Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_27_библиотеки_им_акад_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
is extensive. Maybe the most convincing evidence is that found by geneticists
(Vukasović & Bratko, 2015) who have discovered genetic variations responsible for
personality traits (Lo et al., 2016). Lo and colleagues (2016) found genetic variations
associated with extroversion and neuroticism. Other researchers have found genetic
variations associated with neuroticism (Genetics of Personality Consortium, 2015;
Okbay et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2016). Another genetic contributor to personality is
that pesky little X or Y chromosome that determines sex (Kajonius & Johnson, 2018).
In a large study of 320,128 Americans, Kajonius and Johnson (2018) found that
across age groups (19–69 years old), males had lower scores in agreeableness and
neuroticism than females. Males were higher in excitement-seeking and openness to
intellect. However, personality is not strictly determined by genes. Kandler and
colleagues (2011) argue that, although there is plenty of support for biologically driven
personalities, the environment also contributes to who we become, what we are like,
and our interests. Vukasović and Bratko (2015) agree, as their large meta-analysis on
heritability, environment, and personality revealed an average genetic contribution to
individual personality at 40 percent.
Identical twins Jim Springer and Jim Lewis were separated after birth and raised
by different families. When reunited 39 years after their initial separation, they
discovered that they were both raised in Ohio, both married women named Betty,
both had sons named James Allen, worked as sheriffs, and had the same interests:
woodwork, drinking beer, chainsmoking, and driving their Chevrolets. Even their
personality tests were eerily similar!
https://t.me/medicina_free
iStock.com/leungchopan
Construction of Multitrait Inventories
As Allport had noted, the study of personality must begin not only with description
but also with measurement. And so it did. One of the important contributions of trait
psychology is the construction of personality inventories, questionnaires designed to
assess a whole multitude of traits. Cattell’s 16 PF is one such instrument. There are
many others. The most widely used is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-Revised, or MMPI-2, a 567-item questionnaire originally developed in the
1940s as the MMPI, and since revised, to help in the diagnosis of psychological
disorders (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983).
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). A large-scale test
designed to measure a multitude of psychological disorders and personality traits.
The MMPI is to personality measurement what the Stanford-Binet was to
intelligence testing. Taking an empirical approach, Alfred Binet developed his test by
generating a large number of problems, testing schoolchildren, and retaining those
problems that were solved differently by fast and slow learners. The MMPI
developers used a similar strategy. They wrote hundreds of true-false statements,
gave them to both normal adults and clinical patients with varying psychiatric
diagnoses (depressed, paranoid, and so on), and then included in the final test only
those items that were answered differently by the two groups—even if the content
made little sense. The MMPI is filled with discriminating but odd items (for example,
hysterical patients are more likely than others to answer “true” to the statement “My
fingers sometimes feel numb”).
These MMPI scales have been used for more than 70 years. Many of the original
items became dated, however, and the norms had been based on a predominantly
White, rural, middle-class group of subjects. To update the test, new items were
written and a more diverse cross-section of the United States was sampled. The
result was a newer 567-item version known as MMPI-2 (Butcher & Williams, 2000;
Graham, 2000). Like the original MMPI, the MMPI-2 contains the clinical scales
shown in Table 8.3. Eight of these is designed to distinguish between “normal”
subjects and diagnostic groups. Two other scales are used to measure masculinityfemininity and social introversion. The MMPI-2 also contains 15 content scales that
measure work attitudes, family problems, and other characteristics. In addition, the
MMPI and MMPI-2 contain a set of validity scales designed to expose test takers who
are evasive, confused, lying to make a good impression, or defensive. Someone who
answers “true” to many socially desirable but implausible statements such as “I never
get angry” is assumed to be trying too hard to project a healthy image.
Table 8.3
LEARNING CHECK
Schools of Thought
Sort these psychologists according to their respective approaches to personality.
After each name, write a P for psychoanalytic, C for cognitive social-learning, H for
humanistic, or T for trait.
