The Case of Anna O.

                                        The Case of Anna O.

     Dissociative Identity Disorder, or Multiple Personality Disorder, is the most severe dissociative disorder. Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) involves two or more distinct personalities that exist in one person. Each of these personalities maintains its own pattern of behavior, thinking, and relationships (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). The relationship between personalities is often complex. Only one personality is dominant at a time and in most cases the core personality is unaware of the other personalities. However, some personalities may be away of the others. The individual maintains his or her own original identity (Hansell & Damour, 2008). The host personality is the one which usually retains the legal name, helps in maintaining employment, relationships, and responsibilities. 

     The etiology of Dissociative Identity Disorder can be explained through several components. These components include biological, psychodynamic, behavioral, cognitive, and social/sociocultural. Psychodynamic researchers believe that dissociative disorders are the result of the individual’s use of repression to block unpleasant or traumatic events (Sue, Sue, & Sue, 2010). The belief is that dissociation of mental processes occurs when complete repression does not occur. Dissociation may also explain the disruption of personal identity. Dissociative Identity Disorder also involves the mechanism of splitting (Hansell & Damour, 2008). In DID, splitting refers to the splitting of the good and bad of an individual. Thus, different personalities are developed. Dissociative Identity Disorder can occur after traumatic childhood events, such as abuse, as well as the inability to cope with them. Biological components involve the brain structure and processes. Some research has shown a link between DID and NMDA receptor antagonists, serotonergic hallucinogens, and cannabinoids (Hansell & Damour, 2008). Other research focuses more on the brain structures such as the hippocampus and amygdale. The hippocampus is associated with memories. Inhibition of this region is believed to be associated with the switching of personalities. It is also believed that a chronic activation of a stress response in childhood trauma can result in permanent structural changes in the brain (Sue, Sue, & Sue, 2010). This results in a reduction of volume of the hippocampus and amygdala and hampers the ability of the brain to integrate emotional memories. This explains why memories are not shared between personalities. Behavioral, cognitive, and social/sociocultural components have less prominence in etiology than psychodynamic and biological. Behavioral components are based on the role of operant conditioning. Behaviorists believe that a disruption of the reinforcements causes a split in personality. In the past, cognitive psychologists used the self – hypnosis theory to explain dissociative disorders. Modern cognitive psychologists believe dissociative disorders are the result of disruptions in memory and attention. The Sociocognitive Model of DID is the basis of the sociocultural perspective (Sue, Sue, & Sue, 2010). This model states that patients may learn about DID through the mass media and then enact the behaviors. In 1973 there was a publication released entitled Sybil where the main subject had sixteen personalities (Sue, Sue, & Sue, 2010). Thus, the mean number of personalities in DID patients grew from three to twelve.

     The Case of Anna O. tells the story of a woman with DID. Anna first sought treatment for a persistent cough (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). By using hypnosis, Anna’s physician Josef Breuer attempted to have her remember events leading up to the initial visit. Some researchers believe that this hypnosis was the cause of Anna’s DID. This assumption would fall in line with the psychodynamic perspective. Anna discussed events such as her childhood and the distress of caring for her ailing father. These events also could have contributed to Anna’s disorder. Some researchers believe that DID is a learned response within the family (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). Due to this, at least one parent is disturbed. Individuals most likely to develop DID include those abused as children, those under significant stress, and those that have experiences maternal rejection. Anan fit into all of these. It is the belief that Anna was generally emotionally abused in that her father and mother, among other factors, stifled her emotional need of independence (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). During the course of Anna’s treatment, two different personalities emerged. Personality 1 was a melancholy personality because of the gaps in consciousness, mood swings, and possible hallucinations (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). Personalities differ and sometimes even are complete opposites of one another. This was the case with Anna. Personality 2 had more antisocial qualities, including being abusive towards others, and displaying odd and rebellious behaviors; Anna called this personality “naughty” (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009, p. 61). Breuer ended his treatment with Anna. She was later hospitalized for morphine addiction. However, she exhibited symptoms of DID: inability to speak her native language, absences of consciousness, and a feeling of missing time (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). Anna was able to make a recovery from her disorder and live a productive life.   

