Environment and Nature
The debate as to whether a people's personality was more influenced by their geneticsor their environment has raged for years. Current estimates in the nature-nurture battleplace the weight of each at right around 50% (McMartin, 1995). One possible flaw in thisestimate, however, lies in the fact that the question of how much people's natureinfluences their environment has been largely left unanswered. For this question to beproperly answered, however, it must be determined what natural factors could possiblyhave a strong influence on environment. Once this cause and effect relationship isestablished, it should be much more convenient to accurately examine what causes people'spersonality to develop as it does.Under the stated premise, it is necessary to examine what characteristics peoplepossess that could possibly have an effect on their environment and that would, in turn,at least partially determine how the variable set of their environment (other people,basically) would behave. Naturally, one factor that could affect the responses of othersis personality. Obviously, if someone is very antisocial, for example, people will not,in all likelihood, respond openly and warmly to this person (if given the opportunity tointeract with an anti-social person in the first place). However, trends like this inpeople's personality tend to be self-perpetuating (Ewen, 1998). Because of this,describing how a trait affects the environment's response is best described by the traitit*elf, and it seems that not much useful information can be gleaned from such examininga loop.
The most promising source for understanding how people's natural or existing traitscan affect the responses of the environment lies in the examination of the traits withwhich people are born, most notably physical appearance. Much the same way people'spersonality affects how others treat those people, so too does appearance. In somesense, certain elements of appearance (such as hygiene and selection of clothes) are alsofunctions of personality, but for the most part, physical appearance, as something oneinherits genetically, is independent of personality. Because of this, it can be saidthat physical appearance affects the environment that in turn affects personality.
Much information already exists on such topics as how physical appearance affectshappiness, self-esteem, and success. It is only the next logical step to examine howappearance governs the environment in which people are immersed in by affecting theopinions of others.
Essentially, a two step cause-and-effect relationship should, hypothetically,describe the interaction between appearance and environment, and in turn, environment andpersonality. At an early age, perhaps before age ten or so, children have begun torecognize how others react to them. Naturally, people react with certain biases topeople who look one way or another. Good-looking children are treated as socialsuperiors, because in society, stereotype dictates that popular people are good looking. Conversely, children who are deemed to be not as attractive are often treated as inferiorto the other children. For example, one study found that, "If teachers expect differentbehavior from students of different physical attractiveness, the students . . . developaccordingly to conform to these expectations. The result is very favorable for thosestudents of higher physical attractiveness but very unfavorable for those lower inphysical attractiveness" (Patzer, 1985, p. 57). In both possible cases, the childrenbegin to conform their self-opinions to the opinions of those who interact with them, andeventually will even change the ways they dress and take care of themselves to conform toothers' preconceived notions of them. Once personality finally conforms to others'notions as well, the cycle repeats indefinitely, with personality and outward appearanceconforming to opinions, opinions being formed by personality and appearance. Thissituation clearly demonstrates a case in which environment affects people, but in whichenvironment is heavily influenced by nature.
Support for the Theory
Support for such a theory can come from a variety of sources. One obvious means ofsupport for this theory comes from common sense and logic. Other more concrete methodsthat can give support for such a hypothesis are existing literature and studies, andfurther experimentation. In fact, much data and analysis already exist on the topic ofcorrelates between appearance and various measures of success, such as happiness andself-esteem (Kleinke, 1978). In addition to this, it is easy to conceive of ways inwhich this hypothesis could be tested and falsified.Existing Research
Much of the support for this hypothesis lies in more than one step, as does thehypothesis itself. This involves first examining literature that correlates appearanceto the opinions of others. Then, logically, it must be shown how the opinions of othersaffect self-esteem. Lastly, it is necessary to see how self-esteem and perceived viewsof the opinions of others affect personality.How appearance affects others' opinions. Recent studies have shown that at a veryearly age, children began to pick whom they would like for playmates by such standards asfacial attractiveness and body form (Fisher, 1986). Another study found that acrossseveral age groups subjects consistently ranked photographs of numerous people based onattractiveness with similar results (Ellis & Young, 1989).
