PSY 615 Week 4 Assignment Discipline Based Literature Review

7 Oct No Comments

Discipline – Based – Based Literature Review

PSY615: Personality Theories (PYD1701A)

Discipline – Based – Based Literature Review

No matter what type of personality a person might represent there are various surveys to measure, such as self-administered questionnaires, face-to-face interview, Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), and Genetically Sensitive Multi-Group study illustrating in an experimental research design. Research suggests “although in some cases we found slightly stronger associations between interviewer and respondent personality in face-to-face settings, the results generally suggested strict measurement invariance–and therefore full comparability–across methods of data collection” (Luisa, Martin & David, 2016, p. 3).

  • Introduction
    • Assess the types of personality measurements and research designs used in the peer-reviewed articles researched (Psychodynamic, Behavioral, Trait, Learning/Social, Humanistic)

    A key influence of collecting data technique shows the impact the excellence of the study. On the other hand, the direct dialogue helps to exhaust compound tools and assists to block mistakes, and given a self-controlled interview proves a better privacy and less issues like wanted social responses, for instance. Various facts were explored during the survey, such as gender, political views, or race, because this can make a difference in behavior and is required to compare a personality count and dependability.

    The outcome offers information about “the mode of collecting data on personality traits differs widely across studies. While many of these differences may be considered innocuous, such as the differences between paper-based and computer-based self-reports, interviewees may react strongly to a face-to-face interview setting” (Luisa, Martin & David, 2016, p. 10). More, the examiners weight was a little less and similar throughout the self-administered test compared to the face-to-face questionnaire. Additionally, modifications between the various approaches are rather small and can be equaled within the modes. Furthermore, modifications within the several styles were non-substantial.

    Another intention used to understand creature’s personalities is known as the quantitative genetic research designs. This test offers predominately information about genetics influencing any person’s behavior. However, each method has its limits, such as overlooking measurement errors because of over- or underestimation of not mentioned environmental matters, or “Panel studies typically require the utilization of short scales, resulting in aggregate scores that are psychometrically inferior compared to standard, full-length scales” (Hahn, Spinath, Siedler, Wagner, Schupp, Kandler, 2012, p. 12). Wrong results during measurements of certain traits can also conclude facet- or item-specific variance. Nevertheless, this study does have its importance in studying human behavior, and the GSMGD will offer great value research in the future to evaluate data, such as different parameters, or lesser bias estimates.

    Next, the Socio-Economic Panel Study can be exhausted to better understand personalities, as well as in coming years better comprehend child development. Various questions are ask from the interviewer to the survey cluster, like income, life experiences (marriage, unemployment, so on), or money saved. Altogether, “in the future, the “margins” of the life course should play a stronger role in survey content, since household panels are able to provide outstanding data of these life phases” (S., A., F., F., J., G., M., G., O., G., H., H., & … G. G., W, 2009, p. 1).

    In conclusion, no matter which surveys and designs are consumed to consequently find answers and get true results of the various personalities each of them have pros and cons, as explained above. Therefore, all parties involved in these studies and projects need to be aware of the possible over-or under-estimations of results, and still provide permission to administer or receive the test. However, these studies and schemes are assisting greatly in evaluating types of personalities.

    Psychodynamic: In the 19th Century this approach takes epicenter, and explains “the

    • Briefly describe the main theoretical models represented within each of the perspectives of personality

    confluence of the three streams into a struggle to articulate a personally, and perhaps transcendently, meaningful science of the person” (Buchanan, 2010, p. 1). Many facts are included, some known, some are not, to help the understanding of personality. Connecting various subjects, such as experimental psychiatry, existential philosophy, and early gender psychology shows people’s light. Other effects providing knowledge of personality are “cultural moralities of personal fulfillment, the deep symbolism of Jungian archetypes, and the expansiveness of esoteric and mind-altering experiences” (Buchanan, 2010, p. 1). More, Buchanan suggests that the secret of personality lays in cultural and historical likelihood.

    Behavioral: In a brief summary, “personality is behavior, behavioral theory subsumes

    personality theory. Thus, personality is not a neglected topic in behavioral writings; it is a dependent variable, behavior to be explained itself rather than seen as a cause of behavior (Skinner 1974)” (Phelps, 2015, p. 4). This, analyzing behavior has broad information always becoming more and with better conclusive outlook und understanding, this part assists in conclusion to personality and the self.

