Psychologists seek to explicate and explicate why people behave otherwise in mundane common state of affairss and to specify single differences in footings of the cognition gained and it construction. Personality can be defined as an individual’s characteristic qualities of idea, emotion and behavior when interacting with their societal environment. Traits are ‘relatively digesting ways in which an person differs from another’ ( Butt 2012, p. 46 ) . Eysenck’s trait theory has it origins in the psychometric tradition of measuring ; while Kelly’s personal concept theory adopts a phenomenological attack. The purposes and methods of both theories will be critically compared and contrasted sketching their theoretical positions and the cognition that each green goods. By concentrating on single differences their different methodological attacks will be assessed in footings of their nonsubjective and subjective functions, foregrounding that each have influential findings but don’t wholly give a complete history of all personality phenomena. ( Butt, 2012 )
Eysenck’s ( 1953 ) Trait theory adopts a nomothetic attack that classifies personality dimensions to mensurate and depict the single differences of personality. It’s based on the premise that persons can be characterised by certain personal properties or traits that in bend influence behavior. Descriptions of traits have their foundation in mundane linguistic communication used to depict human behavior ; trait theory draws on the melodramatic use of traits in vocabulary such as ancient Greek typology. This use is used to back up grounds of, ‘constitutional and biological factors that are indicated through personality traits’ ( Butt, 2004 ) . Eysenck used factor analysis to set up bunch traits utilizing questionnaires ( Eysenck’s Personality Inventory ) suggesting that two high order factors could account for the bunch profile obtained, extroversion V invagination and neurosis V stableness, he subsequently added and 3rd psychoticism V superego.
Each factor has 2nd order traits established from ‘factor analytic studies’ ( Butt, 2012, p.50 ) to depict more to the full single features or inclinations. Eysenck believed biological science could explicate the single differences of personality, that causal factors at a neurological degree in the cortical and autonomic rousing systems influence an individual’s disposition and behavior. ‘The intent of personality theory is non to capture the idiosyncratic nature of the individual’ ( Butt, 2012, p.47 ) , but used as an index of how a individual is likely to respond in certain state of affairss. Eysenck acknowledges that it’s non merely biological science that influences behavior, but our past experiences and acquisition can besides hold an influence on current reactions to different stimulations. However trait theoreticians tend to see personality from a deterministic position, as stable and digesting and don’t take into consideration the behavioural and attitude alterations that people experience over clip ( Butt, 2012 ) .
Kelly’s ( 1955 ) personal concept theory, which is a signifier of phenomenology ; positions personality as idiosyncratic phenomena that can non be measured, as each person adopts a alone manner of doing sense of their universe. Each individual is seen as a composing of personal universe positions or concepts that are based on alone experiences. Persons construct others behaviour in footings of their ain subjective point of view. Kelly proposed we act like scientists, who form theories and premises about ourselves, others and the universe. By enquiry and proving out the uncertainnesss of our premises we produce farther enquiry that is an on-going womb-to-tomb rhythm. Based on the cognitive attack, it is these concepts or schemas Kelly theorises that provide the footing of our reactions and behavior ( Butt, 2012 ) .
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Both Eysenck and Kelly aimed to bring forth theories that have a clinical application, Eysenck sought to utilize his theory for clinical diagnosing in response to discredited psychiatric categorizations, while Kelly who practised as a clinical psychologist sought to ease curative alteration through acquisition and ego consciousness. Eysenck viewed ‘classification as a cardinal portion of scientific study’ ( Eysenck and Rachman, cited in Butt, 2012, p.48 ) , Kelly placed no importance on the psychometric tradition of appraisal ; the accent of his attack is on ‘recognising the value of analyzing the alone cognitive concepts of an individual’s universe position and the self’ ( Butt, 2012. p. 47 ) . Kelly’s accent was on self-government and job work outing instead than the diagnostic standardized dimensions used by trait theories.
