My last ex-husband was an extreme hoarder. I know! That sounds contrary to all I espouse being a minimalist. That’s why he’s an ex. When I told my brother about the ex’s explanation of his hoarding, my wise sibling asked a simple and profound question: “Is his hoarding a state or a trait?” Now, whenever I observe human behavior that raises a question, I consider: Is this behavior because of a single unique situation - a state of being, or is a person’s behavior an essential characteristic - a trait that has been and may be repeated over and over?
According to The Oxford Review Encyclopaedia of Terms / The difference between a state and a trait, “People often get confused about the difference between a trait and a state. In psychology and particularly work psychology there are clear distinctions between a state and a trait: A trait is considered to be something that is part of an individuals personality and therefore a long term characteristic of an individual that shows through their behaviour, actions and feelings. It seen as being a characteristic, feature or quality of an individual. For example someone who says ‘I am a confident person’ or ‘I am just an anxious person’ is stating that is these attributes are part of who they are. A state on the other hand is a temporary condition that they are experiencing for a short period of time. After the state has passed, they will return to another condition. For example someone who says ‘I am feeling quite confident about this interview’ or ‘I feel nervous about doing this’ are describing states. However working out what is really a trait and what is a state can often be difficult and is the content of much scientific argument at times” (https://oxford-review.com/oxford-review-encyclopaedia-terms/the-difference-between-an-state-and-a-trait/).
In the example of my ex, his hoarding was a trait that went back to his family of origin. Although he swore the hoarding was “only temporary,” a state, it was clear that wasn’t the case; it was a trait. In an article, written by Dr. Clifford Lazarus for Psychology Today, the author shares a story that illustrates how ‘state’ and ‘trait’ are often confused and involve generalizations are incorrectly applied: “When Eloise remarked that ‘Mark is brilliant,‘ she was referring to his clever strategies on the tennis court. Keith retorted: ‘Mark doesn’t seem too smart to me.’ He was referring to the fact that Mark is neither well educated or intellectual. Both Eloise and Keith were generalizing. If Eloise had said that Mark is a brilliant tennis player, there would have been no reason for Keith to contradict her.
But, whenever you make an overly general statement about another person or about yourself, you are likely to be distorting the facts and conveying very little useful information.
This is because most generalizations fail to differentiate between states and traits. A state is a temporary way of being (i.e., thinking, feeling, behaving, and relating) while a trait tends to be a more stable and enduring characteristic or pattern of behavior. So, someone with a character trait of calmness and composure can, under certain circumstances, act agitated and angry because of being in a temporary state that is quite uncharacteristic of his or her regular style.
In fact, this mistake is so common, in psychology it’s sometimes called the fundamental attribution error—meaning that people often mistakenly attribute peoples’ behavior to some internal motivation rather than external circumstances” (https://www.psychologytoday.com).
Roman statesman, lawyer, writer, orator, Cicero shared this on ‘states’ or ‘traits’: “It is one thing to be irascible, quite another thing to be angry, just as an anxious temper is different from feeling anxiety. Not all men who are sometimes anxious are of an anxious temperament, or are those who have an anxious temperament always feeling anxious. In the same way there is a difference between intoxication and habitual drunkenness…
Cicero(45 B.c.)” (qtd. in https://projects.ori.org/lrg/PDFs_papers/states-traits88.pdf).
How often do we make the assumption that a unique state of being is attributable to a person’s consistent personality, characteristic traits of a person rather than a temporary condition or situation? How quick are we to judge a state as a trait? Recently, my cardiologist was tinkering with my medications to get to the best cocktail of meds to help my heart. The combination of meds I was on put me in a low-energy, barely functioning or responsive, zombie-like state. People who know me well, would have recognized this temporary behavior as unusual, ‘not the Missy we know.’ But, people I met during that time of being ‘off’ as a result of the medications may have judged me as unfriendly, stoned, shy. Once the medications were adjusted, my body responded well and I returned to my usual behavior traits: ‘that’s the Missy we know.’ Of course, assuming a positive state is a positive trait can be a mistake too.
Have you ever made an assumption about someone based on one encounter and later learned their behavior was a fleeting state, not representative of a consistent trait? [Yep! I have too.] What danger is there in assuming a state is a trait in someone? What can we do to see states and traits in others and what difference does it make? Please share your thoughts and insights by either commenting below this post if you are reading this on social media, or, if you are reading this through your email subscription, please share, by emailing me, at reimaginelife22@gmail.com.
Thank you for reading and participating in this blog essay; I invite you to subscribe to my blog at www.reimaginelifecoach.com.
