Australian personality research: Past, present, and future prospects

Abstract

Objective

This paper aims to examine the development of personality research within Australia, from the emergence of Australian psychology to the current time.

Method

The paper first identifies the central role of personality research in shaping early Australian psychology. The paper then addresses the emerging directions of Australian personality research in the post‐war years up to the end of the 20th Century. The paper then highlights the present contributions of personality research, noting both the world‐leading impact made by Australian researchers and real‐world applications of this field.

Results

Australian personality research has a long history of providing important contributions to both Australian and international psychology. Future prospects and challenges related to attracting research funding for Australian research are also identified.

Conclusions

Australian personality research was important for the successful emergence of Australian psychology. Present Australian personality researchers are making world‐leading impact and addressing a number of important social issues.

Key words:

• Australian psychology
• history
• intelligence
• personality assessment
• personality processes and individual differences

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?

• The initial influences upon Australian psychology were largely in the shape of personality research, both in terms of theory and application.

• Personality research played a pivotal role in helping the emerging Australian psychology to establish itself, allowing the pioneers to demonstrate usefulness in industrial and educational settings.

• Little research to date has considered the present state of personality research in Australia.

WHAT THIS TOPIC ADDS?

• Australian personality research is having a world‐leading impact and addressing a number of important social issues.

• Australian personality research became galvanised by the development of the Australian Conference on Personality and Individual Differences (ACPID) in the 21st century.

• This paper contributes to the lore of the Australian personality field and documents the history of Australian psychology generally for the benefit of future generations of psychology researchers.

INTRODUCTION

Personality research has a long history of both theoretical and applied contributions in areas such as education, industry, and clinical psychology. Personality psychology is broadly concerned with the whole person, both describing and explaining characteristic patterns of human psychological variation including traits and abilities (Funder, 2001; Revelle, 1995). The aim of the present paper is to sketch the history and contributions of Australian personality research, starting with the beginning of Australian psychology through to the present time. The achieve this, the paper first discusses the guiding influence of personality research upon the emergence of psychology within Australia, as well as the importance of real‐world application provided by personality research. The paper then discusses personality research in the post‐war years, before addressing the current state of Australian personality research. The paper finally addresses the future prospects of Australian personality research and discusses plans for progress in the field.

THE EMERGENCE OF AUSTRALIAN PERSONALITY RESEARCH

Psychology was first formally taught in Australia as early as the 1890s (Turtle, 1985) and the first Australian independent Department of Psychology was formed in 1929, at the University of Sydney. A second Department of Psychology was established soon after at the University of Western Australia on January 1, 1930 (Turtle, 1996). Personality research had an influential role in shaping the emerging Australian psychology right from its very beginning. Many of the pioneers of Australian psychology had travelled abroad to undertake doctoral studies and brought back the influence of overseas personality research. For example, the first Head of Department at the University of Sydney was Henry Tasman Lovell, who also became the first Professor of Psychology in Australia (O'Neil, 1977). Lovell had earlier received a doctorate in Jena, Germany, and brought back to Australia an interest in Alfred Binet's work on mental measurement and Freud's psychoanalytic theory, as well as Wundtian experimental psychology (O'Neil, 1977). Similarly, Hugh L. Fowler, the founder of the second department of Psychology at the University of Western Australia, had earlier completed a PhD with Charles Spearman at University College, London (Turtle, 1996). Fowler developed both coursework and practicals “stressing the measurement of individual differences” in the newly established Western Australian department, as well as experimental investigations of human learning (O'Neil, 1977, p. 8). Even where psychology was taught outside of independent departments, personality research featured prominently in the early syllabi of Australian psychology (see Martin, 1925).

Lovell was also an Australian pioneer in the study of psychoanalysis, writing two books on dreaming. The first book, Dreams, provides “a critical examination of some of the most important of Freud's principles” (Lovell, 1923c, p. 2). The second book, Dreams and Dreaming (Lovell, 1938), extends this earlier analysis. The dynamic motivational processes proposed by Freud were generally considered essential for any theory of human behaviour and social relations (e.g., Lovell, 1930a, 1931; Martin, 1922a, 1926), as well as for understanding personality, character, and intelligence (Lovell, 1931; Martin, 1922a). For instance, writes Lovell, motivation is relevant to understanding intelligence since the intellect “directs the forces of life towards the satisfaction of the needs of life” (Lovell, 1930a, p. 43). Furthermore, many pioneers saw ready application of psychoanalytic theory to areas such as education, due to the intimate relation between dynamic motivational processes and situational factors (Mackie, 1923a; Martin, 1922a, 1922b, 1922c; McRae, 1928). In many respects, these thinkers foreshadowed the relatively recent development of current dynamic personality approaches (see Boag, 2018).

