Analysis of Construct Traits in Personality Theory

Analysis of Construct Traits in temper TheoryWord add up 1521Q It is said that characteristics ar important shits in temperament speculation. Support or refute this pass onment.1. INTRODUCTIONIf you were all to ask a somebody to break him or her self, he or she would probably make use of adjectives such as motivated, fun-loving, or maybe lazy and disorganised. These tribe would, in essence, be describing themselves by identifying aspects of what makes them who they are, factors or characteristics. Kassin (2003) identifies individuals emotions, thoughts and behaviors as making up his or her spirit. These can vary considerably from one person to the next. Therefore, in order to make the subject of disposition to a greater extent scientific, researchers such as Allport, Eysenck and Cattell, through a process of factor analysis, identified factors or aspects of personality, that are considerably stable across time. nature traits. These researchers have non notwithstandin g r apieceed an absolute consensus on the precise number of traits, which may be employ to accurately describe personality. Eysenck, for example identified the traits neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism as fitted in describing about aspects of personality. Cattell, however, identified 16 traits necessary in score for aspects of personality. These disparities arise out of differences in factor-analytic method used and the carry of items analysed (Carr, 2004). The to the highest degree dominant trait theory of fresh years is the Five-Factor Model of Personality (MacCrae Costa, 1999) a richer exploration of this go away follow.The following will consider the take to be of the invention traits in personality theory, by providing an over capture of the literature on the construct traits, related theories and current research, concluding with a discussion on the findings.2. descriptionIn considering the enormousness of the construct traits in personality theory, the au thor will look closer at the definition of personality and that of the construct traits.2.1. A Definition of PersonalityIt is said that there are as more definitions of personality as there are personality theorist. Pitts (1991 609) highlights Gordon Allports definition of personality, which identifies it as, the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behaviour and thought, as being widely accepted by virtually theorists. Kaplan and Sadock (1998 775) define personality as, a persons characteristic kernel of emotional and behavioural traits apparent in ordinary life, a amount that is usually stable and predictable.From these two door-to-door definitions, personality could thereof be seen as being both distinctive and characteristic, and as describing a style of interacting in everyday life. Since each person is complexly unique, it is not surprising that the task of describing, and even more so, measuring pe rsonality is too highly complex.On returning to the question, and considering the above definition of personality, it would appear that for the construct traits to play a significant role in personality theory they need to be able to accurately describe an individuals general disposition, and identify these as being stable across the life-span.2.2. A Definition of TraitsTraits are said to be those things that make us who we are. to a greater extent specifically, traits are relatively enduring personal characteristics, which, along with situational variables, influence behaviour, erudition and affect (Carr, 2004 181).In considering the above definition, the following terms are highlighted relatively enduring and situational. The author highlights these terms specifically, as they impact on the importance of traits on personality theory, in that traits, according to this definition, are not ineluctably stable across the life span and are situationally influenced. For example, the trait respectable is very often used in describing an individual, yet this particular trait is often very dependent on a given situation. in spite of these possible limitations of trait theory, the author considers the progress to admittance traits provide in understanding and describing personality and personal interactions, as well as a tool for comparing individuals.3. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONSFactor-analytic approaches and trait theories have arisen in recent years as a welcomed alternative to abstract theorising, in identifying aspects of personality that influences an individual respond in varying situation (Pitts, 1991). Raymond Cattell, using a set of observable, surface personality traits, identified a small separate of 16 primary traits, as being central to personality. While, Hans Jurgen Eysenck proposed a 3-trait model. to a greater extent recently, the Five-Factor Model (MacCrae Costa, 1999) has emerged as a front-runner of trait theories, as it provides a middle ro ad between the extreme positions of Cattell and Eysenck (Carr, 2004).The Author will forthwith consider these approaches to trait theory in greater depth.3.1. Raymond CattellIn his presence to improve the predictive techniques of personality theory, in estimating a persons behaviour in a given situation, Raymond Cattell began by identifying names, used to describe traits or characteristics of personality (Pitt, 1991 623). From a list of 18 000 trait names, Cattell reduced this to 160. Then, through a process of factor analysis, he further reduced this number to 16 factors. Cattell described these 16 factors on a continuum, in a view that each person possess, to some degree, every trait. Everybody has some degree of every trait. These traits in Abstractedness, Apprehension, Dominance, Emotional