(Answers: 1. T; 2. P; 3. P; 4. C; 5. P; 6. H; 7. C; 8. H; 9. C; 10. H.)
The MMPI-2 is easy to administer, and in contrast to the Rorschach and TAT, in
which two examiners may reach different conclusions, MMPI scoring is perfectly
objective. Thus, a test taker’s responses can be converted into a personality profile
by computer. That’s one reason why the test has been translated into more than 100
languages and is popular in both clinical and research settings. Test administrators
must be cautious, however, about how to use the test and how to interpret the results.
In spite of its reliability and validity, the test is far from perfect. Psychologists need to
be particularly careful in interpreting the responses of test takers from cultural and
subcultural groups that share different beliefs, values, ideals, and experiences. A
pattern of responses may be considered normal in one culture and deviant in another
(Butcher, Hass, Greene, & Nelson, 2015; Church, 2001; Dana, 2013).
Introversion and Extraversion
Psychologists may disagree over whether personality consists of 2, 5, 16, or 200
traits, but they all agree that one of the most powerful dimensions—one that can be
seen in infants as well as adults, in cultures all over the world, and in written
questionnaires as well as behavior—is introversion-extraversion, one of the Big Five
traits. The ancient Greeks and Romans noticed it, as have philosophers, physicians,
and creative writers through the ages. Jung wrote about individual differences on this
https://t.me/medicina_free
g g g
dimension. So did Allport and Cattell. Even Pavlov said that some of the dogs in his
classical-conditioning laboratory were more outgoing than other dogs. But it was
British psychologist Eysenck who most clearly defined the trait, constructed a test to
measure it, and proposed a provocative theory to explain its origin.
As described by Eysenck (1967), the typical extravert is someone who has many
friends, likes parties, craves excitement, seeks adventure, takes chances, acts on the
spur of the moment, and is uninhibited. In contrast, the typical introvert is low keyed,
has just a few close friends, shies away from stimulation, acts cautiously, and
distrusts the impulse of the moment. Based on past writings, personal observations,
and factor analyses of trait questionnaires, Eysenck developed a test that includes a
measure of introversion and extraversion, as summarized in Table 8.4. Using this
instrument, and others, researchers have found that extraverts are generally more
talkative, prefer occupations that involve social contact, take greater risks (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985), and have larger social networks (Pollet, Roberts, & Dunbar, 2011).
The question is, what accounts for this broad and pervasive aspect of personality? To
determine whether you are an introvert or an extravert, answer the questions in Table
8.4 for yourself. If you said yes on most odd-numbered questions and no on the
even-numbered ones, you are relatively extraverted. If you answered the other way
around, then you’re more introverted. Many people fall somewhere in the middle of
the continuum.
extravert. A kind of person who seeks stimulation and is sociable and impulsive.
introvert. A kind of person who avoids stimulation and is low key and cautious.
Table 8.4
https://t.me/medicina_free
Source: Adapted from H. J. Eysenck & S. G. B. Eysenck. (1964).
Eysenck argues that individual differences are biologically rooted and that
introverts have central nervous systems that are more sensitive to stimulation.
According to Eysenck, people seek a moderate, comfortable level of CNS arousal.
Introverts are easily aroused, so they avoid intense sources of excitement. In
contrast, extraverts are not easily aroused, which leads them to approach high levels
of excitement. Thus, it takes a more potent stimulus for the extravert to feel the
“buzz.” Research generally supports this hypothesis (Aron, Aron, & Jagiellowicz,
2012; Bullock & Gilliland, 1993; Eysenck, 1990). For example, one study (Dobbs,
Furnham, & McClelland, 2011) put introverts and extraverts—quite literally—to the
test in either noisy or quiet environments. In quiet environments, extraverts and
introverts had similar test scores. On the contrary, in noisy environments, extraverts
outperformed introverts. Deary and colleagues (1988) showed that when drops of
natural lemon juice are placed on the tongue, most introverts salivate more than most
extraverts. Von Gehlen and Sachse (2015) found corroborating evidence. Their
extraverted participants outperformed introverted participants on an attention test
when in the presence of an arousing auditory stimulus. As illustrated in Figure 8.12,
others have shown that extraverts get more working memory benefit from caffeine
than introverts (Smillie & Gokcen, 2010; Smith, 2012). A recent sleep-deprivation and
learning experiment by Heinrich and colleagues (2018) found that high extraverts had
better performance than others. When participants were not sleep deprived, no
differences in performance were present. In short, says Eysenck, each of us is born
with a nervous system that predisposes us to either love or hate large crowds, bright
lights, blaring music, fast cars, roller coasters, suspenseful movies, spicy foods, and
other, more social stimulants.