Where trait theory seeks to detect social norms and how we all differ in relation to them, personal concept theory places no importance on doing single comparings through personality dimensions. Butt ( 2004 ) states that ‘trait theory does non account for the profusion of personality in the manner that personal concept theory can’ . Trait theory would suggest that behavior is biologically controlled and hence systematically predictable, which excludes the possible for alteration, while personal concept theory positions concepts as being flexible and fluid and hence unfastened to alter, even through persons might actively defy the trouble of alteration ( Butt, 2012 ) .
Mischel ( as cited in Butt, 2012 ) a pupil of Kelly’s questioned trait theories deterministic position of behavior consistence, reasoning that behavior was a diverse phenomenon influenced by societal stimulations ; that people will act otherwise harmonizing to the state of affairs they find themselves in. Consequences from Zimbardo’s ( 1975 ) prison experiment would propose that societal state of affairss can exercise an influencing consequence on behavior. Skinner ( 1974 ) , ( as cited in Butt, 2012 ) proposed that traits can non explicate behaviors ; they merely provide a description, non an account of behavior that merely identifies regular forms of behavior, or a ‘cycle of redescription’ ( Butt, 2004. p.3 ) Mischel besides points out that traits are inexplicit personality theories based on subjective perceptual experiences of the single being rated, or a perceptual experience of others which will reflect colored biass of the sociocultural environment. He highlights a survey were perceivers allocated the same traits to both aliens and those they new good, bespeaking ‘fundamental ascription error’ ( Butt, 2004 ) , which suggests that perceivers attribute over generalized traits that are non valid. This raises the issue of trait objectiveness, by foregrounding the subjective nature of rating that challenges the construct of trait construction, along with the cogency and dependability of factor analysis ( Butt, 2012 ) .
It would look that the objectiveness of trait theory comes into inquiry and therefore the methods it employs. The statement of forms of similarity poetries uniqueness and the attacks they adopt either nomothetic ( universally general ) or idiographic ( separately alone ) is a relevant country, as single differences has traditionally set out to place the cosmopolitan dimensions of persons. Eysenck used the nomothetic attack of factor analysis, which correlates bunchs of traits that have been established through the usage of subjective questionnaires and evaluations. He addresses the unfavorable judgment that factor analysis is prone to undependable incongruent practician consequences saying that ‘universal understanding and correlativity is strong support for his statistical method’ ( Eysenck and Stanley, as cited in Butt, 2012, p. 51 ) .
His measuring techniques provide nonsubjective informations that can be used to pull comparings across broad populations and supply a construction in which categorical typology can be conducted. However his factor analysis would look to be used more in selling and ‘occupational instead than clinical psychology’ ( Butt, 2012 ) . Mischel stated ‘that the lone thing nonsubjective about personality stock lists was their disposal and scoring’ ( Butt, 2004 ) . Alternatively the idiographic informations gathered by personal concept theory produces subjective consequences that can non be generalised and hence applied to our apprehension of traits or people as a whole ( Butt, 2012 ) .
Mischel concluded that personality proving merely produces self-concepts and personal constructs and more appropriate idiographic steps should be employed like Kelly’s ( 1955 ) repertory grid, which helps to measure an persons personal concepts. The repertory grid was devised by Kelly to arouse how persons categorise concepts by comparing and contrasting experiences and events, leting participants to entree and assess personal significances through construing. Persons construe others behaviour in footings of their ain subjective point of view. The consequences produced by repertory grid, can be subjected to factor or bunch analysis but merely in footings of the single significance instead than a cosmopolitan reading similar to Eysenck’s. Salmon ( as cited in, Butt 2012 ) adopted Kelly’s theories of single differences and integrates his doctrine and methods into larning in schools. She criticises the ‘market theoretical account of education’ , which she states ‘delivers bundles of knowledge’ that measures and classifies kids through trials and scrutinies, which removes the ‘individuality of the individual’ , making hierarchies of ability.
