Situationist and the Personality Theories - Essay Example

Running Head: PSYCHOLOGY Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: No. of words Excluding Works cited: 2,549 Situationalist and the Personality Perspective Broadly, situationalism implies that everybody is equal and that the social environment is what affects peoples’ lives. According to this perspective, some people become wealthy, others poor, some are popular, others are rejected and it could happen to anyone. Situationalists contend that a person’s behavior is influenced by the situation in which they find themselves in. For example, if a person is placed in a criminal group, he/she is likely to behave more casually than he/she would probably do under normal circumstances. The same case happens for people who are usually calm. They will behave aggressively if put in a group of aggressive people. This perspective views human behavior as a result of the manner in which people interact with the environment as well as their reaction to it. The circumstances in which a child grows largely affect his/her behavior. Exposure of a child to antisocial behavior may lead to development of similar behavior in him/her (HJelle, & Ziegler, 1992). According to Barbara (2006), the behavior of people is variable depending on the situation in which they are in. The situationalists consider human behavior to be based on time and space as well as the continuous activities of other people. This perspective is often overlooked by the society. People fail to understand the impact of external factors on the behaviors of individual. For example, the cultural and ethnic backgrounds present situations that are unique within different social settings. Hofsted defines culture as a tool that the mind applies to guide a person’s day to day activities and interactions with others. He believes that culture is a collective aspect of a population that has occupied a particular social environment where individuals learn unique norms and also develop standards that guide their behavior. These behaviors make a distinction between cultures since all individuals in a particular culture share norms and customs (Hofstede, 1991). Culture generates circumstances that shape the behavior of humans. In essence, if all people grew up under the same cultural background, they are likely to develop similar behaviors. If they grow separately, they tend to be different as regards their actions, behaviors as well as their way of thinking. In contrast, the personality side of the debate argues that people really are different, and even given the best possible situation, people’s outcomes will be different. Personality is a term that represents the typical patterns of personal judgment, mind-set and actions that generate uniqueness in an individual. It emanates from the individual and remains relatively consistent in his entire life. Principally, personality involves efforts by an individual to capture the attributes that make him/her what he actually is. It is forms the basics of understanding and giving a precise description of people. People possess different personalities even when they are identical twins. In essence, there must be certain characteristics that can help in distinguishing between individuals. Some people are more aggressive than others while some are more confident than others. Personality is based on these differences, which on the other hand are identified through certain aspects such as consistency, emotional and physiological factors, consequential behaviors and actions as well as varied expressions. It determines the success of leadership in organizations as well as the interpersonal relationships that are significant in group development (Carver & White, 1994). The trait theory of personality presumes that traits are heritable among individuals, and that there are different traits for different personalities. For example, there are particular traits that are believed to be associated with leadership. According to Bouchard (2004), traits are the regular patterns of behavior, thinking and sensation. They are thought to have an impact on the behavior of individuals. The theory postulates that traits vary between individuals and that they can be fairly constant over time. It explains the differences such as shyness, sociability among individuals and aggressiveness among other traits. Allport (1931 qd. In Pettigrew, 1999) argued that among the central traits, there is a principle trait that overrides all the others, which shapes the behavior of individuals. However, he also argued that such traits are not common in many individuals due to the fact that people lack a distinct principle that determines their lives. Allport also supported the trait theory by describing secondary traits that determine personality, which he defined as the marginal characteristics that only occur at particular circumstances such as attitude towards certain issues that may only be understood by a close associate (Pettigrew, 1999). The traits are significant in describing the whole image of human complexity. Allports trait theory is based on the hypotheses that human behavior is controlled by the internal environment. According to him, genotypes act as the internal compulsions of human behavior. They are associated with human genetics and are heritable in individuals. They are related to the genetic information within individuals inherited from parents and hence are unique among different people, hence humans are different. Freewill, Self Determination and Individual Responsibility Situationalists view all people as equal and that it is the different circumstances that each individual is exposed to that determines his/her behavior. Bradberry (2007) argues that humans are born in the same way, live and die in a manner that any of them can. However, the environment that each of them is exposed to generates