 

References

Hansell, J., & Damour, L. (2008). Abnormal Psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Meyer, R., Chapman, L. K., & Weaver, C. M. (2009). Case Studies in Abnormal Behavior (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., & Sue, S. (2010). Ubderstanding Abnormal Behavior (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Plagiarism: Using someone else's work without giving proper credit, is plagiarism. If you use my work, please reference it. 

The Case of Virginia Woolf

 The Case of Virginia Woolf

            Mood disorders are a disturbance in an individual’s emotions. These disturbances can cause discomfort or hinder function. One mood disorder is bipolar disorder. In bipolar disorder, depression is accompanied by manic episodes. Bipolar has a generally slow onset. However, the onset of manic episodes may be sudden (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). Evidence shows that an individual’s life history may feature symptoms in childhood or adolescence. These symptoms may become more intense during the lifespan. Many creative individuals, such as Virginia Woolf, were believed to have bipolar disorder. The Case of Virginia Woolf demonstrates the severity of bipolar disorder.

            Virginia Woolf began exhibiting symptoms of bipolar disorder in her early teens. Virginia was very close to her mother and took her death hard. Around this time, Virginia had what was considered her first breakdown (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). After her father’s death, Virginia had a more extreme breakdown. Virginia suffered from breakdowns during adulthood as well. These breakdowns usually occurred during the final stages of her writing projects. Her husband, Leonard, began to detect when episodes were beginning and enforced rest for Virginia. This helped her from having relapses. However in 1941, Virginia suffered from another attack and took her own life.

            There are several characteristics related to bipolar disorder. These symptoms fall under affective, cognitive, behavioral, and physiological. The affective symptoms include elevated, expansive, or irritable moods, boundless energy, enthusiasm, and self – assertion. If the individual becomes frustrated, he or she may become profane or belligerent. In Virginia’s episodes, it was reported that she had intense irritable moments. Cognitive characteristics include grandiosity, flightiness, pressured thoughts, lack of focus, and attention, and poor judgment. Speech is accelerated. The individual may change topics mid – sentence and use irrelevant phrases. It was reported that Virginia Woolf often talked rapidly during her episodes. Behavioral characteristics include inhibition and episodes of mania. The classification of bipolar depends on the type of manic episodes experienced; manic or hypomanic. Virginia Woolf experienced manic episodes. In these episodes, the individual exhibits disruptive behavior, pronounced overactivity, grandiosity, hallucinations, and delusions. During her episodes, Virginia believed her nurses were evil and at one point, believed she heard birds chirping in Greek and King Edward VII was hiding in the bushes (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). Physiological characteristics include decreased need for sleep and weight loss or gain. Those individuals with manic episodes are much more debilitated than those with hypomanic episodes. Several characteristics of mania may be confused with schizophrenic episodes. However, there are differences between the two. For instance, schizophrenics are controlled by internal thoughts and ideas; whereas, manics are controlled by external stimuli (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). A complication of untreated bipolar is suicide. Statistics show that 15% of these untreated cases end in suicide. Virginia Woolf lived during a time period where most bipolar cases were treated with only rest. Therefore, Virginia committed suicide believing there was no relief from her symptoms. At the time of her death, Virginia had what was classified as Bipolar I.

