Fluent Essays

Question and book are attached Please submit 3 multiple choice quiz questions for the material covered in chapters 1 & 2. Your questions should contain a stem with 4 multiple choice options. Please identify the correct answer and the page number on which the answer can be found. Personality Theory in a Cultural Context By: Mark Kelland Personality Theory in a Cultural Context By: Mark Kelland Online: < http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1/ > OpenStax-CNX This selection and arrangement of content as a collection is copyrighted by Mark Kelland. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Collection structure revised: November 4, 2015 PDF generated: November 4, 2015 For copyright and attribution information for the modules contained in this collection, see p. 496. Table of Contents 1 Introduction to Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Culture and Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3 Sigmund Freud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4 Alfred Adler and Harry Stack Sullivan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5 Neo-Freudian Perspectives on Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6 Karen Horney and Erich Fromm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 7 Psychology of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 8 Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 9 Viktor Frankl, Rollo May, and Existential Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 10 Trait Theories of Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 11 Biology and Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 12 Erik Erikson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 13 Carl Jung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 14 Yoga and Buddhism as Personality Development Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 15 Religious Perspectives on Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 16 African Perspective on Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 17 Learning Theory and Personality Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 18 Social Learning Theory and Personality Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 19 Cognitive Perspectives on Personality Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 20 Personality Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 21 References for Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494 Attributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .496 iv Available for free at Connexions <http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1> Chapter 1 Introduction to Personality 1 When you �rst think of personality, what comes to mind? When we refer to certain people as being �personalities,� we usually mean they are famous, people like movie stars or your favorite band. When we describe a person as having �lots of personality,� we usually mean they are outgoing and fun-loving, the kind of person we like to spend time with. But does this tell us anything about personality itself? Although we may think we have an understanding of what personality is, professional psychologists always seek to move beyond what people think they know in order to determine what is actually real or at least as close to real as we can come. In the pursuit of truly understanding personality, however, many personality theorists seem to have been focused on a particularly Western cultural approach that owes much of its history to the pioneering work of Sigmund Freud. Freud trained as a physician with a strong background in biomedical research. He naturally brought his keen sense of observation, a characteristic of any good scientist, into his psychiatric practice. As he worked with his patients, he developed a distinctly medical model: identify a problem, identify the cause of the problem, and treat the patient accordingly. This approach can work quite well, and it has worked wonderfully for medical science, but it has two main weaknesses when applied to the study of personality. First, it fails to address the complexity and uniqueness of individuals, and second, it does not readily lend itself to describing how one chooses to develop a healthy personality. 1This content is available online at <http://cnx.org/content/m58007/1.2/>. Available for free at Connexions <http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1> 1 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO PERSONALITY Figure 1.1 The diversity that is the human experience can be seen in the faces of the people around us. Quite soon in the history of personality theory, however, there were in�uential theorists who began to challenge Freud's perspective. Alfred Adler, although a colleague of Freud's for a time, began to focus on social interest and an individual's style of life. Karen Horney challenged Freud's perspective on the psychology of women, only to later suggest that the issue was more directly related to the oppression of women as a minority, rather than a fundamental di�erence based on gender. And there were Carl Jung and Carl Rogers, two men profoundly in�uenced by Eastern philosophy. Consequently, anyone in�uenced by Jung or Rogers has also been in�uenced, in part, by Eastern philosophy. What about the rest of the world? Have we taken into account the possibility that there are other, equally valuable and interesting perspectives on the nature of people? Many �elds in psychology have made a concerted e�ort