motivated primarily by sexual and aggressive urges. Consequently, Rogers sought a more positive view of personality development, which led to the establishment of the humanistic perspective. Thus, the case study approach can lead to very different conclusions depending on one’s own perspective while conducting research. In other words, it can easily be more subjective than objective, and psychologists who focus on our field as a scientific discipline always strive for more objective research.
Correlational Designs
When conducting correlational research, psychologists examine the relationships that exist between variables, but they do not control those variables. The measure that is typically used is the correlation coefficient, which can range from –1.0 to 0.0 to +1.0. A value close to zero suggests that there is no relationship between the variables, whereas a value closer to –1.0 or +1.0 suggests a strong relationship, with the direction of the relationship determining whether the value is positive or negative. It is important to remember that the strength of the correlation is determined by how far the correlation coefficient is from zero, not whether it is positive or negative. For example, we would most likely find a positive correlation between the number of hours you study for a test and the number of correct answers you get (i.e., the more you study, the more questions you get right on the test). On the other hand, the exact same data will give us a negative correlation if we compare the number of hours you study to the number of questions you get wrong (i.e., the more you study, the fewer questions you get wrong). So the way in which you ask the question can determine whether you have a positive or negative correlation, but it should not affect the strength of the relationship.
Since the investigator does not control the variables in correlational research, it is not possible to determine whether or not one variable causes the relationship. In the example used above, it certainly seems that studying more would lead to getting a better grade on a test. But consider another example: can money buy happiness? There is some evidence that wealthy people are happier than the average person, and that people in wealthy countries are happier than those in poorer countries. But does the money affect happiness? Certainly a million dollars in cash wouldn’t help much if you were stranded on a desert island, so what can it do for you at home? People with money can live in nicer, safer communities, they have access to better health care (so they may feel better physically), they may have more time to spend with their family and friends, and so in many ways their lives might be different. We can also look at the correlation the other way around; maybe happy people get more money. If you ran a company, and were going to hire or promote someone, wouldn’t you want to find someone who is friendly and outgoing? Wouldn’t you look for someone who other people will enjoy working with? So, maybe happy people do find it easier to be successful financially. Either way, we simply can’t be sure about which variable influences the other, or even if they influence each other at all. In order to do that, we must pursue experimental research.
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs
The experimental design is usually preferred within psychology, as with any other science. The goal is to control every aspect of the experiment and then manipulate a single variable, thus allowing us to attribute the results to that single manipulation. As a result, experiments allow us to make cause-and-effect statements about the relationships between the variables.
A simple experiment begins with defining the independent variable, the factor that will be manipulated, and the dependent variable, the factor that will be measured. Ideally, we then select our subjects in a random fashion, and assign them randomly to a control group and an experimental group. The experimental group is then exposed to the independent variable, whereas the control group is not. If we have successfully controlled all other variables through random selection of subjects (i.e., all subjects in a specified population have an equal chance of being selected for the study) and random assignment to the control and experimental groups (so that hopefully each group has an equal representation of gender, race, age, intelligence, personal habits, etc.), we should see a difference in the dependent variable that was caused by the independent variable.
Unlike the natural sciences, however, we can seldom control human behavior in the precise ways that true experimental designs require. For example, if we want to study the effects of prenatal exposure to cocaine on personality development, we certainly cannot ask pregnant women to use cocaine. Unfortunately, there are pregnant women who abuse cocaine and other illegal drugs. Therefore, we can try to identify those women, and subsequently study the development of their children. Since a variety of other factors led these women to abuse illegal drugs, we lose the control that is desired in an experiment. Such studies are called quasi-experimental, because they are set up as if we did an experiment, and can be analyzed in similar ways. The quasi-experimental approach has many applications, and can provide valuable information not available otherwise, so long as the investigators keep in mind the limitations of the technique (for the classic discussion of this design see Campbell & Stanley, 1963).
Cross-Cultural Approaches to the Study of Personality
Cross-cultural approaches to studying personality do not really represent a different type of research, but rather an approach to research that does not assume all people are influenced equally by the same factors. More importantly, cross-cultural psychologists recognize that seemingly common factors may, in reality, be quite different when viewed by people of very different cultures. The most obvious problem that arises when considering these issues is the potential difference between cross-cultural and multicultural research. Cross-cultural research is based on a comparison of cultures; two well-known categorizations are Eastern vs. Western perspectives and the somewhat related topic of individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures. However, a multicultural approach tells us that we must consider the true complexity of the human race. What is “Eastern?” Is it Asia, China, Japan, does it include India, and what about Muslim groups of people? Should Buddhism be viewed as an Eastern perspective or a religious perspective? The list goes on and on, because there are so many different cultures in the world. And finally, is it practical to really try coming up with a theory of personality that can encompass all the different groups of people throughout the world? Only by pursuing an understanding of different cultures can psychology truly be considered a global science, and that pursuit has only just begun. Since we have a long way to go, the future is ripe for new students to pursue careers in psychology and the study of personality.
Supplemental Materials
In this video [9:11], personality research methods are explored. Advantages and disadvantages of each method is discussed, as well as exciting new developments in the field.
Source: https://youtu.be/lSab-wtpVnQ
References
Text: Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory. Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
Supplemental Material: Personality research methods. Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/lSab-wtpVnQ. YouTube Standard License.
Application of Personality Theory-Assessing Personality
As in the section above on research methods, an extensive discussion of personality assessment is beyond the scope of this textbook. However, this is such an important issue that we will look at it briefly here, and then will take a closer look in some of the chapters throughout the rest of the book.
Personality assessment most commonly occurs in a clinical setting, when an individual is seeking help for some problem, whether it is an adjustment disorder or a potential mental illness. Assessing personality goes beyond this singular role, however. Certainly a clinical psychologist would be using personality assessment in order to understand a patient’s symptoms, provide a diagnosis (if appropriate), and recommend a preferred course of therapy. Similarly, school psychologists use assessment to identify any possible learning disorders and/or adjustment issues as they pertain to the educational environment. But other psychologists use personality assessment for a variety of reasons as well. Industrial/organizational psychologists use personality assessment to identify preferred candidates for particular jobs, career counselors use these assessments in order to provide valid recommendations regarding the choice of a career path, and research psychologists use assessment in their ongoing efforts to correlate certain personality types to observable behavior or other measures. Thus, the assessment tools used to describe and/or understand personality have a wide range of potential applications.
Reliability, Validity, and Standardization
A particular personality assessment is of little value if it has no reliability or validity and if it is not presented in a standardized format. Reliability refers to the likelihood that a test will give essentially the same result on different occasions, or that two versions of the same test will give similar results. Validity refers to whether a test actually measures what it purports to measure. Standardization refers to the manner in which a test is given, which must be the same for every person receiving the test if there is to be any value in comparing the results among different people.
Determining the reliability and validity of a test can be a long and complicated process, involving a variety of statistical methods to confirm the results. During this process the psychologist(s) developing the test will also typically establish norms. Norms are consistent ways in which particular groups score on a test. For example, on measures of aggressiveness, the “normal” level for men may be quite different than the “normal” level for women. Standardization is quite a bit simpler to establish, since the test can include precise instructions dictating the manner in which it is to be given.
Assessing Personality with Objective Tests
The most famous self-report inventory is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (or MMPI). The MMPI is also probably the most widely used psychological test in the world, and it has stood the test of time (it is currently in its second version, a 1989 revision of the 1943 original). The current version consists of 567 true-false questions, which address not only normal personality traits, but psychopathology and the accuracy of the test-taker as well. The test has several built in “lie” scales in case a person were trying to fake a mental illness (e.g., if they were trying to fake an insanity defense to avoid responsibility for a crime) or minimize any symptoms they may actually be experiencing. The questions themselves range from rather simple (e.g., I enjoy drama.) to rather strange (e.g., I am a prophet of God.), but when put all together they provide a highly valid assessment that can easily be scored by computer (hence the popularity of the test, for both reasons). NOTE: Those are not actual questions from the MMPI, but they are based on real questions. The MMPI is an empirically based instrument. That is, interpretations are based on the pattern of responding obtained by various psychiatric samples. Since the standard MMPI was developed for adults and is rather lengthy, an abbreviated version was developed for use with adolescents: the MMPI-A.