The correlation between the opinions of others and self-esteem is somewhat moredifficult to find documented evidence concerning. One study found that when subjectswent through an approximately 20-minute long interview with an interviewer that theybelieved had a low opinion of them, their self-esteem was markedly lower after theinterview (Eckert & Wicklund, 1992). As shown before, poor physical appearance leads toa lowered opinion by others, which, logically, leads to lower popularity, and, "Lack ofpopularity may undermine self-esteem and self-confidence" (Zuckerman, 1991, p. 220).
The relationship of self-opinion to personality has been recorded through manyexperiments. In one experiment, males had their self-esteem intentionally raised orlowered by receiving false reports on a personality test. The males whose self-esteemwas intentionally lowered interpreted a positive evaluation from a female as affectionmore often than those with the higher self-esteem did. Experimenters interpreted thisresult by postulating that those people with lower self-esteem are more likely to clingto any positive stimulus, whether real or perceived (Kleinke, 1978). This interpretationmakes it easy to see why people with lower self-esteem are more likely to embrace thingslike drugs (which give a temporary and false positive stimulus) (Ewen, 1998).
It has also been found that low self-esteem tends to perpetuate itself, andeventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. One experiment found that when,unbeknownst to the participants, a task in which success was guaranteed was performed,those with lower self-esteem were so uncomfortable with their successful results thatthey intentionally failed the task in successive trials to avoid discomfort (Kleinke,1978). Obviously, there is a strong correlation between self-esteem and personality.
Possible Experiments for Further Support
To adequately support the proposed relationship, it would be much more convenient todirectly correlate the effects of appearance on environment, and in turn, environment onpersonality. None of the surveyed experiments were conducted with this express purpose. Essentially, the proposed experiment would involve manipulation of people's perceivedresponses from others, and then analysis of how their personality changes.Several means exist for measuring personality. For the sake of comprehensiveness,utilizing both questionnaires and surveys of others who have objectively observed theparticipants for personality traits. Then, some sort of setting should be arranged wherethe participants are intentionally made to look bad (dressed in clothes that fit poorlyor are dirty, have their hair messed up, or, for women, forced to remove their make-up). The subjects would then be introduced to a group of objective participants in a socialsituation. Experimenters would record the reactions of these objective participants. During and after this experience, experimenters would also monitor the personalities ofthe participants, and see how they change. Conversely, this experiment could also beperformed where the participants are given some sort of makeover and made to look veryfavorably.
Presumably, the participants' personalities would be altered to fulfill the rolesthey perceive the participants in the social group expect them to fill. Naturally, thesocial group participants would perceive the subjects in a certain light, depending uponwhich version of the experiment is being performed, and would likely respond accordingly. This type of experiment could very easily show that attractiveness does indeed play amajor role in development of personality, and that nature, both mental and physical,plays an extremely important role in the development of personality because, ultimately, "nature" determines "nurture."
Conclusion
Certainly, how people are brought up and the environment in which they are constantlyimmersed affects their personality immensely. However, one of the greatest determiningfactors of how people's environment acts is those people themselves. People influencetheir environment by characteristics they naturally possess, beginning at a very youngage. Perhaps the most influential and easily discernable factor that influencesenvironment is physical appearance. This argument demonstrates that naturalcharacteristics are ultimately the greatest determinant of personality, whether or notinherently linked to personality. Under this premise, those characteristics that mostheavily influence environment would also indirectly determine personality. If supportedsufficiently with experimental data, it seems this would tip the scales in thenature-nurture debate heavily towards the side of nature.References
Bertelsen, A., Harvald, B., & Hauge, M. (1977). A Danish twin study of manicdepressive disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 330-351.Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What isbeautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physicalattractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
Eckert, M., & Wicklund, R. A. (1992). The self-knower: A hero undercontrol. New York: Plenum.
Ellis, H. D., & Young, A. W. (1989). Handbook of research on faceprocessing. New York: New-Holland.
Ewen, R. B. (1998). Personality: A topical approach. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fisher, S. (1986). Development and structure of the body image. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Kleinke, C. L. (1978). Self-perception: The psychology of personalawareness. San Francisco: Freeman.
Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facialdiversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology,31, 464-472.
McMartin, J. (1995). Personality psychology: A student centered approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patzer, G. L. (1985). The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York: Plenum.
Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
