Tuesday, October 23, 2012

THEORY OF PERSONALITY


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