THEORY OF
PERSONALITY :
INTRODUCTION :
We have
agreed that personality is defined by the particular concepts contained within
a given theory that are considered adequate for the complete description or
understanding of human behavior. We have also agree that a theory consists of a
set of related assumptions the relevant empirical phenomena and empirical
definitions to permit the user to move from the abstract theory to empirical
observation by simple addition we have the implication that a theory of
personality must be a set of assumptions relevant to human behavior together
with the necessary empirical definitions. There is the further requirement that
the theory must be relatively comprehensive. If must be prepared to deal with. Or make predictions
concerning a wide range of human behavior in fact, the theory should be
prepared to deal with any behavioral phenomenon that can be shown to possess
significance for the individual.
What has been said to this point
possesses a formal validity that however cannot be sustained upon close scrutiny
of existing theories of personality our discussion is of value of identifying
the qualities forward which all theorists aspire and if also gives some idea of
what eventually, personality theories should look like. It is clean
nevertheless that at the present time this do not look like this. A word should
be said concerning the manner in which they full to resemble the ideal both in
structure and in function.
First of all as we shall see most of them leach
explicitness. It is generally very hard to get at the assumptions or the
axiomatic base of these theories.
Personality theories are frequently
packaged in a great mass of vivid word images that may serve very well as a
means of personality persuading the reluctant reader but pre quaintly serve to
cloak and conceal the specific assumptions that underlie the theory. In other
words most of the theories are not presented in a straight forward and orderly
manner. In fact the remainder of the theory is assumed or given and is not to
be judged or grounds of confirmation or disconfirmation but rather in terms of
how successfully it generates verified propositions. In how carefully they
specify empirical definitions none of these theories achieves a very high
standard in absolute terms.
The statement we have just made
concerning the formal status of personality theories may seen sufficiently
discouraging to warrant abandoning attempts to can street such theories at this
time. would if not be better at present to forget about theories and focus upon
empirical tools and specific empirical findings emphatically no such a decision
does not involve giving up inadequate theory for no theory but rather involves
the substitution of implicit theory for explicit theory. There is no such thing
as ‘No theory’ consequently, the moment we attempt to forget about theory for
the present’ we are really using implicit heavier. These unidentified
assumptions then will determine what will be studies the dictates of some
‘theory’.
The possibilities of improving upon
the assumptions that are controlling research poor though personality theories
may be when composed to the ideal. They still represent a considerable step
forward when compared to the thinking of the naive observer who is convinced
that he or she is embracing or viewing reality in the only way in which it can
reasonably be viewed even though personality theories do not possess the degree
of explicitness that on might wish, their more existence makes it possible to
work to word this goal in a systematic manner.
Granted that personality theories
do not ordinarily permit as explicit a derivation process as we might wish just
what function do they serve for the individual who wields them. At the very
least they represent a cluster of attitudes concerning behavior that in a broad
way limits the stimulating certain general kinds of research they also provide
specific parameters of dimension that are considered important in the
exploration of these problem. Thus even if the theory does not provide an exact
proposition for test. It orients the theorist forward certain problem areas and
indicates that particular variables are of central importance inn studying
these problems moreover, there is the heuristic value of these theories to be
considered fakes as a group personality theories are highly provocative and as
we shall discover, they have led to large quantities of research even though
relatively little of this have been the result of a formal derivation process.
in other words the capacity of these theories to generate ideas, to stimulate
curiosity, to stir doubts or to lead to convictions have resulted in a healthy flourishing
of investigation in spite of their lach of formal elegance. Their more
existence makes it possible to work forward this goal in a systematic manner
PERSONALITY
THEORY AND OTHER
PSYCHOLOGICAL
THEORY
Our discussions thus for had led to
the conclusion that a theory of personality should consist of set of
assumptions concerning human behavior together with rules for relating these
assumption and definitions to permit their interaction with empirical or
observable events. At this point the question may be asked reasonably whether
this definition in any wsy differentiates personality theories from other psychological theories. In answering this
question it will be helpful to begin with a distinction between two types of
psychological theory it is evident that certain psychological theories appear
ready to deal with any behavioral event that can be shown to be behavioral even
that can be shown to be of significance in the adjustment of the human organism other theories specifically
limit themselves to behavior as if occurs under certain carefully prescribed
conditions. These theories profess and interest in only limited aspects of
human behavior. A theory that attempts to deal with all behavioral phenomena of
demonstrated significance may be referred to as a general theory of behavior
and those theories that restrict their focus to certain classes of behavioral
events are called sigre domain theories. Clearly, personality theories fall
into the first category; they are general theories of behavior this simple
observation serves to separate personality theory from the bulk of other
psychological theories. Theories of perception audition, memory, motor leaving,
discrimination and the may other special theories with in psychology are single
domain theories and can be distinguished from personality theory on grounds of
scope or comprehensiveness they make no pretense at being a general theory of
behavior and are content to develop concepts appropriate for the description
and prediction of a limited array of behavioral events. Theories of
personality, however have generally accepted the challenge of accounting for in
incorporating events of the most varied nature so lanes as they possess
demonstrated functional significance for the individual.
The fact that personality tests
designed to measure components of personality often are used in social
psychology and other branches of psychology should not observe this point. As
lamiell has pointed out a distinction exists between personality psychology
which focus on ‘temporal and transsifuational consistencies within persons that
is, at the level of the individual and differential psychology which focuses personality
theories subsume a wide range of behaviors and processes.