A number of alternatives to the MMPI have been developed. The California Psychological Inventory has been available almost as long as the MMPI and, more recently, the Personality Assessment Inventory has become popular. Another important test is Millon’s Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (the MCMI), which was developed in accordance with Millon’s own theories on personality development and personality disorders. The MCMI was designed with certain advantages in mind, including being relatively short compared to the MMPI and being connected with a specific clinical theory. However, since the test was designed specifically to distinguish amongst psychiatric populations, it is not as useful when assessing “normal” individuals (Keller et al., 1990; Groth-Marnat, 2003).
Behavioral assessment and thought sampling are techniques designed to gain an appreciation of what an individual actually does and/or thinks on a day-to-day or moment-to-moment basis. In each case, observers are trained to make precise observations of an individual at precise times. This provides a statistical sample of the individual’s actual behavior and/or thoughts over time. Naturally, the only person who can record an individual’s thoughts is that person himself or herself, but as long as they are carefully informed of the procedure and are fully cooperating, the technique works fine. When applied correctly, the great value of these techniques is that they are truly objective, in other words, they record actual behaviors and actual thoughts.
Assessing Personality with Projective Tests
The two most famous projective tests are the Rorschach Inkblot Technique and the Thematic Apperception Test (or TAT). Both tests involve the presentation of ambiguous stimuli in an attempt to draw out responses from a patient, responses reflecting impulses and/or thoughts that the patient may not even be aware of (i.e., the patient projects their own thoughts and feelings onto the ambiguous stimuli, even if those thoughts and feelings are subconscious).
 An individual being tested is first asked to say what each inkblot looks like, and then they are asked to explain how they saw what they identified. The answer to a single inkblot is not particularly informative, since any one inkblot may remind the person of some particular thing. However, as the patient goes through all 10 inkblots, trends should become apparent to the psychologist that reflect the dominant issues affecting the personality of the patient (again, even if those issues are subconscious and not available to the conscious awareness of the patient). Initially, the Rorschach was reviewed unfavorably and then ignored. Rorschach became depressed, and died only 9 months after the test was published. Eventually, however; the test became more and more popular, and today is certainly one of the most widely recognized psychological tests. However, studies comparing the Rorschach and the MMPI have shown the latter to be far more valid. In an effort to improve both the reliability and validity of the Rorschach technique, there is now a standardized scoring system.
The TAT is similar to the Rorschach, except that it involves actual pictures of people (although they are still very ambiguous drawings) and the patient is asked to tell a story about the people in the picture. There is no objective scoring system for the TAT, so reliability and validity remain arguable, and the test is more famous than popular as an assessment tool. However, it has been shown to have high validity for certain specific research studies, such as studies on the need for achievement, and continues to serve a function in clinical formulations.
Clinical Interviews
As valuable and informative as the well-established psychological tests are, there is certain vital information that simply cannot be addressed with most tests, such as: a person’s appearance, their attitude, facial expressions, ability to communicate with another person, etc. In addition, tests often lead to further questions, or the need for clarification or explanation. In order to address such issues, both in general and in greater detail, clinical interviews are an essential part of the overall personality assessment. Although the results of an interview are somewhat subjective, when viewed in the context of the psychologist’s clinical experience, along with the results of an assessment tool, they provide psychologists with a much more complete understanding of the person whom they are evaluating.
Supplemental Materials
Inkblot (Rorschach) and TAT (Thematic Apperception Tests)-Projective Tests
This video [5:48] explains the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Tests and describes how they are used in the field of personality psychology.
Source: https://youtu.be/HJVwA6_sqdQ
Personality Assessment | Psychology
This video [3:56] explores different types of projective and objective tests used to assess personality, including the MMPI, Rorschach Inkblot and Thematic Apperception Test.
Source: https://youtu.be/5tsbb-B8Rs0
Personality Assessment and Judgement
This video [7:24] reviews various ways for assessing and making judgments of personality, as well as methods for increasing the accuracy in personality judgments.
Source: https://youtu.be/5Tr3dMWDsdc
References
Text: Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory. Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
Practical Psychology. (2019, July 1). Inkblot (Rorschach) and TAT(Thematic Apperception Tests)-Projective Tests.[Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/HJVwA6_sqdQ.
Course Hero. (2019, March 15). Personality Assessment | Psychology. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5tsbb-B8Rs0.
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2018, June 6). Personality assessment and judgement. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Tr3dMWDsdc.
Cultural Studies in the Field of Psychology
In the first section we briefly examined the concern of many psychologists that the field of psychology has been slow to embrace the value of cross-cultural research (see Lee et al., 1999; Sue, 1999; Triandis & Suh, 2002). This concern is by no means new. In 1936, Ralph Linton wrote that “different societies seem to show differences in the relative frequency of occurrence of the various psychological types” (pg. 484), and in 1973, Robert LeVine suggested that “this is a moment at which even those who are skeptical about the value of culture and personality study might consider stretching their curiosity in this direction” (pg. ix). Throughout this textbook we will examine a number of theorists who emphasized studying cultural differences as a significant part of their careers and, often, their personality theories as well.
However, it remains true that cross-cultural studies in psychology have only recently moved closer to the mainstream of psychological research and clinical practice. As of 2002, the American Psychological Association has “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists.” To cite just a few examples of the range of current interest in cross-cultural psychology, we now have a Dictionary of Multicultural Psychology (Hall, 2005) and books on the relationships between culture, mental illness, and counseling (Axelson, 1999; Castillo, 1997), as well as on the relationships between race, class, and the social and personal development of women (Jordan, 1997b; Pack-Brown, Whittington-Clark, & Parker, 1998). There are also major new texts on African American psychology (Belgrave & Allison, 2006) and racism, prejudice, and discrimination in America (Miller & Garran, 2008; Whitley & Kite, 2006).
The fact that studying cross-cultural factors in personality has always been present in the careers and theories of certain individuals, while not becoming a mainstream focus of attention, is more than just a historical curiosity. By emphasizing biological factors (i.e., genetics), Freud’s theory did not allow for cultural differences. Behavioral theorists emphasized environmental factors, a seemingly cultural approach, but they did not allow themselves to address factors beyond immediate scientific control. Thus, they defined with great precision the role of reinforcement, punishment, discriminative stimuli, etc., while not allowing for the richness of cognition and cultural experiences. Likewise, cognitive theorists clung to the scientific approach of the behaviorists, rather than embracing the potential of sociocultural perspectives. In other words, because strict Freudian theorists, as well as behavioral and cognitive theorists, believed that their theories applied to all people equally, they typically chose not to address differences between people. Thus, those who wished to bring sociocultural perspectives on the development of personality into the field of personality theory faced a degree of direct opposition. And yet, their perseverance is now being fulfilled.
In this section we will briefly examine some of the issues facing personality psychologists who wish to examine personality development in a sociocultural context. The United States, Canada, and Western Europe represent only about one tenth of the world’s population. Ralph Linton, a renowned anthropologist with an interest in cultural influences on personality (see Linton, 1945), also edited a book entitled Most of the World: The Peoples of Africa, Latin America, and the East Today (Linton, 1949). Thus, it is essential that we consider the influence of different cultures around the world if we are going to claim that we have really examined human personality in all its variations.
Since the 1990s, a number of general books on psychology and culture have been available (e.g., Brislin, 2000; Lonner & Malpass, 1994; Matsumoto, 1994, 1997; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Okun, Fried, & Okun, 1999; Price & Crapo, 2002; Segall et al., 1990). Although all of these books address topics such as the “self” and person-perception, and other various aspects of personality, only a few of them devote an actual chapter or section to the topic of personality itself (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Price & Crapo, 2002; Segall et al., 1990), and in each case the topics are fairly specific. There is, however; some older literature on the relationships between culture, society, and personality. We will examine that research in the second part of this section. First, let us examine some of the general principles of incorporating cross-cultural perspectives into the study of personality.
The Challenges of Cultural Research
The first problem faced by those who are interested in the study of culture and personality is the question: What exactly is to be studied? At the most basic level, there are two types of research. Cross-cultural research typically refers to either parallel studies being conducted in different cultures, or similar concepts being studied in different cultures. In contrast, intercultural research is the study of individuals of different cultures interacting with one another (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Segall et al., 1990). As you will see in later chapters, some personality theorists consider interpersonal relationships to be the only true domain for studying individual personality. While most of the research done in psychology has been cross-cultural, as the world becomes more and more of a global community the opportunity for, and importance of, intercultural research is rapidly expanding.
