Personality Theory and It's Disadvantages - Essay Example

Personality Theory Introduction The traits we think we find in others represent our personal construction towards them. Psychologists and ordinary humans explore processes of research and finding facts. In every aspect of life, human beings have a natural tendency to extract information from relevant sources (Butt, 2001). Therefore, this synthesizes more facts to the question at hand. However, information does not purely come from research and study. It also involves creation of assumptions and theories that are subject to criticism. Human beings formulate the assumptions and theories for a deep critique towards them. The theories and assumptions are the constructs. Therefore, constructs entail the created details of a particular question. In some instances, the constructs ultimately qualify as facts. During the course of evaluation, the collected data in the field might prove the theories as accurate (Stringer, 1979). Therefore, it is apparent that facts are a joint combination of the constructs and research processes. This phenomenon is applicable in psychological perspectives. Human beings may create constructs and assumptions towards the behavior of another person (Mischel, 1968). After seeking firsthand information, the constructs might be proven right. Therefore, the traits we think others possess represent our personal construction towards them. There are diverse sets of theories that oversee the actual reflection of human behavior. Therefore, judgments towards an individual’s traits do not rely on free human guesses and estimations (Butt, 2001). The judgments are independent of vague and random human estimations. Therefore, the field of Psychology engrosses a set of theories that ought to explain the actual nature of an individual’s personality. The theories give structured recommendations and evaluations of traits towards persons. The trait and personal construct theories are key examples of the well-structured references for personality analysis. Hans Eyesenck and Stanley Rachman were the key proponents of the traits theory (Eyesenck, 1947). These scholars had a unique representation of the personality assessment. George Kelly was the major proponent of the personal construct theory. His views also presented exclusive ways of personality perspectives. The traits theory takes a keen focus on the neurotic disorders (Eyesenck, 1947). Therefore the theory takes utmost consideration on the biological influences on personality. In this theory of personality, the scholars create a link between behavior and psychological disorders. Scholars in under this perspective define traits as enduring ways which distinguish an individual from the other (Eyesenck, 1947). According to this theory, people do not react similarly to the same environmental stimulus. This is due to the differing routine of reinforcements amongst the organisms. Therefore, the levels of reinforcement will influence the organism’s course of response towards the stimuli. Reinforcements induce some sort of learning within the organism (Eyesenck, 1947). Consequently, organisms react towards the present stimuli according to the past learning experiences. Normally, organisms learn diverse reactions upon the presentation of a stimulus (Eyesenck, 1947). This accounts for the difference in their response to a similar stimulus. Responses will also differ in references with the biological structure of the organisms. Organisms have differing innate potentiality, since they inherit exclusive genes. Differing innate potentialities and reinforcements account for the wide range of reactions towards a stimulus (Eyesenck, 1947). The traits theory uses classification to cluster personalities (Eyesenck, 1947). According to the theory, individuals will belong to the Extraversion-Introversion and Stable-Unstable categories. Experimental approaches have also been used to account for this classification (Stringer, 1979). Individuals in these categories possess unique traits that qualify them into the clusters. For instance, extraverts are outgoing, cheerful, love associating with others, love partying and excitement seeking. Introverts manifest contrary traits. They are silent, interested in books than people, reserved, and distant (Eyesenck, 1947). The stable are evenly angered, calm, care-free and reliable. The unstable cluster engrosses the neurotic and emotional persons. These persons are easily aroused, impulsive, moody, and anxious. Classification therefore is a major constituent of the traits theory (Eyesenck, 1947). The traits theory has a major merit of the grounds. This theory entails profound and outstanding grounds of assigning people traits (Butt, 2001). Traits are observable from a person’s behavior and responses to stimuli. Therefore, fellow humans can allocate certain traits to an individual who behaves in a certain way. The classification of the personalities entails a mutual exclusive affiliation in the traits (Eyesenck, 1947). For instance, extraverts can never be like introverts. A sociable person cannot be an isolated person simultaneously. In this case, the classification gives