Defining personality in itself is not straightforward as definitions depend in part on theoretical orientation. For example, Eysenk includes measurable traits such as ‘character, temperament, intellect and physique’, in his definition of personality. Allport on the other hand takes an idiographic approach and defines personality as ‘the dynamic organisation within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment. Liebert & Speigler(1998). With these different approaches in mind this essay will now review the three major perspectives and their explanations of personality.
Psychodynamic theories of personality have impacted greatly on the Developmental Psychology of today. They originated with the work of Sigmund Freud in the later part of the nineteenth and beginning of the 18th century. Freud, Jung, Erickson and Fromm all focussed on the unconscious mind and the effects of early childhood experiences on the development of personality. Freuds psychosexual model is based on 5 stages with the first five years of life being most crucial to development of personality. Erikson proposed an 8 stage psychosocial plan, which placed importance on the whole lifespan, arguing that development does not cease at a certain age. According to Hayes (2000) both Freud and Jung argued that personality was set by childhood experiences and was due partly to maturation and partly to the influences of close family. Fromm on the other hand recognised both factors as well as acknowledging society as a third factor in the formation of personality. A more current view based on both the psychoanalytical and biological approaches is that of Bowlby (1969) who studied attachment in children. His Affective perspective concentrates on emotional development and has had an impact how children are cared for whilst away from their central carer for example whilst in childcare or hospital.
Genetic and Biological explanations propose that each individual is born with genetically determined characteristic patterns of personality. Studies of twins show that identical twins brought up apart share much more in common than fraternal twins. The Minnesota twin study, (Bouchard, 1984 as cited by Bee 2000 p266) not only demonstrated this point, but also uncovered striking similarities in aspects such as taste in clothes, hobbies and interests, posture, body language etc. in identical twins who had never met each other. The biological approach to personality is strongly supported by a large amount of empirical research and as such is difficult to dispute. As Bee (2000) explains ‘there is simply no refuting the fact that built-in genetic and physiological patterns underlie what we think of as both temperament and personality.’ (Bee 2000 p269) Some studies show that as much as 60% of our personality is genetically determined. A further strength in the biological explanation is that it is interactionist, thereby acknowledging the role of the environment in addition to the biological factors. The biological approach has one main weakness in that it does not account for change as temperament is not necessarily permanent.
Learning theories argue that the reinforcement patterns in the environment are the primary cause of differences in children’s patterns of behaviour. (Bee 2000) Radical behaviorists argue that only the basic principals of classical and operant conditioning are needed to account for variations in behaviour. Bandura on the other hand accepts the importance of cognition and those biological factors such as hormones as well as environmental influences. Learning theory therefore sees behaviour as adaptable and allows for constancy and inconsistency by way of reinforcement levels in differing situations. The encouraging aspect about learning theory is the optimism about the possibility of change thereby suggesting that behavioural problems can be modified. The early radical behaviorist theories have been criticised for placing too much emphasis on what happens to the child and failing to account for free will. Bandura’s argument is far stronger allowing for individual choice. Bee (2000) suggests a further strength in that the cognitive element in Bandura’s theory forms the beginning of an integration of learning models and cognitive development approaches.
The concept of the trait has gained central importance in recent personality theory. Eysenck and Cattell and the more recent ‘Big Five’ defined by McCrea and Costa (2003) all offer multi trait theories which attempt to include all aspects of personality including individual differences. Trait theories identify and quantify distinctive personality traits and attempt to measure them by using psychometric testing. This form of testing has become very popular in recruitment processes where personality traits are seen as a useful means in identifying the particular strengths and motivating factors in an individual. McCrea and Costa (2003). The Big Five traits include; extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism or emotional instability and openness/intellect. It seems that finally there is some consensus of opinion over defining personality. Psychologists finally appear to agree that the Big Five is a definitive method for capturing the variations in adult personality. According to Bee (2000) ‘recent research suggests that the same five dimensions may give us an accurate picture of variations in children’s and adolescents personality as well’ (Bee 2000 p285). Liebert & Spiegler (1998) claim that it has also become possible to translate theories across and judge them against the big 5 framework. This has been done successfully in the case of some of Freud’s ideas giving even more credence to both Freud and the potential of the Big 5.
This essay has attempted to draw on the key influences in the development of personality proposed by Psychodynamic, Biological and Learning theories as well as discussing the importance of the Big 5. Each view has been supported with research evidence and has clear strengths and limitations. However as Bee (2000) explains
‘You cant just simply add up the different sources of influence and say that personality is merely the sum of inborn temperament, reinforcement patterns, interaction with parents and some kind of self-scheme’ (Bee 2000 p283)
Some sort of convergence and interaction of these competing viewpoints can however provide a more convincing model. Research to date may not encompass all the necessary ingredients to fully explain the complexity of personality development however we are undeniably getting ever closer.
References
Bee, H. (2000) The Developing Child (9th ed.) Needham Heights, MA; Allyn & Bacon
Butterworth, G. & Harris, M. (1994) Principles of Developmental Psychology. Hove; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Dixon, W. (2003) Twenty Studies that Revolutionized Child Psychology. New Jersey; Pearson Education Inc.
Durkin, K. Developmental Social Psychology (1995) Oxford; Blackwell Publishing
Flanagan, C. (2002) Nature and nurture, why are siblings so different? Psychological review. London; Philip Allen Updates.
Gross, R. (1996) Psychology the Science of the Mind and Behaviour. (3rd ed.) London; Hodder and Stoughton Educational
Hayes, N. (2000) Foundations of Psychology (3rd ed.) London; Thomson Learning.
Hayes, N. (1993) Principles of Social Psychology. Hove; Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Ltd.
Leibert & Speilgler (1998) Personality Strategies and Issues. London; International Thomas Publishing Europe
McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (2003) Personality in Adulthood, a Five-factor Theory Perspective.(2nd ed.) New York; The Guilford Press.