Description
Figure 8.12 Interaction Between Caffeine and Extraversion Smith AP. Caffeine,
extraversion and working memory. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 2012;27(1):71-
76. doi:10.1177/0269881112460111
Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Interestingly, the rudiments of adult introversion and extraversion can be seen in
the predispositions of infants shortly after birth. Over the years, Kagan (1994, 2018)
and others have studied children who are inhibited and uninhibited in their
temperament (most fall between these two extremes). At 16 weeks old, inhibited
https://t.me/medicina_free
infants—compared to those who are uninhibited—are more easily distressed and cry
more in response to hanging mobiles, human speech, intense odors, and other types
of stimulation. At 2 years old, inhibited children are fearful, wary of strangers, and
avoidant of novel situations, whereas their uninhibited peers are adventurous,
outgoing, and quick to approach new people and situations. At 5 years old, socially
inhibited children are shy and more easily aroused by mildly stressful tasks—as
measured by increases in heart rate, dilation of the pupils, and a rise in
norepinephrine. They often have more tension in the face muscles and are more
likely to have higher-than-average levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with
physiological arousal during stress. Even at 10 to 12 years of age, they are more
excitable and sensitive to stimulation (Woodward et al., 2001).
Not all inhibited infants grow up to become inhibited adults. But longitudinal
research indicates that there is continuity—that some aspects of personality later in
life are predictable from temperament and behavior as infants and toddlers (Beekman
et al., 2015; Casalin, Luyten, Vliegen, & Meurs, 2012). For example, toddlers who
were observed to be highly irritable, impulsive, and hard to control at age 3 were
more likely to have drug problems, problems at work, and relationship conflicts by the
time they were 21. In contrast, those who were highly inhibited, fearful, and shy at
age 3 were more likely to become socially isolated and depressed at age 21 (Caspi,
2000).
Psychology Applied: Use of Personality Tests and
Social Media Sites in Hiring
Anyone who has applied for a desirable job knows that you sometimes have to
climb hurdles and jump through hoops to get hired. One hurdle might be to take a
personality test (Guion, 1965). A second hurdle might be to provide access to your
social media accounts (McFarland, 2012; Ouirdi, Segers, Ouirdi, & Pais, 2015).
Social media can tell us a lot about who a person is and their attitudes. But, as you
can imagine, personality testing and social media access as requirements for
employment spark a debate about ethics, violation of privacy, and validity.
As motivated test takers and savvy managers of their presentation of self, job
candidates can fake their responses and selectively choose what posts, comments,
and photos to make public in order to present themselves in a positive light. This is a
serious possible drawback. Imagine having applied for a job you really wanted, and
all that stands in your way are the results of a personality questionnaire and your
professionalism on the Internet. Isn’t it possible that you would cover up your flaws,
consciously or not, according to what you think is desirable? And wouldn’t this render
your test results and social media information invalid? The answer is yes to the first
question, but no to the second.
Industrial/organizational psychologists have found that people do bias their
responses in a socially desirable direction—but this does not diminish the value of the
tests. Employers tend to be confident in personality test results, maybe due to their
frequency and history of use in the workforce (Christiansen, Tozek, & Burns, 2010).