The direct influence of Lovell is barely evident today, although some vestige of Lovell's thinking is visible within a peculiarly Australian interest in psychoanalysis that emerged at the University of Sydney (Maze, 1952, 1983; see also Henry, 2009). This approach mixes Freudian theory and the Australian philosophical influence of Scottish‐born John Anderson, Professor of Philosophy at Sydney from 1927 to 1958. Anderson admired Freudian theory (e.g., Anderson, 1962d), and his philosophy is staunchly empiricist, determinist, and realist (e.g., Anderson, 1962a, 1962b, 1962c; see also Baker, 1986). Anderson, in turn, influenced John Maze (e.g., Maze, 1983), and Maze emphasised the importance of motivational drives and conflict for understanding the bases for behaviour. Although Maze's influence has not been extensive, his work has been developed by Boag (2014, 2017) and extended to dynamic personality perspectives emphasising the role of dynamic systems and situational factors for understanding personality (Boag, 2018).

Psychoanalysis is also significant in the Australian context with respect to the Hungarian born psychoanalyst and anthropologist Géza Róheim's pioneering psycho‐anthropological research with indigenous Australians. Róheim conducted expeditions to outback Australia in the 1940s and 1950s and applied psychoanalytic interpretations to understanding the myths and rituals found within Australian indigenous communities (e.g., Róheim, 1945). Róheim's research ignited public interest, with his travels finding mention in the popular press (Morton, 2011). Although his research is somewhat culturally dated, his child‐centred ethnography pioneered research from children's points of view and is still considered valuable today (e.g., Eickelkamp, 2010).

PERSONALITY AND THE FACE OF EARLY AUSTRALIAN PSYCHOLOGY

The pioneers of Australian psychology were typically generalists who were interested in a wide variety of psychological topics, quite different from today's tendency towards specialisation. O'Neil (1977) captures the early approach well: “There was a certain eclecticism in all of them, a readiness to pick up ideas, methods and data from various schools of psychological thought and to try and knit them together in at least a loose system of coherence” (p. 11). Lovell, for instance, published a paper discussing criticisms and theoretical developments of psychoanalysis (Lovell, 1923a), and another praising the State of Tasmania for taking intelligence testing seriously (Lovell, 1923b). A similar attitude is evident in the work of Alfred H. Martin. Martin was the first Australian to receive an overseas doctorate in psychology (under Robert S. Woodworth at Columbia; Turtle, 1996; see Martin, 1925). Martin developed psychology courses with Lovell at Sydney University, and his interest in individual differences extended to Binet's mental testing, Spearman's general factor account of intelligence (g), and Thorndike's specific abilities approach (verbal/abstract reasoning, practical/mechanical, and social intelligences) (e.g., Martin, 1923; see also O'Neil, 1977; Taft, 1982). Martin, however, also published papers ranging across the importance of motivational‐affective variables for education (“instincts in the school yard”) (Martin, 1922a), and the concepts of self and personality in the works of William James, Freud, and McDougall (Martin, 1926). Similarly, Alexander Mackie, the first Principal of Sydney Teachers' College established in 1906 (Turtle, 1985), published papers on psychology and education ranging from psychoanalytic applications (Mackie, 1923a) to mental testing and general ability (Mackie, 1923b). These pioneers were interested in the whole person and saw both basic and applied research as helping to achieve the aims of the emerging discipline in Australia.

EARLY APPLICATION OF PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RESEARCH

Initially Australian psychology struggled to gain recognition and was poorly resourced (Turtle, 1996). The emerging Australian psychology was thus keen to demonstrate application to real‐world problems to demonstrate both legitimacy and usefulness (e.g., Martin, 1925). Inspired by Binet and Théodore Simon's success with mental testing, Australian personality research found ready application in identifying intellectual disability (e.g., Bachelard, 1931; Lovell, 1923b; Phillips, 1924c). The pioneers of Australian psychology also set up services providing public access to the benefits of personality research. Martin, for instance, set up a clinic at the University of Sydney to address intellectual disability in 1923. Around the same time in Tasmania Edmund Morris Miller made notable contributions to government legislation on the matter. Miller was Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at the University of Tasmania from 1922 (Turtle, 1996). Miller was influenced by Binet's intelligence testing (e.g., Miller, 1928), as well as being interested in the relationship between neural structures and intelligence (Miller, 1926). Miller was the major instigator behind Tasmanian legislation that established a State Psychological Clinic (of which Miller was the Director) that identified and helped intellectually disabled individuals (“The Mental Deficiency ACT” of 1920). Based on Miller's efforts, the State of Tasmania was the first in Australia to take seriously intelligence testing for addressing intellectual disability (see Lovell, 1923b & Martin, 1925 on the significance of this within the Australian context).

