Mayer, J. D. (1993-1994). A System-Topics Framework for the study of personality. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 13, 99-123.

This is the first article in the series of those related to the Systems Framework for Personality Psychology.  It begins by developing a language for referring to the organization of an academic field -- the fieldwide framework -- and surveys the frameworks then in use in personality psychology. The further point is made that there is a disconnect between textbooks in the field and the ongoing enterprise of personality psychology.

In taking a systems approach to personality, another issue of importance that is dealt with is the difference between a systems framework and a systems theory. Systems-based lists of topics-to-be-studied have proven to be of near-universal appeal.  Systems theories, on the other hand, have had a more mixed reception. Systems theories had often been difficult to understand, for example. So, the distinction between systems topics, on the one hand, and systems theory, on the other, is important.

Next, a first version of the Systems Framework is presented, in a three-topic form.

Mayer, J. D. (1994). A System-Topics Alternative. Dialogue: Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 7.

This one-page article appears in the newsletter for Personality and Social Psychology, in the context of a debate over how personality psychology might be taught. It advocates for an approach using the Systems Framework for Personality Psychology.

Mayer, J. D. (1995). The System-Topics Framework and the structural arrangement of systems within and around personality. Journal of Personality, 63, 459-493.

The purpose of this article is to help locate and define personality amidst other systems of scientific interest. This article begins with a comprehensive review of then-existing personality textbooks and other theoretical articles dealing with the structural position of personality amidst other systems of scientific study, such as the brain, the situation, and the social group. Four dimensions are recommended to help position personality amidst other scientific sytems: A molecular-molar dimension, an internal-external dimension (relative to the brain/body), a natural-constructed dimension, and a developmental, or time, dimension. Using these, the definition(s) and study of personality can be clarified.

Mayer, J. D. (1995). A framework for the classification of personality components. Journal of Personality, 63, 819-877.

Early in the development of the Systems Framework, one of the central hurdles appeared to be how to bring some sense of order to the various parts of personality. Different personality parts had been proposed in a variety of theoretical/empirical traditions; could they be integrated in a single scheme or schemes?

To accomplish this, a first theoretical introduction examines the various perspectives on what a part of personality is. Next, 400 parts of personality drawn from the glossaries of a number of textbooks, and from original sources, were collected and sorted according to the theoretical areas that produced them.

In the main section of the article, the suggestion is made that there exist four prototypical sorts of personality parts. These can be referred to as mental mechanisms (or enablers), mental models (or establishments), traits (or themes), and agencies. The 400 parts of personality are divided into those four parts, and their interrelations are elucidated. The system represents a coherent collection of a great number of personality parts, and illustrates one way that they can be integrated.

Mayer, J. D. Chabot, H. F., & Carlsmith, K. (1997). Conation, affect, and cognition in personality. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 31-63). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

One of the most important structural division of mind in psychology has been the division of mental activity into motivation, emotion, and cognition. This chapter reviews the history of the division and explains something of why it is important. It also examines some of the limitations of the division from the perspective of present-day psychology. The chapter sets the stage for further consideration of structural divisions of personality.