As for social media sites, the risk of losing a job opportunity or getting fired over a
post in bad taste can have serious ramifications. Famous persons like Roseanne
Barr, Kathy Griffin, and Antony Weiner have been public examples of what some
people refer to as “Facebook fired” (Drouin, O’Connor, Schmidt, & Miller, 2015;
Schmidt & O’Connor, 2015). Thus, most of us know what is at stake when we make
something public. This segues nicely into traits that employers probably want—
thinking twice before making a post, or keeping specific things private versus public.
Sure enough, people who are willing to be open with their social media
information—even sharing passwords—scored higher on agreeableness, impression
management, and conscientiousness (Schneider, Goffin, & Daljeet, 2015). As
guessed, these are all desired traits in the workplace, both for predictive success
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996; Woods, Patterson,
Koczwara, & Sofat, 2016) and for career commitment (Arora & Rangnekar, 2016).
However, there is a fine line. If your impression management is too high, and
employers know it, they might determine you are insincere. How would they know
you are trying too hard to impress? Well, they could give you yet another test for
social desirability. Christiansen and colleagues (2010) provided hiring professionals
with job candidate information, some with scores on social desirability and some
without. When social desirability scores were high, candidates were perceived as less
sincere and candid. The outcome? Their hirability ratings declined. So, the moral of
https://t.me/medicina_free
the story is to be likable, but not excessively so. None of us wants to work with
someone who we think is just faking it.
LEARNING CHECK
Approach With Caution
Match the following psychological terms and tools with the approaches to which
they relate: Psychoanalytic Approach, Cognitive Social-Learning Approach,
Humanistic Approach, or Trait Approach.
(Answers: Psychoanalysis: c, g, h; Cognitive Social-Learning: b, e, k;
Humanistic: a, j, l; Trait: d, f, i.)
Perspectives: Do Traits Exist?
Pause a moment and think about the last time you were on social media. Did you
find yourself in the infamous social media rabbit hole? Clicking on one friend’s profile
leads you to another friend’s profile, to a stranger’s profile, and so on. As you looked
at others’ social media pages, you most likely studied their photos. Photos can tell us
a lot about a person. For example, if you come across a social media profile of a
person who is photographed while bungee jumping, at Times Square in New York
City on New Year’s Eve, and with his fraternity brothers at a tailgate party, you might
assume that person is an extravert. In making that assumption, you have
hypothesized about a person you don’t even know. You have behaved like a trait
psychologist.
We are all trait psychologists. We all use trait terms to describe ourselves and
others, and we have preconceptions about how various characteristics relate to one
another and to behavior. Social media is a great repository of information that can
lead us to a conclusion about those we know and those we don’t. Darbyshire and
colleagues (2016) presented people with Facebook screenshots of an unknown
target and asked for statements about their impression of said target. Some
statements about the unknown target’s photos were, “Pictures—more often than not
in a large social group—most of which are at a nightclub drinking/socializing” and
“Pictures of slacking and doodling in college” (p. 384). When reading comments and
verbal posts, some participants said, “seems easily offended,” “appears to be very
intelligent, talk about books,” and “has lots of friends that care about her” (p. 384).
The Big Five traits that were judged accurately were openness and
conscientiousness. Other studies support the accurate judgement of these traits
using online information (Stopfer, Egloff, Nestler, & Back, 2014; Wall, Taylor, Dixon,
Conchie, & Ellis, 2013). However, the self—ideal, ought, or actual—that people
choose to present online is debatable (Zhao, Grasmuch, & Martin, 2008).
https://t.me/medicina_free
Think about how people describe you. Now, think about how you describe
yourself. The two perspectives might not be similar. Traits are dependent on many
factors and, thus, are not 100 percent accurate. However, they are informative
nonetheless.
iStock.com/Olivier Le Moal
Although it seems natural to think about people and their behavior in terms of
traits, some critics complain that the approach is limited. Psychoanalysts say it’s
superficial, cognitive social-learning theorists say it neglects situational factors, and
humanists say it’s cold and impersonal. By far the most serious attack, however, was
Mischel’s (1968) startling claim that traits simply do not exist. After reviewing years of
research, Mischel concluded that personality test scores are not predictive of
behavior and that people do not act with trait-like consistency from one situation to
the next. To illustrate, he cited a classic study by Hartshorne and May (1928) in which
they observed the moral conduct of thousands of children in school, at home, at
parties, and so on. Seeking evidence of a trait for honesty, Hartshorne and May found
that the children exhibited strikingly little cross-situational consistency in behavior. A
child might pass up a chance to cheat in class or steal money from a dropped wallet
but then be quick to cheat in an athletic event or lie to parents. Thus, said Mischel
(1968), traits—as measured by personality tests—cannot reliably predict behavior.