Identifying intellectual disability also provided impetus for an early original Australian contribution to mental testing: the Porteus maze tests. Stanley Porteus developed the tests in 1913 to identify children with intellectual disability for a special school set up in Melbourne. The Porteus tests consist of a sequence of mazes “so arranged as to allow an evaluation of the individual's ability to carry out in proper sequence and prescribed fashion the various steps to be taken in the achievement of a goal, in this case finding his was out of a printed labyrinth” (Porteus, 1965, pp. 5–6). Along with John Smyth, Porteus successfully diagnosed intellectual disability using the Porteus tests (Porteus, 1965). Smyth had set up the first experimental psychology laboratory in Australia at the Melbourne Teachers' College in 1903 (Taft, 1982; Turtle, 1985). The Porteus test's success generated interest in both England and the United States, and Porteus left Australia in 1918 for Vineland Training School in New Jersey (succeeding Goddard) before moving to the University of Hawaii in 1925.

OTHER AREAS OF CONTRIBUTION: “INDUSTRIAL” PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION

Australian personality research also made impressive contributions to “Industrial” (organisational) psychology, where early efforts took the form of vocational guidance (the “scientific selection of the worker”; Lovell, 1930b, p. 215). In this respect, ability testing found ready application in personnel recruitment (e.g., Martin, 1925; Martin, Doig, & Simmat, 1925; Piddington, 1930; Taylor, 1925). An important pioneer here was Bernard Muscio, described by Martin (1925) as “the author of ‘Industrial Psychology’” (p. 42). Muscio published lectures on Industrial psychology based on lectures given in 1916, covering material ranging from fatigue, accidents, and the selection of workers (Muscio, 1917). These lectures “constituted the first book anywhere in the world in the new style on industrial psychology” (O'Neil, 1977, p. 9; cf. Taft, 1982). Muscio himself died quite early in 1926, but in the following year Martin set up the non‐profit Australian Institute of Industrial Psychology (AIIP) in Sydney, which was set up “primarily as a vehicle for developing and conducting vocational and intelligence tests for the use of private enterprise” (Turtle, 1996, p. 111).

Personality research also has a long‐standing relationship with educational studies in Australia. One significant pioneer here was Constance Davey, who first graduated from the University of Adelaide, before completing a PhD at the University of London with Spearman in 1924 (O'Neil, 1987). Davey (1926) demonstrated that non‐verbal pictorial tests could be successfully used in place of verbal tests when language ability was compromised. Davey also found appointment as a psychologist in the South Australian Department of Education between 1924 and 1942, working to help intellectually disabled children. She later published a survey of the South Australian laws and treatment of vulnerable children between 1836 and 1950 (Davey, 1956). This book received praise from Mary Tenison Woods, the then Chief of Section on the Status of Women for the United Nations (see Davey, 1956, p. vii).

Another significant pioneer in education was Gilbert E. Phillips, also a former Spearman pupil, who joined the Sydney Teacher's College in 1919. Phillips was interested in studying “the close relationship between the ability to learn and intelligence” (Phillips, 1924a, p. 23) and published the 1923 Sydney revision of the Binet tests which was widely used in Australia (Martin, 1925; O'Neil, 1977; Turtle, 1996). Phillips similarly developed the Sydney Teachers' College Group Scale for assessing primary school children's general ability (Phillips, 1924a; Phillips, 1924b).

The success of such tests in education led to the formation of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in 1930, which is still prominent today (https://www.acer.org/). ACER promotes the application of individual difference research in education through research and training in psychometrics and psychological testing. Its first director, Kenneth S. Cunningham, had trained at Columbia University under Thorndike and he had earlier set up psychological laboratories at Melbourne Teachers' College in 1923 (Turtle, 1996). During the Second World War, the Australian Commonwealth Training Scheme commissioned ACER to develop tests for personnel and technical training suitability (Turtle, 1985). The success of personality research here allowed psychologists to demonstrate their usefulness, and the post‐war years witnessed both an expansion of Psychology departments in Australia and increasing access to government research funding (O'Neil, 1977; Turtle, 1985). ACER strengthened the emerging Australian Psychology by providing a national service with demonstrable benefit to the nation (O'Neil, 1987), and was clearly an early success story for Australian psychology generally, and personality research more specifically. Personality research thus provided impetus for the expansion of psychology in Australia by successfully applying psychological research to the solution of real‐world problems.

THE TRAIT APPROACH AND THE DEVELOPING FACE OF PERSONALITY RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIA

There were only three Psychology departments in Australia prior to 1945 (New England University College was added as a branch of the University of Sydney in 1938—O'Neil, 1987). By 1972, however, there were 14 Departments of Psychology within the 17 existing universities (Bochner, 2000). This expansion of psychology within universities also saw an expansion of published personality research. During the first 30 years of the Australian Journal of Psychology (1949–1978), personality research was the second most prevalent published research area, following only after human experimental research¹ (White, Sheehan, & Kaboot, 1983). Although those same authors reported a possible decline in interest in personality research (evident in fewer personality articles published in later volumes of that same journal), a follow‐up study indicated no such decline, and if anything, growth in the area (Ray, 1987). Additionally, Australian personality research also featured prominently in high‐impact overseas journals (Taft, 1982).

