Good and Bad, an illusory dimension as the cornerstone of human personality

This chapter deals with a typical human personality dimension. It is a common layman's misconception to think that personality differences only occur among human beings. In animals differences in behaviour between individuals occur in a similar way. And in the case of socially living animals, our closest kin in evolution, the differences in behaviour between individuals are very similar to what is found in humans.

The personality-dimension which is the focus of this article, the Good-Bad, Positive versus Negative or Appreciatedness dimension, is the only major personality dimension that is exclusively human. Peculiarly, this dimension is virtual and in a sense not real. It does not refer to or relate to any actual behaviour of the rated person, but instead just refers to the relationship between the rater and the ratee. In short: the only exclusively human personality dimension does not describe any actual behaviour of the ratee. Still, as we will see, this dimension plays a central and crucial role in our understanding of human personality and the dynamics between the various personality dimensions.

As described in more detail in the chapters "Personality Traits in terms of Social-Role Probabilities; an innovative theoretical essay on the possibility of overcoming the chaotic diversity in personality theories" and "Escaping from Chaos: Temperamental Personality Traits in terms of Social-Role Probabilities", the Good-Bad dimension is on the one hand the largest, mathematically most important of all personality dimensions and on the other hand is merely a function of two major dimensions of interpersonal behaviour / social-role behaviour. More precisely, it refers not to actual social role behaviour, but describes the characteristics of how social roles (actual behaviours) are worked out and are stabilized in time between parties (in this case between dominant and subordinate group members and between incrowd and outcast group members).

Let's start with discussing two personality dimensions describing the major varieties of social behaviour (see also the chapter " ").

In summarizing studies and reviews of social psychological research two more or less orthogonal dimensions generally emerge as the most important points of reference (Wiggins, 1979,1982; Kiesler, 1982,1983). One of these may be labeled "Ascendancy" or "Dominant versus Submissive" and the other dimension "Acceptance versus Rejection", "Love versus Hate" or "Positive Affiliation versus Hostility" (dimensions [9] and [10] in fig.l). Specifically, the following interpretations emerge in factoranalytic studies: "Dominance versus Submission" and "Love/Positive versus Hate/Negative/Hostility" (Leary, 1957; Foa, 1961; Lorr & McNair, 1965; Hare, 1972); "Assertiveness" and "Sociableness" (Borgatta, 1963); "Authority" and "Solidarity" (Gouman, Hofstee & de Raad, 1973); "Authority/Control" and "Affection/Intimacy" (Sampson, 1971); "Aggressive Dominance" and "Affiliation/Sociability" (Golding & Knudson, 1975). And these factoranalytic dimensions of social behaviour may be found on the verbal level as well as on the non-verbal level of behaviour: "Positiveness" (affiliative behaviour) and "Dominance vs. Submission" (relaxation) are two of the most conspicuous dimensions which Mehrabian (1972) found in his R-type factor-analytic studies on non-verbal social behaviour in man. (Refer to van der Molen (1979) for a comparison of the use of R-, Q- and other types of factoranalysis in observational behaviour studies.)

Peabody (1970) points at a very basic distinction between the two axes spanning this two-dimensional domain. One of them represents "asymmetrical" interactions, whereas the other describes "symmetrical" interactions. Relations involving "love/hate" or "affiliation" (dimension [10]) tend to be symmetrical - i.e., involving similar characteristics for the two parties - and relations involving "power" (dimension [9]) tend to be asymmetrical - i.e., involving dissimilar characteristics for the two parties - (see also Wiggins, 1982 and Kiesler, 1983 for recent reviews of research on this aspect).

Note: In the trans-specific behavioural literature the symbols α, β and ω are generally used for: dominant role (α), compliant and tolerated subordinate role (β), and non-compliant, non-tolerated type of subordinate, leading to an outcast role (ω)).