Another fundamental problem with the study of culture is our attention to it, or rather, the lack of attention we pay to something that is so deeply ingrained in our daily lives. Richard Brislin suggests the following exercise: write down three answers for someone from a different culture who asks “What should I know about your culture so that we can understand each other better?” (pg. 10; Brislin, 2000). Because we simply take our cultural influences for granted, it proves quite difficult for us to think that they need to be identified or explained. For example, freedom of speech is a cherished right in America. Consequently, we often speak our minds. If I am upset about some new college policy, I might say very negative things about the administration of our college, even about particular administrators. It does not mean I intend to be disrespectful, or that I dislike those individuals, or that I won’t say positive things about them when I agree with the next new policy. It is simply an expression of one of the great freedoms in our society: the right to speak out. However, someone from a different culture, particularly a collectivist culture, might be shocked at my apparent disrespect toward my “superiors.”
The next important issue is the difference between emic and etic tasks or behaviors. Simply put, emic tasks are those that are familiar to the members of a given culture, whereas etic tasks are common to all cultures. In an elegantly simple, yet revealing study, Irwin, Schafer, & Feiden (1974) demonstrated these phenomena in two cultures: American undergraduates and Mano rice farmers (from Liberia). The American college students were consistently better at performing the Wisconsin Card Sort, a well-known psychological test measuring cognitive reasoning skills, which relies on geometric shapes and color. The Mano farmers, however; were consistently better at sorting different categories of rice. Thus, the ability to sort items into categories appears to be an etic task (most likely common to all humans, regardless of culture), whereas the more specific abilities to sort by geometry and color (common to American college students) or type of rice grain (common to Mano farmers in Liberia) is an emic task that requires familiarity. Thus, if we made a judgment about the Mano farmers’ cognitive abilities based on the Wisconsin Card Sort, we would clearly be making a mistake in comparing them to Americans, due to the unfamiliarity of the particular task.
Another important aspect of cross-cultural research, which may involve applying our understanding of etics and emics, is the issue of equivalence. Is a concept being studied actually equivalent in different cultures? In other words, does a concept mean the same thing in different cultures; is the comparison valid? For example, an etic related to intelligence is the ability to solve problems. So how might we compare different cultural groups? Would the speed with which they solve a problem make sense as a measure of intelligence? Such an answer would be emic, and therefore valid, in America (where we typically value independence and competition). However, among the Baganda of Uganda, slow and careful thought is the emic. Among the Chi-Chewa of Zambia, the emic is responsibility to the community, i.e., solving the problem in order to best get along with other people. Thus, the speed at which people solve problems is conceptually equivalent, since it is the way in which people in each culture identify those individuals who are considered intelligent (Brislin, 2000). However, we cannot compare the actual speed of reporting a solution to others, as this is viewed quite differently in each culture.
One particular type of equivalence that raises a very interesting problem is that of translation equivalence. Psychologists often want to use tests developed in their own language with people of a different culture who speak a different language. Translating a test from one language to another can be a difficult task. The best way to assess translation equivalence is through back translation. In this procedure, one person translates the test, or survey, into the foreign language, and then a different person translates the foreign language test back into the original language. The original test can then be compared to the back translated test to see how closely they are worded. Ideally they would be identical, but this is seldom the case. To give you a simple example, when I was in graduate school, we had a student from Taiwan join our research group. One day I asked her to translate my last name, Kelland, into a Chinese character. When she had done that, I asked her how she would translate that particular Chinese character into English for someone who was not Chinese. She translated the character as Kwang. Despite the first letter, I hardly consider Kwang to be a reasonable translation of Kelland, but she didn’t seem to think of this as much of a problem (perhaps revealing another cultural difference!). When the process of back translation is used successfully, which may involve working back and forth with the translations, it has the effect of decentering the test from the original language. Specifically, that means that the test should be free of any culturally emic references or aspects that interfere with the translation equivalence of the different versions of the test (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004).
While the list of issues pertaining to cross-cultural research goes on, let’s consider just two more specific issues: cultural flexibility and cultural response sets. Cultural flexibility refers to how individuals are willing to change, or adapt, in situations in which they know there are cultural differences. For example, American businesspeople can stand about 15 minutes of small talk before getting down to business. Their Japanese counterparts, in contrast, consider it important to get to know their business partners, and they are comfortable with hours of conversation about a variety of topics. This would, of course, be an important consideration for anyone studying the relationship between individual personality and success in business situations in this intercultural setting. Cultural response sets refer to how a given culture typically responds. If a given culture is more reserved, and they are asked to rate the importance of some value in comparison to how a more open culture rates that value, a difference in the rating may reflect the cultural difference in responding, rather than the degree to which people in each culture value the variable being measured (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004).
Finally, in light of these challenges, it may be particularly important to conduct cross-cultural validation studies. Rather than testing hypotheses about specific cultural differences, cross-cultural validation studies are used to examine whether a psychological construct that was identified in one culture is meaningful and equivalent in another culture (Brislin, 2000; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004). For example, as we will see later in the reading, Erik Erikson did not feel confident in proposing his eight stages of development (the psychosocial crises) until he had confirmed his observations in two separate Native American tribes. He was able to gain the trust of these groups, and thus able to closely observe their child-rearing practices, thanks to the anthropologists who introduced him to the tribes they had been studying for a long time.
Anthropologists have done much more for psychology than merely introducing some psychologists to cultural issues and unique cultural groups. Some of them have had their own interests in personality. Many anthropologists, as well as some psychologists, have relied on ethnographies to report detailed information on the customs, rituals, traditions, beliefs, and the general way of daily life of a given group. They typically immerse themselves in the culture, living for an extended period of time with the group being studied (this helps get past the anxiety of being observed or any lack of cultural flexibility). Comparing the ethnographies of different groups can help guide cross-cultural psychologists in determining the likelihood that their cross-cultural studies are valid (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Segall et al., 1990).
Supplemental Materials
This video [7:42] explores the following three concepts: Conceptualization of personality across cultures; Cross-cultural research informing our understanding of personality; Future research in culture and personality.
Source: https://youtu.be/YC7LxSSrJYE
References
Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory. Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2018, June 6). Personality and culture. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/YC7LxSSrJYE. Standard YouTube License.


8 Lester B. Pearson’s Response to Quebec Separatism
Corey Safinuk
Introduction
Since before the Confederation in 1867 Francophone-Anglophone relations have been a troubling issue in Canada. The Anglophone population of Canada outpaced their French-speaking counterparts by the 1850s, aided largely by the arrival of British Loyalists following the American Revolution in 1776. As they became a minority in British North America, the Francophone population came to view numerical disparity as a political and existential threat.[1] As a defence mechanism, Quebec turned increasingly inward, believing that it could protect its culture and distinct identity by embracing Catholicism, the French language, and a rural way of life. It frequently rejected much of what was happening in the rest of Canada and lamented that when its interests and objectives conflicted with English-speaking Canada, it was ignored, even by the federal government. In the period following the Second World War, Quebec underwent a significant transformation, generally referred to as the Quiet Revolution. The transformation led to demands for greater powers with the Canadian federation to manage its own affairs and then, by the 1960s, to an increasing demand for separation. It was a development that L.B. Pearson, Canada’s 14th Prime Minister, could not avoid.
Toronto History, Lester Pearson at election campaign event. 9 May 1962
In his memoirs, Mike: The Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Pearson describes the issue of national unity as “the most important issue of [his] career.”[2] There were several key issues that Pearson faced while attempting to bridge the gap between Quebec and Ottawa. Although Pearson’s efforts to provide representation for the French language seemed to be a clear effort towards solving the issue, many in Quebec viewed the new federal pension program as a federal overstep. Pearson’s efforts with the Fulton-Favreau Formula for repatriating the constitution were blocked by the Quebec government, and Quebec’s attempts to establish its own presence, threatened to split the nation apart. Add to this the actions of the terrorist movement, the Front de Libération du Québec which was formed in 1963, and it is easy to see why Pearson considered national unity to be so important. Pearson spent much of his career working as a diplomat and, undoubtedly, developed a talent for finding the middle ground between two conflicting sides.[3] Those issues — and how Pearson responded to and addressed them — provide a clear example of Pearson’s approach to a crisis.
