Theories of Personality | Essay

Theories of disposition EssayPsychologists have long been interested in the con of record because it is useful for mind and predicting human behaviour. til now laypersons in side substantive day to day intent, on an intuitive basis, make character judgements about psyches they meet base on well-disposed characteristics, intellectual woodland and appearance. Moreover, one seeks to understand oneself by identifying and developing disposition. Personality determines the way in which several(prenominal)s think and behave, it affects the way one would conduct oneself in day to day actions. Individuals possess incomparable conditions of behaviour varying from the way one walks, talks, or eats to the way one spends free time. The vast array of degrees that constitution adopts accounts for why individuals be different from one another. The reason why it is beta to understand such individual differences of temper is because job performance, academic performance, semipo litical and social attitudes, social relationships and health atomic number 18 all affected by ones individualisedity.Personality psychology seeks to bring scientific roughness to the process of understanding different personalities. Apparent qualities and behaviours may differ from the real inner character of an individual. Consequently defining and understanding character is a difficult task. A signifi tailt amount of definitions of nature have been introduced by various psychologists. Among such definitions was a comprehensive definition put earlier by Burger. Burger (2011) defined constitution as consistent behaviour patterns and intrapersonal processes that bulge from within the individual. Due to the building complexity of understanding and identifying human genius, various theories of personality have been introduced over the years by various psychologists.Sigmund Freud, devised what is today a popular arrangement, known as the morphologic conjecture of personali ty (Freud 1923 cited in McLeod 2013). The theory was devised based on the psychodynamic perspective which trys the influence that forces and drives within the un cognizant principal estimation have on human behaviour. Freud portrayed the human mind as an iceberg (Freud 1900, 1905 cited in McLeod 2013). The tip of the iceberg, which is the small section palpable above the surface, symbolises the witting mind. Just beneath the conscious mind is the preconscious mind which is outside ones awareness but is easily accessible. The arsehole of the iceberg which takes up the majority of its volume is the unconscious mind. The geomorphologic theory of personality assembles personality into 3 systems the id, swelled headtism and superego. The balance of these 3 structures results in ones personality.The id, which is in the unconscious mind, is the instinctive and primitive fragment of personality. Life instincts (Eros) and death instincts (Thanatos) are the basic instincts that are c onstituent of the id (Freud 1920, 1925 cited in McLeod 2013). The id operate on the pleasure principle in which basic instincts, specifically the desire for food and sex, require immediate atonement, regardless(prenominal) of any consequences (Freud 1920 cited in McLeod 2008). The id, similar to the way of an infant crying in ordinance to put down what it wants, has no regard for social norms. In order to mediate surrounded by the external world and the selfish desires of id, the ego develops. The ego, abiding in the conscious mind, is the component of personality that makes decisions and finds realistic and reasonable ways to satisfy the desires of id. The egos essentiality is to make via medias and exercise social etiquette in order to avoid disapproval or consequences of society. There is a third potent and generally unconscious institute of forces which dictates ones beliefs and deterrent examples, called the superego. Ones beliefs of what is right and wrong is acquired through puerility experiences and nurturing. When one behaves in a way that one believes is morally incorrect, the superego causes one to feel guilty. Superegos aim unlike the id and ego is moral perfection. According to the manner in which the id, ego and superego interact, Freud suggested that in that respect are 3 personalities the psychotic personality, neurotic personality and sun-loving personality. A healthy person is one of which the egos procedure is dominant over superego and id. When the conflict amidst superego and id be begin overwhelming the unconscious processes of ego use defence mechanisms (repression being one of the some super acid defence mechanisms) in order to protect the self from anxiety. The psychotic psyche is one in which id is dominant and causes the individual to act in an whimsical and asocial manner. The neurotic psyche is one in which superego is governing and causes the individual to be a perfectionist, unreasonably guilty and neurotic if a ny moral code is broken to obtain pleasure.The morphological theory of personality is a highly comprehensive theory. The theoretical system explicitly explains and interprets an exceptional rate of human behaviour and experiences, which is essential in understanding the different types of personalities. present-day(a) psychology engages certain concepts of the psychodynamic theory and heuristic value of the theory has been appreciated (Shaver and Mikulincer 2005). Freuds controversial ideas that unconscious forces exist and influence behaviour, that early experiences fill a large role in development of personality, that individuals resist threats by using defence mechanisms and that conflicting feelings often result in compromise are accepted now by many psychologists and research conducted has addicted evidence to the validity of Freuds views (Westen 1998 Baumeister, Dale and Sommer 1998). While other perspectives, particularly social and cognitive perspectives, emphasise ty pically on proximal causes, the psychodynamic perspective emphasise on distal causes of behavioural processes as well. The use of case studies as a research method