Personality remains an active area within Psychology, specifically the investigation of individual differences. Currently, there does not appear to be a consensus on a definition of personality, however it is generally agreed that personality consists of characteristics which are enduring, stable and important for distinguishing individuals (Cervone and Little, 2017). Individual differences approaches can be explained as recognising and understanding how and why individuals differ (Cooper, 2010). In the study of personality and individual differences, it becomes apparent that an interaction is required between both the nomothetic approach, which establishes ‘general’ principles that can be applied to everyone, and the idiographic approach, …show more content…
As a behaviourist, Eysenck (1991) focussed on building a theory which had testable concepts and therefore, empirical evidence. Using factor analysis, large amounts of observed traits were reduced to three dimensions of personality; in other words, many individuals were observed and the behaviours which represented similar traits were subsumed under a supertrait. (H. J. Eysenck, 1991; M. Eysenck, 2016). Indeed, a hierarchical structure of personality was favoured which can be explained in the following way: an individual displays specific responses within a situation, if these responses are observed to be typical of an individual, they are called habitual responses (Eysenck, 1999). From collecting information on an individual’s habitual responses, traits can be attributed and those traits which are significantly highly intercorrelated form a supertrait corresponding to the dimensions of personality (Eysenck, 1999). The three supertraits as: extraversion (E), measuring sociability; neuroticism (N), defining emotional instability; and psychoticism (P), the extent of antisocial behaviour (Eysenck, 1999). Eysenck (1975, cited in Barrett et al, 1998) created the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) to measure the three dimensions of personality. In terms of causes, personality viewed through trait theory is …show more content…
Eysenck (1990) presented and discussed the evidence for personality being heavily biologically determined using twin studies. One of the more striking findings was that criminality is considered heredity as the scores that correlated with criminality were greater for monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins (Eysenck, 1990). The context is not completely lost though as Eysenck (1990) acknowledged that these scores may not necessarily determine criminal behaviour but could instead fuel success, which has been refuted by Ullrich et al (2008) who found that having a psychopathic personality has no impact on life-success. More recently, Ireland and Ireland (2010) suggested that trait theory’s biological basis for criminality was too limited and perhaps, more weight should be attributed to environmental factors. Rather than providing steadfast findings supporting the PEN model of criminality, Ireland and Ireland’s (2010) study highlights that more longitudinal research needs to be conducted to further understand the effect of the environment on producing anti-social behaviour, and how it influences personality. Indeed, individuals may have a disposition towards anti-social behaviour but there is growing evidence that social disadvantages (Schepers, 2017),
Does personality determine behavior? Phelps (2015) dived into this discussion in his article by reviewing the perspectives of personality, how psychology relates to behavior and the idea of self, and further, how behaviorists define personality and all of its components. Phelps (2015) compares and contrasts the common beliefs of personality and the view of self as attributed to personality theorists with those characterized by behavioral theorists. A typical understanding of personality is one that defines it as an internal substance that drives behavior, and therefore, by seeking to understand a person's personality we can almost assume their actions (Phelps, 2015). Behavioral theorists, on the other hand, do not lean on vague internal conditions to explain behavior, but rather they evaluate a person's past and present settings to define behavior, according to Phelps (2015). The conclusion is that behaviorists' perspectives on these topics are far more parsimonious in nature and most popular views of personality speak to a more internal and far-reaching position rather than the behavior itself (Phelps, 2015). Likewise, Phelps (2015) addresses the issue of meeting specific criteria for discerning whether a theoretical viewpoint is valid in helping us understand people. He continued to remark that behaviorists' stances meet a large portion of the criteria as presented by Gordon Allport (Phelps, 2015). For example, they have less assumptions, they are consistent, and not to mention, they are testable and falsifiable, Phelps (2015) supports. In my opinion and critical review, this article is useful because it provides an unbiased assessment of a variety of personality theories and definitions of personality and the self. Likewise, it is simple and easy to understand, thus qualifying it as parsimonious. Overall, I think the article did its ultimate job of evaluating different perspectives and
An individual’s behaviour may differ depending on the circumstances they are in though there are definite signs of repetitive behaviour when placed in majority of the situations. These characteristics are known as traits which make up the personality of each person (Engler, 2014). Personality theorists do not have a mutual agreement on how the term personality should be used. They each have their definition of personality thus providing a large number of diverse personality theories (Engler, 2014). For example, Eysenck (1970) defined personality as a relatively permanent and consistent composition of an individual’s disposition that in turn establishes how the person adjusts to their
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
Many psychologists throughout many years present theoretical approaches in an attempt to understand personality. Hans Eysenck’s approach of personality differed from that of Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytical theory of personality. Eysenck’s theory of personality relies on the scientific basis of biology in explaining human personality. Although Freud’s theories are intriguing to an open mind, Eysenck’s approach made measurable scientific sense. He relied on the use of trait and factor analysis, which is a statistical method. Freud relied on faith and his personal opinions based on observational research to reach the assumptions that set forth his theories (Feist & Feist, 2009). Eysenck and Freud did not agree on anything about understanding how and why the mind operates the way, it does.