Pearson went to considerable effort to promote the French language in Canada. This can be seen even before he was elected as prime minister. In a speech in December 1962, in the House of Commons, he argued that from the very confederation of Canada there was a misunderstanding between Francophones and Anglophones. He believed that French-speaking Canadians looked at Confederation as the creation of a bilingual Canada, but the Anglophones instead considered it an English-speaking Canada with a bilingual Quebec.[4] This lack of understanding of the importance in Quebec of the French language among English-speaking Canadians was what Pearson believed to be one of the issues plaguing Francophone-Anglophone relations. The misunderstanding had been the cause of such issues as the Manitoba Schools crisis and the tensions faced in Quebec during the First World War over conscription. Here, even before his election as Prime Minister, Pearson demonstrated his belief that Quebec and French-speaking Canadians were being treated unfairly and he believed certain compromises were needed by English-speaking Canada to improve relations between Anglophones and Francophones. He emphasized this point in his speech when he said: “The answer also depends, and I believe in greater degree, on English-speaking Canadians because we are in the majority. In managerial levels in industry, for instance, and in the federal public services, it is the English-speaking Canadians who must accept the changes which are required to make a reality of full partnership.”[5]
Such an attitude permeated Pearson’s approach throughout his time as Prime Minister. In his memoirs, Pearson described how, at the very first cabinet meeting of his government. he allowed any Minister who wished to speak in French to do so without fear of being misunderstood.[6] Such a step was an indicator of his willingness to accommodate Francophones both in his government and throughout the nation as a whole. Furthermore, Pearson emphasized the importance of the French language and encouraged its use throughout the federal government. It was encouraged in caucus and in the House of Commons, and Pearson even gave several broadcasts in French. Besides promoting French in the federal government, Pearson also expressed his concern over the lack of French education, summing it up in Words and Occasions to his own education in. His statement that, “II est deplorable qu’au Canada chaque enfant d’age scolaire n’ait pas au moins la possibilite d’apprendre la langue maternelle de pres du tiers de notre population” was succinct and eloquent.[7] By making use of his own deficiency in the French language, he argued for a more bilingual education and, therefore, for a more bilingual Canada.
While it was important to Pearson to show respect and offer dignity to French-speaking Canadians, he was careful to not alienate English-speaking Canadians. Some of his statements and actions in consideration of Quebec and its people caused tension among the rest of the Canadian population. They began to worry that Pearson was asserting Quebec’s interests and beliefs over that of the rest of Canada. Pearson responded to these concerns with confidence and patience. In a letter sent to a concerned citizen in April 1964, he wrote, “I have not and will not make any concessions to Quebec… which I do not feel are justified… Quebec [has] certain rights and privileges which are guaranteed by our constitution… this is not appeasement, but justice.”[8] In those words, Pearson was expressing his understanding of Francophone-Anglophone relations. His concession towards the French language and the Quebec government were not an effort to promote the French language or the province of Quebec over the English language and the rest of Canada, but instead to provide them the just treatment long withheld from a member of the Canadian federation.
The most obvious example of Pearson’s efforts to respect the right of Francophones to promote and use the French language and culture was the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Pearson established the Commission in July 1963 to look into bilingualism and ciculturalism across Canada. The Commission’s broad purpose was to thoroughly examine relations between “Canada’s two main language groups, with the purpose of recommending measures to establish a better relationship for the future.”[9] Chaired by Andre Laurendeau and Davidson Dunton and staffed by academics and experts, it was not until 1970 that the Commission issued its final report. In the meantime, the Commission undertook years of hard work and faced considerable opposition throughout. Some claimed that the existence of the Commission itself would create additional problems rather than offering solutions to the crisis of Canadian unity. The preliminary report, submitted by the commission in 1964, pointed towards the time and effort required to complete such a project. It also expanded the goals of the Commission, stating that it would be looking not only at the French language and culture “but also with the problems arising from the existence in Canada of two distinct societies, each with its own culture, linguistic majority, and the power to break up the country.”[10]
The Commission continued its work and finally published its report in six books, most of which were released after Pearson had already left office.[11] The publication of the report led to Pierre Trudeau’s adoption of Canada’s multiculturalism policy[12]. The Commission recommended widespread changes throughout Canada with the most notable being in education initiatives adopted across the country as well as New Brunswick declaring itself officially bilingual. The report laid the foundation for bilingualism, as well as multiculturalism across Canada, and it served as proof that Pearson believed in equalising the relationship between the French and English languages and those who spoke it. Even though the effects of the Commission would not be implemented until after Pearson had left the office, the fact that Pearson appointed it almost immediately after assuming power, suggests Pearson’s commitment to national unity and resolving the animosities between the Francophone and Anglophone populations of Canada.
Despite Pearson’s efforts at promoting the French language and Francophone culture, the movement for Quebec nationalism and provincial autonomy continued to grow. That is evident in Quebec’s objections to Pearson’s proposed pension program, introduced in 1964. Pearson presented the plan to the provinces where it ran into serious trouble. The Premier of Ontario, John Robarts, made several objections to the plan at the federal-provincial conference in September 1963, and it had to be redrafted to take these into account. When Premier Jean Lesage of Quebec suggested that the next conference be held in Quebec City in late March, the federal government did not object. Jean Lesage had seemed cooperative at the September conference and being a Liberal himself had worked with Pearson for years before. They were even “cabinet colleague[s]” between 1953 and 1957[13].
However, the confidence of the federal government crumbled once Lesage presented his demands for the pension scheme. The provincial government of Quebec demanded widespread changes including collection of 25 percent of federal income tax, millions more in assistance from the federal government, and that Quebec be allowed to have its own separate pension plan.[14] This drastic change in relationship was part of a growing trend of Quebec nationalism from Lesage – to have greater autonomy for the Quebec provincial government within the federal arrangement. It is unclear as to whether the Quebec Premier adopted new beliefs of Quebec nationalism himself, or whether he was instead put under growing pressure by separatists both in and out of his government to adopt a harsher relationship with Ottawa.[15] Nevertheless, the result is the same: Jean Lesage and his provincial government could no longer be counted on to support Pearson and the federal government, especially if Pearson’s plans were to further centralize power in Ottawa. Despite this, Pearson and Lesage maintained an amicable relationship. They would meet up during their vacations and, in January 1965, Pearson even offered Lesage his pick of a cabinet position if he joined Pearson in his government in Ottawa.[16] Lesage declined, insisting he could not abandon Quebec, but the offer stands as evidence of Pearson’s dedication to reconciling with Quebec.
The objection to the pension program was part of not just the issue of Francophone-Anglophone relations but also an example of a continuous push by the provinces, especially Quebec, against Ottawa attempting to strengthen federalism. Matters of jurisdiction like this are a part of any nation, but in Canada, and especially in reference to Quebec, they have played a critical role. Quebec has a long history of fighting with the federal government over jurisdiction, as it believed that Quebec should be able to use its provincial powers to protect and promote its own distinct society. This created conflict between Quebec and Pearson’s government over the funding of higher education when the Prime Minister and his government attempted to address the growing expense of higher education with scholarships and grants. Quebec pushed back on such federal intrusion, considering the application of funding by the federal government a direct interference in education, which had always been under provincial jurisdiction.[17] Quebec’s objections to the pension program and to funding higher education brought the issue of jurisdiction to national attention, and as Pearson would later say in reference to the disagreements between the federal and Quebec governments, “There was danger of a real rift.”[18]
Pearson was encouraged by those in his own government to go ahead with the pension plan in spite of the objections raised by Quebec but he decided to seek a compromise rather than risk a permanent split and further fracturing the country. Pearson met with Lesage in Quebec. The discussions were off-the-record, but Pearson describes them in his memoirs as “frank to the point of brutality.”[19] In the end the two sides were able to reconcile by making modifications to the pension plans so that they were almost equal in effect while still allowing Quebec control over its own pension scheme. Further, an opting-out plan was implemented for some of the other shared-cost programs that Pearson considered, allowing Quebec to pick and choose from these programs. These concessions show, once again, that Pearson was willing to compromise with the Quebec government if it meant preserving national unity. Even when others from many quarters, including within his own government encouraged him to ignore Quebec, he still chose to meet with Lesage directly and find middle ground that would leave both sides, if not entirely thrilled, at least sufficiently mollified.