Intelligence testing continued to make significant contributions during this period (e.g., Keats & Keats, 1988), and the longevity and far‐reaching impact of Australian research in this area is still found today (addressed in the next section). However, a new face of Australian personality research emerged during the post‐war years reflecting the success of the trait approach. Traits are typically considered relatively enduring characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (often described as “tendencies” or “dispositions”). A pioneer here was Cecil A. Gibb at the University of Sydney who completed a Masters thesis on “Personality traits, their empirical measurement and statistical isolation” in 1940. Gibb's trait approach (Gibb, 1942a, 1942b) reflected a move away from personality dynamics that had been the interest of Lovell and other pioneers. Gibb instead sought to break personality down into a number of traits (defined as “comparatively consistent patterns of habits”—Gibb, 1942b, p. 86). Nevertheless, Gibb appreciated that the “whole” personality itself is more like a gestalt and cannot be reduced to the traits themselves (i.e., personality is greater than the sum of the traits). Furthermore, and unlike some trait approaches today, Gibb further acknowledged Kurt Lewin's view that behaviour needs to be understood as a function of both the person and the environment. In this respect, Gibb writes: “Personality is to be regarded as a function of the social situation. There can be no personality in isolation” (Gibb, 1940, p. 253). Gibb's approach here, addressing both person and situation, reflects a theme that has arisen at various points in time throughout Australian personality research (e.g., Hammond, 1966), and foreshadows developments in current thinking (see Boag, 2018).

Gibb's impact was limited but his pioneering interest in the trait approach reflected a major turning point in Australian personality research, just as the trait approach was making a major impact in personality research globally (e.g., Gordon Allport's research). The first trait approach that took hold in Australia was Hans Eysenck's trait taxonomy of introversion‐extraversion, neuroticism‐stability, and psychoticism (e.g., Eysenck, 1991). Research inspired by Eysenck regularly found its way into Australian journals, leading Roderick McDonald and Aubrey Yates (of the University of New England) to write: “The extent to which Eysenck has achieved a distinctive position in the field of personality theory can be measured by the number and nature of critical reviews … of his work that have recently appeared” (McDonald & Yates, 1960, p. 212). Further evidence of the extent of Eysenck's influence is apparent within a special issue devoted to Personality and Temperament in the Australian Journal of Psychology in 1983: personality is almost entirely addressed within the context of Eysenck's theory (see Brebner, 1983).

However, despite the predominance of the trait approach in Australian psychology, all major personality schools appear to have developed some representation in Australian research (see Boag, 2008b), along with some distinctively Australian positions. An example of the latter is the work of Paul Lafitte (University of Melbourne). Lafitte emphasised the unique individual, and recognised the importance of addressing social forces for understanding personality and human behaviour. Lafitte's work cut across psychology and sociology, and he published several monographs (e.g., The Person in Psychology (Lafitte, 1957); Social Structure and Personality in the Factory (Lafitte, 1958)). Lafitte also developed the Melbourne Test for predicting university performance (Lafitte, 1954), and was interested in both theoretical and practical issues of personality assessment (Lafitte, 1950). O'Neil (1987) describes Lafitte's approach as “basically tender‐minded and humanistic” (p. 125), and a book review by Allport (1958) criticises the personality aspects of Lafitte's approach as lacking substantive theory. There is also little evidence of any ongoing impact of Lafitte's work. Nevertheless, the theme of recognising the significance and complexity of understanding persons within social situations again emerges as a theme within Australian personality research.

AUSTRALIAN PERSONALITY RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Personality research flourished during the post‐war period to the end of the 20th century but there was still no clear local outlet for personality researchers to meet and present their ideas and research. To address this lack of common ground, a major turning point for Australian personality research occurred with the development of the Australian (or Australasian) Conference on Personality and Individual Differences (ACPID). ACPID was an initiative of Patrick Heaven (at that time from the University of Wollongong) and Don Munro (University of Newcastle). ACPID had the effect of bringing together and galvanising Australasian personality research, evident both in the ongoing success of the conference, as well as by the several edited volumes that emerged directly from ACPID (Boag, 2008a; Boag & Tiliopoulos, 2011; Hicks, 2010).

The first ACPID was held in 2001 at the University of Wollongong (and then later again in 2010). Since then, ACPID has become an annual event held at numerous universities, including the University of Queensland (2003), University of Newcastle (2006, 2014), Ballarat University (2004), Macquarie University (2007), Bond University (2008), University of Sydney (2009, 2017), University of Tasmania (2011), the University of Melbourne (2012), Griffith University (2013), Western Sydney University (2015), and Monash University (2016).² As is evident, there is wide representation of Australian universities involved with ACPID, and personality researchers associated with Universities who are yet to hold ACPID are encouraged to nominate their institutions for upcoming conferences. Regrettably, ACPID is still yet to be held within South Australia (see, however, Footnote 1), Western Australia, or the Northern Territory, but personality researchers from these States and Territories nevertheless continue to attend ACPID.