Stability, Liveliness, Openness to Change, Perfectionism, Privateness, Reasoning, Rule Consciousness, Self-Reliance, Sensitivity, Social Boldness, Tension, Vigilance and Warmth. Cattell cons idered these 16 factors as source traits, which form the basis of personality (Pitt, 1991, 623). In 1949 Cattell print these findings in an assessment tool, the 16PF.According to Fehriinger(2004 16), despite Cattells 16-factor theory having do great divisions to the training of personality theory, his theory has received vast criticism. The most prominent criticism being that despite numerous attempts to replicate the 16 Personality Factor Model, an entire replication has never been achieved. Yet, despite criticism, Fehriinger (2004 16) identifies the contribution of Cattells theory in that, investigation into to the validity of Cattells model researchers did meet the giving Five Factors, which have been monumental in understanding personality, as we know it today.3.2. Hans Jurgen EysenckAccording to Eysenck, personality can be represent on three dimensions, which are uncorrelated with each other he labelled them extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism (Pitt, 1991). Eysenc k suggested that each person exhibits set responses to external and interior stimuli and that these will vary in accordance with the intensity of the stimuli, the situation and state of mind (Pitt, 1991).These set responses thusly develop into predictable trends, for example, a person may feel intimidated by large crowds, and as a result, limit his or her contact with specific situations. When this avoidance becomes a principle defence to coping with crowds, it becomes a habit. This behaviour may also then extend to other situations, such as social functions or age out in the city. When these responses are combined, they form traits.Jang (1998 27) identifies the following contributions of Eysencks approach to the development of personality theory.By combing descriptive and casual aspects of personality, Eysencks model is considered more credible than other descriptive models.It is both comprehensive and descriptive, a critical aspect for comparison with other trait theories.The observational approach adopted by Eysenck in the study of personality, makes this model more evidence based. Making this model more likely to generate more specific predictions because knowledge about the functioning of the specified physiological structures is available. contempt these identified contributions, Eysencks theory has received criticism in that it has been run aground to concentrate too extensively on extraversion, and has not made both expansion. A further criticism is that the unitary nature of extraversion, a presumption of his theory, has been questioned.3.3. Five-Factor ModelThe Five-Factor Model has drawn on the insights of Cattell, Eysenck and others, and includes the following dimensions Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to give and Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Carr, 2004). According to Srivastava (2006), the five-factor model has made significant contributions to the development of personality theory, in that it established a common taxonomy, do ing away with a previously disorganised field. Furthermore, the five-factor model is distinguished from other theories is that it is based on language, rather than on ideas from an individual psychologist.Further support is found for the five-factor model, in that meta-analysis has confirmed the predictive value of this model across a range of behaviors. Saulsman and Page (2004, as cited in Srivastava, 2006) examined the relationship between the five-factor model and each of the 10 personality discommode categories in the Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). These researchers found that across 15 independent samples, each disorder displayed a unique and predictable five-factor profile (Srivastava, 2006).4. DISCUSSIONFrom the afore gone exploration on personality theory and traits, the author is able to identify both strengths and weaknesses of the construct traits. Since trait theory is largely based on statistical data, it removes any bias influence and ride outs objective, unlike other personality theories, which are based on subjective personal experiences. Furthermore, it is a clear and easy to apply approach for use in understanding people. However, the criticisms remain that it is a poor predictor of future behaviour and fails to address developmental issues. Despite these, the author is able to identify the importance of the construct trait in personality theory.5. BIBLIOGRAPHYCarr, A. 2004. Positive Psychology The science of happiness and man strengths. Hove Brunner-Routledge.Fehriinger, H.M. 2004. Contributions and Limitations of Cattells Sixteen Personality Factor Model. Retrieved on the March 2nd, 2007, fromhttp//www.personalityresearch.org/ cover/fehringer.html.Jang, K. 1998. Eysencks PEN Model Its contributions to personality psychology. Retrieved on March 2nd, fromhttp//www.personalityresearch.org/written document/jang.htmlKaplan, H. I., Sadock, B. J. 1998. Synopsis of Psychiatry Behavioral sciences/ clinical psych iatry. (8th ed.). USA Lippincott Williams Willkins.Kassin, S. 2003. Psychology. USA Prentice-Hall, Inc.McCrae, R., Costa, P. 1999. A five factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin and O. John (Eds.). Handbook of Personality (2nd ed.). pp. 139-153. NY Guilford.Pitts, M. 1991. Personality. In J. Radford and E. Govier (Eds.). A Textbook of Psychology (2nd ed.). London Routledge.Srivastava, S. (2006). Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors. Retrieved March 2nd, 2007 from http//www.uoregon.edu/sanjay/bigfive.html.