The Psychology of Personality: A Three Theory Comparison

Personality is one of the most elusive areas of psychology, its difficult to define, difficult to understand, and difficult to test. However, despite all this psychologists have come up with a number of theories to explain personality with its many facets and intricacies. Three of the major theories, and the ones to be discussed here, are the social cognitive view, humanistic view, and the biological perspective. These three are some of the most popular theories on personality to date due to their prominent supporters and founders and their contributions to modern day psychology. It is also for this reason that Freud's psychoanalytic theory, although notable, is not mentioned. Over time Freud's psychologically valid contributions have been lessened since many of his theories lack empirical evidence even to this day. As Doctor Nancy Melucci notes in her book on psychology, "Freud's most lasting contributions will be cultural and not scientific" (Melucci, 2004). That being said, it should be noted that the humanistic view on personality may be placed along the same lines; however, this will be addressed later in the humanistic view section.

Social Cognitive Theory

The impact of the social cognitive theory can largely be credited to the contributions of Albert Bandura and Julian Rotter. Bandura's theory on personality was born out of his view that the behaviorist view that personality is caused by one's environment. To Bandura, this explanation was too shallow and simple to explain the many facets seen in personality. As a result, he purposed that not only is the environment a shaper of one's personality, but that one's personality is also a shaper of one's environment. This is what Bandura called reciprocal determinism (Boeree, 2006). Bandura took this theory further still to add to it another factor, thus his complete theory on behavior came to be that a person's personality is determined by the interaction of behavior, environmental results (one's behavior's impact on the environment), and internal processing. In fact, his ideas on internal processing earned him prestige in the early cognitive world of psychology (Boeree, 2006).

Where Bandura took a wide approach to personality, it can be said that Julian Rotter took a narrower one. Rotter's approach is called the "Locus of Control" and deals with the way in which people view the world through thought or expectancy of it (Melucci, 2004). Some people might view Rotter's theories as whether we believe in control or fate. According to Rotter, those who believe that they have a great deal of influence over their lives and what happens in their lives have what he calls "an internal locus of control." Having what Rotter calls "an external locus of control" means the opposite, that one believes they have little control over their live and happens in their life. This translates to those having an internal locus of control as being better adjusted to the world. Those with a high internal locus of control are best off. Those with a high external locus of control are again the opposite with a low ability adjust and are more likely to develop "learn helplessness" which can lead to depression, among other things (Melucci, 2004). In order to determine which style of thinking a person used, Rotter devised a sort of test.

The social cognitive theory is one of the best suited because it provides a great deal of support scientifically. As previously mentioned in the brief discussion of Freud, this is something that was missing in the Psychoanalytic theory, as well as the Humanistic theory.

Humanistic View

The humanistic view, although it had the backing of psychology hard-hitters Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, fell short empirically. Additionally, the humanistic view on personality has been criticized for being overly optimistic in their outlook. Since the humanistic view is based on the idea that people are innately good and that their behavior is driven by a desire to be good, as well as the idea that a person's subjective view of the world must be taken into account or understood in order to describe personality, it's hard to explain such negative behaviors as violence, lying, and abuse (Melucci, 2004). However, the humanistic view had a great impact on the world of psychology through giant contributions to psychotherapy and is thus still considered a major leader in the personality theory department.

Maslow founded the basic views on personality, that people are innately good. He believed that a person had an innate desire for "self-actualization" the process by which a person would frame their problems as challenges or obstacles and gain a sense of self-respect. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, self-actualization is at the top of the pyramid, and thus Maslow believed that a person had to achieve each of the other levels of the hierarchy in order to be able to "self-actualize."

In addition to the Maslow contribution, Carl Rogers stepped in with another theory to place on the humanistic psychology plate. Roger's theory focused a lot more on childhood development and its ultimate contribution to personality. He theorized that a child develops an early idea of himself called a "self concept" early on in life. If and when this self concept differentiates from the "ideal self" (another concept developed at an early age) the child acts out. According to Rogers, the parents were those that had to play a critical role in shaping the child in that they have to provide unconditional positive regard, even in the face of bad behavior, in order to bring the child to a match between his ideal self and his self concept (Melucci, 2004). This concept was called the "actualizing tendency," and Rogers attributed it to all living things (Boeree, 2006). Roger's ideas on this concept as applied to animals, plants and the ecosystem, are actually quite fascinating.

Biological Perspective

Today it seems we want to explain everything through biology or, more specifically a genetic factor or biological feature. Is it a negative thing? Only if the subject matter really can't be explained through biology. However, while researcher have yet to determine a strong genetic or biological link there have been some interesting and rather convincing events. One of the strongest links to a biological basis is the case of Phineas Gage. Mr. Gage was involved in an accident that left him with a metal rod through his skull. This metal rod destroyed a significant chunk of his frontal lobe. Mr. Gage went from being a polite, modest man to an impulsive, foul-mouthed individual (Macmillan, 2006). This incident, although tragic has led to a great deal of study on the brain's impact in personality. Additionally, according to Doctor Anna Romero and Doctor Steve Kemp "Early studies (into serotonin) indicate that some personality characteristics, such as neuroticism, as measured by trait-based scales, correlate with the genetic profiles of people's 5-HTT (serotonin transporter) gene site" (2007).

Both the Gage case, and this new serotonin transporter research has opened up a wide range of study fields for those studying the biological basis of personality. For the time being, it seems all studies are up in the air and only time will tell the answer. However, new scientific techniques and machinery is promising.

References:

Boeree, G. Ph.D. (2006). Personality Theories. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from Shippensburg University Website: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/bandura.html

Macmillan, M. (2006). Phineas Gage Information. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from Deakin University Website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/hmnbs/psychology/gagepage/

Melucci, N. Ph.D. (2004). Psychology. Barron's Educational Series, Hauppauge, NY

Romero, A, & Kemp, S (2007). PsychologyDemystified.New York City: McGraw Hill.