Mischel’s critique whipped up a tremendous controversy among personality
psychologists wondering whether traits were a mere figment of the imagination. After
many years of debate and additional research, two main conclusions can be drawn.
First, as noted by Epstein (1979), traits are highly informative—but only when they’re
used to predict an aggregation of behaviors. To measure personality, psychologists
derive test scores by combining answers to several related questions. Similarly, says
Epstein, behavior should be measured by combining several trait-related acts. Just
as an IQ score is not expected to predict a grade in a particular class during a
particular semester, your score on an introversion-extraversion scale cannot be
expected to predict whether you will tell jokes at your next party. By the same token,
just as an IQ score can predict grade point averages, a personality test can predict
general behavior tendencies (Huang, Ryan, Zabel, & Palmer, 2014; Kluemper,
Mclarty, & Bing, 2015).
The second important conclusion is that behavior springs from complex
interactions between persons and situations (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Cervone &
Shoda, 1999; Sherman, Rauthmann & Brown, 2015). This interaction can take many
forms. First, personality traits are expressed only in relevant situations. If you’re the
anxious type, you may break out in a cold sweat before a first date or public
presentation but not when at home watching TV. Second, traits are expressed only in
situations that do not constrain our behavior. Just about everyone is quiet and
reserved in churches, libraries, and crowded elevators, but our unique personalities
are free to emerge at home, at a party, or in the street. Third, people influence the
situations they are in. The way we treat our friends, family, and others, for example,
steers the treatment we receive in turn. Thus, child development researchers who
used to write about how parents shape their children now realize that children, even
infants, shape their parents as well. Fourth, people choose settings that are
compatible with their own personalities. Extraverts craving excitement are likely to
visit amusement parks and casinos, but introverts seek out quiet restaurants, hiking
trails, and other out-of-the-way places. Fifth, our personalities color the way we
interpret and react to situations. Optimists perceive the proverbial glass as half-full,
https://t.me/medicina_free
whereas pessimists perceive the same glass as half-empty. As Allport (1961) said,
“The same fire that melts the butter hardens the egg” (p. 102).
Thinking Like a Psychologist About Personality
Now that you are familiar with the four major approaches to personality, you are in
a position to evaluate each perspective for yourself. If you were to stop and think
about your own life—say, to write your autobiography—which of the four approaches
would best describe your personality and explain how you got that way?
To summarize, psychoanalysis emphasizes unconscious conflicts, sex and
aggression, defensive behavior, anxiety, and early childhood influences. Cognitive
social-learning theory views personality as a socially acquired pattern of behavior, a
learned response to how people perceive, interpret, and value the external
reinforcements in their lives. Humanists believe that people are inherently good, that
we have self-insight, and that personality springs from the desire and struggle to
reach our full potential. The trait approach makes few value judgments about human
nature, but it assumes that everyone can be compared on a standard set of
dispositions that are consistent over time and, at least to some extent, genetically
determined.
The four approaches also differ in their perspectives on change and in their
approaches to the treatment of psychological disorders. Beginning with Freud, most
psychoanalysts perceive the early years of childhood as formative, if not critical, to
the development of personality—with relatively little room for change in adulthood. In
fact, psychoanalytic therapists say that patients unconsciously resist the recovery
process. The trait approach, with its emphasis on genetic factors and the stability of
core dispositions, also takes a relatively dim view of change. In the trait approach,
people are biologically introverted or extraverted, and calm or anxious—thus leaving
little room for variation. In contrast, the behavioral and cognitive social-learning
theorists perceive people as flexible and influenced by environmental factors.