Pearson was well suited to finding compromise, and this can be seen in his reaction to Quebec’s demands on a variety of issues and to how he navigated the complex world of Canadian federalism. Pearson believed that the federal government needed the tools to act in the nation’s interest and such protection of the consolidation of power in Ottawa when he felt it was necessary could see him labeled as a centralist. In his memoirs, he describes his view on centralization as one of need.[20] However, when faced with growing pressure from Quebec to preserve its own rights and powers, Pearson was accommodating. He was firmly under the impression that forcing Quebec into line would not strengthen the nation but rather weaken it. Instead, he adopted a policy of Co-operative Federalism wherein the provinces would participate with the federal government in shared efforts at time, and in other instances tailor their participation to meet both federal and provincial objectives. Pearson demonstrated that loyalty to one’s province and culture could coexist with loyalty to the nation. A person could be entirely loyal to Quebec and through the embrace of co-operative federalism, demonstrate their loyalty to Canada. This is demonstrated in his actions regarding the Canadian Pension Plan. When presented with a superior plan by Quebec, rather than ignore it and forge ahead, Pearson used the Quebec plan to improve what the policy he wanted for all Canadians.
Pearson’s term in office was ambitious, but he was hampered by the fact that his government was a minority in both his terms and he was not able to accomplish several of his goals. Several of these unaccomplished goals were halted due to a lack of cooperation with Quebec with perhaps the most obvious example being the patriation of the constitution. The British North America Act was created in a time when Canada was far from truly independent of the British Empire, but since the World Wars Canada had won greater autonomy from Britain. The fact that the constitution was technically an act of the British parliament was something that Pearson believed he could change.[21]
The Fulton-Favreau Formula was not the first attempt by the Canadian government to patriate the constitution, but it was one attempt that seemed like it would finally succeed. It was co-authored by a Conservative and a Liberal, and when it was presented at the Charlottetown federal-provincial conference in 1964, Pearson believed that they had finally found a solution to the long-running problem of Canada’s inability to change its constitution without the involvement of the British government. Pearson spoke to the premiers at the conference about the need to patriate the constitution, saying “we must acknowledge the strains imposed by our times on the national structure bequeathed to us; we must acknowledge them without being daunted by them. We must define them. And remove them.”[22] It is evident that the repatriation was something Pearson believed essential to continued political growth for Canada, but it was not something that he alone could accomplish.
Jean Lesage made a commitment during this conference to have the formula approved during the 1964 Charlottetown conference along with the other premiers. Despite his commitment, one year later Lesage expressed his concerns with the formula to Pearson during a holiday in Florida. Lesage said that while there was strong opposition to it in the government of Quebec, he was still hopeful of finding approval for the formula in Québec.[23] By 1966, however, Lesage had all but abandoned the Fulton-Favreau Formula. The government of Quebec could not pass the formula and Lesage placed blame on the two houses of the Quebecois government.[24] While the agreement might have received enough support in the Legislative Assembly, the Upper House had an opposition majority. Lesage attempted to remove this second house from the government of Quebec but was defeated in a general election before it could be achieved. With the withdrawal of Quebec from the constitutional process, patriation was not achieved. Pearson held back from expressing publicly his dismay towards Lesage, but from how Pearson spoke of the necessity of passing the Fulton-Favreau Formula this failure must have been discouraging. The repatriation was finally passed by Pierre Trudeau and only in 1982. Trudeau, much like Pearson, ran into trouble with Quebec when attempting to repatriate the constitution. Trudeau’s methods involved an aggressive stance against the government of Quebec, which was quite unlike Pearson’s more conciliatory and accommodative approach. If Pearson had chosen a more aggressive stance towards national unity and the Fulton-Favreau Formula, it is possible that it might have been passed, but in exchange for pushing it through relations with Quebec might have worsened. This is the third example presented of Pearson’s willingness to compromise and find a middle ground when faced with a crisis. At times that approach resulted in failure to solve a pressing issues but perhaps it helped to maintain national unity.
Throughout the national unity crisis during Pearson’s tenure at prime minister, there was not only political tension, but also violence and political extremism perpetuated by Quebec separatists. The Front de Libération du Québec or FQL was an extremist movement dedicated to Quebec independence from Canada. This insurgency began shortly before Pearson became Liberal leader and Prime Minister and would continue after he left office. FLQ actions were instigated against federal buildings and officials and, while not as lethal as other more infamous terrorism movements elsewhere around the world, would still result in five deaths and a great number of injuries.[25] The first attack occurred on the 7 March 1963, when four youths spray painted a wall and threw an incendiary device at the Royal Montreal Regiment Armoury. Many of the attacks that followed were similar and mostly involved bombings, but with a notable exception, discussed in further detail in the following chapter on the 1970 October Crisis. In total the FLQ committed more than 200 violent acts. While many of these attacks were directed at the federal government and its agencies, police and government response was left to Quebec. The RCMP was involved in investigations of FLQ attacks and during the 1970 crisis the army was called in to support, but Pearson did not consider this movement to be a serious consideration while he was in office. In his memoirs Pearson mentioned the actions of the FLQ only briefly, and even then, he chose to focus on the October Crisis of 1970 and Trudeau’s response rather than any actions he or his government took.[26] Pearson’s reflections on this affair are indicative of his policy towards Quebec. Where possible, Pearson gave Quebec the freedom to manage their own affairs. Only when the decisions made by Quebec threatened the stability of the nation, was he willing to step in directly.
There were some issues, however, where Pearson could not and would not compromise. The efforts by the government of Quebec to present itself as partner to Canada on the international stage was one such issue. As part of the growing Quebec nationalist movement, Quebec had begun reaching out to other nations, independently from the federal government. The ability to conduct negotiations and arrange agreements with other nations is one of the criteria that defines a nation. The recognition from foreign powers that a state is separate from any other and is regarded as an equal is how people are able to define a state as a nation instead of only being a part of a nation. This idea is one that Pearson understood and he saw clearly the threat posed by allowing Quebec to be seen as separate from Canada on the international stage.[27]
The Quebec government’s move towards international relations was followed both by Jean Lesage and his successor, a more extreme Quebec nationalist, Daniel Johnson.[28] The primary interest internationally for Quebec centered around French-speaking nations throughout the world with France itself playing a major role. Quebec sent delegations to Paris, an act that Pearson believed was not unusual in and of itself. What Pearson did not agree with was the Quebec delegation signing international treaties as if it was its own separate state. When Gabon, a French-speaking nation, called an international conference in 1968, it invited Quebec to attend as a separate or independent entity. Pearson and his government were angered by that invitation and suspended their relations with Gabon in response. Pearson was well aware of the risks being posed by such international arrangements. In his memoirs he states in no uncertain terms that “two political nations cannot exist within one country.”[29] Here is found the breaking point for Pearson’s compromises. He would not allow Quebec to present itself as an international entity, and this fact would cause tension with France and its leader Charles De Gaulle.
Relations with France and De Gaulle started off rather promisingly for Pearson. In 1964 Pearson travelled to Paris to meet with the French leadership directly. Pearson had promised to visit Paris and London during the 1963 election, but he had been delayed by other affairs. Despite this delay the meeting between Pearson and Charles De Gaulle during this trip went, in Pearson’s opinion, quite well.[30] However, relations between France and Canada deteriorated sharply. De Gaulle and Pearson clashed on several points of international affairs ranging from the purchase of American rather than French airliners,[31] Canada’s refusal to sell uranium to France without conditions,[32] and many other direct insults and military withdrawals.
De Gaulle’s belief in a “grand dessin”[33] for Europe following the Second World War meant that he opposed American influence in Europe and believed that Canada was firmly under American sway. De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO military arrangements in March 1966 and, as part of such a decision, Canadian forces stationed in France were forced to leave.[34] This decision caused tension and was seen as an insult by many Canadians, including Pearson himself. To further aggravate this insult, the French government refused to participate directly in the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, a battle that played a large role in defining Canada as an independent nation and one that continues to play a role in Canadian-French relations. This snub, which Pearson believed was caused by mismanagement of a guest, shows clearly the tension and deteriorating relationship between Canada and France.
