Personality Theories - Assignment Example

141382 Personality theories are interesting, intriguing, and fascinating as they talk about humans as individuals and not en mass. Personality theories did not grow along with Psychology. Psychology is an earlier science and existed even in ancient and medieval times. Personality Theories became more prominent with the exalted appearance of Dr. Sigmund Freud in the psychological scene of the world. Later other theorists, very able and dedicated, followed with diverse arguments. The concept of a theory has forever remained arguable. “A theory is a model of reality that helps us to understand, explain, predict, and control that reality. In the study of personality, these models are usually verbal. Every now and then, someone comes up with a graphic model, with symbolic illustrations, or a mathematical model, or even a computer model. But words are the basic form”. Boeree (2006), http://www.ship.edu/%7Ecgboeree/persintro.html The main core of the Personality Theory is its insistence on knowing answers to many functions of behavior and brain. It focuses only on the individual, and tries to find answers for his actions and behaviors. It also tries to find out suitable explanations for questions like, ‘how do people tend to think, feel and behave? What are their emotions? Are they controlled or are they unbridled? How important is consciousness to personality? How pronounced are the individual differences?’ etc. These are some of the questions that are regularly answered through personality theory and research, even though the answered could be appallingly diverse. Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychology, psychotherapy and personality theories, who attacked the traditional theories of psychology and placed it on a vibrant path, was perhaps also the originator of Modern Personality Theory and Research. There might be many criticizers of Freud over decades and most of them are quite convincing. But a student of psychology could never ignore Freud for the simple reason that most of what he said was right, and he has pervaded all shades and hues of psychology in his aim ‘to agitate the sleep of mankind’ and he cannot be forgotten easily. He was undeniably influential and controversial in his day and remains so even now. From the recent developments in the research of personality traits, according to authors of Personality Theory and Research (Pervin et al, 2005), ‘a consensus is emerging concerning the fundamental dimensions of personality traits and there is biological and evolutionary basis for inherited aspects of these traits.” As this work comes from the authoritative source, it is considered to be one of the most coherent researches on personality theory in the subject area today. Modern personality theory, based on behavioral traits and psychological dynamics had been aided a lot by the recent knowledge explosion in the field. Personality theory is touching evolutionary psychology, temperament, and behavioral genetics and to some extent neuroscience today. Here we cannot help but remember that Dr. Freud was not only a medical doctor, but also was a neurologist before he became a psychologist and this shows how other peripheral fields can play a highly important role in psychology and personality theory backed by research. According to Pervin et al (2005, p.6), the field of personality addresses three main issues, being (1) Human Universals, (2) Individual Differences and (3) Individual Uniqueness. They also consider Personality Theory as an answer to questions of What, How and Why. Concepts of modern personality structure only refers to stable, enduring and continuing aspects of personality, and not momentary and sudden behavioral peculiarities, under the influence of strong emotions and compulsions, or when an individual is cornered beyond endurance. Reactions under such extreme circumstances cannot be categorized as a person’s real, habitual behavior. They are only reactions of the individual who was faced with dire consequences and are very mercurial, because he might not react in the similar way, if faced again by the same circumstances. They cannot form part of personality traits. Only behaviors that are part of a person’s individuality for a long time should be considered as part of his personality. Personality can be viewed as a hierarchal system, which is a total combination of many types, while types are unit compilation of traits. They could be a mixture of genetic determinants, environment, society, culture, opportunities, and family. In personality theory, many issues have to be taken into consideration like personal philosophy, behavioral determinants and attitudes both internal and external, consistency and control over immediate situations, and extending situations, concept of self as opposed to or as supported by experience and action, control and determination shown in unconscious and awareness under diverse stress and atmosphere, influence over behavior of all three dimensions of past, present and future, all figure prominently in the personality research and theories. These requirements are the basics of all theories today, irrespective of the origins of a particular theory. Personality theories are not combative arguments. They are not warring with one another. Instead, all theories have to conclude in a proper understanding of personality and only such an understanding could be a contribution to the area. The scientific study of the people with interconnected data of personal psychology and both fixed and flexible information, and the out-coming theories should prove comfortable while being assessed. Unless the theories are valid and reliable, and to a large extent ethical (here word ethical has a narrow sense; it only gives the meaning as ‘not harming others in any way’; and not as high ethical or exalted moral standards), keeping correlated research limitations in view, personality theories simply do not gel. The most important theory remains of course, Freud’s Psychoanalytic theory of personality, where he constructed the theory based on suppression of exciting thoughts. “Freud suggested that the price of progress in civilization is increased inhibition of the pleasure principle and a heightened