            The etiology of bipolar depression involves components such as biological, cognitive, behavioral, psychodynamic, and sociocultural. Most studies focus on depression more than mania (Sue, Sue, & Sue, 2010). The most prominent factor appears to be biological. Biological factors include genetics, neurochemical, and hormonal. Some reasons that depression may occur are dysfunctions in neurotransmission, brain structures affected, and dysregulation in the brain activation system. Mania may be caused by elevated serotonin transporter availability (Sue, Sue, & Sue, 2010). Cognitive causes include how the individual views certain aspects of his or her life. These aspects include themselves, world, and futures. This is called the negative cognitive triad. Behavioral causes include interruption of reinforcements, as developed by Skinner, from the environment. Freud developed the psychodynamic components of depression. He believed that depression was similar to grief. In his research, Freud concluded that depression has roots in the experiences of loss or disappointment (Hansell & Damour, 2008). These experiences resulted in anger. Sociocultural causes include low self – esteem and a weak social support system. Based upon the etiology of depression, Virginia Woolf’s bipolar disorder could have biological or psychodynamic components. Without the proper research and studies on Virginia, biological factors cannot be ruled out. According to Freud, depression has roots in grief. Virginia’s first attack occurred after her mother passed away. She then spent time torn between loving her father and despising him for his actions (Meyer, Chapman, & Weaver, 2009). Freud’s theories involved anger at the disappointing person. Virginia suffered her second attack after her father passed away. She had a strong support system through her husband who loved her and took care of her even when she did not reciprocate his feelings.

            Bipolar disorder interferes with an individual’s functioning. Symptoms and characteristics are similar to other disorders. However, there are ways to distinguish them. Virginia Woolf lived in an era where there was little treatment for her disorder. While bipolar disorder spurred Virginia’s creativity, it was also what cost Virginia her life.

References

Hansell, J., & Damour, L. (2008). Abnormal Psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Meyer, R., Chapman, L. K., & Weaver, C. M. (2009). Case studies in abnormal behavior (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., & Sue, S. (2010). Understanding Abnormal Behavior (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Plagiarism: Using someone else's work without giving proper credit, is plagiarism. If you use my work, please reference it. 

Historical Perspectives of Abnormal Psychology

Historical Perspectives of Abnormal Psychology

Abnormal psychology is a controversial and fascinating area of study. There is no universally agreed upon definition of abnormal psychology; only approximate definitions. Abnormal psychology, also called psychopathology, is the scientific study with the objectives of describing, explaining, predicting, and controlling those behaviors considered to be strange or unusual. Abnormal psychology has evolved over time including the development of criteria to define abnormality.

Origins and Evolution of Abnormal Psychology

Abnormal psychology has changed throughout its history. Many of the current attitudes and ideas of abnormal psychology have been influenced by earlier beliefs. Beliefs associated with abnormal psychology date back to the prehistoric and ancient eras. During this period, abnormal behaviors were believed to be evil spirits. These evil spirits were believed to be inhibiting and controlling an individual’s body. Behaviors were treated with methods such as trephining and exorcism. Trephining is a surgical method in which a part of the skull was chipped away. This allowed the evil spirits to leave the body (Sue, Sue,  & Sue, 2010). Much of this period involved the belief that illness was caused by demonic possession or sorcery. During the next period, the Greco – Roman period, naturalistic explanations were developed. These explanations differed from the supernatural ones from before. Hippocrates was one of the earliest thinkers who developed a more rational and scientific explanation for mental disorders (Sue, Sue,  & Sue, 2010). Researchers of this period believed that organic causes explained mental illness rather than demons. Hippocrates believed that the brain was the center of intellectual activity. Therefore, deviant behavior was caused by a dysfunction of the brain. In the Middle Ages, supernatural explanations were once again prevalent. During the Dark Ages period of the Middle Ages, supernatural and naturalistic explanations were fused together. During this period, illnesses were believed to be the result of supernatural forces but also from natural causes. Many people believed illnesses to be a punishment from sin. During the Witchcraft period, people believed that mentally ill individuals were witches although there was little evidence to prove it. During the Renaissance, there were advances in science and humanism. From this period to modern times, reforms were made to the causes and treatments of abnormal psychology. Treatments were more humane than in previous eras. More organized and scientific research was developed in the study of abnormality.