Worse than the deterioration of relations between Canada and France, were the growing ties between France and Quebec. France was the key supporter for Quebec’s push for independence in international affairs, which De Gaulle believed would be useful for his own goals. France began favoring Quebec City over Ottawa in international communications and relations which only emboldened Quebec nationalists. The most extreme example came during De Gaulle’s visit to Canada in 1967. Rather than beginning the trip in Ottawa, De Gaulle went straight to Quebec City and from there to the Exposition in Montreal. Once in Montreal he gave an impassioned speech comparing Quebec with France during the Second World War and finished with the inflammatory statements, “Vive Montreal! Vive le Quebec! Vive le Quebec libre! Vive le Canada francais et vive la France!”[35] This was a step too far for Pearson, and he responded aggressively in a speech. His sentiments are best expressed through this excerpt:
The people of Canada are free. Every province of Canada is free. Canadians do not need to be liberated. Indeed, many thousands of Canadians gave their lives in two world wars in the liberation of France and other European countries. Canada will remain united and will reject any effort to destroy her unity.[36]
De Gaulle took this as the reprimand it was meant to be and returned to France the next day without completing his planned visit.
With this example, it is clear that Pearson was unwilling to compromise when it came to Quebec participating separately in international affairs. Pearson’s unwillingness to compromise on this subject may seem to contradict his actions and statements regarding other Quebec affairs, but this is incorrect. The above example instead serves to prove that Pearson could have resisted any of the decisions made by Quebec in opposition to him. It is clear that positive relations between Francophone and Anglophone were important to Pearson and his actions show how far he was willing to go in order to promote a strong and unified relationship between Quebec and the federal government.
Conclusion
Pearson was prime minister during a trying time for Canada. The Quebec government and its Francophone population birthed a crisis in the form of Quebec nationalism. Pearson faced the crisis using the skills acquired through a long career in diplomacy. He promoted bilingualism and the French language to improve relations between Anglophones and Francophones. He reached a compromise with Lesage when Quebec refused to accept the federal pension program. He even yielded when it came to the patriation of the constitution, a problem that Pearson believed desperately needed resolution. When faced with the insurgency of the FQL, he allowed Quebec to handle it internally instead of stepping in directly. Despite these concessions, Pearson held firm when Quebec tried to present itself as a sovereign state to the international community. In summary, he conceded whenever possible in order to promote closer ties and rectify the long-standing issue of Francophone-Anglophone relations, but when he believed the integrity of Canada was threatened on the international stage, he refused to yield to Quebec’s aspirations. On that issue, Pearson held his ground and fought for a strong, unified Canada.
- Cameron I. Crouch, “Managing Terrorism and Insurgency, (London: Routledge, 2010), 32. ↵
- Lester B. Pearson, John A. Munro, Alex I. Inglis, and Jean Chrétien, Mike : the Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson. Volume 3, 1957-1968. Edited by John A. Munro and Alex I. Inglis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015),236. ↵
- Lester B. Pearson, John A. Munro, Alex I. Inglis, and Jean Chrétien, Mike : the Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson. Volume 2, 1957-1968. Edited by John A. Munro and Alex I. Inglis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015). ↵
- Lester B. Pearson, Words and Occasions an Anthology of Speeches and Articles Selected from His Papers (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970.),193. ↵
- Pearson, Words and Occasions, 195. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 237. ↵
- A rough translation would be: “It is deplorable that in Canada each child of school age does not have at least the opportunity to learn the mother tongue of around a third of our population” Pearson, Lester B. Words and Occasions, 208. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 244. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 240. ↵
- Norman Hillmer, Pearson the Unlikely Gladiator (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999), 84-85. ↵
- G. Laing, and Celine Cooper, “Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Accessed March 20, 2023. ↵
- G. Laing and Celine Cooper, “Royal Commission”. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 244. ↵
- Peter Stursberg, Lester Pearson and the Dream of Unity, 1st ed. (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 1978),185. ↵
- Hillmer, Pearson the Unlikely Gladiator, 74-75. ↵
- Pearson would later deny this offer publicly, but confirm it later in his memoirs. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 248. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 248. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 248. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 238. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 252. ↵
- Pearson, Words and Occasions, 235. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 252. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 252-253. ↵
- Crouch, Front de Libération Du Québec, 33. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 242. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 259. ↵
- Hillmer, Pearson the Unlikely Gladiator, 72 ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 238. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 261. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 263. ↵
- Hillmer, Pearson the Unlikely Gladiator, 80. ↵
- Hillmer, Pearson the Unlikely Gladiator, 79. ↵
- Hillmer, Pearson the Unlikely Gladiator, 80. ↵
- Hillmer, Pearson the Unlikely Gladiator, 79. ↵
- Pearson, Mike, 268. ↵


Chapter 21: Biology and Personality
Part 3: Sociobiology and Evolutionary Influences on Behavior
Sociobiology is a relatively new field of study that applies evolutionary biology to social behavior (Barash, 1977; Wilson, 1975). Although much of the research underlying sociobiology has been conducted with non-human animals, the value of this research and its applications to understanding human behavior and personality should not be underestimated. Samuel Gosling and his colleagues have demonstrated that a wide variety of other animal species have personality traits similar to those of humans (Gosling, 2001; Gosling & John, 1999; Gosling, Kwan, & John, 2003; Gosling & Vazire, 2002; Jones & Gosling, 2005; Mehta & Gosling, 2006). When the ethologists Nikolaas Tinbergen, Konrad Lorenz, and Karl von Frisch shared the Nobel Prize in 1973, it was the first Nobel Prize awarded for the study of behavior. Sociobiology, a field similar to ethology, has offered valuable new perspectives on human behavior, perspectives on behaviors that do not always seem logical at first. As an aside, sociobiology also allows us to address an exciting variety of human behaviors, including the apparent evolutionary and neurobiological bases for laughter (see Panksepp, 2005).
The fundamental concept underlying sociobiology is that of inclusive fitness. Inclusive fitness refers to the advantages of behaviors that increase the likelihood of an individual’s genetic survival through the survival of genetically related kin (Barash, 1977; Wilson, 1975). Therefore, in looking at the evolution of human social behavior, we must not only consider the ways in which behaviors contribute to individual survival (which is a traditional Darwinian perspective on survival of the fittest), but rather on how behaviors contribute to the survival of our children, family, and perhaps even our community.
Sociobiologists have looked at several major topics regarding the evolution of human behavior, but we will only take a brief look at three behaviors: mate selection, parenting, and religion. The differences between male/female have become commonly accepted in the popular media, and evidence suggests that men and women are inclined to essentialize their differences (Prentice & Miller, 2006). In contrast, Janet Shibley Hyde has provided compelling evidence that men and women are actually much more alike than they are different (Hyde, 1996, 2005; also see Spelke, 2005; Stewart & McDermott, 2004). So which is it? When it comes to mate selection, sociobiology suggests that men and women should be different, because the roles they will need to play in eventual child rearing require them to be different. It is a biological fact that men need to contribute very little to the birth of a child, whereas women become pregnant for nine months and, from an evolutionary perspective, must then breast-feed the child for one or two years. Thus, a man can improve his inclusive fitness by seeking multiple relationships with women in their prime child-bearing years and exhibiting physical characteristics indicative of good reproductive health. Unfortunately, other men are looking for the same women, so competition can become fierce. Women, on the other hand, should be inclined to seek men who have already won those competitions, demonstrating that they can provide and protect resources for their offspring, usually by commanding a territory or a privileged place in society (Barash, 1977; Wilson, 1975, 1978). So it is not uncommon for women to be inclined to marry older men, particularly men who are above them on the socioeconomic scale (Barash, 1977). Women would also be inclined to select men who make some commitment in terms of child rearing (Barash, 1979). So, men who were inclined to make only the minimum commitment necessary to the sexual act did not improve their inclusive fitness, since they were not selected by discriminating females.