to study personality esteems the complexity of personality and resulting behaviour by investigating in depth as foreign to a brief, snapshot laboratory study.However critics assert that there are several problems with the case study method that Freud used in constructing the structural theory of personality. Patients observations were not recorded immediately upon hearing them, therefore Freuds memory of such detailed and extensive accounts of participants may have been distorted, and/or later recorded in a biased manner (Sulloway 1991). more(prenominal)over the subjects of Freuds case studies, on most occasions, were wealthy European individuals reservation the meagre sample unrepresentative and too illusive to draw common conclusions about human behaviour. Consequently, the precision of the structural theory of pers onality is impaired.The testability of the structural theory is a major problem because propositions and concepts are ambiguous. The ambiguity results in difficulty in deriving a clear hypothesis that can be put to test and proven. Much of the theory is presented in metaphors life and death instincts, and the mind depicted as an iceberg which complicates any look for to scientifically test and prove the theory. In addition, the structural theory of personality helps in explaining behaviour after observation but does not afford substantially to predicting behaviour, which essentially, is a main purpose of studying personality in the offset place.The theory can further be criticised because it is deterministic. It gives a contaminating and pessimistic view of human nature because one is thought to be irrational and controlled by sex and aggressive tendencies. While numerous assumptions come into play, the explanation is still restricted to biological forces, and ignores other in fluences on personal development that may include altruism, competence, exploration and freewill.The scientific validity of Freuds theory has been challenged by Eysenck. After a review of clinical literature, Eysenck pitch that out of 7,000 case histories of neurotic patients, 66% of patients treated by government agency of psychoanalysis improved, however 72% of patients who were not treated by sum of any therapy improved within 2 years after the attack of their illness (Eysenck 1952). These findings oppose the validity of the concepts of the psychoanalytical approach and the structural theory of personality.A contemporary theory of personality proposed by Mischel and Shoda takes into account the cognitive and affective processes that have an influence on behaviour and gives more centering to situationism. Situationism is the assumption that individuals behaviour is directed by the situation the individual is in rather than dispositional traits. The cognitive-affective system theory of personality was proposed to resolve the contradictory findings on the consistency of personality and the inconsistency of behaviour across situations (Mischel and Shoda 1995). According to the cognitive-affective systems theory, there are 2 important concepts that must be combined. The first is that in order to understand an individual, the individuals thoughts must be understood. fit inly the individuals representation of the world is a significant doer to consider. The second is that thought proceeds concurrently on multiple tracks which hybridise occasionally. The theory conceptualises personality as a stable system that mediates how the individual selects, construes, and processes social information and generates social behaviours (Mischel and Shoda 1995). Essentially, the interaction between cognition and personality affects behaviour in different situations. The reason why there are inconsistencies in behaviour is not due to the situation alone or random error i t stems from patterns of variation within the individual which are called behavioural signatures of personality (Mischel and Shoda 1995). Stable variations of behaviour take place in the form of contingencies if X, then A but if Y then B. Behaviour occurs as a result of personal dispositions and cognitive and affective qualities (particularly thinking, planning, evaluating and feeling) interacting with the situation.Cognitive-affective units are represented by 5 stable person variables (Mischel and Shoda 1995). The first is encoding strategies, or individuals unique way of categorising information from stimuli. The second is competencies and self-regulatory strategies, particularly intelligence, the individuals goals and self-produced consequences. Third is ones expectancies and beliefs, or ones predictions of the outcome of each of the behavioural possibilities in the situation. Fourth is ones goals and values and finally, affective responses including feelings, emotions and affec ts caused by physiological reactions.The cognitive-affective personality systems theory is a comprehensive theory that accounts for both situational and dispositional attributes, bringing a balance between the two attributes. Freuds psychoanalytical theory overlooks situations and attributes individuals personality and behavioural traits largely to dispositions. Thus the cognitive-affective personality systems theory can be better apply to a variety of different situations. It offers a stable personality system while maintaining that there may be patterns of variations in behaviour, without resulting in controversy. fence Freuds theory, the cognitive affective personality systems theory gives highlight to conscious rather than unconscious drives. Individuals are regarded as being able to set their own goals, plan and evaluate their actions, and even to think about thinking. and then Mischels theory is less deterministic and considers freewill. The cognitive-affective systems theo ry has a more positive outlook on humankind, perceiving individuals as unified, affective, purposive and social beings, as opposed to the negative outlook of the structural theory of personality. Both the structural theory and the cognitive-affective systems theory of personality are idiographic and appreciate