    Trait: Life results, such as behavior and personality are connected to “personality traits,

    ranging from relationship quality to occupational attainment and success to health and life expectancy” (McAbee & Connelly, 2016, p. 1). However, people do try to not show certain traits, and hide them to not link them to personality. More, it is no mystery, understanding about traits can come with error, as well as being accurate. In the end different information documented involving trait effectiveness does not weaken research with traits. “The Trait-Reputation-Identity Model offers a unified approach to studying individual differences in our underlying personality traits, our unique self-perceptions, and the reputations we create” (McAbee & Connelly, 2016, p. 1).

    Learning/Social: Rotter believed that people want to pursue good emphasis and not to

    have to deal with negative strengthening. He trusted that “personality is a representation of the contact between the person and his environment. Therefore, his theory posits that we must consider both the individual and his environment before having a full understanding of his behavior. In line with this, Rotter believed that personality is a set of potentials that man uses to respond in certain circumstances” (Sincero, n. d., p. 1). More so, he said personality and conduct can forever be changed by environment alteration and modification of thinking. Behaving a certain ways is connected with life goals and view to enlarge rewords getting.

    Humanistic: Focused on researching healthy individuals and creating a ladder of needs.

    During people’s development they will try to all necessary to collect these needs, because if not met it will cause a person to feel anxiety, and the self-actualization would be in danger. Maslow trusted that a “self actualized person was realistic in their interaction with the world and made appropriate accommodation when goals were not attainable” (Humanistic Theories of Personality, n. d., p. 1).

    It is no mystery mutual matters are obvious for all personalities, whether people fit the

    • Explain the commonalities found across all five

    psychodynamic, behavioral, trait, learning/social, or humanistic category. Every individual do most chores after they were taught how too. For example: “We don’t even know how to do something as biologically important as have sex – unless someone tells us how or we discover sexual intercourse through trial and error” (Allen, 2016, p. 1). Furthermore, genetic guidance is a key effect influencing people’s conduct, although, researchers understand the complex matter of individual’s actions are caused by only one data or a cluster of knowledge, which are influenced by environmental elements and interpersonal surroundings.

    When evaluating the psychodynamic fact, society understand Feud’s psychoanalytic therapy, which furnishes knowledge about “a defense mechanism is a tactic developed by a person, subconsciously, to protect against anxiety – specifically, the anxiety created by conflicts within the mind over one’s biological impulses versus the values of the individual learned from his or her cultural milieu” (Allen, 20126, p. 1). For example: People wanting to pass the final exam by cheating, although, the anxiety comes into play knowing that being dishonest and not doing own work in unethical, and can ultimately cause dismissal.

    Just about all types of personality are “ultimately shaped by everyday social demands” (McAdams & Pals, 2006, p. 10). More, the five opinions assist in clarifying matters “in which certain programs of research in social psychology articulate the dynamics of personality” (McAdams & Pals, 2006, p. 11).

    To begin, any framework, also known as an outline, can assist in providing information

    • Discussion
      • The theoretical framework(s) for the selected models

    about certain subjects like evaluating certain personality models. (Mayer, n. d., p. 1). The first step is the theory of thinking, which involves humanism, and other facts. This outcome is then used for exhausting the framework organizing the arena for a certain character. Another approach could be the single-theory method, which also starts with theory of thoughts. Thereafter follows a discussion including “how personality is describe and what research is most relevant to understanding it” (Mayer, n. d., p. 3). Also, a Theory-by-theory outline focuses on a sequence of individual human philosophies. The approach is “grouped by orientation into larger classes such as dynamic or humanistic” (Mayer, n. d., p. 3). A better version of this approach is the comparative investigation, which “divided personality into a person’s innermost qualities” (Mayer, n. d., p. 4).

    Two more frameworks are known as “Individual differences approach” providing the key traits “upon which most people vary, and the implication of such variation” (Mayer, n. d., p. 4), and “Research topic approach”, which sums jointly key facts of psychology. In summary, each of the named frameworks above has certain purpose. For example: “Research topic approach” is responsible for knowing modern exploration in psychology. On the downside, “no contemporary framework is entirely adequate and the search for alternatives continues” (Mayer, n. d., p. 4).

    Many psychologists assisted in researching personalities, and why people are like they

    • The major contributors to those fields

    Are behaving and why there personality is the way other view it, such as B F. Skinner (Behavioral), Sigmund Freud (Psychoanalytic, psychodynamic), Gordon Albert (Trait), Julian Rotter (Social, Learning), Abraham Maslow (Humanistic)

    “Personality assessment, the measurement of personal characteristics. Assessment is an

    • The methods of inquiry and assessment usually associated with those models

    end result of gathering information intended to advance psychological theory and research and to increase the probability that wise decisions will be made in applied settings” (Sarazon, Holzman, 1999, p. 1). Furthermore, there are different inquiries which can be applied in assessing personality methods, such as “interview, rating scales, self-reports, personality inventories, projective techniques, and behavioral observation” (Sarazon, Holzman, 1999, p. 1).

