Personality theories;Type and Trait
Before describing the major modern trait and type theories of personality the following key terms must be defined; trait, type and personality. A personality trait represents a continuous dimension and can be defined as a broad, stable and enduring characteristic which is used to explain behaviour (Phares&Chaplin, 1997). A personality type is defined by Lefton, (2000 p. 708} as a "personality category in which broad collections of traits are loosely tied together and interrelated" and which people can be grouped into. Personality can be broadly defined (Myers, 1986; Pervin&John, 2001)as the enduring characteristics of an individual that describe patterns of thinking, feelings and behaviour. The major modern trait and type theories of Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck and the Big Five vary in their approach and methods in their attempts to understand personality, yet all share the belief that personality can be understood and individual's behaviour could be explained and described by the use of types and traits. The trait and type personality psychologists used three methods in identifying important traits and types; the lexical approach, meaning the more important a word is the more often it will appear in lang
Allports emphasis on idiographic approach to personality psychology attracted controversy and criticism amongst his peers who argued; that the study of uniqueness unnecessary in forming a scientific theory, that the idiographic approach is the starting point for a theory to become generalised and that general scientific rules are capable of developing understanding the individuals unique personality (Falk, 1963, cited in Monte, 1999}. Other criticisms focused on the inadequacy of existing trait names and if every personality was unique then every trait name should also be unique and single case studies are more art than science (Holt 1962,cited in Monte, 1999}. Cattell used three methods to collect personality data; L-data information from life records, Q-data from questionnaires and T-data from results of objective tests and he believed the same traits should be reflected in each of these methods of data collection. Using data from these 3 research methods , Cattell devised a 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF5) in 1970, with each factor given a low or high description rating. The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire has proven successful in predicting educational and occupational success as demonstrated by studies conducted by Barton, Dielman and Cattell (1971, cited in Mathews and Deary 1998)and Cattell and Kline's study of personality and motivation (1977, cited in Mathews and Deary 1998). Eysencks hierarchical model of personality has four levels, the most influential being types which consisting of traits, traits which consists of habitual responses, habitual responses and a specific response level, where individual habits are developed (Carver, 1998; Liebert&Spiegler, 1990; Ryckman, 2000). Eysenck viewed biological factors as more influential than the environment on individuals traits and behaviours and explained differences in the introversion/extraversion dimension as biological variations in individuals preferred level of stimulation and sensory threshold in the cerebral cortex (Ewen, 1940; Liebert&Spiegler, 1990). Criticisms of Eysencks theory also focus on his reliance on self-reporting tests, which may reflect individuals biases (Liebert&Spiegler, 1990).
Some common words found in the essay are:
According Allport, Raymond Cattell, Costa McCrae, Questionnaire Carver, , Allport Odbert, Eysenck Five, Mathews Deary, Cloninger Cloninger, Psychotism Carver, source traits, liebert&spiegler 1990, goldberg 1993, monte 1999, carver 1998, pervin&john 2001, trait type, ryckman 2000, surface traits, phares 1997, 1993 phares 1997, 1997 researchers agree, phares 1997 researchers, goldberg 1993 phares, source traits source,
Approximate Word count = 1745
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