ACPID has become a “developmental” conference, focused on facilitating career pathways for up‐and‐coming personality researchers. To this end, ACPID is held strategically at the end of each year to provide an opportunity for Honours students to present their research in a supportive and constructive environment. Additionally, the most recent ACPID held at the University of Sydney in 2017 held at the University of Sydney provided Early Career Researcher workshops and a domestic mentoring system to unite experienced personality researchers with newer ones.

THEMES IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN PERSONALITY RESEARCH

The sheer depth and breadth of Australian personality research means that it is not possible here to do justice to all of the contributors of Australian personality research and presented below are simply some notable themes. The trait approach is still prevalent in Australian personality research, but the rise of the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990) and Five‐Factor Model (FFM) (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 2008) has largely displaced the earlier focus on Eysenck's trait approach. Some noteworthy Australian FFM contributions include Arthur Poropat's (Griffith University) heavily cited meta‐analysis of personality and educational achievement, which revealed significant associations between academic performance and the traits of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness (Poropat, 2009). In fact, Conscientiousness was found to predict tertiary academic performance equally as well as intelligence. Similarly, a second meta‐analysis (Poropat, 2014) revealed strong associations between academic performance and the FFM traits, independent of intelligence. As Poropat observes, such findings have important implications for education, including the possibility of increasing effective learning by matching educational activities with student personality profiles.

The Big Five has also been extended to understanding creativity and cognitive exploration (Fayn, MacCann, Tiliopoulos, & Silvia, 2015). For instance, Fayn, Tiliopoulos, and MacCann (2015) found a relation between cognitive exploration and the via different pathways. High‐Openness people experience greater interest with difficult‐to‐understand problems, whereas high‐Intellect people are more interested when there is greater understanding of a problem. Interestingly, Openness and Intellect also differentially predict workplace performance: Openness predicts vigour and dedication to work performance, whereas Intellect predicts absorption in work roles (Douglas, Bore, & Munro, 2016). An Australian version of the FFM scales is also now available (the Australian Personality Inventory—Murray et al., 2009).

Despite the emerging popularity of the FFM and the Big Five, some Australian personality researchers have been critical of the FFM's atheoretical basis and derivation from the lexical approach. In this respect, one criticism is that the FFM appears to confuse description of what people do with explanation, as well as reifying between‐subject differences into within‐person variables (Boag, 2011, 2015, 2018). Nevertheless, the Big Five more generally has proven to be a particularly useful descriptive framework, and Australian personality researchers have been actively addressing causal accounts of within‐person processes to explain the manifest traits. One current Australian focus here is based on the biological premises of revised‐Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r‐RST—Gray & McNaughton, 2000). r‐RST addresses the basis of traits in terms of the activity of various behavioural systems (Behaviour Activation, Behaviour Inhibition, Fight, Flight, Freezing systems) (Collins, Jackson, Walker, O'Connor, & Gardiner, 2017; Jackson, 2009; Smillie, Pickering, & Jackson, 2006). These biobehavioural systems are believed to underlie different manifestation of personality and individual differences by mediating the effects of reward and punishment on emotion and motivation (see Smillie, 2008). A major contributor to this area of research is Chris Jackson (University of New South Wales). Jackson's research reveals that poorer executive functioning can be understood via r‐RST in terms of “flight,” which is the tendency to commit to poorly planned escape behaviours (Jackson, Loxton, Harnett, Ciarrochi, & Gullo, 2014). On the other hand, Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson, and Martin (2009) extensively compared various models of approach/avoidance for predicting work, university, and leadership outcomes. Their results revealed that a hybrid model emphasising sensation‐seeking provided the most comprehensive predictor of those outcomes. Alternatively, r‐RST has been further linked with attachment processes (Jiang & Tiliopoulos, 2014), where associations between both anxious and avoidance attachment dimensions and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) suggest that motivational ambivalence is a central feature of attachment insecurity.

One area that has been particularly productive has involved applications of r‐RST for understanding varieties of problematic behaviours where impulsivity is implicated as a key factor. Natalie Loxton (Griffith University) has made many contributions here to both clinical and educational domains, applying r‐RST to understanding addiction generally, as well as problem gambling, substance abuse, and eating disorders. Her findings indicate that problem gamblers are more rash‐impulsive, reward‐driven, and more sensitive to punishment than non‐problem gamblers (Loxton, Nguyen, Casey, & Dawe, 2008). Her research has also revealed that reward sensitivity is directly associated with both dysfunctional eating and drinking, and that punishment sensitivity mediates the relationship between a chaotic family environment and dysfunctional eating in women (Loxton & Dawe, 2006). In addition, Loxton, Bunker, Dingle, and Wong (2015) recently found that impulsivity was the best predictor of tertiary student alcohol misuse, with highly impulsive students maintaining heavier levels of drinking over time.

