The Reliability of Behaviorist and Biologist Personality Theories - Research Paper Example

The reliability of behaviorist and biologist personality theories collaboratively It has been a matter of commonplace since ages for human race to agree with one fact- no two individuals are same, quite like what Bill Truby’s and Joann Truby’s remarkable book proclaim “No Two People See the Same Rainbow” ( 2003) . Perhaps by integrating the various determinants for what makes one different from other, we could safely pin down the reason for such difference in a single word – personality. Every person is unique in one’s own right and way. Appreciating this individual eccentricity, however, necessitates the analysis of the causes of the same. Engler ( 2009) clearly cites and analyses Allport’s definition of personality: Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought. “Each word in this definition is carefully chosen. Personality is dynamic (moving and changing), organized (structured), psychophysical (involving both the mind and the body), determined (structured by the past and predisposing of the future), and characteristic (unique for each individual).” Personality could however, be simply understood as all the behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental qualities that characterize a unique individual. The field of psychology has contributed a great deal in investigating the intricacies involved in the understanding of personality of humans and the causes for the same. Different perspectives that have evolved while explaining personality have given birth to diverse theories such as behaviorist, humanist, biologist or evolutionary and psychoanalytic theories. Each perspective has contributed a great deal in making the complex human personality more decipherable and each one is undeniable, empirically or otherwise, in its own right. In this paper I shall particularly draw closer attention to two theories which I believe to be most effective among others in making this mystery of bizarre human personality more understandable and clearer – behaviorist and biological perspective. Psychoanalytic perspective initiated by Freud has had significant influence worldwide due to its inclusion of the rich and complex inner self of individuals. Freud was fascinated by the stupendous complexity of human mind shaped by the intermingling of ‘Id’, ‘Ego’ and ‘Superego’. Psychoanalysis, however, would have been unquestionable had it been firstly, more empirically measurable or overtly observable and secondly more considerate towards inherent human greatness and goodness. In fact due to its rather stark nature of looking at humans as nothing but an object of bestial or animalistic instincts and full of baser evil nature gave birth to another theory of opposition contending just the extreme opposite of basic human goodness – the humanistic theory. Rogers and Maslow contended that humans were basically good and could strive to reach the highest level of human gratification called self-actualization and that everything that humans do is to acquire this end. Ewen (1998, p.174) argues, “According to Rogers, we are motivated by a single positive force: an innate tendency to develop our constructive, healthy capacities. This inherent tendency to actualize our benign inner potentials includes both drive-reducing and drive-increasing behavior, as in the theories of Allport and Maslow” Yet, another group of theorists called ‘behaviorist’ chose to concentrate on fully observable phenomena and those that can be experimentally verified. They outright rejected any aspect of an opinion that can not be observed in the human behavior – hence, the name behaviorist. Thus, in the face of a scientific and revolutionary era that we are in, behaviorist theory, more than any other, seems to give us an experimentally valid and plausible explanation of human personality. Barbara Engler’s (2009, p.208) argument sums up the working and validity of behaviorism: Behavior and learning theories hold that valid knowledge arises out of experience and needs to be continually checked against it. Thus behavior and learning theories are largely based on the experimental analysis of behavior. The behavior of individual organisms is carefully studied in controlled laboratory settings, and the relationship between the behavior and factors in that environment is articulated. The Russian Scientist Ivan Pavlov’s experiments with dog were to remain the most memorable and influential one in the field of behavior analysis of psychology. He discovered that after a while, even that stimulus that did not cause any difference to the dog, such as a ringing bell, would cause the dog to salivate if it was produced every time before giving the food. That is because, the dog learnt to associate the ringing bell with the testy food that was to follow after its ringing. This forming of association was referred to as ‘Classical Conditioning’. This explanation thus claims, quite rightly, that most of what we are is due to what we have learnt over time by associating stimuli with the causes. A personality fascinated by the moving pictures would have learnt how pleasurable a movie would be just by seeing the television