to address cross-cultural issues. The primary purpose of this textbook is to address some of these di�erent cultural perspectives, and to compare them to, and contrast them with, the traditional Western perspectives. In addition, we will examine the relationships between the traditional approaches as well. In particular, the �nal section of this book introduces a number of paths developed throughout history to help people choose how to live their lives. Although each path is intimately identi�ed with a religious perspective, the paths themselves represent more of a style of life. As we examine these perspectives, you will see that they are all quite similar in their essential elements, making it clear that the principles involved transcend religious culture. My hope is that when you have read this book, you will have a broad understanding of the �eld of personality, and an appreciation for both what we have in common and what makes us unique, as members of our global community. Available for free at Connexions <http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1> 3 1.1 De�nitions and Descriptions of Personality It would seem to make sense that we should begin our study of personality by de�ning the term. Unfor- tunately, there is no single de�nition that �ts the variety of theories that have been developed in the �eld of personality research. Most psychologists agree that the term personality comes from the Latin word persona, a term referring to the masks worn by actors performing ancient Greek plays. Often there were not enough actors available to play all of the roles in a play, so they would wear these masks to let the audience know that they were playing di�erent roles. But are our personalities just masks? Freud certainly considered the unconscious mind to be very important, Cattell considered source traits to be more important than surface traits, and Buddhists consider the natural world (including the self) to be an illusion. Adler believed the best way to examine personality is to look at the person's style of life, and Rogers felt that the only person who could truly understand you is yourself. What de�nition could possibly encompass all that? Still, we need a working de�nition as a starting point for discussion. Borrowing loosely from Allport's de�nition of personality, personality can be viewed as the dynamic organization within an individual of various psychological factors that determines the person's characteristic thoughts and behaviors. In simpler terms, a variety of factors blend together to create each person, and as a result of those factors the individual is most likely to think and act in somewhat predictable ways. However, given the complexity of human life, those predictions may prove to be elusive. Theodore Millon (1996, 2004; Millon & Grossman, 2005), a renowned clinician and theorist in the �eld of personality disorders, has sought a de�nition of personality broad enough to encompass both normal and abnormal personality. Millon describes the modern view of personality as a complex pattern of psychological characteristics that are deeply embedded, largely unconscious, and resistant to change. These intrinsic and pervasive traits arise from a complex matrix of biological dispositions and experiential learning, and express themselves automatically in nearly every aspect of the individual's unique pattern of perceiving, feeling, thinking, coping, and behaving (e.g., Millon, 1996). Another challenge we face in de�ning personality is how we approach the question in the �rst place. Traditionally, there have been two basic approaches to the study of personality: the nomothetic perspective and the idiographic perspective. The nomothetic perspective seeks to identify general rules that pertain to personality as a construct (a working hypothesis or concept used to identify something we can describe but not see, such as IQ or the self). Thus, it can be rather abstract, and often fails to appreciate the uniqueness of individuals. In contrast, the idiographic perspective focuses speci�cally on the individuality and uniqueness of each person. Although the idiographic approach often seems more appealing to students, especially since it enhances their self-esteem by considering them as individually important, it is di�cult for any theory of personality to encompass research that treats only one person at a time. Such a theory would naturally su�er from problems of generalizability, and may be useful for therapists working with one patient or client at a time, but it will not be particularly useful for enhancing our overall understanding of personality in general. It is important to note, however, that many early personality theories were based on individual case studies, and this critique is one that we will see several times in this book. As is often the case in psychology, the best approach may be to attempt blending the nomothetic and idiographic perspectives, seeking the generalizability of the nomothetic perspective's general principles on personality and personality development - while maintaining an appreciation for the idiographic perspective's recognition of the value of an individual's unique character. Millon (1996) suggests an integrative approach to de�ning personality. Not only would an integrative approach combine the nomothetic and idiographic perspectives, it would also help to bring together the two broad traditions of clinical and applied psychology. Clinical psychologists