sense of guilt…..Recent research by Daniel Wegner and his associates suggests that the suppression of exciting thoughts may be involved in the production of negative emotional responses and the development of psychological symptoms such as phobias and obsessions,” Pervin (2005, p.76). This theory takes into consideration human failures, unhappiness and unconscious motivations of which the individual himself might not have been aware of. Another equally influential theory is of Carl Roger, Person-Centered Theory and Personality. Roger’s theory depends mainly on the self, measures of the Self-Concept, self-actualization, self-consistency and congruence, defensive processes, the compulsive need for Positive regard from the immediate circle, gratifying personal and social relationships, and a healthy later life. Roger has rooted his theory on ordinary people who live a healthy and normal life and this aspect had been the main difference between Freud’s theory and his own. Creativity, creative personality, creative fostering of environment, are part of his theory and also part of well-being. He said that parents’ characteristics and practices will influence the self-esteem and there lies the potential of human growth and development. He shifted the emphasis from individuals to groups and societies. He considered the individual as a part of a welfare society. If Freud mainly concentrated on ‘dented pieces’ of humanity, Roger concentrated mainly on social wellbeing, reflecting on individuals. He also said fluctuations in self-esteem and contingencies of worth can bring about a dramatic change in the personal behavior that might not be calculated or foreseen by the theorists. He gave importance to ethically induced and internally motivated goals and authenticity, because he believed in the inner strength of the man, his grit and determination that could be the mobilizing force of his positive personality. He also was firm in his belief that all humans have a need for positive self-regard. This is not very far from Freud’s theory which states that negative self-regard could be harmful to humans. This is followed by the Trait theory of Gordon Allport, where he makes many trait distinctions and talks about functional autonomy. In this theory, further contributions were made by Eyesenck and Cattell, who were, as a group, called Trait Theorists, though they differ from each other considerably in important respects. “In sum, trait theories suggest that people display broad predispositions to respond in certain ways; that these dispositions are organized in a hierarchical manner; and that the trait concept can be a foundation for a scientific theory of personality,” (Pervin, p.224). Allport made many distinctions among traits like gentle, domineering, trustful, timid and cunning and famously spoke about Functional Autonomy. He popularized Idiographic Research, which highlighted the pattern and emphasized the uniqueness of the individual within that individual and not in relation with others. Individual differences could be easily deduced by analyzing this theory. Eyesenck labeled the basic dimensions of personality as introversion-extraversion and neuroticism and added a third dimension called Psychoticism. “Within a common point of view, then, major differences among the three theorists are found….The historic Contributions of Allport, Cattell, and Eysenck, as well as this newer consensus make trait theory a remarkably powerful force in the contemporary field of personality psychology.” (Pervin, p.248). Every research in personal theory has its own contributions to make to the field. Each approach and each theory has enriched it. High lighting many theories brings out various important aspects of the research region. They contribute by showing glimpses of people, capturing intrinsic human strategies. Theories and psychologists are many; but they are serving the same psychological arena with their contributions and enriching the subject. They seek to organize the knowledge in understandable cubicles. The multilevel approach has been strengthened in recent years, and has linked the subject with many other connected subjects like neurology, sociology, ecology etc. “All theories of personality seek to organize what is known and to advance our knowledge of what is not yet known. In doing so, the theories use concepts in relation to the following areas: structure, process, growth and development, psychopathology and personality change,” (Pervin, p. 558). In the biological and evolutionary side of the personality theory, it is important to note that identical twins even if they were reared apart, always think alike and have the same traits. Watson’s Behavioristic view of the science of personality and Pavlov’s Theory of Classical Conditioning are another group of personal theories. It is the behavioristic view of the science of personality, and draws conclusions from the environmental determinism and its implications for the concept of personality. It depends on the study of simple systems, by experimental rigor and observable variables. Pavlov’s Theory of Classical conditioning says: “The essential characteristic of classical conditioning is that a previously neutral stimulus becomes capable of eliciting a response because of its association with a stimulus that automatically produces the same or a similar response,” (Pervin, p.351). This combined with Skinner’s theory of Operant Conditioning where the theory is grounded on the response as an answer to a particular action. These two theories made behavioral assessment easier. It compares learning approaches with earlier views and Traditional Personality Theory. This was followed by the Cognitive Theory of George A. Kelly, which is also called Personal Construct Theory of Personality. It depends on anticipating events, anxiety, fear and threat and how they result in either cognitive complexity or simplicity. To some extent it depends on individual reactions and how diverse they could be. ‘how each individual uniquely perceives, interprets, and conceptualizes the world.1” This theory is based on a ‘range of convenience’ that are modifiable and ultimately expendable. Different theories have different constructions and variations. But we can see that they