Challenges to Defining and Classifying Normal and Abnormal Behavior

Five criteria for defining abnormality were developed. These criteria were help, seeking, irrationality and dangerousness, deviance, emotional distress, and significant impairment (Hansell & Damour, 2008). Criteria used in defining abnormality use a statistical deviation of a normative standard. This creates some challenges. First, the criteria fail to take differences in place, time, and community standards in account. Second, the criteria does not provide any basis for distinguishing between desirable and undesirable deviations from the norm (Sue, Sue,  & Sue, 2010). Another challenge is that people who go in different directions, such as artistically, politically, or intellectually may be seen as abnormal simply because they do not conform to what is considered the norm. Another challenge statistical criteria may present is that widely distributed yet undesirable characteristics may be defined as normal. Culture also poses a challenge in defining abnormality. According to Sue, Sue, & Sue, “If deviations from the majority are considered abnormal, then many ethnic and racial minorities who show strong subcultural differences from the majority must be classified as abnormal” (2010, p. 9). According to the criteria developed, abnormality may be identified by determining those individuals who seek help. This criterion is not always accurate. Most people with significant problems do not seek help. On the other hand, many people seek help for normal life stress. Under the criterion of irrationality and dangerousness, mental illness involves irrational, dangerous, and out – of – control behaviors. In actuality, self destructive behaviors are only associated with a few disorders. Predicting dangerousness is not always easy. No criterion is directly correlated with it (Sue, Sue,  & Sue, 2010). Not all mental disorders involve extreme behaviors as deviance suggests. Emotional distress is one of the best criteria for defining abnormality. Emotional distress is a central feature in most illnesses and a minor feature in others (Hansell & Damour, 2008). However, many forms of emotional distress, such as grieving, are normal. Significant impairment is the best defining criteria of abnormality. However, some psychological impairments can be caused by physical injuries or diseases.

Theoretical Models Related to the Development of Abnormal Psychology

Theoretical models were established to explain the etiology, or causes, of abnormal behaviors. The common models consist of biological, psychological, social, and sociocultural. Biological etiology involves genetics, brain anatomy, biochemical imbalances, the central nervous system functioning, and autonomic nervous system reactivity. Psychological etiology involves personality, emotions, stress coping, learning, self – esteem, cognition, developmental history, self – efficacy, and values. Social etiology involves family, relationships, social support, belonging, love, marital status, and community. Sociocultural etiology includes religion, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, gender, culture, and ethnicity. While one – dimensional models are important, multi – path models provide a better and more organized framework for understanding the etiology of abnormality (Sue, Sue,  & Sue, 2010). Multi – path models combine the individual models to determine the numerous causes of an illness.

Conclusion

Abnormal psychology is a complex field of study. Abnormal psychology has roots from prehistoric and ancient eras. From those early roots, abnormal psychology has developed more advanced and scientific methods of research. These methods have helped form a better definition of abnormal psychology. The etiology of illnesses is vital in classifying and treating the illnesses.

References

Hansell, J., & Damour, L. (2008). Abnormal Psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sue, D., Sue, D. W., & Sue, S. (2010). Understanding Abnormal Behavior (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Plagiarism: Using someone else's work without giving proper credit, is plagiarism. If you use my work, please reference it.

Six Core Concepts in Abnormal Psychology

**What six core concepts continue to shape the field of abnormal psychology?  What is the purpose of these concepts?  What role do they play in abnormal psychology?**

There are six core concepts that continue to shape the field of abnormal psychology. The six core concepts are tools that aid us in the field of abnormal psychology by helping us to answer questions about behavior and the person performing the behavior.  These concepts help us to explore and answer questions such as how we decide who is abnormal, the kind of abnormality, causes, and treatments.  According to Hansell and Damour, the six core concepts are:

-         The importance of context in defining and understanding abnormality.

-          The continuum between normal and abnormal behavior.

-          Cultural and historical relativism in defining and classifying abnormality.

-          The advantages and limitations of diagnosis.

-          The principle of mutual causality.

-           The connection between time and body. (Hansell & Damour, 2008, p. 5)

These concepts help the psychologist to understand the differences between what is “normal” and “abnormal”. Without this, there would be no guide to help discover the abnormality of a behavior or person.