When parenting is discussed in introductory psychology courses, the most common topic is parenting styles and their influence on personality development. In sociobiology, however, the most relevant issues are the survival of the offspring and how taxing it is on the parents to help their offspring survive. We are just beginning to understand some aspects of the biological basis for attachment from the offspring’s perspective (Hofer, 2006), but understanding the attachment of the parent to the offspring remains elusive. Obviously, raising a child requires a considerable amount of effort on the parent’s part, but typically more on the part of the mother. Thus, close social bonding is important, and this may form the basis of love as an added emotional component to sex, as well as the growing love that parents feel for their children (Barash, 1977; Wilson, 1978). Older women are particularly more sensitive to the needs of first-born children, since the child may well represent the only opportunity for the mother to reproduce. Nature is full of well-known examples of female animals vigorously defending their young, even if their own life is endangered (Barash, 1977, 1979). Of peculiar interest is the behavior of grandparents, since a parent is really only successful in reproducing if they eventually become grandparents. Barash (1977) discusses two interesting situations. When a child is born, it is most likely that the mother’s parents come to help. But if a young couple chooses to live with parents, it is most likely the father’s parents. These may simply seem to be cultural artifacts, but they have a basis in biological fitness. Only a mother can be sure that she has made a genetic contribution to a child (at least in the past, when our behaviors were evolving). So, when a woman has a baby, only her parents are sure that they have become grandparents. The man’s parents serve their own interests best if they can watch over the woman, to make sure that she does not stray from her relationship with their son (Barash, 1977). All of this may sound cold and calculating, but it is logical nonetheless, and if we believe in an unconscious mind, then people don’t need to be aware of exactly what they are doing.
Religion has been a profound influence throughout the history of the human species. It has been suggested that children naturally seek a divine explanation for the existence of a world they cannot comprehend (Kelemen, 2004). But what evolutionary advantage might religion serve? This question is difficult to answer, in part because religion appears to be unique to the human species. Many of the principles of sociobiology were determined by working with lower animals, especially the social insects. Without other species to use for comparison, it is not easy to understand our own species. According to Wilson, the best avenue for understanding the advantage conferred by religion to inclusive fitness is the ability to conform to the expectations of society. Humans seem to seek indoctrination. As we became more intelligent, more capable of making individual choices, perhaps we evolved the behavioral predispositions necessary to continue remaining within our tribe. As a result, the rules and rituals that developed to codify this behavior enhance the survival of our group, and it is this group-selection that sociobiologists recognize as the evolutionary advantage resulting from religion (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Wilson, 1975, 1978). This is not unlike the role ascribed to religion by Sigmund Freud, except that sociobiologists propose an underlying genetic basis, whereas Freud proposed an underlying psychodynamic basis.
One of the most common negative reactions to sociobiology is resistance to the idea that we are still animals being driven by our genes and evolution. The simple logic provided by sociobiologists, and the clear parallels between human behavior and the behavior of other animals, is not enough to sway the minds of some people. Culture definitely plays a significant role in our lives, gene-culture co-evolution may underlie human cooperation and altruism (Henrich, et al., 2006), and separating genetics from culture on a topic such as mate selection is difficult (Buss, 2003; Miller, Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Pedersen, 2002). But is culture something different than evolution? Richard Dawkins, in his profound book The Selfish Gene (1976), has proposed that the human mind has evolved to a point where it can create self-replicating units of culture, which he called memes. Memes can be transmitted from person to person, and they can evolve faster than genes. Thus, human culture has been able to outpace genetic evolution, creating many of the challenges we face today when we try to separate culture from genetics in order to understand complex human behaviors. As examples, let us consider two potential memes: belief in God, and belief in life after death. As mentioned above, children appear to be inclined to believe in a supernatural creator of the world that they, as children, simply cannot understand. And religion is a cultural universal. Not every religion, however, believes in life after death, and even fewer believe in heaven or hell. So religion appears to be a very successful meme, whereas belief in life after death is somewhat less successful, but successful enough to still be prevalent. One of the most fascinating aspects of memes is that they may actually increase the likelihood that you can have a very long lasting effect on the world. As Dawkins points out, Queen Elizabeth II of England is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror, but the odds are very low that she has even a single gene descended from him. So, immortality cannot really be achieved through reproduction:
But if you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today…but who cares? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus, and Marconi are still going strong. (pg. 214; Dawkins, 1976)
According to Richard Dawkins, the true path to immortality is found through cultural contributions to society, by virtue of cultural units he called memes. What memes do you think are important in your life and in your community? Has that changed during your life and, if so, why?
Evolutionary Psychology
The field of evolutionary psychology is a direct application of sociobiology to psychology, and appears to have begun with the publication of The Adapted Mind (Barkow et al., 1992). In this landmark book, a collection of authors were brought together with the purpose of addressing three major premises: (1) that there is a universal human nature, but that it is based on evolved psychological mechanisms as opposed to culture, (2) that these psychological mechanisms were adaptations constructed by natural selection, and (3) that these adaptations fit the way of life of our ancient ancestors, and may not fit our modern circumstances. Similar to the sociobiologists, evolutionary psychologists examine how evolution shaped human behavior and cognition in ways that helped individuals to pass on their genes to future generations, covering topics such as cooperation, mate preference, parental care, the development of language and perceptual abilities, the individual need to belong, helping and altruism, and the universality of emotions (Barkow et al., 1992; Buss, 1999; Larsen & Buss, 2005).
One of the best known psychologists studying evolutionary phenomena is David Buss, and he has paid particular attention to how we choose and attempt to keep our mates. In The Evolution of Desire, Buss (2003) describes how biological differences between males and females leads to different mating strategies, and that this should lead to inevitable conflict. Thus, according to Buss, conflict in a marriage is the norm, not the result of choosing the wrong person. As a result of this conflict, and for a variety of reasons underlying it, the possibility always exists that a man or woman in a marriage (or other committed relationship) will engage in other sexual relationships outside of the marriage. In order to defend against this potential loss of a committed mate, it was an advantage for people to evolve the emotion of jealousy. In The Dangerous Passion, Buss (2000b) argues that jealousy is just as important as love and sex. Passion is necessary for us to have motivation (consider Jung’s description of the shadow archetype). But with jealousy, “Jealousy can keep a couple committed or drive a man to savagely beat his wife. An attraction to a neighbor’s spouse can generate intoxicating sexual euphoria while destroying two marriages” (pg. 2; Buss, 2000b).
Indeed, the competition that accompanied the desire to obtain and hold onto a mate in our distant past was so intense that we also evolved the psychological mechanisms necessary to kill people. Although this psychological mechanism may be maladaptive in our society today, its effectiveness in the prehistoric past remains hidden just below the surface of our minds.
We have a tendency to think of things such as marital conflict, marital infidelity, jealousy, and murder as abnormal situations. Evolutionary psychologists suggest instead that such behaviors are the result of natural adaptations. However, as noted above, these adaptations were appropriate for our ancient ancestors, and may not fit within our society today (murder is illegal). Yet, these behaviors and emotions are common, suggesting that we can’t simply dismiss them. Since evolution typically takes a very long time, it is hard to say whether different adaptations will occur in the future of our species, given the cultural changes that have occurred throughout history. Perhaps the best we can hope for now is a continued development of our understanding of personality, through a variety of theoretical perspectives.
Connections Across Cultures: The Somatic Psychology of Wilhelm Reich
Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) was a respected student and colleague of Sigmund Freud, a political activist, and eventually a convicted criminal in the United States whose books and journals were burned by the American government. But he left behind a legacy of focusing on the body and mind as deeply interrelated. In Germany in the 1930s, Reich devoted extraordinary effort to programs addressing sex education, sex hygiene, access to birth control, etc.  Despite the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s, many of these issues still plague society today. Reich’s description of the phases involved in the experience of an orgasm (first studied in the 1920s and 1930s) anticipated the famous research of Masters and Johnson (1966), and incorporated a psychoanalytic view of mindsets occurring during sexual activity (Reich, 1973). His work on somatic psychology relates to physical approaches to psychotherapy that continue today.
Raised on a farm, Reich was interested in animal husbandry and conducted extensive studies of animal sexual behavior. As a young child, he witnessed one of the family’s maids having intercourse with her boyfriend. When he asked the maid if he could “play” the lover, she obliged. When he was 12 years old, he caught his mother having an affair with one of his tutors. In a classic example of the Oedipus complex, he considered using the information to blackmail his mother into allowing him to have sexual intercourse with her. Instead, he turned again to one of the family maids. He then told his father, whom Reich had witnessed beating his mother in the past, and shortly thereafter his mother committed suicide. For the rest of his life, Reich was tormented by the thought that he may have been responsible for his mother’s death. His father died when Reich was 17 years old, and Reich took over the family farm until it was destroyed in World War I.
