Trait and Types Approaches to Personality

Trait and Types Approaches to characterCritic entirelyy evaluate the feature and sign approach/perspective of genius, drawing on relevant research.This audition will begin by giving a description of what genius is, before going on to critically evaluate trait and eccentric person approaches of disposition.The precise definition of genius has been a contr all oversial issue over legion(predicate) years by various theorists. One definition of personality can be expound as the underlying causes of individual behavior and experience at bottom a person (Cloninger, 2000).Trait and type supposition is one of numerous personality approaches and has been an influential part of personality system and research. The basic assumption of the trait and type approach is that people make huge predispositions to respond in particular ways (Pervin, 1993). Therefore, traits argon the underlying building blocks of personality because they produce consistent patterns in our demeanor. Allport and Odbert (1936, cited in Cloninger, 2000), open that the English dictionary lists 18,000 words referring to personality traits. It is difficult to know which of these traits ar actually basic and applicable to everyone and which ones are variations of other traits. In pasture to eliminate unnecessary traits, some researchers have statistically examined which trait tally die hard to be correlated. This is done by the use of questionnaires and from this, compute summary is carried out. Factor analysis is carried out by employ a broad reduce of test items administered to many participants, which are then co varied. This enables the assignment of groups , clusters or operators of related items.Cattell (1957) proposed 16 dominant personality balances. Each of these were defined by a pair of adjectives, such as outgoing versus reserved, filter out versus relaxed and suspicious versus trusting. However, later research by other investigators, managed to reduce this round even smaller. Norman (1963, cited in Goldberg, 1990) found quin major proportions of personality, a great deal called the Big Five. This cinque-factor dumbfound is a descriptive classification of traits into broad domains called neurosis, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience. His analysis relied largely upon factor analysis. Within these dimensions are dismantle-level traits such as, talkative versus silent and sociable versus reclusive, which come under the extraversion dimension. This ride proposes that human personality can be amply described in terms of five dimensions, however in order to fully understand what an individuals personality is, the lower-level traits are undeniable.Researchers such as Costa McCrae (1992) claim that the five-factor model is the best theory of personality.Nevertheless, a number of investigators have suggested that there may be even fewer underlining dimensions (e.g. Livneh and Livneh, cited in Gl eitman, Fridlund Reisberg, 1999). However, the most influential researcher is Eysenck (1967) who found both basic dimensions of personality. He named these introversion- extroversion and neuroticism (stable-unstable). The extrovert is sociable, impulsive and enjoys new experiences, while the introvert tends to be more(prenominal) solitary, cautious and slow to change (Eysenck, 1967). Neuroticism relates to emotional stability, and Eysenck (1967) states that neuroticism/emotional stability and extroversion/introversion are independent dimensions. Introverts and many neurotics have something in common, they are both unsociable and withdrawn, but their drop of sociability has different roots. Introverts are non afraid of cordial activities, they besides dont like them, however, neurotically shy people livelihood to themselves through fear of joining in.In the 1970s, Eysenck added psychoticism onto his existing deuce dimension classification. People spicy on this dimension te nd to be insensitive, lumpen about others and opposed to accepted social custom (Pervin, 1993). This third dimension is similar to two of the Big Five dimensions, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and Eysenck regards them as organism components of the psychoticism dimension. Although Eysenck (1967) does not include openness to experience in his approach, he deals that it is all historic(p) because it is related to cognitive and educational traits, including intelligence. An alternative five-factor model was also proposed by Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thornguist Kiers (1991, cited in Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta Kraft, 1993), and adds impulsive sensation seeking, aggression-hostility and activity to sociability and neuroticism-anxiety to the model.The Big five factor model has been challenged by Waller and Ben-Porath (1987, cited in McCrae and Costa, 1989), claiming that additional research is needed in order to relate the five-factor model to alternative personality systems. However, more research has been carried out by McCrae and Costa (1989), in which they provided severalize that the model can be used to organise the Murray needs measured by Jacksons (1974) personality Research Form.Another admonition of the five-factor model comes from McAdams (1992), who claims that although this model may be an important one in the mull over of personality, it is far from being an integrative model of personality. He also states that because the five factors are so broad, trait scores may not be highly useful in the prediction of specific conduct in particular situations (McAdams, 1992). However, Digman (1990), states that the five-factor models main aim was to be semi semiempirical and compatible with other major psychological theories, and this has been achieved.The Big five-factor theory and the deuce-ace-factor theory seem to agree on two basic points. First, Cattells, (1967, cited in Zuckerman et al, 1993) 16-factor personality theory has too many dim ensions. Research has also shown that these factors do not seem to be replicable across gender, age, or methods and many investigators have just now failed to find them. The sulphur point is that in the five- and three-factor models, they both agree that two of the major factors are extraversion-introversion and neuroticism. However, there is less agreement on the lower level traits, as proposed by Norman (1963, cited in Gleitman, 1999).In an empirical analysis carried out by Zuckerman et al (1993), they found that there was a great deal of convergence among the major factors in the three-trait models, particularly the two five-factor models. Extroversion and neuroticism are fairly similar in all three models, despite differences in their components.Much research has been