Another offshoot of r‐RST research concerns the well‐known association between extraversion and happiness. Luke Smillie (University of Melbourne) has been at the forefront of developing theory addressing the personality neuroscience of extraversion and the neural processing of reward (Smillie, 2013). On the one hand, research here has addressed the neural processing of reward (Smillie, Cooper, & Pickering, 2010; Smillie & Wacker, 2014). On the other, this research has helped clarify the nature of the positive affective component of extraversion (best described in terms of both positive valence and high activation—Smillie, DeYoung, & Hall, 2015). For example, Smillie, Cooper, Wilt, and Revelle (2012) demonstrated over five experiments that extraverts and introverts respond similarly to motivationally‐neutral pleasant stimuli and situations (i.e., stimuli with an absence of a reward‐approach element). However, extraverts and introverts differ insofar that extraverts show greater affective‐reactivity in response to appetitive stimuli and situations (e.g., where rewards are being pursued). Moreover, the affective‐reactivity of extraverts is specifically “activated affect” (e.g., feelings of alertness), rather than pleasantly valenced affect (e.g., feelings of contentment). In a similar direction, Rapson Gomez (Federation University) has also been prolific in investigating addressing personality, mood states, and emotional information processing (Gomez, Cooper, & Gomez, 2000; Gomez, Gomez, & Cooper, 2002; Gomez, Watson, & Gomez, 2016).

WORLD LEADING PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RESEARCH

As the above indicates, Australian personality research is renowned for its contributions and boasts many world‐leading personality researchers. One long‐standing example of world‐leading Australian personality research is the extensive contributions to the field made by Lazar Stankov. Stankov was born in the former Yugoslavia and appointed as a lecturer at the University of Sydney in 1973. Stankov's work has been prolific and his research spans the relationship between intelligence and confidence judgements (e.g., Stankov, 1999), refuting the view that mental speed is a basic process of intelligence (Stankov & Roberts, 1997), addressing racism in intelligence testing (Stankov, 1998, 2000), and the need for addressing complexity when conceptualising human cognitive abilities (Stankov, 2017b; Stankov & Crawford, 1993). More recently Stankov has turned his attention to addressing individual differences across the globe (Stankov, 2016a, 2016b, 2017a), as well as understanding the psychological processes involved in the terrorist mindset, including “nastiness” (anti‐social and pro‐violent attitudes), “grudge” (animosity and resentment), and “excuse” (a higher‐order justification for militant extremism) (Stankov, 2018, Stankov, Saucier & Knežević, 2011).

Carolyn MacCann (University of Sydney) is also regarded as a world leading expert in emotional intelligence (EI) research (>2,900 citations: Google Scholar, PhD awarded in 2006) (e.g., MacCann, Matthews, & Roberts, 2012; MacCann & Roberts, 2008). MacCann's research has been concerned with assessing emotional intelligence and addressing the underlying mechanisms pertaining to emotional regulation. Additionally, her research has extensively examined the relationship between EI and various outcomes including workplace and academic performance, as well as wellbeing (e.g., MacCann, Fogarty, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2011). MacCann has also been at the forefront of developing innovative means of assessing emotion management, including the notable example of multimedia emotion management assessment (MEMA—MacCann, Lievens, Libbrecht, & Roberts, 2016). MacCann's work further extends to researching other facets of personality, including examining the FFM and academic outcomes (MacCann, Fogarty, & Roberts, 2012; MacCann, Lipnevich, Poropat, Wiemers, & Roberts, 2015).

There are too many other instances of world‐leading impact to list them all here. However, by way of demonstrating some diversity of this impact, Nick Haslam's (University of Melbourne) review paper examining categorical and dimensional approaches to personality and psychopathology has been highly influential (>230 citations since 2012). This review was based on a combined sample of over half a million participants, and revealed that most personality variables (with the exception of schizotypy) are dimensional rather than taxonic (Haslam, Holland, & Kuppens, 2012). On the other hand, Gregory Boyle (Bond University) has led a number of influential edited collections bringing together prominent international researchers within the field (Boyle, Matthews, & Saklofske, 2008a, 2008b; Boyle, Saklofske, & Matthews, 2015).