While attending medical school at the University of Vienna, Reich joined the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society where he began studying with Sigmund Freud. Reich and Freud were deeply impressed with one another. Reich eventually held several important positions in Freud’s training clinic, including Director of the Seminar for Psychoanalytic Therapy, and his work on character analysis was widely respected. Indeed, Reich was so involved with the society, Freud, and the clinic that many people thought of him as “Freud’s pet” (Higgins, 1973; Sharaf, 1983).
However, Reich fell out of favor with the psychoanalytic society. In 1930, he moved to Germany, joined the communist party, and became active in a variety of sex education and sex hygiene programs. But the communists opposed progressive sex education because they hoped to gain the favor of the Catholic Church, in opposition to the growing threat of the Nazis. Reich stepped right into this dangerous controversy, often relating one particular story of how moved he was when a young pregnant girl sought his help; help she had not received from the Hitler Youth (Sharaf, 1983). In 1933, he published The Mass Psychology of Fascism, a book subsequently banned by the Nazis (Reich, 1933/1970). Eventually, Reich was excluded from both the Communist Party and the psychoanalytic society.
Reich left Germany for Denmark, and then moved to Norway, where his life and work began to take a strange turn. He became convinced that he had discovered a primordial cosmic energy, orgone energy, which provided the underlying energy for all life. He believed that orgone energy streams created hurricanes and galaxies. He built orgone energy accumulators, and began studying how it might be used for such diverse goals as treating cancer and controlling the weather. He was compelled to leave Norway, and in 1939, moved to the United States. Eventually, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sought an injunction in federal court to put an end to Reich’s work on orgone energy. Reich refused to appear in court, and the injunction was issued in default (see Greenfield, 1974). Reich was accused and found guilty of criminal contempt, and sentenced to two years in federal prison. The FDA destroyed much of Reich’s equipment, and burned tons of his papers and books. In 1957, Reich suffered a heart attack and died in the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
Somatic Psychology
Reich’s psychoanalytic work emphasized three important topics: the intimate relationship between body and mind, the character of the individual, and the value of precise diagnosis. By the 1920s, Freud and his colleagues had stopped paying much attention to the concept of libido. In contrast, Reich became more and more interested in this sexual energy, which he associated directly with sexual activity. While working with his patients, Reich was impressed by their descriptions of feeling an “emptiness” in their genitals. This was an especially interesting point regarding women, since Reich himself considered the sexual inhibition experienced by many women as something appropriate to their development. However, as Reich pursued these ideas, he began to question the completeness and accuracy of Freud’s theories. Reich developed what became known as the orgasm theory, and he proposed the concept of orgastic potency. According to Reich (1973), “Orgastic potency is the capacity to surrender to the streaming of biological energy, free of any inhibitions; the capacity to discharge completely the dammed-up sexual excitation through involuntary, pleasurable convulsions of the body…” (pg. 29)
Reich considered the ability to enjoy sexual release as a critical aspect of normal and healthy personal development. This perspective demands a direct link between the body and the mind, since only through physical satisfaction can psychological and emotional satisfaction be achieved. When discussing neurotic symptoms, he described orgastic impotence as the “somatic core of the neurosis…” (Reich, 1933/1972). To further emphasize the point, Reich did not merely consider the ability to have meaningful sexual relations as important, he believed that they needed regular satisfaction.
Reich’s most widely respected work within the psychoanalytic community centered on character analysis, in which he emphasized character armoring and character resistance. Both of these constructs can be viewed as defense mechanisms, but they are deep and secondary fragmentations of the ego. Thus, they define the very character of the patient, and must be removed before traditional psychoanalysis can be effective. In keeping with the term somatic psychology, Reich addressed the physical manifestation of character armoring as muscular armor. Individuals who are actively character armoring demonstrate what Reich described as a chronic, frozen, muscular-like bearing. He believed that the visible muscular rigidity was the natural consequence of inhibiting aggression, and that it could be understood on the basis of only one principle: “the armoring of the periphery of the biopsychic system” (Reich, 1933/1972). In other words, the body physically responds to what the mind is doing; if the mind is defending itself, the body prepares to defend itself. This muscular tension is by no means easy to remove. If the analyst tries to get the patient to relax, the muscular tension is replaced by restlessness. Based on his theories, Reich described two basic types of character: the genital character and the neurotic character. The genital character refers to individuals who are relatively healthy in terms of their psychological development, and their capacity to enjoy life is uninhibited. The neurotic character is governed by rigid armor of both body and mind.
Many psychologists and a variety of practitioners in other areas have made the connection between body and mind an important part of their studies and their lifestyle. For example, we often “talk” with our hands (Goldin-Meadow, 2006), forced stereotypic movement leads to stereotypic thoughts about others (Mussweiler, 2006), young infants integrate their body movement and their attention (Robertson, Bacher, & Huntington, 2001), physical movement is more important than visual information for effective navigation (Ruddle & Lessels, 2006), and members of different cultures actually perceive the physical environment in different ways (Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006). Yoga has become very popular in the United States, particularly the physical aspect of Hatha Yoga, and Yoga practitioners talk about understanding and respecting the body (e.g., Scaravelli, 1991; Stewart, 1994). This is particularly true as we age, since “we all die sooner or later, but what we must do is not allow the body to degenerate while living” (Scaravelli, 1991).
Reich referred to a “genetic differentiation of character types” and the “genetic-dynamic theory of the character” long before other psychologists were talking about the heritability of personality or gene-environment interactions. Reich went on to say that the social and economic/political factors that play such an important cultural role in personality development would not be as influential as they are if not for the likelihood that they “must first have impinged upon and changed human needs before these transformed drives and needs could begin to have an effect as historical factors” (Reich, 1932/1972). This sounds very much like sociobiology: the selection of behaviors, behaviors that are determined genetically, as adaptable to the relevant human condition. If indeed this idea does reflect the same basic premise as sociobiology, then Reich was thinking about a new field of research into human behavior that was still over 40 years in the future. In his discussion of muscular armor, Reich referred to three primary emotions that influence human behavior: sexuality, anxiety, and anger or hate (Reich, 1932/1972). Gotama Buddha (who most people think of as the Buddha) described three root causes of human suffering: desire, delusion, and hatred. What is sexuality but the greatest desire in human life? According to sociobiologists, particularly Dawkins (1976), life is about ensuring the propagation of individual genes, and in our case that means sexual reproduction. In addition, both Reich and the Buddha acknowledged hatred as key, and Buddhists typically see hatred as the antithesis of desire. Thus, Wilhelm Reich, once regarded as Freud’s “pet,” had incorporated both ancient Eastern philosophies and the as-yet unknown field of sociobiology into a cohesive theory of human character, while still in his mid-thirties. One can only imagine what he might have accomplished had he not pursued the odd theory of orgone energy, which led to his being ostracized and, ultimately, to the federal prison where he died.
Supplemental Materials
This video [5:32] addresses the role evolution and biology play in our personality development.
Source: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/behavior/theories-personality/v/biological-theory
The Misunderstood Genius of Wilhelm Reich with Jeffrey Mishlove
This video [11:31] discusses the life and work of psychiatrist, Wilhelm Reich, who is widely regarded as having introduced the importance of the human body into the field of psychotherapy.
Source: https://youtu.be/Q9JD-Ae-kpg
The Biological Basis of Personality
This video [16:53] features “Dr. T” explaining her biological basis of personality in a simple and entertaining way.
Source: https://youtu.be/5kM1NoRnVF4
Is Your Personality Pre-Determined?
This video [8:02] describes personality psychology, evolutionary psychology, heritability and the biological perspective of personality.
Source: https://youtu.be/ST2zgtoM6K8
References
Text: Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory. Licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
Shreena Desai. (n.d.) Behavioral theory. [Video File]. Khan Academy. Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/behavior/theories-personality/v/biological-theory.
New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove. (2018, March 21). InPresence 0020: The misunderstood genius of Wilhelm Reich with Jeffrey Mishlove. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Q9JD-Ae-kpg. Standard YouTube License.
TEDx Talks. (2012, October 24). The biological basis of personality: “Dr. T” Tina Thomas at TEDxCitadelPark. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5kM1NoRnVF4. Standard YouTube License.
Practical Psychology. (2019, April 23). Is your personality pre-determined? Biological theory of personality. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ST2zgtoM6K8. Standard YouTube License.