Hansell, J., & Damour, L. (2008). Abnormal Psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

 

Theoretical Perspectives: Dispositional Theories

Theoretical Perspectives: Dispositional Theories

There are many different theories in explaining personality. Dispositional theories explain the relationship between traits and personality. Two of the most well known dispositional theories are Allport’s Psychology of the Individual Theory and Trait and Factor Theories. Gordon Allport, Hans Eysenck, Robert McCrae, and Paul Costa Jr are the more common of the dispositional theorists. The assumptions vary from those of the other theorists. However, just as the other theories, the dispositional theories provide a basis for the study of personality.

Assumptions

Allport's Psychology of the Individual Theory

Gordon Allport developed the Psychology of the Individual Theory. The basis of this theory was the “uniqueness, variety, and continuity of personal growth” (Bertocci, 1940, p.501). Allport accepted some beliefs from other theorists; however he also believed that no one theorist could completely explain personality. While previous theorists emphasized the unconscious, Allport focused more on the conscious. An important assumption of Allport’s theory is that of the psychologically mature personality. Within this personality, there is proactive behavior. Proactive behavior includes the belief that one’s behavior is of conscious acting rather than unconscious. Allport further defined the psychologically mature personality as having a relatively trauma free childhood (Feist & Feist, 2009). Another assumption of this theory is the structure of personality. His primary unit of personality was dispositions. Allport compared personal dispositions to common traits. Common traits are held commonly by a group of people such as a culture; whereas, a personal disposition is unique to the individual. Allport placed dispositions into levels. The highest level is cardinal dispositions. This level is so dominating that it cannot be hidden from others (Feist & Feist, 2009). However, it is Allport’s belief that most people do not have this level of disposition. The next level is central disposition. This level is the five to ten traits that an individual’s life focuses around. The final level of dispositions is secondary. An individual may have many of these dispositions. However, they are not central to an individual. Allport also discussed proprium. Proprium is the concept that individuals see certain characteristics as his or her own and are central and important (Feist & Feist, 2009). However, proprium does not define the whole personality.

Trait and Factor Theories

Trait and Factor Theories emphasize the use of a factor analysis. This method is a mathematical procedure used to reduce a large number of variables to a few (Feist & Feist, 2009). Trait and Factor theorists use this method in order to reduce a large number of traits down to a few to define an individual’s personality. Factors may be unipolar or bipolar. Examples of unipolar traits are height, weight, and intelligence. Examples of bipolar traits are introversion versus extraversion and liberalism versus conservatism. Hans Eysenck rejected psychoanalysis but accepted behaviorism (Rose, 2010). This tended to show through his theory. He devised four criteria for identifying factors. First, the evidence for the factor’s existence should be reliable and replicable. Second, the factor must fit an established genetic model (Feist & Feist, 2009). Third, the factor should make sense from a theoretical view. Last, the factor should be socially relevant. Eysenck also developed the Hierarchy of Behavior Organization. The lowest level is specific behaviors or thoughts. These may be characteristic of the individual. However, they may also be uncharacteristic of the individual. The next level is habitual behaviors and thoughts. These occur under similar situations. The third level is traits. Traits develop from several habitual responses (Feist & Feist, 2009). The fourth level is types, also called superfactors. Types are comprised of several interrelated traits. Eysenck also developed the Dimensions of Personality or the Giant Three. These were the superfactors in Eysenck’s hierarchy. Eysenck’s dimensions were extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Eysenck acknowledged that other dimensions could be added later. Based upon his dimensions, Eysenck developed four personality inventories to measure these superfactors. The first was the Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI). However, the MPI only measured extraversion and neuroticism. Eysenck then developed the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). This inventory assessed extraversion and neuroticism independently where the MPI did not. A third inventory was developed called the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).This inventory included the psychoticism factor. The fourth inventory was called the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire – Revised which addressed the criticisms of the EPQ. McCrae and Costa researched further than the Giant Three. They developed the Big Five. McCrae and Costa discovered extraversion and neuroticism just as Eysenck had. They also discovered openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness as superfactors.    