the uniqueness of individuals. The theories do not seek to establish generalizations of personality types. The cognitive-affective systems theory suggests that all(prenominal) individual has his/her own unique behaviour signature and unique pattern of variation (Mischel and Shoda 1995). Freud used case studies because each client had unique experiences and unique configurations of defence mechanisms. However when concentrating on the psychic energies, id, ego and superego, that are allegedly common to all individuals the structural theory of personality may arguably be nomothetic to a certain extent. In addition, the cognitive-affective systems theory must be commended for be ing idiographic because it also maintains its scientific nature.The cognitive-affective systems theory, unlike the structural theory, is scientific and pragmatic. Its propositions are unambiguous and testable hypotheses can be derived. The theory is based on the findings of experiments, including an experiment that was conducted in 1965 to investigate the effect situational and generalised expectancies for success have on on choices of immediate, less valuable non-contingent recompenses as opposed to persisted, more valuable contingent rewards (Mischel and Staub 1965). In addition another study was conducted to test whether individuals are able to voluntarily delay gratification in await for a preferred reward (Mischel and Ebbesen 1970). Both studies reveal how individuals analyse the situation and and make a cognitive decision about the reward they decide to settle for, thereby giving sound evidence for the cognitive-affective personality theory. Furthermore, a study revealed t hat 4 year old children who were able to delay gratification were significantly different from their peers as adolescents they were more intelligent, exhibited more self-control, less distractible and more resistant to temptation than the adolescents who were less able to delay gratification as 4 year olds (Shoda, Mischel and Peake 1990). The finding from that study shows a affinity between psychoanalytic and cognitive-affective concepts of personality. Both perspectives suggest that personality characteristics emerge from childhood and is considerably consistent over time.However a limitation of the cognitive-affective personality system is that it emphasises mainly on the effect of nurture while autocratic the effect that nature might have on human behaviour. The theory overlooks biological and unconscious influences that may affect personality. Contrastingly, the structural theory of personality takes into account that both the effect of nurture and nature influence personality and its development.A further problem with the cognitive-affective personality theory is that defining a situation is difficult therefore the number of interactions that come into play when find behaviour are too complex to study clearly. Moreover, it is difficult to take the complexity of the relationship between the situation, personality and behaviour into account when in extreme positions.The field of personality psychology has witnessed many theories being brought into the smear with each theory contributing more or less to understanding human behaviour. The contribution that Freud and Mischel have provided are indeed valuable. Freud made the first attempt to explain human personality and is considered a legacy for his work. Psychologists that followed in attempt to explain personality either improved upon Freuds ideas or opposed it and provided alternate theories. However, due to the lack of empiricism of the psychoanalytic approach, Mischels cognitive-affective personality systems theory surpasses the structural theory of personality and can be better applied to predicting and explaining human behaviour. The theory does not oversimplify the complex processes behind personality it takes a holistic view and considers that one behaves according to the situation one is in and that the course of action that one takes is not taken passively but actively. The cognitive-affective theory has minimal loopholes and is one of the most useful theories that has been developed to understand the multifaceted human personality.List of ReferencesBaumeister, R. F., Dale, K. and Sommer, K. L. (1998) Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology response Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial. ledger of Personality 66 (6), 1081-1124Burger, J. M. (2011) Personality. 8th edn. USA Wadsworth, Cengage knowledgeEysenck, H. J. (1952) The Effects of Psychotherapy An Evaluation. Journal of Consulting Ps ychology 16 (5), 319-324McLeod, S. (2008) Id, egotism and Superego online available from www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html 18 June 2015McLeod, S. (2013) Sigmund Freud online available from www.simplypsychology.org/Sigmund-Freud.html 18 June 2015Mischel, W. and Ebbesen, E. B. (1970) Attention in Delay of Gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16 (2), 329-337Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. (1995) A Cognitive-Affective System guess of Personality Reconceptualizing Situations, Dispositions, Dynamics, and Invariance in Personality Structure Psychological analyze 102 (2), 246-268Mischel, W. and Staub, E. (1965) Effects of Expectancy on Working and Waiting for Larger takings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2 (5), 625-633Shaver, R. P. and Mikulincer, M. (2005) Attachment speculation and Research Resurrection of the Psychodynamic Approach to Personality. Journal of Research in Personality 39 (1), 22-45Shoda, Y, Mischel, W., and Peake, P. K. (1990) Predict ing Adolescent Cognitive and Self-Regulatory Competencies from Preschool delay of Gratification Identifying Diagnostic Conditions. developmental Psychology 26 (6), 978-986Sulloway, F. J. (1991) Reassessing Freuds Case Histories The Social Construction of analytic thinking. Isis 82 (2), 245-275Westen, D. (1998) The Scientific Legacy of Sigmund Freud Toward a Psychodynamically Informed Psychological lore. Psychological Bulletin 124 (3), 333-371