According to this view, psychological disorders are learned—and can be unlearned
just as well. The humanistic approach is equally clear in its view that people have not
only the capacity but also the will to change and, specifically, to strive toward selfactualization.
Although we have discussed the four approaches as distinct, you don’t
necessarily have to choose a favorite or accept any one approach completely. Many
personality psychologists are eclectic, which means that they accept bits and pieces
of different theories. It is also instructive to consider the possibility that each approach
may better account for some aspects of personality than for others. Psychoanalysis
may shed light on why we feel inexplicably troubled and anxious, cognitive sociallearning theory may explain why having control is often so important to us, humanism
may capture the experience of pursuing and catching lifelong dreams, and the trait
approach may offer the best way to measure our unique predispositions. The human
personality is so complex and multifaceted that all perspectives are necessary.
SUMMARY
The study of personality—an individual’s distinct and relatively enduring pattern
of thoughts, feelings, motives, and behaviors—shows that personality characteristics
are quite stable over time unless cognitive decline occurs. There are four major
approaches to personality.
Psychoanalysis
The Birth of Psychoanalysis
Just before the turn of the 20th century, Freud used his clinical experience with
hysteria to formulate psychoanalysis.
Freud’s Theory of Personality
Psychoanalysis assumes that unconscious conflicts play a large part in shaping
personality. Freud divided personality into three parts. The id—a primitive,
unconscious reservoir of basic drives—operates according to the pleasure principle.
The personality’s moral part, the superego, consists of the ego-ideal and the
conscience. The ego mediates between the id’s “wants” and the superego’s “shoulds”
and follows a reality principle that allows for gratification of needs in a socially
appropriate manner.
Freud believed that personality is shaped by conflicts that arise during the
psychosexual stages of development. Young children pass through the oral, anal,
and phallic stages. During the phallic stage (ages 4 to 6 years), children experience
https://t.me/medicina_free
the Oedipus complex, a tendency to become attracted to the parent of the opposite
sex and hostile to the parent of the same sex. Children resolve this complex,
however, and form an identification with the same-sex parent, internalizing the
parent’s values. At puberty, the genital stage begins. Too much or too little
gratification in any of the first three stages can result in fixation at that stage and a
distinct type of personality.
According to Freud, we feel anxiety when our impulses clash with morals, so the
ego uses unconscious defense mechanisms that deny and distort reality.
Repression helps us “forget” threatening thoughts, memories, and impulses by
pushing them out of awareness. In denial, we bar anxiety-provoking thoughts from
awareness in the first place. Through projection, we attribute our own unacceptable
impulses to others. Through reaction formation, we convert an unacceptable feeling
into its opposite. Rationalization involves making excuses for failures and
shortcomings. And in sublimation, the healthiest defense mechanism, we channel
repressed urges into socially acceptable substitute outlets.
Freud’s Legacy
Freud’s followers continued to focus on unconscious factors, inner conflicts, and
early-childhood influences. Jung proposed that people are influenced by a collective
unconscious consisting of memories from our ancestral past, and he argued that
personality development continues into adulthood. Adler stressed social conflicts and
developed the notions of sibling rivalry and the inferiority complex. More recent
theorists have emphasized social needs or the role of the ego.
Psychoanalytic researchers also developed projective tests to reveal the
unconscious through responses to ambiguous stimuli. The Rorschach uses inkblots.
The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) asks people to make up stories from a set
of pictures.
Critics say that psychoanalysis takes too bleak a view of human nature and that
its propositions are not supported by controlled research. Yet Freud’s ideas,
particularly those about the unconscious and defense mechanisms, have become an
integral part of psychology.
The Cognitive Social-Learning Approach
Unlike psychoanalysis, cognitive social-learning theory sees personality as the
result of a continuous interaction between persons and environments.
Principles of Learning and Behavior
Early behaviorists investigated classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and
other key principles of learning. Watson and Skinner applied these principles to the
study of personality.