screen. Each time he sees an empty screen, he is reminded of the wonderful movies he has always seen. Just the sight of a television screen, thus, is enough to excite this enthusiastic movie watcher! A slightly alternate way of behaviorist explanation was provided by the ‘Law of Effect’ put forth as a process of ‘Operant Conditioning’ by Thorndike. He claimed that behavior in a natural environment was not influenced by triggering stimulus but by anticipated results. He experimented with a cat that was put into a cage. The cat learned with much ‘trials and errors’ how to open the door by itself. This result which was desirable gradually became stronger. Niak (1998) explains: “Thorndike’s analysis of this behavior was that the behavior that produced the desired effect became dominant and therefore, occurred faster in the next experiments”. This aspect of the ‘desired result’ determining one’s behavior formed the basis for Skinner’s theory of positive and negative reinforcement. Skinner explained that the occurrence of any behavior was largely determined by how positive or negative the reinforcement was. He put forth mainly two kinds of reinforcement – reward and punishment which were ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ respectively. If the consequence of a particular action is favorable or positively reinforcing, the likelihood of that action to be repeated or another similar action to be performed is more that what it would be if the consequence is unfavorable or punishing. It is more than easy to explain this concept in real life. All of our personality is based on how rewarding or punishing any experience or action had been. Friedman’s (p.204) example is quite remarkable: “…a college student might learn to associate drinking at parties with having a pleasant, sociable time with friends. On the other hand, a woman date-raped at a party might develop a ‘personality’ that fears college social events that involve alcohol”. This is in fact also how an action remains consistent in certain personalities. “For example, smoking, drinking, and gambling may initially elicit an unconditioned positive response (of positive arousal, euphoria, excitement), but the persistence of the behaviors in the long run may be better explained as a consequence of the rewards they provide” (Friedman, p. 208). Yet, relying completely on behaviorism would mean considering human personality the result of a mere association between humans and environment. We would than mistake a human to a machine-like object autocratically operated by the environment. To reconcile the truth of environmental effect on us and the danger of over-dependence on this mechanical underpinning, it is best to integrate behaviorist theory with ‘biologist’ which claims, also quite truly, that much of out personality is coded inherently in our genes and is operated from the brain. This fusion between the two theories is what Skinner did, in order to validate Operant Conditioning. He drew some parallels between his won theory and Darwin’s theory of natural selection. “According to Skinner, operant conditioning is nothing more than ‘a second kind of selection by consequences’. He pointed out that although natural selection was necessary for the survival of the species, operant conditioning was necessary for an individual to learn. Also, evolutionary advances occurred because species with these advantages were more efficient in passing on the advantage, and operant conditioning occurs because certain reinforcements have affected the individual in a more efficient manner” (Niak, 1998). One of several pioneers who attempted to relate human personality to biology is Hans Eysenck who provided a complex theory. His basic claim is that the human brain has neural mechanisms which are both excitatory and inhibitory that would make an individual alert, awake and aroused on one hand and sleepy, drowsy and sluggish on the other, respectively. The extent to which an individual possesses either of the two basic characteristics would be determined by a structure in the brain system which he called ARAS (Ascending Reticular Activating System). Therefore, individuals in whom the ARAS lets in lots of stimulation would be characteristically ‘introvert’ and those that let less of stimulation were consequently ‘extrovert’. Eysenck (Strelau & Eysenck, 1987) explains himself: This theory attempted to explain the typical behavior patterns of extraverts and introverts in terms of lower cortical arousal in the former and greater cortical arousal in the latter. Both, in turn, were produced by differential thresholds and reactions in the reticular activating system and its reciprocal relations with the cortex. Nicky Hayes (2006, p.211) further explains that the “consequence is that introverts do not need as much stimulation to maintain their optimal level of brain activity, since the neural activity resulting from a set of stimuli will last for much longer with these people than it does with others. Extroverts, on the other hand, have inherited a nervous system which tends to produce inhibitory responses. This means that they need much more stimulation than introverts, to achieve the same level of brain functioning.” This