I will also briefly look at both theories in terms of power relations and structure / agency which can have a great influence on individual difference and personality traits. . To conclude, both theories take a different ontological and methodology approach towards individuals, which means that the aims of their research and the knowledge produced by can be quite different. The trait theory it was developed by Eysenck & Rachman, their theory is based in the experimental scientific and psychometric tradition, whereby assessments were used to access personality. This theory on personality was based upon biological explanations whereby he believed that individual’s personality traits were caused by a persons biological and genetic make-up (cited in Butt, 2012).
These perspective viewpoints are known as emic perspective; however, the perspective pertains to specific psychopathologies in reference to culture. On a “cultural relativist perspective on the study of psychopathology may be important for several reasons. First of all, it may help in the development of culture-specific therapies. Second, it may provide valuable information about the psychological problems seen in particular cultures and their development as a function of the particular demands that culture places on individuals. Third, the studies of culture-bound syndromes, which are interesting in and of themselves, may help illuminate more general patterns of cultural values such as individualism or collectivism,” said plebius (2005).
In our matrix we will discuss Allport’s psychology of the individual theory, and the trait and factor theory. Both theories express how personality can change personalities and, the different associations that we have over time. Allport’s theory, psychology of the individual, sees human personality different from psychoanalytical and behavioral views. Allport believed that individual’s personality and behavior were not only determined by experiences stored in the unconscious but also by conscious decisions made in the present (Feist & Feist, 2009). Allport also believed that humans are not only organisms that react to rewards and punishment instead humans can interact with the environment and vice versa (Feist & Feist, 2009).
Running head: PERSONALITY OVERVIEW Personality Overview Joyce Hauk University of Phoenix Theories of Personality PSY/405 Jackie Grimmett Jun 16, 2012 Personality Overview Various theories allow a multitude of perspectives and since there are numerous personalities that differ from each other immensly, diverse theories are necessary for a better perspective of an individual. Personality theories are best explained by viewing two different theories and comparing how they operate against one another. Comparing these theories can help one discover more about their own personal strengths and weaknesses, assumptions, limitations, as well as what information is considered when attempting to enlightenment an individual about
Running head: Personality Theories Personality Theories PSY/211 Personality Theories The existence of personality theories correspond to how scholars analyze and assess the development of human identity and behavior. Each viewpoint provides a specific understanding of what cultivates personality and the corresponding factors that influence such behavior. One way to analyze personality is through the lens of psychoanalytic theory. The main argument of this theory is that problems or issues pertaining to psychology can be rooted to one’s unconscious (McLeod, 2007). Specifically, the problems are influenced by latent issues surfacing in the conscious mind.
Biological and Humanistic Approaches to Personality Many researchers believe that many aspects affect an individual’s personality. This paper is will analyze the biological and humanistic approaches to personality. This paper will also use Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to discuss at the extent in which growth needs influence personality formation, describe biological factors that influence the formation of personality, examine the relationship of biological factors to Maslow’s theory of personality and explain the basic aspects of humanistic theory that are incompatible with biological explanations of personality. The concept that individuals inherit their personalities from their parents is the biological approach to personality. Unlike the Big Five, this theory founded by Hans Eysenck establishes three dimensions: extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.
Personality psychologists claimed that one of the most profound challenges is to account for personality development, that’s why they put this into a study whether an individual’s behavior are caused by heredity or the environment, this study is known as the “nature” and “nurture”. First, the nature suggests that human behavior is driven mostly by biology (evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and hormones). In contrast, the nurture suggests that behavior is driven mostly by psychosocial environment (for example, how we were raised, our peers, the situations we are in at present). Both nature and nurture contribute to who an individual is, but to better comprehend the nature versus nurture debate, we should look at the essential characteristics that make up this controversy. Humans are unique and highly-intricate creatures.
They each have their own theoretical assumptions in terms of what constitutes behaviour; variously observable responses, inner experiences, cognitions and emotional states, or both. An additional veneer of complexity is posed by the normal/psychopathological distinction. Unsurprisingly, each approach, espouses different therapeutic strategies which, in themselves, can enlighten us as to their varying behavioural explanations. I shall outline and evaluate the key features of each approach on an individual basis, and attempt to assess the extent to which each provides a workable explanation of behaviour relative to their theoretical others. I The biological approach asserts that human behaviour can be explained physiologically and neurologically.
William Corsaro (1985) as cited in Brownlow (2012) built on this study choosing ethnography as his method of research. In order to identify similarities and differences between these two research methods we will look to compare and contrast the methods. We will also look at the aims of the psychologists whilst comparing and contrasting the methods they used and why they chose to conduct their studies using either of the methods. Lastly, we will look at the results obtained by using either ethnography or content analysis and any criticism’s that can be made of the studies. Friendship and determining what can be considered a friendship has previously been defined in a rather literal way; you are either a friend or a non-friend William Hartup as cited in Brownlow (2012).
Hormones are thought to play a significant role in manipulating behavior and the mental process because they are involved in various mental disorders as a resulting in interacting with the nervous system. In conclusion, much theory and research have been placed on identifying the major schools of psychology and the underlining assumptions linked to biological factors of behavior. In the beginning stages of psychological research, psychology first began as an establishment of science separate from biology and philosophy. Within those complex findings began the debate in relation to the schools of thought and behavior in the human