Strengths and Limitations

Allport's Psychology of the Individual Theory

All theories have strengths and limitations. One criticism of Allport’s theory is that it was not based on scientific investigations. Instead his theory was based more on speculation (Feist & Feist, 2009). However, Allport’s writings do constitute the theory. His writings did generate hypotheses although unhealthy individuals were not covered. Allport’s writings were a good basis for future personality theorists. Allport’s theory generated research primarily in religion, values, and prejudice. Some of Allport’s findings are not able to be verified or falsified. When it comes to organization of theory, some of known human personality cannot be integrated into the theory (Feist & Feist, 2009). Although Allport acknowledged the unconscious, his theories did not explain behaviors caused by the unconscious. Allport’s theory serves as a good stepping stone for practitioners to use.

Trait and Factor Theories

Trait and Factor theorists organize personality into classifications (Feist & Feist, 2009). These theories have generated a significant amount of research. One important outcome of research is that the Big Five of personality can be found in different cultures thus aiding in the validity of the theory. Eysenck’s research results have not been replicated by other researchers (Feist & Feist, 2009). Some of McCrae and Costa’s findings can be falsified. The Trait and Factor Theories provide a good framework for the organization of human personality. There has been much debate in the consistency of these theories. For example, Eysenck developed the Giant Three and McCrae and Costa developed the Big Five. These are two closely related theories with very noticeable differences. However, the method of factor analysis is precise  (Feist & Feist, 2009). The Trait and Factor Theories are comprehensive and structured. However, they are not useful to individuals such as parents, teachers, and counselors. These theories are most useful for researchers. 

Conclusion

While many other theories tended to account for the unconscious, the dispositional theories emphasized the conscious. While other theories focused on the behaviors, dispositional theories focused on the individual. Gordon Allport used personal dispositions as the unit of personality. The Trait and Factor theorists used traits as the unit of personality. These theorists attempted to prove the relationship between unique characteristics and behavior in individuals. These theories have strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses make these theories as valid as any other theory. While these theories do have some flaws, they are sound beginnings for personality research and theory. 

References

Bertocci, P. A. (1940). A critique of G.W. Allport's theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 47(6), 501-532. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/614266456?accountid=35812

Feist, J., & Feist, G. (2009). Theories of Personality (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Rose, S. (2010). Hans Eysenck's controversial career. The Lancet, 376(9739), 407-408. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067361061207X

Plagiarism:

Using someone else's work without giving proper credit, is plagiarism. If you use my work, please reference it.

Theoretical Perspectives: Humanistic

Theoretical Perspectives: Humanistic

One of the perspectives in psychology is the humanistic perspective. The humanistic perspective states that a person has an innate goodness. A person also has the desire to achieve higher levels of potential. Humanistic theorists believe the core of personality is made up of the conscious motivation to improve as well as the individual’s unique impulses. Two of the most popular humanistic theories are the Holistic – Dynamic Theory created by Abraham Maslow and the Person – Centered Theory created by Carl Rogers. These theories have been used to understand personality. These theories have also been criticized on their effectiveness and validity.

Assumptions

The assumptions of the humanistic perspective are different than those of the psychodynamic perspective. The psychodynamic perspective focuses on the unconscious; whereas, the humanistic perspective focuses on the conscious. The primary assumption of the humanistic theories is that behavior is motivated by needs, primarily self – actualization. Maslow’s theory proposes the Hierarchy of Needs as the path to self – actualization. Rogers’ theory proposes the actualization tendency as the path to self – actualization. While Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs motivate a person towards a reduction of deficiency, self – actualization is a growth need (Heylighen, 1992). Maslow’s theory states that self – actualization is achieved when all other needs met. However, self – actualization appears to be a never – ending process. According to both theories, the whole person is motivated (Feist & Feist, 2009). Self – actualization is believed to correspond to an individual’s psychological health. Maslow believed that motivation was complex; Rogers believed that matters began simple and then progressed to complex. According to the Hierarchy of Needs, all people are motivated by the same needs with self – actualization being the highest need. However, the other needs may be in a different order. According to the Actualizing Tendency, the only motivation a person possesses is self – actualization.

