How Primal World Beliefs Influence Personality
Many people aim to change aspects of their personality, such as becoming less anxious, more open to new experiences, or more assertive. International research shows that 60% of the world's population actively tries to influence personality traits like neuroticism or extraversion. But how do you change something as seemingly fundamental as your personality? A publication by Clifton and Crum (2024) offers a fresh perspective. They argue that our most fundamental beliefs about the world play a crucial role in shaping how we think, feel, and act. These so-called primal world beliefs may be a significant factor in sustainable personality change.
What are primal world beliefs?
Clifton and Crum introduce the concept of primal world beliefs, or fundamental assumptions about the nature of the world. These beliefs serve as a lens through which we perceive reality, influencing how we interpret and respond to situations. What makes these beliefs unique is their universal and all-encompassing nature. While beliefs about specific domains (e.g., work or school) can shift depending on the context, our worldview remains constant because we are always immersed in the world as a whole.
Three key dimensions of primal world beliefs
Through extensive research, Clifton and Crum identified three overarching dimensions in which primal world beliefs converge:
- Safe: Refers to the extent to which the world is perceived as stable, fair, and cooperative. People who see the world as safe tend to score lower on neuroticism and have greater trust in others.
- Enticing: Involves the belief that the world is full of opportunities, beauty, and meaning. An enticing worldview is associated with extraversion, curiosity, and openness to new experiences.
- Alive: Concerns whether the world is seen as intentional and responsive or mechanical and arbitrary. Individuals with an alive worldview often feel more connected to others and experience a greater sense of purpose.
These dimensions are measured using the Primals Inventory, a validated 99-item questionnaire applied across diverse cultures and contexts.
How do primal world beliefs shape personality?
Clifton and Crum demonstrate that primal world beliefs strongly correlate with personality traits, even more so than demographic factors like income or education. For example, individuals who view the world as safe experience less anxiety and stress and score lower on neuroticism. Believing the world is enticing is linked to higher extraversion and openness to new experiences. Seeing the world as alive correlates with heightened spirituality and a greater sense of meaning. These findings suggest that primal world beliefs not only predict behavior but may also drive personality change.
Can primal world beliefs be changed?
A critical question is whether these foundational beliefs can be altered. Clifton and Crum argue that while primal world beliefs are relatively stable, they are not immutable. They highlight that change is possible but often complex and time-consuming. The authors outline three main strategies for influencing primal world beliefs:
Education and awareness: Individuals can learn what primal world beliefs are, how they formed, and how these beliefs influence their perceptions and behavior. By understanding the role of these beliefs, people can become aware of alternative ways of interpreting the world. Examples include interventions where participants reflect on their own beliefs and the specific situations that shaped them.
Creating concrete experiences: While education is a starting point, Clifton and Crum emphasize that real change often requires tangible experiences that challenge existing beliefs. For instance, someone who perceives the world as dangerous might, through positive social interactions, gradually learn that the world can also be cooperative and stable. However, such experiences need to be consistent and emotionally compelling to prevent cognitive dissonance from creating resistance.
Restructuring attention: Individuals can learn to consciously focus on previously overlooked positive and safe elements of their environment. Clifton and Crum suggest this process resembles mindfulness training, where people practice shifting their attention between negative and positive interpretations of situations.
Importantly, the authors clarify that fostering change does not mean ignoring real problems or dangers but developing a more balanced perspective. This approach is especially relevant for individuals whose negative beliefs stem from traumatic experiences or prolonged exposure to adverse circumstances. In such cases, interventions like cognitive-behavioral therapy may play a role.
Limitations of the research
Although promising, the study has limitations. A key challenge is the unclear direction of causality: do primal world beliefs shape personality, or does personality influence these beliefs? Additionally, cultural bias is a concern, as much of the research is based on Western populations, raising questions about generalizability. Furthermore, the proposed interventions have yet to undergo empirical testing. While the concept is intriguing, robust evidence for targeted interventions is still lacking.
Conclusion and future directions
The work of Clifton and Crum offers an innovative perspective on how personality change may be achieved. By focusing on fundamental world beliefs, this research opens up new possibilities for personal growth and psychological interventions. Further studies are needed to better understand how primal world beliefs arise, evolve, and can be effectively influenced. Despite the challenges, this research marks an important step toward a deeper understanding of the interplay between beliefs and personality.
Comments