are compelled by the nature of their work with patients, or clients, to try to understand the individual. Thus, they need to follow a more idiographic approach. In contrast, applied psychologists (e.g., experimental psychologists) are more construct-focused, and �nd the nomothetic approach more ap- pealing and useful for developing generalizable theories on the nature of various aspects of personality. If personality can be de�ned in a satisfactory way by an integrative approach, then clinicians may bene�t more from applied research, and experimental psychologists may see their work more directly applied in clinical settings where it may help people in our society. In order to better understand how some of the di�erent disciplines within the �eld of psychology contribute to our de�nition of personality, let's take a brief look at some of the widely recognized factors that come into Available for free at Connexions <http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1> 4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO PERSONALITY play: Discussion Question: The nomothetic and idiographic perspectives approach personality in very dif- ferent ways. Do you believe that your personality can be described in a way that might also be used to describe the personalities of other people (maybe your friends), or do you feel it is necessary to describe each person as an individual? Psychodynamic Factors The very word �psychodynamic� suggests that there are ongoing interactions between di�erent elements of the mind. Sigmund Freud not only o�ered names for these elements (id, ego, and superego), he proposed di�erent levels of consciousness. Since the unconscious mind was very powerful according to Freud, one of the �rst and most enduring elements of psychodynamic theory is that we are often unaware of why we think and act the way we do. Add to that the belief that our personality is determined in early childhood, and you can quickly see that psychological problems would be very di�cult to treat. Perhaps more importantly, since we are not aware of many of our own thoughts and desires, it would di�cult or even impossible for us to choose to change our personality no matter how much we might want to. Most psychodynamic theorists since Freud have expanded the in�uences that a�ect us to include more of the outside world. Those theorists who remained loyal to Freud, typically known as neo-Freudians, emphasized the ego. Since the ego functions primarily in the real world, the individual must take into account the in�uence of other people involved in their lives. Some theorists who di�ered signi�cantly from the traditional Freudian perspective, most notably Alfred Adler and Karen Horney, focused much of their theories on cultural in�uences. Adler believed that social cooperation was essential to the success of each individual (and humanity as a whole), whereas Horney provided an intriguing alternative to Freud's sexist theories regarding women. Although Horney based her theories regarding women on the cultural standing between men and women in the Victorian era, to a large extent her theory remains relevant today. Learning and Cognitive Factors As a species, human beings are distinguished by their highly developed brains. Animals with less- developed nervous systems rely primarily on instinctive behavior, but very little on learning. While the study of animals' instinctive behavior is fascinating, and led to a shared Nobel Prize for the ethologists Nikolaas Tinbergen, Konrad Lorenz, and Karl von Frisch, animal behavior remains distinctly limited compared to the complex learning and cognitive tasks that humans can readily perform (Beck, 1978; Gould, 1982). Indeed, the profound value of our abilities to think and learn may be best re�ected in the fact that, according to Tinbergen's strict de�nition of instinct (see Beck, 1978), humans appear not to have any instinctive behavior anymore. Yet we have more than made up for it through our ability to learn, and learning theory and behaviorism became dominant forces in the early years of American psychology. John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner are among the most famous and in�uential of American psychologists. Learning about their groundbreaking research on classical and operant conditioning is standard fare in psychology courses. More recently, Albert Bandura has enjoyed similar popularity and respect in the �eld of social learning theory. Anyone who has children knows full well how eagerly they observe us and mimic our actions and speech. An important aspect of the learning perspective is that our personalities may develop as a result of the rewards and/or punishments we receive from others. Consequently, we should be able to shape an individual's personality in any way we want. Early behaviorists, like Watson, suggested that they could indeed take any child and raise them to be successful in any career they chose for them. Although most parents and teachers try to be a good in�uence on children, and to set good examples for them, children are often in�uenced more by their peers. What children �nd rewarding may not be what parents and teachers think is rewarding. This is why a social-cognitive approach to learning becomes very important in understanding personality development. Social-cognitive theorists, like Bandura, recognize that children interact with their environment, partly determining for themselves what is rewarding or punishing, and then react