Australia has also attracted overseas personality researchers including Peter Jonason who completed his PhD at New Mexico State University in 2009 (now at Western Sydney University). Jonason is a world‐leading authority on evolutionary psychological models and the dark triad traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. His research indicates that these traits can provide an evolutionarily adaptive advantage, rather than assuming such traits are a sign of pathology (>4,000 citations: Google Scholar) (e.g., Jonason & Lavertu, 2017; Jonason, Li, & Buss, 2010; Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009; Jonason, Webster, Schmitt, Li, & Crysel, 2012). At the other end of the spectrum, Peggy Kern (> 3,900 citations) at the University of Melbourne completed her PhD in 2010 at the University of California. Kern's research examines personality from a positive psychology perspective, addressing both wellbeing throughout the lifespan, and wellbeing within educational and workplace domains (Kern & Friedman, 2008, 2009; Kern, Friedman, Martin, Reynolds, & Luong, 2009; Kern, Waters, Adler, & White, 2015). Kern's research is also at the forefront of big data and digital footprint research examining personality (Kern et al., 2014).

PERSONALITY RESEARCH AND APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT

As with the pioneers of Australian psychology, current personality researchers in Australia have been innovative in terms of test development, and keen to apply their research in a variety of settings including the workplace and educational settings. For example, Beatrice Alba (Monash University) has constructed a novel questionnaire of status consciousness (Alba, McIlwain, Wheeler, & Jones, 2014), whereas Richard Hicks (Bond University) has contributed to assessing the relationship between response format and social desirability (Hicks, 2008), as well as identifying strategies for measuring stress at work (Hicks, 2011). In education, Sabina Kleitman (University of Sydney) has studied metacognition in self‐regulated approaches to learning. Her research reveals a negative association between strength of metacognitive beliefs and self‐handicapping behaviours (Kleitman & Gibson, 2011), and that academically challenged university students report benefits from metacognitive feedback (Kleitman & Costa, 2014). Gerry Fogarty (University of Southern Queensland) has an extensive record of personality research contributions to Army aviation and aviation safety, addressing factors such as human error, intelligence, psychological assessment, fatigue, mood, and decision‐support systems (e.g., Fogarty, 2013; Fogarty, Davies, MacCann, & Roberts, 2014). Gomez's research also extends into examining assessment of personality and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD—Gomez, 2016; Gomez & Corr, 2014), as well as assessing personality and spiritual wellbeing (Gomez & Fisher, 2003, 2005). On the other hand, Jackson (2009) developed both the Jackson‐5 scales of r‐RST, which can be used to predict dysfunctional behaviours, and an innovative on‐line psychological research laboratory for understanding personality processes and how they relate to work performance (YWEDO (“why‐we‐do”—Jackson, 2011). There has also been some recent innovative research using mixed‐method designs for adapting overseas personality tests for identifying adaptive and maladaptive developmental trajectories in Australian children (Watt, Hopkinson, Costello, & Roodenburg, 2017).

Other noteworthy examples of application are evident in the research of Don Munro and Miles Bore (University of Newcastle). Munro and Bore have successfully developed personality scales for medical school selection (Munro, Bore, & Powis, 2008), as well as assessing personality and the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms in medicine and psychology students (Bore, Ashley‐Brown, Gallagher, & Powis, 2008). For example, in a study of over 600 medical students, Munro et al. (2008) found three personality factors that helped predict medical school performance (“conscientiousness” (STEADY), “psychological resilience” (SANE), and “involvement with others” (NICE). More recently, Munro, Powis, and Bore (2013) have developed a model for predicting empathy in medical students, proposing that emotional stability, conscientiousness, and self‐control are foundations for empathic behaviours in professional people (whereas factors such as narcissism may instead inhibit empathy).

On the other hand, Bore et al. (2008) found a disturbing set of findings when examining the mental health of over 300 medical and psychology students: nearly a third of medical students produce scores on measures of psychological symptoms equal to or higher than adult psychiatric inpatients. Following on from this, Bore, Kelly, and Nair (2016) recently found that the most consistent predictors of psychological distress in Australian undergraduate medical school students involved both degree of social support and personality traits of emotional resilience and self‐control. They suggest embedding emotional resilience skills training into medical school curricula as a means of reducing psychological distress among medical students.

FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR AUSTRALIAN PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RESEARCH

As the foregoing demonstrates, Australian personality research is a vibrant and highly productive field within Australian psychology, contributing world‐class research both in theory and in application. Furthermore, the aforementioned cited literature also demonstrates that Australian personality researchers are highly collaborative, both with fellow Australian researchers, as well as with international ones. Added to this, Australian personality researchers are commonly primary authors on high profile, international research teams. Given such success, Australian personality research can continue to expect to be an attractive prospect for students, and the developmental focus of the field promotes a clear pathway for personality students and researchers to develop research careers.