Like Kelly she argues that larning should be more synergistic and intersubjective, that kids need to prosecute in argument in order to explicate and dispute their ain inexplicit concepts. She believed that it is merely by the recognition of bing concepts that personal development can happen, through methods such as Kelly’s repertory grid. By following personal concept doctrine, she developed the Salmon line, which seeks to pull out the implicit by authorising pupils to specify the idiosyncratic significance of their personal outlooks around academic advancement. Salmon believed that the usage of these phenomenological methods alternatively of the generalized preset formats of trait theory, offered entree to ‘living material’ of apprehension, which encourages acquisition and alteration. ( Salmon1994, as cited in Butt 2012, p. 59 )
Salmon besides highlights the hierarchal nature of acquisition, that educational success is based on the testing and scaling pupils through scrutinies. From a Kelliyan doctrine, hierarchal constructions are unbeneficial ; his accent is on the apprehension of objects instead than labelling or comparing. Hierachical constructions raise the issue of power dealingss that Kelly points to within trait theory and most psychometric methods. As with larning environments, power can be exerted by those who administer measuring tools and how they exert the cognition that is gained. Trait theory because of its diagnostic accent has been criticised due to the pathologising nature of negative diagnosing. Richards ( 2002 ) high spots ‘reification where methodological analysis ascribes an indefensible description to an person or object’ ( p. 254 ) . It could be argued that personal concept methods such as the repertory grid and the Salmon line extinguish the labelling of persons by traits, by helping them to place their ain personal concepts and significances and hence avoiding power dealingss ( Butt, 2012 ) .
Hollway ( 2012 ) highlights the importance of agency-structure dualism when sing experimental methodological analysis. Eysenck’s proposes that traits have their accounts in unconditioned biological factors, which would propose that bureau has little or no influence on behavior and that societal factors are irrelevant, proposing that personality is fixed. Personal concept theory positions this dualism as complimentary, where the person is viewed in the context of the social environment in which they are constructed. Kelly proposes that persons have some grade of bureau because construction partially restricts through societal building and hence have an ability to originate alteration.
While persons can alter their societal and single concepts, societal construction clearly has an influence on behavior. Salmon shows through illustrations of acquisition and the application of the pink-orange line, the interaction between bureau and construction. She highlighted that ‘knowledge is ne’er impersonal it comes with the involvements and concerns of a peculiar siociocultural source’ ( Salmon, as cited in Butt, 2012, p. 59 ) , clearly bespeaking how social influences impact on the bureau of persons ( Butt, 2012 ) .
Both trait theory and personal concept theory seek to derive an apprehension and explicate why persons act in footings of single differences. Eysenck and Rachman’s trait theory adopts a nomothetic attack utilizing psychometric proving to mensurate personality traits. Kelly’s personal concept theory emphasise the singularity of persons, seeking to understand how persons construct their subjective universe positions, based on their ain experiences. Using phenomenological methods they produce elaborate histories of single personalities that avoid comparings, with an accent on reading instead than scientific account, in contrast to the psychometric tradition which sets out to detect social norms and utilize these to explicate single differences ( Butt, 2012 ) .
Eysenck lineations personality in footings of dimensions which reflect the implicit in biological footing of personality. Personal concept theory recognises the ability for alteration unlike trait theory and uses idiographic methods such as the repertory grid and the Salmon line to enable opportunity to happen, through the interaction of personal bureau and societal constructions. Salmon showed how personal concept theory can be implemented into clinical pattern, nevertheless a complete theory of personality would necessitate to embrace, construction, abnormal psychology and alteration, it would look that both theories have countries of development in both theory edifice and testing.
Mentions:
Butt, T. ( 2012 ) . Individual differences In Hollway, W. , Lucey, H. , Phoenix, A. , and Lewis, G. ( explosive detection systems ) . Social Psychology Matters ( p.1-22 ) . Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Butt, T. ( 2004 ) . Understanding people, Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave MacMillan.
Richards, G. ( 2002 ) . Puting psychological science in its topographic point, Hove, Psychology imperativeness.