feelings of inferiority and superiority. Through this perspective, it can be argued that inequality is a human generated aspect of the society. All individuals join the society at birth with an equal potential. However, they are brought up in different environments that influence their capabilities and behaviors. For example, a child who has suffered from deprivation at an early age may not be outgoing enough to take advantage of the available opportunities in the society like any other normal child. Generally, such children feel inferior while in the midst of others, which may persist to adulthood. Under such situations, equality can not be accomplished in the society. However, if each individual is brought up in the same environment, there is a possibility that they will exhibit the same behavior. Bouchard (2004) argues that people usually act within distinct behavioral backgrounds. They are affected by the environment in which they live, while on the other hand they have a great impact on it. Moreover, they have the freedom to choose the environment that fits them. However, some people live under circumstances that no one would choose to live. For example, no one would choose to live in abject poverty, but circumstances compel them to live in unfavorable situations. Humans have a tendency to measure equality based on what is owned by individuals. When there are people who possess property in the society that others do not, the situation is regarded as inequality. Situationalists therefore have a basis for asserting that all people are equal if environmental factors are held constant. The personality perspective presents a different view of equality whereby individuals are regarded as different from the beginning. For example, a person is considered to be rich because he/she has the desirable qualities for riches. On the other hand, weak individuals are considered to be in a particular situation because there is none other that fits them. In other words, personality is inborn and is difficult to change by varying the living conditions. The theory portrays that the inequalities that are found in the society are meant to be so (Bradberry, 2007). Situationalists view of free will portrays that individuals could make rational decisions when situations are favorable. However, there are many constrains that hinder free will depending on the living environment. Free will means the capacity of humans to make rational choices among various alternatives. A person is perceived to be responsible of his own decisions, understanding that he/she may fail or succeed. The rational choice theory is concerned with the role of progressive self-interest at time of decision making. According to this theory, people take those decisions through which they are realizing the benefits as well as costs of their decisions and act accordingly. The decisions with the greatest benefits are favored; hence the organization is able to apply strategic choices in accomplishing its goals. The available information regarding the issue at hand is an important determinant of the available options for the decision to be made. Individual responsibility is therefore affected by external forces and hence it will be different among individuals exposed to different environmental conditions (Schultz & Schultz, 1994). On the other hand, the personality perspective portrays individuals as rational beings who have the opportunity and freedom to determine what is good or bad for them. The behavior of individuals is therefore seen as a result of their conscious mind. Individual responsibility according to this perspective depends on a person’s choice, and the fact that people are different, some will be responsible while others will not be. Some characteristics are regarded as inherent in individuals. It can therefore be assumed that a person born a thief must steal while the honest person remains dependable Barbara (2006). The personality perspective is further strengthened by the trait theory in which personality is regarded a product of inborn characteristics that influence an individual’s behavior. The theory is significant in personality studies. The theory postulates that the personality of individuals is based on a wide range of dispositions. For example, while explaining the personality of a person known well to someone, it is unlikely that characteristics such as sociable, compassionate and calm will be used in isolation. Rather, they are used in unison. This is an indication that personality can not simply be described through a single characteristic. An individual can best be described with a long list of characteristics, which are different from those that can be used to describe any other person (Schultz & Schultz, 1994). The theory tends to highlight the extent of the differences that exist between individuals. Some people tend to exhibit characteristics that are closely related to others but all in all they are always different. Self-determination is concerned with the psychological needs of individuals. They are motivated when their needs are accomplished. The self determination theory postulates that individuals are motivated to make the right choices when there are no external forces compelling them to act in a particular manner. The situationalist perspective is supported by the social cultural approach, which is based on the mental processes and the behavior of humans, which are influenced by external factors such as culture, traditions, and other forces that emanate from the living environment. It leads to the two basic social aspects of personality, which are; individualism and collectivism. Individualistic personalities tend to establish personal identity as the basis for self definition and also prioritize on personal goals. On the other hand, collectivism is based on groups. Individuals view themselves as part of a group. They prioritize on shared