Strengths and Limitations

The humanistic theories have strengths and weaknesses. Maslow’s theory does not have much evidence to support his claims. This is due to the fact that his observations are difficult to reproduce. Self – actualization remains popular for research even though the term is not clearly defined. There are no methods in which to prove self – actualization in people. Both theories are useful as a guide for practitioners. They both supply the practitioner with a foundation in which to help the patient. However, Rogers’ theory lacks a solid theoretical basis (Patterson & Joseph, 2007). This has allowed for some research to disprove the theory. However, the Hierarchy of Needs included in Maslow’s theory has a logical and consistent basis. Rogers’ theory does generate research is psychotherapy and classroom learning, but not in many other areas (Feist & Feist, 2009). While Maslow’s theory has poor wording, Rogers’ theory does have consistent wording and definitions.

 Personality

Individuals who have reached self – actualization, as defined by the humanistic theories, have distinguishing characteristics. These individuals are open to experience. He or she is eager to have new experiences, learn new ideas and skills, and try new things (Heylighen, 1992). These individuals are spontaneous and natural; they do not play roles. Self – actualizing individuals do not feel restricted and are not afraid that what they are doing is wrong. Self – actualizing individuals have a general creativity. These individuals are accepting towards nature, people, and the self. They are accepting of faults and situations beyond his or her control. They have a confidence when it comes to problem solving and decision making due to personal values. They are serene in times of failure or disaster. Self – actualizing people also have imperfections. When making errors, they are quicker to admitting and correcting them (Heylighen, 1992). Self – actualizing individuals sometimes feel out of place in their own culture. At times, they seem discourteous, disrespectful, unaffectionate, or hostile. This is usually due to the detachment and unconventionality he or she feels. They may seem cold and ruthless due to the unemotional decision making in the treatment of others (Heylighen, 1992). Their non – hostile sense of humor makes them appear serious. The concentration an individual focuses on problems makes them seem stubborn, absentminded, and short tempered.

Social Interactions

Self – actualizing individuals interact with those around them although they do not need other people. Self – actualizing individuals usually make decisions for themselves with little regard to the opinions of others or of society. Self – actualizing individuals are comfortable in solitude and have a need for privacy and independence (Heylighen, 1992). Although these individuals are comfortable alone and in their own decision making abilities, they have strong social interactions with others. These individuals have a strong sense of empathy towards humanity and are friendly to everyone. Self – actualizing people will listen to and learn from others with no prejudice. They tend to be selective about who they associate with. The relationships self – actualizing individuals have with others are usually more intense. Self – actualizing individuals are secure in who they are individually that the pressures of society do not affect them.

Conclusion

Humanistic theories are focused on the individual and his or her desire to be the best that they can be. Self – actualization has been theorized to only be accomplished by few of the population. While it appears that self – actualization is a goal only to be met after all other needs are met, it is actually a gradual process of improvement (Heylighen, 1992). Humanistic theories appear to be ideal theories for personality; however, they are just stepping stones to the understanding of personality. Sections of the theories seem to make sense, but with the research available there is more to study to completely prove or disprove them.

References

Feist, J., & Feist, G. (2009). Theories of Personality (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Heylighen, F. (1992). A cognitive - systemic reconstruction of Maslow's theory of self - actualization. Behavioral Science, 37(1), 39.

Patterson, T. J., & Joseph, S. (2007). Person - Centered personality theory: support from self - determination theory and positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(1), 117-139.

Plagiarism:

Using someone else's work without giving proper credit, is plagiarism. If you use my work, please reference it.