At the same time, however, Australian personality research faces a major challenge. Despite the contributions that personality research has made throughout the history of Australian psychology, personality research in Australia currently struggles to attract research funding. As is evident from available Australian Research Council (ARC) sources (http://www.arc.gov.au/grants-dataset), the vast majority of research funding in the form of Discovery Project (ARC DP) grants is allocated to “cognitive science,” perception, and neuroscience research, whereas personality research is conspicuously absent. For example, the number of ARC DPs awarded to grants listing the field code “170109: Personality, Abilities, and Assessment” over the last 5 years has been 5 (2014), 2 (2015), 2 (2016), 2 (2015), and 0 (2018). By comparison, the number of ARC DPs awarded to grants listing the field code “170101: Biological Psychology” over the last 5 years has been 6 (2014), 14 (2015), 12 (2016), 11 (2017), and 15 (2018). Even one specific subfield of cognitive psychology (170,112 Sensory Processes, Perception and Performance) gets much more funding than personality psychology (specifically: 14 (2014), 9 (2015), 13 (2016), 15 (2015), and 12 (2018)).³

The lack of funding for personality research thus appears to reflect a lack of national recognition of personality research, and a possible blind spot in the ARC's funding priorities. There are, however, notable exceptions—Carolyn MacCann, for instance, received ARC DP funding in 2015 to investigate underlying mechanisms of emotional intelligence—but this outcome is the exception to the norm. Consequently, given that job promotion is often tied to attracting research funding, the lack of funds made available to personality research is likely to negatively impact upon careers and prospects of personality researchers (not to mention preventing the field from making even greater contributions to what it presently already is). Although it is naturally difficult to determine the submission/failure rate of ARC applications (we do not know how many personality researchers applied for funding during that time), there is anecdotal evidence at least that personality researchers believe that the poor likelihood of success outweighs the enormous effort involved in applying for research funding. A personality think tank organised by Luke Smillie at the University of Melbourne in 2017 sought to explore this problem, and one proposed strategy to redress this situation was for personality researchers themselves to ensure greater representation on funding bodies (e.g., in becoming members of the ARC College of Experts). Although this approach might prove effective, there is unfortunately no reason to believe that the paucity of personality research funding will change at any time soon.

On a brighter note, there are also some exciting developments in Australian personality research. The natural overlap between personality and social psychology is gaining greater recognition within Australia (and indeed around the world). Thus, the long‐standing and out‐dated division between the two fields that Cronbach (1957) noted over half a century ago (cf. Poropat & Corr, 2015) is giving way to a more nuanced understanding of person‐environment interactions. Reflecting all of this, Nick Haslam, while President of the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists (SASP), proposed much greater integration of personality and social psychology perspectives by aligning SASP with ACPID, a viewpoint then reciprocated by Luke Smillie at the aforementioned Thinktank in 2017.

It remains to be seen what will become of this proposal, but the proposed direction echoes a viewpoint raised by Australian personality researchers regarding the necessity of understanding the situated person. Repeating the words of the early Australian trait theorist, Gibb (1940), “[p]ersonality is to be regarded as a function of the social situation. There can be no personality in isolation” (p. 253). In many ways, too, current Australian personality research is already recognising the need for addressing the complex interaction between person and situation. Consider, for instance, Australian research addressing the interaction of person, task, and situation in creativity (Birney, Beckmann, & Seah, 2016), and cognition‐personality relations (Birney, Beckmann, Beckmann & Double, 2017). Similarly, in terms of personality and culture, Niko Tiliopoulos (University of Sydney) has been extending cross‐cultural personality research (Tiliopoulos, Francis, & Slattery, 2010) and examining the relation between personality and religion (Tiliopoulos, Francis, & Slattery, 2011; Tiliopoulos & McVittie, 2010). All of this suggests that the time is ripe for Australian personality research to lead the way towards a much more complex and nuanced understanding of persons within their environments.

CONCLUSION

As the foregoing demonstrates, the development of personality research within Australia is largely the history of the origins of psychology in Australia itself (cf. Boag, 2008b). The initial influences upon Australian psychology were largely in the shape of personality research, both in terms of theory and application. Personality research also played a pivotal role in helping the emerging Australian psychology to establish itself, allowing the pioneers to demonstrate usefulness in industrial and educational settings. The contributions of Australian personality research continues today, and current personality researchers are forging a more integrated approach to situated persons, both in terms of theory and application. The galvanised field of Australian personality research, as represented by the work of ACPID, promotes a clear pathway for personality researchers to develop productive and successful academic careers. Despite difficulties acquiring research funding, the field will continue to find innovative means of achieving both contributions in theory and application, in a similar spirit to that of the pioneers of Australian psychology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to thank Alessa Teunisse for her editorial assistance, and three Reviewers for their valuable comments.

Notes

1. White, Sheehan, and Kaboot (1983) do not actually define “human experimental research.” However, these authors contrast human experimental research with “experimental social” research. Human experimental research presumably refers then to areas such as perception, cognition, and learning theory.

2. ACPID was not held in 2005 due to the International Society of Individual Differences (ISSID) conference held in Adelaide that same year.

3. I thank Smillie for drawing my attention to this.