objectives. The social relationship determines completeness and success of the group (Herbert, 1997). The personality perspective can be explained through the psychodynamic approach to personality, which is based on the assumptions made by Sigmund Freud in his works on psychoanalysis. He postulated that the unconscious mind as a major factor that controls the human behavior. This is the mind that holds feelings, attitude, desires as well as recollections that are far from consciousness. The unconscious mind generates feelings of embarrassment, disagreement and nervousness among other unpleasant aspects. It consistently influences behavior as well as human experience though people remain uninformed regarding the fundamental influences. The ego is the basically unconscious component of personality that links the demands of the other elements of the human mind, i. e. the Id and the superego to certainty. It stops people from taking action on their fundamental urges generated by the Id. However, the ego helps to accomplish a balance with the standards generated by the superego. The Id is significant in the satisfaction of the fundamental urges and desires. On the other hand, the superego is the element of personality that consists of people’s internalized principles that are inborn. It usually helps to generate moral behavior instead of being realistic (Barenbaum, 1997). Self determination according to the personality perspective therefore based on n individuals inherent characteristics. In conclusion, the person-situation personality debate is a controversial subject in psychology. Each side of the argument asserts a distinct approach to behavior. The situationalist perspective gives the real circumstances as regards what happens in reality. The various theorists who argue in support of the situationalist perspective provide a basis for analyzing the environmental factors that affect cognitive development. There are clear-cut impacts that the external environment has on the behavior of individuals. The theories explain the reasons behind the differences between groups of people who are brought up in different environments. For example, the child who is brought up in harsh conditions grows up unaware of the positive aspects of life. Such a person is likely to develop hatred at an early age and may never become social among other people. Roberts et al. (2004) views social segregation in early childhood as the cause of antisocial behavior in later stages of development and even in adulthood. The street children that are common in major cities are among the individuals who develop antisocial behavior as a result of the environmental factors they are exposed to. The life they know is that of deprivation, pain, hunger and all forms of suffering. They know that nothing in life comes easily and therefore they are aggressive and careless in their day to day engagements. Comparing them to the children who are brought up in the normal family set up, there is a great difference between the two. Their behaviors are shaped by the situations in which each of them is brought up. The children who are brought up under normal conditions are sociable and nonaggressive like their peers who grow up in the streets. They are also shy and also slow to react towards provocation even as adults. The personality perspective also provides a significant contribution towards understanding human behavior. The inherent characteristics that are determined by genes are present in every individual. A gene for aggressiveness may be passed to the offspring, which explains the occurrence of a particular characteristic within a family or a group of individuals related by blood. Even if factors in the living environment have an impact on behavior, the inner being is unlikely to change. This means that the environmental conditions come second to the intrinsic characteristics of individuals. Barbara (2006) asserts that even the most honorable personalities have an inner being that makes them unique among other people. In essence, the personality perspective is made more realistic by the fact that the changes that are brought about by circumstances are not permanent. On the other hand, the inner being is permanent. If a person was born aggressive, he/she remains belligerent throughout his life. Even if circumstances compel him/her to change in the short run, the unique behaviors will be exposed in particular instances. This also explains the reasons behind the occurrence of aggressive behaviors among individuals who are regarded as the most honorable in the society such as monks, leaders among others. It demonstrates the impermanence of behaviors resulting from situations. It is therefore convincing to me that the personality perspective offers a better argument in the person-situation personality debate. References Barbara, E. 2006. Personality Theories. Houghton Mifflin. Barenbaum, N. B. (1997). The case(s) of Gordon Allport. Journal of Personality, Vol. 65, pp 743-755. Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 148-151. Bradberry, T. 2007. The Personality Code. New York: Putnam. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp 319-333. Herbert A.  S. 1997. Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th Ed.  New York City: Simon & Schuster Ltd HJelle, L.A., & Ziegler, D.J. (1992). Personality Theories: Basic Assumptions, Research, and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Pettigrew, T. F. (1999). “Gordon Willard Allport: A Tribute”. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55, 3 pp 415-427. Roberts, B. W., ODonnell, M., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Goal and Personality Trait Development in Emerging Adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 87, 4, pp 541–550. Schultz, D., & Schultz, S.E. (1994). Theories of personality (5th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Read More