Introduction to Personality

Introduction to Personality

Personality is a complex aspect of psychology. Theorists such as Allport, Freud, Jung, Horney, and others tried to explain personality and behavior. Through each of the theories, personality psychology developed. Research continues to explain personality even more. Research is the cornerstone of understanding psychological concepts such as personality. Factors influencing personality development are a topic widely debated in the psychological community. Depending on the theorist’s viewpoint explains where he or she believed personality arose.

Personality Defined

 Psychologists differ as to the definition of personality and few have formally defined personality (Feist & Feist, 2009). Psychologist Gordon Allport is one of the psychologists who have defined personality. Allport defined personality as “the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his or her unique adjustment to his or her environment” (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000, p. 123). Personality consists of traits and characteristics. Traits may be unique, common, or shared. Traits are consistent and displayed in different situations. Traits contribute to the differences in behavior, consistency and stability of behavior (Feist & Feist, 2009).  Characteristics are unique to an individual. Characteristics include qualities such as physical, intelligence, temperament. Together, traits and characteristics create the unique personality of an individual. Personality is an individual’s characteristic pattern of feeling, thinking, and behaving. Personality distinguishes one person from another, thus making personality unique. Personality affects the way an individual acts in situations. Personality is the force behind the consistent behaviors exhibited by an individual in different situations.

Scientific Approach to Studying Personality

Research is the basis for which psychology is understood. Methods used to study personality include observation, interviews, and rating scales. Some psychologists prefer the observational method. This is simply observing behavior and then examining these observations closely. Researchers then use these observations to create theories and hypotheses about human behavior. Psychological tests may also be used in the study of personality. These psychological tests are the standard measures to assess behavior. They are used to help a person learn more about him or herself. Researchers have worked to improve the methods and abilities to predict personality and behavior. The result of this work is the development of assessment techniques such as personality inventories. For these inventories to be useful, they must have reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the measurement consistency of the test. A reliable test gives the same result each time it is given to a specific person or group. An unreliable test would give a different result each time it is given. Validity refers to whether or not the test actually measures what it was designed to measure. There is construct validity and predictive validity. Construct validity refers to the extent the test measures a hypothetical construct (Feist & Feist, 2009). A hypothetical construct has no physical existence. Therefore a hypothetical construct could be extraversion, aggressiveness, or intelligence. Predictive validity refers to the extent that a test could predict a future behavior (Feist & Feist, 2009). Behavioral genetics and qualitative genetic studies are important in personality development research. Behavioral genetics research has resulted in evidence that genetics influence personality (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005) .

Factors that may Influence an Individual's Personality Development

Many factors may influence an individual’s personality development. These factors can be internal dispositions or external circumstances (Carson, 1989). Personality traits encompass large range of differences from individual to individual. These traits show a large amount of genetic influence (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). These traits are not immune from experience. Other biological factors, besides heredity, that can influence a person’s personality development are physique, endocrine glands, and the nervous system. Environmental factors that may influence an individual’s personality development include home life, school, maturation, experiences, successes, and failures. It would be easy to pinpoint one exact influence on development. However, that is not possible and many factors contribute to one’s personality development. This is evidenced by the many personality theories created by psychologists. Different theorists believed personality was formed by certain factors, whether biological or environmental. Personality development falls under the nature versus nature debate. The development may be influenced by one or both.

Conclusion

 Personality research is a continuing topic in psychology. The need to understand personality also includes the need to understand behavior. Theorists believe that one’s personality influences behavior. Research continues to further understand personality by using methods such as personality inventories. Factors that influence personality are also important in understanding personality of an individual. Using the work of the early theorists and improving research methods will help the study of personality. 

References

Carson, R. (1989). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 40(1), 227-248.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality Development: Stability and Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 453-484. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205849630?accountid=35812

Feist, J., & Feist, G. (2009). Theories of Personality (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and Outcomes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78(1), 122- 135. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122

Plagiarism:

Using someone else's work without giving proper credit, is plagiarism. If you use my work, please reference it.