theory is reliable in that, it provides a refreshing and alternative explanation on the nature of human personality by relying on the effect of a brain system that characteristically shapes who we are. Quite diverse from just inferring that much of our personality is learned, it also remarkably explains why different people ‘learn’ to be different personality. Apart from the apparent effect of our immediate surroundings, Eysenck surmises that some of what we are is internally or inherently coded and cannot be re-learned and unlearned. Unlike any other theory, the personality, in Eysenck’s opinion, is derived from highly integrated and effective neural communication that is transmitted from the brain to ultimately shape a consistent behavior pattern in a human. Biologist theory could also effectively explain why some humans are erratic and asymmetrical. Eysenck (2006, p190) notes Darlington’s suggestion on how individuals may be asymmetrical as a result of genetic changes in the chromosomes: “Darlington suggest two main kinds: a) gene mutations, such as those which give differences of colour between the two eyes of an individual, and b) chromosomes errors at mitosis, such as those which give various mosaic markings and occasional structural asymmetries”. None but this theory, therefore, succeeds to explain personality differences in humans brought about sometimes by chromosomal and gene-linked irregularity and neural and muscular disturbances. Physically, some personalities are blond, black, white, blue-eyed or brown-eyed all because of genes; and emotionally, people are confident, humble, calm or restless all as a result of gene or chromosome-linked disparities. Frager and Fadiman (2005, p.26) explains: At times, a single situation evokes different responses in different people. This has given rise to the notion of individual differences, or variations in personality. In addition, the same situation may bring different responses from the same individual, which has led observers to look for internal states that may change over time. Conclusively, personality with its complex causes and processes and its highly undecipherable phenomena, is hard to describe and reliably explain with an exclusive aid of any one theory. All the theories such as psychoanalysis, humanist, behaviorist and biologist have contributed a great deal in making the concept of personality clearer in there own way and are reliable on their own rights. Yet, more than others, the behaviorist theory propelled by legends such as Pavlov, Thorndike and Skinner have effectively explained how our personalities are shaped primarily by the environment that we are in. Truly, what we are is what we have learnt over time approving and continuing ‘being’ what has been rewarded suitably, and abandoning such behaviors that have caused us unpleasant experiences such as punishment or pain. A person is a great speaker due primarily to the award of the best speaker in debate competition that he had won in his school. Yet, another person on the other hand, is docile and fragile due to the numerous heart-breaks that he has experienced in love. However, not all of our personality is ‘learnt’ and dictated so autocratically by our environment. Much of our impulses, behavior patterns and our characteristics are dictated by the ready-made neural transmission of messages that our brain does. In other occasions personality is determined by chromosome or gene-linked disparity. Kurt Lewin (2007, p.70) argues that “The influence of the environment is reduced essentially to the principle of trial and error” and biology would only explain the internal causes of personality. The best way to explain personality thus, would be by fusing or incorporating both behaviorist and biologist theories that would both prevent the extremity of psychoanalysis and humanist on one hand and the unreliability of behaviorist and biologist by its individual explanation. Works Cited Engler, B. (2009). Personality Theories (8th ed.). USA: Cengage Learning. Ewen, R. B. (1998). Personality, a topical approach: theories, research, major controversies and Emerging Findings. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Eysenck, H. J. (2006). The Biological Basis of Personality. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Frager, R., & Fadiman, J. (2005). Personality and Personal Growth (6th ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Education Inc, Dorling Kindersley Publishing Inc. Friedman. (2003). Personality: Classic Theories And Modern Research. New Delhi: Pearson Education Inc, Dorling Kindersley Publishing, Inc. Hayes, N. (2006). Foundations of Psychology (3rd ed.). UK: Thomson Learning. Lewin, K. (2007). A Dynamic Theory of Personality Selected Papers. Alchester, Eng. Niak, P. (1998, August). Behaviorism as a Theory of Personality: A Critical Look. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from Persoanlity theory website: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/naik.html Strelau, J., & Eysenck, H. J. (1987). Personlity Dimensions and Arousal. New York: Plenum Press. Truby, B., & Truby, J. (2003). No Two People See the Same Rainbow. California: Angels Dream Publishing Company. Read More