Personality research is predicated
on a general theory of the individual as a functioning whole and it does not
employ ad hoe or isolated measures of response tendencies.
This lumping together of theories
that have had their origins in the animal laboratories and theories that
originated in the therapist’s chambers may appear forced to may observers.
However if we consider the theories from the point of view of what they intend
to do and their general structure rather than from the point of where they come
from or the detailed assumptions they make about behavior, it is clear that any
general theory of behavior is the same as any offer. In this sense all general theories of behavior are
personality theories and verse. Within this large group of theories.
The following section will deal
with a member of attributes in terms of which theories.
THE
COMPARISON OF THEORIES OF PERSONALITY
The most striking fact confronting
the beginning student of personality is the multitude of personality theories.
The confusion is compounded when he or she is told that it is impossible to say
which theory is right or even best. This
uncertainty typically is attributed to the youth of the field and the
difficulty of the subject matter. At this point rather than asking whether each
theory in turn is right or wrong the student is advised to adopt a comparative
strategy. A good rationale for this approach lones from George Kelly. Whose
theory is presented in chapter 10 Kelly approaches personality from the
philosophical position he calls constructive alternatives. Simple put Kelly
suggests that people differ in how they perceive or construe reality. Different
people construct the world in different ways and they and they therefore act in
different ways none of these alternative construal’s in necessarily right or
wrong rather each has different implications. This same approach suggests that
personality theories might be considered to provide alternative construal’s of
personality none of which is completely right or wrong each of which has
different strengths and weaknesses and each of which emphasizes different
components of behavior.
The text has been organized to
facilitate such a comparative process. First the theories are grouped into four
families. Where the theories within each family share certain characteristics
psychodynamic theories emphasize unconscious motives and resulting infra
psychic conflict. Structural theories focus on the different behavioral
tendencies that characterize individuals ex presences his or her world finally
learning theories emphasize the learned basis of response tendencies.
Finally there are a number of
qualifies by which personality theories can be compared and distinguished we
now point to a few of the more important of these dimensions. The attributes
divide naturally into those concerned with matters of formal adequacy and those
concerned with the substantive nature of the theory.
FORMAL ATTRIBUTES
Here we are interested in how
adequately the structure of the theory is developed and presented. These
qualities represent an ideal. And the closer the theory comes to reaching this
ideal the more effectives it can be used.
The question of clarity and
explicitness is of huge importance. This if a matter of how clearly and
precisely the assumptions and embedded concepts that make up the theory are
presented. In the limiting case the theory may be stated in terms of
mathematical notation. With a precise definition of all but the primitive
terms. So that the person who has been adequately trained can employ the theory
with a minimum of ambiguity. Under such circumstances different individuals
employing the theory independently will arrive at highly similar foundations or
derivations. At the other extreme. We find theories presented with such a rush of
vivid and complex description that it is extremely difficult for the individual
who would play the theory to be certain of just what he or she is grappling
with. It will become clear as we progress that there is no theory of
personality that approaches very for forward the ideal of mathematical
notation. Still granted the free use of verbal description we shall find that
there is considerable variation among personality theories in the clarity of
their exposition.
Perhaps this is an appropriate
place to emphasize again our conviction that all matters of formal adequacy
pale along side the question of what empirical research is generated by the
theory. In spite of this there are clear and perceptible differences between
theories of personality in the extent to which they have been translated into
investigation that are of general interest.
SUBSTANTIVE
ATTIRUBETES
While the formal attributes we have
just described all present a normative or valued standard in terms of which
each theory can be compared the following attributes possess no such evaluative
implication. They are natural in regard to good and bad and merely reflect the
particular assumptions concerning behavior that the theory embraces differences between personality theories in
content naturally reflect the major issues that currently exist in this area.
Thus in the following pages we not only outline dimensions that can be used for
the comparison of personality theories but we also point to the major options
that face a theorist in this area. We could with per feet appropriateness label
this section ‘issues in personality theory’
Order than the history of
psychology is the question of whether human behavior should be viewed as
possessing purposive or teleological qualities some theories of behavior create
a model of the individual in which goal some theories striking purpose and
seeking are viewed as essential and central aspects of the individuals behavior
other theories assume that the striving and seeking aspects of behavior are unimportant and believe that behavior can
be accounted for adequately without such an emphasis the latter theorists
consider the subjective elements of striving and seeking as an epiphenomenon
accompanying behavior but not playing a determinant role in tis instigation
generally theories that minimize the importance of purpose or teleology are
labeled ‘mechanistic.
A fundamental distraction between
theories of personality has to do with the extent to which the learning
process. Or the modification of behavior, is a matter for detailed and explicit
attention. Some personality theorists see in the understanding of the learning
process the key to all behavioral phenomena for other theorists learning is an
important but secondary problem a fundamental distinction between theories of
personality has to do with the extent to which the learning process.
An issue as old as human thought
about humanity is the question of the relative importance of genetic or
hereditary, factors in determining behavior, all most no one will deny that
hereditary factors have implications for behavior but there are personality
theorists who have dramatically understood without recourse to the biological
and genetic. In America the role of hereditary factors as historically been
played down in favour of some brand of environment the various theorists are
willing to deal with genetic factors, consequently behavior should be viewed
against the perspective provided by the individual’s other acts as well as the
perspective offered by accompanying psychological and biological processes
REFERENCE :
1)
Theories of personality
4th
edition
Calvin S
Hall gardner Lindzey
John B
Compbell
2)
Net Meterials
No comments:
Post a Comment