stable ground for traits assignment towards persons. The theory also defines traits as distinguishing factors amongst individuals. This implicates that behavior is permanent amongst individuals (Hollway, 2006). Out of this principle, individual can get pragmatic in describing others in society. The descriptions would definitely be accurate according to the observation of traits. Comparison is also an additional merit of this theory. People will score differently in the same trait (Eyesenck, 1947). For example, there are individuals scoring high in sociability and others scoring average of low. This nurtures comparison upon individuals during recommendations. Despite of its advantage, the traits theory entails several demerits. This theory does not assure scholars of accurate descriptions of personality (Butt, 2001). There is an elevated probability of errors in the descriptions of people’s personalities. According to this theory, traits are enduring features that distinguish individuals (Eyesenck, 1947). Therefore, individuals falling under a specific classification such as extraversion are programmed with specific traits such as sociable, easy going, excited, amongst others. This may not be an applicable principle to every person. Some individuals act in response of the immediate society. Therefore, the social structure surrounding the person determines their reactions. This implicates that the individual does not necessarily possess the predicted trait (Butt, 2001). Errors could also occur due to the evaluator’s world view. Observers with different world views will have differed predictions towards individuals. Therefore, substantial vulnerability lies in the difference in world view of the observers. In this case, the observers of personality simply create constructs (Hollway, 2006). These will engross thoughts and reflections of who the people seem to appear. Diversified world views may not bring a uniform construct towards personality. This is a definite initiation of a substantial error in predicting the individual’s personality. The personal construct theory was a major perspective in analyzing personality (Hampson, 1988). This theory is instrumental in explaining and providing profound grounds towards human diversity in society. George Kelly was the major proponent of this perspective of personality (Mischel, 1968). Subsequent scholars such as Mischel embraced and propagated the ideologies of Kelly. For instance, Mischel was a student to Kelly, and he made much contribution towards the development of personal construct theory (Mischel, 1968). This theory had exclusive ideas and perceptions towards personality. The scholars in this theory had a differed with the implications of the traits theory. According to Walter Mischel, traits do not necessarily originate from the subjects of evaluation. Instead, they originate from the evaluators of personalities (Mischel, 1968). Evaluators are external observers assigning traits to their subjects. In this case, the traits are not dependent on the subjects of observation. Walter Mischel asserts that traits reside in the dispositions of people’s culture and society. Therefore, there are traits that are communally possessed (Mischel, 1968). Raters possess certain perspectives towards what they observe. These perspectives vary across diverse raters according to their cultural inclinations. Different cultural inclinations bring diversified views towards behavior and personality. Consequently, the raters assign the traits to the subjects of their observations according to their mental insights (Hampson, 1988). Dominantly, the mental insights derive reference from cultural and social inclinations. Prejudices enhance the raters’ trait allocation towards their subjects. Therefore, every evaluator of personality possesses a set of prejudices to judge the personality of their subject. Scholars in the personal construct theory conducted numerous studies that provided concrete evidence to their propositions (Butt, 2001). Mischel conducted a study and established the fact that each evaluator gives similar attributions of personality even in unfamiliar individuals. In this case, evaluators would assign traits to persons they met briefly (Mischel, 1968). Every set of the stable traits assigned by different evaluators was similar to the rest. They gave similar stable traits as in when they gave the familiar people. This is an apparent indication that evaluators take charge in determining the traits of their subjects. Thus, they create constructs and presumptions that conclude the personality of the subjects (Hampson, 1988). As denoted previously, constructs have a key basis on prejudices (Hampson, 1988). Mental insights that rest within evaluators influence their judgment towards personalities. However, these prejudices and evaluations are prone to error. Error in evaluating personalities has an elevated level. It is a definite psychological fact humans possess errors in judgment. Therefore, psychological cognitions that are involved in judgment may be misleading. Fundamental attribution error is a definite psychological fact (Mischel, 1968). In this case, assigning traits