to the environment in their own unique way. As suggested by the blend of behaviorism and cognition that Bandura and others proposed, there is a close association between behaviorism and the �eld of cognitive psychology. Although strict behaviorists rejected the study of unobservable cognitive processes, the cognitive �eld has actually followed the guidelines of behaviorism with regard to a dispassionate and logical observation of the expression of cognitive processes Available for free at Connexions <http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1> 5 through an individual's behavior and what they say. Thus, the ability of human beings to think, reason, analyze, anticipate, etc., leads them to act in accordance with their ideas, rather than simply on the basis of traditional behavioral controls: reward, punishment, or associations with unconditional stimuli. The success of the cognitive approach when applied to therapy, such as the techniques developed by Aaron Beck, has helped to establish cognitive theory as one the most respected areas in the study of personality and abnormal psychology. Biological Factors Although humans may not exhibit instinctive behavior, we are still ultimately a product of our biological makeup, our speci�c DNA pattern. Our individual DNA pattern is unique, unless we happen to be an identi- cal twin, and it not only provides the basis for our learning and cognitive abilities, it also sets the conditions for certain aspects of our character. Perhaps the most salient of these characteristics is temperament, which can loosely be described as the emotional component of our personality. In addition to temperament, twin studies have shown that all aspects of personality appear to be signi�cantly in�uenced by our genetic inheritance (Bouchard, 1994; Bouchard & McGue, 1990; Bouchard et al., 1990). Even such complex person- ality variables as well-being, traditionalism, and religiosity have been found to be highly in�uenced by our genetic make-up (Tellegen et al., 1988; Waller et al., 1990). Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists also emphasize the role of genetics and adaptation over time. Sociobiologists consider how biological factors in�uence social behavior. For example, they would suggest that men are inclined to prefer multiple sexual partners because men are biologically capable of fathering many children, whereas women would be inclined to favor one successful and established partner, because a woman must physically invest a year or more in each child (a 9-month pregnancy followed by a period of nursing). Similarly, evolutionary psychologists consider how human behavior has been adaptive for our survival. Humans evolved from plant-eating primates, we are not well suited to defend ourselves against large, meat-eating predators. As a group, however, and using our intellect to fashion weapons from sticks and rocks, we were able to survive and �ourish over time. Unfortunately, the same adaptive in�uences that guide the development of each healthy person can, under adverse conditions, lead to dysfunctional behaviors, and consequently, psychological disorders (Millon, 2004). Discussion Question: Some research suggests that personality is largely determined by genetics. Do you see similarities in your personality as compared to your parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, etc.? Do you think that your environment, things like your community, your friends, television, movies, the Internet, etc., are more in�uential than your biological inheritance from your parents? Inherent Drives Freud believed that we are motivated primarily by psychosexual impulses, and secondarily by our ten- dency toward aggression. Certainly it is necessary to procreate for the species to survive, and elements of aggression are necessary for us to get what we need and to protect ourselves. But this is a particularly dark and somewhat animalistic view of humanity. The humanistic psychologists Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow believed in a positive view of people, they proposed that each of us contains an inherent drive to be the best that we can be, and to accomplish all that we are capable of accomplishing. Rogers and Maslow called this drive self-actualization. Interestingly, this concept is actually thousands of years old, and having spent time in China, Rogers was well aware of Buddhist and Yogic perspectives on the self. Somewhat related to the humanistic concept of self-actualization, is the existential perspective. Existen- tial theorists, like Rollo May, believe that individuals can be truly happy only when they �nd some meaning in life. In Eastern philosophical perspectives, coming from Yoga and Buddhism, meaning in life is found by realizing that life is an illusion, that within each of us is the essence of one universal spirit. Indeed, Yoga means �union,� referring to union with God. Thus, we have meaning within us, but the illusion of our life is what distracts us from realizing it. Discussion Question: Do you feel that you are driven to accomplish something great, or to �nd some particular meaning in life? Do you believe that there might be pathways to guide you, particularly spiritual or religious pathways? Sociocultural In�uences Culture can broadly be de�ned as �everything that people have, think, and do as members of a society� Available for free at Connexions <http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1> 