are working towards the same goal. Some of them are limiting the scope in one direction and others in another. ‘Theories are designed to be modified and abandoned’ as argued by Kelly. His theory was simpler and full of common sense. It is expressing verbally what we see, taste and smell. He divided the concept between core constructs, peripheral constructs, superordinate and subordinate constructs. Simply speaking, it lays stress on the way the person construes or interprets events. Social-cognitive Theory of Bandura and Mischel has a lot in common with all the previous theories, even though it criticizes the very idea of theories itself. It has perhaps taken the best part of all the theories. “Social-cognitive theory, in contrast, explores people’s capacities to use conscious reasoning processes to guide; their behavior. It highlights people’s ability to develop and grow across the entire course of life,” (Pervin, p.417). Its emphasis is on people as active agents, their social origins as behavioral background, importance of learning social behavior, controlling and regulating self motivation, stress on systematic research and studying the complex behavioral patterns in the absence of rewards. This theory envelops competencies, skills, beliefs expectancies, concept specificity, goals, and evaluative standards. It concentrates on self and perceived self-efficacy. And heavily leans on micro analytic research strategy. It also believes that observation can lead to aggressive or unsocial behavior, hitherto nonexistent. Even though these theories look as far apart as two poles, if looked carefully, they are the pieces of same puzzle. Also they are the answer to the puzzle called human personality, its traits, its making, and its presentation. The basic issues are no doubt divided between theories, because most of them are presenting only a certain dimension of it. But it is part of the same monolithic research called understanding the human persona. All placed together in one compass, they make more sense and have contributed more to the development of this science. A definite consensus is emerging through these theories, because of the development and research from various angles, and the subject stands and improves every time one dimension is understood better. All combined together, they give not only a psychological/scientific meaning to human behavior, but also a philosophic one. Also there is clear proof that biological and evolutional inherited aspects are seeping into the personality much more than credited for earlier. The theories have been forever stating this fact, though psychologists were rather wary of their presence. Now it is agreed with more alacrity than before and psychologists are comfortable with it enough to apply in clinical treatments. Even though schools of thought are perishing and rising with amazing regularity, the basic concept and explicit goals remain the same. With more biological information to back the theories, personality is better understood. Evolutional background has provided an unexpected twist and has opened wide vistas into the field. Now, most of the theorists are aware that for every behavior there is a past, a present and should be a future. Psychopathology is stepping into the breach and most of the theorists are comfortable with it. There is a cognitive social approach now which explains how the mind the mind behaves in social interaction, and it is leading towards an integration of emerging cumulative comprehensive approach, according to Mischel (1999). “Rather than reflecting the exclusive views of any single theorist these approaches emerged from the work of many theorists who shared common themes and goals. These diverse researchers and theorists were unified, however, in a focus on the individual’s ways of thinking and processing information (cognitive processes) as determinants of his or her distinctive and meaningful patters of experience and social behavior” (Mischel, 1999, p.14). It is also important to note that cognitive concepts in comprehensive theories of behavior are reemerging, where Kelly’s theory is regularly used as a model of a comprehensive cognitivity. “The re-entry of cognitive concepts suggests that comprehensive personality theorizing and formal psychology will once again become a unitary effort,” (Mancuso, 1970, p.22). This shows that these theories could be applied in clinical practices. Actually they are being clinically applied on day-to-day treatment and diagnose. Freud’s work and theories have been the products of and also the basic for many clinical concepts while treating patients who come under those categories, immortalized by him. Even later theories of every theorist have a definite bearing on all clinical psychological treatments and concepts. All psychologists agree that understanding human mind is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks. “In addition, as many would argue, given the uniqueness of the individual, and the multitude of forces operating to shape individuals, understanding human personality is a far more difficult task than understanding particles, elements, or jeans,” (Pervin, 2003, p.460). Also it is agreed now that the interpretational difficulties that persisted in the field of personality theories for a long time are at last disappearing with lack of ambiguity. Confusion and lack of precision are disappearing. It also plagued with lack of sharp prediction. Now it is felt that such impediments have vanished from the field. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Mancuso, James C. (1970), ed., Readings for a Cognitive Theory of Personality, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York. 2. Mischel, Walter (1999), Introduction to Personality, 6th edn., Hacourt College Publishers, Fort Worth. 3. Pervin, Lawrence A., Daniel Cervone and Oliver P. John (2005), Personality, Theory and Research, 9th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, inc., New York. 4. Pervin, Lawrence (2003), T5he Science of Personality, 2nd edn., Oxford University Press. 5. Ryckman, Richard M. (1979), Theories of Personality, 4th edn., Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. Dr. George Boeree (2006), http://www.ship.edu/%7Ecgboeree/persintro.html Read More