carried out in order to support Eysencks approach. Two questionnaires were developed to measure extroversion and introversion. One is called the Maudsley personality inventory and the other the Eysenck Personalit y Inventory, which includes a carapace that detects individuals who are faking responses. An example of a question in these questionnaires would be, do you elect reading to meeting people?. From the data obtained, they found that individual variations in introversion/extroversion reflect differences in neurophysiological functioning. Introverts are more easily aroused by events and more restrained and inhibited than extroverts. In fact, several studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that heredity plays a major part in their scores on this dimension (Shields, 1976, cited in Pervin, 1993). It was also found that people high on neuroticism tend to be emotionally susceptible and frequently complain of worry and anxiety, as well as bodily aches, such as headaches. It was suggested that individual differences was payable to an inherited biological difference in nervous system functioning. Individuals high on neuroticism show a slower decrease in the stress response once the p roblem has gone and genetic factors add significantly to psychoticism (Pervin, 1993).In a study carried out by Barrett, Petrides, Eysenck Eysenck (1998), the factorial similarity of extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and social desirableness were assessed using gender-specific data collected from 34 countries across the world. They used the Kaiser-Hunka Bianchini (KHB) procedure, however, this procedure was modified due to previous criticism of the validity of this procedure. Eysenck has suggested that it is necessary to collect data for cross-cultural comparisons between countries and cultures using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), as the main measuring instrument. The main aim was to compare the factorial social organization of the EPQ within individually country, to that of a UK dataset. This comparison would ramp up whether there is universality of the psychometric scales of extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and social desirability.Eysenck and Eysenc k (1985, cited in Barrett et al. 1998), claimed that extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and social desirability would prove to be universal across countries and cultures because these scales are based upon a biological theory of personality. Although social desirability has not been specified in this way, Eysenck still claims that there will also be universality. The results found that the factors of extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and social desirability were strongly replicable across all of the 34 countries.The trait and type theory approach does seem to be effective in describing and providing evidence for personality. Generally in the study of personality, trait psychologists seek to discover the psychological dimensions along which people differ and the ways in which traits cluster within individuals the major focus being on enduring behaviour (Buss, 1989). The trespass of experimental manipulations is not always investigated, because the focus is on the conten t of behaviour not the psychological process underlying the behaviour. This has been debated by many researchers e.g. Mischel (1968, cited in Hjelle, 1992).An experiment by Fenigstein (1979, cited in Buss, 1989), investigated whether manipulations are crucial determinants of behaviour. He fixed each participant (with different degrees of public self-consciousness) in a postponement room with two other participants, who were experimental accomplices. In the control spring these accomplices responded to conversation by the participant, but did not respond in the experimental condition. This manipulation found that participants high in the public self-consciousness trait, describe high levels of discomfort and tended to avoid choosing the accomplices as subsequent partners in the second part of the experiment, compared to those participants low on this trait. This empirical research seems to suggest that traits do have an impact on behaviour, and experimental manipulations signific antly influence behaviour (Buss, 1989).Another criticism of the trait theory approach is with the use of factor analysis. The results obtained from this, relies heavily on the exact contents of the date set. Therefore, if the items included in the analysis are changed, the resulting factors may be significantly different. Consequently critics argue that it is difficult to claim that any single factor analysis allows us to identify the real dimensions of personality.In conclusion, it seems that the study of personality is not as clear cut as one would hope. Although there appears to be many similarities among the trait theorists, there are also differences between them. It is also important to point out that there are many other approaches and perspectives of personality behaviourist, social cognition and dynamic perspectives, which may provide a more complete understanding of personality. No one model seems to be clutch in accounting for the whole theory of personality, but it see ms apparent that each theorist does provide a valuable theory of personality.ReferencesBarrett, P.T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G. Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire An psychometric test of the factorial similarity of P, E, N and L across 34 countries. Personality and Indiviudal Differences, 25, 805-819.Buss, A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1348-1378.Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. bracing York Harcourt, Brace, WorldCloninger, S. C. (2000). Theories of personality Understanding persons. (3rd Ed). Upper Saddle River, N.J Prentice Hall.Costa, P. T. McCrae, R. R. (1992). quadruple ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL Charles C Thomas.Gl eitman, H., Fridlund, A. J. F. Reisberg, D. (1999). Psychology. (5th Ed). New York W.W. Norton.Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 1299-1314.Hjelle, L. A., Ziegler, D. J. (1992). Personality theories canonic assumptions, research and applications. New York McGraw-Hill.McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five factor model in personality A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329-355.McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., (1989). More reasons to adopt the five factor model. American Psychologist, 44, 1001-1004.Pervin, L. A. (1993). Personality Theory and research. (6th Ed). New York WileyZuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P. Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757-768.