6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO PERSONALITY (Ferraro, 2006a), and appears to be as old as the Homo genus itself (the genus of which we, as Homo sapiens, are the current representatives; Haviland et al., 2005). Culture has also been described as the memory of a society (see Triandis & Suh, 2002). Culture is both learned and shared by members of a society, and it is what the makes the behavior of an individual understandable to other members of that culture. Everything we do is in�uenced by culture, from the food we eat to the nature of our personal relationships, and it varies dramatically from group to group. What makes life understandable and predictable within one group may be incomprehensible to another. Despite di�erences in detail, however, there are a number of cultural universals, those aspects of culture that have been identi�ed in every cultural group that has been examined historically or ethnographically (Murdock, 1945; see also Ferraro, 2006a). Therefore, if we truly want to understand personality theory, we need to know something about the sociocultural factors that may be the same, or that may di�er, between groups. In 1999, Stanley Sue proposed that psychology has systematically avoided the study of cross-cultural factors in psychological research. This was not because psychologists themselves are biased, but rather, it was due to an inherent bias in the nature of psychological research (for commentaries see also Tebes, 2000; Guyll & Madon, 2000; and Sue, 2000). Although some may disagree with the arguments set forth in Sue's initial study, it is clear that the vast majority of research has been conducted here in America, primarily by American college professors studying American psychology students. And the history of our country clearly identi�es most of those individuals, both the professors and the students, as White, middle- to upper- class men. The same year, Lee et al. (1999) brought together a collection of multicultural perspectives on personality, with the individual chapters written by a very diverse group of authors. In both the preface and their introductory chapter, the editors emphasize that neither human nature nor personality can be separated from culture. And yet, as suggested by Sue (1999), they acknowledge the general lack of cross- cultural or multicultural research in the �eld of personality. Times have begun to change, however. In 2002, the American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a policy entitled �Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (which is available online at www.apa.org/pi/multiculturalguidelines/homepage.html). The year 2002 also saw a chapter in the prestigious Annual Review of Psychology on how culture in�uences the development of personality (Triandis & Suh, 2002). In a fascinating article on whether psychology actually matters in our lives, former APA president and renowned social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (2004) identi�ed the work of Kenneth and Mamie Clark on prejudice and discrimination, which was presented to the United States Supreme Court during the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS case (which led to the end of school segregation in America) as one of the most signi�cant impacts on American life that psychology has contributed to directly (see also Benjamin & Crouse, 2002; Keppel, 2002; Pickren & Tomes, 2002). Finally, an examination of American Psychologist (the principle journal of APA) and Psychological Science (the principle journal of the American Psychological Society) since the year 2000 reveals studies demonstrating the importance of cross-cultural research in many areas of psychology (see Table 1.1). So, although personality theorists, and the �eld of psychology in general, have been somewhat slow to address cross-cultural and diversity issues, in more recent years psychologists appear to be rapidly gaining a greater appreciation of the importance of studying human diversity in all its forms. As mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this chapter, one of the primary goals of this book is to incorporate di�erent cultural perspectives into our study of personality theory, to take more of a global perspective than has traditionally been done. Why is this important? It is actually very easy to point out the answer to that question. The United States of America has less than 300 million people. India has nearly 1 billion people, and China has over 1 billion people. So, two Asian countries alone have nearly 7 times as many people as the United States. How can we claim to be studying personality if we haven't taken into account the vast majority of people in the world? Of course, we haven't entirely ignored these two particular countries, because two of the most famous personality theorists spent time in these countries when they were young. Carl Jung spent time in India, and his theories were clearly in�uenced by ancient Vedic philosophy, and Carl Rogers spent time in China while studying to be a minister. So it is possible to draw connections between Yoga, Buddhism, psychodynamic theory, and humanistic psychology. Sometimes this will involve looking at di�erences between cultures, and other times we will focus on similarities. At the Available for free at Connexions <http://cnx.org/content/col11901/1.1> 7 end of the book I hope you will appreciate not only the diversity of personality and personality theory, but also the connections that tie all …