towards subjects of evaluation may not necessarily be accurate. People commit the attribution fundamentals error frequently in their judgments. The frequent errors bring false and misleading conclusions to human judgments. Definitely, the constructs that entail personality assessment are as also prone to the error (Butt, 2001). The errors have an ultimate consequence of impairing trait assignment processes. Constructs therefore resemble the natures of theories. They entail mere propositions that ought to be subsequently justified by details from the field. Not all theories are true. This is an applicable principle in the personal construct perspective. Assignment of traits towards individuals is not necessarily accurate processes (Mischel, 1968). Conclusions from the observed and assigned traits therefore engross substantial flaws. The attribution fundamental error undermines the assignment of the traits. Personal construct theory asserts that individuals behave according to their experiences (Mischel, 1968). The world and people are entirely unique entities across different persons. Individuals vary in their view of people and the immediate environment. In this case, individuals develop personal constructs towards the environment. These constructs derive reference from a person’s experience with their interaction with the environment. Consequently the constructs motivate the individuals to respond differently to the environment (Mischel, 1968). This principle gives an account of the difference in judgment amongst individuals. An individual’s world view will significantly differ from that of a fellow human due to the distinction in experiences. Human beings thus make sense of their world in reference to their experiences. An individual who assigns traits to an observed subject communicates their own world view (Hampson, 1988). The assignment of traits gives information about the observer, and not the subject of evaluation. Kelly’s perspectives offer profound recommendations for a congruent development of society. The personal construct theory asserts for understanding individual difference (Mischel, 1968). People have unique perceptions towards their immediate environment. They behave in reference to their experiences from personal history. In this case, individuals have independent experiences to similar environmental stimuli (Butt, 2001). This is a concept of phenomenology that manifests in the different world views. Human beings make sense of their situations in their environment. Thus they possess different world views that influence their personality. Understanding the difference in individuals’ world views initiates accurate personality reflections (Hampson, 1988). Empathy facilitates an actual understanding of an individual’s personality. Despite of the merits of empathy in the personal construct theory, it also engrosses demerits. The concept of construction brings a permanent demerit to this theory. Constructs may not entail actual accuracy in their nature (Salmon, 1994). They dominantly possess psychological errors that may originate from prejudices. However, the constructs are basic phenomenological factors in personality. This theory also has the challenge to shed off one’s world view in order to understand another person. World views have immense significance to an individual’s personality. They are point of reference in human behavior. Therefore, it is not practical to seasonally abandon one’s world view to understand other personalities (Salmon, 1984). Conclusion The traits we think we find in others represent our personal construction towards them. Constructs are basic principles in both theories. They are basic to the traits and personal construction theory (Hollway, 2006). In the traits theory, we have constructs that enhance the allocation of personalities to people. Evaluators observe behavioral traits from the subjects and they give attributions of their personality (Eyesenck, 1947). In the personal constructs theory, individuals have psychological insights that have reference to their past experiences. The insights formulate their world view, which is paramount in judging the environment (Mischel, 1968). Majority of individuals do not shed off their personal constructs in determining personality. Evidently, constructs are basic factors in the process of personality determination. The traits we think we find in others represent our personal construction towards them. References Butt, T.W. (2001). Social action and personal constructs. Theory and Psychology. Vol.11, pp75- 95 Eyesenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of Personality. London: Routledge. Hampson, S. (1988). The Construction of Personality. London: Routledge. Hollway, W. (2006). Methods and Knowledge in social psychology. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. London: Wiley. Salmon, P. (1994). Grids are all very well, but…, newsletter. European Personal Construct. Salmon, P., & Claire, H. (1984). Classroom Collaboration. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Stringer, P., & Bannister, D. (1979). Constructs of Sociability and Individuality. London: Academic Press. Read More