    Psychodynamic:

    • An overview of the characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of the models

    Strength: Theory is influence from occurrences in the past, “Recognition of Subconscious

    to Affect Behavior” (Flow, Psychology Editor, 2016, p. 1), inspires individuals to take advantage of the therapy
    Weakness: Hard for people to trust the theory, if needed no insurance will cover the

    Therapy, disregard biological elements

    Behavioral:

    Strength: The key belief is exhausted even today, alteration of individuals and their view about matters, which are observable, no bias research
    Weakness: The theory does not always work; behavior can be changed in order to receive reward,

    Trait:

    Strength: Reasonably comprehensible and uncomplicated, all factors are objective, implementation is rather easy

    Weakness: no reference on how and why the traits were created, rather observational than getting through the root of any personality, relatively needy in predicting behavior

    Learning/Social:

    Strength: “ An evolving theory that is open to change  Focused on important theoretical issues, e.g., role of reward in learning, the stability of behavior  Reasonable view of people and concern with the social implications of the theory” (Nabavi, 2012, p. 18)
    Weakness:
    Not completely schematized, joined philosophy, debatable problems, such as: “Is self-efficacy just another outcome expectancy?” (Nabavi, 2012, p. 19), abandonment of certain regions, often the results being rather preliminary

    Humanistic:

    Strength: Provides knowledge on people’s behavior with greater amount, is an individual philosophy of analysis, offers centered person counseling, main emphasis on one person behavior,

    Weakness: Assists in irritation of people, promotes “Ethnocentricity of Humanistic Approach” (Flow, Psychology Editor, 2016, p. 1), shows issues with certain style of learning, familiarity is necessitated

    Strength: Great insight of behavior, focusing on just one person’s behavior, counseling which is individual-centered, pleases the idea of greatest individuals

    Weakness: Practice is necessary, problems with the learning style, advertises that participants get frustrated, or “Ethnocentricity of Humanistic Approach” (10 Humanistic Approach Strengths and Weaknesses, 2016, p. 1)

    It is important to know for all people’s involved working with these various theories that

    • Conclusion
      • Summary of evaluation addressing the current use

    different views come from different psychologists, and their understandings and evaluations. Thus, these theorists have “many different perspectives in psychology to explain the different types of behavior and give different angles. No one perspective has explanatory powers over the rest” (McLeod, 207, p. 1). Nevertheless, with all these many kinds of psychology, which at times actually controvert or intersect one another, and created “upon one another (biological and health psychologist) can we understand and create effective solutions when problems arise so we have a healthy body and a healthy mind” (McLeod, 207, p. 1).

    As a matter a fact, different viewpoints from various individuals assist in showing evidence about the multifaceted and wealth for people’s behavior, and the scientific methodology, like mental thinking and/or behaviorism has the habit of neglecting the biased occurrences, which individual’s experience. While the humanistic view acknowledge individuals occurrences, but this is hugely at the disbursement of “being non-scientific in its methods and ability to provide evidence. The psychodynamic perspective concentrates too much on the unconscious mind and childhood. As such, it tends to lose sight of the role of socialization (which is different in each country) and the possibility of free will”. (McLeod, 2007, p. 1). Lastly, the biological standpoint lowers people’s arrangements, which is plainly needed and essential. Nevertheless, it crashes to describe the perception and impact of nature on behavior. More, each understanding of these theories has their good and bad sides. Therefore, these perspectives assist in various ways to understand behavior of people.

    When citing material researched it is important to know for anybody that there are

    • Relevance of these perspectives in explaining personality citing research as appropriate

    different views and evaluations about behavior theories, because any approach is an examination about hypothesis of behavior, such as like their functions, what part is most essential to research and analyze, which method is most efficient to accept the findings. Nevertheless, there are many philosophies, but all of them have common grounds. For any person citing these approaches it is a necessity to be aware of all these matters to exhaust found material only with evidence behind.

