Major Approaches to Personality: Who is still in the Running? What is personality and why do we study it? For more than 100 years psychologists have been trying to define exactly what personality is and is not. According to our text, personality is defined as “consistent behavior patterns and intrapersonal processes originating within the individual” (Burger, J., 2005, p. 4) The seven major approaches to personality are Freudian psychoanalytic, Neo-Freudian psychoanalytic, trait, biological, humanistic, behavioral/social learning, and cognitive. No one approach has been able to determine exactly how personality is formed, but each of these approaches has helped add to a higher learning of possibly how personality is formed. In …show more content…
Firstly, people are responsible for their actions. They have choices and free will! They do not have to do things, they choose to do things. Secondly, there is an emphasis on not looking to the past or to the future, but living in the day. If you spend all your time worrying about the past or future you will miss out on the things that are happening now! Thirdly, there is a focus on the individual’s experiences. Only the individual knows what their problems are, not the therapist. The individual needs to figure out the source of their problems with minimal guidance from the therapist. Fourthly, there is an emphasis on personal growth where the therapist creates an atmosphere in which the patient can manage the obstacles in their lives that can be hindering them from becoming a fully functioning individual. Two of the main figures in humanism were Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Rogers was known for conditions of worth and unconditional positive regard and Maslow was well known for his hierarchy of needs. Although humanism is not as popular as it once was, there remains an active community of humanistic psychologists and a large number of psychotherapists who identify with this
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
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.
Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” Personality is characterized by many dimensions of a person’s overall being. The belief that personality stems from one origin is small minded and on many levels, unsupported. If the scope of personality is expanded, it suggests that there is not a single explanation determining a person’s personality and how it is formed. Personality Theories have been generated for centuries by individuals who desire to identify what distinguishes a person’s personality and how it affects their behaviors. What is it that comprises all the unique characteristics about a person?
In its most basic form, personality is what defines a person through their “…expression of emotions, relationship building, and their individual patterns of behavior…” (CITE). Two of the most prolific theories on the formation of personality were developed by neurologist Sigmund Freud and psychologist Carl Rogers. Both Freud and Rogers worked in psychotherapy, the area of therapy, which “…focuses on fostering a positive mental well-being…” (CITE). These men based their general theories of personality on their experiences with patients, however their conclusions are worlds apart. Rogers is recognized for his approach to therapy where the “…client…” has a more direct role in the process (CITE). Whereas Freud is best known for his work on the unconscious mind.
Every single individual has a personality; it is the very quintessence of human existence. Personality drives our interactions with others, our desires – conscious and unconscious, our perceived needs, and to a certain extent, even our actions. Psychodynamic approaches to personality are focused on the belief that we have virtually no control over our own personality, that it is primarily controlled by unconscious powers. Social cognitive approaches to personality centers around the belief that we still have little to no control over our own personality, and that the cognitive influence, that is to say thoughts, feelings, expectations and values – along with the observation of others behavior is the primary influence on personality. These two approaches to personality are so radically different, and yet both have their own merits – they are two of many, and nobody is quite sure what the truth is.
As individuals we all have something within us that sets us apart, and makes us unique, our personality. Maybe you’ve come across someone who isn’t the easiest to get along with, and someone utters, “Don’t take it personally; they were born with a bad personality.” While some believe personality is entirely dependent upon your parents, your friends, and merely the way you were born, people neglect the science behind the traits of personality. Personality is defined as an individual’s characteristic pattern of thinking, feeling, and acting. It is through personality that we are able to explore our innermost being and determine why we act and react to things the way we do, and what makes us make the decisions we choose.
Personality is patterns of thinking, behavior and emotional responses that make up individuality over time. Psychologist attempt to understand how personality develops and its impact on how we behave. Several theories attempt to explain personality, using different approaches. The social-cognitive and humanistic approaches are two of many theories that attempt to explain personality. This essay will identify the main concepts of social-cognitive and humanistic approach, identify perspective differences and discuss approach limitations.
Psychodynamic and behavioural approaches are the two major approaches to personality, however, they view personality from different perspectives. Psychodynamic approach makes the argument that personality is caused by forces in the unconscious that are not learned. The individual has little control over their behaviour as it is predetermined, and early childhood plays a crucial part in shaping a person’s personality. Behavioural approach, on the other hand, recognises personality as learned and focuses only on present behavioural matters. Because of
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.
Personality is a branch of scientific discipline that studies temperament and its variation among people. It is a dynamic and a set of characteristics possessed by their atmosphere, cognitions, emotions, motivations and behaviours in various things. Personality conjointly refers to the pattern of thoughts, feelings, social adjustments and behaviour consistently exhibited over time that powerfully influences one’s exceptions, self-perceptions, values and attitudes. It also predicts human reactions to different folks, problems and stress.
I believe our personalities make up who we are and how others perceive us at times. Personalities are our own unique qualities, that we possess as individuals. In writing this short paper, I have found that psychologists use assessments to define an individual’s personality to determine their qualities and what makes them different from other individuals. Through the Big Five Personality test, I found it difficult to define and understand an individual personality
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.
What is personality? Are humans born with a personality or does it develop over time through personal experience? Each person has unique characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that stay consistent over time and across situations. Over the years, psychologists have approached the study of personality in many ways. Some psychologists set out to understand how personality develops, while others set out to understand why there are differences in personality. Humans are complex beings, changing in different situations and with different people, which makes personality too complex to easily be described. However, psychologists focus on studying the internal and external aspects of a person’s character that influence
This psychology perspective emphasizes individuals ' inherent drive towards self-actualization, the process of realizing and expressing one 's own capabilities and creativity. It helps the client gain the belief that all people are inherently good. It adopts a holistic approach to human existence and pays special attention to such phenomena as creativity, free will, and positive human potential. It encourages viewing ourselves as a "whole person" greater than the sum of our parts and encourages self exploration rather than the study of behavior in other people. Humanistic psychology acknowledges spiritual aspiration as an integral part of the human psyche. It is linked to the emerging field of transpersonal psychology. As per usual, there are advantages and limitations to this particular theory. One of the greatest strengths of humanistic psychology is that it emphasizes individual choice and responsibility. Humanistic psychology satisfies most people 's idea of what being human means because it values personal ideals and self-fulfillment. Finally, humanistic psychology provides researchers with a flexible framework for observing human behavior because it considers a person in the context of his environment and in conjunction with his personal perceptions and feelings. As with any viewpoint, humanistic psychology has its critics. One major criticism of humanistic psychology is that its concepts are too vague. Critics
The development of personality has long been an area of extreme interest to psychologists and psychoanalysts alike, and many different theories of personality have developed over the years. From Sigmund Freud to B.F. Skinner, everyone seems to have not only an opinion of what personality is and how it develops, but also an idea as to what is the best way to measure and report their findings. In order to test their theories, it was necessary to formulate methods of research that were effective, ethical and would provide a solid foundation for future personality research. Although both the clinical and experimental methods of personality research have lent themselves to our present day understanding of the human psyche and personality, each has done so in vastly different ways. Freud and his colleagues, who pioneered the clinical research method, chose to observe their clients in an up-close and personal fashion.