Personality is massive part of an individual’s identity. Our personalities dictate our patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting. An individual’s personality exposes them to predispositions and habits that influence their actions and lives. Early on, personality assessments consisted of physical features ranging from head shape and facial characteristics to body type. In today’s world, personality assessments are mainly based around traits. Traits are simply descriptions of one’s habitual patterns of behavior, thought and emotion. The most popular personality assessment is the Five-Factor Model, also known as The Big Five. This model allows us to describe people based on the five main traits/dimensions. These traits are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Each of these five traits measures a different aspect of one’s personality. Extraversion is based on one’s level of engagement with the world,
Trait theory views criminality as a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is based on a mix between biological factors and environmental factors. Certain traits alone cannot determine criminality. We are born with certain traits and these traits along with certain environmental factors can cause criminality (Siegel, 2013). According to (Siegel, 2013), the study of sociobiology sparked interest in biological or genetic makeup as an explanation for crime and delinquency. The thought is that biological or genetic makeup controls human behavior, and if this is true, then it should also be responsible for determining whether a person chooses crime or conventional behavior. This theory is referred to as trait theory (Siegel, 2013). According to Siegel (2013), due to the fact that offenders are different, one cannot pinpoint causality to crime to just a single biological or psychological attribute. Trait theorist looks at personal traits like intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic makeup; and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and neighborhood conditions (Siegel, 2013). There are the Biosocial Trait theories an...
A person’s personality has been the subject of psychological scrutiny for many years. Psychologists have drawn up several theories in an attempt to accurately predict and determine one’s personality. Foremost amongst these, is the “Big Five Trait Theory” which stemmed from Raymond B. Cattell’s theory.
A Comparison of the Main Approaches to Personality Psychology Psychology of personality is a difficult concept to define and quantify, therefore most personality theories, however different they may be in other respects, share the basic assumption, that personality is a particular pattern of behaviour and thinking, that prevails across time and situations and differentiates one person from another. Most theories attempting to explain personality represent part of the classic psychological Nature verse Nurture debate. In other words, is personality “inherited”, or developed through our interactions with the environment. In addition, we shall compare and contrast two of the main approaches to personality psychology by concentrating on Psychoanalytical Theory (Freud) and Social Learning Theory (Bandura). By looking at the Psychodynamic approach, developed by Freud, we can argue that it emphasizes the interplay of unconscious psychological processes in determining human thought, feelings, and behaviours.
The study of personality traits is beneficial in identifying the many variables that exist from human to human; the combinations of these variables provide us with a true level of individuality and uniqueness. In the field of psychology, trait theory is considered to be a key approach to the study of human personality (Crowne, 2007; Burton, Westen & Kowalski, 2009). This paper aims to identify a number of significant contributors who have played crucial roles in both the development and application of trait theory. This paper then moves focus to these theorists, outlining their theory and analysing both the strengths and weaknesses of those theories. An illustration of the methods used in trait measurement is given and includes the arguments for and against such procedures.
Personality disorders are a group of mental disturbances defined by the fourth edition, text revision (2000) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as "enduring pattern[s] of inner experience and behavior" that are sufficiently rigid and deep-seated to bring a person into repeated conflicts with his or her social and occupational environment. Charting the history of efforts to understand personality types and differences among them would involve exploring centuries of scholarly records, worldwide, on the varieties of human behavior. It is human behavior, in the end, that serves as the most valid measurable and observable benchmark of personality. In many important ways, we are what we do and each of us has a personality
TANNENBAUN, B, (2007),Profs link criminal behaviour to genetics [online] , Available at: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2007/11/profs_link_criminal_behavior_to_genetics [accessed 16th October 2011].
An Introduction to Theories of Personality 5th edition B.R. Hergen bahn and Mathew H”. Oloson – Sihed (pp 271-301, 189-201).
Our personalities are what distinguish us from each other beyond our appearance; without them, we would all behave and react in the same way. Personality is the reason we are outgoing or introverted, persistent or blaze, and anxious or calm. We each have different levels of these competing characteristics that make us unique. But why are personalities so varied? Personality is determined by an array of factors from genetic and biological to the personal experiences and decisions we have faced from the day we are born. The complexity of our personalities cannot be simply explained, and for this reason there exists many different theories of how it’s developed and personality is still deeply under study. I went into this subject with an open-mind
There are more contemporary biological theories that have since developed. However, most are still nearly impossible to prove true; for example, the genetic theory of crime in fraternal and identical twins. This study is supposed to provide evidence that those who are born with the same genetically heritable trait are more prone to crime than fraternal twins or siblings because of the ...
The concept of personality has numerous definitions (Fatahi, Moradi, & Kashani-Vahid, 2016). Schultz and Schultz (2009), define personality in its broad sense as the manner of an individual’s behaviour in different situations. This essay explores the nature of personality, with the intention of highlighting its flexibility. The results of numerous empirical research studies are examined in order to investigate if, and how personality changes over time. It will be argued that an individual’s personality has the ability to change throughout their life.