    References

    Allen, D. M. (2016). Psychology Today. Genes, Environment, and Strategic Planning in Human

    Behavior Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/matter-personality/201612/genes-environment-and-strategic-planning-in-human-behavior

    Allen, D. M. (2016). Psychology Today. Psychodynamic Vs. Cognitive Therapy: Defense

    Mechanisms Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/matter-personality/201610/psychodynamic-vs-cognitive-therapy-defense-mechanisms

    Buchanan, T. (2010). Eugene Taylor. The Mystery of Personality: A History of Psychodynamic

    Theories. New York: Springer, 2009. 470 pp. $119.00 (hardcover). ISBN-13: 978-0387981031. Journal Of The History Of The Behavioral Sciences, 46(3), 314-315 Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=720789f1-00e2-4893-85c4-f7904e30d230%40sessionmgr107&hid=103

    Flow Psychology Editor. (2016). Flow Psychology. 6 Psychodynamic Approach Strengths and

    Weaknesses Retrieved from: http://flowpsychology.com/6-psychodynamic-approach-strengths-and-weaknesses/

    Flow Psychology Editor. (2016). Flow Psychology. 10 Humanistic Approach Strengths and

    Weaknesses Retrieved from: http://flowpsychology.com/10-humanistic-approach-strengths-and-weaknesses/

    Hahn, E., Spinath, F., Siedler, T., Wagner, G., Schupp, J., & Kandler, C. (2012). The Complexity

    of Personality: Advantages of a Genetically Sensitive Multi-Group Design. Behavior Genetics, 42(2), 221-233. doi:10.1007/s10519-011-9493-y Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e2adb870-b20e-4d72-8d0b-b5fcd2f5b4be%40sessionmgr103&vid=3&hid=103

    Luisa, H., Martin, K., & David, R. (2016). The Effect of Face-to-Face Interviewing on

    Personality Measurement. Soeppapers On Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, Retrieved from: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.545143.de/diw_sp0869.pdf

    Mayer, J. D. (n. d.). University of New Hampshire, Durham. A System Topic Framework For

    The Study Of Personality. Retrieved from: http://www.unh.edu/personalitylab/Assets/reprints-public/RP1993-1994-Mayer.pdf

    McAbee, S. T., & Connelly, B. S. (2016). A multi-rater framework for studying personality: The

    trait-reputation-identity model. Psychological Review, 123(5), 569-591. doi:10.1037/rev0000035 Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=767011a5-c2da-4c95-9b85-f803ea4c74da%40sessionmgr107&vid=6&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=2016-37456-001&db=pdhhttp://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=767011a5-c2da-4c95-9b85-f803ea4c74da%40sessionmgr107&vid=6&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=2016-37456-001&db=pdh

    McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative

    science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204-217. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204 Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c54aee5f-dbc2-4799-ae2e-3079f77d3dcf%40sessionmgr120&vid=2&hid=103

    McLeod. S. A. (2007). Simply Psychology. Psychology Perspectives Retrieved from:

    http://www.simplypsychology.org/perspective.html

    Nabavi, R. T. (2012). Research Gate. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory & Social Cognitive

    Learning Theory Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267750204_Bandura’s_Social_Learning_Theory_Social_Cognitive_Learning_Theory

    No Author. (2016). Flow Psychology. 10 Humanistic Approach Strengths and Weaknesses

    Retrieved from: http://flowpsychology.com/10-humanistic-approach-strengths-and-weaknesses/

    No Author. (n. d.). Humanistic Theories of Personality Retrieved from:

    http://home2.fvcc.edu/~rhalvers/psych/Personality3.htm

    No Author. (n. d.). Strengths and Weakness Retrieved from:

    http://students.depaul.edu/~smoore10/strengthweaknessesindex.htm

    No Author. (n. d.). Trait Theory Grasp the Fundamentals. Trait Theory Retrieved from:

    http://traittheory.com/

    Phelps, B. (2015). Behavioral Perspectives on Personality and Self. Psychological Record, 65(3),

    557-565. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0115-y Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c55d1499-7907-451a-808e-24b5fc9bd8dd%40sessionmgr107&vid=2&hid=103

    S., A., F., F., J., G., M., G., O., G., H., H., & … G. G., W. (2009). Developing SOEPsurvey and

    SOEPservice: The (Near) Future of the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). Soeppapers On Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research, Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=271b7577-087b-4285-9764-761e509185c5%40sessionmgr107&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsrep.p.diw.diwsop.diw.sp155&db=edsrephttp://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=271b7577-087b-4285-9764-761e509185c5%40sessionmgr107&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsrep.p.diw.diwsop.diw.sp155&db=edsrep

    Sarazon. I. G, Holzman, P. S. (1999). Encyclopedia Britannica. Personality assessment

    Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/science/personality-assessment

    Sincero, S. M. (n. d.). EXPLORABLE. Behaviourist Theories of Personality Retrieved from:

    https://explorable.com/behaviourist-theories-of-personality




Click following link to download this document

PSY 615 Week 4 Assignment Discipline Based Literature Review .docx