Social-Learning Theory
Social-learning theory extended behaviorism to include social and cognitive
factors. Through modeling, people can learn behavior by observing and imitating.
Rotter and Mischel further showed that thoughts influence the link between
reinforcement and behavior.
According to cognitive social-learning theory, people differ in locus of control—
expectations about the control of reinforcement. Internals, who believe they can
control their own fate, tend to be healthier and more successful. People also differ in
self-efficacy, the belief that they can perform the behaviors needed for a desired
outcome. The more self-efficacy people have for a task, the more likely they are to
succeed.
Perspectives on Cognitive Social-Learning Theory
Cognitive social-learning theory emphasizes reciprocal determinism, the notion
that personality emerges from an ongoing interaction among individuals, their actions,
and environments. Environmental forces shape our personalities, but we can choose,
alter, and interpret the situations we encounter. To assess personality, cognitive
social-learning theorists use direct methods such as behavioral observations and
self-reports.
The Humanistic Approach
By the 1940s, some psychologists began to develop a humanistic theory of
personality.
Carl Rogers
https://t.me/medicina_free
Impressed by his patients’ self-insight and will to improve, Rogers theorized that
we all have a natural need for self-actualization—that is, a drive to behave in ways
consistent with our self-concepts. The self-concept is made up of various self-
schemas, specific beliefs about the self. As social beings, however, we also have a
competing need for positive regard. Unconditional positive regard from significant
others frees us to pursue self-actualization. But if we receive conditional positive
regard, we experience frustration, anxiety, and self-discrepancies. Studies have
shown that individuals as well as social and cultural groups differ in their self-esteem,
the extent to which they evaluate themselves favorably.
Abraham Maslow
Maslow believed that people are motivated to fulfill a hierarchy of needs en route
to self-actualization, the distinctly human need to become everything one is capable
of becoming. Few people reach this state, though it is common to have momentary
peak experiences.
Perspectives on the Humanistic Approach
Humanistic psychologists have been praised for focusing on the good in human
beings, the self-concept, and conscious experience. They have been criticized for
ignoring the darker side of human nature and relying too heavily on people’s selfreports.
The Trait Approach
The Building Blocks of Personality
To start with what he felt was a critical foundation, Gordon Allport decided to study
the basic units of personality and compiled a list of 200 personality traits. With factor
analysis, Raymond Cattell reduced these to 16 source traits. Now, researchers have
condensed the list to a five-factor model consisting of five traits: neuroticism,
extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (juggle them and
think OCEAN).
Construction of Multitrait Inventories
The trait approach gave rise to the construction of personality inventories such as
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).
Introversion and Extraversion
One of the most powerful trait dimensions is introversion and extraversion. An
extravert is sociable and impulsive and seeks stimulation. An introvert is low keyed,
cautious, and avoidant of stimulation. Research suggests that extraverts are
sensation seekers, whereas introverts are overly sensitive to stimulation. Recent
studies reveal similar differences in temperament between inhibited and uninhibited
infants and children.
Perspectives: Do Traits Exist?
Debates about trait theory lead to two major conclusions. First, traits can predict
an aggregation of behaviors but not specific acts. Second, behavior springs from an
interaction between traits and situations.
Critical Thinking
Thinking Critically About Personality
1. Compare the four approaches to personality (psychoanalytic, cognitive sociallearning, humanistic, and trait). What are the implications of these differences for
the way in which personality is measured? Give examples of the different
measurement instruments advocated by each approach.
2. Take a few moments to write down a description of your own personality, and
then use each of the four approaches to explain it. Which of the four approaches
do you think best accounts for your personality?
3. What are the major criticisms of Freudian theory? What Freudian concepts
continue to endure? What would you say is Freud’s most enduring legacy?
4. Csikszentmihalyi’s research seems to suggest that anyone can have “optimal
experiences.” Identify a domain in which you have experienced, or would like to
experience, flow. What did this experience feel like (or what do you think it would
feel like)? Suggest some ways that you would increase the likelihood of
experiencing flow.
https://t.me/medicina_free
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана